Cleaner Greener China

December 29, 2009

All Apparently Isn’t Well in Tianjin EcoCity

Filed under: Uncategorized — Rich @ 5:34 am

So apparently my earlier posts on the Singapore and Tianjin partnership in the Tianjin ecozone were a bit mature.  At first, I thought that as Singapore had successfully brought the Suzhou Singapore Investment Park to market, and the working relationships were developed at the highest levels of both governments, that would leave Singapore in better position when managing the Tianjin project.

Little did I understand….:

Even as the park was being constructed, the Suzhou City government set up Suzhou New District Industrial Park (SND) right next to SIP. It was the exact replica of the Singapore model.

As the Suzhou City government had a majority stake in SND, it largely ignored the SIP and concentrated on promoting the SND instead.

After incurring losses of some US$90 million over 5 years, the Singapore consortium lowered its stake to 35 percent, raising the Chinese consortium’s stake to 65 percent from 35 percent and reducing the Singaporean share from a planned 70 sq.km. to just 8 sq.km (source: wikipedia)

Last time I was working with SIP I have to admit that I was under a different opinion of SIP and SND as it was clear to me that SND was not performing at the same level as SIP, and their people were in no way acting in the same manner. I had heard several reports from those in SND that services weren’t up at the same level of SIP, while at the same time SIP was looking for more land as they were running full.

Back to Tianjin, where officials are looking to used their model projects as bargaining chips for promotions, things are apparently not going to plan… and while their local officials look for the next rung on the ladder, some of the project’s components may prove difficult to implement (low income housing was mentioned).

In the post, the role of Singapore’s lead man who is described at a “key” person, but did not really provide much depth into what role/ responsibility this person ( ) has in the current problem.. but, they do open the door up for me to make a quick comment on how important it is for there to be people in the room who not only understand how to develop partnerships (partly by understanding what the other side will and will not implement over time, or how they will look to “leverage” the work into something else) and

December 28, 2009

CNN Eco Solutions Clips: China’s drive to be a low carbon leader

Here are three clips from CNN as part of their Ecosolutions series that I thought readers would find interesting as, for no other reason, these are three CNN videos focused more on what is going right here in China on the issue of sustainability.

Clip 1: China’s Green Plans – focused on (as the title suggests) the plans that China has to move from its current path to what is now being called ecological civilization .  Harmonious Society 2.0.

Clip 2: China’s Green Tower – focusing on the new Pearl River tower in Guangzhou.  A nice sales piece for SOM, the building can produce up to 1 million kWh of energy through wind and solar equipment built into the building.. power that sadly will largely be wasted as there is no place to store the energy or load it back to the grid (makes me wonder why they are investing in so much capacity to begin with)… a point that Greenpeace closes with.
What I do find encouraging though is that the building will cost an estimated 15% more than the “Standard” building.. an amount that will be paid back in 5 years!  Whereby, the buildings future energy savings would turn into a positive ROI for the owner.  Not a bad time horizon at all.

December 27, 2009

Shanghai to Further Subsidize 10 Million CFLs

Filed under: Greener Products — Tags: , , , — Rich @ 8:53 pm

One of the perks of being a country with a huge sum of cash in the coffers is the ability to make investments in projects like the one that the Shanghai government has just announced.

To provide 20% subsidies for 10 million CFLs in the next year.  That is on top of the already 50% subsidy that is being offered nationwide.  Which means that CFLs are selling for the cheap.

A great thing if your goal is to reduce the energy and carbon footprint of your people, and aren’t bothered about the added mercury floating around.

December 22, 2009

Who Threw The First Snowball? And Wen?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Rich @ 11:18 pm

Following my post yesterday on the tit for tat that was taking place between UK and Chinese press conferences, Mark Lynas’s Guardian article How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room went to press.

The article is a must read in my opinion as it gives reader a look through one person’s eyes of what was going on in the final days of COP15 negotiations.

Here’s what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world’s most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his “superiors”.

… and why did China feel they were in a position to do this?  He has a few ideas (I am cutting quite a bit of analysis to make this short):

First, it (China) was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn’t need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: “The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans.”  [....] Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone [....] the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken.

… and I would like to take a minute to add a few things.

