China Environmental Governance

The wonderful Jennifer Turner at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has pulled together a great panel of experts to discuss China’s ecological and social footprint abroad. The event will be webcast at 10 am EST on Friday the 13th.

China is now a major global player in oil, gas, and mineral extraction investments. In 2009 and 2010, China Development Bank (CDB) extended lines of credit totaling almost $65 billion to energy companies and government entities in Brazil, Ecuador, Russia, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. Nearly all of these loans are secured by revenue earned from the sale of oil at market prices to Chinese national oil companies. Drawing on her recently released study (Inside China, Inc.), Erika Downs will discuss how CDB’s energy-backed loans demonstrate the increasingly central role the bank is playing in China’s “going out” strategy, which is facilitating the international expansion of Chinese firms to secure energy and natural resources, build national champions, and acquire advanced technologies.

Drawing on extensive case studies conducted by Friends of Earth, Adina Matisoff will give an assessment of the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation’s environmental and social policies and practices across its global portfolio. She also will discuss environmental and social trends of Chinese mining investments overseas.

Putting the China’s mining investments in a larger context will be Derek Scissors who has built the most extensive web database on Chinese investments overseas (see the Heritage Foundation’s China Global Investment Tracker). He will dig into issues related to Chinese metal mining investments in Australia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Peru, and other countries.

Tagged: china mining, china odi, china oil and gas

Case Study: Public Participation in China’s Energy & Environmental Governance

adammoser — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 03:01:31 +0000

Just before the new year, thousands of residents in the coastal town of Haimen in Shantou, Guangdong Province took to the streets to protest plans to build an additional large coal-fired power plant in their town. On Dec. 20, residents shutdown a major highway and overturned cars to express their discontent. Despite arrests and the police using teargas, the protests continued for a week until local officials promised to halt plans to build the new plant.

A just released case study that I authored, analyzes the law and politics behind public participation that targets coal plants in China. The study involves a civil case brought in the public interest by the Chongqing Green Volunteers Union against the Guodian Yangzonghai Power Company. Not unlike the Haimen incident, the target is a coal-fired plant with excessive emissions. Even though the case was not accepted by the Kunming environmental tribunal, it still provides valuable insight into how average citizens may or may not be able to use law and policy to engage in China’s energy and environmental governance.

Returning to the Haimen incident, the residents there contend that a current coal plant is fouling the air and polluting the water in the nearby harbor and that another plant would just add to the problem.

SCMP – People living in Haimen say thick smoke from the two giant chimneys of the town’s existing power plant, operated by the industry giant Huaneng in Hongdong village, is visible day and night. ”When the east wind blows, you can smell something being burned,” a government worker said.

People are also worried that the wastewater discharged by the Huaneng plant has killed the seafood which the town’s fishermen rely on for a living. Caixin magazine reported in November that concentrations of chemicals such as lead, zinc and nickel, in the seawater near the Huaneng plant exceeded national standards.

But the fate of the new plant is still not certain.

SCMP – Shantou’s city government said it has suspended plans for the new plant, which would have been operated by Huadian, another industry giant, and is reporting to higher-level authorities. But it is unlikely that those behind the power plant, which would involve a total investment of 5.7 billion yuan (HK$7 billion), will give up easily. A total of 218 million yuan had already been spent by August, with construction originally expected to start next year in Hongdong village and the plant put into operation in 2014, the Shantou Daily reported. ”The launch of the project will significantly help build the power base for east Guangdong province,” it said on October 22, the day after the groundbreaking ceremony for the new plant.

The citizens’ concerns arise from a lack of transparency about the emissions and discharges from plants like these and a general lack of confidence in the government’s ability to regulate and control discharges. Perhaps more engagement with the public concerning the planning and the design of these plants can mitigate some of the distrust that exits. But as the aforementioned case study explains, the legal mechanisms for ensuring public participation in the verification of emissions remains weak. The case study, Public Participation in China’s Energy Governance: The non-case of Chongqing Green Volunteers v. Guodian Yangzonghai Power Company can be found here.

