Why New U.S.-China Climate Steps Matter: Three Things to Know

[AndrewJin]

i don't agree that going to green energy will slow down developing countries' economic growth or industrialization. for china's own case cleaner air and climate protection are the objectives to fight for, this is the case for other developing economies as well. Clean energy is not necessarily more expensive than coal electricity. In China's case, prices for nuclear and coal electricity are at RMB yuan 0.46 and 0.50 per KWh (no peak time), respectively. China is rapidly going to clean energy for many reasons, first it is good for air quality and global climate, second china is a big player in R&D and production on all kinds of clean energy, so going to clean energy means numerous big business opportunities.

Nuclear and hydro electricity is cheap, but not solar, wind or tidal.
Plus, solar and wind electricity farms need huge areas of land and a very efficient transmission system.
Developing countries at the first stage cannot really afford to build these power plants massively.

 

[tranquilium]

An interesting conjecture, so you think that this so called Sino-American Bilateralism will be the 'new normal' in regards to geopolitical structural schema implementation? Can you tell me how this new paradigm might affect the organization and the implementation of NATO and other pertinent security processes?

Thanks.

To be honest, the paradigm is hardly "new". It is more of the age old practice of "if you can't beat them, join them." Unlike the US-USSR relationship during the cold war. The China-US relationship today did not split the global community as cleanly as the cold war. Nations are much more interconnected; therefore, isolation does not work. Military, China and US are also sufficiently strong that neither nation is risking a direct confrontation. Since both avoidance (isolation) and direct confrontation doesn't work, the only logical choice left is learn to live with each other. Personally, I think that for the foreseeable future, the geopolitical structure that is most likely to change between China and US is actually at the East Asia theatre.

I need to go now and I will get back to this later for a more detailed explanation on my thought.

 

[TaiShang]

China eyes huge solar-thermal power project
September 30, 2015

China is planning a series of solar-thermal power pilot projects to help develop the technology.

The industrial scale of solar thermal power needs to be expanded, and an industrial chain on thermal equipment manufacturing and processing should be established, according to an announcement by the National Energy Administration (NEA) on Wednesday.

To achieve that, the statement demanded, the pilot projects must be large enough to be used commercially, with capacity being no less than 50,000 kilowatts per unit.

Industry experts will review the technical proposals and equipment, and all preliminary work for the project.

China is promoting clean energy, including hydropower, wind power, solar power and nuclear power. By 2014, solar power capacity was 28.05 gigawatts in China in 2014, 400 times more than 2005, and there are plans to increase this to around 100 gigawatts by 2020.

 

[Aepsilons]

To be honest, the paradigm is hardly "new". It is more of the age old practice of "if you can't beat them, join them." Unlike the US-USSR relationship during the cold war. The China-US relationship today did not split the global community as cleanly as the cold war. Nations are much more interconnected; therefore, isolation does not work. Military, China and US are also sufficiently strong that neither nation is risking a direct confrontation. Since both avoidance (isolation) and direct confrontation doesn't work, the only logical choice left is learn to live with each other. Personally, I think that for the foreseeable future, the geopolitical structure that is most likely to change between China and US is actually at the East Asia theatre.

I need to go now and I will get back to this later for a more detailed explanation on my thought.

Thanks buddy, see you in a while. I'm actually at work too. On mobile now.

 

[tranquilium]

Thanks buddy, see you in a while. I'm actually at work too. On mobile now.

K, just got back home. Continuing on my thought in the morning.

Now, I need to first clarify that political landscape is a ever shifting thing. My statement of most likely to change is particularly aimed at changes caused by China-US interaction. Other region's politics can still change drastically, but it will not be from China-US interaction.

For example, middle east will remain a political hot spot for next few decades and the engineer in me says that until a major replacement to petroleum is found, it will remain so. However, while it is perfectly normal for China's economic influence to extend to middle east (as demonstrated to the Afghanistan mine acquisition, as well as the large number of Chinese workers in the area), China's political and military influence will not reach the region for many years to come. Thus, change in Middle Eats will be primarily caused by interaction of US-EU-Russia and their proxy in the region.

EU is another block will go through great political change for the next few decade. However, the main source of their change will be internal with the final lingering influence of the colonial age dying down. The rising economies of other parts of the world also means for the first time in almost four hundred years, EU (as a whole) is no longer the largest economic bloc in the world. (US was the largest individual economy in the world for almost a century, but collectively, EU has almost been bigger) As we learned from history, large shift in economic status always comes with large social/political changes.

