China Believes in Climate Change

[we vs us]

Or even if they don't, they're acting like it.

"According to a pithy report from Deutsche Bank titled "The Green Economy: The Race is On" (PDF), in the years 2000 to 2009, the U.S. invested (public and private) about $67 billion in clean technology. Similarly China spent $72 billion and Germany $38 billion. However, as a percentage of GDP, China, Germany, and even Brazil are investing at a rate three times greater than the U.S."

and

"But it was [China's] ten-year plan that made some jaws drop. Between now and 2020, the country will invest 5 trillion yuan in the clean economy. That works out to about $75 to $100 billion per year for 10 years running (smart grid investment alone is estimated at $60 to $100 billion over the next decade). Imagine the U.S. Congress passing the equivalent of the highly controversial stimulus package 10 times over (not likely)."

This is entirely in line with what I've been saying is the problem with our national response:  we're stuck arguing about whether climate change is actually happening.  This is an old and outdated argument, because it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. 

Our major competitors are acting as if it's true.  It's become an accepted feature of the global economy. The argument now isn't whether we accept it or not, it's how we ramp up to compete with climate change as part of the picture.

[Conan71]

Based on China's population vs. natural resources available and their consumption rates of energy, it makes good sense for them to seek "green" alternatives whether or not the intention is to cut emissions.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Energy efficiency is the next big money maker that can drive an economy.  Now the question is, who will have the best tech.  *Smart Grid doesn't exactly = clean but can reduce the number of power plants built*

[TheArtist]

  Was listening to NPR the other day and a guy from the BBC was in China doing some interviews and was shown an area where they are building a new city that will be the center of their laptop industry. Their plan... in 5 years will be making one third of entire worlds laptops. The guy was floored and was like, What?  They were also talking about their high speed rail and how much they have built and are building.  It was amazing how he was describing how fast, solid and smooth the rides were on these trains. Will soon have more than all the rest of the world combined and will double and quadruple that in short order.  I think they said the government had quickly mobilised 10 THOUSAND engineers, scientists and technichians to design these super high speed rail lines (the trains themselves, and the routes, bridges, etc.). and then got them built.  Lots of superlatives and I am sure many more on the way.  Neat to watch. 

[Red Arrow]

The USA is investing heavily in "Green" projects.  Where do you think China is getting their money?

[we vs us]

The USA is investing heavily in "Green" projects.  Where do you think China is getting their money?

It's true that we're investing (much of which is coming through Obama's stimulus program BTW) but China, Germany and others are investing a much higher proportion of their GDPs to green investment.  And per the article, China has pledged several trillion yuan over the next decade. 

We're still mired in deciding whether this market is real or not.  I don't believe that -- even if we had the money to spend -- that we'd have the political fortitude to go forward with an investment of that size and scope.

That's going to be the true story of the 21st century:  the ability of democracy to compete with a successful command economy (the USSR was an unsuccessful command economy, but China is the exact opposite).

[Conan71]

It's a matter of priorities. There's little doubt this is the next industrial frontier. The difference is, the US has different priorities. We want to be the top cop in the world, we want to send foreign aid to every single banana republic you can imagine and many you've ne'er heard of. We have a space agency which is kept relevant by way of trying to prove a global warming agenda which consumes a lot of $$. We are perfectly cool with all sorts of parasitic entitlements and are bent on funding comprehensive health are for everyone. We also have multiple bureaucracies which manage to discourage potential players in fields like energy and development from participating.

Personally, I do believe alternative energy makes great sense and is a no-brainer as an evolving industry. We are getting lip service even from the Democrat-controlled Congress.

[Red Arrow]

Even if we choose not to believe in Global Climate change or choose not to pursue a Green agenda, etc, that doesn't mean we cannot produce products for those who do.  There are definitely some $ to be made.

[we vs us]

It's a matter of priorities. There's little doubt this is the next industrial frontier. The difference is, the US has different priorities. We want to be the top cop in the world, we want to send foreign aid to every single banana republic you can imagine and many you've ne'er heard of. We have a space agency which is kept relevant by way of trying to prove a global warming agenda which consumes a lot of $$. We are perfectly cool with all sorts of parasitic entitlements and are bent on funding comprehensive health are for everyone. We also have multiple bureaucracies which manage to discourage potential players in fields like energy and development from participating.

Personally, I do believe alternative energy makes great sense and is a no-brainer as an evolving industry. We are getting lip service even from the Democrat-controlled Congress.

Yes there are some timid Dems who can't quite get up the gumption to support climate change legislation but, really, the problem is that 99.9% of Republicans won't support it because they don't believe it's true.   They've built a pretty rock solid constituency for the statement "global warming is a hoax and so we can't dignify it with legislation." 

With that kind of cultivated opposition, how is it possible to mobilize our government to even approach something like China's investment?  Not possible, IMO.

That's what I mean about the challenge of the next century  There are suddenly plenty of issues (global warming being but one of them) that will pit our slow-moving, incrementalist form of government against the five guys at the top of the Party in China who get to say exactly where and exactly how the next laptop-building city is going to be built. 

[Conan71]

I'm personally thankful we don't have five people making all the Federal decisions. Wait a second... Our gov't sure seems more and more like that the last 20 years or so.

If the capitalization of green energy had been presented as replacement for rapidly depleting sources of energy and less efficient methods of producing energy, that was far more plausible to the majority of people than this cockamame crap of major population centers on each coast being under water in 50 years.

Point being, apparently a climatological apocolypse isn't the right story to sell to move green energy up the priority list. You'd think job creation alone would be good enough reason if DC really understood what it takes to create private sector jobs. I'm not sure anyone there knows how to do that anymore. Tax cuts and stimulus sure don't seem to be working, do they?

[Red Arrow]

but, really, the problem is that 99.9% of Republicans won't support it because they don't believe it's true.   They've built a pretty rock solid constituency for the statement "global warming is a hoax and so we can't dignify it with legislation." 

With that kind of cultivated opposition,

Of course those who believe "global warming" is a hoax will say that the "global warming" position is a cultivated program to spend money on projects that will accomplish nothing regarding warming or climate change. 

I agree that an approach based on energy availability and economics would be better received.

[we vs us]

I'm personally thankful we don't have five people making all the Federal decisions.

Just so it's clear, I don't like that kind of thing, either. But if you look at how many stars had to align just so Obama and Congress could pull off a watered down version of HCR (as a for instance), I think the prospect is exceedingly dim that our democracy is capable of building enough consensus to make huge changes, either to our government or our economy. 

Whereas, the five-guy Chinese Politburo can go ahead and just say "Make it so," and it's done. There's obviously nothing about rule of law or freedom or consenus-building  about that, but it's exceptionally efficient. 

[Conan71]

Whereas, the five-guy Chinese Politburo can go ahead and just say "Make it so," and it's done. There's obviously nothing about rule of law or freedom or consenus-building  about that, but it's exceptionally efficient. 

Absolutely that's much more efficient decision-making rather than having 537 people weighing in on issues and multiple czars and other department heads setting policies within our myriad of agencies.  Our system of governance would be ideal if you could take all the favors, paybacks, and the clinging to power which come with every major vote these days out of the picture. 

Do you get the point though that there were better ways to sell green technology rather than a highly controversial hypothesis that we are cooking the earth?  The head cheerleader for this effort being a hypocritical, opportunistic former politician with self-serving intrests in these industries does very little to quell the skepticism.

[we vs us]

Do you get the point though that there were better ways to sell green technology rather than a highly controversial hypothesis that we are cooking the earth?  The head cheerleader for this effort being a hypocritical, opportunistic former politician with self-serving intrests in these industries does very little to quell the skepticism.

I think, hypothetically, there might be better ways to sell it.  I can see different parts of the electorate responding to different arguments, and that's as it should be.  Obama has been saying this since he was elected, and he's actually followed through on his promise via the stimulus. 

He's out there saying this stuff every day, but you would have to be listening to the right channels to know that.  And unfortunately, the wrong channels have no interest in showing him saying this at all.

What's unfortunate about Gore is that he's been so vilified here at home but abroad, he's done more than any single person to advance this as a cause and to translate it into real world effects.  It's not a stretch to say that he's been instrumental in convincing these other countries to invest the way they have.  He didn't invent the internet, but he sure as hell lit a fire under green markets worldwide.

[Conan71]

I think, hypothetically, there might be better ways to sell it.  I can see different parts of the electorate responding to different arguments, and that's as it should be.  Obama has been saying this since he was elected, and he's actually followed through on his promise via the stimulus. 

He's out there saying this stuff every day, but you would have to be listening to the right channels to know that.  And unfortunately, the wrong channels have no interest in showing him saying this at all.

What's unfortunate about Gore is that he's been so vilified here at home but abroad, he's done more than any single person to advance this as a cause and to translate it into real world effects.  It's not a stretch to say that he's been instrumental in convincing these other countries to invest the way they have.  He didn't invent the internet, but he sure as hell lit a fire under green markets worldwide.

But Algore has also done just as much to hurt the image amongst skeptics, especially with made-up footage in his "documentary", living a different lifestyle than he espouses for everyone else, and his known ability to stretch the truth when it suits him.  That and the whole carbon credit scam he's reputedly heavily invested in.

To President Obama's credit, he's not been a climate change alarmist.  For the most part, I think he's handled the issue with dignity since he's been in office, I've noticed and I'll give him credit.  I have no issue with people believing in global warming er climate change.  I do have a problem though with using hysteria to sell it and demanding draconian measures which could wind up costing jobs, result in more government intrusion, and disrupting lives without properly examining the far-reaching effects of "best intentions".