Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China To Close 2,000 Factories In Energy Crackdown

Posted by Soulskill on from the anti-stimulus dept.

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close by September 30 after discussions with provincial and municipal officials to identify industrial operations with outdated, inefficient technology.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."

16 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. Meanwhile, here in the West... by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The $€£ is still king.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Meanwhile, here in the West... by cosm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The $€£ is still king.

      Even if this was intended trolling (I don't think it is), it is an insightful point. For as much as American's rag on China as a country and their countless instances of unethical this and that, parent is correct in that here the $€£ really is king. We do not seem to have any vision when it comes to things like alternative energy, reducing our energy consumption, and industrial efficiency. Many, many businesses just keep chugging along, consuming more and more and more energy to make more and more and more money. Read the comments here for a better glimpse. Exponential growth is not sustainable.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    2. Re:Meanwhile, here in the West... by jargon82 · · Score: 5, Informative

      They are (mostly) bonds, not loans. They mature when they mature, you can't call them in whenever you like. There is a real risk that china will become more reluctant to lend in the future though.

    3. Re:Meanwhile, here in the West... by AlecC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the West, the $€£ is king; in China, to a large extent the Party is king. Many of these factories will be extremely inefficient and would have bell closed or replaces long long ago in the West, but have been kept going in China because of the effect on local jobs - especially local party jobs. The power that says that 2000 factories must close because of central policy is the same power that kept them open regardless of whether it was in most people's best interest to do so. Central control works both ways: when the centre is right, it can get things done very fast. But when it is wrong it can get things don, or not done, with equal efficicency. For all its defects, when the market is working properly it is remarkably efficient.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    4. Re:Meanwhile, here in the West... by hedwards · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What you don't seem to comprehend is that the factories they're shutting shouldn't have been built in the first place. The capacity wasn't ever needed and the only reason why they built them was that bank accounts in China paid at the time even less than ones in the US and Europe. It's hardly green to shutter excess capacity that shouldn't have been built in the first place. But because they couldn't get anything for their savings it made more business sense to build and build without a whole lot of consideration given to the prudence of doing so.

      As inept and incompetent as the economists of the Federal Reserve are in the US, the ones running the Chinese economy are light years beyond them in terms of incompetence. You just can't assume that currency manipulation and central planning is going to get you anywhere in the long term. They flat out don't understand what it is that they're doing and it's going to cost us all dearly.

    5. Re:Meanwhile, here in the West... by mitgib · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is more plausible is China no longer wishes to buy our bonds. We are seeing this in many countries already, shifting their holdings to the Euro. as fewer are willing to purchase US Treasuries, the higher the interest rate will need to be offered to attract buyers, which in theory would cost the tax payer more, but reality shows it is just the largest ponzi in existence.

      --
      Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
  2. So who will be the next China? by Allnighte · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:So who will be the next China? by delinear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. Stupid to leave this to the Chinese. by miffo.swe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Stupid to leave this to the Chinese. by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They weren't exactly talking about putting these things on wind power you know? Half the stuff being taken offline by China was likely regulated out of existence in the west long ago.

      They're not boldly embracing some green future.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:Stupid to leave this to the Chinese. by miffo.swe · · Score: 5, Informative

      You do know China is doing a really strong push into renewable energy? They are the worlds largest manufacturer of wind power equipment and has put serious efforts into solar, wind, energy crops, has this written into law and they even (gasp!) signed the Kyoto protocol the US took a dump on.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    3. Re:Stupid to leave this to the Chinese. by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and they even (gasp!) signed the Kyoto protocol the US took a dump on.

      They signed Kyoto because, being a non-Annex I party, they didn't actually have to do anything!

    4. Re:Stupid to leave this to the Chinese. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They are the worlds largest manufacturer of wind power equipment and has put serious efforts into solar, wind, energy crops, has this written into law and they even (gasp!) signed the Kyoto protocol the US took a dump on.

      1) They have no obligations under the Kyoto Treaty, so signing it was just a matter of finding a pen.

      2) Did you notice that "reduce carbon emissions by 2020 to 40% below 2005 levels per unit output? Kyoto, if you recall, requires a reduction below 1995 levels. Not a reduction per unit output, but a flat reduction. What the Chinese are promising to do here is to increase their carbon output slightly less slowly than they're increasing it now - and they're already the largest carbon emitter....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  4. Playing Civ by spiffmastercow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Playing Civ by need4mospd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed with one exception: In Monopoly, the bank can't win.

  5. Seriously, would people knock it off with that? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.