The Green Leap Forward 绿跃进

 

A Quiet Revolution: China’s Climate Future

What do China and Frank Sinatra have in common?

To find out, read this guest post by Scott Moore, a Rhodes Scholar at the Environmental Change Institute of the University of Oxford.  Scott was previously a Fulbright Fellow at the College of Environmental Science and Engineering at Peking University in 2008-2009.  Scott and I co-wrote an op-ed in China Daily back in April.  Scott blogs at China GreenSpace and is currently at COP15 in Copenhagen.

If you’re searching for vision at this week’s Copenhagen climate conference, take a look between the lines at what China’s saying on global warming. From increasing the share of renewable energy to promoting a new “low-carbon mentality” among its citizens, China has made a name for itself as the first industrializing country — ever — to make serious efforts to limit the contribution of its economic development to climate change. By some estimates, these measures will reduce China’s emissions by an amount greater than the total reductions achieved by all parties under the Kyoto Protocol.

But the revolution Beijing is proposing, in Copenhagen and elsewhere, goes deeper than this. China’s government knows it must continue to provide tangible increases in the standard of living of its citizens. Once, this largely meant ramping up investment in industry and infrastructure. Increasingly, however, improving the standard of living means taking the edge off of torrid economic growth– narrowing income disparities, improving social services, and cleaning China’s famously dirty skies and waterways.

China’s leadership has decided, therefore, that it must move up the socio-economic value chain, and quickly. Traditional heavy industry, and the highly-polluting, resource-intensive model of development which sustains it, will be replaced by a vision of nimble green enterprises, poised to lead China into the world’s economic future. At Copenhagen, China’s leaders make no secret of this ambition: they speak of building an energy system which is less polluting, more secure, and more efficient, and of an “innovative” development pattern that is higher-quality and lower-emitting.

But this, larger story seems lost on most of the delegates at Copenhagen, and on commentators beyond. Instead, coverage of China’s climate policies, including its recently-announced pledge to decrease the carbon intensity of every unit of production, is dominated by debates over their rigor. These are by no means trivial questions, but they risk masking the larger issue: what does China’s proposed transformation, from low-cost workshop of the world to high-tech laboratory, mean in terms of the country’s overall development?

The first, most obvious implication, is that China’s green transformation will be very much on its own terms (Recall Sintra: “I did it myyyyy wayyyy”). While the policies Beijing has enacted to underpin a green economy have co-benefits for reducing emissions, they are not calculated to save the planet. Instead, they are meant to decrease air and water pollution, improve resource security, and decrease the demand for natural resources to fuel China’s development. The Earth’s climate may benefit from these policies, but Chinese interests come in distincly ahead. This is most clearly evident in China’s pursuit of energy security. While the country will expand the use of renewable energy, but it is also gearing up to mine and burn gas hydrates, which are nearly one-hundred percent methane, and hence even worse for the climate than burning coal.

Second, friction between China and other countries over economic issues is likely to intensify. Tariffs, levied in response to Chinese non-compliance in a future global climate regime, are almost certain to be kept in US climate legislation. China seems equally determined to oppose what it calls “green protectionism.” Moreover, there is a basic conflict in the rush by many countries to lead in a future green economy. China, America, the UK and others have all declared that green technologies will be central to their economic futures. While the green economy pie of the twenty-first century may indeed be large, it will almost certainly not be large enough to satisfy the economic ambitions of all these nations. As in all economic transformations, some countries will profit hugely from a green future– but not all. Expect a great deal of discord at future summits as a result.

China, laudably, has taken bold steps in outlining a path to environmentally sustainable economic growth, a path which certainly eluded the Western industrialized countries in the past. But its interests go much further. China has no desire to maintain an inefficent, dirty manufacutring base. It seeks nothing short of a leap into the leading rank of nations. The climate may benefit as a result– but is the rest of the world ready for what a green dragon really means?

