posted
On the other hand they put a quota on the export of rare earths in an effort to restructure that industry, (the second world's most nastiest pollutant industries in their damage to human life, the first is rocket fuel.) so that it isn't as damaging to the environment.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Despite that, China is building coal-fired plants at an alarming rate. They're taking the situation more seriously, perhaps, but they also have a much, much larger hill to climb in many ways.
Well, it depends on which hill you're referring to. The two that I can think of that are important is first, China's much poorer position. With a GDP per capita of roughly $8000 to the US's $48,000, it is indeed going to be a while before China truly has enough money to start doing cutting edge research. The other hill would be the 7.2 tonnes per person emissions of the average Chinese person versus the 17.3 tonnes per person in the US, so there's that hill.
So how does that affect building coal fired plants? Well, in some ways that's something to be pretty excited about. You're talking about power for basic sanitation, for heating, for lighting, more many of the basic living improvements (and thus productivity improvements) that are available for poor peasants in the provinces. That's how you build wealth to tackle the real problems. But if current trends continue (say China continues to grow at 9% and the US stabilizes, despite the growth forecast of that EIA report) then China's 7.2 tonnes will overtake the US in about 12 years and lose its leadership position in that sense.
But there's a lot of assumptions there and lots of low-hanging fruit to bend the curve here. For starters, the Chinese economy isn't terribly efficient and uses more energy per dollar of output, there are large gains to be had by learning about energy efficiency from the US in areas such as agriculture or manufacturing. China can also import policies such as those used to combat acid rain, policies that are well studied and known. Want to reduce car trips in Beijing? Well, build more subways (and they are!) which are a tried and tested technology. Go up the value chain and you produce less of the world's goods, become a more mature economy and you grow slower, etc.
Meanwhile, the US largely has to forge new ground in order to make progress. Without the political agreement needed to make real sacrifices, you need technological innovations to reduce emissions from cars, to explore new less polluting technologies, etc. That's a different kind of hill to climb, so I'm more optimistic about China's path in this regard.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess what I meant was, they have a population four times as large as ours, which means the only way to quickly produce vast quantities of cheap energy is to build a lot more coal fired plants than we ever had to because they simply have more people to take care of. That wasn't a knock against them so much as it was crediting them with a bit of leeway since getting to their goal of a higher standard of living will almost have to entail massive amounts of pollution to do so. They have the benefit of learning from a century of ours mistakes, but let's not pretend that's going to be a magic wand to solving their problems.
The US is making pretty good incremental progress, but I actually think we're on the cusp of a big shift. Obama rather quietly poured a huge amount of money into renewable energy in 2009, and it's paying dividends the media largely ignores. Plus new EPA standards on things like air quality for coal fired plants and tail pipe and MPG standards for cars are set to take effect in the next decades. Costs for a lot of things are going to go up in the next decade, but we should see a dramatic fall in pollution and rise in air quality, coupled with a lot of new technologies coming online.
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: On the other hand they put a quota on the export of rare earths in an effort to restructure that industry, (the second world's most nastiest pollutant industries in their damage to human life, the first is rocket fuel.) so that it isn't as damaging to the environment.
And you, you're adorable. You think they restricted their exports of REMs for environmental reasons?
Tell me another bedtime story. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: he other hand they put a quota on the export of rare earths in an effort to restructure that industry, (the second world's most nastiest pollutant industries in their damage to human life, the first is rocket fuel.) so that it isn't as damaging to the oenvironment.
uhhhhhhhh dude, they didn't restrict rare earths to ...v ..
oh, i can't do it.
nooo. common, this isn't what you believe??
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a reason, which is fine for me. The other being to rise prices for cutthroat capitalist reasons which I'm sure Dan would have no objections to.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: It's a reason, which is fine for me. The other being to rise prices for cutthroat capitalist reasons which I'm sure Dan would have no objections to.
Given their shall we say reluctance to reign in industrial damage to the environment in other areas, it's tough to see how asserting an environmentalist ideal here is much more than the latest in rose-tinted glasses.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't nessasarily say there's a reluctance per se, at least not in the sense of denial that's going on in the states, but more a measure of "can we do this and keep the 30 million jobs a year we need?" With it now apparent they can't do that any more; NIMBY is now becoming a Chinese "thing" as well and people are just as angry about dying if they drink the river water as they are about maybe not getting a job.
So now there's funding and the will, the hard part is getting compliance from the local fiefs.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: It's a reason, which is fine for me. The other being to rise prices for cutthroat capitalist reasons which I'm sure Dan would have no objections to.
It's a completely obvious and transparent crap reason.
Like what's going on here is that the reason you provided us is propaganda I would have been surprised to learn anyone here actually bit hook, line, and sinker.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