Tagged: china coal public, china energy public, haimen coal china, participation china coal

International headlines: China & the environment: 12-19 December 2011

martincosier — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 05:23:42 +0000

19 December 2011

Vehicles in China emitted 50 million tonnes of pollutants: Report
Economic Times

18 December 2011

Beijing hits ‘blue sky’ target despite bad air
AFP

17 December 2011

Beijing to Make Microblog Users Reveal Their IDs
Bloomberg

As China Goes Green What Is Canada Waiting for?
Huffington Post Canada

Africa: China - ‘Developing’ or ‘Developed’ Country?
AllAfrica.com

16 December 2011

China cranks up 2015 solar target
Business Green (blog)

China’s stability landed in trouble
Wall Street Journal

15 December 2011

Africa: China - ‘Developing’ or ‘Developed’ Country?
AllAfrica.com

Global Warming: Has China Had a Change of Heart or Just a Change of Strategy?
Energy Tribune

Can we afford eco-cities?
CNN International

All the Hot Air in China
Wall Street Journal

14 December 2011

China’s Demand for Natural Gas to Soar with Environment Concern
International Business Times AU

Analysis: No stopping big hydro projects, despite Lao veto
Reuters

China’s toxic soup
Asia Times Online

13 December 2011

Chinese reindeer wrangler won’t be herded into city
Los Angeles Times

12 December 2011

China’s coal crush clouds climate change plan
The Mainichi Daily

`20 natural lakes disappear every year in China`
Zee News

Beijing Environment Official: City Air Faces ‘Crisis’
Wall Street Journal

Durban climate talks: media in China and India cautiously upbeat
The Guardian

Cardiovascular Illnesses Spike on Bad Air Days

adammoser — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:47:55 +0000

Bloomberg has a good article on air pollution and cardiovascular disease in China. And examines to some extent the increasing impact that cars are having on health as they sit and idle in stagnate traffic spewing forth particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns. Cardiovascular disease now accounts for 38% of all deaths in China.

Bloomberg – A growing body of evidence shows dirty air not only triggers asthma and other respiratory conditions, over time it may the damage heart and blood vessels, and even cause birth defects.

“Whenever we have days with bad pollution, we get significantly more patients with symptoms like high blood pressure, feeling of suffocation, and chest pains,” Ding said in an interview at the hospital, where she’s worked since 1996. On days of extreme pollution, heart and stroke cases at the 1,450-bed center can increase as much as 40 percent to 280 patients, she said. …

Breathing dirty air does have an impact on mortality, researchers found in a 12-year study in June involving 12,584 residents of the northeastern city of Shenyang. After adjusting for smoking and other known risk factors, the authors found levels of PM10 and the air pollutant nitrogen oxide “were significantly associated” with death from cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, they said.

Durban Platform: US-China need to fundamentally change approach

adammoser — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 02:34:11 +0000

Andrew Revkin at the NYTimes Dot Earth has a roundup of unconventional views on the success of Durban. One of my favorites is from William R. Moomaw, professor of international environmental policy at The Fletcher School, Tufts University, and Mihaela Papa, a postdoctoral research fellow at Harvard Law School. You can read their short commentary in its entirety here.

Despite the urgency for action, the US proposed waiting until 2020 to begin a legally binding agreement with no assurance that Congressional deniers would be any more likely to act then than now. China says that they might be ready to ratify a binding treaty by then, but insist that their “common but differentiated responsibilities” be protected.

Both countries are using flawed logic. Each assumes that more emissions of heat trapping gases, while perhaps bad for the planet, mean greater economic gain if emitted by them. Leaders of India and many other nations share their mistaken belief. No leader wishes to restrict the “development space” for his or her countryfor the sake of protecting the climate system even for themselves. No one finds “burden sharing” appealing. It is not seen as in any nation’s interest to participate. The current pollution control treaty on heat trapping emissions is doomed because it fails to recognize that the underlying problem is unsustainable development that produces vast emissions of heat trapping gases from the energy, industry, transportation, agricultural and forestry sectors.

Two decades of debate over assigning blame for emissions, legal responsibility for reducing them and allocating per capita rights to use the atmosphere for disposing of heat trapping gases have created a zero-sum game without opportunities for solving problems by creating mutual gains. In fact no one needs these emissions or even energy. What creates sustainable development are clean energy services that improve well being and do not disrupt the climate system. What people need is clean energy services for cooking, lighting, space comfort, hot water, heat for industrial processes, and electrical energy services like motors, pumps, computing and communications.

International headlines: China & the environment: 4-11 December 2011

martincosier — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:11:24 +0000

11 December 2011

UN climate seals landmark deal
The Statesman

China demand drives global mining surge
Sky News Australia

China, India Pledge Pollution Cuts in Climate Pact
Bloomberg

China defends 2008 Games’ environmental legacy
New Zealand Herald

10 December 2011

Charting the course
Republica

Grenada to get Chinese assistance in Climate change | GOV.gd
Grenada Government Press Release

Marlboro coal firm kindles $350M venture with China
Boston Herald

9 December 2011

FOCUS: China’s coal crush clouds climate change plan
Utility Products (Kyodo News)

Climate Change Trends: Carbon Emissions Giants
NPR

Activists criticize Chinese damming projects at UN climate change conference
Bikya Masr

China’s capital plans higher fuel standards next yr
Reuters

8 December 2011

Reading China’s Climate Change Tea Leaves
Center For American Progress

SCIAF praises First Minister on climate change speech in China
Scottish Catholic Observer

China’s Pollution Data Shrouded in Official Fog
Fox News

Bill Gates Teams With China on New Nuclear Reactor
Voice of America

Chinese Solar Industry Fueled By Unsustainable Debt, Analysts Say
Wall Street Journal (blog)

7 December 2011

At Climate Talks, a Familiar Standoff Emerges Between the US and China
New York Times

In red China, Walmart leading a green revolution
Public Radio International PRI

China’s pollution, a toxic issue
BBC News

Power Plants with Environmental Protection Devices will Benefit from the Denitration Electricity Tariff
Power Engineering Magazine

China: Freedom of information and the environment · Article 19
ARTICLE 19: defending freedom of expression and information

6 December 2011

“Big Three” polluters oppose binding climate deal
Reuters

Australia, New Zealand Say No Kyoto Without Larger Climate Deal
BusinessWeek

Anger Grows Over Beijing’s Air Pollution
New York Times

China Considers “Green Tax” For Textile Industry’s Biggest Polluters
Ecouterre

5 December 2011

China Climate Plan Makes ‘Excited Buzz’ at Durban as U.S. Lags: UN Envoy
Bloomberg

UN climate talks look to China for deal options
BBC News

Authorities cancel flights as haze shrouds Beijing
CNN

Will Coke get blamed for endangering Chinese consumers?
MSN Money

Rice as a source of arsenic exposure
medicalxpress

4 December 2011

China pushes for post 2020 legally-binding climate deal
The Australian

China ‘Deeply Concerned’ US Solar Ruling Underscores ‘Inclination To Trade Protectionism’
Huffington Post

China’s consumers emit more than US for the first time
New Scientist

Bamboo Charcoal: A Green Biofuel For Africa?
Asian Scientist Magazine

Great Ambition, Lowered Expectations, or Just More Fossil Fuel Addicted Growth?

adammoser — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 05:01:19 +0000

The US-China Clean Energy Research Center appears to be shifting its focus from geological carbon capture and storage (CCS) for general deployment at power plants to its use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR), because EOR ostensibly offers a better chance at finding the real commercial costs of CCS and promoting deployment.

Reuters – The great hope [for CCS] was that the technology would prevent much of the world’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from reaching the atmosphere. But so-called carbon capture and storage projects have collapsed like a row of dominoes this year in West Virginia, Scotland and Germany. The stumbling blocks have been high costs for the technology and bleak prospects the world will put a high price on emitting greenhouse gases.

In a recent Economist Debate, the floor voted 57 to 43 that climate-control policies cannot rely on CCS. The debate is worth reading to familiarize oneself with all the issues involved. Regardless, the world’s largest coal and oil users are barreling ahead, now with CCS-EOR as a focus.

We’ve realized if EOR is going to be a bridge to steep carbon reductions … that bridge is both wider and longer than originally realized,” said Julio Friedmann, the technical program manager at the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center, formed in 2009 by U.S. President Barack Obama and China’s President Hu Jintao. – Reuters

EOR has been used by oil extractors for decades. It is the process of pumping captured CO2 streams into existing oil fields to increase productivity. Oil companies of course pay for the use of the captured CO2, thus creating revenue for the plant capturing emissions and partially covering the costs associated with capture and storage.

So it’s a win-win for everyone, right? Some CO2 gets sequestered and more oil gets produced at relatively lower costs from existing fields. Well, unless the goal is to move beyond a fossil fuel economy, then this is just another trap for trillions of investment dollars that will continue to finance fossil fuel infrastructure at the expense of funding and promoting real renewable energy sources.

Just how much CO2 can be stored through EOR? The most substantial information is available for the US. According to the fossil fuel leaning National Energy Technology Lab (NETL) (pdf of study), the US has the economically viable potential to store some 9 billion tons of CO2 through EOR. That would be the equivalent emissions of 48 GWs of coal-fired plant capacity for about 30 years. Those CO2 emissions would be less than 10% of US power plant emissions, and less than 5% of total US anthropogenic energy emissions. For reference, total US CO2 emissions fell by 3% between 2007 and 2008, or 178 million tons, due to the economic slowdown.

While EOR will certainly help with CCS costs, there are additional issues that should be raised regarding NETL’s analysis. NETL appears to base their costs of CCS deployment on newly built coal plants. This would mean adding 48 GWs of coal power to the US grid by 2020, something that the market does not seem ready to do. If the cost of CCS deployment for retro-fitting plants is used, which would it seems be the more likely scenario, then the costs of CCS increase significantly. This increase in costs would likely deter many and limit the amount of CO2 actually sequestered.

The US has additional interests for promoting CCS-EOR over real renewables, where China has already established itself as a global supplier of solar and wind equipment. It’s an area where US wildcat drillers have the patents and expertise and China the demand to increase its domestic oil production.

So far, the United States leads China in enhanced oil recovery partly because small U.S. technology companies have been more nimble than China’s big oil companies. “It’s smaller guys that do this cutting edge, creative stuff, and China doesn’t have independent oil companies,” said WRI’s Seligsohn. – Reuters

What this new focus on CCS-EOR continues to make clear, is that cheap fossil fuel development is still the go to path for economic development and that immediate economic development at any cost is more important than sustainable development for future generations.

Tagged: CERC CCS, US-China CCS, US-China CCS-EOR

China’s Raw Materials Strategy & the WTO: Manipulating Prices or Protecting the Environment?

adammoser — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 15:26:46 +0000

This post is by Heather Croshaw, a second year law student at Vermont Law School and a joint-research project student with the US-China Partnership for Environmental Law for 2011-2012.

China is a leading global exporter of raw materials and rare earth metals. For example, the E.U. alone receives 95 percent of its magnesium, 91 percent of its manganese, and almost 30 percent of its phosphorous from China.

On July 5, 2011, the WTO ruled that China’s export controls on nine minerals, including bauxite, coke and magnesium, violated international trade laws. The nine minerals covered by the WTO ruling are used in medicines, CDs, electronics, the automotive industry, ceramics, refrigerators and batteries among other products.

In early 2009, China began to limit their exports of the nine raw materials—various forms of bauxite, coke, fluorspar, magnesium, manganese, silicon carbide, silicon metal, yellow phosphorus and zinc. By late June 2009, the U.S., and E.U. (later Mexico, Canada and Turkey) filed a complaint to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) that China violated international law through four export restrictions that inhibit free trade (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Norway, Chinese Taipei and Turkey reserved their third-party rights). (See “China — Measures related to the exportation of various raw materials”).

The U.S. and E.U. argued that China’s export restrictions not only violated 32 provisions in the GATT treaty, claiming that the export restrictions created a scarcity of raw materials in the global market, drove up prices, and affected downstream industries.

In response, China argued for Article XX (b) and (g) exceptions to protect human health and life, as well as preserve exhaustible natural resources. Much of China’s argument reflected the 1962 UN Resolution 1083 on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, China maintains its sovereign right over their natural resources to use for their domestic economic development. The government also argued that the quota restriction was to prevent a critical shortage of the raw materials and implementing the international principle of sustainable development.

The WTO DSB wrote in their opinion:

China devotes a great deal of time and effort to underscoring China’s belief that its economic justification – that is, a purported right to adopt measures regarding the use of natural resources to pursue domestic economic policies regardless of WTO obligations – is somehow reflected in Article XX(g). China characterizes this as an issue of “sovereignty” over its natural resources, and also purports to find support in the principles of “conservation” and “sustainable development.”’ China- Exportation of Raw Materials Case.

China argued that conservation measures justified its reduction in exports of the nine metals failed to meet the GATT Article XX (b) and (g) exceptions because they did not also implement domestic conservation regulations.