Share/Save/Bookmark

7 Responses to “A Quiet Revolution: China’s Climate Future”

  1. 1
    Bram Buijs:

    Thanks for the nice post, I do agree with your perspective, as energy security, environmental and economic concerns are driving most of China’s very ambitious and progressive policy on energy & climate change. We did a report at Clingendael that shares this analysis (”China, Copenhagen and Beyond”, downloadable at http://www.clingendael.nl/ciep).
    Just a one remark, if you burn gas hydrates/methane, it will form CO2 and will not emit more carbon per unit of energy than coal. Just if methane will escape into the atmosphere without getting combusted (for example when mining) its global warming potential is much worse than similar quantities of CO2 (about 21 times as much). A good example of Chinese energy policy that will increase emissions is the pursuit of coal-to-liquid (CTL) technologies, that create liquids that have a larger carbon footprint than ordinary petroleum types (but good for energy security in China’s case).

  2. 2
    Oliver:

    Burning gas hydrates is equivalent to burning natural gas in terms of CO2 emissions (natural gas contains a very high percentage of methane). Releasing one ton of methane into the atmosphere is worse than releasing one ton of CO2, yes, but in this case, the methane is burned first to produce energy (plus H2O and CO2)! BTW, economic exploitation of gas hydrates is a long way away. Oliver

  3. 3
    Patrick Lynch:

    Great article. The US is really missing the boat, and China is busy building and designing the next generation of boats.

    One thing that is often missing in media “looks” at China is a sense of perspective. As a country that plans long term, China is easily misunderstood by those who focus only on next week’s market results.

  4. 4
    Hongdou:

    “While the country will expand the use of renewable energy, but it is also gearing up to mine and burn gas hydrates, which are nearly one-hundred percent methane, and hence even worse for the climate than burning coal.”

    Hi, just wondering why burning methane is worse for the climate than burning coal??

  5. 5
    Scott:

    Hi everyone,

    Thanks for your comments, and sorry for my tardy response!

    Regarding gas hydrates, I was incorrect on two points. First, a technical one: the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of methane at a 100 year timescale (indeed all timescales, but 100 is the most commonly used by regulators) is 25, while that of carbon dioxide is 1 (since it is the baseline). This means that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Mining gas hydrates, if it means more methane will escape into the atmosphere, would thus be worse than burning coal. However, since methane can be burned more efficiently, and the gas hydrates will be mined to burn, what I wrote was incorrect. Which leads to the second, more general point: mining of gas hydrates is not the best example of China’s energy security strategy. Coal to liquids or shale oil would be better examples (nod to Bram, Oliver, and Michael Davidson, in a separate email).

    So, to restate the point: take your pick of examples, from coal to liquids, shale oil, and recently-announced offshore drilling projects, but all indicators are that China is pursuing an energy security strategy, not a greenhouse gas mitigation strategy.

  6. 6
    Forget about who killed Copenhagen. The right question is ‘Why’? « Hiya Maya:

    [...] green leap forward demonstrates the inexorable logic for low-carbon development – the need to adapt to the [...]

  7. 7
    WildChina Blog · What We’re Reading: “A Quiet Revolution: China’s Climate Future”:

    [...] What does this mean for China? Read about the implications of these plans for China’s development in the rest of the entry. [...]

Leave a Reply


Pages

Follow The Green Leap Forward

What is the Green Leap Forward?

The Great Leap Forward was an economic and social plan used from 1958 to 1960 which aimed to use China's vast population to rapidly transform mainland China from a primarily agrarian economy dominated by peasant farmers into a modern, industrialized communist society. It is now widely seen, both within and outside of China, as an major economic (and environmental) disaster.

By contrast, the Green Leap Forward, is an emerging movement to harness and combine the powerful forces of smart policy, sustainable finance and green technologies to steer China's red-hot economy onto a more ecologically and socially sustainable path. Unlike its predecessor, the Green Leap Forward is as much a bottom-up revolution as it is a top-down one and in this age of increasing global interconnectedness, is a movement that will have an impact beyond its borders.

GLF is featured on:

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Tags

Archives

Best Posts of 2008

Key Documents

Linkroll

Subject Primers