It's just a PR spin, a feel good cover story. China is building coal plants as fast as they can. The whole planet will have to adapt or die as the climate changes. Energy consumption= quality of life, no one wants to live with less or have someone else live with more. So long Maldives, we hardly knew ya. China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired power plants need to be installed as well. Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials have turned to coal-fired power as a backup. China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
I meant heavy dependence on oil and other non-regenerable resources in economic development. Politically, I also don't see China will follow the exact same path of US, but that's another topic for another day.
I will agree that China's motivation in developing green technologies largely lies in economic concerns, not environmental.
Anybody's motivations for anything in this world will be based on the economy first. Witness the foot-dragging by the US on Kyoto and the oilsands quagmire.
Did I say largely? And I don't agree with your overreaching statement "Anybody's motivations for anything in this world will be based on the economy first". Missionaries are economically motivated? Many artists creates impulsively irregardless of being financially rewarded or not. And lastly, many countries are going green solely out of environmental concerns.
Forget about China's population and think about how much money they will make selling it to the world's population. The technology boom created new household names of companies that most people didn't know existed. Microsoft, Amazon, and Google operate on a global scale. The green technology revolution won't be just about local production. We could be the laggard or the leader. The leader will buy out the smaller foreign companies and acquire their patents and future profits.
Sometimes it's easier for a developing nation to go "green" (ie. use the newest technologies). They don't have existing stuff that needs to be torn down, etc.
I read this about a month ago. Link U.S. Company and China Plan Solar Project By TODD WOODY Published: September 8, 2009 Chinese government officials signed an agreement on Tuesday with First Solar, an American solar developer, for a 2,000-megawatt photovoltaic farm to be built in the Mongolian desert. Set for completion in 2019, the First Solar project represents the world’s biggest photovoltaic power plant project to date, and is part of an 11,950-megawatt renewable-energy park planned for Ordos City in Inner Mongolia. The memorandum of understanding between Chinese officials and First Solar, the world’s largest photovoltaic cell manufacturer, would open a potentially vast solar market in China and follows the Chinese government’s recent moves to accelerate development of renewable energy. When completed, the Ordos solar farm would generate enough electricity to power about three million Chinese homes, according to First Solar. First Solar, based in Tempe, Ariz., is also likely to build a factory in China to make thin-film solar panels, said Mike Ahearn, the company’s chief executive. “It is significant that a non-Chinese company can land something like this in China,” Mr. Ahearn said in an interview. Most proposed large-scale solar projects use solar thermal technology, which deploys mirrors to heat a liquid to create steam that drives an electricity-generating turbine. But as photovoltaic technology becomes more cost-competitive, utilities are turning to companies like First Solar for big solar power farms. Such projects generally have fewer environmental impacts and can be brought online faster than solar thermal plants. “This is nuclear power-size scale,” Mr. Ahearn said of the China project. “A two-gigawatt solar project, if this is connected and is economical at the grid level, demonstrates that solar on a large scale really does work.” Financial terms of the agreement have yet to be reached and will depend on China completing a feed-in tariff that pays a premium for electricity generated by renewable energy projects. First Solar said the 2,000-megawatt power plant would cost $5 billion to $6 billion if built in the United States today, but it said the cost to build such a project in China would probably be lower. The Ordos agreement is the latest large-scale solar farm deal that First Solar has signed in recent months as it expands its business from manufacturing solar modules to building power plants. The company also has agreed to supply two California utilities with 1,100 megawatts of electricity from three big solar farms. “Discussions with First Solar about building a factory in China demonstrate to investors in China that they can confidently invest in the most advanced technologies available,” Cao Zhichen, vice mayor of Ordos Municipal Government, said in a statement. Until the announcement of the Ordos project, the largest single photovoltaic power plant was the 550-megawatt Topaz solar farm to be built by First Solar in California. As solar panel prices continue to fall and projects like Ordos bring further economies of scale, photovoltaic farms are expected to become more competitive with solar thermal power plants. China is home to a blossoming solar industry thanks to generous government support. But Chinese companies like Suntech, the world’s third-largest solar module maker, export most of their products. First Solar’s cadmium telluride solar cells are less efficient at converting sunlight into electricity than standard crystalline silicon cells made by companies like Suntech but they can be manufactured at a significantly lower cost. “Given that China has built up homegrown companies like Suntech, it’s quite significant that they’re importing a U.S. world leader to the marketplace,” said Nathaniel Bullard, a solar analyst at New Energy Finance, a London market research firm. “This is going to help ensure technological leadership and not just manufacturing leadership.” Suntech formed a venture last year to build solar power plants in the United States and has announced plans to open a factory in the Southwest. A high-ranking Chinese official, Wu Bangguo, chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China, attended the signing of the First Solar agreement in Arizona on Tuesday. The memorandum of understanding is just the first step in what is likely to be a long and complicated process to build such a gargantuan solar power plant in a country with little experience in constructing such projects. “The ability to predict solar energy yields off these systems to make accurate financial predictions isn’t in place yet in China,” Mr. Ahearn said. Plans for the Ordos renewable energy park call for wind farms to generate 6,950 megawatts, photovoltaic power plants to provide 3,900 megawatts and solar thermal farms to supply 720 megawatts. Biomass operations, fueled by organic materials like wood chips and straw, will contribute 310 megawatts; 70 megawatts will be available from hydro storage, a load-balancing technology that uses off-peak power to pump water to a high reservoir from which it can be released to turn turbines at peak demand periods. First Solar will have to establish a supply chain to provide power inverters and other hardware needed for its part of the project as well as train Chinese contractors how to build and operate solar farms. Another hurdle is that China must upgrade its transmission system to connect the solar power plant to the grid. Mr. Ahearn said it was probable that a Chinese utility would ultimately own and run the 16,000-acre solar power plant. The agreement calls for ground to be broken on the first 30-megawatt phase of the project by June 1, 2010, followed by 100-megawatt and 870-megawatt additions to be completed by the end of 2014. A final 1,000-megawatt phase is scheduled to go online by Dec. 31, 2019.
Fine, replace anybody with any country or corporation. Though, the law largely works for individuals as well, because we've all been raised in a capitalist environment (the Chinese children of today will have this pleasure as well!) And I highly doubt most countries are going green with the primary concern being the environment. Their primary concern is the economical disaster that will occur when the environment goes down the crapper; water refugees, resource wars, natural disasters/drought etc. How is it that we are now only addressing these issues after they have been been proven to have a direct effect on us? Would the impetus for this be as strong if the effects were remote and of little significance to humans or more importantly for countries, resources?
Sam, you're just being ridiculous now. Stop coming into every thread about China and just make snide comments with unrelated subjects (Basso and TJ are rubbing off on you). China has a ton of work ahead of them, but they are making steps in the right direction overall.
Wrong again, your qualified position. These days a specie of corporations zealously promote social responsibility. They firmly believe giving back to the public even w/o helping corporate's bottom line is OK. Starbucks, whole foods, name a few. And I don't see how you can put economic motives behind every gov't policy. Your statement is just absurd. You suppose National Art endowment foundation has a economic motive when it gives out fund to artists? I don't understand your "law" statement and don't see the nexus to our topic. That's why I said largely. Of course any environmental measure will have effect on future economy, no doubt about that, that's not the argument. I however argue some countries that go forward w/ expensive green technologies are not motivated by economic concerns for the future, but solely for the benefit of environment and the public of today.
This has a name. It's called the socially responsible marketing orientation and it bases itself on an extension of the marketing concept of anticipating and meeting consumer needs. In this case, there's a consumer need for greater social responsibility so some companies deliver. Voila. If there were no such needs, very few corporations would take a cut of their bottom line to address anything. After all, they exist to make profit; that is the stated ultimate goal of EVERY corporation. Nobody founds a corporation to do cause marketing. They may base elements of it on social responsibility, but the ultimate goal is to use these elements to achieve profit. Not passing judgment on the situation (at least not in this topic, since then we're really going off on a tangent), just calling it as it is. Non-profits are obviously a different case. As for countries, yes, I'd argue that a large part of every decision is based on the economy. You can try to throw out all these "out there", exceptional examples of tax money going to supposedly non-economic causes, but I'll provide the links for you. For example, the National Art foundation not only directly provides jobs for the artists in question, it also stimulates the growth of related industries such as, for example, paint stores. It also creates a certain culture and prestige for the country in question which can be used to attract highly-qualified individuals into the labor force. Then you have a better view of gouvernment then I do.
Again, as I said already, some corporate directors believe giving back to the public w/o helping corporate bottom line whatsoever is OK and they are doing so. [/QUOTE] As for countries, yes, I'd argue that a large part of every decision is based on the economy. [/QUOTE] Good, no quarrel there.
I highly doubt this. Of course they'll say it like that, but the PR and brand awareness/affection you gain through such actions invariably are helping the bottom line...and I know most corporate executives are smart enough to realize that.
This reads to me like an idealist's vision of corporations. If someone truly believes that there are companies out there who believe more in their customer's happiness then their loyalty and their money, who am I to spoil their dream? That said, I just don't subscribe to this idea at all. From the (admittedly limited) experience I have in both the theoretical and practical aspects of the business world, this just doesn't hold any water for me.
Well, Milton Friedman didn't even agree with "socially responsible marketing orientation". He basically argued that Corporate officers should only do what they know best, i.e. maximizing profits for share holders and tax returns to the gov't. Let each share holder in its individual capacity decides how to benefit the society with that money and let the gov't decide how to improve the country with tax revenues. I think from economic perspective, that view makes a lot sense. But corporate law says directors could donate corporate money to their choice of causes as long as it's not self-dealing and the size of donation is reasonable. Profit-making goal is not a requirement by the law in this area.
