It was but a few years ago that China was known all around
as one of the big three world polluters, spewing tons and tons of carbon into
the air, primarily through its coal-powered electricity plants.
China, responsible for about 17% of global greenhouse gas
emissions, closely followed by the US (16%) and the EU (12%), has become the
world's biggest carbon emitter. The Chinese use of coal-fired power plants is
mirrored by the US in its pursuit of cheap electricity. Whereas the Chinese are
forced to call upon Australia for coal imports, the United States is home to
the largest coal reserves in the world, and in 2010 half of America's energy
was still produced using coal power plants.
In the run up to the US presidential elections of 2008,
then-candidate Obama uttered many pledges and promises to woo voters. He
particularly promised to ensure that 10% of US electricity would come from
renewable sources by 2012 and 25% by 2025. In addition, Obama also promised to
establish a low national carbon-fuel standard. Arguably, Obama at the time felt
at ease with promulgating such a seemingly drastic rhetoric, given George W.
Bush's well-known ties with the oil industry which turned the renewable energy
argument into a convenient ploy to bash his Republican opposition. Sen. John
McCain appeared to talk the talk on the "effects of greenhouse-gas
emissions," but apparently in contrast to his Democrat rival, he
favored the nuclear option instead. And we should not forget that McCain's
running mate Sarah Palin, in turn, loved using the populist slogan "Drill,
baby, drill!", indicating that she favored a renewed drive for domestic
oil production in the US Still, on the ground the US and China both vied for
the status of top polluter, with the latter eventually taking the lead.
Leader everywhere
But as always, China is motivated by the long-term argument,
and on 28 February 2005 the National Peoples’ Congress (NPC) adopted the
Renewable Energy Law. Subsequently, President Hu Jintao signed and promulgated
the law, effective from 1 January 2006 (and amended in 2009), requiring "power
grid operators to purchase resources from registered renewable energy
producers". The Law also includes a number of financial incentives,
such as a "national fund to foster renewable energy development, and
discounted lending and tax preferences for renewable energy projects".
China's renewable energy consumption stood at a measly 3% in
2003, and the Renewable Energy Law aims to increase the consumption level to
10% by 2020. The Law is pretty specific in its determination, declaring that
renewable energy in this law “refers to non-fossil energy of wind energy,
solar energy, water energy, biomass energy, geothermal energy, and ocean
energy, etc."
Since then, the Chinese government has been regarding "renewable
energy as the preferential area for energy development and promotes the
construction and development of the renewable energy market".
According to Xin Qiu and Honglin Li, writing in the
Environmental Law Reporter (2009), from "the end of 2005 to the end
of 2007, the capacity of renewable energy facilities nationwide increased by
3.6 million kW, or 30.6%, compared to 2005 levels. The capacity of
hydroelectricity, wind electricity, and bioelectricity increased 26.3%, 444%,
and 429%, respectively. The actual increase of electricity generated was 82.2
billion kilowatt hours (kWh), or 20.6%. The increase of hydroelectricity, wind
electricity, and bioelectricity was 18.9%, 268%, and 363%, respectively".
The authors conclude that in "2009, China had
become the largest investor of renewable energy in the world", while still
being one of the top three polluters. And the Chinese have since annually
invested around $56 billion in the renewable energy sector (in 2013 the
People's Republic invested more in clean energy than all of the European
nations combined (EU, $55 billion)).
In fact, as indicated by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the "clean
energy sector is now an annual $250 billion component of the world
economy". And the world's leader in clean energy investment is clearly
China. The director of Pew’s clean energy program Phyllis Cuttino said as much
when she maintained that "[n]o other clean energy market in the world
is operating at that scale”, referring to the Chinese endeavors in the field.
For instance, in 2013, China increased its solar energy output almost fourfold
to 12.1 GW, or 12,100 MW. Whereas, the Chinese drive in the field of wind
energy was increased to more than 10 GW. Pew indicated that Chinese investment
in wind was $28 billion and in solar $22.6 billion, leaving the US behind in
second place for investment in wind energy and third for solar investment.
Concern about people?
China's drive towards clean energy is arguably motivated by
the Communist leadership's desire to keep its 1.3 billion population alive and
well (or pacified) for the foreseeable future. At the same time, one should not
lose track of the fact that most of China’s electricity still primarily comes
from coal as well as hydropower.
This means that the Chinese are still
contributing heavily towards adding greenhouse gases to the earth's atmosphere
and are thus still carrying the burden of directly contributing to'climate
change', endangering the future of humanity. As a result, China's decision to
turn green and become a leader in renewable energy has a direct impact on the
world's fate and the future of humanity.
Christopher Flavin, a Senior Fellow and President Emeritus
of the Worldwatch Institute, a globally focused environmental research
organization based in Washington, D.C, put forward that the "future
of the global climate may rest in large measure on China’s ability to lead the
world into the age of renewable energy, much as the United States led the world
into the age of oil roughly a century ago". Even though Flavin's statement
was made as long ago as 2007, it is only now that the US has taken up this
gauntlet under President Obama.