I think it needs to be said that before anyone purchased a ticket to COP15 this stage was already set to implode.  This is not something that just happened at COP15. Some would say that the Singapore announcement 2 weeks prior to COP15 laid the path to failure, others are happy to go back to Kyoto.

Me? I would say that this path was laid the minute that everyone focused on “carbon”.. and the evils of “carbon”.. and that we need to capture, trade, or kill “carbon.. and as everyone (except China and a few others) drank the carbon kool-aid, things were set up for a conflict.

The motivations were intangible to some (Carbon is not China’s main concern), the goals (of each party) were not clear, and the strategies of counterparts never adjusted.

How could this have gone well?

Perhaps I ask this question naively having witnessed the exact same train wreck on the international trade front over and over again, but maybe not.  Wen not showing up for the meeting, and sending in #2 was a huge lose of face for everyone in the room, but EVERYONE in the room should have known to leave the room.  TO have sat in that room, and actually expected to negotiate with the #3 (Hu is #1 and Wen is #2) showed that the major powers still do not understand how to negotiate with China on China’s terms.

So here is a tip. Next time the #2 sends in #3 to negotiate on behalf of China, you can either (1) Go outside the hall and wait for the #2 to get to the hall … in front of the press…. or (2) open the meeting up to the media and force #3 to act the role of lead negotiator and push for everything.

I am not saying that China is right in what they did, nor am I saying that everyone should cave into the position of China, but in my mind had the developed powers simply failed on two counts: (1) to engage China in a meaningful way to China and (2) failed to lead China into falling over its own trapdoor.

No doubt this is going to get uglier, and while I foresee China regretting its last move, in the end it is all a moot anyway.

Miliband Starts Post COP15 Snowball Fight. China Pissed

Filed under: Uncategorized — Rich @ 1:17 am

Given the number of post-COP commentaries that are taking place right now, I decided to scrap my own “I am disappointed, but not surprised piece” and move on to the post-COP snowball fight which is now taking place.

It is was one that Ed Miliband so thoughtfully started when he said that China ‘hijacked’ climate summit by blocking a legally-binding treaty

The procedural wrangling was, in fact, a cover for points of serious, substantive disagreement.

“The vast majority of countries, developed and developing, believe that we will only construct a lasting accord that protects the planet if all countries’ commitments or actions are legally binding.

“But some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this. That is why we did not secure an agreement that the political accord struck in Copenhagen should lead to a legally binding outcome.

“We did not get an agreement on 50 percent reductions in global emissions by 2050 or on 80 percent reductions by developed countries.

“Both were vetoed by China, despite the support of a coalition of developed and the vast majority of developing countries.”

He added: “The last two weeks at times have presented a farcical picture to the public. We cannot again allow negotiations on real points of substance to be hijacked in this way.”

A fierce volley that caught some in China off guard, but the valiant Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu quickly loaded up two of her own as the Chinese Counterattack:

She said the comments by an individual British politician — not mentioning Miliband by name — were an attempt to “shirk the obligations of developed countries to their developing counterparts and foment discord among developing countries, but the attempt was doomed to fail.”

Jiang said those responsible for the editorial should “correct their mistakes, fulfill their obligations to developing countries in an earnest way, and stay away from activities that hinder the international community’s cooperation in coping with climate change.”

er.. I think those failed to connect..

Go back a few months to my post about what I felt would happen at COP15, and then compare what actually did happen at COP15, and I think we could have all seen this coming… The Developed nations largely failed to understand, or work with, and the primary economic and environmental concerns of the developing nations.. and the developing nations naively believed that the developed nations would cut enough themselves that it would allow them the ability to develop in the same manner as everyone else had…

the recent FP Piece How China Stiffed the World in Copenhagen I think puts it best:

As Mark Twain reportedly said, there are three kinds of deceptions: lies, damned lies, and statistics. China has long been engaging in a dangerous game of manipulating important economic numbers and concealing domestic commercial realities. Despite all its progress over 30 years, Beijing is afraid to shine too bright a light in dark places, and even more afraid that outsiders might be allowed to do so. In important respects, the government actually embraces opaqueness as a perceived advantage. The thought of “transparent verification” was seen as the thin end of the wedge, allowing outside experts broad authority to peer into the workings of middle China. It would have caused Wen to feel the distinct pang of panic that guilty men feel when they realize the jig might soon be up.

The line that highlighted I think is the most critical piece as (1) this is a game that China has been playing for a LONG TIME.. and not just on climate change and (2) NO ONE took that into account. a point that FP covered in the paragraph previous:

The onus was now on Beijing to agree to standards of “transparent verification.” If it did not, poorer countries standing to benefit from the fund would blame China for breaking the deal. Clinton’s proposal had cunningly undermined Beijing’s leadership over the developing bloc of countries.

The entire “negotiation” itself was misguided insofar as it was clear in the run up, and during the event, that there was no common focus.  Core groups were clearly not working together as a team, but rather were throwing paper at each other from across the conference table.. and so, as a result, look for more volleys like this in the weeks to come (Even Cuba has managed to let one off at Obama).

Had they, and maybe I am being naive here myself, then perhaps the US and China could have worked out a new set of parameters that China could have worked with.  I am not talking about throwing out binding numbers (were that the real goal), but to help develop a system whereby China could effectively measure in a way that balanced their needs and capability (because we all know that local implementation/ monitoring/ reporting is tricky in China), and worked as a team.

It was a snowball that, while “cunning” and meant to draw their counterpart out from their Great Wall, was destined to fail before it was even delivered. It was a strategy that failed inside the hall, but is strangely hailed as a success in the media.

Next time, perhaps they will have the snowball fight ahead of time, and use that as an opportunity to (1) get all their hostilities towards each out of their system (2) release a bunch of pent up energy so that they can focus later in the afternoon and (3) use it as an excuse to cozy up to the fireplace afterwards and bond over some hot coco.

December 21, 2009

Effectively Communicating Sustainability

Filed under: Greener People, Uncategorized — Tags: , , — Rich @ 3:08 pm

While many had their eyes trained on the outcome of the last day at COP15, my eyes were reviewing final project submissions from the recent batch of students at Shanghai’s Raffles Design Institute.

A school dedicated to all things design, this class of students was coming from the communications department and were charged with taking an existing brand and developing a nee message for them.  A message of sustainability.

For me it was an interesting exercise as I had just wrapped up my own class, and 2 weeks of s sustainability bootcamp, and the projects I was reviewing at Raffles were complimentary to the work my own class had been doing. In fact many of the projects involved the same product classes.

Unlike my students thought, who were focused on developing issue, stakeholder, and regulatory maps, these students were focused on a single branded product, and quite often one that was in existence, and what was interesting to see was that I was able to see behind the communications process as these students researched the issues, sketched out their ideas, and developed entirely new branded messages to fit their angle (see this poster as an example).

It was another afternoon where the power and need for developing student capacity was needed, and that once engaged the students would match their passion for an issue with their talent.

Beijing to Raise Water Pricing by 25% to Reduce Use

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — Rich @ 7:53 am

For a city that has been so aggressive to increase water supplies, I am often surprised that so little is done to reduce demand.

It would seem that action is now being taken.

According to the Xinhua article  Beijing holds public hearing on water price hike, the city is now looking to raise the price of water by 24%.

The price of water for residential use will rise from 3.7 yuan (54 U.S. cents) to 4.6 yuan (67 U.S. cents), according to a proposed plan unveiled earlier this month by the Beijing Municipal Development and Reform Commission.

A seemingly good step in the right direction, but in the article there is a sentence that makes me question what else may be coming, or where the rest of the article is:

Altogether 24 representatives of residents, industrial users, lawmakers, political advisors, scholars, social groups, government officials and water companies attended the hearing.

A resident who was on the representative list asked for a sick leave Wednesday, but she had submitted a written document to express her opinion.

“The resident” – seems to me that for a hearing about repricing the residential water supply, there is a gap in that only 1 member of the community was invited while there were “industrial users”.

So, what about those industrial users?  Are they going to be paying more?

.. and why is it that in my last two visits, the hotels I have stayed in (Marriot North East and Frasier Suites), neither of them have had water saving equipment?

UPDATE – In the time that it took to write the above, a second article confirming the price hike has come out confirming the increase from .3RMB/ m3 to .4RMB/m3 for residential users, and said that the non-residential figure was raised nearly 50% last month.. thus answering my question about industrial users.


December 18, 2009

Wen Jiabao’s Speech at COP15.

Filed under: Greener People — Tags: — Rich @ 10:00 am

Typically I would not report the work of someone else in full, but in this case I think an exception should be made:

Prime Minister Rasmussen, Dear Colleagues,

At this very moment, billions of people across the world are following closely what is happening here in Copenhagen. The will that we express and the commitments that we make here should help push forward mankind’s historical process of combating climate change. Standing at this podium, I am deeply aware of the heavy responsibility.

Climate change is a major global challenge. It is the common mission of the entire mankind to curb global warming and save our planet. It is incumbent upon all of us, each and every country, nation, enterprise and individual to act, and act now in response to this challenge.

The past 30 years have seen remarkable progress in China’s modernization drive. Let me share with you here that China has taken climate change very seriously in the course of its development. Bearing in mind the fundamental interests of the Chinese people and mankind’s long-term development, we have exerted unremitting effort and made positive contribution to the fight against climate change.

China was the first developing country to adopt and implement a National Climate Change Program. We have formulated or revised the Energy Conservation Law, Renewable Energy Law, Circular Economy Promotion Law, Clean Production Promotion Law, Forest Law, Grassland Law and Regulations on Civil Building Efficiency. Laws and regulations have been an important means for us to address climate change.

China has made the most intensive efforts in energy conservation and pollution reduction in recent years. We have improved the taxation system and advanced the pricing reform of resource products with a view to putting in place at an early date a pricing mechanism that is responsive to market supply and demand, resource scarcity level and the cost of environmental damage. We have introduced 10 major energy conservation projects and launched an energy conservation campaign involving 1,000 enterprises, bringing energy-saving action to industry, transportation, construction and other key sectors. We have implemented pilot projects on circular economy, promoted energy-saving and environment-friendly vehicles and supported the use of energy-saving products by ordinary households with government subsidies. We have worked hard to phase out backward production facilities that are energy intensive and heavily polluting. The inefficient production capacity that China eliminated between 2006and 2008 stood at 60.59 million tons for iron, 43.47 million tons of steel, 140 million tons for cement and 64.45 million tons for coke. By the end of the first half of this year, China’s energy consumption per unit of GDP had dropped by 13 percent from the 2005 level, equivalent to reducing 800 million tons of carbon dioxide.

— China has enjoyed the fastest growth of new energy and renewable energy. On the basis of protecting the eco-environment, we have developed hydro power in an orderly way, actively developed nuclear power, and encouraged and supported the development of renewable energy including biomass, solar and geothermal energy and wind power in the countryside, remote areas and other places with the proper conditions. Between 2005 and 2008,renewable energy increased by 51 percent, representing an annual growth rate of 14.7 percent. In 2008, the use of renewable energy reached an equivalent of 250 million tons of standard coal. A total of 30.5 million rural households gained access to bio-gas, equivalent to a reduction of 49 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. China ranked first in the world in terms of installed hydro power capacity, nuclear power capacity under construction, the coverage of solar water heating panels and photovoltaic power capacity.

— China has the largest area of man-made forests in the world. We have continued with the large-scale endeavor to return to farmland to forest and expand a forestation, and made vigorous effort to increase forest carbon sink. Between 2003 and 2008, China’s forest coverage registered a net increase of 20.54 million hectares and forest stock volume rose by 1.123 billion cubic meters. The total area of man-made forests in China has reached 45million hectares, the largest in the world.

China has a 1.3 billion population and its per capita GDP has only exceeded 3,000 U.S. dollars. According to the U.N. standards, we still have 150 million people living below the poverty line and we therefore face the arduous task of developing the economy and improving people’s livelihood. China is now at an important stage of accelerated industrialization and urbanization, and, given the predominant role of coal in our energy mix, we are confronted with special difficulty in emission reduction. However, we have always regarded addressing climate change as an important strategic task. Between 1990 and 2005, China’s carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP were reduced by 46 percent. Building on that, we have set the new target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45 percent by 2020 from the 2005 level. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions on such a large scale and over such an extended period of time will require tremendous efforts on our part. Our target will be incorporated into China’s mid-and-long term plan for national economic and social development as a mandatory one to ensure that its implementation is subject to the supervision by the law and public opinions. We will further enhance the domestic-statistical, monitoring and evaluation methods, improve the way for releasing emission reduction information, increase transparency and actively engage in international exchange, dialogue and cooperation.

Dear Colleagues,

To meet the climate challenge, the international community must strengthen confidence, build consensus, make vigorous effort and enhance cooperation. And we must always adhere to the following three principles:

First, maintaining the consistency of outcomes:

The campaign against climate change has not just started. In fact, the international community has been engaged in this endeavor for decades. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol are the outcomes of long and hard work by all countries. They reflect the broad consensus among all parties and serve as the legal basis and guide for international cooperation on climate change. And as such, they must be highly valued and further strengthened and developed. The outcome of this conference must stick to rather than obscure the basic principles enshrined in the Convention and the Protocol. It must follow rather than deviate from the mandate of the “Bali Roadmap”. It should lock up rather than deny the consensus and progress already achieved in the negotiations.

Second, upholding the fairness of rules:

The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities “represents the core and bedrock of international cooperation on climate change and it must never be compromised. Developed countries account for 80 percent of the total global carbon dioxide emissions since the Industrial Revolution over 200 years ago. If we all agree that carbon dioxide emissions are the direct cause for climate change, then it is all too clear who should take the primary responsibility. Developing countries only started industrialization a few decades ago and many of their people still live in abject poverty today. It is totally unjustified to ask them to undertake emission reduction targets beyond their due obligations and capabilities in disregard of historical responsibilities, per capita emissions and different levels of development. Developed countries, which are already leading an affluent life, still maintain a level of per capita emissions that is far higher than that of developing countries, and most of their emissions are attributed to consumption. In comparison, emissions from developing countries are primarily survival emissions and international transfer emissions. Today, 2.4 billion people in the world still rely on coal, charcoal, and stalks as main fuels, and 1.6 billion people have no access to electricity. Action on climate change must be taken within the framework of sustainable development and should by no means compromise the efforts of developing countries to get rid of poverty and backwardness. Developed countries must take the lead in making deep quantified emission cuts and provide financial and technological support to developing countries. This is an unshirkable moral responsibility as well as a legal obligation that they must fulfill. Developing countries should, with the financial and technological support of developed countries, do what they can to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change in the light of their national conditions.

And third, paying attention to the practicality of the targets:

There is a Chinese proverb which goes, “A one-thousand-mile journey starts with the first step.” Similarly, there is a saying in the West which reads, “Rome was not built in one day.” In tackling climate change, we need to take a long-term perspective, but more importantly, we should focus on the present. The Kyoto Protocol has clearly set out the emission reduction targets for developed countries in the first commitment period by 2012. However, a review of implementation shows that the emissions from many developed countries have increased rather than decreased. And the mid-term reduction targets recently announced by developed countries fall considerably short of the requirements of the Convention and the expectations of the international community. Itis necessary to set a direction for our long-term efforts, but it is even more important to focus on achieving near-term and mid-term reduction targets, honoring the commitments already made and taking real action. One action is more useful than a dozen programs. We should give people hope by taking credible actions.

Fourth, ensure the effectiveness of institutions and mechanisms:

Concrete actions and institutional guarantee are essential to our effort on tackling climate change. The international community should make concrete and effective institutional arrangements under the Convention and urge developed countries to honor their commitments, provide sustained and sufficient financial support to developing countries, speed up the transfer of climate-friendly technologies and effectively help developing countries, especially small island states, least developed countries, landlocked countries and African countries, strengthen their capacity in combating climate change.

I wish to conclude by underlining that it is with a sense of responsibility to the Chinese people and the whole mankind that the Chinese government has set the target for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. This is a voluntary action China has taken in the light of its national circumstances. We have not attached any condition to the target, nor have we linked it to the target of any other country. We will honor our word with real action. Whatever outcome this conference may produce, we will be fully committed to achieving and even exceeding the target.

Thank you.

December 17, 2009

IFC Shanghai Built LEED

Filed under: Greener Products — Tags: , — Rich @ 8:01 pm

Was walking through Lujiazui this afternoon and notice this sign in front of Super Brand Mall.  Good to see that in an area that seems to see a new sete of cranes every week someone is advertising they are going LEED.

Perhaps, they can catalyze a competition among developers?  Or perhaps the mayor will just follow the SF model and enforce LEED for all new buildings?

One can only dream…..

December 16, 2009

Does The Average Chinese Person Care About the Environment?

Filed under: Greener People — Rich @ 10:37 pm

In the lead up to, and in the middle of, the recent Copenhagen discussions the role of China as either the biggest polluter or as the biggest Cleantech investor has been the focal point for many. It is a bipolar focus that has defined many of the discussions on China in the past, and as the recently reviewed debate on whether China is a developed or developing country highlights, it is a condition that seems to rarely have an end.

It is an impossible situation that often removes the context of many issues aside, and as part of our efforts to understand the Chinese position, we surveyed 84 people on the streets of Shanghai to understand their understanding of the issues, their concerns, and who they felt were going to be the parties responsible for solving the problems faced.
The answers were quite interesting.

To put this short study into the proper context for you, we surveyed two groups. The first group of 49 were a random sampling of people in two areas of Shanghai, one high rent district and one typically middle class. The second group of 32 respondents were undergraduate students at one of Shanghai’s most prestigious universities, and were targeted to represent the group most likely to have a passion for the issues and a desire for big changes.

The survey was 15 questions in length that consisted of 20 yes or no selections and 2 open questions, and was constructed to understand general awareness, knowledge of current discussions in surrounding climate change, and understand the level of “sacrifice” that each respondent felt was acceptable to address the issues faced.

Spend any amount of time in China, and one will immediately recognize the fact that China faces environmental challenges, that its economic growth has had a societal cost not factored into the price of its exports, but a price which its people are keenly aware of. So much so, that when asked if climate change was a concern of theirs, 83% said yes, and when asked if the economy was more important than the environment, only 23% said yes.

That, contrary to popular belief, the average Chinese person (as a person) sees the environment as being more important than the economy. Issues of most concern included: Climate Change (42%), Air Quality (18%), Water quality (17.%), and chemical pollution (5%).

Issues that are not uncommon for developing nations, but in the context of the current debate in Copenhagen, could explain why China and the US are looking at the issues of climate change differently.

When it came to assigning responsibility, we were not surprised to see that 90% of respondents felt that the government was not only responsible for climate change, but was also responsible for fixing the problems of climate change (96%). China has historically been a state where social issues were addressed from the top, and a culture of relying on the government to solve big problems is still very prevalent in China. Perhaps more interesting though was the fact that while many felt companies shared the blame (91%), and should be responsible for fixing the problems (84%), only 55% of respondents saw NGOs as a group who should be responsible for addressing the issues.

On a personal level, while most residents of Shanghai may appear to be leading busy lives lacking of awareness or regard for the environment, 80% of respondents felt they were partly to blame for climate change and were responsible for making changes to reverse climate change (87%), with 94% of respondents saying human kind would need to change in order to prevent larger climate problems.

Changes they themselves were willing to make at different levels:

  • Pay more per meter for an energy efficient apartment: 41.5%
  • Purchase energy efficient light bulbs and appliances: 98.8%
  • Pay more taxes to support government efforts: 24.4%
  • Pay more for “green” goods 86.6%
  • Take public transportation vs. buying a car 80.5%
  • Buy Carbon offsets 40.2%
  • Become vegetarian 16%

That the respondents not only recognized that there was a problem, but that they were willing to take on a level of personal responsibility to fix the problems faced, was another sign of encouragement for us.

In the way of progress though was one systemic barrier, the role of education. An issue that many understood to be a problem, only 6% of respondents believed that China’s educational system did a good job in the area of environmental education. Only 6%!

So what does all this mean? What should we take away from this survey?

  1. Chinese citizens are aware of the fact that uncurbed economic growth has environmental costs
  2. The average citizens are aware of climate change, however they have more pressing everyday issues in water, air, and other pollutions.
  3. Citizens believe that everyone has a role: Government, corporations, NGOs, and themselves
  4. Citizens understand they must change, and are willing to make certain changes.
  5. China needs to begin systematically teaching environmental awareness through the education system.
  6. These issues will transcend Copenhagen, and will only grow in nature if left unaddressed.

In the months to come, and the years ahead, there is little question that China will have to move away from an economic system that subsidizes growth with the environment. The problems that were once easily managed are growing in scale and size, and the mantra “growth at all costs” is being lost.

Linked to carbon, and the general topic of climate change, we would expect China to address daily issues of air pollution, water pollution, and industrial contamination as part of their drive to improve efficiency levels, and they will need help. It is a process that will take time, and regardless of the amount of money invested in a technology or that technology’s capacity, it will be a process that will be measured on its positive impact on the environment.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress