091100 the economist debate all pages by JUCCCE

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US

Friday October 19th 2012

Site feedback Manufacturing and the West Upcoming debates Past debates

China and the US

This house believes that China is showing more leadership than America in the fight against climate change ENTER THIS DEBATE

Summary

Opening (70 comments)

Tuesday November

Latest updates

Statements

Wednesday November

Guest

Rebuttal (63 comments)

Thursday November

Guest

Friday November Statements

Monday November Guest

Closing (26 comments)

Tuesday December

Guest

Wednesday December Statements

Thursday December Guest

Post-debate

Friday December Decision

How an Economist debate works

Post-debate

About this debate China and America agree that climate change needs to be tackled. But they are proceeding very differently. China combines a semicapitalist economy with a commandandcontrol political leadership that can order solar panels to be installed when it chooses to. And indeed China has made ambitious strides in adding clean power to its mix. But it also is the world's biggest greenhousegas emitter, and on current trends is set to go on growing its emissions until 2020 or 2030, as it continues to add dirty power alongside its clean power.

Do you agree with the motion?

70%

30%

voted yes

voted no

This debate has finished. Voting is now closed.

Voting at a glance 67% 73% 74% 74% 73% 74% 74% 72% 71% 70%

50% 33% DAY

27% 26% 26% 27% 26% 26% 28% 29% 30%

Representing the sides

Defending the motion

Comments from the floor Post-debate phase Most recommended | View all (0)

No one has commented on this phase yet.

America, by contrast, saw its emissions peak in 2005, and has cap andtrade legislation in the pipeline. But America's often dysfunctional political system means that passage remains far from guaranteed, this year or any year. And the transition from George W. Bush to Barack Obama was not enough to put the needed momentum behind a comprehensive deal in Copenhagen. Mr Obama may believe in the need to do something, but is the rest of his country really ready, willing and able? Which of the world's two biggest greenhousegasemitting countries, China or America, is really showing the most global leadership?

Peggy Liu Chairperson of JUCCCE

The world is looking to the United States and China to lead the way out of our climate change conundrum. We are a long way from a sustainable world, but China has climbed farther up the hill than the United States in a few short years. READ MORE

Background reading America, China and climate change: Let's agree to agree Economics focus: Green with envy Notsowonderful Copenhagen A special report on China and America: The price of cleanliness

Against the motion

Globalwarming diplomacy: Bangkok blues

Mr Max Schulz

Capandtrade: The road to 60

Senior fellow, Manhattan Institute's Center for Energy Policy and the Environment

Climate change and the UN: Nice words Climate change talks: Wanted: fresh air

www.economist.com/debate/overview/158

1/2

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US

Current debates

Upcoming debates

Recent debates

Manufacturing and the West "Will manufacturing return to the West?"

The next debate hasn't been scheduled yet. Sign up for email alerts, and an Economist moderator will remind you when the next one begins.

India's economy "As economic growth slows, is India losing its way?" Home-ownership "Should home-ownership be discouraged?" VIEW ALL PAST DEBATES

About The Economist online

About The Economist

Media directory

Staff books

www.economist.com/debate/overview/158

Career opportunities

Advertising info

Legal disclaimer

Accessibility

Site feedback Terms of use

Help

2/2

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

Friday October 19th 2012

Site feedback Manufacturing and the West Upcoming debates Past debates

China and the US

This house believes that China is showing more leadership than America in the fight against climate change ENTER THIS DEBATE

Summary

Opening (70 comments)

Tuesday November

Latest updates

Statements

Wednesday November

Guest

Thursday November Guest

Rebuttal (63 comments)

Friday November Statements

Closing (26 comments)

Monday November Guest

Tuesday December Guest

Wednesday December Statements

Thursday December Guest

Post-debate

Friday December

Decision

How an Economist debate works

Print Print with comments This debate is archived. This page was orginally published on 24-November-2009. View the current and future debates.

Opening statements

This debate has finished. Voting is now closed.

Defending the motion Peggy Liu Chairperson of JUCCCE

Against the motion Mr Max Schulz Senior fellow, Manhattan Institute's Center for Energy Policy and the Environment

Moderator

Pro

Con

The moderator's opening remarks

Nov 24th 2009 | Robert Lane Greene

It is hard to improve on this statement of Christina Larson, from Foreign Policy, so I won't try: "China is paradoxically home to some of the blackest rivers and greenest ambitions on the planet, but it also has the world’s best and worst record on global warming." When you hear people in the United States talk about China, you hear two different descriptions of the Middle Kingdom. One is the filthy polluter that will snatch all of America's jobs as soon as America puts a cap (and thereby a price) on carbon. The other is of a country that is adding gigawatts of renewable power, like the recent announcement a huge windfarm in Inner Mongolia, with what looks like admirable determination. The United States, long a land of paradoxes, can be described the same way. It has given over its claim to the title of world's biggest greenhouse-gas emitter, now China's dubious honour. But it is still the second-biggest emitter, and as a rich country has responsibility for much of the carbon dioxide already in the air. We must remember that it is the total CO2, not the annual emissions, that matter, since carbon dioxide takes hundreds of years to leave the atmosphere. And America has dragged its feet on legislation. The cap-and-trade bill in the Senate may now not see floor debate until spring, three months after what was supposed to be a treatywriting conference in Copenhagen, which is now expected only to produce a political agreement. But there are plenty of bright spots in America, too. Emissions peaked in 2005. States and companies are moving where the federal government has not. Many states

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/417

1/8

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

already have renewable-energy portfolio mandates. Texas recently hit a record high of 25% of its power produced by wind (albeit in the middle of the night). Most important, America remains a technical leader in a way that China is not: if there is a breakout technology, it is still more likely to come from Silicon Valley than Shanghai. So which country is really doing more to avert climate catastrophe? Of course the question isn't a clear zero-sum, either-or, since some developments will help both— and the rest of the world to boot. But both countries' emissions also contribute to what, remember, is global warming: greenhouse gases do not respect borders. Peggy Liu starts us off by pointing us to many eye-catching numbers relating to China's emissions, and Max Schulz does much the same, but with Chinese coal consumption. Since the debate is about whether China or America is doing more to show global leadership, I hope both participants will put some detail into how they see America's, not just China's, policies.

Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The proposer's opening remarks

Nov 24th 2009 | Peggy Liu

The House argues that China is "doing more" against climate change than the United States. The world is looking to the United States and China to lead the way out of our climate change conundrum. We are a long way from a sustainable world, but China has climbed farther up the hill than the United States in a few short years. After patiently waiting for the United States to take the lead, China is now rapidly moving forward to show strong domestic leadership in the areas of energy efficiency and clean energy supply. Most notably, China's leaders have publicly and uniformly acknowledged the dangers of climate change and accepted that China has to live up to its responsibility. Has the United States, like China in its 2007 National Climate Change Program, pulled the trigger on a national climate change plan? While the United States appears to be regaining momentum with the new Obama administration, China has shown committed and sustained climate change leadership. In the last several years, China has put in place a series of policies and national energy savings programmes that have catalysed green action across the country. China's 11th Five-year Plan (2006-10) seeks to increase forest coverage to 20% and reduce energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20%, on top of already impressive gains over the previous three decades. President Hu Jintao recently announced plans for China to reduce carbon emissions per unit of GDP by a "notable margin". According to the Center for American Progress, "If (China's targets are) fully realized, it will translate to an annual reduction of over 1bn tons of CO2 emitted per year, starting in 2010." This is more than three times the total reduction target for the EU. A 2008 amendment to the 1997 China's Energy Conservation Law increases the importance of energy conservation as a national policy by stating, "Energy Conservation is a basic policy of China. The State implements an energy strategy of promoting conservation and development concurrently while giving top priority to conservation." A system of accountability for energy conservation targets was also added as an explicit part of officials' evaluations. China's farsighted policies have only been in motion for several years. Yet China has already exceeded and revised some of their ambitious targets. China should be given clear credit for making great strides forward in such a compact amount of time. For example, China is well on its way towards 15% energy mix from renewables by 2020. Installed wind power capacity at the end of 2008 was 12GW, fourth highest in the world. This capacity is expected to triple by 2011 to 35GW, and grow more than tenfold to 150 GW by 2020. This growth will largely come from seven new wind farms for 120GW of additional capacity, the power equivalent of 240 large coal-power plants. China is also building a strong transmission grid that will allow for quicker and more reliable integration of renewable energy, whereas the United States is struggling with mapping out an efficient plan to add new grid lines among its highly fragmented network. China's energy consumption per head is still only 30% that of an average United States citizen and China has doubled the annual income of over 200m of its poorest citizens. So yes, China has added an additional 70GW of coal-fired power plants each year for the past few years. But in the last three years, China has shut down hundreds of small, inefficient coal plants, totalling 7% of all China's generation capacity. China with its centralised control is much more willing to make hard decisions than the United States. Since 2003, China's coal-plant fleet has actually been more efficient than that of the United States. The GreenLeapForward blogs that "new plants such as the 1GW ultrasupercritical coal plant in Yuhuan can generate a kilowatt hour of electricity with just 283 grams of coal". This is a big improvement over 370 grams in 2005 and 349 grams in 2008, that is, 6% improvement in just five years. FutureGen, the US-based carbon capture sequestration for zero-emission coal plant, stalled in 2008 and has only recently been revived. China's GreenGen is already in the construction phase and is set to be fully operational by 2011. Collaborators include American companies, Peabody Energy and Duke Energy. Some might argue that the world cannot trust reports of China's progress against these targets. China recognises that measurable, reportable and verifiable actions are important and is making great strides to improve data collection. But in this debate I would argue that the willingness to set ambitious goals for the nation—and then quickly progressing forward—is more important than exact reporting at every point. Given how rapidly China is changing every day, comparing statistics is like taking a snapshot of a speeding bullet. At this stage of the climate game, it is more important to ensure that the trigger has been pulled and that the bullet has been aimed in the right direction. For China, it seems that the bullet has been flying in the same direction for some time now. The energy intensity of China has decreased approximately 65% over the last 30 years. Compare this with the United States, which decreased by approximately 30% during the same timeframe. Though both the United States and China are actively investing in their clean energy futures, China is doing it on a larger scale. The United States announced $1 billion in stimulus for clean energy projects as part of the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of February 2009. Since the fourth quarter of 2008, China has allocated $3.37 billion for energy saving, anti-pollution, ecological and environmental protection projects. According to the Cleantech Group, China's total investment in new energy is expected to surpass $440 billion by 2020. Perhaps more important though is how the two countries differ in investing their money.

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/417

2/8

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

In the United States, under the Recovery Act, the renewable energy awards are tax credits that attract additional private capital towards projects in the United States. In China, money is being invested in a basketful of carefully selected clean energy experiments. The ones that have been deemed most successful will be replicated across the country in rapid succession. At last count, this includes but is not limited to: 40 different eco-cities Four different smart grid pilot cities 21 LED street light cities 13 electric vehicle cities Measuring climate change leadership by amount of action points to China as the winner in this debate. But China should also be given as much credit for what it is not doing. Although admittedly harder to implement in other countries, China's one-child policy reduces energy demand and is the arguably the most effective way the country can mitigate climate change. In the 20 years up to 1999, China's one-child policy is estimated to have reduced population growth by 300m people—almost the population of the United States—and CO2 by 1.3 billion tons in 2005. China is also bubbling up another cultural revolution, this time one that sends it back to its roots of reduce and reuse. An NGO activist, Sherri Liao, successfully pushed the 26/20 policy throughout government buildings (keep the temperature below 26C in the summer and above 20C in the winter). Chinese government officials constantly use the refrain, "We must not follow the West in their consumption patterns!" A leading actress, Li Bingbing, says she uses her bathtub water to flush her toilet at home. Can we convince people living in McMansions to do the same? One day last July, distribution of free thin plastic bags in grocery stores—the sort Americans use every day—were banned across China for environmental reasons. China Trade News says that China used plastic bags at a rate of 3 billion bags every day, and that this prolific bag use required the consumption of 5m tons, or 37m barrels, of refined crude oil every year for plastic bags alone. Overnight, China's citizens changed their behaviour and now use cloth bags en masse. This simple policy shows how uniquely effective China can be with a central, united act. The bottom line for all countries is that climate change is an urgent issue. Our progress needs to be accelerated through much more effective cross-sector and international collaboration. Obama's visit to China this month focused on clean energy and climate change collaboration rather than emissions target setting. This type of dialogue is much more productive than the Copenhagen framework, which is a game of tit for tat (you versus me). As an NGO leader, I am biased towards saying that true leadership from both the United States and China will come when we are both taking action domestically as well as reaching out a helping hand to other nations around the world. In this sense, neither the United States nor China is doing nearly enough if we are to change our planet's climate trajectory in the next ten years. If one country "loses" the climate battle, we all lose. Here's to hoping both sides soon win the argument. See sources.

Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The opposition's opening remarks

Nov 24th 2009 | Mr Max Schulz

By the time one finishes reading the declaration at the heart of this debate—"This house believes that China is showing more leadership than America on climate change"—China will have built another 1,000-MW coal plant. That is an exaggeration, but just hardly. By most accounts China adds one or two massive coal-fired generating plants to its grid each week. It has the most voracious appetite for coal on earth, consuming more than the United States, Japan, and European Union combined. China has increased its coal consumption by 128% since 2000—it accounts for more than 40% of all coal burned on the planet—and is now the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The Energy Information Administration figures that China's coal energy consumption will double again over the next 20 years. And yet there are some who argue that China provides a model for dealing with climate change that should be instructive to us in the United States. This argument studiously avoids the Middle Kingdom's gorging on coal, and points instead to a supposed large-scale investment in developing renewable energy technologies. Curiously, as this typically plays out, it is never suggested that we should actually follow China's lead. Rather, China's shining example of investing in renewable energy should compel the United States to do something that China itself expressly refuses to do, namely, cap carbon. The impetus for a claim of Chinese leadership on climate change is either to frighten the United States, or make it feel guilty enough, to imposing restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. And while the goal seems rather clear, the facts upon which it is said to be based are quite a bit murkier. Peggy Liu, it is heartening to note, represents the Joint US-China Collaboration on Clean Energy. Collaboration and cooperation are wonderful things. But it should be noted that the JUCCCE represents the mainstream American green view on China no more than I do. Most prominent American greens don't talk of cooperation with China, but of competition. One of the more curious themes to emerge over the past year as proponents of carbon regulation have stated their case has been the notion of a clean energy race between the United States and China. President Obama says we are engaged in a competition to lead the global economy. A venture capitalist, John Doerr, and General Electric CEO, Jeff Immelt, made similar though even more urgent claims in an influential Washington Post op-ed. The Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, lamented in Congressional testimony that the United States has stumbled out of the blocks in this race. Joe Romm of the Center for American Progress has written that passing a cap-and-trade bill is key to winning the so-called clean energy race. Taking it even further, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, has suggested our clean-energy competition with China is the arms race of the 21st century. If we don't catch up and surpass what China is doing, the thinking goes, we are doomed. "China is fast emerging as one of our main rivals in the race to build the technology that can help us achieve energy independence," declared a New York Senator, Charles Schumer, recently. "We should not be giving China a head start in this race at our own country's expense." Therefore we have to adopt a regime that curbs our greenhouse gas emissions, even though Beijing is defiant about setting its own limits on emissions. It isn't just the Obamas, Kennedys and Immelts who warn of China's green efforts outstripping our own. The Chinese do as well, talking up their considerable efforts to combat climate change at the same time as demanding that the United States slash greenhouse gas emissions by 40% over the next decade. Don't be fooled by China's motives. They have nothing to do with saving the planet but everything to do with establishing a competitive economic advantage over the United States. Carbon regulation in the United States will hike energy costs and drive opportunity and economic growth to low-cost China. That will only increase China's greenhouse gas emissions further.

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/417

3/8

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

Don't be fooled by China's "facts", either. Yes, China is investing heavily in green tech, but it is investing in every energy technology as it seeks to fuel continued economic growth. "Wind energy is developing fast, but coal-fired power is developing even faster," conceded the Greenpeace China's climate director to the New York Times. China's renewable energy push is minuscule compared to its fossil fuel binge, and no amount of green veneer can cover up that coal hard fact. Furthermore, much of China's renewable technology production is designed for export. Just 20 MW out of the 820 MW of solar photovoltaic generators produced in China in 2007 were for the domestic market. The majority was to be sold to customers in the west, where we are taking steps to saddle our economies with the considerably higher costs associated with renewable energy production. Beijing couldn't be more pleased with that arrangement. Until it accepts a cap on its own carbon emissions, its production of wind turbines and solar panels for export is merely the modern fulfilment of Lenin's dictum about the communists selling capitalists the rope with which to hang themselves. However little the left feels the United States is doing to combat climate change by limiting emissions (and I would agree, though thankfully, that it isn't very much), American efforts still are far more sincere and effective than anything under way in China with one exception: the expansion of nuclear power. But I am not bothered by China's carbon insincerity, except in so much as it cons the United States into adopting even more stringent climate policies than are already on our books. Instead, we should celebrate China's coal bingeing and the resultant economic growth. Improving the well-being of a billion people in the near term trumps wearing the carbon hair shirt to atone for a climate crisis that, if it does exists, is still a century away.

