文章 Articles

Towards a new energy economy

How would China fare if “carbon tariffs” were introduced in the rich world? Dou Guanyi and Jiang Gaoming argue such tariffs would be unfair, but government action in the Chinese countryside could plant the seeds of green renewal.

Article image

Steven Chu, the United States energy secretary, has said that if other countries do not impose carbon dioxide emissions reductions, then the US would be open to introducing a carbon tariff – an import tax specifically imposed on energy-intensive products. If the US, the European Union and Japan, were to introduce such a tariff, China’s products would no longer have their low-cost advantage, and China would lose out economically to rich nations. This might appear fair for the sake of global competition, but in reality it would strangle China’s economic development. The size of the levy – and the consequences for Chinese development – would be the decision of rich nations. China would only be able to reduce its prices.

This would be unfair. Developed nations have polluted the environment and released carbon dioxide for two centuries, compared to China’s five decades of modernisation. Capital accumulation in the west was a dark period, from the Inclosure Acts, the plunder of the Americas and Africa, the slave trade and the exploitation of coolie labour, to the Opium Wars and the invasion of China by the Eight-Nation Alliance. History shows that the rich nations’ development was built on plunder. Now China is expected to fall in line with the environmental policies of the developed world.

China cannot support carbon tariffs or a carbon currency: no manufacturing nation in the process of industrialisation could. An American carbon tariff would be disastrous and would spark a trade war.

China should now increase domestic market demand to reduce the over-reliance on export markets, and put in place the new energy systems that the country urgently needs. China has two options for addressing the problem: a comprehensive reordering of domestic energy prices to increase the adoption of energy-saving and environmentally-friendly manufacturing methods; or the acquisition of cheap raw materials from overseas to act as a hidden subsidy for our leading manufacturers.

Over the past three decades, Special Economic Zones have been established to trigger and pioneer economic development. But to date, these zones have all been “high-carbon economic zones”; China does not yet have any real “low-carbon economic zones”. There is no time to waste in pushing forward this low-carbon development. The example of clean-energy vehicles, presented below, is one way that China can face the challenge.

China produced 1,000 megawatts of solar photovoltaic cells in 2007, more than any other country. But the industry’s reliance on overseas markets, both for sales and the acquisition of raw materials, mean there is no real domestic market for solar power. Nine-tenths of the solar photovoltaic sector relies on overseas markets; the global financial crisis has therefore dealt the industry a heavy blow.

At the same time, rural China has 20 million agricultural vehicles and tractors, and 40 million motorcycles, far higher than the numbers in urban areas. These “five small vehicles”: lorries, tractors, diesel-powered three-wheelers, small trucks and motorcycles, are all heavy polluters. The most effective way to break the carbon stranglehold would be to develop solar energy plants to power electric replacements for these fossil-fuel-burning vehicles.

This year the Chinese government has allocated five billion yuan (US$732 million) in subsidies for rural residents to discard their three-wheelers and low-powered trucks, in favour of light trucks or passenger vehicles with engines of 1.3-litres or smaller. But true popularisation of vehicles in rural areas will only start when they are an agricultural necessity, rather than a luxury. Light electric-powered vehicles have taken off in China; 50 million are on the roads today. A huge industry has been created in only 10 years. This can be the foundation for an electric vehicle manufacturing sector, producing vehicles costing 20,000 yuan (US$2,927) that can reach speeds of 50 kilometres per hour, which weigh less than 500 kilograms and use 10 kWh (five yuan) of electricity to travel 100 kilometres.

Vehicle-related industries employ 17% of China’s workforce. Strong growth in electric vehicles will spur domestic market demand and job creation; it is thus a crucial way to help China come out from the global financial crisis into the lead. China’s ministry of science and technology plans to have 10% of the country’s vehicle output powered by new energy in the next four to five years. Policy support for replacing agricultural vehicles with a new generation of transport will increase sales and spur the domestic market. Replacing 10 million agricultural vehicles with green vehicles that can be used in both rural and urban settings could provide 20 million jobs and create 200 billion yuan (US$29 billion) in spending.

Currently, China’s electric vehicles run on coal-fired electricity, and electric vehicles charged with coal power are even larger sources of carbon emissions than traditional vehicles. According to the EU’s Joint Research Centre, running electric vehicles on coal power would result in double the greenhouse-gas emissions of petrol- or diesel-powered vehicles. China’s ministry of finance currently plans to invest 20 billion yuan (US$2.9 billion) in manufacturing one million electric vehicles by 2010, but today these would be high-carbon “coal-powered” vehicles. Not only are solar and wind power clean forms of power, but also wind farms can provide large amounts of surplus electricity overnight, which is suitable for charging electric vehicles. The key to the large-scale use of electric vehicles – and the development of a low-carbon economy – is the use of wind and solar power to replace coal-powered electricity generation.  

The Obama administration’s US$787 billion stimulus package includes investment in smart power grids, more efficient vehicles, wind and solar power. This recognises the potential in a new energy economy to end economic decline, create employment and take the lead in strategically-important industries of the future. Meanwhile, the most important matter for China is the countryside: using rural demand to drive the economy, instead of American consumers. The first task in the development of electric vehicles is to replace dangerous and polluting agricultural vehicles with green electric equivalents. Congestion in many cities means that electric bikes can be banned. Urban residents may be able to afford a 20,000-yuan electric car, but not every household has somewhere to charge it. Thus the main market for low-end electric vehicles will be in the rural areas, not the cities.

The Chinese government actively promotes vehicle use in rural areas. A preferential policy for the replacement of agricultural vehicles with electric equivalents, powered by the sun, would have a revolutionary impact on China’s vehicle sector. Market size would increase and there would be major changes in the direction of growth, product structure, sales network and capital structure. Moreover, there would be a huge increases in sales, a boost to the domestic vehicle market and an effective solution to our carbon emissions.

Dou Guanyi is head of Publicity at the Nantong branch of the Jiusan Society.

Jiang Gaoming is
a professor and Ph.D. tutor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Botany. He is also vice secretary-general of China Society of Biological Conservation and board member of China Environmental Culture Promotion Association. He is known for his concepts of "urban vegetation" and allowing damaged ecosystems to recover naturally.

Homepage photo by >>>Silly Rabbit, Trix are for Kids<<<


Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous




Tariffs would, of course, be unfair. But in truth I cannot see any US administration introducing them in the near future. It would be suicidal to destroy Chinese goodwill given how interdependent the American and Chinese economies are.

Instead we can only hope that together they take advantage of interdependence to cooperate on development of low-carbon technologies.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Calling into question light-duty electric vehicles

Can the manufacturing and spread of light-duty electric vehicles really be considered as a new type of green industry? Has not data already extensively demonstrated the detrimental effects this industry has on our resources and environment? When considering electric vehicles as possible replacements for their heavy polluting, fossil-fuel-burning counterparts we should not just look at the fact that the vehicles themselves do not produce carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, we should take electric vehicles' entire production and supply chains into consideration. The assembling, handling and transporting of these vehicles also eats away at our already limited natural resources. The fact that electric vehicles require demolishing and recycling should also be kept in mind when thinking about them as greener solutions to our transportation needs. Does promoting the diffusion of light-duty electric vehicles really amount to taking a step closer to a new green economy?
Translated by Vanessa Liberson

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous


Liu Guo

Which kind of vehicle produces higher carbon emissions?

The above-quoted "Running electric vehicles on coal power would result in double the greenhouse gas emissions of petrol- or diesel-powered vehicles.
Does the author have any data to back up this conclusion? Where is the relevant data available for the greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles and fuel-powered vehicles for 100km’s travel respectively (calculating the electricity consumption of electric vehicles in terms of coal-generated electricity? I have been looking for such data, but haven't found it so far. – Liu Guo
(translated by Yang Bin)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous





2、“倍增充电”电动汽车 (见附件:专利说明书)

(九三学社南通市委 窦观一 2009年6月11日 电话85169893)

Plan new energry development scientifically in urban and rural areas as a whole

Dou Guanyi: plan new energry development scientifically in urban and rural areas as a whole

1. The wind power sector is expanding rapidly in China, but the rural areas should be embraced in the new energy development. Wind power generation occupies a lot of land, in which biomass pool and plantation can be established at the same time near or beneath the power station. “Wind power and biomass” stations can exert an effect that new energy industry nurtures agriculture and city supports rural areas, which saves not only the land and power facility, but also the investment of capital.
3. The storage battery device totally takes up the room of back seat in the electric motor car, and the price cost as mush as 2.5 times as the common automobile. Small cars can run more than 600kms on 50 liters gas; while the storage battery device of the electrical motor car weighs at least 1 to 2 tons, and produces so much heat that almost burns the passengers. So it is urgent to manufacture the multiplication electric car that will drive 600 kms every charge which is 4 times more than a normal electrical car.
4. In the mass promotion of electrical car, another problem is the battery recycling. Every electrical car consumes 15kgs lithium, and every year the alternative fuels automobile eats up 1 million tons of lithium. However, in 2007, the world output of lithium was 2.5 million tons.
5. The straw incineration has been a "big headache" for long time. FAO reported that "There are two to three factors polluting the global environment, and cattle is one of major factors.” The CO2 emitted by 1.05 billion cows is up to 18% of global CO2 emissions. Such pollution is higher than the emissions coming from exhaust fumes. If we use 0.3 billion tons of straw to produce fodder that reduces the cattle fume emission, (topinambur, sweet sorghum), greenhouse gases will consequently decrease, and save 0.5~1.2 tons of food, which is equal to add grain land.
6. Each year in China animals produce 3 billion tons of manure, which is a major pollution source in rural areas. If we grow energy plants such as topinambur and sweet sorghum next to wind power station, and generate methane in farm to replace the liquid gas, the wasteland of wind power station will turn into “natural gas mine”, “biofuel” and “ organic fertilizer plant”, and take the place of coal fired power generation and automotive gas oil.
7. Owing to the excessive application of fertilizer, CO2 and CH4 emission are accelerated dramatically. The land which uses fertilizer exclusively emits CH4 three times more than those blending the fertilizer with pig manure, and seven times more than those using no fertilizer at all. Biomass pools and plantations can be built around the wind station and barren land. Huge amounts of the waste of methane can be used to replace chemical fertilizer. This not only lessen the greenhouse gas, but also improve output of low to medium crop land.
9. The Chicago Climate Exchange opened in US in 2003. Oakland city and the Chicago Climate Exchange promoted the emission rights to those member enterprises with good credit and took the revenue as bonus and reward of pollution abatement. If a member broke its promises, it had to pay $3.5 emission cost per ton of CO2. As for China, we should learn from the experience of the Chicago Climate Exchange, and launch “wind power and methane” power stations, the methane pool waste replacement of fertilizer and solar energy application upon old farmhouses. We should transform the “carbon emission credit” of straw, cattle waste, organic fertilizer and dangerous farmhouses which consume too much energy into a kind of “currency” as soon as possible, set “the demonstration destinations and special regions of carbon currency trading” and establish relationship with Oakland city in US as "carbon-reduction cities".

Effective projects to be enacted in cities and rural areas that require little investment:

1. “Wind power and methane” power station
2. The multiplication electric car (see the attached file: Patent Specification )
3. The fodder that reduce the cattle fume emission (see the attached file: Patent Specification )
4. The demonstration destinations using methane waste as fertilizer to replace chemical one.
5. The recycling and landfill plan of used batteries
6. The promotion of the solar heater, fiber or residue materials to establish energy saving houses and villages
7. The establishment of the demonstration destinations of carbon trading
8. Establishing relationships with US cities as "carbon-reduction cities".

By Dou Guanyi, from Jiusan association and municipal party committee of Nantong city, 2009.6.11, Tel: 85169893
Translated by Tian Liang

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous




Mr.Jiang, the author, is really omnipresent, I can read your article almost anywhere. Plus, these articles, whatever the topic, are really professional.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Carbon tax, not carbon tariff

In my opinion, it should be carbon tax rather than carbon tariff. Yet, it is difficult to formulate the collection standards.