Energy Efficiency Ranks High in China's Plans; CO2 Is Seldom Discussed
The second of an occasional series on China.
DEZHOU, China -- A guide shows off row after row of gleaming, black, chrome-coated tubes used in the millions of solar thermal water heaters Himin Solar Energy Group produces each year.
The corporate building alone saves 1 million kilowatt-hours by using solar heating, the guide informs his group. But when he is asked how many tons of carbon dioxide emissions the average solar water heater saves, silence fills the hall.
"Normally, in China, we just calculate energy efficiency," the guide offers finally. "There's no calculation of carbon dioxide."
About 1,200 miles to the south, in the economic boomtown of Shenzhen, a similar scenario unfolds. Top officials at the Shenzhen LianChuang Energy Conservation Equipment Co. sit around a conference table, proudly displaying light-emitting diode (LED) lighting that can save 40 to 60 percent of electricity. Across the room, they point to mechanisms that adjust the voltage of factory machine tools and other power equipment, rattling off wattages conserved and dollars saved for their clients.
Yet as the topic turns to the greenhouse gas emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere, the businessmen in short-sleeved button-down shirts shift in their swivel chairs and glance at one another.
"There's a shortage of electricity in China. We need to save energy," General Manager Kenny Kong says. Asked specifically about climate change, he says, "Personally, I would like to promote energy efficiency products to every corner. The sky over China will be much more blue in the future."
From shuttering inefficient factories to investing in LED lighting, energy efficiency is serious business throughout China. But in boardroom after boardroom, the work seems almost completely divorced from the business of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Big linkage to energy savings
In more than a dozen interviews with business leaders in wind, solar and other renewable energy industries throughout China, officials repeatedly discussed CO2 emission reductions, using general platitudes about "blue skies," but were able to offer little in the way of specifics. Until, that is, talk returned to the kilowatt-hours and dollars that could be saved by low-carbon technologies.
"In China, many people understand what energy efficiency is. They think energy efficiency has no relationship with climate change. But they understand how to save energy," said Jiamin Jin, executive director of the Global Environmental Institute in Beijing.
That's likely to change soon. Last month, President Hu Jintao announced that China will curb its carbon intensity over the decade to 2020, a move that will be the country's first overt attempt to control its emissions growth.
Some analysts say China already has a leg up from three years of intense national efforts -- fueled not by concerns about climate change but rather by worries about energy security, recent concerns about air pollution and the sheer challenge of providing resources to 1.3 billion people -- to boost energy efficiency.
Meanwhile, many argued, the past failure to link energy savings to climate change might actually be a strategy the United States and others could learn from.
"Climate change really originates from a domestic concern, and when you talk about China, you translate that into energy savings and energy efficiency," said Qi Ye, deputy director of the China Sustainable Energy Program in Beijing.
Call it energy savings or call it emissions reductions, the fact that climate change has not been part of the domestic conversation, he argued, doesn't change the bottom line: The work has helped slow the rise of China's greenhouse gas emissions.
'You get to the same place'
"Essentially, you get to the same place, and it's actually a very effective strategy if you address the global issue in terms of local need," Ye said. "That helps you move into actions. People act from what they really care and believe. They don't act on what you believe is most important."
Energy experts note that between 1980 and 200O, China invested heavily in energy efficiency and imposed energy quotas and other policies that enabled the country to quadruple its gross domestic product while only doubling its energy use. Then things changed. Between the country's building boom and its rapid growth of energy-intensive industries in an economy based primarily on coal, energy efficiency got stuck on the back burner. Between 2000 and 2005, the country's energy consumption more than doubled.
By 2006, China had put in place a five-year plan to once again improve its energy efficiency. The target: Reduce energy intensity -- or the amount of energy consumed per unit of GDP produced -- 20 percent by 2010.
It's getting there in a variety of ways. Right now, about one in every 10 Chinese households uses a solar thermal water heater, sourcing one of the biggest uses of electricity with clean energy. Mandatory energy efficiency standards for electronics and home appliances went into effect about four years ago. In Shenzhen, the local government is spending $3.75 billion on LED research and development projects through 2016, and a new national rebate program subsidizes the purchase of energy-efficient light bulbs 30 to 50 percent.
Meanwhile, two of the programs getting some of the most press attention in China have been the shuttering of old, inefficient coal-fired power plants and an agreement with the country's 1,000 most energy-intensive industries to meet efficiency requirements. That program is aimed at reducing 33 percent of China's primary energy demand and 50 percent of its electricity use.
Cutting energy intensity, counting profits
According to the National Development and Reform Commission, China's energy intensity decreased by about 10 percent between 2006 and 2008. In the first half of 2009, the government reported, energy intensity declined 3.35 percent. Opinions are mixed on whether the country can meet its 2020 goal.
If it does, according to Chinese authorities, it will have blocked about 1 billion tons of CO2 from wafting into the atmosphere.
