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close by September 30 after discussions with provincial and municipal officials to identify industrial operations with outdated, inefficient technology.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...
Even though I didn't really expect China to do things like this (at least this early), it looks like they're willing to raise the standards of their production at the cost of business; something that most "western" societies have been doing for some time (and hence why they now import these goods from countries willing to produce from the cheap labor and lax restrictions).
If this continues, it will slow their growth. Some other country will be able to produce the same things China has without these same restrictions. I know people talk about India being similar or replacing China in this regard, but won't India follow a similar path of cleaning up their own "manufacturing ethics" as they grow? What happens when *all* countries have tighter manufacturing limits in place?
Earlier this summer, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China promised to use an “iron hand” to improve his country’s energy efficiency,
While less energy/carbon intensive as the steel, to get the iron for the hand he'll still need to use carbon. Consequence: his grip on the problem will very likely be 20% softer to the end of this year and about 40% softer in 2020.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
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
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.
Anyone get the feeling the Chinese are behaving as if engaged in a game of Civilization, while the US is played more like a game of Monopoly?
In the U.S., the President would give a speech about the importance of energy efficiency, Congress would pass some token tax rebates, Democrats and Republicans would end up deadlocked in am ugly partisan fight over anything more meaningful than that, and nothing more would ever get done. In fact, that's pretty much what HAS happened in the U.S.--many times, over the course of pretty much every Presidency going back at least as far as Nixon. Guess there are some real advantages to a oligarchy over a democracy.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If you are tossing around Kyoto as what needs to be done this means one of two things:
1) You are not very well informed about how it actually works, and how nations are doing with it. You are being an idealist about it, not considering the reality.
2) You just dislike the US, and figure they should suffer.
The reason I say this is because Kyoto is completely worthless. Not just because certain nations are exempt, but because the nations who have signed on don't have to give a shit either. Any nation can walk on it at any time, no consequences. So what you see is places like Russia, who's economic collapse has made it easy to meet Kyoto goals patting themselves on the back about it, for now, and places like Canada just ignoring it. What, Canada, one of the driving forces behind it? Yep. Canada has been doing jack and shit to meet its Kyoto commitments and as such is considering simply bailing on it (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/709146--canada-s-kyoto-view-triggers-a-walkout).
Kyoto is a sham, a way for politicians to pat themselves on the back and accomplish nothing in the long run. The US is just one of the few nations that wasn't hypocritical about it and just refused to sign on. Perhaps this is simple politics (though the Senate voted it down 98-0 when it came up, they have to ratify treaties by US law) or perhaps it is because US law places a higher weight on treaties than some places, or perhaps it was simple pragmatism. Whatever the case that the US isn't signed on to Kyoto just means they are being honest about it.
The U.S. also tackled this problem. We did it by shutting down ALL of the steel mills and outsourcing to the low bidder in China. Hey! How's that economy doing?