Slashdot Mirror
China To Close 2,000 Factories In Energy Crackdown
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has published a list of 2,087 steel mills, cement works and other energy-intensive factories required to close by September 30 after discussions with provincial and municipal officials to identify industrial operations with outdated, inefficient technology. The goal of the factory closings is 'to enhance the structure of production, heighten the standard of technical capability and international competitiveness and realize a transformation of industry from being big to being strong,' the ministry says. The current Chinese five-year plan calls for using 20 percent less energy this year for each unit of economic output than in 2005 but surging production by heavy industry since last winter has put in question China's ability to meet this target. In addition to the energy-efficiency objective in the current five-year plan, a plan announced by President Hu Jintao late last year called for China to reduce its carbon emissions per unit of economic output by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels."
The $€£ is still king.
No sig today...
Or they're saying they don't like where the economic optimum will take them (i.e. inefficient factories burning massive amounts of energy in a period of rapid growth in energy demand), and would prefer to pre-empt the energy crisis this would create by intervening now.
The alternative is to leave these factories alone. What happens then?
1) China can't increase energy production fast enough to meet demand.
2) Energy prices increase.
3) New, more efficient factories gradually enter, taking over the business of the inefficient factories as they are forced out by rising energy prices.
4) Meanwhile, the increased energy prices affect the rest of the economy, slowing economic growth and raising prices for consumers.
This way is better, because they're creating room for the competition without waiting for the energy price to do it for them. This will reduce the consequences of future energy shortages on the rest of the economy, and accelerate the adoption of more efficient technology in heavy industry.
Salocin.com
And no doubt you expect it to 'lead' by eliminating the pesky 'free' part, just as China does.
Well, signing up to initiatives like Kyoto would at least be a start.
Its very shortsighted of us in the west to give this whole area of development to the Chinese. As they get more efficient and starts getting good at using alternative energy we in the west will still fight about oil, coal and other forms of non renewable energy.
The future lies at the feet of whom have energy in wast amounts. If China wins this race, they win in the long run. I wouldnt be surprised if we end up paying royalties to China for their technology instead. Some politicians cling to the idea that the west will supply the brains and the rest of the world will pay.
Our greed comes back to bite us over and over.
HTTP/1.1 400
but China could have simply raised the tax on energy to push those inefficient industries out of business -- either because they rely on cheap energy (concrete) or because they're being out-competed by more efficient factories elsewhere (outdated, inefficient technology). Places with the $€£ could most certainly increase the tax on various energy sources to generate the same factory-closing result. It would have other results as well (everyone consuming less energy, a redistribution of wealth, etc etc) which may or may not be attractive for a given populace.
So yeah, the implementation of their policy reflects statism vs. democracy. The policy goal itself (reduce energy to GDP ratio) could certainly be attained by a democratic nation with democratic policies -- using taxation or carbon pricing.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Guess there are some real advantages to a oligarchy over a democracy.
I'll pass.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Agreed with one exception: In Monopoly, the bank can't win.
Geez- I guess I'll have to spell it out...
I certainly wasn't suggesting that we start another war - yes - "space race" would have been a much more appropriate term. The space race was fueled by the cold war. In the case of countries improving efficiency, there needs to be some reason to precipitate change. The space race came about largely through national pride (and underpinnings of spying and the ability to launch weapons from space). However, we saw some of the fastest and most significant changes during the space race- arguably more than any other time through history. If that same push for change / innovation could be redirected to a race for efficiency and environmental awareness, then, yes, I still think it's a good thing.
No, an economic struggle doesn't equate to an environmentally sound economy. I'm not sure how that was construed from what I meant, other than I possibly just didn't type out the concept in detail. However, there must be a reason for a company to push for environmental stewardship, and given the capitalistic nature of companies, it'll have to be economically biased. That may be through taxes. It may be through consumers. It may be for the company's own long term stability. I don't know. The point is that, for most companies to change to a more environmentally sound process, it has to positively affect their bottom line.
And that brings me back to my original point. Consumers are not necessarily "green"; however, you do see changes, even if only token efforts - buying more fuel efficient cars, organic food, products like the iPhone sold with environmental impact statements - all at a higher cost than their non-green counterpart. Is it enough? No. Will what we have now make a difference? No. But it's a step in the right direction, compared to consumerism 20, 30, 50+ years ago.
I can only hope that this trend continues. The pinnacle of this would be a consumer-driven "race" for companies to adapt their processes so that there was a overall, global, positive environmental impact.
How do we know this has anything at all to do with any high minded ideals at all?
How do know this isn't more about politically loyal and financially compliant entities being allowed to continue operating and disloyal entities or those on some enemies list are being shut down?
As a scenerio, assume that while China's GDP numbers look good there's some slow contraction going on as the economies in the West continue to suck and manufactured goods purchases slow. This leads to rocky business environment and getting rid of the competition makes sense. To keep loyalists loyal, the party thins the heard. The survivors tithe to the party, make money and show their loyalty.
Convenient and high-minded rationales are sold to the people and the west.
If you can't win when you're the banker in Monopoly, you're playing it wrong.
Their one child policy means there's 400 million less Chinese than there otherwise would be. That means huge cuts in emissions in China already