In spite of his lofty campaign promises, President Obama's
best-laid renewable energy plans were quashed by the Republican take-over of
the House of Representatives in 2010. In December of that year, the Republicans
brought an end to the US House of Representatives’ Select Committee on Energy
Independence and Global Warming, created by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2007.
This talking shop had been set up to debate the latest developments in 'climate
change' issues and new developments in climate research, but House Republicans
deemed such deliberations “unnecessary".
The issue of 'climate change', the term now favored as
the previously used expression "global warming"seems overly
alarmist and arguably somewhat inaccurate as the temperature fluctuations now
occurring are not always that straightforward in people's perceptions.
Nevertheless, the United Nations has released a statement indicating that "13
of the 14 warmest years on record occurred this century", and after all
the current year is 2014. As a result, in spite of detractors and other
conspiracy-minded deniers one cannot but conclude that 'climate change' is
real and that it is very likely caused by human activity, leading to the
arguably pompous-sounding concept of "anthropogenic climate
change". In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (a total
of 259 scientists from 39 countries, and better known as IPCC) declared that "[g]lobal
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have
increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far
exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands
of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due
primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and
nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture".
Last year a newly undertaken research indicated that high
levels of methane (or rather methane hydrate) are also to be found underneath
the world's oceans (estimated to amount to 700,000 trillion cubic feet), in
addition to the methane trapped in the Siberian permafrost. Only last year, the
IPCC released its latest findings under the title Climate Change 2013, and its
language is disconcerting to say the least: “[w]arming of the climate
system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are
unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed,
the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased”, and going on to say that “[h]uman
influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing,
observed warming, and understanding of the climate system” and finally
adding that “[h]uman influence has been detected in warming of the
atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions
in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate
extremes ... It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant
cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century”.
American exceptionalism and climate change
But in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence US
Republicans persist in their obdurate denial of common sense and reason. For
example, the US State of Florida appears to be the most vulnerable in terms of
the impact of climate change; particularly, as regions in coastal areas that
used to be high and dry now regularly get flooded by sea water. A report
released by the National Climate Assessment last month suggests that "[m]ore
than 5,790 square miles and more than $1 trillion worth of property and
structures are at risk of inundation from a sea level rise of two feet above
current sea level – an elevation which could be reached by 2050 under a high
rate of sea level rise of approximately 6.6 feet by 2100". The report even
points to specific locations as particularly endangered: "[r]oughly
half of the vulnerable property value is located in Florida, and the most
vulnerable port cities are Miami, Greater New York, New Orleans, Tampa-St.
Petersburg, and Virginia Beach". Still, one of the state's Republican
Senators – Marco Rubio, namely – still felt at ease to proclaim that he does "not
believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate
the way these scientists are portraying ... The fact is that these events that
we're talking about are impacting us, because we built very expensive
structures in Florida and other parts of the country near areas that are prone
to hurricanes. We've had hurricanes in Florida forever. And the question is
what do we do about the fact that we have built expensive structures, real
estate and population centers near those vulnerable areas?"
Other examples of Republican difficulties to come to terms
with certain 21st-century realities can be found in the House Science, Space,
and Technology Committee, chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith that has so far held
three meeting to discuss the existence of extraterrestrial life but only one on
the arguably more pressing topic of climate change. As such, the Science
Committee is manned by some very peculiar Republican characters indeed: Rep.
Paul Broun (R-Ga.), a man known for his denunciation of such frivolous branches
of science like cosmology, biology, and geology as propagating "lies
straight from the pit of Hell"; Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas), who said about
the issue of global warming that he is"really more fearful of freezing.
And I don’t have any science to prove that"; but also Rep. Randy
Neugebauer (R-Texas), who, after a series of destructive tornadoes and droughts
in his home state, drafted a resolution for his fellow-citizens to "join
together in prayer to humbly seek fair weather conditions". That President
Obama has so far not been able to develop his climate change or renewable
energy agenda thus seems hardly surprising.
The fact that the current POTUS takes the issue of American
exceptionalism seriously was vividly illustrated in his commencement speech at
the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY on 28 May 2014. Barrack Obama
sounded just like any other predecessor of his, extolling the US' unique role
in the world and his nation's God-given mission to lead (even though currently
the US is but the"second largest contributor to global warming on the
planet", as worded by the AP), saying that the"United States is and
remains the one indispensable nation. American military power and action have
been in ample evidence around the globe in recent years, proving that the 2009
Nobel Peace Prize winner is true to his word that action speaks louder than
mere words. The American military footprint he inherited and maintained is
conspicuously large – the total known land area occupied by US bases and
facilities across the world is 15,654 square miles, a territory "bigger
than D.C., Massachusetts, and New Jersey combined”, as expressed by Ujala
Sehgal and Robert Johnson.
Aside from the geopolitical and other strategic issues
forcing Obama to flex the US military muscle, now that he is well and truly
into his second (and final) term as the Leader of the Free World, he probably
feels the need to establish his own legacy, his own stamp that will mark the
world in years, if not centuries, to come. Now that his presidency is
approaching its twilight years, Obama has the opportunity to get back to his
earlier-uttered campaign promises and he has found a way to revive an old
statute, thereby forgoing the need to pass a new law (that would have been
stalled and stopped dead in its tracks by the Republican House), that would
tackle the issue of carbon emissions and thus finally provide a partial answer
the challenge posed by the Chinese as long ago as 2005.
In this way, Obama wants to prove that the US is "the
one indispensable nation" that will halt the ill-effects of climate
change. The news agency Reuters pronounced that the "US power sector
must cut carbon dioxide emissions 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels,
according to federal regulations unveiled on [2 June 2014] that form the
centerpiece of the Obama administration’s climate change strategy. The
Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal is one of the most significant
environmental rules proposed by the United States, and could transform the
power sector, which [now still] relies on coal for nearly 38 percent of
electricity" (natural gas and renewable sources such as wind and
solar have eaten up 12% of coal's contribution to American electricity). The
EPA regulation is called the Clean Power Plan (CPP), and constitutes the
center-piece of President Obama's renewable energy policy that is meant to be a
guiding light to the rest of the world. But this CPP is but an elaboration on
the 1970 Clean Air Act. The president of the Natural Resources Defense Council
Frances Beinecke stated that the "purpose of this rule is to really
close the loophole on carbon pollution, reduce emissions as we've done with
lead, arsenic and mercury and improve the health of the American people and
unleash a new economic opportunity", stressing the domestic benefits of
the CPP and trying to placate the coal lobby. The coal lobby, arguably in
conjunction with the Republican opposition, has already launched its
counter-attack, leading Beinecke to write that the "nation’s worst
polluters and their allies have launched a propaganda campaign to convince [the
American public] that the Environmental Protection Agency’s new carbon
pollution standards are nothing more than a backdoor energy tax that will kill
jobs and cost you money", adding that "[t]hat campaign is a lie.
And what’s at stake is too important to let the lie stand, or even start".
In other words, the Obama administration already has its work cut out trying to
convince US citizens that the issues of climate change and renewable energy are
worthwhile and that the CPP will not harm anybody's pockets (apart from those
belonging to the coal lobby, that is, even though coal would still provide 31%
of the US electricity demand after implementation of the CPP).
The real competitors
Looking at the bigger picture and taking a longer view the
Obama administration is now trying to convince global public opinion that the
US, and not China, has the "ability to lead the world into the age of
renewable energy". While at the moment the US seems to be concentrating on
the Ukrainian proxy-battle with Russia in the ongoing New Cold War, President
Obama's new focus on the Pacific-Asia region, meaning China, is well-known as
well - America's so-called military and strategic “pivot” to Asia.
Already in 2011, the US President concluded a new deal with
Australia as a result of which US Marines are now stationed in the northern
city of Darwin (at present, the number of US Marines rotating through Darwin
stands at a 1,000). Ostensibly, this addition to the US military footprint was
set up to"preserve peace and security" in the region, but the
reality is that United States regards the rise of China with suspicion and some
trepidation. And, as a US dependency of sorts, Australia is keen to host
American boots on the ground. As such, at the beginning of this month, the
Australian Senate Estimates Committee conducted a hearing on the "likelihood
of Australia being on the front line of a war between the US and China or
between Japan and China". While it seems to me that talk of an actual
armed conflict between the US and China at present seems far-fetched, President
Obama has now nevertheless clearly staked the claim that his legacy will be a
global drive towards renewable energy under American and not Chinese, guidance.
Even though currently the US is involved in a rivalry with Russia via the
Ukrainian conflict, the real competitors of the later 21st century will
undoubtedly be the US and China.
In terms of renewable energy, the US is now trying to steal
the Chinese momentum as the fore-runner that will guide the rest of the world.
And this American guidance will supposedly unite the globe in an effort to ward
off certain climate calamity. But the sad fact is that certain scientists have
already indicated that these efforts will be too (little too) late. The
renowned ecologist and paleoclimatolgist Curt Stager has, for instance, been
arguing for some time now that "our fossil fuel emissions will
interfere with climates for much longer than most of us, scientists included,
yet realize. Even in the best-case scenario, the world won’t fully recover for
tens of thousands of years and possibly much longer". The Chinese are
famous for their ability to plan long-term and the Obama legacy project (CPP)
arguably also aims at a future beyond immediate election cycles, but whether
either nation will be able to alter the world's emissions of greenhouse gases
and undo their negative effect on the earth's climate seems dubious. Whether
Chinese or American, the future of humanity seems to be in dire peril . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment