1. Chengdu promised: to give “one hour to the world”
On February 1st, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) announced that the Municipal Government of Chengdu had promised on January 29th that it participate in the activity of the “Earth Hour 2010” at 20:30 of March 27th, which indicated Chengdu had become the first city to join the WWF China “Earth Hour 2010”, and the prelude of the activity in China was also drew open therefrom.
2. Green Chengdu, 100 electric buses to drive on streets this year
This year, the program of actions on the promotion of the industrialization of electric vehicles of Chengdu City had finally settled, learnt the journalist recently from the Municipal Energy Office. The program fixed the execution of the “Hundred-thousand-ten-thousands” project, the demonstration and popularization of electric buses, namely hundred urban public transport, thousand taxis and ten thousand private cars. According to the program phased targets, in 2010, Chengdu will complete the target of putting into the demonstrational operation of 100 electric buses and 100 electric city sanitation trucks. The State Grid Corporation Sichuan branch then launched a supporting facilities construction project, and will build 3 electric vehicle charging stations and 300 charging stacks in Chengdu this year. In 2012, Chengdu will form a production capacity of 20,000 electric vehicles.
3. Chengdu plans to invest 43.85 billion yuan to build modern agricultural base
Chengdu recently has published the Construction Plan of Modern Agricultural Base Project of Chengdu (2010-2017), planning to invest 43.85 billion yuan in the construction of modern agricultural base, and to realize 8.5% annual growth of the average peasantry income and achieve 2.8 million tons of total grain output in 2017, striving to build Chengdu into a “Western China first and domestic leading” modern agricultural development demonstration zone and the country’s important modern agricultural base.
4. “Water city of Abundance Heaven”, Jintang awarded as first “National Garden County” in Sichuan
Recently, through the initial approval of the Ministry of Construction, expert review and publicity, Jintang County of Chengdu has successfully obtained the title of “National Garden County” of 2009, not only becoming one of the 31 honored counties throughout the country in 2009, but also being the first in Sichuan, which signified that the county’s constructing of a new livable landscape city had taken a milestone step.
A bit of a rant here, but why is it that within many of Shanghai’s restaurants it is still considered acceptable to smoke a cigar? Over the weekend, while enjoying my lunch with a friend in a cafe where the entire menu is “healthy” a patron came in a lite up a cigar, which naturally polluted the entire 40 person space that was the main area of the cafe
And it was not the first time that this has happened. In fact, it is something and while the city’s planners are debating a city wide ban on smoking cigarettes, I find it sad that its restaurant owners and managers lack the sense to ban the smoking of cigars in their main dining rooms. Well documented health issues (PDF here) and impact to indoor CO2 levels aside, any restaurant that is willing to accept cigar smokers in its establishment simply do not care about the quality of their food or the experience the taste of their food is supposed to be providing.
1) Chengdu eventually achieved 315 days of fine air quality in 2009
On December 16th, 2009, the number of days with fair air quality in the downtown Chengdu achieved 15 days earlier the livelihood project goal put forward by the Municipal Government at the beginning of last year to “reach 311 days of fine air quality in the downtown area”. According to the statistics, in 2009 Chengdu has eventually achieved 315 days with fine air quality.
2) Western China’s largest LED production base operates in Pixian
On January 16th, the first phase of the “Sichuan Yuanli Photoelectric”, the biggest LED production base in West China, was officially put into operation in the Pixian Modern Industrial Port of Chengdu.
It is learnt that Sichuan Yuanli Photoelectric’s LED production base invested with 540 million yuan, was started construction in May, 2009, which is the first LED project put into production in the industrial zone, and is also currently the biggest LED production base in the western region.
3) Chengdu being worthy inland investment environment benchmarking city
Chengdu has become the inland investment environment benchmarking city in China – the National Information Center recently-published “Urbanization Road during the Course of Western China Development – Case Study in Chengdu’s Urbanization Model”, which was under the charge of Nobel Prize for economics winner Mundell and renowned Chinese economist Li Yining, commented Chengdu in this way.
