Posted by: Earl
on Feb 24, 2009
This is the final installment Earl's China Energy Adventure.
Earl is not known for his macro-economic expertise but that doesn’t mean he’s not interested and paying attention. The stimulus programs that are being implemented around the world at this time have certainly got his attention. An article in Business China last week struck a nerve.
Zhejiang Province is just to the south of Shanghai. Economists there noticed a weakening of the economy in late 2007 and started to take measures at that time to minimize the impact. Funds were set aside with no clear intention other than wait and see. With the recent China Central Government announcement of a stimulus package Zhejiang officials decided to utilize their funds for local companies as well.
Here’s where it gets interesting. This isn’t a fund where everyone gets a piece of the action. Companies will be evaluated for their utilization of technology and their energy efficiency. Those over the bar get assistance. Those that don’t make the cut will be getting nothing and be allowed to fail. In a sense, it’s survival of the fittest with a twist. Do good and get a boost.
It is clear that Chinese officials recognize that the importance of raising the standards of the companies there. They are not interested in promoting inefficient operations at the risk of dragging down well run companies suffering due to the global economy. The bonus for the rest of the world is reduced carbon emissions and energy demand. Now, if the rest of the world could make some hard decisions and stop catering to bloated, inefficient companies we could get somewhere?
Posted by: Earl
on Feb 23, 2009
James Jao is a certified foreign expert so designated by the China State Council on Planning and Economic Development. In an op-ed piece in the China Daily newspaper Mr. Jao recommends that the Chinese government require mandatory adoption of green building technologies. Earl can’t agree more. He froze his “you know what” off in Beijing (because it was cold and snowing out) and in Shanghai (because if was chilly and few office buildings he was in had central heat) last week.
Mr. Jao pointed out that in 2004 green building comprised approximately 2 percent of the new US “nonresidential” construction market. Projections were cited that indicate that by 2010 between 5 and 10 percent of new non-residential construction starts will be based on principles of green buildings. He further notes that there is not currently a dominant “green” building product manufacturer in any building category. This, he suggest, is the biggest motivation for the market and a great business opportunity for China to seize. Read this to mean that China will be poised to dominate this market segment when the US ultimately adopts these standards.
I’ve previously suggested that there is tremendous opportunity for the US to lead the way in green building technology. We need to continue to provide that leadership because a giant economy is currently poised to get unleashed. The US has long been the country that fosters and develops new technologies. Mr. Jao is suggesting China learn from the US and become the leader in a whole new industry based on green building technology. The whole world benefits from the greening of China and their ability to produce low-cost products but I would rather that the US not miss out on an opportunity to continue to lead the way.
Posted by: Earl
on Feb 22, 2009
This is the second installment of Earl’s China Energy Adventure.
Can you imagine getting everyone in the US to change their attitude about energy conservation and recycling? Can the government make it happen? It’s been said that democracy is the least efficient form of government and a dictatorship the most efficient. A one-party, communist government in China is not exactly a dictatorship but it’s a lot more efficient at implementing regulations and getting people to follow their mandates. I’m certainly not advocating this system but it is interesting to observe what they are doing about their energy demand and pollution.
In the continuing saga of Earl’s Chinese Energy Adventure, Earl can’t go anywhere in China without continually seeing signs of green activity. I bought a few snacks and bottles of water (you still don’t want to drink tap water) from the local Carrefour store and had to buy the plastic bag to carry back to the hotel. I’ve heard that the plastic bags are going to be banned entirely very soon. There are billboards and signs on the sides of buses reminding people to conserve and recycle to improve their quality of life.
According to China Business Weekly, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) is promoting a project to put 5,000 hybrids, 20,000 hybrid taxis, and 5,000 electric vehicles on the streets in 30 cities by 2012. Estimates are that the project will save 780M liters of gasoline avoid emission of 2.3M tons of carbon dioxide. A MOST representative stated that “the core aim of a low-carbon economy is to increase energy efficiency and change the structure of energy consumption”.
This low-carbon economy is already making progress in both primary cities like Beijing and secondary cities (not readily recognizable by westerners but big cities by our standards). More than half of the world’s population live in urban areas with these areas contributing to 75% of the greenhouse gas emissions it is especially important to make the cities greener. Mega cities like Beijing and Shanghai are showcasing their efforts at events like last year’s Olympic Games and Shanghai’s upcoming environmentally friendly World Expo 2010.
China’s current air quality deserves the bad reputation it has gotten but, to be fair, the Chinese recognize the importance of cleaning up their act to the benefit of everyone. They've got a long way to go but Earl is impressed with the effort underway.
Posted by: Earl
on Feb 1, 2009
Admittedly I'm neither a doctor nor an economist but I'm going to pretend for a moment. When a runner collapses from exhaustion the prescribed treatment is not generally a shot of electrolytes, vitamins, adrenaline, insulin, selenium, and Lipitor all at the same time hoping that one will get them up and running immediately. You'd probably kill him instead of fixing him. When our economy has collapsed from exhaustion (as well as stupid, greedy executives and politicians) a shotgun approach of spending newly printed money on any and every underfunded cause. We need a surgical approach. Any spending excess at this point will likely do more harm than good. Why can't we do a focused stimulus package? For that same reason we can't have a focused national energy policy? We're relying on politicians to figure this out. I'm not holding my breath.
