Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
China Earth Power

China Leads in "Clean" Energy Investment 313

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the for-some-definitions dept.
derekmead writes "According to a new study (PDF) from Pew Charitable Trusts, China was the world leader in clean energy investment in 2012. The U.S., meanwhile, saw its grip loosen on many of the clean energy technologies it developed. According to the research, total clean energy investment totaled $269 billion worldwide last year, a decline from 2011's record high of $302 billion. However, clean energy investment in the Asia and Oceania markets grew by 16 percent to $101 billion. In terms of investment — which is an indicator that a country or region has offered compelling projects, struck a good regulatory balance, and has a strong economy — that makes Asia the epicenter of the global clean energy market. The Pew researchers thus labeled the U.S. clean energy sector as 'underperforming,' largely for a trio of reasons. First, China's boom and manufacturing prowess has taken investment away from the U.S.. Second, the U.S. regulatory environment for clean energy is horrifically unstable (as is the regulatory environment as a whole) as politicians battle over budget rhetoric. Finally, the U.S. has failed to capitalize on its innovation prowess and develop its clean energy manufacturing sector to its full potential." They do not count nuclear as clean, but including nuclear would only widen China's lead over everyone else (they almost have their first new AP1000 ready and are building lots more).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Leads in "Clean" Energy Investment

Comments Filter:
  • by crutchy (1949900) on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @04:16AM (#43522859)

    actually per capita china is still doing pretty well

    in 2008, china produced 5.3 tonnes per capita of CO2, whereas the US produced 18.5 tonnes per capita

    if the US is telling china that it needs to clean up its act, it would definitely be a case of pot calling the kettle black

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita [wikipedia.org]

  • by niftydude (1745144) on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @04:29AM (#43522925)

    i dunno what made you think the op was being sarcastic, but your username kinda gives it away

    I'm guessing the "/s" at the end of the op's post was the indication everyone else was using to recognize sarcasm...

  • by BasilBrush (643681) on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @04:54AM (#43522987)

    Only because they are by far the most populous country. You can only really judge based on per capita rates. China is 78th among countries with 5.3 metric tonnes CO2 per capita. The USA is 7th with 22.1.

    When you look at consumption, the USA comes out even worse. America consumes more per person than any other country. There are around 200 countries in the world, and the USA alone consumes about 25% of the energy.

    America is still the biggest offender in "fucking up the planet".

  • Yeah (Score:4, Informative)

    by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @05:32AM (#43523107) Journal

    And let them have the well payed middle income families earning a living in factories and sending their children to school and buying all the products those factories produce. That will show them, let them have the American dream while the US has the eh... wait what?

    There is this idea among some tea party idiots that you can cut half the economy and still have a healthy economy. That is like reasoning that since you do all your thinking with your head (well, non-tea party members do) you can cut of that useless gut bit at the bottom and be fine.

    A normal working economy needs something to do for all layers of the work force. The supposed bright people are not capable nor willing to work for everyone else, so where are the people who are not leaders in their field going to work, and if they are not working, how are they going to pay for the products made by the 1% of workers?

    The choice isn't between high paying and low paying. The choice is between low paying and non paying. If the west continues as it is doing now, soon we can't even afford to buy chinese made anymore.

    Oh and Japan was once the dump ground for unwanted manufacturing too. Kiddies like Locater16 just don't understand anything. Not history, not economics or common sense.

  • by dasunt (249686) on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @06:31AM (#43523275)

    in 2008, china produced 5.3 tonnes per capita of CO2, whereas the US produced 18.5 tonnes per capita

    It's PPP GDP per ton of CO2 is not as good though.

    The US produces $2,291 per ton of CO2, China produces $1,003 per ton of CO2 (international dollars used for dollar amounts).

    China is actually near the bottom. The US is not that ideal either (we're basically the same as Canada). Countries like Norway and Sweden are about 2.5x more productive per ton of CO2 than the US.

  • by game kid (805301) on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @07:05AM (#43523373) Homepage

    China is a wonderfully clean and healthy place, as long as you don't breathe [nytimes.com].

  • by SimonInOz (579741) on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @08:01AM (#43523569)

    To find out about them google "shanghai electric scooter" - that's what I did!

    An interesting link is
    http://www.scooteretta.com/v5.html [scooteretta.com]

    They really do look most impressive - and in the flesh, as it were, just as good. And they whine along quietly in a most satisfactory way.

    Just for your interest, Shanghai scooter riders never wear helmets, never turn their lights on, and hoot a lot. I suspect they have a lot of accidents - but such crashing light vehicles at relatively low speeds must be far less damaging, physically and financially, than crashing cars [especially into pedestrians], especially those horrible SUVs beloved of Americans and [not as much] Australians.

  • by silentcoder (1241496) on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @08:34AM (#43523735) Homepage

    >And there's another myth - that 'being liberal' means having an open mind. The not-so-subtle implication of that statment is that you must also believe that anyone who is not 'liberal' does not have an open mind.

    No myth there. Simple fact. Conservative, by definition, means NOT having an open mind. It means "wanting to conserve the status quo" - which is ipso facto a closed-minded approach.

  • by BasilBrush (643681) on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @08:52AM (#43523881)

    At always you should take with a pinch of salt what you read on Global Warming Denier sites such as Watts Up With That. As always it's hard to work out whether Watts is just misinformed or lying.

    Watt points out that due to the global recession, the USA has lower emissons than 1997, the year of Kyoto. But the base year for reductions was 1990. And the USA hasn't managed that, even with the recession.

    Secondly Germany and many countries of Eastern Europe had beaten their targets already by 2008. And are even further ahead now.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol [wikipedia.org]

    How many more time do people have to show that the denier sites are wrong before you stop believing what they say?

  • by poity (465672) on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @09:47AM (#43524235)

    The trouble with this simplistic definition is that it fits everyone in some way while fitting no one. With few exceptions, the Republicans want changes to government policies, for example immigration, taxation, education, the role of religion, among others. These changes may be contrary to your own desires, but they are deviations from the status quo nonetheless. They therefor are, by your definition, NOT "conservatives", but "liberals" who merely differ with you in the modes of achieving "progress". On the other hand, there are issues on which Democrats will not budge, for example the current size and growth trend of Medicare and Social security. They therefor are, by your definition, NOT "liberals", but "conservatives" who wish for the status quo.

    Today, "liberal" and "conservative" have merely become convenient labels to pigeonhole others and to deepen divisions, especially to those who have fallen to the dualism trap within US politics (which we often see here on /. and unfortunately more often than not from the self-ascribed "open-minded" people)

At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.

Working...