"For almost forever, it's been clear that an energy intensity goal is pretty much the same as a carbon intensity goal. For a country like China, it really is the case," said William Chandler, director of the energy program at the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace.
But Julian Wong, a senior energy policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, noted that energy efficiency, while all well and good, doesn't alone influence a country's absolute emissions. And on that score, China is steadily rising. It is the world's largest emitter, at 6.8 billion tonnes annually, and a recent report from a Chinese think tank estimated that the country will likely reach 8.8 tonnes by 2035.
Speaking before the United Nations last month, President Hu promised that China would reduce its carbon intensity by a "notable margin," but did not offer specific targets. That, presumably, will be a negotiating point as countries head into an intense round of negotiations in Copenhagen this December toward a possible global emissions treaty.
Environmental activists in China call it a significant step and an important signal that the government wants to decouple emissions from economic growth. And, they say, it will help focus more attention throughout the country on the problems of rising emissions.
For now, though, business leaders like Jason Yang, who manage a sales team at Shenzhen Bang-Bell Electronics, say they want to do their part for the environment -- and their wallets. Standing over a giant model LED streetlamp lying on a conference room floor, he talks excitedly about the kilowatt-hours his company saves cities with the million pieces of fixtures they sell each year.
Sure, the lights also reduce CO2 emissions, Yang said. But, he adds, "We mostly focus on energy savings. Energy efficiency is most important of all."
Copyright 2009 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Source: New York Times
« Back to Sci/Tech News
Related News
-
Study: Wind could cut China's emissions by 30 pct Oct 6, 2009 @ 05:15 AM
BEIJING — China could cut its emissions by 30 percent in the next two decades if it switches to wind power to meet about half of its electricity demands, a U.S. study published Thursday said.
-
Climate drama climax looks elusive in Copenhagen Oct 6, 2009 @ 05:15 AM
COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- For 20 years, as this crowded planet grew warmer, nations have gathered annually to try to do something about it. History now brings them to this chilly northern capital, and to a crossroads.
-
The Economic Case for Slashing Carbon Emissions Oct 6, 2009 @ 05:15 AM
By Yale Environment 360 - Yale Environment 360
By Frank Ackerman
The climate change news from Washington is cautiously encouraging. No one in power is listening to the climate skeptics any more; the economic stimulus package included real money for clean energy; a bill capping U.S. carbon emissions emerged, battered but still standing, from the House of Representatives, and might even survive the Senate. This, along with stricter emission standards in Europe and a big push for clean energy and efficiency standards in China, provides grounds for hope for genuine progress on emissions reduction.
But while climate policy is finally moving forward, climate science is moving faster. One discovery after another suggests the world is warming faster, and climate damages are appearing sooner, than anyone had expected. Much of the policy discussion so far has been aimed at keeping the atmospheric concentration of CO2 below 450 parts per million (ppm) - which was until recently thought to be low enough to prevent dangerous levels of warming. But last year, James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist, argued that paleoclimatic evidence shows 450 ppm is the threshold for transition to an ice-free earth. This would imply a catastrophic rise in sea levels, eventually flooding all coastal cities and regions.
To avoid reaching such a crisis stage, Hansen and a growing number of others now call for stabilizing CO2 concentrations at 350 ppm. The world is now around 390 ppm and rising; since CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a long time, it is difficult to reduce concentrations quickly. In Hansen's scenario, a phaseout of coal use, massive reforestation, and widespread use of carbon capture and storage could allow the world to achieve negative net carbon emissions by mid-century and reach 350 ppm by 2100.
Can we afford to reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to 350 ppm by the end of this century? To address this question, Economists for Equity and Environment (www.E3Network.org) - a group dedicated to applying and developing economic principles to protect human health and the environment - conducted a study of "The Economics of 350."
Why the wide range of cost estimates?
At first glance, there is a bewildering range of estimates of the costs of climate protection. Look more closely, however, and there are just a few projections of economic disaster, out in right field by themselves. Other estimates range from modest costs to small net economic gains.
The outliers are the handful of private consultant studies funded by partisan lobbying groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Using proprietary models (or their own adaptations of standard models), and pessimistic economic assumptions, these studies forecast that even mild U.S. proposals, such as last year's Lieberman-Warner bill, would cost many thousands of dollars per household and would cause widespread unemployment and economic dislocation. An analysis by journalist Eric Pooley documents the excessive, often uncritical attention given to these studies by the media.
These projections of economic ruin have not been reproduced by any major academic or non-profit research group. Many economic models find that the modest steps called for in recent U.S. proposals would have very small costs and virtually undetectable effects on total employment - as documented in a report by Nathaniel Keohane and Peter Goldmark for the Environmental Defense Fund.
But to reach 350 ppm, we will have to go far beyond the emission reductions considered in recent U.S. proposals. How much will it cost to reach this more ambitious target? Until recently, most economic research focused on higher targets such as 450 ppm or more. There are, however, four major climate economics modeling groups - all at European universities - that have analyzed the costs of reaching 350 ppm.
