World is Green

Last month I quoted an article by Michael Backman writing about population and emissions. Backman assets that population is the major contributor to emissions growth.

Two commentators on the article did not agree with Backman.  John Brisbin comments that  ”The only obvious thing about sustainability is the per capita resource usage”. He wants to believe in a world where “20 billion living in peaceful resonance with the planet and requiring only the simplest of material inputs?”

I think that is next to impossible. The past has shown that people cannot be expected to behave like that.
It is tough, I know that from personal experience.

The consumer culture is all fine to moan about however, we need to remember that it is the present culture. There is a limit to what you can expect people to change. We need to work with what we have…and what we have is an increasing consumer culture all around the world.

Also, we need to remember that population as such creates problems in other areas - public health, infrastructure, provision of other services, standard of living etc.

And the second comment from Dani where he angrily writes that “Getting rid of all americans will drop carbon emissions far more quickly than all the population control in South Asia.”

What we need to think about is the future. I think we should not take Backman’s analysis personal. I am an Indian and I do know where you would come from.

We cannot change the past. Can we rid of all the Americans? Totally not possible and not ethical. We need to work with what is possible. Controlling population in South Asia is a very good thing in many ways.

Atanu helped me understand the consequences of population growth many years back. Lets read what Atanu Dey has to say on this:

In 1965, about 40 years ago, there were less than 500 million of us. By 2004, the population of India has more than doubled. The effect of this incredible increase has been a falling standard of living in general, shortages, untold misery and conflict. It is foolish to expect that we can provide a decent standard of living to so many in such a short time. The vast majority of us do not have adequate drinking water, sanitation, health care, education and job opportunities. The preceding statement does not even begin to indicate the amount of human misery and sorrow which it implies. It hides within it the teeming millions who suffer without the slightest hope of ever seeing a future remotely human.

Read the entire article. Atanu talks about the limited time available to create a standard of living for a huge population. In another post he quotes Joel Cohen’s book How Many People Can the Earth Support? (1995). Here Cohen explains the finiteness of time.

The finiteness of time, the second thread in the book, limit’s the abilities of individuals and of societies to solve problems. For each human being, time is finite. I want to eat and drink today. As a privileged inhabitant of a wealthy country, I can postpone buying a new car for several years, but the requirements of poor people for subsistence are not so elastic in time. Those who want firewood to cook a meal today will break branches from the last tree standing if they believe that otherwise their children may not surive to lament the absence of trees 20 years hence. In the American legal system, the finiteness of time to satisfy basic human wants is recognized in a phrase: justice delayed is justice denied.

Efforts to satisfy human wants require time, and the time required may be longer than the finite time available to individuals. There is a race between the complexity of the problems that are generated by increasing human numbers and the ability of humans to comprehend and solve those problems. Educating people to solve problems takes time. Developing traditions of stable, productive cooperation takes time. Building institutions with the resources to make educated people into productive problem-solvers takes time. Even with educated, cooperative people and appropriate institutions at hand, understanding and solving problems take still more time.

Re-read the paragraph above twice. The difference between the commentators and Cohen’s and Atanu’s arguments  is that they accept human wants as a given. And secondly, they work with current statistics and situation in many parts of the world. This is not a Malthusian type of argument for sure. It is far bigger than that.

Michael Backman in his latest Age column writes about the issue of population and its connection to greenhouse gases.

WHAT is the ultimate cause of greenhouse gases? Excessive reliance on cars? Coal-fired power stations? Clear-felling forests? The answer is none of these. The ultimate cause is people and population growth.

Having one child with your partner instead of two or more is the biggest contribution to reducing greenhouse gases you can make. Have one child instead of two and you will be directly responsible for cutting your family’s greenhouse gas emissions by about 50% in the next generation.
[...]
Determining which countries have been responsible when it comes to population growth generates a different picture when it comes to developing countries. China is a big and growing greenhouse gas emitter. But it has one of the lowest population growth rates in the region due to the success of its one-child policy and also due to its rising wealth levels — richer people tend to have fewer children.

