China Leads in "Clean" Energy Investment 313
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).
Clean Energy = Scam (Score:5, Funny)
Clean energy is nothing but a scam invented by the liberals who hate America and want to destroy this country with fear mongering (ie global warming).
It is a good thing that our enemy (China) is outpacing us in this budget-wasting regard! /s.
Re:Clean Energy = Scam (Score:5, Funny)
Clean energy is nothing but a scam invented by the liberals who hate America and want to destroy this country with fear mongering (ie global warming).
It is a good thing that our enemy (China) is outpacing us in this budget-wasting regard! /s.
Woah! [wikipedia.org]
Re:Clean Energy = Scam (Score:4)
Note the /s at the end of his post. It means "end of sarcasm".
Re: (Score:2)
Ah but maybe he does know that it means sarcasm and they're a global warming skeptic?
Poe's Law indeed...
China has no choice (Score:4, Insightful)
China is over-polluted right now
The air, the land, the water, all polluted
They have no other choice but to go clean
It is good that they go clean --- in that way at least they get to stay in China, or else, they might move to USA
Can you imagine 1.3 Billion Chinese moving to the US of A?
Re:China has no choice (Score:5, Funny)
Re:China has no choice (Score:5, Funny)
is it about 8-10% of US debt they own? They could just move in to a state and call it even.
They can have Texas.
THAT Dream Comes From Pipes, sir... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
By and large, Texas' legendary racism virtually ensures the Chinese will keep migrating to sunny Cali, NY/NJ, Seattle, Chicago, and the Capitol....like many Asian immigrants, they seem to prefer the Blue States
I take it your experience with Texas is limited to Hollywood documentaries, Texas politicians, Internet postings from Texans, and ten-gallon hat wearers at DFW?
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
In the meantime businesses keep coming here, leaving your state with the takers leeching off of your taxes.
Yessir, that business-friendly climate really improves the quality of life over there [theatlantic.com]
Re:THAT Dream Comes From Pipes, sir... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-20/business/35270608_1_job-growth-rick-perry-public-sector-jobs [washingtonpost.com]
"Between December 2007 and [June 2011], private-sector employment in Texas declined by 0.6 percent while public-sector jobs increased by 6.4 percent, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Overall, government employees account for about one-sixth of the workforce in Texas."
Pulling up by the bootstraps, my foot.
Re: (Score:3)
That brings up some even more interesting data.
California, the bastion of all that's evil socialism and big government, employs 2.4 million public sector workers. Out of a population of 38 million. That's 6.3% of the total population. Some other estimates count even fewer public employees [capoliticalnews.com].
Texas, on the other hand, has 16.66% of its population on the public payroll.
Re: (Score:3)
You pay proper wages in the states? Is that why people have to have two jobs just to eat?
Re: China has no choice (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt that a minimum wage worker would lose 33% in taxes - if they do you have one of the highest taxing countries in the world my friend. Here in Australia you have to reach about $100k to get taxed at that level. A minimum wage earner on around $600 a week pays less than 10% tax.
And bear in mind our minimum wage is $15.90 for a 20 year old. I think yours is something south of $8 dollars. AND our dollar is worth more than yours.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've got mod points to mod you up, but I'd rather reply... My wife and I both made record salaries last year, and we sold a lot of stock that we'd earned in the past. We finally made it into the category of people Obama wanted to tax more heavily. Our total tax rate was lower than I've ever had before: 14% federal, and 4% state. We usually pay 25% federal, and 6% state. I didn't even pay Social Security taxes after the first $110K. At the same time, the US government borrowed about $11K per family of
Re: China has no choice (Score:5, Interesting)
My goverment takes 45% of my wages in taxes and I still can support whole family with one job + supproting old mother (widow) in former communist state. That is how we do things in Europe...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: China has no choice (Score:4, Insightful)
And if your taxes dropped to zero, then your salary could be dropped by 30% and management could get a big bonus for increasing share-holder value.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's because people now "require" a 3000 sq ft house, a home theater, $200 monthly cable subscription, $200 monthly cell phone bills, and 2 cars each costing north of $25000.
People in the "good old days" only needed a single income because they didn't "need" anywhere near this level of luxuries that we have today.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice troll, albeit lacking in originality. You should have linked the "socialist" Obama and communist China as a vast left-wing conspiracy to destabilize traditional capitalist energy investments by inventing disruptive clean energy technologies. Or maybe if they avert a climate catastrophe, they'll wreck the vulture capitalists' plans to get rich off cleaning up the mess at public expense.
Bonus points if you can work in an Elvis sighting or a reference to the Templars' origin as a Dacian sex cult, but si
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the sarcasm tag at the end of his post.
Re: (Score:2)
In many parts of the world "clean energy" is indeed a scam to siphon off government subsidies to selected enterprises. I look at my energy bills in several jurisdictions and I see a huge add-on for "green energy".
One of the said jurisdictions is an Asian country, which, despite the massive "green bill", has been burning gas for the past two years exclusively as a tribute to the fuck-ups of its nuclear power sector.
Another is a small country in Europe, where European and state subsidies and tax transfers h
Re: (Score:3)
Doing alternative energy right is hard, and people are stupid, which explains the results. Here in the USA, stupid Republicans bash every dumb Democratic attempt to go green with solar and wind subsidies. Unfortunately, the stupid Democrats totally f-ed up alternative energy funding in the stimulus bills. They paid us to install solar panels, whether it made financial sense or not. As a result, outdated solar panel manufacturing plants that need $3/watt to build a panel expanded their capacity, while co
Scam = Genius! (Score:3)
1) Become the #1 polluter in the world, perpetuating global warming.
2) Become the largest Builder and Seller of inefficient Clean Energy products to the world.
3) PROFIT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaics_companies [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_turbine_manufacturers [wikipedia.org]
LOL!
Re:Clean Energy = Scam (Score:5, Funny)
And as Zontar The Mindless once said, "Never have I seen a man in such dire need of a sarcasm detector."
Re:Clean Energy = Scam (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
being liberal (ie. having an open mind)
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.
Re:Clean Energy = Scam (Score:5, Informative)
>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.
Re:Clean Energy = Scam (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Clean Energy = Scam (Score:4, Insightful)
OFFTOPIC
- being liberal (ie. having an open mind)
lol
I attended a very "liberal" liberal arts college for a while. Yes, they certainly are a bastion of tolerance and open mindedness ... until you say or write something with which they disagree. Then, they want to burn you alive on the campus green for your heresy. The radical feminist dean of students would be there to light the match.
Exaggerating a bit, but the backlash for expressing unpopular opinions was so harsh that I felt pressured to guard my words to avoid it. You wouldn't believe the verbal thrashing I got for saying that "She said / he said" type sexual assault cases would naturally favor the defendant given that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. "Attitudes such as mine are what perpetuates the cycle of violence against women, etc. etc.". Most intolerant bastards I've ever encountered. Drove me away and led me to embrace libertarianism with open arms.
Re:Clean Energy = Scam (Score:4, Insightful)
led me to embrace libertarianism with open arms
Libertarians are a thoughtful and open minded bunch. They divide the world into them and statists. Since I think Medicare is a good thing, there's apparently not much difference between me and Trotsky.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And liberal amounts of my money to give to people (who can't be bothered to work for themselves) so they'll vote liberal.
Long term vs. short term (Score:5, Insightful)
America is a corporate-driven economy, which needs results this quarter and the next. Any strategy that last for longer than 5 years is just not worth the investment.
China is still partially a plan-driven economy, which does not need to have a result this quarter or the next. Pay back times can be longer.
It is incredibly painful to an economy to move away from short term gains to longer term. At first, you only pay, and nothing comes back yet. But after a couple of years, you start to gain from this. Nobody in the USA seems willing to take that first step.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"when you're hanging on by your fingernails you can't go waving your arms around" - virgil brigman
Re:Long term vs. short term (Score:5, Interesting)
I just came back from China - Shanghai, actually. It's a city of 23 million people (more than Australia's entire population). It has many roads, full of - wait for it - electric scooters. Not those boring little ones, no these are full-on Vespa-like, two person carrying scooters. I would guess they carry half the city's traffic, in people-kms.
They have 400 watts, a top speed around 40kmh, and a range of about 40km. And they are pretty cheap. From 2400 YMB (=$400) these are real bargains. And they look pretty good.
So a Chinese city has moved half its transport to electricity. And nobody has said a word. Amazing.
These scooters looked pretty good to me - I'd buy one without question at that price. But they are banned here (Australia), and many other places. You are allowed up to 250 watts. Above that the regulations get all nasty. Registration, helmets, licenses, etc. So much so that you cannot buy such a thing, just a few rather expensive electric bikes.