4) Chengdu won 2009 “Contributing City to Low Carbon China”
On January 21st, the first annual meeting of the Low Carbon China Forum was held in Beijing. 16 city representatives from including Shenzhen and Chengdu, low-carbon economic experts from home and abroad and hundreds of business representatives have participated in the meeting, during which Chengdu has won the honorable titles of the “Contributing City to Low Carbon China” and the “Most Competitive Low-carbon Industrial Base City” of the year 2009.
5) Within 5 years, a modern eco-cycle farming system to be initially established
“Within 5 years, water saving irrigation area accounts for 60% of the effective irrigation area, the rate of disposal and utilization of livestock and poultry waste is to reach 90%…” This is what the journalist learnt from the Municipal Agricultural Commission on January 18th. It is reported that in considering the target set up by the city of Chengdu to build a “world modern garden city”, the Municipal Commission of Agriculture has put forward the working scheme for the sustainable development of circular agriculture, which, around the city’s industrial development plan for agricultural functional zones, will strengthen the construction of agricultural eco-system of Chengdu; within 5 years, a batch of demonstration companies and production bases for circular agriculture will be formed, and a modern circular agricultural system be initially established.
Earlier this week at an event, I was speaking with the Sustainability Director of a large FMCG firm discussing what the outcome of the Copenhagen negotiations meant for business like the one he represented (his firm is a bit of a poster child), and my reply to him was to get ready.
That, as a result of the failed political process that took place, the pressures on companies will build.
This review brings together and analysises the most important research into the effectes of climate change on the corporate world, in order to identify the specific risks and economic impacts at sector level that businesses must assress. Its porpose is to contribute to the debate, to stumulate furtrther research and , most important, to help companies better understand and responsd to the issues at stake
Broken down into several big sections (intro, defining the different risks, and the understanding that firms have of the risks), the report brings in some interesting opinions that are compelling.
My take from the report is that firms do not understand the risks (nothing earth shattering there), but that there are certainly firms who are beginning to see the risks and make adjustments.
It has been nearly a month since the 15000 (or so) people descended upon Copenhagen to hammer through what was to be “the biggest moment” of our lives, to address the BIGGEST ISSUE FACING MANKIND. Right?
No shortage of commentary on who was at fault, my first lecture for the second semester gave me the reason and opportunity to sit down and think about what really went wrong. I did so party because I have been bothered by what I saw at Copenhagen, not to mention the endless abuse of media publications by politicians trying to deflect their own responsibility, but primarily because my students are about to kick off 35 of their own projects that will in many ways mimic the process that Copenhagen was SUPPOSED to be as they identify critical issues, bring stakeholders together, plan programs, and work with the various groups to take the next steps.
In short. Because Copenhagen was a massive failure of epic proportions, I thought that I should take the time to break it down for my students and show them how they (through their next semester) need to act very differently.
It is a lecture whose slides are above, and in the below I will work through some of the key issues that I feel lead to this failure of EPIC proportions.
So, what happened?
To answer the question “What happened”, I think it is important that we look at the structure of the Copenhagen meeting: a look at the goals of the conference,the people who were there, and the process that was the Copenhagen 15 conference, be given a closer look. Because, like carbon, the failure of Copenhagen is nothing more than the byproduct of a process. A process that had many flaws.
What was the goal of the Copenhagen conference?
This may sound like a dumb question, but what was the goal of all those people who were in Copenhagen? Why were they there? what did they hope to achieve? It is a question that first must have answers to several other questions like: (1) What are the problems we really face?, (2) What are the causes and effects of the problems we face?, and (3) What needs to be done to alter the current path we are on?
Why I need to answer these is a simple fact that if not everyone is on board with what the prlbems are, then how can we realistically expect that there will be a single goal? That while the goal may be a legally binding agreement, perhaps not everyone thinks that a legally binding agreement will really translate into something tangible for them.
It is under this context then that Carbon needs to come into the picture as it was the single focal point, but sadly, it was not a fixed point. That, because carbon is an intangible and is a byproduct of many problems that we face, its allowed for much of the debates to become clouded and tied to other issues that were completely unrelated at times.
Who was there?
Behind determining goals, knowing who was there (and what they looked to achieve) is equally important, and it is perhaps through this layer of the cake that things begin to really get messy.
At the highest level you have two groups, the believers and non-believers, that provided the basic splice for splitting the conference attendees down. Next, you have the developed nations (lead largely by the U.S.), developing nations (lead largely by China), and then you had everyone else, who for the context of this discussion were countries who had no independent voice at the conference. they were nations who many would argue were going to be the first to feel the effects, but regardless, had to stand in line behind either the developed or developing nation blocs. And functionally we wind up the profiling with functional differences between politicians, business leaders, scientists, tree huggers, and students. With tree huggers and students pushing the hardest for change, and politicians and business leaders who have vested interests in staying in power, but operate in environments that do not necessarily guarantee that power too long (an interesting dynamic that essentially determines the motivations of maintaining the “Status quo”)
Which, when you put all of these together in the same room, creates a very interesting dynamic that initially would lead to the opening of minds in some cases, but ultimately leads to the creation of camps based on common goals (economic growth vs. environmental sustainability). goals that are based on common needs (maintaining power vs. maintaining shorelines ), and then results in very different stances (Everyone Change/ Action vs. West change/ We follow).. which leads to a condition of where two people are put into a room to work through the “sticky” points.
Almost important, if not more so, than who was there was how did these groups work together. First question, WHERE WAS THE TEAMWORK? For me there was no greater sign of problems than the fact that there was no teamwork in this entire process. That, with the exception of being a joint statement in Singapore pre-Copenhagen was , there was little teamwork in the entire process. 15,000 people showed up and entered into a mass ping pong tournament, from which a few (Wen Jiabao and Obama took their paddles to the main stage for one-on-one).
It was a process (dare I say there was an actually process) that was NOT defined by cooperation, but only defined by self interests (be it economic, political, or environmental). Self interests, that aligned along a single “goal” of reducing carbon, created two potential outcomes.
Binding agreement, or no binding agreement.
The Process
Any time there are more than 2 inputs to anything, there is a natural process that takes place, and in the case of the Copenhagen conference where you have 15,000 people, 200 countries, 10 types of stakeholders, and one big problem… you need a process that effectively manages all these competiting interests.
Copenhagen, and more widely the UN itself, has no process.
It was a conference where everyone showed up with proposals in hand. Proposals were being developed by parties where there were offensive and defensive positions, and (getting back to my original point of having a single goal) rather than breaking Carbon down into the 55 or so structural issues and tackling those one at a time… Copenhagen became the biggest game of roulette to ever be played. It was an all or nothing bet.
Where this failure of process is all the more sad is that if the two biggest blocks had sat down to break down carbon into its components (transportation, buildings, energy production, waste, etc) progress could have been made in each of these area where common interests aligned naturally, and then set aside other issues that required more time, or at the minimum developed some basic KPIs and steps for next time.
Instead. It was China and US representing 40% of the world’s carbon emissions who HAD to agree first, and then the remaining 60% would fall in line… a HUGE sign of a failed process.
The False Argument
Outside of my slides, there is one more aspect of Copenhagen that lead to failure. Everyone’s argument was built on a false floor (again, a byproduct of having no goal), and while the world leaders would love to point fingers, the fact is that the cardinal rules of the environment never entered the discussion.
That regardless of what the Earth’s carrying capacity for environmental degradation (getting beyond carbon), members were still arguing points on economic development, their right to it, and little real recognition that there are laws in nature that cannot be broken without seeing massive failures.
Which leads me to my last point. Climate change is not something that is going to occur as a result of carbon emissions. It is something that is already here. It is deforestation areas turning to deserts. It is dead water lines, and coral reefs. It is air pollution and increases in lung cancers/ asthma… and it is here where the conference ultimately failed to translate into action.
The fact that natural disasters are increasing in size, frequency, and scope. that large swatches of land are no longer farmable, and water sources are undrinkable is the problem that everyone should have been focused on. Because, while they may not realize it, they too are by products of the same systems that spew carbon, and they are problems that we all face in a very TANGIBLE way.
It may not be as emotionally compelling as a polar bear or a sinking island nation. But, without real goals, and based only on emotions, it becomes far to easy for politicians to use jobs as a KPI for success of greening the economy (vs. reduced cancer
Conclusions:
So, let’s recap. 15000 people allocated 2 weeks to solve humanity’s biggest issue ever, in a structure that:
1) There was no clear goal. Focus on “Carbon” allowed parties to maneuver and deflect, and the opportunity to develop common understandings and programs around real issues was lost.
2) There was a complete failure to work as a team. Everyone brought their own proposals, and looked out for their own interests (as a country or as a block). Factions formed. People lost face.
3) No one was willing to make a real sacrifice. The Discovery channel slogan “live a sustainable life without sacrificing luxury” pretty much says it all for how we as humanity have come to look at balancing the environment in our lives, and sadly little progress has been made since Bush Sr’s comment at Rio that the “American way is not up for negotiation”.
4) Everyone forgot the golden rule. Mother nature will not negotiate.
That for all the efforts of those people who attended, it was not about Obama and Wen Jiabao signing a binding agreement. It was about humanity accepting the laws of nature, and respect the fact that (carbon aside) we are red lining many of the systems that support our existence on their earth. That, without drastic changes (and I am not talking about cleantech deployments), our biospheres will become so polluted that major changes will be FORCED upon us.
People will move. Crops will die. air will become un-breathable.
Following the recent holiday, I found the above tree that mixed the new (haibao) with the old (a packet of Double Happiness) as a strange reminder of just how far we have yet to go.
Coming up next week at Three on the Bund, David C. Schmittlein and Richard Locke. David Schmittlein will be speaking at the event In the World Fort the World: Sustainable Business and Society.
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.
Typically someone I agree with, Chandler goes off on a very interesting trajectory that basically looks to prove that the recent announcements from China are actually a HUGE step for China. Interesting, because through his analysis he uses so many examples of how they have made big changes over the last few years, that he essentially has shown that this is nothing more than the next step.
.. but first, let’s put some context into this.
China has, through their announcement, said that they look to cut emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45% by the year 2020. For some, this has been called by a HUGE step, and a much needed step forward for China. Others disagree. They say that China is essentially trying to pass off current plans as something new.. a regift.
Regardless, and honestly this is why I refrained from commenting when I heard the news, this announcement will in no way reduce China’s carbon footprint to the levels that everyone seems to think we need to be at before the world implodes (assuming you believe that 450ppm is the number). Not one atom. China will, unless the GDP of this country stops growing , continue to produce the same amount for more “Carbon” in 2020 in absolute terms.
Why I say absolute is that in real terms, it is possible that China cracks the carbon sequestration nut or my friends at GIGA have a few of their climate positive buildings online… which would in effect reduce the overall number.
But, back to the article at hand.
To support his assertions, Chandler uses some very interesting anecdotal evidence:
#1: “Criticism of the Chinese goal stems in part from the fact that it allows Chinese per capita emissions to continue to grow. The Chinese government argues that China is a developing country where energy services are low and hundreds of millions of people continue to lead hardscrabble lives. Today, Americans produce four times more carbon dioxide per person than the Chinese”
Can someone, ANYONE, please point him to the fact that this statistic, perhaps the most widely abused Chinese statistic in the entire debate, does not really reflect the footprint of the average city dweller in say Shanghai, Chengdu, or Tianjin.. and that while there are 900 million farmers who are largely off the grid and doing their best to skew the data, by 2020, about 400 million of those farmers have plans to join us city folk in a hugely carbon intensive lifestyle.
In short.. it is time to dump this statistic, and any analysis tied to it because, just like the urban / rural income gap, there is a very very wide margin between urban / rural footprints.
#2:“No developing country in economic history—other than post-Mao China—has cut its energy-related greenhouse gas emissions growth so deeply for so long.”
My answer to that: No country in the last 30 years had to. China is the first because it is the only, and while I agree that it is doing far better than many countries, it still doesn’t deserve the carbon free cookie
#3: Even though Chinese consumers use far less energy in their homes and cars, China’s energy and carbon intensity is comparatively high because its factories are relatively inefficient and its economy has a high share of heavy industry.
This is sure to change in the next 15 years as China plans to move 400 MILLION more people to the cities by 2020,and while industry will get more efficient, those gains will be lost through the costs of urbanization. Anyone happen to see the news today that China clocked a 100% y-o-y growth in auto sales?
#4: China once before did achieve a high rate of energy (and carbon) intensity reduction over a long period of time. In the 1980s and 1990s, post-Mao China was exceptionally wasteful in energy use, as were all centrally planned economies.
Anyone been in the eye of a hurricane? It’s like a break from reality.. everything is fine and lovely until the moment Mother Nature decides that she is not finished. To try and tie 1980s emissions cuts to what needs to be done is just not the right approach. China’s problems are much more serious now
#5: The current energy intensity policy (which the author of this paper has supported) can legitimately be described as severe, even draconian. The policy imposes hundreds of detailed industrial efficiency standards to a degree unparalleled in any other country in the world. The policy has forced closure of tens of thousands of factories, power plants, and production lines that failed to meet the standards.
An interesting anecdote to show that their recent announcement is somehow a HUGE deal. China is taking steps, and guess what.. they are going to be draconian. That is why things ARE changing for the positive.
With that, I am in complete agreement with Chandler on a number of fronts related to the fact that China really needs to work for an agreement in Copenhagen, and that failing to do so would be a huge let down.. but it would not be the end of the world any more than having a binding agreement would ensure real action on the part of the various signatories.
In fact, while Chandler states on several occasions that China needs to sign up to COP15 or risk climate change, I would say that it is too late. That, regardless of what happens in Copenhagen, China’s climate has already changed and the size of the problems are sadly growing (think water). Copenhagen is, and should continue to be seen, as an event that will ut pressure on parties to own up to the problems we face, but it is going to take a lot more than signing on the dotted line to fix the environmental issues that China faces. It is going to take real talent, time, technology, money, and commitment to do so.
So, while the US and China battle it out in Copenhagen, I will gladly be on the receiving end of 36 research papers and presentations from my students. Papers that are the product of 3 months of study on the issues that China faces, and after spending the last semester seeing these 200 future leaders dive into their topics, I find myself downright giddy with excitement.
Because at the end of the day, I know that they are going to have real solutions to real problems, and while maybe not tomorrow, they will at some point be in a position to implement those solutions.
Regardless of whether you believe COP15 still has hope, or is a predetermined failure, the fact is that in about 3 weeks a large number of scientists, environmentalists, policy makers, and cleantech funds are going to be in Copenhagen… and the world will be watching.
Even prior to the recent announcements from Singapore though, many had already begun gaming the outcomes, and hyping the need for China and the US to drive an agreement. ANY AGREEMENT.
There have been countless articles offering analysis on what may happen. Articles that are typically (Yes, I am stereotyping) one sided and promote either the views of the West (led by the U.S.) that China needs to step up to the plate or views from the developing world (led by China) that the West needs to own up to their past.
I am currently working on a White Paper on China’s climate policy and negotiation stance leading up to the COP15 talks in December. While a lot has been said recently about China’s green leadership, our aim is to provide a more “holistic” picture of what the issues and landscapes are on the ground in China, and how these are likely to influence China’s negotiation position in Copenhagen.
At 8 pages, this paper offers what I feel are some great insights for firms who are operating in China, or who are trying to understand the “China position“. It is a paper whose bias is very middle ground, and does not look to promote either side (Chinese or West/ Environmentalist or Skeptic), but offers a pragmatic view of the issues that China is facing and how those issues define its approach.
One of my favorite conclusions being:
In short, to better engage stakeholders in China, the climate change debate must be reframed in a way that resonates with individual worldviews.
[..]
For consumers worldwide, ‘green’ works best when it is connected with something more ‘reallife’. In China, this means issues like personal health and product safety, cost-savings and social status. There is great potential to stimulate grassroots momentum in China if we can link climate change with things people experience every day, such as air pollution. But more than this, the debate needs to empower consumers around the impact that can be achieved if 1.3 billion people make small changes to their everyday lives. Using more energy-efficient light bulbs is but one example of a new action proposition, which appeals to householders’ desire to save money, while also having a measurable environmental impact.
Interviewed as part of the project, and quoted twice, I spent about 30 minutes speaking with them about my own perspectives, and given the recent announcement from Singapore I wanted to elaborate on one portion of the conversation that I feel was most relevant to the apparent back step that was taken.
In the first line of report, I am quoted as saying “Carbon is not the problem per se. Carbon is the by-product of a number of different issues around environmental and economic sustainability”
This is not a new line for me (as regular readers will know), however as I explained in other conversations, it is this point that I feel has not only been lost.. but ultimately is the reason for the collective step back.
In short, why I see this as the key issue is that as the world focuses on “carbon”, the ability to have a tangible conversation, develop tangible goals, create tangible steps forward, and take tangible measurements is largely lost as carbon is not actually the problem.
First, regardless of whether or not you believe “carbon” is the problem that should be focused on, it needs to be said that when we moved from carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxide to “carbon”, and “carbon” based solutions it had an effect: It has one again removed the public from the conversation; it has made it easier to refocus discussions to technologies yet to be developed; it has lumped a number of issues together and created a log jam; and more importantly, it has create an intangibility to discussions and reports that have undermined the programming process. Stymied discussions on CORE issues like Urban Planning, transportation, manufacturing processes, and so on.
Second, regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming, or the effect humans have on this process, the entire process in the West has been driven by intangible emotional connections to polar bears, ice caps, and future scenarios of apocalyptic collapse. Again, it has isolate citizens from the conversation, even when they are being impacted, It is not about what is happening today, but about what will occur somewhere else, at some time in the future, and being too big to do anything about… without technologies and multilateral agreements.
Finally, and this leads to the core problem, scope shift. Look at reports from 18 months ago, and then compare those to now. There has been a shift in the messages. From messages that were focus on what happens, globally, should we not make structural changes to economies and make the long term investments, to who benefits from those investments. What was once about common good, has now shifted to who benefits today.
So, to sum up, the process has been focused on the byproduct, is not tangible to the average citizen, is too big for anyone, but has the potential for HUGE local economic benefits that should not be forfeited to others.
No wonder leaders decided to step back and reevaluate.
1) stop using climate change as if that is the CORE PROBLEM.
2) stop using distant emotional appeals for change.
3) stop using catch phrases and technologies of the future as the only options.
4) negative externalities need to begin being priced into the system.
5) We need to decide what is the goal.
6) We need to stop telling citizens that they can go about their day, and their government will take care of it.
If we take these steps, and take the time to reframe not only the problems we face (and how to address those problems), then I think you will see progress in the right direction. Governments will come together to develop targeted agreements, corporations will work to invest in solutions that offer maximum benefit vs. maximum financial return, and CITIZENS will be in a position to where they can effectively rejoiin the conversation.
Then, and only then, do I feel forums like COP15 will be their most effective.