In case you are interested here are some items in the current stimulus package. Job generation? - you decide!
- $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts to shore up flagging cultural institutions
- a quarter billion dollars to fix State Department computers
- $200 million to spruce up the National Mall
- $670 million to rebuild restrooms and other buildings in national parks
- $87 million from the stimulus package to pay for expanded family planning services for Medicaid recipients, arguing that it could ultimately be a cost-reducing measure.
- $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years
- $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts
- $400 million for global-warming research
- $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
- There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons
- $1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t earned a profit in four decades
- $2 billion to help subsidize child care
- $2.4 billion for projects to demonstrate how carbon greenhouse gas can be safely removed from the atmosphere.
- $650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion.
- $600 million to buy a new fleet of cars for federal employees and government departments.
- $75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking
- $21 million to re-sod the National Mall, which suffered heavy use during the Inauguration
- $2.25 billion for national parks. This item has sparked calls for an investigation, because the chief lobbyist of the National Parks Association is the son of Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wisc. The $2,25 billion is about equal to the National Park Service’s entire annual budget. The Washington Times reports it is a threefold increase over what was originally proposed for parks in the stimulus bill. Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
Posted by: Earl
on Jan 5, 2009
Time Magazine Online ran a story today about the bipartisan movement in the U.S. Senate on greenhouse emissions and energy conservation. The driving factor was not global warming on its own but rather the security implications to the U.S. that changed Sen. John Warner's mind. Sen. Warner, a Republican from Virginia co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Joe Leiberman, Independent from Connecticut.
A number of high-level retired military officers have come on board as well noting that the implications of global warming can have dire geopolitical implications due to the instability that could come from the effects of climate change. This further validates The New York Times's columnist, Thomas Friedman, who calls it the First Law of Petropolitics "... as the price of oil goes up, we're effectively propping up hydrocarbon-fueled autocracies like Iran."
It can now be claimed that it is patriotic to be GREEN.
Posted by: Earl
on Dec 27, 2008
What! Are you out of your mind? Before you freak hear me out. I’ve been thinking about this for a long time. I’ve previously expressed my consternation about society’s loss of ability to have honest debate. I am proposing to take debate out of the picture all together.
First we have to separate the irrefutable from the guesswork. Too much guesswork is being stated as absolute. Refusal to accept that absolute does not completely diminish the original premise. Here are a few examples:
- The global warming that has been observed is primarily due to man’s influence. But there are authorities on this subject that do not agree.
- Al Gore’s dire predictions in “An Inconvenient Truth” are imminent and our fault and if we don’t do something immediately about this life as we know it will end with the climate changes and rising sea levels.Green legislation is contrary to American’s heritage of freedom and will cause economic disaster.
- Government intervention is the only way that we will solve this problem.
- Adopting Green Standards will be an economic disaster.
Posted by: Earl
on Oct 19, 2008
Better Place in the first instance is the company name. To create a better place in the second was the challenge issued to the founder of this company.
Better Place is designing a transportation system of plug-in vehicles, replaceable batteries, and stations where the battery replacement can occur if travel in excess of the 100 mile range occurs. This innovative start up, based in Israel, was founded in October 2007 on $200M investment but already has two countries, Israel and Denmark, on board.
Renault-Nissan is signed on to produce cars to by the middle of the next decade. Better Place is designing an operating system to predict range of travel and direct driver to battery stations in most efficient manner.
In Denmark, the Danish Oil and Natural Gas (DONG) company is onboard to provide the unpredictable output from their turbines into the electrical grid to charge the batteries (while introducing no additional carbon into the atmosphere).
Posted by: Earl
on Sep 4, 2008
It seems to me that as a society we have lost either our ability or willingness to have honest debate. What should be logical arguments have become religious ones - good vs. evil instead of compromise and accommodation. This is especially evident in the energy policy legislative debate. The argument on opening new areas for drilling ranges from "this will solve our foreign oil dependence" to "we can't support that because oil's carbon emissions are too high". I would bet that most people agree with the basic premises of both of these arguments. We know that it would be good to cut both carbon emissions and foreign import dependency. Domestic drilling won't solve all of our oil dependency problems any more than we can afford economically to ignore the worldwide oil demand growth. Then what is the answer? Am I missing something when I think that this country needs to incorporate elements of both plus a comprehensive plan to develop new technologies that will make alternative energy sources economically viable?
Let's begin developing more of this country's resources in a responsible manner. Let's also continue working to reduce emissions. Let's use tax credits more effectively. Instead of funding already highly profitable enterprises let's use those funds on primary research. Companies have a hard time justifying research because of the business risk of these investments. And please, stop with the complaints that drilling should not be done because it will take 7 - 10 years to get new oil into the economy. If you don't understand that we are talking about something in the terms of decades you simply don't get it.