One group starts from the (realistic) assumption of high unemployment, and finds that long-run employment and economic growth would be increased by a program of public investment in green technology and emissions reduction that leads to 350 ppm. The other three groups adopt the common assumption that short-run unemployment can be ignored in long-run models. They generally find that the needed emissions reductions will cost an average of 1 to 3 percent of world economic output, for some years to come.
Other studies have reached more optimistic conclusions about costs. McKinsey & Company, an international consulting firm, has carried out detailed studies of the costs of hundreds of emission-reducing technologies. They find that some emissions can be eliminated for no cost or even an economic savings; more than half of worldwide business-as-usual emissions in 2030 could be eliminated at very small total cost. The net costs of reducing carbon emissions (i.e. investment costs, minus the value of energy saved) go down when the price of oil goes up, and vice versa. McKinsey's entire package of reductions, eliminating more than half of world emissions, would have zero total cost if the price of oil were $90 per barrel.
Studies from major environmental groups, including Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), have reached even more optimistic conclusions than McKinsey. Both Greenpeace and UCS project substantial economic savings from emission reduction, with fuel savings much larger than the costs of investment. Both assume high oil prices - up to $140 per barrel for Greenpeace - along with rapid change in emissions-reduction technologies.
Deciding whether it's worth the price
The range of cost estimates for reaching 350 ppm, combined with uncertainties about oil prices and future technologies, make it difficult to choose a single estimate of the total economic cost. Suppose that, for the sake of argument, 2.5 percent of world output must be spent on climate stabilization for years to come. Is that an unacceptably large number?
Imagine an economy growing at 2.5 percent every year (a little slower than the recent U.S. average). Suppose it skips one year's growth - all too easy to imagine in 2009 - and then resumes growing. That makes GDP 2.5 percent smaller than it would have been, forever. So the "skip year" has the same effect as spending 2.5 percent of output on climate protection every year. Household incomes would take 29 years to double, instead of 28.
Alternatively, we know we can afford to devote 2.5 percent of income to protection against a remote but disastrous threat - because we already do, year after year. In 68 countries, military spending exceeds 2.5 percent of GDP. In the United States and China, the top greenhouse gas emitters, military spending absorbs more than 4 percent of GDP. Both countries would be safer, not more vulnerable, if they diverted half of their defense spending to defense against climate crisis.
The most important conclusion of our research involves what we did not find. There are no reasonable studies saying that a 350 ppm stabilization target will destroy the economy. This is not surprising. The ominous recent research on potential climate damages does not examine the cost of doing something; instead, it looks at the cost of doing nothing about emissions.
If the worst happens, our grandchildren will inherit a degraded Earth that does not support anything like the life that we have enjoyed. On the other hand, if we prepare for the worst but it does not quite happen, we will have invested more than was absolutely necessary - in perfect hindsight - in clean energy, conservation, and carbon-free technologies. Which extreme presents the greater danger?
Climate risk and insurance
Think about climate risk as an insurance problem. You don't buy fire insurance because you're sure your house will burn down; rather, you are not, and cannot be, sure enough that it will not burn down. Likewise, projections by Hansen and others of dangerous climate risk from staying above 350ppm CO2 are not certainties; they are necessarily uncertain (although becoming more likely as temperatures rise).
The analogy to insurance is important but inexact; there is no climate insurance company to which the world can hand 2.5 percent of output, if that is what it costs. There is, however, a need for large-scale investment, both in proven emissions-reducing technologies and in research and development.
The role of government in climate policy is not only to set appropriate price signals through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system; the public sector must also guide research on clean energy technologies. Despite free-market mythology to the contrary, this has worked well in the past. Wind power is profitable today as a result of decades of government investment in the United States and Europe. In another arena, the U.S. government essentially invented microelectronics in the 1950s and 1960s: At first, almost all transistors, integrated circuits, and the like were bought by agencies such as the Pentagon and NASA, because no one else could afford them. Just a few decades of massive government purchases of these items turned microelectronics into the premier private-sector success story of the late-20th century, transforming everyone's life in countless unexpected ways.
The climate crisis challenges us to do it again, to invent the new technologies and industries that will transform life in the mid-21st century and beyond. We know it's possible: We can afford to protect the climate, and leave a livable world to future generations.
Reprinted with permission from Yale Environment 360
-
Climate Agency Sees China's Efforts Paying Off Oct 6, 2009 @ 05:15 AM
One sticking point ahead of global negotiations over the climate later this year is the contribution of developing countries like China, and whether they should agree to mandatory targets to reduce carbon emissions.
-
Clean-Tech Progress More Important Than UN Climate Treaty -- DOE Chief Oct 6, 2009 @ 05:15 AM
Action by the United States and other nations to develop clean energy technologies is more important than reaching an accord on greenhouse gas emissions this December at U.N. talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said today.
