文章 Articles

Game-changing China (1)

A novel approach to innovation – where social redefinition of existing technologies is taken as seriously as new inventions – could boost our ability to fight climate change, say David Tyfield, Jin Jun and Tyler Rooker.

Article image

Big hydro, big solar photovoltaic (PV) and big wind – these are the usual focus of accounts of low-carbon technologies in China. But a very different type of innovation, ranging from a farm cooperative in Yunnan, to woodchip and corn pellets in rural Beijing and air-conditioning using just salt and water in Hangzhou and Shenzhen, could be even more significant as examples of how to achieve a low-carbon economy and society for China and the world.

Low-carbon innovation in China is an issue of key global significance. This is not just because of the large and growing carbon footprint of the Chinese economy as a whole, but also because China’s spectacular social and economic growth represents a unique opportunity to develop and roll out low-carbon innovations. China’s capacities in science and innovation are also improving rapidly. And, following the financial crash of 2008, it is clear that China’s growing geopolitical influence has entered a new phase, which will be a crucial determinant of global efforts to respond to climate change.

However, it must not be forgotten that China is still a developing country. Indeed, just as the United States economy (let alone its military) continues overwhelmingly to dominate all other countries and is still over twice the size of China’s with a population one-fifth as big, caution is needed not to exaggerate the current strength of China’s science and innovation.

In particular, hi-tech innovation capacities, while undoubtedly improving, are still comparatively modest in most sectors. Despite (or rather, precisely because of) these modest capacities, China’s current policy regarding low-carbon innovation focuses squarely on hi-tech innovation. To be sure, this focus is achieving some significant successes, such as China’s global solar PV companies or its leading coal combustion technologies. But these alone, even where they are widely adopted (and over 90% of Chinese PV is currently exported), will be unable to produce the wholesale transition to low-carbon systems that is needed.

One form of low-carbon innovation that offers considerable opportunities, but that is usually overlooked is “disruptive innovation”. Disruptive innovation challenges many of our common assumptions about innovation. As originally developed by US business professor Clayton Christensen and applied to low-carbon innovation by a previous report by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA), disruptive innovation involves “cheaper, easier-to-use alternatives to existing products or services often produced by non-traditional players that target previously ignored customers” and/or use in novel contexts and combinations. It is primarily characterised by a social redefinition of a technology, as opposed to improvement of the technology along established trajectories. Disruptive innovation will likely offer lower than cutting-edge functionality, according to established definitions, but for different uses and to neglected customers.

As set out in a report by the United Kingdom’s Royal Academy of Engineering in March, the exceptionally tight time constraints for the necessary low-carbon transition mean that “only the low-carbon technologies that are already known can make a significant contribution to meeting the 2050 targets. They are already in the marketplace, close to it or close to being demonstrated at scale.” In short, we must do the best with what we have.

But from the perspective of disruptive innovation, which makes use of just such established technologies, this maximisation of climate impact need not be limited to current uses and familiar sectoral definitions of these technologies. Rather, disruptive innovation offers a potential route to substantial improvements in the societal impact of low-carbon technologies that is not dependent on their radical technological upgrade.

This argument becomes even more important in the case of China. This is not just because China’s capacities for hi-tech, low-carbon innovation are not yet fully developed, as demonstrated by the continuing dominance of intellectual-property ownership of major low-carbon technologies by OECD-based – developed-world based – companies. But also because Chinese companies are already transforming global competition through their low-cost disruptive innovations, as business scholars Ming Zeng and Peter Williamson have shown.

For instance, Haier has developed a range of fridges with relatively low-tech adaptations that serve a variety of niche, but highly profitable, markets, including student rooms (doubling up as desks) and wine collectors. Similarly, China International Marine Containers Group (CIMC) has achieved unrivalled global dominance in their industry through a low-cost strategy. Other examples of successful low-cost disruptive innovators include car company Chery, piano maker Pearl River, consumer electronics maker TCL, computer company Dawning and port-equipment manufacturer ZPMC. The list goes on and on.

While these and other examples listed by Zeng and Williamson are not low-carbon innovators (at least not in all cases and not yet), high profile examples of the latter are increasingly apparent. BYD is using its global leadership in battery manufacturing and technology to develop low-cost electric cars and has won the attention (and investment) of legendary investor, Warren Buffett. Himin Group is now a global leader in solar-thermal technology, a sector dominated as a whole by Chinese companies.

By focusing on low-cost products and services for the Chinese market, this also has the advantage of developing technologies that are appropriate not only for Chinese society but for other developing countries worldwide. And with over 70% of total costs of abatement and hence low-carbon investment to 2050 likely to come from developing countries, servicing this market would also be to focus on the major business opportunity, not merely to make a virtue of necessity by targeting secondary sources of demand.

A policy that effectively supports the existing Chinese competitive strength of disruptive low-carbon innovation would also expedite a Chinese low-carbon systems transition, responding to the unprecedented timescale. Conversely, banking primarily on the improvement of hi-tech innovation capacities will incur substantial (and climatically consequential) delays, given the need to develop institutional, social and cultural conditions that are hard to short-circuit.

Similarly, incorporating disruptive low-carbon innovation into policy could support a broader public redefinition of low-carbon, away from its current identification with expensive equipment. This tends to embed a perceived opposition between low-carbon innovation and socio-economic development and hence to slow down the former, while it is clear that a low-carbon shift must attend to both. China cannot and must not be forced to choose between “environment” and “economy”, and disruptive low-carbon innovation is an important way to sidestep this false choice.

Finally, disruptive innovation offers the most plausible route to establishing world-beating companies, while simply pursuing existing leaders directly through hi-tech improvements along established pathways sets up a perpetual game of “catch-up”. Globally competitive hi-tech companies may be more effectively fostered by sponsoring disruptive low-cost innovations than by focusing on high-technology itself. This has significant implications for national economic growth as much as it does for business strategy, and this, in turn, is crucial for China’s low-carbon shift.


NEXT: Learning by example


This is a summary of the report “Game changing China: Lessons from China about Disruptive Low-Carbon Innovation”. It was commissioned by the UK’s National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) and written by David Tyfield (Lancaster University), Jin Jun (Zhejiang University) and Tyler Rooker (Oxford University). It is summarised and used here with permission.

Homepage image by bzuberi
 

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

中文文头编者加注的文章概述和原文似乎有很大出入

“对创新的盲目追求,导致已有的技术被当作新发明一样追捧,田大卫、金珺和陆泰来认为,这有可能夸大我们对抗气候变化的能力。”这是加注在中文译文前的文章概述。这和英文概述的内容大相径庭,也和文章本身想要强调“颠覆性技术革新”将会给科技减碳带来更大空间的主张也不太一致。

The note added by the editor in the outline of the article and the original seem to have a big difference

"The blind pursuit of innovation, resulting in existing technology being sought after as a new invention, say David Tyfield, Jin Jun and Tyler Rooker, may magnify our ability to fight climate change." This note was added to the summary in the beginning of the Chinese translated article. It is very different from the content of the English summary and also is not consistent with the article's original emphasis that the idea of "disruptive innovation" will give carbon reduction technology more space.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

二氧化碳是人类生存的基础

二氧化碳是人类生存的基础,这是一个最简单的事实。目前,全球变化确实对人类带来巨大影响,但其机理远为复杂。不要简单拿碳说事。

人类的进步与创新,是在保持良好地球资源与环境的基础之上使自己过得更好。不要简单拿碳说事。

CO2, Basis To Human Survival

CO2 is the basis of survival for humans. It is the most simple fact. Currently, global climate change has indeed made a huge influence on human beings, but its mechanism is very complicated. We can't just blame it on carbon.

Human progress and innovation is based on maintaining a balance between earth resources and the environment to make our lives better. We can't just blame it on carbon.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

引人入胜的话题

多么引人入胜的话题,如果足够多的国家/公司予以重视的话,可以引发一场范例性变革。

(本评论由荆华Hua Jing-Legrand翻译)

What a fascinating subject

What a fascinating subject - it could provoke a paradigm shift if enough countries/firms pursued the idea.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

一个成本低,奏效快,世界通用及效率高的缓解策略

最为可靠最为廉价又最有颠覆性的策略将是公布有关我们消费产品生命周期及其供应企业的可靠信息。

这或许会导致我们伸缩我们的购买能力,迅速停止进口那些与大量温室气体排放相连的被淘汰的不可循环使用的产品。

控制汽车和电脑将会是一个好的起点。

Translated by Xuan LUO

An inexpensive, quick, universal and effective mitigation strategy

Much the most certain, low-cost and disruptive strategy would be to publish credible information about the life cycle of the products which we consume - and the entreprises which are involved in their supply.

This would probably result in us flexing our purchasing power muscle and ceasing to import rapidly obsolescent, non-recyclable products associated with substantial green house gas emissions.

Cars and computers would be a good start.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

可持续购物

正如评论4所说,消费者有强大的力量,但并不了解情况。为了使人们理智购物,有必要在包装上表明产品的生命周期信息。这个主意很简单(我是个老师,每个学期都以此为主题讲一节课),但我不知道怎样将其变为现实。当然,政府(准确说是联合国)应该制定有关法律。或许作为现今“绿色革命”中的领头羊,中国可以成为第一个实施此类法律的国家。有人知道胡锦涛的Email么?我们可以把这个主意发给他。

Sustainable Shopping

As comment 4 suggested, the consumer is all powerful but often doesn't know it. In order for people to shop wisely it is necessary for the life cycle information of products be made available on the packaging. It is so simple (I am a teacher and every semester devote a class to this idea) but I don't know how to implement the idea. Of course, the governments (in fact, the UN) should make laws mandating this. Perhaps China, which is now the leading player in the "green revolution" could be the first country to do it. Who has Hu Jintao's email address so we can send him the idea?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

另一个视角值得关注

另一个视角值得关注。但是报告本身陈述了几个案例让人深思报告的作者是什么利益集团的代表。

来自新浪微博

Another point of view that deserves attention

Another point of view that deserves attention. However, the report itself gives some examples that could make people wonder whose interests the author is trying to represent.

From t.sina.com.cn