The decision on Tuesday concluded that Chinese quotas, export duties and license requirements put in place a discriminatory system for the sale overseas of industrial raw materials widely used in the steel, aluminum and chemicals industries, including coke, zinc and bauxite.” New York Times

The WTO DSB rejected China’s claim, deciding that their motivation was not to protect the environment but rather protectionism. Interestingly, the Panel found that China’s Protocol of Accession does not include language that permits Article XX exceptions. Even if China was able to rely on Article XX exceptions, it failed to comply with the domestic requirements.

Under the Article XX exceptions, a country may halt exports for a number of specific reasons. Under Article XX (b), often invoked to justify environmental measures, These measures must be indispensably “necessary” to protect human, animal or plant life and health or risk, and the measure must be to reduce the risk. Additionally, Article XX (g) includes an exception for a measure “relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such measures are made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption.”

The Chinese news agency, Xinhua, responded that the WTO DSB decision harmed China’s ability to protect their natural environment and inhibited the principle of sustainable development.

It is beyond reproach that the Chinese government reinforces the administration of the mining, refining and export of these raw materials in its own country as a responsible government for its people and the ecosystem… China’s limits on the export of these raw materials are aimed at saving the resources for future generations. In the long run, the efforts are not only beneficial to China but also to the world…It is to be hoped that related trade parties can acknowledge China’s goodwill and unremitting efforts, address trade disputes through negotiations, safeguard fair competition and jointly advance the sustainable development of human beings.” Xinhua.

Furthermore, in a statement issued in Geneva after the WTO decision, China said that ‘that although these measures have certain impact on domestic and international users, they are in line with the objective of sustainable development promoted by the W.T.O. and they help to induce the resource industry toward healthy development.’” New York Times.

After the WTO DSB decision, China has the choice to either appeal the decision; face trade sanctions from the U.S., E.U. and Mexico; or accept the decision and change their regulations to comply.

The Implications for China’s Rare Earth Metals

In early 2011, China cut the quotas for several minerals, including rare earth metals by 35 percent, citing environmental concerns.

Insisting that [China’s] high output levels are unsustainable and damaging to the environment, the central government slashed rare earth export quotas by 35 percent for the first half of 2011, building on previous quota cuts.” Reuters.

Due to the increasing demand and now limited supply, the prices of these rare earth metals doubled in the first four months in 2011. Some of the rare earth metals have a very high value on the market. For example, neodymium, which is used in hybrid car batteries, was worth $129 U.S. dollars a pound in May 2011. Another rare earth metal, samarium, crucial to the manufacture of missiles, increased from $18.50 in 2010 to more than $146 a kilogram in mid-2011. Europium oxide is worth $2,904 per kilogram. These prices already increased four times in 2011.

The countries, which protested the decreased quotas for rare earth exports, voiced their concerns over the type of trade measures that the WTO tries to prevent: protectionism, scarcity, and sudden price hikes

However, in response to the WTO ruling, the Ministry of Commerce said it would reform their export practices “according to relevant laws and World Trade Organization rules” for not only the raw materials, but also for rare earth metals.

The WTO DSB panel decision caused China to reevaluate their rare earth metal export policy. Speaking at a rare earth export conference in Baotou, Inner Mongolia, Ministry of Commerce’s vice commerce minister Zhong Shan spoke about the recent WTO decision and its effects on China’s rare earth exports.

Rare earths are a non-renewable and important strategic resource… Strengthening and perfecting rare earth exports has great significance in protecting the natural resource environment and promoting the restructuring of industry.” Reuters.

After the WTO DSB decision in July 2011, China decided to appeal the certain legal interpretations within the DSB decision on 31 August 2011.

Combating Environmental Degradation and Illegal Mining

The increasing the extraction of rare earth metals has environmental consequences, such as air and water pollution and radioactive residues, as well as illegal mining problems.

“First, illegal rare earth exploitation is severe and rare earth smelting is expanding in a disorderly manner. Second, the ecological environment is being badly damaged by the industry. Third, the waste left over by rare earth exploitation and smelting is very harmful and difficult to deal with. Fourth, the comprehensive utilization of rare earth resources is still insufficient.” People Daily.

Beginning in August 2011, China shut down three rare earth metal mines, citing environmental concerns over pollution control. The Chinese government acknowledges the growing problem of illegally mined or smuggled rare earth metals that will eventually enter the export market. The high prices of these rare earth metals, their relative abundance, and a weak regulatory regime creates incentives for illegal mining. To combat this problem, the Chinese government announced a value-added tax invoice as proof that the rare earth metals were mined legally.

Furthermore, the government has moved to consolidate the rare earth mining industry into the government-controlled ore-mining conglomerate Bao Gang Rare Earth, close 31 privately owned rare earth processing companies, and merge four other companies. Also, the government plans to consolidate the rare earth metals originating in southern China into three companies, where the government owns most of the shares.

More cynical views point to how China will use the international trade law’s environmental exception to justify their actions.

China says it has largely shut down its rare earth industry for three months to address pollution problems. By invoking environmental concerns, China could potentially try to circumvent international trade rules that are supposed to prohibit export restrictions of vital materials.” New York Times.

Considering the WTO DSB ruling on the raw materials restrictions, any environmental regulations would be placed under the same Article XX (b) and (g) scrutiny, and thereby must satisfy the General Exceptions criteria. The WTO would be more likely to find a similar outcome as the China- Raw Materials case, where the environmental measures will be found in violation, unless the Chinese government also regulates domestic consumption. The Article XX (b) and (g) exceptions can be harder to satisfy, as the central purpose of the WTO is to preserve free trade.

This post was extracted from a 7-page memo on the topic. The full memo can be found here.

China’s Economy and the Problem with Sustainable Development

adammoser — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:23:09 +0000

News from the climate negotiations in Durban that China is open to limits on its emissions post-2020, if Kyoto obligations are met, and if the US can get its act together is a good sign. But China’s commitment to a more sustainable development path will be tested sooner than later.

Concerns are mounting that China’s economy is slowing and this will test whether China’s leaders can stomach a much-needed economic slow down and readjustment. Last week the Shanghai Composite Index closed down for the fourth consecutive week, bucking the historic bounce that Western markets enjoyed on news that Europe could be closer to dealing with its indebted mess. And China’s PMI index, a measurement of factory orders, hit its lowest level since March 2009.

All this means that China is potentially on its way to achieving the two goals in its 12^th five-year plan that many predict will be the hardest – slowing GDP growth to 7%, and moving the economy away from its unhealthy reliance on fixed asset investments and real estate development. Growth for 2011 will be over 9% and analysts predict 8.5% growth for 2012. Still a significant stretch from 7%, but a slowdown not experienced in China for over a decade.

There are already calls from both in China and out to increase cash flow to certain sectors of the economy to ensure that the contraction does not go too far. But there are also calls for restraint and to hold fast. One of my favorite Chinese economists, Yu Yongding, writes at Project Syndicate that there is no reason to be overly bearish about China’s economy and that the slow down is required to move away from unsustainable growth.

despite the high likelihood that China’s economic growth will slow significantly in 2012, a hard landing is unlikely. Nevertheless, while there is no need to be overly bearish about China’s short-term economic prospects, because of the slow progress in fundamental adjustment and further reform, even Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has noted that China’s growth is ultimately unsustainable. The real test has yet to come. Project Syndicate

Dr. Yu may be right that the real test of China’s underlying economic strength has yet to come. But, the current slow down is a test nevertheless. China’s mettle for pursuing sustainable development is being tested. As the IEA recently highlighted, whether or not the world will be able to limit GHG emissions to a level that will contain temperature rises to a manageable level will be determined by the energy infrastructure that will be built in the next five to ten years, much of that in China.

China avoided the first economic slowdown in 2008 with a massive stimulus package that in part targeted environmentally friendly infrastructure, but also resulted in an influx of hot money into real estate and other sectors. Whether or not China has the stomach or the governance for managing another green stimulus package does not seem to be under discussion at the moment.

The attention being paid to the present slow down in China’s growth is understandable considering that China’s demand is driving global growth, but it is also indicative of the world’s addiction to economic growth at any cost.

The problem with sustainable development is that the repeated use of the phrase does not result in its realization. That is to say, specific policies and concerted action will be required to achieve sustainable development. And considering that much of the world’s current development is following blatantly unsustainable paths, such actions will require major changes to economic structures – changes that promise to be painful for many currently dominant economic actors.

Luckily, there is hope that things are changing. In Jiangsu, the city of Yaxi is a recognized “Slow City” and governments are working on models that reward quality growth over mere GDP.

The ‘Slow City’ of Yaxi actually refers to an eco-tourism belt that sprawls over 49 sq km. It covers six villages with approximately 20,000 residents. And the township itself as a whole has a population of more than 60,000 in 22 villages that occupy an area of 150 square km. Keep reading at China Daily

Tagged: China economy sustainability, china sustainable development