India, on the other hand, is not yet as big a gas emitter as China. Gas emissions per head are about three times less — but its population is growing much faster than China’s. Its population will overtake China’s in the 2030s, when both countries can be expected to have populations of about 1.5 billion. But South Asia, taken as a whole, is already the clear winner in the population stakes. Had partition not taken place in 1947, then India would have overtaken China for the No. 1 spot years ago. The combined population of pre-partition India today (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) is 1.4 billion, compared with China’s population of 1.3 billion.
[...]
Indeed, the population of pre-partition India is expected to rise by another 900 million people in the first half of this century. Changing to energy-saving light bulbs will be a drop in the ocean compared with this

Money Morning investigates the green tech opportunities flowing from the problems in China.

Money isn’t the only thing flowing through China right now. Pollution has filled the streets, contaminated the rivers and clouded the skies.

Half of China’s population - 600 people to 700 million people - drinks water contaminated by human and animal waste. In fact, 1 billion tons of untreated sewage is dumped into the Yangtze River each year. And, according to a recent study conducted by the World Bank, air pollution causes more than 400,000 premature deaths every year.

With the health of its population fading and global opposition to carbon emissions rising, China has no choice but to address its pollution epidemic. And thanks to a blistering economy and a stockpile of cash reserves, throngs of investors are eager to help Beijing wash away its troubles.
[...]
According to a Cleantech Network report and industry insiders attending the clean energy forum in Beijing, water treatment and energy efficiency projects boast the greatest investment potential.
[...]
Both Guo and Liu agree that the greatest obstacle to solving the nation’s water crisis is economics.

“Artificially low water prices, as well as lack of preferential policies from the central government, mean that it doesn’t make economic sense for companies to adopt costly technologies to improve water usage efficiency and re-utilize wasted water at the moment,” Guo told InterFax.
[...]
The second biggest environmental concern for China is the nation’s suffocating air pollution. So far, China has relied heavily on coal-fired power plants to power its rapid industrial expansion.

Between 2003 and 2006, worldwide coal consumption increased as much as it did in the 23 years prior. China was responsible for 90% of that increase. China used 2.5 billion tons of coal in 2006, more than the next three highest-consuming nations combined. The country is home to more than 2,000 coal-fired power plants, and a new one goes into operation every week.
[...]
The nation’s climate-change program has set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 950 million tons over the next two years. Last week, at the U.N. climate conference in Bali, Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said China’s investment in renewable energy would reach $20 billion this year.

“China is already the world’s factory,” Yang Ailun, climate change program manager at Greenpeace China, told Bloomberg News. “It could be and should be the manufacturing hub of clean technology for the world as well.”
[...]
China-based manufacturers of alternative energy technologies are already taking off in a big way. Companies specializing in alternative energy have seen their stock prices soar. Suntech Power Holdings Co. (STP) has seen its stock price skyrocket by 137% this year. Solarfun Power Holdings Co. (SOLF) has jumped 125%.

Vcs are already there. Large companies like GE are building desalination plants. Suntech’s technology was developed in Australia. More entrepreneurs are looking to China for growth in this area. For individual investors, ETFs can be a possibility. However, figuring out the right value at this time is tough. And there is always the need for people who can understand China and the green tech sector!

From the Eureka Report:

Will China’s growth impact on your investment decisions?

I think China is an absolute powerhouse. The world has underestimated China for far too long even though there are all these platitudes now about how important China will be in the global economy. America has a serious problem because China will emerge as a global power. They have high educational standards and are hard-working people. Their biggest issues will be their inefficient use of resources and a big pollution problem. China is a well of opportunity for energy, which is what my speciality has been, and the energy sector up there has massive potential. I’ve got contacts working in China and I’m constantly monitoring its economic growth. The reason why I haven’t invested to date is that firstly, I don’t have enough money to play in the game up there and secondly, the risk of doing business up there is heightened by the lack of a proper legal system. I think this poor legal system has been their Achilles heel and has really impeded their growth. Compare that with the US, parts of Europe and Australia, which are very rules-based.

What about India?

I think India has huge potential but is a very different scenario to China. It has a very large middle class and an English legal system, which has served them well. It has the same type of potential and issues as China in relation to resources and pollution. I think the biggest problem with India (and this is also happening in Australia) is their huge paper-based bureaucracy.