For sure they are charged from the mains, sourced from coal fired generating plants - but that is surely far, far more efficient than the nasty engines normal scooters have, and use far less energy. I imagine they are way ahead, carbon-wise.
Maybe we should take a few lessons from the Chinese.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that is what I meant with long-term development. The Chinese now just try out some ideas. Some will succeed, some will fail. But they try them out on such a massive scale that they will learn all there is to learn. And then they will sell the successes to us at a profit. When us Western people finally see the light, we will be buying Chinese scooters, with Chinese charging stations and Chinese battery packs. And if we decide to go for cars, we'll still be buying their charging stations and battery pac
Re:Long term vs. short term (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
And that is both the natural evolution of a emerging economy and a *good thing*.
Just look at what South Korea and Japan have contributed to the world by going through that process. And then times it by ten.
The really interesting thing is that China will not really have anywhere to outsource to once it gets to expensive to hire their own people. So naturally they will have to turn to robots.
Re: (Score:2)
How is any of that worse than scooters with two-stroke engines (which is what they'd be riding if they didn't have electric)?
Re: (Score:3)
That is what government grants/loans are supposed to be for. People bitch and moan because of a lot of the companies involved fail but that's the point. Invest in long term development of technologies that are either unprofitable or risky, so than 10 or 20 years down the line your country has them and isn't left behind because investors were too short sighted.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what government grants/loans are supposed to be for. People bitch and moan because of a lot of the companies involved fail but that's the point. Invest in long term development of technologies that are either unprofitable or risky, so than 10 or 20 years down the line your country has them and isn't left behind because investors were too short sighted.
Well, given how short sighted government has been with these grants and loans, I think that will happen anyway. In fact, I think such economic adventurism encourages the short-sighted thinking that you are complaining of. I don't have to think about renewable energy because a number of governments are throwing tens of billions around. Some of it will stick. Surely.
Nor is it worth it for me to try to compete with the businesses that picked up all this easy money. Either I'm connected enough to rake it in
Re: (Score:2)
Just pick the huge bonus, golden parachutes, stupid merge and acquisitions just to pump the stock, etc, etc and put in on real R&D (not patent waving) and engineering solutions and things might get better!
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate Driven doesn't mean what you think it means (it used to be plan driven too...while being Corporate Driven at the same time...).
You've got unscrupulous people trying to maximize shareseller (not shareholder) value. To do that, you'd have to worry only about next quarter.
Some proof required (Score:2)
Because unless massive layoffs is somehow going to be financially a good idea in 5 years time, just terrible from years 1-4, your assertion is complete bollocks.
Cutting R&D is also a big thing, which is good for short term (lower costs) but terrible for future viability (no products to sell).
See also the hostile takeover scenarios: take over the company on a large mark-up, gut the company to make money, sell the shell to make some more, company is now dead.
Re: (Score:3)
China is still partially a plan-driven economy, which does not need to have a result as long as the Party bosses get theirs.
There, fixed that for ya.
That's true, but it is not an argument against planning.
It has been suggested that democracy is not viable in the long term because it enables selfish behavior on too broad a base to be sustainable. I hope this is wrong, but I fear there's a grain of truth to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Long term vs. short term (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you for recognizing that central planning can exist at the "corporate level" as well as the "government level". Too many so-called free-market capitalists only recognize the latter and fail to see the former.
IMHO the best feature of the free market is that it harnesses the sheer chaos of many players working in an un-coordinated fashion. A better (not necessarily the best, at least not right away) solution is likely to emerge from somewhere in that mess.
I'll see your heresy and raise you one... Profit is not a feature of free-market capitalistic economy, it's a necessary evil.
If you look at a market economy as transferring goods from producers to consumers efficiently, profit is an inefficiency. It's a necessary inefficiency, because it gives people the incentive to facilitate that transfer, (and to produce, for that matter) but it's still an inefficiency.
Today's "record corporate profits" are really a danger sign. One aspect of the free market is that whenever there are high profits, there should ALWAYS be an opportunity for another player to enter the market, willing to accept lower profits, improving the flow of goods from producer to consumer. That we have sustained high profits indicates that there are barriers to entry that are not being overcome. Sometimes the barriers are "natural", such as the cost of a semiconductor fabricator, and sometimes they're not, such as market effects or IP law.
Even more heretical...
People talk about government spending being a sap on the economy, but when you look at it, the government is spending all of that money, so it's really almost all going back into the economy - it's not being taken away. When corporate profits are used to invest in growth, production, etc, that is also not removing money from the economy. But today's record corporate profits aren't being reinvested, they're being stuffed in the mattresses - frequently offshore. In that respect, corporate profits are worse for the economy than taxes, because they really are removing money from the economy. (not just spending the money on something the taxee doesn't like)
Re: (Score:3)
We could dispense with the whole incom
Re: (Score:2)
Central planning was indeed a disaster for the USSR, communist China, and in Africa, but that may have had more to do with ideology defeating pragmatism than with greed, which is pretty much universal. Singapore presents a counter-example, though tiny in scale, and China now seems to be attempting to do something similar on a large scale (this observation does not mean that I think this is a good thing; I hope democracy continues to succeed, and to develop in China.)
I think we really are entering a new era,
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but it is not an argument against planning.
Sure. It's just an argument against having anyone, such as a government, in charge of the planning.
The assumption that planning is better than no planning at the country-level is unjustified. Sure, thinking ahead can have benefits. It works for you at a personal level, because you are both the planner and the primary recipient of the benefits of the planning. When that's no longer the case, the resulting conflict of interest and its exploitation can destroy any benefits from planning.
The other big pro
Not surprising -- and not a black eye for the U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not surprising -- and not a black eye for the U (Score:5, Insightful)
Whilst it might not be surprising to you or me, many people argue that there's not worth being more green as a nation because the Chinese won't follow. When in actual fact the boot is on the other foot. China is leading and America is lagging behind.
And why would it be that it's not a "black eye" for the US? It's hardly the case that they are not spending money on creating ever more energy sources. It's just that not enough of them are green.
Re: (Score:2)
And why would it be that it's not a "black eye" for the US? It's hardly the case that they are not spending money on creating ever more energy sources. It's just that not enough of them are green.
Fine. A "brown eye" then.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The US is probably the only nation that has met the Koyoto Treaty goals, and that is without being a signatory!
Re:Not surprising -- and not a black eye for the U (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but it wasn't anything the U.S. planned. It occurred for two main reasons: (1) the Great Recession, (2) discovery and use of massive natural gas. The first was a result of many factors, government was one is several ways, but the government didn't plan to tank the economy. The natural gas was mostly private companies that got really good at finding and exploiting new reserves...regardless of what it did to the environment or what the environmental impact of putting all those chemicals underground to frack the shale formations will be.
Re:Not surprising -- and not a black eye for the U (Score:4, Informative)
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?
I should hope so... (Score:2)
... because right now they're leading in carbon emissions and unless it's changed recently, the RATE of emission growth is accelerating.
It used to be the West that was fucking up the planet and now China has taken over that role. If they want to continue to grow without killing the rest of us then they have a hell of a lot of work to do.
Re:I should hope so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What gives you the right to complain about China if you live in USA or EU
That's right. China's per capita coal consumption is far less than typical Westerners, so until the Chinese have wrecked the environment at least as much as you have, for at least as long as you have, and a good deal worse and longer for good measure, then you need to shut your stupid fat face.
Re:I should hope so... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right. China's per capita coal consumption is far less than typical Westerners, so until the Chinese have wrecked the environment at least as much as you have, for at least as long as you have, and a good deal worse and longer for good measure, then you need to shut your stupid fat face.
You know that is illogical, right? Just because someone has done something wrong doesn't mean that they can't point out, complain, or attempt to stop another from doing the same thing. Even if they're still doing that same thing themselves it makes it no less wrong. It is hypocritical but the act is still wrong regardless of the source or history of the accuser.
What is sad is that you're not the only one who presumes such. I'd hope that more people could think logically but most of my hopes seem to expect too much of people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
it really IS our fault for the past emissions since we've had the benefits
The whole world has the benefits--the patents on the technologies developed in such an expansion have long expired, and the science and engineering knowledge from that period has freely spread around the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does population come into it? Does it really matter how many people there are in a country? Especially if a great deal of them are still barely scratching at the earth.
Does it really matter what political boundaries have been drawn around a person? Does a subsistence farming hermit in the US have a moral right to emit more greenhouse gases and particulates than a subsistence farming hermit in Montserrat, or Myanmar, or Uganda? Does person X have more moral right to impose costs on others via pollution than person Y merely because of his habitual location? It's hard to imagine a reason why.