I do not know enough about Latin America, so I wouldn't comment on it. However, out of the five blocs left (Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Middle Asia), the one most likely to change is East Asia. The reason is the other four blocs lacks a significant driving factor for change. Sure, the countries will hardly be stagnant, but there will not be 1) a dominant force driving regional change, such as rising of China 2) broad spectrum change of the entire region, such as the changing economic status of EU.

Now, despite complains from Vietnam and Philippine on China's expanding influence into Southeast Asia, at the end of the day, the South China sea conflict is boiled down to countries rushing into a previously unexploited regions and establishing their own interest. Consequently, the conflict is centered on "dividing up new found assets" rather than "losing the old assets". This is important because at the end of the day, even a total victory for China in South China Sea will not touch main land of either Vietnam or Philippines, let alone much farther countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. This is why I would argue while Southeast Asia is influenced by a dominant power rising, but the influence will be external and not a sufficient cause for drastic change.

As far as Africa, South Asia and Middle Asia goes, these regions are actually relatively calm. (Okay, it is a stretch to say that for Africa, especially for regions close to middle east, but as far as the southern part of Africa goes, there has not really been a lot earth shatter shift on power.) All these regions are industrializing and improving their economy at various rate, but the overall progress has been relatively slow. Lacking a major shifting in regional power balance and lacking a shift in economic status means while these regions certainly will have their share of localized conflicts, the overall status quo won't really change that much.

This leaves East Asia. East Asia is home to three of the largest economies in the world. The fourth member, North Korea, has a limited external influence, but as far as military goes, it is actually quite a bit above the average when viewed from global perspective. More importantly, the region also have both of my criteria for change. East Asia contain a rapidly rising power and its economic clot is also drastically increasing. It is not solely limited to China either. The recent political shifts in Japan (which is another can of worm that I won't discuss here today, suffice to say it will certainly cause change in the long run, but not necessarily to the advantage of US) as well as foreign/international economic policies of South Korea are also transforming the political landscape and China-US interaction is at the center of it.

 

[opruh]

Poor india, always on the losing side.

 

[Aepsilons]

K, just got back home. Continuing on my thought in the morning.

Now, I need to first clarify that political landscape is a ever shifting thing. My statement of most likely to change is particularly aimed at changes caused by China-US interaction. Other region's politics can still change drastically, but it will not be from China-US interaction.

For example, middle east will remain a political hot spot for next few decades and the engineer in me says that until a major replacement to petroleum is found, it will remain so. However, while it is perfectly normal for China's economic influence to extend to middle east (as demonstrated to the Afghanistan mine acquisition, as well as the large number of Chinese workers in the area), China's political and military influence will not reach the region for many years to come. Thus, change in Middle Eats will be primarily caused by interaction of US-EU-Russia and their proxy in the region.

EU is another block will go through great political change for the next few decade. However, the main source of their change will be internal with the final lingering influence of the colonial age dying down. The rising economies of other parts of the world also means for the first time in almost four hundred years, EU (as a whole) is no longer the largest economic bloc in the world. (US was the largest individual economy in the world for almost a century, but collectively, EU has almost been bigger) As we learned from history, large shift in economic status always comes with large social/political changes.

I do not know enough about Latin America, so I wouldn't comment on it. However, out of the five blocs left (Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Middle Asia), the one most likely to change is East Asia. The reason is the other four blocs lacks a significant driving factor for change. Sure, the countries will hardly be stagnant, but there will not be 1) a dominant force driving regional change, such as rising of China 2) broad spectrum change of the entire region, such as the changing economic status of EU.

Now, despite complains from Vietnam and Philippine on China's expanding influence into Southeast Asia, at the end of the day, the South China sea conflict is boiled down to countries rushing into a previously unexploited regions and establishing their own interest. Consequently, the conflict is centered on "dividing up new found assets" rather than "losing the old assets". This is important because at the end of the day, even a total victory for China in South China Sea will not touch main land of either Vietnam or Philippines, let alone much farther countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. This is why I would argue while Southeast Asia is influenced by a dominant power rising, but the influence will be external and not a sufficient cause for drastic change.

As far as Africa, South Asia and Middle Asia goes, these regions are actually relatively calm. (Okay, it is a stretch to say that for Africa, especially for regions close to middle east, but as far as the southern part of Africa goes, there has not really been a lot earth shatter shift on power.) All these regions are industrializing and improving their economy at various rate, but the overall progress has been relatively slow. Lacking a major shifting in regional power balance and lacking a shift in economic status means while these regions certainly will have their share of localized conflicts, the overall status quo won't really change that much.

This leaves East Asia. East Asia is home to three of the largest economies in the world. The fourth member, North Korea, has a limited external influence, but as far as military goes, it is actually quite a bit above the average when viewed from global perspective. More importantly, the region also have both of my criteria for change. East Asia contain a rapidly rising power and its economic clot is also drastically increasing. It is not solely limited to China either. The recent political shifts in Japan (which is another can of worm that I won't discuss here today, suffice to say it will certainly cause change in the long run, but not necessarily to the advantage of US) as well as foreign/international economic policies of South Korea are also transforming the political landscape and China-US interaction is at the center of it.

Hi tranquilium,

Thank you for your very well written response and your conjecture. I just got home and after reading your post and did some personal research on this paradigm of Sino-American Bilateralism, i couldnt help but appreciate one correlation you made between the Chinese and American contextual framework: the notion of supposed complementarity.

There is a true dichotomy between the American-Soviet Interchange and the American-Chinese Interchange; one major dichotomy was that the American-Soviet competition was requisited upon total military drive with intent on the capability of MAD (mutually assured destruction) processes throughout the geopolitical theater with very little emphasis on economics, tho there were realistic vagaries such as Soviet-emphasized market restriction , which was in sharp contrast to the American capitalist-driven market economic schema.

The Chinese, in their fundamental apprehension of their Soviet peers' unprecedented collapse in the early 1990s, had learned of the unsustainability of total market restriction , and saw the necessity of market capitalism. I suppose this was one of the major driving catalysts for Mr. Deng Xiaopeng in his ushering the Open Door Policy and introducing market economic schema to the Chinese context. With the succeeding reintegration of former British Hong Kong and Portuguese Macao, the economy of China was undoubtedly enhanced as that there was now integration of western-correlated schematics in industry in these said regions to the local strata. I suppose that the integration of Hong Kong, once coined as the "Pearl of the Oriental Seas" by the British, had facilitiated greater investiture in China and Hong Kong serving as conduit for greater foreign direct investments into China mainland.

That said, the two countries, both United States and China, have an economy that has been so intertwined that one historian, Dr. Niall Ferguson, Ph.D., has coined the term "Chimerica". We buy China's goods and the Chinese funnel billions of dollars back to support the American economy. In that aspect, the Chinese are a fast-rising power whose cooperation is necessary, in the American context. There have also been successes in bilateralism since both China and the United States have cooperated together in green energy acquisition and proposition, cooperated together in stabilizing war torn regions in the world through China's fundamental support of the United Nations, especially recently with Mr. Xi Jinping's pledge of $1 billion to the United Nations in the next 10 years to support pro-peace initiatives, secondly, through China's proposition of providing $100 million of "free" military aid to the African Union, which has largely been supported as well by the United States.

There are many important security, economic and political goals that the US cannot achieve by itself, though the US will remain the world's single most powerful state. Now the US administration is looking for a global strategy to counter terrorism, and has sought support from allies and other countries, including China. China finally, in the APEC meeting in October of last , pledged to offer assistance to the USA in eradicating the threat of terrorism from the world. Security will dominate the agenda of all bilateral agreements between these two powerful nations.

Now let me also state that examining the dynamics of Northeast Asia -- and the US relations with Japan and China are virtually certain to play a major role in Washington's move toward greater multilateralism.

Without a doubt there are fundamental and gargantuan processes and agreements that have been cosigned by both the Americans and the Chinese, and wide array of regions where both countries can cooperate together in finding a pragmatist solution. I suppose that is one thing we should admire about the Sino-American aperture and that has been relatively cosigned to mutual cooperation and compromise. As for challenges , I believe that -- that , too, can be compromised upon. As you said, regional politics are dictated upon by change. But I would also like to add that regional politics, especially in regards to East Asia, are also influenced by local political landscape. These local political landscape processes in East Asia -- particularly in reference to Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan, China --- have seen the cues for greater economic and even political integration. We must understand that there are barriers, however, to the seamless integration of East Asia as a unified bloc, and one of main barriers to that is the domination of the United States in the region. That is the reality.