Businesspeople and entrepreneurs just hate red tape with a passion and the bureaucrats want you to fill in forms all day.

What’s your view on alternative energy investments in Australia like wind farms and solar energy?

Alternative energy is quite limited in Australia because we don’t have the regulatory or economic climate to encourage investment in that direction. We have some of the cheapest electricity in the world down here and that gives no incentive to begin any large-scale alternative energy projects. My experience with the wind farms is a case in point. But on a global scale there are massive opportunities in the sector. I’ve been looking at solar energy and the feeling seems to be that it’s nearly there as an investment opportunity. There are lots of countries getting into alternative energy (including solar), like Brazil, parts of Europe, Germany and Holland. These will turn out to be great investments because people will start to deliberately buy their energy needs from alternative and green sources.

The Australia hosted APEC summit in Sydney has come to an end with 21 world leaders agreeing to “aspirational targets” for cutting down greenhouse gases, and this non-binding agreement is called the “Sydney Declaration”.

Even though condemned by some as lacking any strict targets I think the declaration is meaningful. Considering the scale of change required it is not easy to convince 21 countries to do anything, especially international co-operation on uncertain effects 75 years into the future.

The declaration has the following actions:

In summary, and without prejudice to commitments in other fora, we have decided to:
• highlight the importance of improving energy efficiency by working towards achieving an APEC-wide regional aspirational goal of a reduction in energy intensity of at least 25 per cent by 2030 (with 2005 as the base year);
• work to achieve an APEC-wide aspirational goal of increasing forest cover in the region by at least 20 million hectares of all types of forests by 2020 – a goal which if achieved would store approximately 1.4 billion tonnes of carbon, equivalent to around 11 per cent of annual global emissions (in 2004);
• establish an Asia-Pacific Network for Energy Technology (APNet) to strengthen collaboration on energy research in our region particularly in areas such as clean fossil energy and renewable energy sources;
• establish an Asia-Pacific Network for Sustainable Forest Management and Rehabilitation to enhance capacity building and strengthen information sharing in the forestry sector; and
• further measures in trade in environmental goods and services, aviation transport, alternative and low carbon energy uses, energy security, the protection of marine biological resources, policy analysis capabilities and a co-benefit approach.

It has for the first time made possible for China and the US to agree to some targets and importantly, to work under the current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); thus not creating another rival framework. (Incidentally, China played a major role in this)

John Howard’s experience in the last decade in managing Australia’s greenhouse gases through agri-management has provided the impetus for forest cover targets. In fact, the Stern review has suggested that forestry management (afforestation and reducing deforestation) is a good way to tackle climate change. Considering the costs of changing current economic systems, in the short term this is a valid strategy.

The effort on improving energy intensity is a good one. Even though this may not ultimately reduce actual consumption it will improve the efficiency of all countries involved. The importance of trade of economic and social development is well known. These principles are being supported in the declaration.

This declaration is also a good step forward because it acknowledges that “differences in economic and social conditions among economies” and that this would mean “differentiated responsibilities”. Also the emphasis on adaptation is important. As Schelling has suggested,

The sooner Malaysia can become like Singapore, the sooner it can worry less about the impact of climate change on health, comfort, and productivity.

In that sense, trade and economic development is the key to adaptation for climate change.

More importantly, Schelling talks about inputs and outputs.

One striking contrast between NATO and the Kyoto Protocol deserves emphasis: the difference between “inputs” and “outputs,” or actions and results. NATO nations argued about what they should do, and commitments were made to actions. What countries actually did — raise and train troops; procure equipment, ammunition, and supplies; and deploy these assets geographically — could be observed, estimated, and compared. But results — such as how much each NATO nation’s actions contributed to deterring the Warsaw Pact — could not be remotely approximated.

The Sydney declaration takes a small step towards “inputs” — energy intensity, forest cover, trade barriers, clean technology — and this makes it a valid strategy as it is not possible to guarantee the exact emission reduction (outputs) in 10-15 years.

Overall, I think that the Sydney declaration is a good step forward in tackling climate change.

Chian’s need for development rights in view of climate change:

China said Tuesday it was working hard to increase its use of renewable energy, but needs to be given some leeway in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gasses.
[...]
“I hope the international media will give us some development rights, some development space and not overly blame us,” said Chen Deming, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, China’s top planning agency.
[...]
However, Chen said China shouldn’t be held overly accountable because its has only recently become a major producer, contributing just 9 percent of global CO2 emissions between 1950-2000. China’s per-capita rate of CO2 production also remains low given its population of 1.3 billion, he said.

Chen also reiterated a goal of producing 15 percent of total energy supplies from renewable sources such as wind, hydropower and biofuels by 2020.

A similar argument can be made for India. Thomas Schelling made a strong argument for current economic growth and development as the adaptation plan for developing countries. (Check this link and go down the article where he mentions Singapore)

Incentives matter. China has been promoting and rewarding its local officials around the country based on GDP growth figures. This incentive model has played a part in the creation of the great Chinese growth miracle of the last two decades.

The Age reports that China has changed its incentive model:

CHINA has announced a new promotion system under which local officials’ careers will be judged by their performance in meeting environment protection and energy efficiency targets. The move comes as fears China’s surging economy is overheating and domestic unrest about environmental damage mount.

The State Council, China’s cabinet, is working on an environmental veto system under which green performance will be decisive in determining the futures of Government and Communist Party officials, a senior policymaker has told China Daily, the Government’s English-language newspaper.

This is a good major step taken by China. Even though with a communist background China has been clever enough to use some of the most important principles from Capitalism to drive its economic growth.

It goes back to the idea which Schelling talks about that government’s even though wanting to meet targets and deliver outcomes; the best they can and should do is concentrate on inputs and direction. In this case, the energy efficiency targets set by the central government will be supported by the green incentives to the party members. Hopefully this deliver the required outcomes. The bottomline is that this is a better model than mandating targets.

Pan Yue at China Dialogue writes a two part series on the need and possibilities of sustainable development in China.

From Part 1:

What do we mean by the phrase “green China”? We mean a China that is sustainable, democratic, fair, harmonious and socialist. This conclusion has been reached after many years of struggle. Each word is the distillation of the blood, sweat and tears of several generations. We want to build a green China because green is the colour of life, of sustainability. For something to be called “green” it has to be sustainable – and currently China has yet to achieve sustainability.

The model of economic development that we are currently pursuing is unsustainable. Our energy consumption per unit of GDP is seven times that of Japan, six times that of America, and even 2.8 times that of India. China’s labour productivity is less than 10% of the world total, and yet our emissions are over 10 times higher than the global average.

[...]

Development is a good thing in itself. But it must be integrated development across all areas, not just economic development. Only all-round, coordinated development is a good in itself. We have always taken “development” to mean economic development alone, and this to mean the simple accumulation of wealth. As a result, the pursuit of wealth has become the sole aim of society. In theory, the value of all resources is determined by the market price, but the latent value of scarce resources such as land, water, the environment, and biodiversity has been ignored. Many social resources have been absorbed by projects designed to help people “get rich quick”.

[...]

There are four different ways of approaching the issue of environmental protection: it can be seen as a specialised and isolated field in itself, as an economic issue, as a political and sociological issue, or – at the highest level – as a cultural and ethical issue. In China, we have always looked at the environment as an isolated subject, whereas abroad it is already being treated as a political and sociological issue. In the last few years, the conflict between the environment and the economy has become unprecedentedly intense - the environment has begun to place limits on economic growth, and economic growth has destroyed much of the environment; this has led to our conservation work being rapidly elevated to the economic level.

From Part 2:

Why is environmental protection considered a cultural issue? One of the core principles of traditional Chinese culture is that of harmony between man and nature. Different philosophies all emphasise the political wisdom of a balanced environment. Whether it is the Confucian idea of man and nature becoming one, the Daoist view of the Dao reflecting nature, or the Buddhist belief that all living things are equal, Chinese philosophy has helped our culture to survive for thousands of years. It can be a powerful weapon in preventing an environmental crisis and building a harmonious society.

[...]

A Chinese saying goes: “a sparrow may be small, but it has all five organs.” Similarly, the field of environmental protection is a microcosm of the issues facing China today. Attempts to solve these problems would be useful experiments for transforming China in a wider sense. For example, coming up with an answer to the problem of green production would also help to solve the problem of core competitiveness. Solving the problem of environmental compensation would provide experience for the solution of societal injustices. Establishing a system for democratic environmental decision-making would open paths for reform of the whole system of government. Solving problems of environmental culture could provide a vibrant new ideological system suited to the rise of a green China. It is for these reasons that I say that environmental protection is not a specialised, isolated issue, but an issue that concerns economy, society, politics and culture. It is, in short, a “global complex”. Only by placing the issue in an elevated position can we gain a wide enough visual field to truly understand the importance of environmental protection in today’s China. Only in this way can we understand the need to build a green China and how to go about its construction. One must learn how to participate in public life through a wide variety of channels.

In his Sapientia, a daily newsletter, Keith Hudson tackles some of the toughest questions facing us with a depth and understanding generally un-common. This time he tackles the 4th strategic dialogue between China and the US.

Excerpts from today’s, DAILY QUOTE 471:

…what of global warming? This is already the major concern of Western European countries. But so far there isn’t the faintest scintilla of evidence that either America or China is yet persuaded that man-made carbon dioxide is the major cause of it. It may be that industrial growth is of such huge importance to both countries that they are in ostrich-like denial about any possibility of cramping their style.

It may also be the case that, because some very eminent climatologists still have doubts about the man-made cause of global warming, politicians and administrators are waiting for conclusive evidence. Contrariwise, it may also be that they are indeed already convinced, but that the likely higher sea levels, swamping of seacoast cities, ecological adjustments, human migrations and so forth are judged to be economically bearable while the era of cheap oil and gas reaches its peak during the next 40 years or so. After then it may be calculated that world-wide economic growth will be forced to decline as we move into much more expensive mined-coal or highly expensive solar technologies in order to generate electricity or make transportation fuels.

Some economists — and eminent ones, too — certainly believe that any money likely to be spent on reducing carbon dioxide emissions would be better spent — at least at present and the foreseeable future — on other matters, such as raising the educational standards of all countries.

My own view is that senior administrators in both America and China probably believe that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is making some contribution to global warming even if there are other more fundamental but as yet unknown climatological changes taking place. Furthermore, that there are insufficient energy and other resources in the world that will allow anything more than a fraction of the world population to even approximate to the way of life of, say, half of Americans, half of Western Europeans, most of the Japanese and the middle-class in the coastline provinces of China now enjoy.

All this is quite apart from global warming. Whether this continues or not, the world has already reached its maximum of food production due to freshwater constraints. Furthermore, as noted in a recent Sapientia posting, there is strong evidence from several research groups that there are sufficient minority metal resources of a crucial nature — such as uranium or germanium — to take all the countries of the world into the advanced technologies and the way of life that some in the West (and the coastline of China) already enjoy.

In the current climate change discussions, China and India raise red flags everywhere. The general points are that they are the fastest growing developing countries and hence, their emissions need to be decreased or the growth of emissions needs to be decreased. In fact, Australia and the US claim to not signing the Kyoto Protocol due to the lack of emission reduction targets on China and India.

China and India on the other hand claim their per capita emissions, their poverty and the need for economic development as the drivers for not accepting to targets for CO2 reduction.

One common reason suggested for the worry is that China will eclipse the United States as the leading greenhouse gas emitter soon . The developed countries are looking into the future. However, if you look at the past, it is clear who bears the responsibility. A good way to understand this is the cumulative emissions of countries from 1900 to 2002.

The linked graph shows the cumulative CO2 emissions from 1900 to 2002.

Writing on the logic of doing it, the author suggests:

It does make sense to look at the sum of all CO2 emissions because the lifetime of the greenhouse gases like CO2 in the atmosphere is between 50 and 200 years. The current global warming is an effect of all greenhouse gases put in the atmosphere during the last 100 years, global warming is not just caused by the greenhouse gases emitted this year or last year! This is also one of the reasons why immediate action is required to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, because the effects of the greenhouse gases will last for about 100 years.

A better way to understand the issue is to concentrate on the Top 10 producers of all time.

The US is responsible for 41% of all the emissions for the last hundred years produced by the top 10 countries. China only 11%. India 3%. This puts things in perspective.

(Click the link below for the rest of the entry)

Read the rest of this entry »