Would people demand emission cutbacks from a country populated by a single cow, just because that country's methane output per capita was the highest in the world?
If the country has no population then I can't help thinking demanding cutbacks from
Re: (Score:2)
Christ you've been fucking up the planet for decades - no centuries, and now you have the gall to complain about China.
Ah ha! Bad move high-grounder, you exposed yourself as an immortal. Now that I've found you, and There Can Be Only One!
Re: (Score:2)
WTF
What gives you the right to complain about China if you live in USA or EU . Christ you've been fucking up the planet for decades - no centuries, and now you have the gall to complain about China. Where was all the work you did to avoid it? Oh yes that's right into the pockets of "Global Corporations" global rapists more like......... Geez I though I'd heard it all!
I'd prefer to think of it as "learning from our mistakes". And I think they will. But they still have mistakes of their own to make.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF gives you the right to complain about where anyone lives, and their position on the topic? Their place of residence doesn't make them personally responsible for their country. Now you have heard it all.
Re:I should hope so... (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I should hope so... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:I should hope so... (Score:5, Informative)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you measure CO2. If you measure the REAL pollutants, the ones that'll kill you outright along with other things...they're vastly ahead of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Economic output does absolutely nothing to help the planet. Quite the contrary in fact.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends what is meant by "fucking up the planet". Are you speaking purely of the environmental impact of economic growth?
Yes. Nearly all life on planet earth shares the same lack of concern for economics. It's a purely human fiction.
It is quite easy to argue that the quality of human life is improved by adding value to the global economy.
Human life isn't "the planet" in anyone's vocabulary. And you're only talking about the present human life at that. Future human life will be cursing the wasted resources and the pollution left by current generations.
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be the West that was fucking up the planet and now China has taken over that role. If they want to continue to grow without killing the rest of us then they have a hell of a lot of work to do.
Maybe if the West hasn't outsourced whole fucking production of just about everything, to China, they'd still be fucking up the planet?
Are you seriously accusing China of 'fucking up the planet'?
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're blaming China's emissions on the U.S.? I missed the part where outsourcing work also outsource pollution rules/laws. But, it all makes sense to me now.
Re: (Score:3)
Does it really matter what he used to post it with? Everything's made in china nowdays, in case you haven't noticed.
Actually I bought a shirt this weekend and was astonished to see that it was made somewhere else. Could Chinese economic hegemony already be coming to an end? Is that one shirt the crack in the dam?
Re: (Score:2)
Does it really matter what he used to post it with? Everything's made in china nowdays, in case you haven't noticed.
Actually I bought a shirt this weekend and was astonished to see that it was made somewhere else. Could Chinese economic hegemony already be coming to an end? Is that one shirt the crack in the dam?
Well, China isn't as cheap as it used to by, but clothing isn't as single-sourced as you might believe. I took inventory of my shirts once, just for giggles. I think I came up with China, India, Malaysia, Mexico, various Caribbean islands and even one or 2 USA.
You'll know when the End is Nigh for Chinese hegemony. Just walk into Wal-Mart.
Re: (Score:3)
Does it really matter what he used to post it with? Everything's made in china nowdays, in case you haven't noticed.
I think his point was that an iPad (or any other tablet/phone) consumes a fraction of the energy of a PC when it's being used. Presumably also when it's manufactured.
anyone seen recent pictures from china? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That rather depends on whether the photo is of a city, where the minority of Chinese live, or the country where the majority live.
In terms of consumption, China, and every other country on the planet, is well behind America.
Re: (Score:2)
So, are you saying that it's the consumer's fault? Most consumers don't give a rats ass how/where their products were produced, only that they come at the lowest price. That's not to say consumers shouldn't get educated on the topic. However, China is solely responsible for their own pollution, they have a government, and laws, and have chosen to prioritize money above the environment.
Per Capita? (Score:3)
CC.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. According to the report, the USA is second and used to be first, which is an absolute joke. It's simply biasing towards the most populous countries. Which also tend to have the most total emissions, for obvious reasons. In all these measures, they have to be per capita to have any meaning. And the words "per capita" don't even get a mention in the report.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is the only clean energy that scales... (Score:2)
Subsidizing the deployment of "clean" energy technologies which are not economically viable is a waste of both time and money, at a time when humanity can afford neither. No amount of subsidies are going to make a dent in the global energy landscape; the requirements are simply too vast to be satisfied by expensive and diffuse energy sources like wind and solar in a timely manner.
Nuclear, in the form of molten salt reactors, is the only proven technology which has even a of hope of meeting the economic and
Re: (Score:2)
And it is a 7 Billion well spent. The alternative is coal or gas fired power plants which then must have their emissions scrubbed but will still pollute. Pick your poison. Last I checked, the oil companies bellied up to the taxpayer bar for 5 Billion every year.
China also buiding coal plants like mad (Score:2)
If my understanding is correct -- and I don't pretend to be an expert on this -- the summary is pretty misleading. It's not that China is a white knight crusading for green energy. It's that China is doing EVERYTHING: Green, nuclear, coal, you name it.
Googling around ("china coal plants") suggest that China is opening a new coal plant at a rate of one per WEEK. They built as many coal plants as exist in the entirety of Texas + Ohio **in 2011 alone**.
(Also, let me state the obvious. In China, the government
Re: (Score:2)
Also, let me state the obvious. In China, the government has great power. It can use this power to accomplish big things. Some of these things are good. Many are bad. Use state media and censorship to give the population one side of story? Check.
China's economic and political power structure is merely the reverse-polarity flow of the USA's, all of it biased by the Big Global Capital Dynamo. In China, government controls and enables companies; in the US, companies control and enable the government.
Oh, that crap about Constitutions, Manifestos, and other political ideology? C'mon, mate. That's SO mid-20th Century. It's window dressing for the masses, nothing more.
There is no "competition" with China, because there is no competition. Just internationa
duh, it's capitalism. (Score:4, Insightful)
Two points:
1) command economies are good at big stuff. Has anyone ever said otherwise?
2) Perhaps the main reason that clean energy isn't taking off in the US is because (at least for the moment) it's still largely a capitalistic society, and 'clean' energy is an entirely contrived, laterally-motivated concept (ie not driven by customer demand, but by tangential forces like a 'desire' for a clean environment contrived by the eco-lobby) whose existence relies almost entirely on government subsidy, regulatory 'sticks', and accounting sleight-of-hand?
Face it, as much as eco-nuts 'demand' we be cleaner, and legislators 'believe' we should be cleaner, Joe Public *generally* is uninterested in paying 2x the price for power if it comes from 'clean' sources. Maybe if Joe lived in 1870 London where everything was covered in soot, or something, he'd be motivated to change his habits. But the fact is, the environment in the USA hasn't reached the sort of obtrusive levels of pollution like Love Canal or the burning Hudson River that DID spark such motivations a generation ago.
Without motivation, consumers aren't typically really good at making 'commons' choices, because they're too consumed with affording things NOW to really be concerned about incremental impacts 20-50-100 years from now. No matter how much they're preached to.
Just don't breathe and you'll be fine. (Score:5, Informative)
China is a wonderfully clean and healthy place, as long as you don't breathe [nytimes.com].
Oversupply due to China's policies (Score:3)
A capitalist economy partly guards against oversupply. However, oversupply has resulted directly from Chinese policies: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/business/global/glut-of-solar-panels-is-a-new-test-for-china.html [nytimes.com]
Now both American and Chinese solar companies are failing. Further private investment in this oversupplied economy seems unwise; there is a distaste for subsidizing failed business models in the US (at least where green tech is concerned). Perhaps university research is the best alternative investment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Brown coal from Australia (Score:5, Insightful)
As an Aussie and an environmentalist, I consider coal to be evil and think that the less of that dirty black/brown crap we dig out of the ground the better. Plenty of ways to generate electricity (even baseload electricity) without using coal if people are willing to put in the investment.
I do not believe the government should be giving a single cent in money to the coal industry or to coal fired power stations (the exception being if the money is to be used to decommission said power stations)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
let them have the pollution
Much pollution is global in nature.
Yeah (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Solar can very much be baseload (in areas that get lots of sun at least) by using solar thermal generation. The heat from the sun is used to heat molten salt (or another good storage of heat) and then the stored heat is used to generate electricity when the sun isn't shining. There are already examples of this kind of solar power station operating in the real world generating grid electricity.
And solar thermal generation systems can cost a lot less than solar photovoltaic cells to build and run.