I believe that the ascendancy of China can and will only be realized in East Asia -- if and when the United States is ejected from the region: politically, culturally. Therein is the caveat in this dictum, my friend. The issue of time, and capital.





Regards,
Dr. @Nihonjin1051, Ph.D, L.P.

 

[Aepsilons]

K, just got back home. Continuing on my thought in the morning.

Now, I need to first clarify that political landscape is a ever shifting thing. My statement of most likely to change is particularly aimed at changes caused by China-US interaction. Other region's politics can still change drastically, but it will not be from China-US interaction.

For example, middle east will remain a political hot spot for next few decades and the engineer in me says that until a major replacement to petroleum is found, it will remain so. However, while it is perfectly normal for China's economic influence to extend to middle east (as demonstrated to the Afghanistan mine acquisition, as well as the large number of Chinese workers in the area), China's political and military influence will not reach the region for many years to come. Thus, change in Middle Eats will be primarily caused by interaction of US-EU-Russia and their proxy in the region.

EU is another block will go through great political change for the next few decade. However, the main source of their change will be internal with the final lingering influence of the colonial age dying down. The rising economies of other parts of the world also means for the first time in almost four hundred years, EU (as a whole) is no longer the largest economic bloc in the world. (US was the largest individual economy in the world for almost a century, but collectively, EU has almost been bigger) As we learned from history, large shift in economic status always comes with large social/political changes.

I do not know enough about Latin America, so I wouldn't comment on it. However, out of the five blocs left (Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Middle Asia), the one most likely to change is East Asia. The reason is the other four blocs lacks a significant driving factor for change. Sure, the countries will hardly be stagnant, but there will not be 1) a dominant force driving regional change, such as rising of China 2) broad spectrum change of the entire region, such as the changing economic status of EU.

Now, despite complains from Vietnam and Philippine on China's expanding influence into Southeast Asia, at the end of the day, the South China sea conflict is boiled down to countries rushing into a previously unexploited regions and establishing their own interest. Consequently, the conflict is centered on "dividing up new found assets" rather than "losing the old assets". This is important because at the end of the day, even a total victory for China in South China Sea will not touch main land of either Vietnam or Philippines, let alone much farther countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. This is why I would argue while Southeast Asia is influenced by a dominant power rising, but the influence will be external and not a sufficient cause for drastic change.

As far as Africa, South Asia and Middle Asia goes, these regions are actually relatively calm. (Okay, it is a stretch to say that for Africa, especially for regions close to middle east, but as far as the southern part of Africa goes, there has not really been a lot earth shatter shift on power.) All these regions are industrializing and improving their economy at various rate, but the overall progress has been relatively slow. Lacking a major shifting in regional power balance and lacking a shift in economic status means while these regions certainly will have their share of localized conflicts, the overall status quo won't really change that much.

This leaves East Asia. East Asia is home to three of the largest economies in the world. The fourth member, North Korea, has a limited external influence, but as far as military goes, it is actually quite a bit above the average when viewed from global perspective. More importantly, the region also have both of my criteria for change. East Asia contain a rapidly rising power and its economic clot is also drastically increasing. It is not solely limited to China either. The recent political shifts in Japan (which is another can of worm that I won't discuss here today, suffice to say it will certainly cause change in the long run, but not necessarily to the advantage of US) as well as foreign/international economic policies of South Korea are also transforming the political landscape and China-US interaction is at the center of it.

Tranquilium,

If you have time, do check this consortium out. They regularly have meetings as well, it might even benefit you to attend one, or at least get in touch with some folks who attended it. I haven't personally attended, but I have Chinese Citizen colleagues who attended. Very constructivistic.

US-China Green Energy Council (UCGEC) Membership Program | US-China Green Energy Council

 

[tranquilium]

Tranquilium,

If you have time, do check this consortium out. They regularly have meetings as well, it might even benefit you to attend one, or at least get in touch with some folks who attended it. I haven't personally attended, but I have Chinese Citizen colleagues who attended. Very constructivistic.

US-China Green Energy Council (UCGEC) Membership Program | US-China Green Energy Council

I am from power systems. I have regular meetings and conference regarding to these. Currently, research in the power consists of essentially two things: 1) renewable and related 2) How to keep old things working.

Pragmatically, both of these really comes down to money. This is not actually a surprise because power engineering is really all about infrastructure. Its research and implementation all depends on the available resources for infrastructure expansion and maintenance.

An China-US coordination will help defining standards in the industry, however, the specific implementation will still be up to the individual country and its financial availability.

 

[Aepsilons]

I am from power systems. I have regular meetings and conference regarding to these. Currently, research in the power consists of essentially two things: 1) renewable and related 2) How to keep old things working.

Pragmatically, both of these really comes down to money. This is not actually a surprise because power engineering is really all about infrastructure. Its research and implementation all depends on the available resources for infrastructure expansion and maintenance.

An China-US coordination will help defining standards in the industry, however, the specific implementation will still be up to the individual country and its financial availability.

I'm coming from the Risk Analytics aspect, so we do (well the department which i work for) deals with quantifying risk variables in various industry sectors. Our analyses are then given to the proper governmental sectors, and well, these play a role in policy and curricula development. Tho we only contribute by giving recommendation(s) as well as remedial remarks on certain sector(s).

One thing that I should note, without getting too specific, is the cooperation with Japan, China , the United States, and India in regards to power development schema. Its actually quite interesting to see cooperation in these aspects, for example one area of consigning areas is --- Solar & Hydrogen Fuel Energy.

Anyways, if you have plans on attending the aformentioned consortium , do tell me in advance. Perhaps I can make reservations for us both -- would like to see more of your operationalist (engineering) perspective on some areas.


Regards,

 

[tranquilium]

I'm coming from the Risk Analytics aspect, so we do (well the department which i work for) deals with quantifying risk variables in various industry sectors. Our analyses are then given to the proper governmental sectors, and well, these play a role in policy and curricula development. Tho we only contribute by giving recommendation(s) as well as remedial remarks on certain sector(s).

One thing that I should note, without getting too specific, is the cooperation with Japan, China , the United States, and India in regards to power development schema. Its actually quite interesting to see cooperation in these aspects, for example one area of consigning areas is --- Solar & Hydrogen Fuel Energy.

Anyways, if you have plans on attending the aformentioned consortium , do tell me in advance. Perhaps I can make reservations for us both -- would like to see more of your operationalist (engineering) perspective on some areas.


Regards,

Hmm, we will see. My advisor just announced a new conference for southeastern power companies coming up in November 6th, a day after my FE exam, lol.

The key to make solar (and other renewables to a lesser degree) more useful isn't actually in power system operation, but in storage. Once mass electric storage becomes a possibility, a lot of the presence day problem including fossil fuel burning (petroleum is still very useful in other fields though) will pretty much go away.

Speaking of Japan, do you guys still have the two frequency within the same nation thing? Integrating renewables can potentially involve a lot of DC and perfect chance to fix the frequency issues.

 

[Aepsilons]

Speaking of Japan, do you guys still have the two frequency within the same nation thing? Integrating renewables can potentially involve a lot of DC and perfect chance to fix the frequency issues.

Yes, the frequency difference in Eastern and Western Japan. I do believe the Western half runs at 60 hz, whereas the Eastern half runs at 50 hz, and this puts dependence on numerous frequency converters [high voltage direct current electrical power super highway, i do believe they are called]. And yes there's a historical tradition for this.

The key to make solar (and other renewables to a lesser degree) more useful isn't actually in power system operation, but in storage. Once mass electric storage becomes a possibility, a lot of the presence day problem including fossil fuel burning (petroleum is still very useful in other fields though) will pretty much go away.

That indeed will be an area of research that should be worked on, in fact, this would solve much of our dependence on even 'clean' non-renewable power such as gas and even 'clean coal energy'. Exciting times ahead for Science and Engineering, wouldn't you say?

Hmm, we will see. My advisor just announced a new conference for southeastern power companies coming up in November 6th, a day after my FE exam, lol.

A special treat for you then, Tranquilium. haha!

 

[tranquilium]

That indeed will be an area of research that should be worked on, in fact, this would solve much of our dependence on even 'clean' non-renewable power such as gas and even 'clean coal energy'. Exciting times ahead for Science and Engineering, wouldn't you say?

Of course, though, my personal complain is that everything cool is always 30 years away. (Not surprising really, research is an incremental effort. People are way less sensitive to gradual changes than sudden and abrupt ones)

Lots of companies right now are work on battery. One of the main trigger is the introduction of electric vehicle into the market. For country like China and US, the gigantic vehicle market demand means whoever comes up with the latest and newest improvement in battery technology is in good position to make a lot of profit.