Featured guest: Charles McElwee Featured guest: Frances Beinecke

Comments from the floor Most recommended

Most recent

Oldest first

1-20 of 70 comments

« First

‹ Prev

4 Next ›

Last »

brewster55 wrote: Dear Sir, The U.S. and China have very different vehicles through which they act (I'm sure we all know). China's top down approach, with government deciding what the people want, means they to get out of the gate very quickly. The U.S. is hampered by the initial decision making process (it seems to be getting more cumbersome with time). This systemic difference is what makes the U.S. seem sluggish (and in fact it is), but it's possible that once the debate is finished, a convinced populace will throw itself at the problem as it has thrown itself at problems in the past. There is no guarantee of this, but determination and cooperation in the populace can accomplish things (the U.S. populace was instrumental in ending both WWII, through hard work, and the Vietnam war, through protest). Neither China nor the U.S. have cornered the market on good (or bad for that matter) policy... Human rights, healthcare, population control the list to consider is long. Action is required, but I think determined and cooperative action could win the race if it moves in the right direction. Getting it started this year is less important than getting it to truly move forward (the Vietnam protests moved opposite to what the so called decision makers had in mind). Finally, the population control issue: The Economist issue before last (falling fertility) shows us to be on the right road in educated places where women have some control over things. It's a great idea to halve world population in three generations, but who will man the killing stations, and who will they start with? Volunteers? We seem to be getting there (without genocide), but will we be in time? Good question. I'm 56, and possibly will see. Breeding is a pretty basic biologic drive. I don't know that any political party can curb that 'special interest group'. Recommended (8)

Report abuse

posted on 26/11/2009 21:41:13 pm

the realflamestar wrote: Dear Sir,Instead you should run a poll which country has more civil rights the US or Myanmar. I am sure Myanmar would win as the US is hated both by its leaders and the rest of the world. It would interesting to hear anyone say anything good about the US. Recommended (8)

Report abuse

posted on 26/11/2009 19:36:44 pm

academic teacher wrote: Dear Sir, US is "prisoner" of economy of consumeric abundance - it's why US couldn't changing his emissiono of gas polic. China is new in this game - it gave them hadicap Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 26/11/2009 17:23:58 pm

Frederic W. Erk wrote:

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/417

4/8

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

Dear Sir,

There should have been the option to vote "I don't know". Because the real issue is to know if the current way of life built on the model of consuming goods and generating profits, while labour is more and more alienated from the true value of goods, well, this model is perhaps the true issue here. Why is there such a focus on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, as this is a symptom, but not the root of the problem? Again because collectively speaking, this is a market for policy, talking and generating a new avenue of profit and careering. Seriously the carbon dioxide issue is laughable because it is like discussing the sex of angels, while the problem is so simple. Are we collectively capable of modifying our way of life to make our living sustainable on this planet? Historically speaking, mankind always went the easy way, because collectively speaking, and even more so in a world so interconnected and globalized, well, we have the feeling we can make a difference collectively, but the truth is sobering. Individually speaking, we can make a difference, but let us not shy from the fact that we are talking about ethics. Consumerism is the religion of today. And carbon dioxide is its corollary. I have as an individual planted 20,000 trees, without any other satisfaction than doing what I thought was good. Individually. Bruce Chatwin wrote that the future of mankind will be ascetic, or there won't be any future. Instead of spending billions into reducing carbon dioxid, let's say, mmm, do we need so much cars, mmm, again religion of mobility. Independence. A few years ago the Economist published a revealing story about Japanese policy to reduce carbon dioxide. Collectively decisions had been taken, yes, but individually, young Japanese girls and guys just wanted to avoid family life, so two cars, two homes, etc. Result: catastrophic. So let's hope that mankind becomes terribly lazy, and does what Mr Big Lebowski does best: nothing. Recommended (17)

Report abuse

posted on 26/11/2009 14:06:05 pm

do it now wrote: The US is a developed country which has the ability and responsibility to protect our planet.China now is a developing country which needs energy to develop itself. I believe the saying: with great power, with great responsibility.I do not mean China has no responsibility to reduce carbon emmission. China will and have to make some progress by using the clean energy like the other countries in the world. But US is much stronger than China. I hope we should stay calm and see clear that China is not strong and powerful as we believe.Because China has so many problems to solve like overpopulation and evironment damage.What China have to do now is to develop its economy which as known to us all that Economy is the solid foundation of the superstructure. Without the economic growth, China has no capital or technology to solve problems like global climate change. That is why I vote NO. Recommended (3)

Report abuse

posted on 26/11/2009 02:35:55 am

John Smith Senior wrote: Dear Sir, U.S. only have 1.5% population, while having 1/5 cars (as I remembered) in the world. I do believe to protect the environment, it requires economy support. Before, China was not at the stage of doing that, to feed so many people to make they not hungry is a great great achiviment. Now China is showing their strong power to join the "save the world" mission. The root of current economic crisis is issued by U.S. for sure, which can show U.S. political system actually did not have that much self-dicipline and integrity once it is related with personal benifit. That's all I want to add. Thanks Recommended (7)

Report abuse

posted on 26/11/2009 01:33:34 am

Fraet wrote: Dear Sir, I believe it is not a case of China is showing more leadership in climate change. Like many other comentators have pointed out, it is not due to the fact that China's leaders want to protect the environment and save the world, it is out of necessity. The end justifies the motive. China's one child policy (only available to Authoritarian governments) was not enacted with climate change or the environment in mind. It was borne out of an economic need, China had little supply to go around so they restricted the demand. The policy has had the unintended but not unwelcomed effect of preventing the consequences of an extra 300,000 people on the environment. America has nothing to compare to this policy as i dare say it should not. It was a unique set of circumstances that conceived this policy.(pun not intended) China's 'stronger' actions on protecting the environment is because China is feeling the brunt of the negatives climate change. As China became the world's manufacturer it also took on the mantle of being the world's worst polluter. Clean technology isnt cheap and if that stainless steel is to be made cheaply it stands to reason China would use the cheapest technology to make it. China's government recognises that for its people well being it must clean up or it may face the ever present fear of social unrest. Civil unrest due to poor environmental conditions are on the rise and the government is not sleeping at the helm. In some ways it seems that China's

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/417

5/8

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

government is more accountable to its people than in America, government change has a different meaning in both countries. America's government does not feel the same pressures their chinese counterparts do. Most of the green house gases produced in America is from transportation and residential use of energy as compared to industrial use in China. This has the effect of spreading out and diluting the gases over a broad area. The average american does not leave the house and face a CO2 filled sky. Americans are therfore desensitised. The urban Chinese on the other hand inhales a much greater concentration of CO2 per day and they are the ones the Chinese government listens to most. My point is that America's leaders feel they have the luxury of waiting, debating and jostling for political positions. The Chinese leaders on the otherhand know it is not just their livlihood on the line it my very well be their lives. Recommended (5)

Report abuse

posted on 26/11/2009 00:29:30 am

Frosty Wooldridge wrote: Dear Sir, While China wades in over its head because it waited 70 years too late to implement a 1 child per family policy, it now leads the world in foreword thinking and actions. The United States and all of the world need to move toward one child per family. Either we do it, or Mother Nature will do it for us; and, she always bats last. Otherwise, we face a human Katrina that will leave only victims and survivors. Not to mention, human population causes the sixth extinction session. If fail to implement one child families worldwide immediately, the population momentum of the human race assures horrific consequences before mid century. The very fate of humanity lies in humanity's hands. Thus far, humanity shows itself to be headed over a cliff. Frosty Wooldridge, author of: America on the Brink: The Next Added 100 Million Americans. www.frostywooldridge.com Recommended (1)

Report abuse

posted on 25/11/2009 23:27:32 pm

Mannylar wrote: Dear Sir, i always consider that is not a problem of two countries but in this case, is very important to see to America never sign the Kioto Agreement, that´s indicated They don´t import the climate change be cause only America import, and China is a great contaminator country but is fighting to change that situation. Recommended (1)

Report abuse

posted on 25/11/2009 21:10:30 pm

Peace4All wrote: Dear Sir, If Developed nations are seriously sincere about saving our future, we should transfer those technological know-how and expertise in clean manufacturing to developing countries. This is our earth. Stop blaming/arguing about the new kid on the block (China) for polluting the world for what you have done since Industrial Revolution. China alone will not solve this crisis. People, work together!! Recommended (3)

Report abuse

posted on 25/11/2009 20:27:59 pm

Walter L. Williams wrote: Dear Sir, My vote in favor of China is because of China's one-child policy, which is doing more than any other policy to affect climate change. Every nation on earth should be doing as much. However, because they have not done so, now even a one-child policy is not enough. The environmental crisis is so far advanced that what is needed is a massive public education campaign to convince as many people as possible not to reproduce at all. Those who wish to raise children should adopt some of the world's many older homeless children. Bureaucratic restrictions making international adoption so difficult and expensive must be removed. Reducing population GROWTH is no longer enough; there must be a halving of world population within three generations. With many fewer children being born, governments must raise retirement ages and improve old age supports and medical care. Besides massive population reductions, the other most important necessity is to reduce the overpopulation of large domestic animals. Cows alone contribute more damage to the ozone layer than automobiles. Governments should heavily tax beef and pork, and encourage vegetarianism (or at least non-consumption of mammals). A third area is to encourage people to plant and grow as many trees as possible, to reforest rural areas and to shade urban roads, parking lots and other heat-retaining surfaces. All the current efforts to conserve and renew will have little impact without depopulation of humans and large domestic animals, vegetarianism, and reforestation. Neither the US or China are doing enough in this regard. --Professor Walter L. Williams, University of Southern California Recommended (2)

Report abuse

posted on 25/11/2009 20:22:29 pm

A Squared B wrote: Dear Sir, China has avoided an estimated 300,000,000 births by their policy of "one child per family." This is an enormous contribution to the reduction of the emissions of global warming gases. We can't adequately reduce the emissions of global greenhouse gases by using more efficient lighting, cars, buildings, etc. We have to find ways to reduce the number of people who are doing the emitting; that calls for a cessation of population growth and then a gradual reduction of the size of populations until we reach sustainability. We should have high quality and compassionate family planning assistance available world-wide to all who want it. The goal should be that "Every Child

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/417

6/8

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

is a Wanted Child."

Can you think of any problem, on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose LONG-RANGE solution is in any DEMONSTRABLE way aided, assisted or advanced by having larger populations at the local level, the city level, the state level, nationally or globally? Will anything get better in the long run if we crowd more people into our towns, our cities, our states, our nations, or globally? Albert A. Bartlett Recommended (21)

Report abuse

posted on 25/11/2009 19:00:40 pm

wallaceshanghai wrote: I agree China has issued clearer objective with relevant policies for 2010 and beyond, in comparison to the U.S. which has not passed any substantial bills on objectives. for any further assessment, we need to bear in mind that starting points for U.S. and China is very different. 1, U.S. is obliged to do more UNCONDIIONALLY from NOW because U.S. along other 16 developed has HISTORICAL responsibility of accumulating over 75% CO2 in the atmosphere. due to its per capita emission lower than developed countries, China has a right to continue its emission but needs to slow its emission growth rate. 2, as a developing country, China only has FUTURE responsibility to put climate change as one of priorities. As the moderator highlighted, China has other priorities such as cleaning the river, flighting against poverty, coal mining/plant security and controlling SO2 emission are at least equally important as CO2 emission. what worries me is that U.S. public/politician think their further level of action against climate change will depends on China's action. U.S. needs to do more unconditionally. China too. if both sides do their best UNCONDITIONALLY, both of them are best. Recommended (1)

Report abuse

posted on 25/11/2009 18:40:44 pm

typingmonkey wrote: Dear Sir, America has fueled its economy with carbon for nearly two centuries. China’s economy has been agrarian for all but the previous two decades. America’s starting position in this race is therefore way way back in the grid. To then determine who wins the race, we need to examine actual policies which affect carbon emissions, whether they originate in the energy sector or not. I would submit that China has already enacted the single most effective piece of emission reducing legislation on earth to date. The one child policy was if nothing else an implicit acknowledgement of the concepts of environmental and social carrying capacity. In boldly bending its domestic population curve downwards, China bent the global emissions curve downwards as well. In effect, China continues to pay a heavy unilateral price for a significant global benefit. The centralization of global manufacturing in China is effectively carbon neutral, but inflates Chinese emissions dramatically. So does her rapid climb out of poverty. These should not factor into the equation in question. China has already covered more ground, even though she has had less ground to cover. At this point then, China is winning by a mile. But more broadly, perhaps this is the wrong question. Global warming is global. To frame the debate as us versus them has proven to lead more towards recrimination and deadlock than constructive competition. This is not an international brawl. It is more of a team time trial. We race a clock, not each other, and no one “wins” until everyone crosses the finish line. China and America are both lagging well behind Spain, Germany, and of course Norway, and it really doesn’t matter which is lagging more. The world will watch with grim bewilderment as the two ponderous leviathans at the back of the field kick each other rather than strive to catch up. Recommended (15)

Report abuse

posted on 25/11/2009 17:48:59 pm

Detcord wrote: Dear Sir, The recent revelation of the IPCC emails burying scientific evidence that refutes this whole mythical premise should be enough alone to convince anyone with even average intelligence that this whole scam has been fabricated from the start. The earth always has, and always will, get along just fine without the insignificance of man and this "global warming" hysteria has been a cruel hoax on everyone. Please end this silly debate before you become further humiliated. Recommended (3)

Report abuse

posted on 25/11/2009 17:12:46 pm

tinizong wrote: Dear Sir, China and the US pay only lip service to climate change. Economic interests dressed as "imperatives" come first in both countries. For China, "Getting rich quick" beats "cleaning up" hands down. Conserving resources is primarily a matter of economising, not a bit of saving the world. For the US, particularly the rural US, the wasteful "American Way of Life" resists an expensive orientation towards greenery. US citizens will continue to freeride on global carbon until its effects hit them back. The "wind of words" has hardly been noticed yet. We better learn to live with climate change than make useless demands on others to change their ways. Nature will exact a price for global negligence and only that will change behaviour in the US and in China. Impact has not come close to people yet. Also, quite a few are likely winners of climate change.

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/417

7/8

10/19/12 Recommended (1)

Report abuse

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements posted on 25/11/2009 15:51:15 pm

decaldwell wrote: Dear Sir, This is an interesting debate, not only in terms of which country is showing more leadership, but also in terms of how leadership is demonstrated by these two types of political systems. In the US, this leadership will come from individual rather than the government. For example look at the efforts of Brammo to introduce new electric transportation technology. Recommended (1)

Report abuse

posted on 25/11/2009 15:27:38 pm

Pedro2m wrote: Dear Sir, It's fanciful to think China will lead the way on climate change. No economoy that has to grow 6-8 percent per year just to accommodate new entrants into the workforce is going to make addressing climate change a top priority. That said, addressing climate change will require a global effort - if China doesn't take serious steps to curb GHG emissions, the most ambitious plans agreed to by the industrialized nations are more or less doomed... Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 25/11/2009 14:24:44 pm

Snodgrass in Italy wrote: Dear Sir, Certainly China may be leading the way but one could compare USA, in this area, to many other nations inasmuch as the USA track record is dismal. China is showing their cultural awareness and the faster the USA citizens and politicians wake up to China's ability and long term thinking the more chance USA has of "surviving" the next few decades Recommended (9)

Report abuse

posted on 25/11/2009 14:21:29 pm

xinglongnite wrote: Dear Sir, the evidence is clear that China is leading. Why during the weekend of Nov 14-15 Obama hinted that Copenhagen is hopeless and then the next Tuesday he contradicted himself by saying he's expecting an operable agreement? Clearly he got Chinese support during his meeting at Beijing. Obama simply needed external support to get his carbon tax through the Senate, and China conveniently lent him the hand. Why was prez Hu so generous? It's quite simple: China has vast solar and wind power equipment production capacity, so that it's China, instead of the US, is ready to benefit the more from global climate change initiatives, even if it has to provide financing to open the markets. Prez Hu may no care much about helping Obama's carbon tax to pay for his domestic programs, concrete results from Copenhagen would be helpful. Recommended (3)

Report abuse

posted on 25/11/2009 14:12:53 pm

1-20 of 70 comments

« First

‹ Prev

4 Next ›

Current debates

Upcoming debates

Recent debates

Manufacturing and the West "Will manufacturing return to the West?"

The next debate hasn't been scheduled yet. Sign up for email alerts, and an Economist moderator will remind you when the next one begins.

India's economy "As economic growth slows, is India losing its way?"

Last »

Home-ownership "Should home-ownership be discouraged?" VIEW ALL PAST DEBATES

About The Economist online

About The Economist

Media directory

Staff books

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/417

Career opportunities

Advertising info

Legal disclaimer

Accessibility

Site feedback Terms of use

Help

8/8

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

Friday October 19th 2012

Site feedback Manufacturing and the West Upcoming debates Past debates

China and the US

This house believes that China is showing more leadership than America in the fight against climate change ENTER THIS DEBATE

Summary

Opening (70 comments)

Tuesday November

Latest updates

Statements

Wednesday November

Guest

Thursday November Guest

Rebuttal (63 comments)

Friday November Statements

Monday November Guest

Closing (26 comments)

Tuesday December Guest

Wednesday December Statements

Thursday December Guest

Post-debate

Friday December

Decision

How an Economist debate works

This debate is archived. This page was orginally published on 25-November-2009. View the current and future debates.

Opening statements

Defending the motion Peggy Liu Chairperson of JUCCCE

Against the motion Mr Max Schulz Senior fellow, Manhattan Institute's Center for Energy Policy and the Environment

Moderator

Pro

Con

The moderator's opening remarks

Nov 24th 2009 | Robert Lane Greene

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/421

1/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

But there are plenty of bright spots in America, too. Emissions peaked in 2005. States and companies are moving where the federal government has not. Many states already have renewable-energy portfolio mandates. Texas recently hit a record high of 25% of its power produced by wind (albeit in the middle of the night). Most important, America remains a technical leader in a way that China is not: if there is a breakout technology, it is still more likely to come from Silicon Valley than Shanghai. So which country is really doing more to avert climate catastrophe? Of course the question isn't a clear zero-sum, either-or, since some developments will help both— and the rest of the world to boot. But both countries' emissions also contribute to what, remember, is global warming: greenhouse gases do not respect borders. Peggy Liu starts us off by pointing us to many eye-catching numbers relating to China's emissions, and Max Schulz does much the same, but with Chinese coal consumption. Since the debate is about whether China or America is doing more to show global leadership, I hope both participants will put some detail into how they see America's, not just China's, policies.

Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The proposer's opening remarks

Nov 24th 2009 | Peggy Liu

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/421

2/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

Perhaps more important though is how the two countries differ in investing their money.

Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The opposition's opening remarks

Nov 24th 2009 | Mr Max Schulz

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/421

3/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

United States. Carbon regulation in the United States will hike energy costs and drive opportunity and economic growth to low-cost China. That will only increase China's greenhouse gas emissions further. Don't be fooled by China's "facts", either. Yes, China is investing heavily in green tech, but it is investing in every energy technology as it seeks to fuel continued economic growth. "Wind energy is developing fast, but coal-fired power is developing even faster," conceded the Greenpeace China's climate director to the New York Times. China's renewable energy push is minuscule compared to its fossil fuel binge, and no amount of green veneer can cover up that coal hard fact. Furthermore, much of China's renewable technology production is designed for export. Just 20 MW out of the 820 MW of solar photovoltaic generators produced in China in 2007 were for the domestic market. The majority was to be sold to customers in the west, where we are taking steps to saddle our economies with the considerably higher costs associated with renewable energy production. Beijing couldn't be more pleased with that arrangement. Until it accepts a cap on its own carbon emissions, its production of wind turbines and solar panels for export is merely the modern fulfilment of Lenin's dictum about the communists selling capitalists the rope with which to hang themselves. However little the left feels the United States is doing to combat climate change by limiting emissions (and I would agree, though thankfully, that it isn't very much), American efforts still are far more sincere and effective than anything under way in China with one exception: the expansion of nuclear power. But I am not bothered by China's carbon insincerity, except in so much as it cons the United States into adopting even more stringent climate policies than are already on our books. Instead, we should celebrate China's coal bingeing and the resultant economic growth. Improving the well-being of a billion people in the near term trumps wearing the carbon hair shirt to atone for a climate crisis that, if it does exists, is still a century away.

Audience participation Comments from the floor. Featured guest: Frances Beinecke

Featured guest

Mr Charles R. McElwee

China and the United States can and should do more to lead the world on climate change. They are the first and second largest emitters of greenhouse gases today. The United States is by far the largest cumulative emitter given its early industrialisation and large economy, but China, at current growth rates, could easily assume the cumulative emissions crown before we are halfway through this century. Despite being primarily responsible for creating the problem, neither country has shown the pluck to solve it that will get them cited as models of leadership. Fortunately, we are not asked to make the case that either country is the Churchill of climate change solutions, but simply to demonstrate that one has shown more leadership than the other. In this comparative matchup, the case is pretty clear; China has shown more leadership than the United States. China signed the Kyoto Protocol, but as a developing country it was not bound to take any quantified actions to reduce its carbon emissions. For the next several years it hunkered down and its roaring economy powered by coal-fired thermal plants started to generate carbon emissions at an alarming rate. The rate was so alarming that China soon realised that it would no longer be able to hide behind the developing country label or count on a free pass at Copenhagen. It therefore launched a concerted effort to stake out a national position on climate change, developed and compiled a set of actions which could be deemed carbon emission mitigation efforts, and generally tried to establish its climate change good faith. At the same time, as a leader of the developing-country negotiating bloc, it continued to forcefully demand significant carbon reductions, financial assistance and technology transfers from developed countries. China published a National Plan for Coping with Climate Change in June 2007 and a White Paper on Policies and Actions for Addressing Climate Change in October 2008. The White Paper concludes with this statement: The whole world, without exception, faces the challenge of climate change. The solution demands the joint efforts of all countries and the entire international community. China will work unremittingly for global sustainable development with other countries and continuously make new contributions to the protection of the climate system which is the common wealth of mankind. China had already undertaken a number of actions to promote energy security and improve industrial efficiency, such as increasing the amount of renewable energy in its generation mix and reducing the amount of energy required to produce a given unit of GDP. It repackaged these efforts and deemed them part of its climate change mitigation strategy. The latest instalment in China's continuous efforts to make "new contributions to the protection of the climate system" was rolled out in President Hu's speech to the UN in September in which he committed to reducing China's carbon intensity by a "notable margin". China has succeeded in deflecting attention from how much carbon it has emitted and will continue to emit to how much carbon it has prevented from being emitted. There is no question that China has run a slick public relations campaign, but it's not all smoke and mirrors. China's efforts to improve energy security and industrial efficiency do have the effect of reducing the rate of growth of its carbon emissions. While China settles in to a prominent seat at the climate change negotiating table, like other guests it casts a not so furtive glance at its watch as it waits for the United States to arrive at the venue. The opponent of this motion would have us believe that the United States' absence is an act of leadership. But if it is hosting an alternative dinner, so far it is eating alone. The United States has not only failed to take significant, concrete national actions to mitigate carbon emissions, it has failed to stake out a coherent public position on climate change. If I were inclined to follow the United States, where exactly would it lead me? As the other side notes, China's efforts are cited by some to spur US actions. In contrast, no one is touting what America is doing to drive change in China (or anywhere else for that matter). Lots of good intentions have been on display over the past year in America, and a decent piece of climate legislation may be passed next year, but the United States is not leading on this issue. The historic failure of the United States to come to grips with its energy challenges bolsters the impression that it is struggling to manage its own internal factionalism, which touches on questions of what really powers its economy. The call for the United States to increase its energy independence has resonated in American political discourse for nearly 40 years. During these 40 years, while the United States has seen its national wealth and the blood of its soldiers drained away it has failed to enact a comprehensive strategy to wean itself from foreign oil. What leadership is there to be seen in the perpetuation of this status quo? China faces the same concerns. While it continues to attempt to secure foreign sources of oil, it has also taken concrete actions to decrease its reliance on oil. Chinese national fuel economy standards are tougher than those in the United States; national taxes encourage the purchase of cars with smaller engines; thousands of miles of subway are being constructed; and between the major population hubs, a web of high-speed rail lines is being laid. China has promulgated national goals for increasing percentages of its electric power to be generated through renewable sources, and electric vehicle R&D has received large government subsidies. All of these efforts will help China reduce its dependence on foreign oil and lower its carbon emissions.

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/421

4/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

China undoubtedly leads all other developing countries and the United States in the absolute amount of carbon emissions it has prevented from entering the atmosphere as a result of government actions and policies developed over the last several years. That it can and should do more does not invalidate the fact that it has provided more leadership on climate change than the United States. If America hasn't been able to cure its own addiction to foreign oil over the last 40 years, why would I look to it to save the world from its carbon binge?

Reader Comments Featured guest: Frances Beinecke

Current debates

Upcoming debates

Recent debates

Manufacturing and the West "Will manufacturing return to the West?"

The next debate hasn't been scheduled yet. Sign up for email alerts, and an Economist moderator will remind you when the next one begins.

India's economy "As economic growth slows, is India losing its way?" Home-ownership "Should home-ownership be discouraged?" VIEW ALL PAST DEBATES

About The Economist online

About The Economist

Media directory

Staff books

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/421

Career opportunities

Advertising info

Legal disclaimer

Accessibility

Site feedback Terms of use

Help

5/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

Friday October 19th 2012

Site feedback Manufacturing and the West Upcoming debates Past debates

China and the US

This house believes that China is showing more leadership than America in the fight against climate change ENTER THIS DEBATE

Summary

Opening (70 comments)

Tuesday November

Latest updates

Statements

Wednesday November

Guest

Thursday November Guest

Rebuttal (63 comments)

Friday November Statements

Monday November Guest

Closing (26 comments)

Tuesday December Guest

Wednesday December Statements

Thursday December Guest

Post-debate

Friday December

Decision

How an Economist debate works

This debate is archived. This page was orginally published on 26-November-2009. View the current and future debates.

Opening statements

Defending the motion Peggy Liu Chairperson of JUCCCE

Against the motion Mr Max Schulz Senior fellow, Manhattan Institute's Center for Energy Policy and the Environment

Moderator

Pro

Con

The moderator's opening remarks

Nov 24th 2009 | Robert Lane Greene

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/422

1/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The proposer's opening remarks

Nov 24th 2009 | Peggy Liu

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/422

2/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

Perhaps more important though is how the two countries differ in investing their money.

Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The opposition's opening remarks

Nov 24th 2009 | Mr Max Schulz

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/422

3/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

Audience participation Comments from the floor. Featured guest: Charles McElwee

Featured guest

Ms Frances Beinecke

China's rapid ascent as a global economic and political power has left US policy makers groping with a Sino-American identity crisis. Is it, they wonder, a strategic partner or a competitive rival? Last week the prospect of partnership gained currency in three areas critical to the futures of both countries—energy, economy and environment—as the United States and China agreed to join forces to help curb global climate change. As a result, the two Pacific powers are set to help each other cut carbon emissions, advance the use of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources and develop the next generation of energy-efficient cars, homes and workplaces. The move shifts the debate slightly from questions about which country is doing more about climate change to the larger issue of how to fashion a new kind of partnership that matches the resources and needs each nation brings to the table. Beyond benefiting the two countries, this partnership can clear the way towards broader global action against climate change by building on the gathering momentum for change in the run-up to the December climate summit in Copenhagen. The United States and China together account for about 40% of the carbon emissions that are warming the planet and threatening us all. No solution to this widening global scourge is possible without these two emitters taking the lead. In many ways they represent the two faces of the challenge. With its $14.4 trillion economy, the United States creates one-quarter of the world's economic output and accounts for one-quarter of the world's energy use to match. It was the world's leading emitter of carbon pollution for years, until it was recently eclipsed by China, which kicks out one-third the economic activity of the United States. It is developing countries like China, though, that will be responsible for the growth in carbon emissions over the coming two decades, according to the International Energy Agency. More than half of that growth will come from China, which is on track to overtake the United States as the world's largest energy consumer by 2015. China is simply growing too fast, modernising too rapidly, and adding too many cars, too many factories and too many people to its cities each year to cap and cut its emissions immediately. We do expect China, though, to adopt an ambitious target for reducing the growth in emissions in the near term and for achieving overall reductions soon. What China has pledged to do is to reduce the carbon intensity of its production, to reduce carbon emissions per unit of output, in other words, by making its cars, factories and urban centres more efficient. My organisation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, has been active in China for 15 years. We have seen the growing importance Beijing attaches to the issue of climate change, as leaders have come to understand the way this issue threatens supplies of food and water, as well as health, social stability and national security, in a nation of 1.3 billion people. of the response is China's goal of producing 15% of its electricity from solar, wind and other renewable sources by 2020. The world's largest wind-power station is under construction in Gansu province. It is expected to produce 20 GW by 2020, nearly as much as the Yangtze River's Three Gorges Dam, the world's largest hydroelectric power station. Similarly, one in ten Chinese homes already has a solar water heater, accounting for two-thirds of global capacity for such systems. Beyond technology, China has embarked on a massive reforestation effort aimed at creating or renewing millions of acres of forests, which naturally capture carbon from the atmosphere and store it in their trunks. If China continues on the clean energy course it has set, the country will be investing more than $500 billion a year in emerging green technologies, a potentially lucrative market for those that can successfully partner with the Chinese. Last week, during President Obama's visit with the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, the two leaders agreed to set up a US-China Clean Energy Research Center, supported by $150m in public and private money over the next five years. The centre will help scientists and engineers from both countries cooperate to develop energy-efficient buildings—a huge need in China—new technologies to reduce carbon emissions in coal-fired facilities and low-carbon vehicles.

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/422

4/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

The leaders also:

launched the US-China electric vehicles initiative, to accelerate the development and use of electric cars and trucks; expanded cooperation in the area of monitoring, verifying and enforcing carbon-reduction targets in China; set up a renewable energy partnership that brings together policymakers, regulators, industry leaders and public advocates to help modernise the electricity grids in both countries in ways meant to speed the use of power generated by wind, solar and other renewable sources. It is my hope this will be only the beginning of a richer and deeper strategic partnership between the United States and China on the way we use energy, develop our economies and safeguard our environment in the decades to come. It is less about competition than it is about cooperation. Working together, we can curb climate change in our respective countries and around the world. Those are goals we all can share, on both sides of the Pacific.

Reader Comments Featured guest: Charles McElwee

Current debates

Upcoming debates

Recent debates

Manufacturing and the West "Will manufacturing return to the West?"

The next debate hasn't been scheduled yet. Sign up for email alerts, and an Economist moderator will remind you when the next one begins.

India's economy "As economic growth slows, is India losing its way?" Home-ownership "Should home-ownership be discouraged?" VIEW ALL PAST DEBATES

About The Economist online

About The Economist

Media directory

Staff books

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/422

Career opportunities

Advertising info

Legal disclaimer

Accessibility

Site feedback Terms of use

Help

5/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

Friday October 19th 2012

Site feedback Manufacturing and the West Upcoming debates Past debates

China and the US

This house believes that China is showing more leadership than America in the fight against climate change ENTER THIS DEBATE

Summary

Opening (70 comments)

Tuesday November

Latest updates

Statements

Wednesday November

Guest

Thursday November Guest

Rebuttal (63 comments)

Friday November Statements

Closing (26 comments)

Monday November Guest

Tuesday December Guest

Wednesday December Statements

Thursday December Guest

Post-debate

Friday December

Decision

How an Economist debate works

Print Print with comments This debate is archived. This page was orginally published on 27-November-2009. View the current and future debates.

Rebuttal statements

This debate has finished. Voting is now closed.

Defending the motion Peggy Liu Chairperson of JUCCCE

Is China doing more than the United States on climate change leadership? China's train has already left the station.

Against the motion Mr Max Schulz Senior fellow, Manhattan Institute's Center for Energy Policy and the Environment

Claims touting Chinese leadership in fighting climate change are merely another instance of greenwashing. We would be fools to buy into it. Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The moderator's rebuttal remarks

Nov 27th 2009 | Robert Lane Greene

Our two debaters, interestingly, frame their second-round arguments in the same way, though with radically different conclusions. Both Peggy Liu and Max Schulz note that China's efforts, which Ms Liu extols and Mr Schulz discounts, are in China's best interest. Once again, Ms Liu cites impressive figures for what China is undertaking. Noting Mr Schulz's criticisms of China in our first round, she writes: "This debate is not about whether 'red China' is already 'green'. Both countries are far from it. This debate is about whether China is showing more leadership." She notes that many Chinese mayors are trained in green planning and thinking, and that Chinese colleagues ask her whether American mayors receive such training. (Answer: no.) Not to speak for Mr Schulz—you should read his submission yourselves—but it seems in the general spirit of his reply to note that China's mayors are "trained" because they are appointed, and America's, elected. Mr Schulz notes that democracy is messy, but it ultimately produces value for humankind in many areas other than in the environment, and that America should not take extra criticism vis-a-vis China for the fact that it is not a dictatorship with a largely planned economy. Returning to the argument from self-interest, he notes that lowering energy intensity per dollar of GDP—as China has done—is all very laudable, but it is something that societies naturally do as they get richer. Our two expert guests provide valuably different perspectives. Frances Beinecke reminds us that the stakes are about the planet: this is not the Olympics, with someone getting the gold and someone else settling for silver. It is a race between mankind and climate change, and she notes that all humankind will benefit (share the gold, to stretch the analogy) if China and America work together on climate.

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/418

1/9

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

Finally, Gary Locke, America's commerce secretary, does something that I hope our debaters will do a bit more of in the next round, and talks about America. For all the talk about cap-and-trade legislation in Congress (which has passed the House, but not the Senate), Mr Locke points out what the Obama administration has already done by executive action. It has mandated higher fuel efficiency for cars, led the G20 to promise a phase-out in fossil-fuel subsidies around the world (this alone will save huge greenhouse-gas emissions, and in my view has been woefully overlooked as a sign of progress), and put billions into green energy through the stimulus bill. These can be criticised—too little, too late, too statist, too optimistic?—but they are not nothing, and so again, I hope these points will be engaged by our debaters.

Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The proposer's rebuttal remarks

Nov 27th 2009 | Peggy Liu

Let's just get down to the real questions people want to ask about China. Do Chinese people care about going green? Is China's clean-tech revolution a big scheme to take over the world economy? How can a country that voraciously consumes coal be considered a climate change leader? It is OK to ask these questions. For how could you comprehend what tremendous attitude change has happened in China during the last three years if you don't live in or frequently visit China? China doesn't actively send government spokespeople to engage the US heartland. Chinese celebrities don't appear on the "Tonight Show" to talk about their favorite green charities. China's lack of a PR campaign in the West leaves strong stereotypes only of stern men in suits (or tanks). But China today is not the China of yesterday—or even six months ago. Let's talk about China's motivation to go green. Chinese people are very practical. The environmental movement that has just started to blossom in the last three years was not spearheaded by visions of organic clothes and solar-powered villas for the moral elite. For Chinese people who see, smell and touch pollution every day, climate change leadership is closely related to personal health. For the Chinese government, national security is tied to decreasing China's dependence on foreign countries as China imports an increasing amount of coal, oil and natural gas, hence the push for locally produced renewable energy. Over the next 20 years—as the country races to build a dozen megalopolises of 60m people, with 50, 000 new skyscrapers and 350m new urban residents—China will struggle to create new urban models that can ensure a better life for its people. China's idea of a green utopia is to lift 600m people out of living on less than $2 a day. This will require innovative energy master plans for cities and rural access to electricity, both having green benefits. China's industry knows that to stay competitive it needs to be more cost-efficient. That is why Chinese buyers always deploy the latest technology that is more energyefficient. China's push in wind and solar is less about trying to win the Sputnik of clean-tech over the United States and more about providing cheap and scalable energy solutions across the vast domestic Chinese market and staying competitive in the export market. In other words, China has learned that going green is in its own self-interest. That is when sustainability is truly sustainable. Will the US Congress soon recognise this and pass the clean energy bill? How is China training its leaders to tackle climate change? China's Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development and the Central Organization Department have jointly run a National Training Center for Mayors of China (NTCMC) for the past 20 years. JUCCCE (Joint US-China Cooperation on Clean Energy) has first-hand experience with groups of mayors (50 at a time) who attend our training on energy smart cities. These Chinese mayors are reshaping the face of China, one city at a time. From the mayors' questions, it is obvious that most Chinese mayors are beyond needing to be convinced about climate change, and just want to focus on financeable and immediately implementable solutions. As Wang Zhongping, director of NTCMC explains, "Most Chinese mayors are scientists or engineers, many with master's degrees. Chinese mayors are thirsty for international technologies and best practices. They want results." When we held a seven-day mayors' training session this May, mayors were eager to increase the length of the training twofold and to bring our training to their cities. Visitors never fail to be amazed that large groups of Chinese mayors go through mandatory training for up to 30-days at a time. But Chinese culture has always been about planning for the long term, even at the expense of short-term gains. I am frequently asked if the United States has a similar training program. Admittedly China is the largest coal producer and consumer in the world. But both the United States and China are voracious users of coal. This debate is not about whether red China is already green. Both countries are far from it. This debate is about whether China is showing more leadership. To understand where China is in tackling climate change, one needs to understand that changing the use and creation of energy requires every stakeholder in a system to be aligned, much like pointing all the cars in a moving train in the same direction. China's challenge is that its train conductors are just learning how to drive the train. And China's train is a lot harder to move, with four times more cars on it than the United States. And in some cases the tracks are still being built. Although it will take a while to have all its cars aligned, China has taken a big step towards climate change leadership by choosing the right path. Because China's green movement is being led top-down compared with the grassroots leadership in the United States, it is not still arguing about the path. Coal is on the right path in China. As I said in my opening statement, China is actively shutting down older inefficient coal plants and replacing them with ones that are more efficient than those of the United States. In the past few years, China has taken active steps to improve coal efficiency through testing new groundbreaking technologies: two underground coal gasification pilot projects and one integrated gasification combined cycle plant are under construction.

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/418

2/9

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

[Click chart to enlarge] China's industry, which uses 70% of the country's energy, is on the right path. The US-based Lawrence Berkeley National Lab worked with China to create a n energy efficiency programme targeting the top 1,000 industrial enterprises that use 33% of China's total energy. This programme is on track to reduce CO2 by between 300m and 400m tons between 2006 and 2010, and between about 10-25% of the savings needed to meet energy intensity reduction targets of China's 11th five-year plan.

[Click chart to enlarge] Vehicle use is on the right path in China. Not only does China already have higher fuel economy standards than the United States, Canada and Australia at 36.7 mpg for urban vehicles, China is also actively pursuing and investing in an electric vehicle strategy. The electrical grid is on the right path in China. China's State Grid, the world's largest utility, announced in May an intention to build a strong, smart grid by 2020. It already is a leader in ultra-high voltage transmission lines. China is building a grid that will more easily absorb variable (but less carbon-intensive) renewable energy supply, and decrease the amount of electricity lost between generation and use. China, like the United States, has an enormous amount of training to go through if it is to follow through on all these programmes. We must build the capability to design, deploy, operate and maintain the green solutions needed to tackle climate change. Every job needs to be reshaped as a green job; every company a green company. So is China doing more than the United States on climate change leadership? China's train has already left the station. It is not analysing whether climate change exists or whether human efforts can mitigate its effects. It understands that health, social stability and economic incentives are the key drivers to change. China's leadership provides aspirational goals that may initially seem a stretch, but it then works hard to reach or exceed those goals. China has much more work to do, but have no doubt that its leaders are already on the green train. China's citizens have an overall sense that China is improving daily. Above the currently smoggy skyline, visitors can sense optimism across the country. That may be the true measure of leadership. See sources. Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The opposition's rebuttal remarks

Nov 27th 2009 | Mr Max Schulz

Many of the items Peggy Liu cites as evidence of China's supposed sincerity in combating climate change will, in fact, occur naturally as a consequence of its economic development. China deserves credit for taking steps to drive economic growth, not for battling global warming. Demanding that the United States slash emissions while refusing to curb its own—especially when China has surpassed it as the planet's leading emitter—exposes China's blatant climate change hypocrisy. Moreover, while it chides the United States for not embracing certain measures as fervently or as successfully as China, she fails to note that the United States already made progress on these very fronts over preceding decades by embracing free-market capitalism and promoting economic growth. While we were growing our economy and making it more efficient throughout the 20th century, resulting in the long-term lowering of our energy consumption per unit of GDP, what was China doing? Waging a state-sponsored assault on freedom and market-based capitalism, murdering tens of millions of its citizens, and despoiling its natural environment.

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/418

3/9

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

To its credit, China now has largely turned away from the governing philosophy that ensured rivers of blood and subsistence-level misery under Chairman Mao and other commissars. It seems eager to join the ranks of developed, modern nations. We should applaud and encourage that ambition. But let us not pretend that those measures, being executed at this late date, represent anything but a desire to improve the material lot of the citizenry and to establish China as a top-tier economic power. They do not represent an enlightened desire to forestall the ravages of global warming. None of that means that the public relations-conscious Chinese government is not desperate to be thought of as anything but an exemplar in the international effort to ward off climate change. It very much is, regardless of whether the perception comports with reality or not. As with most Chinese PR efforts, the truth is a trifle. The world saw this clearly during the 2008 summer Olympics, when China blatantly lied about the ages of its gymnasts. But China tends to ignore truth as well as common standards of decency in far graver matters, such as when it persecutes the peaceable Falun Gong as an "evil cult", provides military sponsorship to the genocidal government of Sudan, or kills its own in Tiananmen Square. Such is the case with climate change. China's disconnect between green marketing and sincere, substantive leadership on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is perfectly displayed in a widely circulated op-ed recently written by the top climate change official, Xie Zhenhua1. His piece attempts to make the case that "China attaches great importance to tackling climate change" based on a "deep sense of responsibility for its own people and the entire human race". The arguments in Mr Xie's op-ed track closely with many of those listed by Ms Liu. But these must be taken not with a grain but with a mountain of salt. The chief piece of evidence both Mr Xie and Ms Liu provide is China's goal to lower energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20% of the 2005 level by 2010. But energy consumption per unit of GDP naturally drops as nations grow richer. As Peter Huber of the Manhattan Institute noted recently in Forbes, "The poorest countries in Africa spend 100 percent of their GDP on food, the most primitive form of energy. Bill Gates, on the other hand, has the lowest energy consumption per unit of household GDP on the planet." Lowering energy consumption per unit of GDP is a wonderful thing, but China is not pursuing this goal because of warming. It is pursuing it because it wants to be rich. Mr Xie and Ms Liu approvingly note that China has shut down hundreds of small, inefficient coal-power plants in recent years. Unstated is that it is replacing this lost capacity with far larger coal plants. That makes economic sense. Trading smaller, less efficient power plants for larger, vastly more efficient ones will reduce emissions, at least as far as those old power plants go. But there is more to the story. China is adding so much additional coal-fired electricity capacity, thus cancelling out those slight reductions and then some, to suggest that the government doesn't care in the least about reducing emissions. Then there's reforestation. Ms Liu notes that China's most recent Five-Year Plan aims to considerably increase forest coverage. Mr Xie boasts that the forest coverage rate has increased from 12% a quarter of a century ago to 18.21% today, increasing China's carbon sinks. That is all good news, but curiously absent from their commentary is any mention that the United States has experienced considerable reforestation since early last century. Farming has grown vastly more efficient, and we use less wood for building. Forestland is now reclaiming significant portions of our countryside. As a result, roughly two-thirds of US carbon emissions are pulled back into our considerable carbon sinks. If a quarter-century of reforestation is evidence of China's leadership, shouldn't a century-long trend of it in the United States count for four times as much to critics quick to condemn the United States for not taking climate change seriously? Ms Liu is full of admiration for the steps that a dictatorial regime unaccountable to its citizenry can take without having to negotiate the roadblocks of democracy. Channeling Thomas Friedman, she writes, "China with its centralized control is much more willing to make hard decisions than the U.S." She lauds China's central planning, its enlightened five-year plans, its carefully selected investment in promising renewable energy technologies and its bold willingness to outlaw plastic bags in grocery stores. Ms. Liu's enthusiasm for China's autocracy strikes a sour note, however, when she writes, "China is also bubbling up another cultural revolution" based on recycling and conservation. However much recycling and conservation deserve praise, breezily referring to the Cultural Revolution—in which literally millions of people were killed in a state-sponsored campaign of terror—is probably not the best way to grant it. She moves from insensitive to downright offensive when she writes that it is not enough to credit China for its hard-choice actions. Ms Liu worries that China does not get enough acclaim for "what it's not doing". This is how she extols China's brutal one-child policy, which she happily notes has shaved 300m from the country's population rolls. Not only have China's statesponsored population-control, forced-abortion and infanticide efforts reduced energy demand, they represent "arguably the most effective way the country can mitigate climate change". If there is a downside, she notes, it is that such policies are "admittedly harder to implement" in other, retrograde countries where laws and policies are made democratically. I fear Ms Liu is missing an opportunity in her support of Beijing's leadership. She utterly fails to claim the 50m or so lives extinguished under Chairman Mao's reign for China's carbon ledger. Killing tens of millions of people can have no small effect on energy demand, so thank goodness their carbon emissions were snuffed out. China has been farsighted on climate change for even longer than Ms Liu gives it credit for! Several years ago, a venerable big-oil giant declared that its name—the letters BP—no longer referred to British Petroleum but to "beyond petroleum". This was an attempt to give the company some competitive advantage in the marketplace of public opinion compared with rivals like Chevron and Exxon Mobil. Despite this marketing scheme, however, BP had absolutely no intention of changing its core business. It remains one of the world's largest private oil companies, and hopes to be for decades to come. Critics called BP's stunt greenwashing. China is little different from BP in this regard. It would have the world believe that it takes climate change very seriously. But as its emissions soar, the byproduct of late industrialisation and the pell-mell pursuit of economic growth, it becomes clear that curbing the emissions alleged to cause global warming is no priority to the mandarins in Beijing. Mr Xie's and Ms Liu's claims touting Chinese leadership in fighting climate change are merely another instance of greenwashing. We would be fools to buy into it.

[1] http://www.project‐syndicate.org/commentary/xie1

Featured guest: Gary Locke Featured guest: Jonathan Woetzel

Comments from the floor Most recommended

Most recent

Oldest first

1-20 of 63 comments

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/418

« First

‹ Prev

4 Next ›

Last »

4/9

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

BeijingBloke wrote: Dear Sir, As an expatriate living in Beijing for many years, it has been with significant relief that this year has had many genuine 'Blue Sky Days' (not the dubious definition the Government gives of a 'blue sky day' using PM10 instead of PM2.5, and using meters way outside Beijing) but real, clear days that invigorate and refresh everyone who lives in this incredibly polluted city. How much of this is contributed to concerted environmental controls? It's hard to say. In fact, over the last 10 years I have generally judged the weather by my own standards by asking 2 questions: 1. How far can I see into the distance? and 2. At what time of the day can I look directly at the Sun without sunglasses? I remember in '99, practically everyday until 11am, you could stare at the Sun (if you could see it) without any pain whatsoever. Of course, the distance of vision was usually only a few hundred meters (or worse). This year, however, I have seen the distant mountains more and more often and it defies belief how well the Government 'controls' the weather when they need a clear day. eg. October 1st, Obama or Putin's visits, etc. But I have also experienced (as of a few weeks ago) the highest pollution levels ever recorded in Beijing: >550 on the WHO index, indicating Emergency levels. Very confusing. As I am in the business of engineering green buildings, it is with great relief that this market is gaining traction amongst Chinese developers. But adding 1500 cars a day to Beijing is like taking from Peter to pay Paul. In my opinion, China's heads of government are certainly putting a more concerted effort into preventing environmental degradation than the U.S. but they are not seeking ‘holistic’ approaches, nor are they putting enough effort into educating the masses on the benefits (and necessary sacrifices) of sustainable living practices. There is a real danger that as Citizen Wang rapidly gains affluence, so to does the rate of consumption. I can only hope that the government guides their 1.3 billion people from following America’s consumption example. Recommended (7)

Report abuse

posted on 03/12/2009 02:16:01 am

G_Khan wrote: Dear Sir, Climate change has been occurring for a few billion years or so, we have had plus or minus fifty odd metres for the earths sea levels, the odd ice age or two, oxygen levels up and down, entire continents now thousands of kilometres apart. This concept that the earth is constantly changing its complete being over its entire history should not be of any genuine concern. On the other hand ‘global warming’ due to mans interference with the planet, is a premise that is today, still too far away from being proven through any 100% reliable ‘fact gathering’ exercise. In reality the temperature data that has been gathered by mankind over the last 150 odd years or so is too dubious for genuine conclusions to be made those in the know let alone moronic politicians, in fact it’s so unreliable you cannot draw any conclusions from these records. Yet any scientist that questions the premise (global warming) risks being burnt at the stake for heresy as one daren’t question the new religion. Genghis Recommended (8)

Report abuse

posted on 01/12/2009 23:03:33 pm

dothesums wrote: Dear Sir, bedran is surely right. We emphasise every person (NOT every country) should have a fair share of carbon. China's one child policy has already done more to limit climate change in the coming decades than the rest of us put together. And it has been hard for the Chinese people. The UK Government thinks it is clever enough to avoid it being hard for anyone - I don't believe it. Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 01/12/2009 18:47:23 pm

Flashmantravels wrote: Dear Sir, excepting the fact that Peggy is a friend, upon reading the motion I strongly felt the proposition was false and I voted accordingly. After reading the two arguments, however, I have changed my vote since Peggy's arguments are qualitatively better than Max's. I have lived in China for 10 of the past 15 years and seen first-hand the halting efforts of a sprawling bureaucracy to address environmental issues. I also believe that China's mantra that the rich nations should pay for developing countries' climate efforts, while seemingly more "fair", is the wrong approach since it takes all responsibility and accountability away from governments such as China at a time when China's contribution to global warming has finally eclipsed America's. It is sad to see that Max, who has the stronger position, has descended to shopworn and emotional conservative talking points combined with unnecessary ad hominem arguments. Didn't such closeminded ideology leave the debating floor when the last US presidential administration left Washington? Shame on you, Max, your seemingly clever bon mots have tattered a stronger argument and handed the victory to the other side. Recommended (4)

Report abuse

posted on 01/12/2009 18:05:34 pm

Sensible GaTech Student wrote: Dear Sir, Of course, the more one looks at Mr Schulz's work, the more we see his true position:

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/418

5/9

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

"Instead of touting a green energy future, Beacon Hill’s mandarins should recognize that their emphasis on renewable energy technology and production will only hurt the Massachusetts economy further." - from "Energize!" article by Mr Schulz He is American-economy-first, gung-ho, and quite possible racist with the "mandarin" comment that seemed harmless in this article talking about Chinese leaders, but not so harmless when used to describe "evil government leaders." This debate has turned into a farce. Recommended (3)

Report abuse

posted on 01/12/2009 17:50:46 pm

Sensible GaTech Student wrote: Dear Sir, Max Schulz is all over the place in his arguments. Mao? Tiananmen Square? Rivers of blood? Murder of tens of millions of people? What is the relevance?? I wish the Economist moderator would keep the topic at hand in focus. He doesn't even attempt to hide his clear anti-China bias, and he is not even consistent in his own arguments. If Mr Schulz believes that the natural economic growth of an economy leads to a greener society, then isn't China certainly taking the lead instead of America's anti-business policies and negative y.o.y. growth rate? Honestly, I doubt Mr Schulz has ever had any real education about China, and has no feeling about green jobs or growth at all. Looking at his resume, found at http://www.manhattaninstitute.org/html/schulz.htm Here are some of the titles of his articles: "Why Rush on Global Warming" "NY's Power Needs: Drill, Baby, Drill" "The Green-Jobs Engine That Can't" The Economist should at least pick someone who's serious about tackling climate change from a US perspective. However, I know the reason you didn't choose someone else: people in the US that are serious about climate change would not be able to disagree with Ms Liu. That speaks volumes about the winner of this debate. Recommended (3)

Report abuse

posted on 01/12/2009 17:38:32 pm

Jack Broadnax wrote: Dear Sir, The reason why China wins the vote is the same reason the U.S. gets bashed so often. It is the difference between promises and results; stated versus revealed preference. Anybody with lungs or eyes can tell China is horribly polluted, but the authorities can talk a good game and "train" their mayors in greeness. It is like deciding who is the strongest man by listening to them talk about how much they plan to go to the gym. John Matel Recommended (10)

Report abuse

posted on 01/12/2009 17:12:02 pm

georgexia wrote: Dear Sir, The two debaters have talked about the different things.Ms Liu's focus on great efforts to be made by Chinese governments and businesses to deal with energy and environmental issues in the very recent years and will continue.Mr Schulz seems more interested in Chinese political issues. US has got a world bad repution in attitude to fighting climate change during the Bush adminstration.China has got a world bad repution in results in climate change. China as a world factory, the polution caused by Chinese high economic growth is very smiliar to the situation happened in the industrial revolution period which lasted two hundred years in the developed world. If climate change is true, all human being on this earth should be responsibe for it. It does matter who is leadership. China and US both should do more, do it together! Recommended (4)

Report abuse

posted on 01/12/2009 11:45:32 am

Report abuse

posted on 01/12/2009 09:17:59 am

feihuoliuxing wrote: Dear Sir, Recommended (0)

Gary Rieschel wrote: Dear Sir, It is interesting to me that in none of Ms. Liu's comments does she suggest that China's political system or transparency is superior to the U.S. She is making the case that regardless of the reason, China is demonstrating significantly more leadership than the U.S. in climate change policy. Nor does Ms. Liu try to make the claim (which would not be true) that China is pursuing its climate change policies on an altruistic basis. The U.S. today has much superior air and water quality than China. However, it was not so long ago (1960s, 1970s) when the U.S. faced many

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/418

6/9

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

of the same pollution issues China faces today, and the U.S. per capital GDP at that time was many times what China's is now. It is a fact that China is addressing its issues at an earlier stage of its development than the U.S. did. The reasons for China addressing these issues are identical to the reasons that drove the U.S. - social protests, understanding the real costs of pollution and energy inefficiency, and some external events (OPEC, Mid East unrest, and so on). China has real issues with social stability around pollution, especially water quality. China now understands the costs of cleaning up its environment, and China certainly feels the pressure from the rest of the world on emissions. So the drivers for why the U.S. cleaned up its environment and why China is acting today are identical, differing only in timing. Where China's leadership comes in is that China realizes it is in its OWN SELF INTEREST to make the investment and commitment in "cleantech" today. Whether the reason is social or economic, the Chinese leadership has decided this is a parade they want to be near the head of, not the tail. The U.S. wants it both ways - no pain for anyone, no hard decisions on resource allocations, etc., until some magic technology bullet comes along and solves all our problems. The SELF INTEREST in the U.S. is not at the country level, but the unabashed self interest of each of the members of Congress and Govt. There is nothing that the U.S. has done thus far in the items mentioned by Mr. Locke that should not have been done years before. This is not leadership - it is political expediency. If I were Mr. Schulz I would have focused on what the U.S. has contributed technically to the world's current energy efficiency and how dependent even today China is on taking advantage of much of that for its own purposes. China cannot succeed without the U.S. But trying to claim U.S. leadership in the climate change debate is a simply not what has happened in the real world. Recommended (5)

Report abuse

posted on 01/12/2009 01:47:44 am

Kay Irrawaddy wrote: Dear Sir, I can't say how US is doing good on Climate Change because the present climate situation has been rooted in America/Europe and Japan. Later, China joined this club. So, in my opinion, they are all culprits but trying to cheat the world that they care. "Red China" is still "Red" and the Giant Eagle -US is still flying well. Recommended (1)

Report abuse

posted on 01/12/2009 01:42:24 am

sanamjun_guy wrote: Dear Sir, In terms of debating style, the affirmative position is superior. However, Mr. Schulz' unfortunately combative style (and sidetracking) may tend to hide some important arguments in the discussion. China's LEADERSHIP on climate change is introspective, for the purpose of economic growth. It is not leadership in the traditional sense of the word. Has South East Asia, North Korea or it's West Asian and African neighbors/partners become more aware and more proactive in mitigating human-based environmental destructive activities? here is the real issue that Schulz might have considered. By comparison with the US, I would say the negative position could be strengthened considerably. Don Persons Recommended (4)

Report abuse

posted on 01/12/2009 01:17:22 am

so_its_said wrote: Dear Sir, 1) as usual, the Economist has reduced an important discussion into a 'binary' vote; the issue is a divisive one at that. 2) complex problems and issues do not have clearcut solutions, if there are solutions at all. 3) it is clear that neither China nor the US, is leading change on climate change 4) what is fairly certain is that China and the US contribute signficantly to problem 5) what is also fairly certain is that China and the US make their arguments based on economics and not necessarily what is consensus; that is, that we must significantly reduce GHGs and reduce consumpiton of energy. Thanks. Recommended (1)

Report abuse

posted on 01/12/2009 00:00:34 am

Wilford Washington wrote: Dear Sir, The question is "who is worse the drug dealer or the distributor of the drugs to the dealer." China's success comes because it provides to the world lowest cost products. (The cost of labor is relatively low and the enviromental impacts of manufacturing were spread to the Chinese people and the world instead of being born by the manufacturers.) United States and the rest of the world that consumes goods from China can continue overlook these passed along costs... Or we can respond, like the elimination of child labor campaign, and push for change until our collective consciences are satisfied that enough has been done. In any case we have created China in our own image and incentivized it to do what it is doing, now 70 plus percent of the readers want to point the

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/418

7/9

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

finger in China's direction and celebrate the change, when in fact the change is being driven by the consumers... Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 30/11/2009 22:30:38 pm

Kool07 wrote: Dear Sir,the results of the poll, just reflects the knee jerk anti-american bashing that seem to be fashionable among readers or non-readers for that matter. The Americans have a far more responsible environmental culture, practice and policy than China can ever dream of in the near term. So lets take our designer (fashion) lenses off and react to the facts. Everyday we buy the artificially undervalued (due to currency policy) Chinese products we increase the risks of global warming and climate change. Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 30/11/2009 21:44:32 pm

mdmus wrote: Dear Sir, I think that the Chinese style leadership seems to be top driven, while Americas should be to get out of the way of the private sector who I believe has been recently shocked into gaining a sense of responsibility for corporate actions. I know that business schools are pushing corporate ethics hard now and I believe that this is where Americas leadership on the environmental front will reap the largest gains from, rather than from Washington. American style government was designed to be slow and cumbersome for a reason. Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 30/11/2009 17:11:43 pm

mdmus wrote: Dear Sir, I think Mr. Schulz's arguments about China's past are very relevant in that they indicate a history of talking one game but playing another... In order to be a true leader you must do more than paint a rosy picture (by manipulating the press and "re-educating" the populous) and live in a dream world. People continue to be sent to the laogai(gulag style prison) for voicing environmental issues that paint the Chinese government in a bad light. http://laogai.org/blog/locking-best-and-brightest http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/press? revision_id=170260&item_id... (links provided to verify assertion) Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 30/11/2009 16:52:04 pm

calbearchemist wrote: Dear Sir, I feel as Mr Schulz is not really engaging the argument by relying on ad hominem fallacies about China. I feel as if he should use more examples of how the United States has shown more leadership on climate change than China instead of bemoaning China's human rights abuses. While those human rights violations in the past and present are terrible, they have little to do with Ms. Liu's arguments about China's actions on climate change. Recommended (3)

Report abuse

posted on 30/11/2009 15:42:31 pm

mdmus wrote: Dear Sir, Everyone agrees that pollution and inefficiency are bad, that they should be curbed as much as possible, and as quickly as possible to avoid environmental destruction. I think the more important question should be how much social and economic destruction will these two governments cause by trying to rapidly legislate the solution...I think China has already gone through an overnight societal upheaval in their recent history and there may be some validity to their approach of taking things slow and implementing solutions over a generation or two. Especially in regards to a system as complex as the weather... I think the solution must be citizen led not government led... So are Chinese citizens leading Chinas green movement or are they following? In the US? Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 30/11/2009 14:59:51 pm

THALK wrote: Dear Sir, So far, Ms Liu wins hands down. Then again, Mr. Schulz is no challenge. He is more interested in bashing Red China then to engage in the debate in any meaningful way. That being said, while Ms Liu gave plenty of examples of what China is doing in the right direction to make the country *greener* in the foreseable future. But since the debate is about *leadership* Ms Liu needs to be able to show the readers how those projects contribute to or constitutes leadership in the arena of climate change fight. This debate is not about who is greener or who pollute more over which timeframe. It is not about *ethics*. It is about who goes to the table with 1) the guts to say, we're going to do X, Y and Z, and we can get it done. and 2) the ability persuade, either diplomatically (preferred) or by authoritative means, enough countries to follow so that something can actually get done to save this planet for our children. Recommended (1)

Report abuse

posted on 30/11/2009 14:43:36 pm

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/418

8/9

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

1-20 of 63 comments

« First

‹ Prev

4 Next ›

Current debates

Upcoming debates

Recent debates

Manufacturing and the West "Will manufacturing return to the West?"

The next debate hasn't been scheduled yet. Sign up for email alerts, and an Economist moderator will remind you when the next one begins.

India's economy "As economic growth slows, is India losing its way?"

Last »

Home-ownership "Should home-ownership be discouraged?" VIEW ALL PAST DEBATES

About The Economist online

About The Economist

Media directory

Staff books

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/418

Career opportunities

Advertising info

Legal disclaimer

Accessibility

Site feedback Terms of use

Help

9/9

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

Friday October 19th 2012

Site feedback Manufacturing and the West Upcoming debates Past debates

China and the US

This house believes that China is showing more leadership than America in the fight against climate change ENTER THIS DEBATE

Summary

Opening (70 comments)

Tuesday November

Latest updates

Statements

Wednesday November

Guest

Thursday November Guest

Rebuttal (63 comments)

Friday November Statements

Monday November Guest

Closing (26 comments)

Tuesday December Guest

Wednesday December Statements

Thursday December Guest

Post-debate

Friday December

Decision

How an Economist debate works

This debate is archived. This page was orginally published on 30-November-2009. View the current and future debates.

Rebuttal statements

Defending the motion Peggy Liu Chairperson of JUCCCE

Is China doing more than the United States on climate change leadership? China's train has already left the station.

Against the motion Mr Max Schulz Senior fellow, Manhattan Institute's Center for Energy Policy and the Environment

Claims touting Chinese leadership in fighting climate change are merely another instance of greenwashing. We would be fools to buy into it. Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The moderator's rebuttal remarks

Nov 27th 2009 | Robert Lane Greene

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/423

1/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The proposer's rebuttal remarks

Nov 27th 2009 | Peggy Liu

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/423

2/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

Moderator

Pro

Con

The opposition's rebuttal remarks

Nov 27th 2009 | Mr Max Schulz

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/423

3/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

[1] http://www.project‐syndicate.org/commentary/xie1

Audience participation Comments from the floor. Featured guest: Jonathan Woetzel

Featured guest

Mr Gary Locke

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/423

4/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

If it was November 2008 instead of November 2009, it would be difficult to disagree with this motion, but no one has done more in the last year to take action on climate change than President Obama and his administration. It is true that the US government was missing in action far too long. However, recent initiatives taken by the United States at home and abroad are laying a comprehensive foundation not only to address climate change, but also to build a sustainable and prosperous clean energy future. To their credit, the Chinese have made real strides in moving towards cleaner, greener sources of energy. They have adopted the most aggressive energy efficiency programme in the entire world, and have pledged to get 15% of their energy from non-fossil fuel sources by 2020. I have read all about China's massive wind farms and the plan for a solar field in Mongolia that will be the size of Manhattan. That represents substantial progress. But President Obama's efforts after barely a year in office have been historic. He has already done more to reduce fossil fuel emissions than any president in US history. Through our Recovery Act, America invested over $80 billion in clean energy, which will double our renewable energy-generating capacity in three years. This spring, President Obama announced the first ever joint fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards for new cars and trucks, as well as a national home weatherisation programme and more stringent efficiency standards for appliances like refrigerators and microwaves. He has made the passage of comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation a top priority. The US House of Representatives has already passed a bill that would lower greenhouse gas emissions by more than 80% by 2050, and we are working hard to get a bill through the Senate as soon as possible. Perhaps most important, President Obama has been working to mobilise the entire world to combat climate change. He has already spearheaded an agreement at the Pittsburgh G20 summit for all G20 nations to phase out their fossil fuel subsidies over the medium term and to work with other countries to do the same. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation nations followed the G20 lead at their summit in Singapore, expanding the number of countries committing to reduce these subsidies. According to the International Energy Agency, this measure alone could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions 10% or more by 2050. As we approach the Copenhagen conference, it is essential that the countries of the world, led by the major economies, do what it takes to produce a strong, operational agreement that will launch a concerted effort to combat climate change and serve as a stepping stone to a legally binding treaty. In President Obama's recent meeting with President Hu in China, he said the aim of the summit "is not a partial accord or a political declaration, but rather an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations, and one that has immediate operational effect." That means a real action plan on contentious issues like financing for poor nations, technology cooperation and emission reduction targets. The US government may have been late to the party, but this administration is moving quickly. Moreover, for all the impressive steps that China has taken, they still have a long way to go, as they are currently the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases. And if China continues its fossil-fuel intensive growth path, the amount of carbon it emits in the next 30 years will equal all the carbon the United States has emitted in the life of the country. It has been said that it is unjust to ask China and other developing nations to drastically reduce their carbon emissions, when countries like the United States have spent 150 years using coal, oil and other dirty fuels to grow their economies. That is an understandable point, but of no concern to mother nature. She does not discriminate between carbon that comes from the United States or China, Europe or India. We all share the same atmosphere and if we do not act, we will all suffer from the coastal flooding, unpredictable weather and agricultural damage that undoubtedly is in store if we do not change the way we use energy. As inhabitants of this planet, we will rise or fall together. I am confident that the United States will continue building on the climate change leadership we have established this year, because there are so many constituencies that will no longer abide the status quo. In the United States, you cannot remove the climate change debate from broader concerns that Americans have about how our fossil-fuel dependence affects our security and our economy. It all fits together. Americans understand that our oil dollars finance regimes around the world that do not share US interests. They see the pernicious impact that wild swings in the oil market have on our economy. And in my travels across the country as commerce secretary, folks are beginning to grasp that the clean-energy technologies we need to mitigate climate change can also spawn one of the greatest growth industries of the 21st century, especially in the American heartland, which has been decimated by declines in manufacturing, a new green industrial base churning out things like wind turbines, advanced car batteries and electric cars has the potential to put many Americans back to work in good paying jobs. Americans may have a variety of reasons for supporting comprehensive energy reform, but it all gets us to the same place: a cleaner energy future and a real shot to stave off the worst effects of climate change. We certainly have our work cut out for us. In the past few months, the special interests have once again mobilised to kill off energy reform, just as they have every single time we have tried something similar over the past three decades. Change has never come easy, and it has never come without those who fought to hang on to the status quo. But this time has to be different. For the sake of our economy, our security and our planet, the United States is committed to grabbing the leadership mantle in the fight against climate change. And if our action spurs the Chinese to do more, all the better, because no country on its own can solve this problem. The challenges we face are significant, but the opportunities to prosper in a clean energy economy are too vast to pass up.

Reader Comments Featured guest: Jonathan Woetzel

Current debates

Upcoming debates

Recent debates

Manufacturing and the West "Will manufacturing return to the West?"

The next debate hasn't been scheduled yet. Sign up for email alerts, and an Economist moderator will remind you when the next one begins.

India's economy "As economic growth slows, is India losing its way?" Home-ownership "Should home-ownership be discouraged?" VIEW ALL PAST DEBATES

About The Economist online

About The Economist

Media directory

Staff books

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/423

Career opportunities

Advertising info

Legal disclaimer

Accessibility

Site feedback Terms of use

Help

5/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

Friday October 19th 2012

Site feedback Manufacturing and the West Upcoming debates Past debates

China and the US

This house believes that China is showing more leadership than America in the fight against climate change ENTER THIS DEBATE

Summary

Opening (70 comments)

Tuesday November

Latest updates

Statements

Wednesday November

Guest

Thursday November Guest

Rebuttal (63 comments)

Friday November Statements

Monday November Guest

Closing (26 comments)

Tuesday December Guest

Wednesday December Statements

Thursday December Guest

Post-debate

Friday December

Decision

How an Economist debate works

This debate is archived. This page was orginally published on 01-December-2009. View the current and future debates.

Rebuttal statements

Defending the motion Peggy Liu Chairperson of JUCCCE

Is China doing more than the United States on climate change leadership? China's train has already left the station.

Against the motion Mr Max Schulz Senior fellow, Manhattan Institute's Center for Energy Policy and the Environment

Claims touting Chinese leadership in fighting climate change are merely another instance of greenwashing. We would be fools to buy into it. Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The moderator's rebuttal remarks

Nov 27th 2009 | Robert Lane Greene

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/424

1/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The proposer's rebuttal remarks

Nov 27th 2009 | Peggy Liu

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/424

2/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

Moderator

Pro

Con

The opposition's rebuttal remarks

Nov 27th 2009 | Mr Max Schulz

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/424

3/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

[1] http://www.project‐syndicate.org/commentary/xie1

Audience participation Comments from the floor. Featured guest: Gary Locke

Featured guest

Dr Jonathan Woetzel

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/424

4/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

Since 1978 and the Four Modernizations, China's Communist leadership has held the principle of "truth from facts" as its mantra. Those facts have been hard to argue with, the single greatest leap out of poverty experienced in the history of mankind, the world's largest explosion of entrepreneurial energy and the most rapid improvement in the standard of living ever seen by the largest population in the world. Economic growth, however, is economic activity. The urbanisation of China has been its defining characteristic over the past 20 years and as rural residents become urban, their economic activity increases by an order of magnitude. And China is far from done: only 43% of the population lives in cities, compared with over 70% in the United States. By conservative estimates China will add another 350m to its urban population over the next 20 years, leading to 1 billion urban dwellers by 2030. Economic activity in turn fuels energy demand. Urban consumers need transport, heating, lighting and power far more than their rural brethren. Urbanisation means high-rises, factories and shopping malls. And it is hard to walk up to a 30th floor apartment, let alone hand-carry your groceries. No surprise then that for decades energy planners globally have assumed that GDP and energy demand grow in lockstep. The Chinese leadership has indicated that the implications of ever-rising energy demand are now unacceptable. Four years ago I first heard a clear declaration that China would emphasise energy efficiency and renewables as its sources of energy for the future. Why? Simply put, China wants to ensure it manages its energy dependency. China already imports half of its oil supply and its coal reserves are increasingly endangered as well. Improving energy security plus the environmental and health-care benefits of reducing fossil fuel emissions makes a powerful case for change. Thousands of premature deaths would be averted by moving away from fossil-fuel-dependent power generation, arising from reductions in a range of cardiorespiratory, lung cancer and acute respiratory illnesses. And as an unexpected bonus China has noted the example of Denmark and others that investment in new energy technologies can create globally competitive industries. China is now putting its money where its mouth is. In the last few years China has made a fairly dramatic move to delink economic growth and energy demand. Energy intensity over the five-year period from 2005 to 2010 will have declined by 20%. This delinking has come at an earlier stage in economic development than it did in the United States or any other developing economy. At the same time, China has committed itself to the world's largest nuclear programme and the world's largest wind programme. And China has the most electric vehicle pilots announced to date. All these measures improve China's energy security, create jobs and investment opportunities, and reduce its carbon emissions. The United States, like China, faces a major challenge in terms of energy security. The United States is the world's largest energy consumer and importer. However, the nature of its energy requirements is very different from China: where China is a fast-developing industrial economy, the United States is a relatively slower-growth consumer and service-oriented economy. Most US energy demand and usage is by consumers in the transport, household and commercial sectors. As a result the opportunity to improve efficiency and security is different. The United States has to wrestle with far more legacy issues around existing fleets and buildings and with a fundamentally lower level of demand growth. This reduces the amount of low-cost opportunities available to the United States relative to China. It is not surprising then that we see China apparently doing more to transform its energy economy at the moment, simply because there is more to do, and to do more cheaply. As one measure of this, China is already by far the largest recipient of CDM credits globally, reflecting the relatively low-cost nature of investment opportunities available. Yet it could be claimed that in the past the United States has also done more. Without US leadership in technology development, many promising opportunities would not be in place for China and the world to realise. The United States has led in the development of thin film solar, energy-efficient building systems and wind turbines, to name but three technologies with great abatement potential. The debate over who has or is doing more obscures the more fundamental point that both the United States and China must commit to sustainable energy technologies to ensure their global, large-scale deployment. Markets the size of the United States and China are indispensable for technologies that are in their early stage of development. And the rewards to both countries for pursuing sustainable energy development policies are substantial in terms of energy security, job creation, economic growth and environmental benefit, including the reduction of carbon emissions. Indeed, this reality does appear to be sinking in as the seven cooperation initiatives just announced by Presidents Hu and Obama are a very promising and sound basis for collaboration. The two presidents announced, among others, the establishment of the US-China Clean Energy Research Center to enhance building energy efficiency, clean coal, including carbon capture and storage, and clean vehicles. The US-China Electric Vehicle Initiative will include joint standards development, demonstration projects in more than a dozen cities, technical roadmapping and public education projects. And a new US-China Energy Efficiency Action Plan will support US and Chinese officials to work together and with the private sector to develop energy-efficient building codes and rating systems, benchmark industrial energy efficiency, train building inspectors and energy efficiency auditors for industrial facilities, harmonise test procedures and performance metrics for energy-efficient consumer products, exchange best practices in energy efficient labelling systems, and convene a new US-China Energy Efficiency Forum to be held annually, rotating between the two countries. These initiatives represent true leadership in the collaborative pursuit of technologies that will leave the world a better place for us and for our children. My hat is off to both leaders as they encourage us all to see who can do more to realise them.

Reader Comments Featured guest: Gary Locke

Current debates

Upcoming debates

Recent debates

Manufacturing and the West "Will manufacturing return to the West?"

The next debate hasn't been scheduled yet. Sign up for email alerts, and an Economist moderator will remind you when the next one begins.

India's economy "As economic growth slows, is India losing its way?" Home-ownership "Should home-ownership be discouraged?" VIEW ALL PAST DEBATES

About The Economist online

About The Economist

Media directory

Staff books

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/424

Career opportunities

Advertising info

Legal disclaimer

Accessibility

Site feedback Terms of use

Help

5/5

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

Friday October 19th 2012

Site feedback Manufacturing and the West Upcoming debates Past debates

China and the US

This house believes that China is showing more leadership than America in the fight against climate change ENTER THIS DEBATE

Summary

Opening (70 comments)

Tuesday November

Latest updates

Statements

Wednesday November

Guest

Thursday November Guest

Rebuttal (63 comments)

Friday November Statements

Closing (26 comments)

Monday November Guest

Tuesday December Guest

Wednesday December Statements

Thursday December Guest

Post-debate

Friday December

Decision

How an Economist debate works

Print Print with comments This debate is archived. This page was orginally published on 02-December-2009. View the current and future debates.

Closing statements

This debate has finished. Voting is now closed.

Defending the motion Peggy Liu Chairperson of JUCCCE

If a sustained top-down commitment to climate change mitigation is the metric, then China clearly wins. But smokestacks do not respect borders.

Against the motion Mr Max Schulz Senior fellow, Manhattan Institute's Center for Energy Policy and the Environment

The US is leading by focusing on the moral imperative of growing our economy and continuing to raise Americans' standard of living. China is following this lead. Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The moderator's closing remarks

Dec 2nd 2009 | Robert Lane Greene

In the midst of our debate, two pieces of news that should frame its closing. Barack Obama has announced that he will offer an American cut of emissions of 17% by 2020, and 83% by 2050. China, by contrast, has promised to cut the carbon intensity of its economy—CO2 emissions per unit of GDP, basically—by 40-50% by the same date. This latter promise is not the same as cutting emissions, of course: as China's economy continues to grow, its emissions will grow, but merely at a slower rate. But our debate has veered away from the script of two proponents for two different countries burnishing green credentials. In her final statement, Peggy Liu questions the question itself, saying that talk of competitive leadership should be replaced with talk of co-operation, and that China's and America's advances will only benefit one another. She notes that one of America's biggest utilities, Duke Energy, is working with the Chinese on carbon capture and storage, a dream which, if realised, would allow both countries to continue burning their mountains of coal. More such efforts might bear fruit (if suspicions can be laid aside and intercultural barriers breached). Max Schulz closes by questioning the question too, but in a very different way. Though he believes the climate is probably changing, he is not convinced that the science is firm on the need for big and immediate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. With this, he says, America really is leading, by refusing to impose economydamaging measures on the country. China, he says, should do the same, and do itself the world a favour by growing richer, too. This redefinition of leading on climate change is certainly a twist in the debate that many of our commenters, though not a majority, might find welcome: our climate-change debates have been closely

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/419

1/8

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

watched by many who think the very premises are wrong.

Jonathan Woetzel of McKinsey, in his expert contribution, like so many of our other debaters (and Ms Liu in this round) makes two fundamental points: China and America both benefit from the other's efforts, and this can be to their economic benefit as well. If he had to pick a winner, he is divided. China is doing impressively huge things because "there is more to do, and more cheaply," and it is also doing so with much technology developed in America. With a few more days to vote, and one more expert contribution (from Nick Mabey of E3G) to come, those who think China is doing more to lead in the fight against climate change currently have a pretty commanding lead: 73-27, not the kind of margin we usually see overturned this late in the day in our debates. But there is a first time for everything, so if you haven't yet voted, vote now.

Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The proposer's closing remarks

Dec 2nd 2009 | Peggy Liu

If a sustained top-down commitment to climate change mitigation is the metric, then China clearly wins. But smokestacks do not respect borders. And even if my opponent does not believe in climate change, I presume he does not want smoggy skies or dirty drinking water any more than the average resident of Beijing or Los Angeles does. Our goal should be that there are no losers in this debate. If the United States and China do not start showing serious sustainability successes soon, who cares who has greener, faster or bigger windmills? Do we wait for another series of cataclysmic events to spur us into action, or do we try to unite and find a common solution to our tragedy-of-the-commons problem? Mother Nature will surely whip up more Katrina-like storms to unite local geographical areas for brief periods of time. But ultimately, true systemic change to combat climate change and fundamentally alter our energy usage will only come about through more effective means of mass collaboration. In my summary, I would like to focus on how we get there faster, together. The Human Genome project showed us how international and cross-sector collaboration could shorten the time to sequence the genome tenfold. We need to apply the same scale of unprecedented cooperation to climate change. The easiest way to accelerate change in the way we create and use energy is to throw more money at the problem. Both countries are already doing this with government stimulus packages and encouragement of private-sector investment. This is low hanging fruit. But how do we ensure that the money is spent effectively on the most effective programmes? The fact is that mitigating climate change will take an enormous amount of money, and the ultimate cost of failing is beyond calculation. Areas ripe for international collaboration have been mapped out by papers from Brookings Institution, Center for American Progress and other organisations, especially in areas of technical cooperation. Many cooperation agreements have been signed, both recently and in the past, by both governments. From my perspective working on clean energy issues in China, I find it is the problem of how to work together day to day that presents bigger barriers in US-China relations. First and foremost, we must show mutual respect for different cultures' approaches and work methods. The easiest way to deepen relationships is to work and learn together in each other's countries, side by side and day to-day. Europeans already successfully put their workers in government offices and Chinese companies. With an announcement of a joint US-China research centre, we may see more meaningful working relationships that go beyond shuttle diplomacy. Another underutilised collaboration tool is web 2.0 technologies. We need to create a centralised online clearing-house to enable best practices to be shared and help match programmes with resources. Insight on key barriers and goals must be made more accessible, to keep the market focused and bring the best ideas to the fore. A much more difficult problem is making sure both sides are heard. As is true in most US-China energy conferences, productive dialogue is often stalled due to meeting protocol, language barriers and differences in body language. The intangible art of facilitating bilingual and bicultural dialogue needs to be brought to international energy talks to help us better understand and align the incentives of both sides. Professional consultancies that operate in both worlds, like IDEO, WhatIf! Innovation and McKinsey can be invaluable in moderating difficult discussions and need to be engaged in the energy sector. The good news is that this US administration's Department of Energy and Department of Commerce have been actively collaborating with China on clean energy. There have been monthly secretary-level visits to China. They have brought on board people who have studied or worked in China, and in some cases speak Chinese. They have respect for China's cultural differences and understand that there is much to learn from China. They are faced, however, with a group of Congressmen who view China as an economic enemy rather than partner. With this group, China cannot win. It is criticised for not doing enough to stem pollution. It is viewed negatively for trying to emulate the American dream and provide economic security for its people. It is viewed as threatening as it starts to succeed. This attitude is preventing the United States from showing climate change leadership and reacting nimbly to a shifting world reality. China will continue to be the largest energy market in the world during its next 20 years of urbanisation. Today, China is deploying the best technologies to upgrade its infrastructure, buying them from wherever it can get them. For example, China spent a total of $35 billion on electricity infrastructure in 2007, $18 billion of which was sourced internationally. But as European companies take their share of China's market and China's domestic companies start to produce products equal in quality, China will be less open to international cooperation and the United States will have lost its technical advantage and market entry opportunity. While the United States continues to focus on how to protect technology product sales through intellectual property rights and defending manufacturing jobs, it seems to be missing the boat on its true competitive advantage in China. China does well what China does best: making more of the same, at lower cost. But it is limited by its rote-based education system, excess labour supply and lack of tradition of customer service. The United States leads China on innovation, customer service and solutions. The United States should take advantage of this temporary gap to become system integrators of products from around the world and serve the vast and growing China market. This will require investing time and people in China to learn how the China market works (and accept that it works differently). One way to get to know China is the joint development of a green workforce through worker exchange. China is the most receptive it has ever been to international expertise, but it needs workers who understand how to work in China. For Western companies to succeed in China, they need to start training workers to apply technologies on a large scale and understand China's decision-making process. This August, a Chinese power producer, Huaneng, and Duke Energy created a worker exchange programme for cleaner coal and efficient plant operations. Duke Energy is actively engaging China in the areas of cleaner coal and smart grid because it believes China will deploy faster than the United States, which will help bring

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/419

2/8

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

production prices down for it to purchase products in the United States. It also knows that China can implement pilots more quickly, which will allow all partners to learn from them more quickly as well. According to information from Lawrence Livermore Lab, cooperation with China in CO2 streams, market development and R&D could accelerate carbon capture sequestration deployment in the United States by between five and ten years. An ideal collaborative project is one that is jointly funded by and creates jobs in both countries. We might start by jointly addressing our cities' needs for energy master plans that optimise the way they generate and use energy. Cities consume 75% of the world's energy and are responsible for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. But neither country has a focused programme for energy master planning. Joint US-China teams should work together on master plans for selected cities in both countries. The world is looking to both the United States and China to be climate change leaders. The world is waiting for the United States and China to dig down one level deeper from talk of cooperation to showing real results. To do this, the United States must understand the benefits of seeing China as a true partner. US government and business leaders must develop a China market strategy that invests in China today, or it will be shut out tomorrow. The West should see that inaction—not China —is its biggest enemy. See sources Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The opposition's closing remarks

Dec 2nd 2009 | Mr Max Schulz

On Saturday morning, the Los Angeles Times was forced to issue this whopper of a correction to a major story from the day before: An article and graphic in Friday's Section A about China's pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions stated that the nation had vowed to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2020. China promised to reduce its "carbon intensity," a measure of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product, by 40% to 45% by 2020, compared with 2005 levels. A headline accompanying the article was also incorrect in saying that "China meets, beats U.S. on emission reduction goals." Whereas the U.S. plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to below 2005 levels, China's emissions could actually increase, depending on its economic growth.1 That correction, to a story that oozed with admiration for the bold steps China is taking in the great international struggle against climate change, typifies the debate we are having. The instinct is for many to believe the worst about what the United States is (or is not doing) when the subject is climate change. This is because the American public refuses to adopt binding economic strictures to curb carbon emissions, and our legislators, answerable to that public, dare not pass a bill that would implement a carbon-reduction scheme. Meanwhile many are quick to praise an autocratic regime whose official pronouncements—which are mere words—convey concern and a desire to combat climate change. Yet even while China publicises its concern about what rising emissions are supposedly doing to the planet, it makes no effort to cut its emissions despite just having become the top emitter of carbon dioxide on earth. Make no mistake, China's CO2 emissions will continue rising by 2020 and likely for decades afterward, no matter how the media try to obscure that fact. It was not just the LA Times that made this mistake of giving China more credit than even Beijing was claiming. The Washington Post did much the same, with a story headlined: "China Sets Target for Emissions Cuts".2 Right on the money, except, of course, for the fact that China's emissions will rise. No matter. That sort of postulation is hardly unusual in Washington. For years, politicians of all political stripes have claimed that slowing an expected rate of increase in government spending amounts to actually cutting spending. Ronald Reagan was praised by some and pilloried by others for "cutting" spending on programmes whose funding increased. It just did not increase as dramatically as it had before. So it goes with the fight against CO2, where slowing the rate of China's dramatic increase in emissions amounts to leadership in curbing them. The irony here is that it is touted as such by many of those who believe that any increase in the amount of emissions amounts to killing the planet. The most salient facts, courtesy of the Energy Information Administration's most recent international estimates, are these: In 2006, China's electric generation amounted to 2,773 billion KWh, of which 2,191 billion KWh (or 79%) came from coal. In 2030, China's electric generation is estimated to more than triple, to 8,547 billion KWh.3 Coal will account for only 75% of that generation. That is a slightly smaller percentage, but of a vastly larger pie. In 2030, China will generate 6,410 billion KWh from coal, three times the current amount. This is leadership? There is a case to be made that the United States has been leading on battling climate change, at least in the conventional sense. The United States has been subsidising renewable energy technology research, development and deployment for decades, since even before global warming was a major concern. The stimulus package passed earlier this year will supersize some of those efforts. At the state level, we are seeing implementation of renewable portfolio standards, which mandate that utilities get a certain percentage of the power they sell from green energy sources. All of these actions have helped draw private capital, a point which seems lost on those who choose to count only government expenditures in green tech. This defence also would point out that the United States essentially invented the commercial nuclear power industry, the benefits of which are evident not just in the United States (20% of whose electricity comes from emissions-free nuclear power), but around the world as well. It would also focus on America's long-term reforestation, which has occurred not because of any plan dreamed up by Washington technocrats, but because the efficiencies of capitalism have reduced the amount of land needed for agriculture and wood for building. America's growing carbon sinks swallow a substantial amount of US carbon emissions, something that critics of the United States routinely refuse to recognise. By and large I have not made the case that the United States is leading the fight against emissions and in favour of transforming to a post-carbon economy, because I am not convinced that is leadership of any value. Part of that has to do with my not accepting some of the assumptions at the heart of the apocalyptic claims about global warming. I believe climate change is occurring, and the planet indeed may be warming. But I also believe that we are woefully underinformed about why or how this may be happening. The Hadley Climate Research Unit scandal underscores the severe flaws in how climate data are collected and modelled, as well as in how a scientific consensus could emerge holding that the planet is in peril. The argument for urgent action was sunk at Hadley. The real urgency, it seems, was to push for extreme energy-rationing measures on Western economies to be implemented before its modelling fraud was exposed. Another part of my reluctance to engage this debate in the conventional sense is that I have great scepticism about the ability of governments to enact an energy revolution that would replace fossil fuels with wind, solar,and other renewables while maintaining economic growth and improving standards of living. Governments can do many great and mighty things. Defying the laws of physics is not one of them. I will submit that the United States has shown real, actual leadership when it comes to climate change in that it has resisted (so far, at least) the calls to self-impose draconian economic controls in the name of curbing emissions. The United States is leading by focusing on the moral imperative of growing our economy and continuing to raise Americans' standard of living. China is following this lead. Putting aside China's pretend leadership and token renewable energy investment, it is steadfastly refusing to accept binding restrictions on its own emissions.

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/419

3/8

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

That is a good thing. The problems of actual poverty in China, Africa and other undeveloped portions of the world are far more pressing than the theoretical problems of global warming that supercomputers like those at the Hadley CRU have managed to spit out after chewing on highly questionable data. Let China and the rest of the developing world grow rich. Let us hope the United States and Europe grow richer too. A wealthier planet will be better equipped to handle the extremely slow-moving problems said to be associated with climate change. It will also give us time to better understand what, if anything, is actually happening, why it is and what the consequences might be. 1

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/corrections/la-a4-correx28-2009nov28,0,3509203.story http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/26/AR2009112600519.html 3 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/0484(2009).pdf 2

Featured guest: Nick Mabey

Comments from the floor Most recommended

Most recent

Oldest first

1-20 of 26 comments

« First

‹ Prev

2 Next ›

Last »

Gibswong2 wrote: Dear Sir, I vote for the motion for the following reasons: 1) China is showing the governance required to solve the global warming problem: - It has a long-term focus. - Its Government works closely with the Science and Engineering faculties of its universities to seek practical solutions. - It is not hostage to short term electoral pressures or lobby groups. - It is investing heavily in low carbon technology. - It recognises the need to control population and has taken steps to do this. 2) China is both a developed country (visit Shanghai) and a developing country (visit is western provinces). It straddles the developed/developing issue. It is working to curb emissions from its developed cities while developing its poor rural communities. In doing so it will provide the solutions the world needs to follow. 3) China is not perfect. It has watched Hollywood movies and copied many of the US's car-sprawl-city faults but this American influence is now on the decline. China is developing its own solutions. Look to China rather than the US for leadership by example. J Robert Gibson Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 04/12/2009 00:16:58 am

Kurt Lessing wrote: Dear Sir, neither China nor the U.S. have any green credentials or agenda to speak of. But their geographic positions will soon make sure they see the error of their ways. It will take some Katrinas, but they will get there. Recommended (7)

Report abuse

posted on 03/12/2009 21:28:15 pm

Riverson Justice wrote: Dear Sir, "In the midst of our debate, two pieces of news that should frame its closing. Barack Obama has announced that he will offer an American cut of emissions of 17% by 2020, and 83% by 2050. China, by contrast, has promised to cut the carbon intensity of its economy—CO2 emissions per unit of GDP, basically—by 40-50% by the same date. This latter promise is not the same as cutting emissions, of course: as China's economy continues to grow, its emissions will grow, but merely at a slower rate." That said, the whole debate and voting goes meaningless as our ground are no longer based on what both sides had stated but a piece of news? I won't vote in such a debate where the a news almost void all the previous speeches, at least according to the moderator. Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 03/12/2009 16:21:40 pm

Report abuse

posted on 03/12/2009 14:52:24 pm

expatjohn wrote: Dear Sir, Recommended (0)

Deborah Chu wrote: Dear Sir, Neither America nor China is devoted to carbon emissions. However, going green is the mainstream. Against the grain, a country will suffer both

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/419

4/8

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

political and economic setbacks in the international area. In terms of clean energy, its technology transfer involves trade-offs:How much valuable know-how will be shared? Could it become the breeding ground for bribes and dumping obsolte technologies to developing countries? Who will audit the validation of technologies and measure their impacts on the adopting countries? The result could become a blame game, accusing each other of irresponsible practices. Deborah Chu Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 03/12/2009 13:35:17 pm

Davesh wrote: Dear Sir, i personally do not think that any country is doing enough to save environment .As even we should not think that any state head will dare to do the same except a mere lip service because of backlash at home. The solution for the same is that every country small or big ,rich or poor contribute to SAVE EARTH FUND and it should be managed by some global agency which should be entrusted to make available the technology and take some punitive measures to defaulting parties.. DAVESH BANSAL INDIA Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 03/12/2009 12:36:16 pm

et3 wrote: Dear Sir, This is a race to nowhere (or backwards). It is foolish for either China or the US to lead in a fight against global warming (GW) and for several reasons: * Most GW is NOT caused by humans, it is naturally occurring and cyclical. The current hype over GW is media induced hysteria with a mostly political component. * Geologists generally concur that 12,000 years ago the the rate of GW and sea level rise (perhaps the most reliable GW indicator) was 7 to 10 times faster than the worst GW trends predicted by the IPCC report. * Historically (and prehistorically) GW has been a very positive thing for most (not all) humans. There are far more benefits than costs for the typical person. (It is much easer to survive in a tropical or desert climate than in an arctic one). * There are far greater concerns to humans than GW (for instance dependency on oil for transportation, water air and earth pollution, and pyroclastic events. * Fighting GW that is proven to be mostly natural AND mostly beneficial is very costly and economically and socially unsustainable. The leader in a fight against GW is really the biggest looser. Real leaders will take on much more important fights. Recommended (1)

Report abuse

posted on 03/12/2009 06:34:24 am

nttam wrote: Dear Sir, Now that the world are facing with 3 crunches at the same time: credit crunch, climate changes and energy price shocks. I think that we don't have many choices to resolve this problem other than switching to renewable energy, in other words, using "energy from heaven" (from solar, wind, water) rather than "energy from hell" (fossil energy). Energy from heaven will certainly be evironmentally friendly. Moreover, they are endless. The oil's price will hardly fall down as the natural ressource need long time to reconstruct and a countries, possessing this ressource, use it as a mean to arrure their affluences. Recent reports show that US and China are two countries that are using the lion's share of energy in the world. However, they haven't showed signs of their concerns on the climate's changes yet. Everything they are doing is not enough. With their capacities, they could do something far mre efficient. We need not only their concensus in Copehaguen but also their concrete actions in future... Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 03/12/2009 04:58:28 am

Vinee Moor wrote: Dear Sir, If you have channels to learn Chinese people real thought, you might change your mind on "China will lead the fight". When China government committed the government will reduce the CO2 emissions by 40-50%, lots of Chinese people posted their comments on internet, "why government do not announce the bigger number? how about 100%? Its only a data, our government has lots of expert who can play data magic. The number of GDP continue to soar even the income of the citizens continue to reduce. It's only a NUMBER matter." Lots of report or news show very few proportion of the capital which should be used to reduce emission or improve environment is really fulfilled, the lion share is corrupted. Recommended (1)

Report abuse

posted on 03/12/2009 02:30:48 am

sanamjun_guy wrote: Dear Sir, I am not convinced of the superiority of Chinese leadership on climate change in a regional or global sense, whereas evidence for US leadership in that way as presented in the debate does have some hard data. Mr. Schulz' list of Obama's executive contributions on climate change is more convincing. If I were a debate judge, I would be tempted to vote for the affirmative side. Ms. Liu clearly presented her case with integrity and outdebated Mr.

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/419

5/8

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

Schulz. But I am a global citizen first, hence the data I find relevant to the current motion is actual and observable investment in diplomcy and in actual national executive leadership, rather than spin. Recommended (3)

Report abuse

posted on 03/12/2009 01:17:10 am

OhCanada wrote: Dear Sir, the anti-China rant by Mr. Schulz is both pathetic and a little scary. If he in fact represents the views of the majority of the American public, God help us all. Not only is his discourse completely off topic (democratic vs. communist rule rather than leadership on climate change), he is obviously one of the remaining few who prefers to keep his head planted firmly in the sand when it comes to acknowledging the reality of climate change, and our need to deal with it. I agree whole-heartedly with Ms. Liu that the only way of avoiding the potentially devestating effects of climate change is through global cooperation. The venom and vitriol spewed by Mr. Schulz does nothing to address the problem and smacks of the U.S. rhetoric of the 1960's and 1970's when the U.S. was a lot more relevant as a world power than they are today. Apparently, Mr. Schulz still considers the idea of cooperation between the U.S. and China to be blasphemous. Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 03/12/2009 00:05:11 am

Zimmermeister wrote: Dear Sir,No one seems to face the reality of world pollution. Airplanes are the worst pollutors. Moisture in the stratosphere causes much damage. War is the other major culprit. Too much unnecessary transportation wastes resources and pollutes.There is too much electricity usage. Few turn off lights when leaving a room and there seem to be many things plugged in to charge that didn't exist several years ago. Recommended (1)

Report abuse

posted on 02/12/2009 22:28:04 pm

kenray wrote: Dear Sir, Mr. Schulz is correct on two points: The U. S. not only has more power generation from nuclear plants both in absolute numbers but also in percentage of total power generation. In addition the U. S. has more plants being built or planned than does China. On the auto emissions issue, the U.S. will be able to build the infrastructure required for re-energizing the batteries in all electric cars. The motivation to do so is the old capitalistic idea of taking advantage of a new market direction and profiting from early implementation. China may issue it's 5 year plans but so did the Soviet Union and we all know where that got them. kenray Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 02/12/2009 22:16:34 pm

JLJL wrote: Dear Sir, I Think Mr. Schulz is right in his analysis when he points out that China's 40% reduction cannot be compared to US' 17%. Comparing carbon emissions without taking population into account is equally incorrect. The best criterion to base the comparison on, is carbon emission per capita. One on which China scores 4 to 5 times better than the US does. The fact that about 33% of China's emissions account for exports, which are clearly consumed by the West, doesn't make this comparison better. I believe every person on this world has the same right to use the global commons. Since we are already using too much of them, I guess it is up to the biggest polluters to take the biggest steps... So when Mr. Schulz is claiming that the United States are leading by focusing on the moral imperative of growing their economy and continuing to raise Americans' standard of living, he should probably be saying: The United States should be leading by diminishing their carbon emissions drastically, without any reservations. Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 02/12/2009 19:22:48 pm

Pruz wrote: Dear Sir, I agree with the proposer's remarks, that we should get to co-operation and not competition, that smokestacks don't respect borders. Having set that aside, we're kidding ourselves if we put a question as to which of the world's 2 largest polluters is doing better. Truth is, they have both been the biggest stumbling blocks in getting it right, in doing something against global warming, in reducing emissions. The United states has sat out Kyoto for 20 years! And China has been steadily polluting more and more and been the largest polluter for sometime now - even as it trumpets the "per capita" pollution charge! How ridiculous! In fact, what is the point of this debate, they've both done Jack to combat climate change. For aiding climate change, the US held the baton for 20 and more years, then passed it to China for the last few. Equally guilty now. Recommended (11)

Report abuse

posted on 02/12/2009 17:41:54 pm

marusemi wrote:

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/419

6/8

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

Dear Sir,

Its even worse than it looks. US Government and US NGOs like the International Rivers Network have worked together to block the application of renewable energy technologies such as hydropower. While China has shrugged off objections (the 3 gorges scheme was originally designed in collaboration with the US's TVA, before 1948), poorer countries have struggled until China offered to fund projects blocked by the US at DFIs like the World Bank. Disgraceful behaviour, but it is clear that they are running scared of competition. Recommended (10)

Report abuse

posted on 02/12/2009 16:09:29 pm

xinglongnite wrote: Dear Sir, I believe China has a commitment to increase its non-fossile electric power generation to 20% by 2020, and the US has a similar goal called out in its energy bill earlier this year. But it's clear that non-fossile electricity generation, sans nuclear, is not cost efficient without massive government subsidy. If China is to double or tripple its electric power generation over the coming 2-3 decades, there is no doubt it will have to build more coal powered plants and emit more carbon. But that doesn't mean China is making any less effort than the US in reduction. On the contrary, if a technologically advanced nation such as the US could only put forward the same goal, it is not doing enough to lead. 80% of the existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the result of economic development of the developed world during the last two centuries, while the developing world, including China, has to take on the burden of both developent and emission reduction at the same time for this already polluted world. Therefore it is incumbent upon the US, as the leader in every aspect in the developed world, who should step forward to take the first and the deepest cuts. Refusing a fair share of cuts, while calling the developing world to stop development in the name of saving the world, is not the right thing to do, shame on you Mr. Max Schulz. Recommended (5)

Report abuse

posted on 02/12/2009 14:49:20 pm

GWBobby wrote: Dear Sir, there can be no fight against climate change because a) humans are not responsible for climate change and b) we do not yet adequately understand the climate system. Many honest, reputable scientists have reviewed the science and the data and concluded that there is no basis for the belief in man-made global warming. The recently released emails and files clearly show a group of people who cooked the data and the science and very actively stifled dissent. This is a very important issue because severe damage is going to be done in the effort to solve a non-existent problem. There are real problems which are deserving of such attention. Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 02/12/2009 13:21:14 pm

Saurabh Suneja wrote: Dear Sir, I believe that both the nations have their own piece of pride. No nation wants to bow down to other nation's strategy. However, I strongly feel that China does a better job in environment protection than America and it'll continue doing so because of China's competitive nature. It'll bring in reforms and will do the needful in the future too. My view might sound tainted but the way China has done it in the history-be it the birth control policy- and is doing even now, America is not the country which should reap the praise. Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 02/12/2009 10:23:27 am

Gao Zhengkun. Jay wrote: Dear Sir, Hopefully, China is really working towards a green nation, not only cities but the country as a whole. Recommended (0)

Report abuse

posted on 02/12/2009 08:56:24 am

1-20 of 26 comments

« First

‹ Prev

2 Next ›

Current debates

Upcoming debates

Recent debates

Manufacturing and the West "Will manufacturing return to the West?"

The next debate hasn't been scheduled yet. Sign up for email alerts, and an Economist moderator will remind you when the next one begins.

India's economy "As economic growth slows, is India losing its way?"

Last »

Home-ownership "Should home-ownership be discouraged?" VIEW ALL PAST DEBATES

About The Economist online

About The Economist

Media directory

Staff books

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/419

Career opportunities

Advertising info

Legal disclaimer

Accessibility

Site feedback Terms of use

Help

7/8

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Statements

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/419

8/8

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

Friday October 19th 2012

Site feedback Manufacturing and the West Upcoming debates Past debates

China and the US

This house believes that China is showing more leadership than America in the fight against climate change ENTER THIS DEBATE

Summary

Opening (70 comments)

Tuesday November

Latest updates

Statements

Wednesday November

Guest

Thursday November Guest

Rebuttal (63 comments)

Friday November Statements

Monday November Guest

Closing (26 comments)

Tuesday December Guest

Wednesday December Statements

Thursday December Guest

Post-debate

Friday December

Decision

How an Economist debate works

This debate is archived. This page was orginally published on 03December2009. View the current and future debates.

Closing statements

Defending the motion Peggy Liu Chairperson of JUCCCE

If a sustained topdown commitment to climate change mitigation is the metric, then China clearly wins. But smokestacks do not respect borders.

Against the motion Mr Max Schulz Senior fellow, Manhattan Institute's Center for Energy Policy and the Environment

The US is leading by focusing on the moral imperative of growing our economy and continuing to raise Americans' standard of living. China is following this lead.

Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The moderator's closing remarks

Dec 2nd 2009 | Robert Lane Greene

In the midst of our debate, two pieces of news that should frame its closing. Barack Obama has announced that he will offer an American cut of emissions of 17% by 2020, and 83% by 2050. China, by contrast, has promised to cut the carbon intensity of its economy—CO2 emissions per unit of GDP, basically—by 4050% by the same date. This latter promise is not the same as cutting emissions, of course: as China's economy continues to grow, its emissions will grow, but merely at a slower rate. But our debate has veered away from the script of two proponents for two different countries burnishing green credentials. In her final statement, Peggy Liu questions the question itself, saying that talk of competitive leadership should be replaced with talk of cooperation, and that China's and America's advances will only benefit one another. She notes that one of America's biggest utilities, Duke Energy, is working with the Chinese on carbon capture and storage, a dream which, if realised, would allow both countries to continue burning their mountains of coal. More such efforts might bear fruit (if suspicions can be laid aside and intercultural barriers breached). Max Schulz closes by questioning the question too, but in a very different way. Though he believes the climate is probably changing, he is not convinced that the science is firm on the need for big and immediate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. With this, he says, America really is leading, by refusing to impose economy damaging measures on the country. China, he says, should do the same, and do itself the world a favour by growing richer, too. This redefinition of leading on climate

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/425

1/4

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

change is certainly a twist in the debate that many of our commenters, though not a majority, might find welcome: our climatechange debates have been closely watched by many who think the very premises are wrong. Jonathan Woetzel of McKinsey, in his expert contribution, like so many of our other debaters (and Ms Liu in this round) makes two fundamental points: China and America both benefit from the other's efforts, and this can be to their economic benefit as well. If he had to pick a winner, he is divided. China is doing impressively huge things because "there is more to do, and more cheaply," and it is also doing so with much technology developed in America. With a few more days to vote, and one more expert contribution (from Nick Mabey of E3G) to come, those who think China is doing more to lead in the fight against climate change currently have a pretty commanding lead: 7327, not the kind of margin we usually see overturned this late in the day in our debates. But there is a first time for everything, so if you haven't yet voted, vote now.

Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The proposer's closing remarks

Dec 2nd 2009 | Peggy Liu

If a sustained topdown commitment to climate change mitigation is the metric, then China clearly wins. But smokestacks do not respect borders. And even if my opponent does not believe in climate change, I presume he does not want smoggy skies or dirty drinking water any more than the average resident of Beijing or Los Angeles does. Our goal should be that there are no losers in this debate. If the United States and China do not start showing serious sustainability successes soon, who cares who has greener, faster or bigger windmills? Do we wait for another series of cataclysmic events to spur us into action, or do we try to unite and find a common solution to our tragedyofthecommons problem? Mother Nature will surely whip up more Katrinalike storms to unite local geographical areas for brief periods of time. But ultimately, true systemic change to combat climate change and fundamentally alter our energy usage will only come about through more effective means of mass collaboration. In my summary, I would like to focus on how we get there faster, together. The Human Genome project showed us how international and crosssector collaboration could shorten the time to sequence the genome tenfold. We need to apply the same scale of unprecedented cooperation to climate change. The easiest way to accelerate change in the way we create and use energy is to throw more money at the problem. Both countries are already doing this with government stimulus packages and encouragement of privatesector investment. This is low hanging fruit. But how do we ensure that the money is spent effectively on the most effective programmes? The fact is that mitigating climate change will take an enormous amount of money, and the ultimate cost of failing is beyond calculation. Areas ripe for international collaboration have been mapped out by papers from Brookings Institution, Center for American Progress and other organisations, especially in areas of technical cooperation. Many cooperation agreements have been signed, both recently and in the past, by both governments. From my perspective working on clean energy issues in China, I find it is the problem of how to work together day to day that presents bigger barriers in USChina relations. First and foremost, we must show mutual respect for different cultures' approaches and work methods. The easiest way to deepen relationships is to work and learn together in each other's countries, side by side and day today. Europeans already successfully put their workers in government offices and Chinese companies. With an announcement of a joint USChina research centre, we may see more meaningful working relationships that go beyond shuttle diplomacy. Another underutilised collaboration tool is web 2.0 technologies. We need to create a centralised online clearinghouse to enable best practices to be shared and help match programmes with resources. Insight on key barriers and goals must be made more accessible, to keep the market focused and bring the best ideas to the fore. A much more difficult problem is making sure both sides are heard. As is true in most USChina energy conferences, productive dialogue is often stalled due to meeting protocol, language barriers and differences in body language. The intangible art of facilitating bilingual and bicultural dialogue needs to be brought to international energy talks to help us better understand and align the incentives of both sides. Professional consultancies that operate in both worlds, like IDEO, WhatIf! Innovation and McKinsey can be invaluable in moderating difficult discussions and need to be engaged in the energy sector. The good news is that this US administration's Department of Energy and Department of Commerce have been actively collaborating with China on clean energy. There have been monthly secretarylevel visits to China. They have brought on board people who have studied or worked in China, and in some cases speak Chinese. They have respect for China's cultural differences and understand that there is much to learn from China. They are faced, however, with a group of Congressmen who view China as an economic enemy rather than partner. With this group, China cannot win. It is criticised for not doing enough to stem pollution. It is viewed negatively for trying to emulate the American dream and provide economic security for its people. It is viewed as threatening as it starts to succeed. This attitude is preventing the United States from showing climate change leadership and reacting nimbly to a shifting world reality. China will continue to be the largest energy market in the world during its next 20 years of urbanisation. Today, China is deploying the best technologies to upgrade its infrastructure, buying them from wherever it can get them. For example, China spent a total of $35 billion on electricity infrastructure in 2007, $18 billion of which was sourced internationally. But as European companies take their share of China's market and China's domestic companies start to produce products equal in quality, China will be less open to international cooperation and the United States will have lost its technical advantage and market entry opportunity. While the United States continues to focus on how to protect technology product sales through intellectual property rights and defending manufacturing jobs, it seems to be missing the boat on its true competitive advantage in China. China does well what China does best: making more of the same, at lower cost. But it is limited by its rotebased education system, excess labour supply and lack of tradition of customer service. The United States leads China on innovation, customer service and solutions. The United States should take advantage of this temporary gap to become system integrators of products from around the world and serve the vast and growing China market. This will require investing time and people in China to learn how the China market works (and accept that it works differently). One way to get to know China is the joint development of a green workforce through worker exchange. China is the most receptive it has ever been to international expertise, but it needs workers who understand how to work in China. For Western companies to succeed in China, they need to start training workers to apply technologies on a large scale and understand China's decisionmaking process. This August, a Chinese power producer, Huaneng, and Duke Energy created a worker exchange programme for cleaner coal and efficient plant operations. Duke Energy

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/425

2/4

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

is actively engaging China in the areas of cleaner coal and smart grid because it believes China will deploy faster than the United States, which will help bring production prices down for it to purchase products in the United States. It also knows that China can implement pilots more quickly, which will allow all partners to learn from them more quickly as well. According to information from Lawrence Livermore Lab, cooperation with China in CO2 streams, market development and R&D could accelerate carbon capture sequestration deployment in the United States by between five and ten years. An ideal collaborative project is one that is jointly funded by and creates jobs in both countries. We might start by jointly addressing our cities' needs for energy master plans that optimise the way they generate and use energy. Cities consume 75% of the world's energy and are responsible for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. But neither country has a focused programme for energy master planning. Joint USChina teams should work together on master plans for selected cities in both countries. The world is looking to both the United States and China to be climate change leaders. The world is waiting for the United States and China to dig down one level deeper from talk of cooperation to showing real results. To do this, the United States must understand the benefits of seeing China as a true partner. US government and business leaders must develop a China market strategy that invests in China today, or it will be shut out tomorrow. The West should see that inaction—not China —is its biggest enemy. See sources Skip to...

Moderator

Pro

Con

The opposition's closing remarks

Dec 2nd 2009 | Mr Max Schulz

On Saturday morning, the Los Angeles Times was forced to issue this whopper of a correction to a major story from the day before: An article and graphic in Friday's Section A about China's pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions stated that the nation had vowed to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2020. China promised to reduce its "carbon intensity," a measure of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product, by 40% to 45% by 2020, compared with 2005 levels. A headline accompanying the article was also incorrect in saying that "China meets, beats U.S. on emission reduction goals." Whereas the U.S. plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to below 2005 levels, China's emissions could actually increase, depending on its economic growth.1 That correction, to a story that oozed with admiration for the bold steps China is taking in the great international struggle against climate change, typifies the debate we are having. The instinct is for many to believe the worst about what the United States is (or is not doing) when the subject is climate change. This is because the American public refuses to adopt binding economic strictures to curb carbon emissions, and our legislators, answerable to that public, dare not pass a bill that would implement a carbonreduction scheme. Meanwhile many are quick to praise an autocratic regime whose official pronouncements—which are mere words—convey concern and a desire to combat climate change. Yet even while China publicises its concern about what rising emissions are supposedly doing to the planet, it makes no effort to cut its emissions despite just having become the top emitter of carbon dioxide on earth. Make no mistake, China's CO2 emissions will continue rising by 2020 and likely for decades afterward, no matter how the media try to obscure that fact. It was not just the LA Times that made this mistake of giving China more credit than even Beijing was claiming. The Washington Post did much the same, with a story headlined: "China Sets Target for Emissions Cuts".2 Right on the money, except, of course, for the fact that China's emissions will rise. No matter. That sort of postulation is hardly unusual in Washington. For years, politicians of all political stripes have claimed that slowing an expected rate of increase in government spending amounts to actually cutting spending. Ronald Reagan was praised by some and pilloried by others for "cutting" spending on programmes whose funding increased. It just did not increase as dramatically as it had before. So it goes with the fight against CO2, where slowing the rate of China's dramatic increase in emissions amounts to leadership in curbing them. The irony here is that it is touted as such by many of those who believe that any increase in the amount of emissions amounts to killing the planet. The most salient facts, courtesy of the Energy Information Administration's most recent international estimates, are these: In 2006, China's electric generation amounted to 2,773 billion KWh, of which 2,191 billion KWh (or 79%) came from coal. In 2030, China's electric generation is estimated to more than triple, to 8,547 billion KWh.3 Coal will account for only 75% of that generation. That is a slightly smaller percentage, but of a vastly larger pie. In 2030, China will generate 6,410 billion KWh from coal, three times the current amount. This is leadership? There is a case to be made that the United States has been leading on battling climate change, at least in the conventional sense. The United States has been subsidising renewable energy technology research, development and deployment for decades, since even before global warming was a major concern. The stimulus package passed earlier this year will supersize some of those efforts. At the state level, we are seeing implementation of renewable portfolio standards, which mandate that utilities get a certain percentage of the power they sell from green energy sources. All of these actions have helped draw private capital, a point which seems lost on those who choose to count only government expenditures in green tech. This defence also would point out that the United States essentially invented the commercial nuclear power industry, the benefits of which are evident not just in the United States (20% of whose electricity comes from emissionsfree nuclear power), but around the world as well. It would also focus on America's longterm reforestation, which has occurred not because of any plan dreamed up by Washington technocrats, but because the efficiencies of capitalism have reduced the amount of land needed for agriculture and wood for building. America's growing carbon sinks swallow a substantial amount of US carbon emissions, something that critics of the United States routinely refuse to recognise. By and large I have not made the case that the United States is leading the fight against emissions and in favour of transforming to a postcarbon economy, because I am not convinced that is leadership of any value. Part of that has to do with my not accepting some of the assumptions at the heart of the apocalyptic claims about global warming. I believe climate change is occurring, and the planet indeed may be warming. But I also believe that we are woefully underinformed about why or how this may be happening. The Hadley Climate Research Unit scandal underscores the severe flaws in how climate data are collected and modelled, as well as in how a scientific consensus could emerge holding that the planet is in peril. The argument for urgent action was sunk at Hadley. The real urgency, it seems, was to push for extreme energyrationing measures on Western economies to be implemented before its modelling fraud was exposed. Another part of my reluctance to engage this debate in the conventional sense is that I have great scepticism about the ability of governments to enact an energy revolution that would replace fossil fuels with wind, solar,and other renewables while maintaining economic growth and improving standards of living. Governments can do many great and mighty things. Defying the laws of physics is not one of them. I will submit that the United States has shown real, actual leadership when it comes to climate change in that it has resisted (so far, at least) the calls to selfimpose draconian economic controls in the name of curbing emissions. The United States is leading by focusing on the moral imperative of growing our economy and continuing to raise Americans' standard of living. China is following this lead. Putting aside China's pretend leadership and token renewable energy investment, it is steadfastly refusing to accept binding restrictions on its own emissions.

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/425

3/4

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Guest

That is a good thing. The problems of actual poverty in China, Africa and other undeveloped portions of the world are far more pressing than the theoretical problems of global warming that supercomputers like those at the Hadley CRU have managed to spit out after chewing on highly questionable data. Let China and the rest of the developing world grow rich. Let us hope the United States and Europe grow richer too. A wealthier planet will be better equipped to handle the extremely slowmoving problems said to be associated with climate change. It will also give us time to better understand what, if anything, is actually happening, why it is and what the consequences might be. 1

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/corrections/laa4correx282009nov28,0,3509203.story http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/11/26/AR2009112600519.html 3 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/0484(2009).pdf 2

Audience participation Comments from the floor.

Featured guest

Mr Nick Mabey

Reader Comments

Current debates

Upcoming debates

Recent debates

Manufacturing and the West "Will manufacturing return to the West?"

The next debate hasn't been scheduled yet. Sign up for email alerts, and an Economist moderator will remind you when the next one begins.

India's economy "As economic growth slows, is India losing its way?" Home-ownership "Should home-ownership be discouraged?" VIEW ALL PAST DEBATES

About The Economist online

About The Economist

Media directory

Staff books

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/425

Career opportunities

Advertising info

Legal disclaimer

Accessibility

Site feedback Terms of use

Help

4/4

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Decision

Friday October 19th 2012

Site feedback Manufacturing and the West Upcoming debates Past debates

China and the US

This house believes that China is showing more leadership than America in the fight against climate change ENTER THIS DEBATE

Summary

Opening (70 comments)

Tuesday November

Latest updates

Statements

Wednesday November

Guest

Thursday November Guest

Rebuttal (63 comments)

Friday November Statements

Closing (26 comments)

Monday November Guest

Tuesday December Guest

Wednesday December Statements

Thursday December Guest

Post-debate

Friday December

Decision

How an Economist debate works

Print Print with comments This debate is archived. This page was orginally published on 04December2009. View the current and future debates.

Winner announcement December 04, 2009

This debate has finished. Voting is now closed.

Robert Lane Greene

We've had a debate unusually rich in different ways to answer the question, or even to challenge its premises. Peggy Liu, writing for the motion, has noted the tremendous efforts China has made to green its energy and its transportation. Max Schulz, opposing the motion, has based much of his criticism of China on the statist, topdown approach that China has taken, and has said that China is only doing as it does to become rich. Ms Liu, and some of our guest experts, see no contradiction in that whatsoever; China is, in this view, doing well by doing good, and America would be wise to do the same. Better still, offer several of our participants, are efforts undertaken by America and China together; research breakthroughs, or even just the creation of bigger markets for green energy, will benefit both through technology transfer, bestpractice sharing and economies of scale. In his close, Mr Schulz says that in any case, he is not fully convinced that manmade warming is certain, severe and near enough to warrant huge sums spent on mitigating it. By resisting legally binding regimes, America is doing the world the most good in this arena, he says. There are, it is true, even more ways to challenge the question. Why ask who is leading, China and America, when they are the world's biggest two emitters, with American emissions peaking only around 2005, and China's set to go on growing. We have heard little about the European Union, which backed the Kyoto Protocol and whose countries have gone about cutting their greenhouse gases from 1990 levels. Spain and Germany in particular have aggressively pursued renewables, and France is considering a carbon tax. Denmark, host of the upcoming climate conference, is about as green as they come. Asking who is leading, China or America, may be something like asking who is taller, Mickey Mouse or Danger Mouse. But I think the most interesting faultline to emerge in our debate is what exactly "leading the fight against climate change" means. Is it an aggressive dash for renewables in the short term, or is it catalysing the world's most innovative economy to produce advanced green technologies from which everyone benefits? These are, respectively, the approaches of China and America. Of course China does research, and America does topdown, statist policy. But it is a matter of degree. China can put up huge wind or solar farms because its politicians have little fear of NIMBY concerns, energy lobbies, or other forces that bedevil America's green efforts. Democracies cannot so easily roll over obstacles. In America, meanwhile, Barack Obama's administration is not so different from George Bush's in a crucial respect: the hope for breakthrough technologies that will make painful, binding targets unnecessary has been a feature of the policies of both. The stimulus bill passed early this year put billions into proven technologies, but billions more into betting on advances that will reduce the eventual bill. In the end, our voters thought China was leading more, by a tally of 70% to 30%. This is striking not only on its face, but also given that The Economist, and probably this debate, has far more readers in America than in China. Whether this result speaks more positively of China's efforts (on which the debaters and most guests focused), or badly of American footdragging, we leave to the readers as an exercise. And with that, both countries and others around the world go to Copenhagen. During the course of this very debate, big announcements—including numerical targets from both China and America—have made talks of the eventual result in Copenhagen a little less gloomy than they had been just a few weeks ago. Good news for everyone. A bustup in Copenhagen would cause political damage that would take years to recover, while the world goes on emitting those greenhouse gases.

No one has commented on this phase yet.

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/426

1/2

10/19/12

Economist Debates: China and the US: Decision

Current debates

Upcoming debates

Recent debates

Manufacturing and the West "Will manufacturing return to the West?"

The next debate hasn't been scheduled yet. Sign up for email alerts, and an Economist moderator will remind you when the next one begins.

India's economy "As economic growth slows, is India losing its way?" Home-ownership "Should home-ownership be discouraged?" VIEW ALL PAST DEBATES

About The Economist online

About The Economist

Media directory

Staff books

www.economist.com/debate/days/view/426

Career opportunities

Advertising info

Legal disclaimer

Accessibility

Site feedback Terms of use

Help

2/2