Comments on: Is what is good for China good for the world and vice-versa? http://www.energypolicyblog.com/2010/05/19/what-is-good-for-china-is-good-for-the-world-and-vice-versa/ Sustainable energy policy, more competition, better regulation, improved policies. Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:05:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Tanaka Simon http://www.energypolicyblog.com/2010/05/19/what-is-good-for-china-is-good-for-the-world-and-vice-versa/comment-page-1/#comment-76014 Tanaka Simon Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:05:54 +0000 http://www.energypolicyblog.com/?p=1269#comment-76014 The second paragraph gets us thinking, is China still a developing country? It goes beyond no doubt that some parts of China are more developed than the traditional economic power houses of Europe. Maybe the criteria used to distinguish between a developed & developing country has to change. the 1st,2nd & 3rd world distinction therefore proves more appropriate. Why does China has to consult the US dept of energy & not keep its own records? This attracts me to the issue the control of global institutions like the UN which have proved to have loopholes as displayed in the handling of the Rwandian Genocide! China needs to cut its reliance on coal arguably the dirtiest fuel. 25.06.2010 The second paragraph gets us thinking, is China still a developing country? It goes beyond no doubt that some parts of China are more developed than the traditional economic power houses of Europe. Maybe the criteria used to distinguish between a developed & developing country has to change. the 1st,2nd & 3rd world distinction therefore proves more appropriate.

Why does China has to consult the US dept of energy & not keep its own records? This attracts me to the issue the control of global institutions like the UN which have proved to have loopholes as displayed in the handling of the Rwandian Genocide!

China needs to cut its reliance on coal arguably the dirtiest fuel. 25.06.2010

]]> By: Steven Stoft http://www.energypolicyblog.com/2010/05/19/what-is-good-for-china-is-good-for-the-world-and-vice-versa/comment-page-1/#comment-71667 Steven Stoft Wed, 19 May 2010 08:58:29 +0000 http://www.energypolicyblog.com/?p=1269#comment-71667 This raises an interesting question "Why China came up with such an action plan?" Perhaps it happened like this. Premier Wen Jiabao was wondering what to promise in order to fool the Americans. So he said to his assistant, Wang, "Go and find out how the Bush fellow did it. So Wang found Bush's Global Climate Change Initiative, announced on Feb. 14, 2002. He promised to reduce energy intensity by 18% in just 10 year. Everyone thought that was a great promise and hard to keep. But Bush knew that in the previous 10 years the US had reduced energy intensity 16% without any policy at all. So it looked like 18%, but it was really only 2% better than nothing. So Wen Jiabao was very pleased, and he said to Wang. Go and find out how much China reduced emissions in the last 15 years from 1990 to 2005. So Wang went to the US Department of Energy and looked this up. He returned and told Jiabao something amazing. In just 15 years we reduced energy intensity 44.4% without even trying!. So Wen Jiabao was very pleased again and said, Good, we will promise 40% in the next 15 years. That sounds like a lot but it is 5% less than nothing. Even better than Bush's trick. Now Wang, just to be sure, go and find out what the US DOE thinks we will actually accomplish from 2005 until 2020. So Wang went to this website http://sites.google.com/site/globalenergycenter/lib/2009/09-08 where someone had already read DOE's May 2009 IEO and figured it all out. He returned to Wen Jiabao and said this is truly amazing. DOE has two ways to figure it: PPP and Market. One way the answer is 44.5% and the other way 45.5%. Wen Jiabao was delighted, and said, This is perfect. We did it before and it is predicted that we will do it again--without even trying. But still let us say 40% just to be safe. Besides I have a plan for how to do this easily. We must have done much better from 1990 to 2000 because after that we started exporting embodied carbon to the rich countries and they count that against us. Now we will switch to higher quality exports with more value per ton of carbon. That way we can grow as fast, and let someone else get in trouble for the carbon. And so it was. China did 5% less than nothing, and India took over the embodied carbon. But of course, India also had learned this trick from Mr. Bush, but they had promised to do only half as much as nothing, so they had no problem keeping their promise while they exported the embodied carbon and grew rich. Of course all of this was predicted by the the Polarization Theorem of Cap-and-Trade game theory back in April of 2010. Which you can find here: http://sites.google.com/site/globalenergycenter/international/games/cap-price-games Or check the home page and download the World Bank talk of May 20. This raises an interesting question “Why China came up with such an action plan?”
Perhaps it happened like this.

Premier Wen Jiabao was wondering what to promise in order to fool the Americans. So he said to his assistant, Wang, “Go and find out how the Bush fellow did it. So Wang found Bush’s Global Climate Change Initiative, announced on Feb. 14, 2002. He promised to reduce energy intensity by 18% in just 10 year. Everyone thought that was a great promise and hard to keep. But Bush knew that in the previous 10 years the US had reduced energy intensity 16% without any policy at all. So it looked like 18%, but it was really only 2% better than nothing.

So Wen Jiabao was very pleased, and he said to Wang. Go and find out how much China reduced emissions in the last 15 years from 1990 to 2005. So Wang went to the US Department of Energy and looked this up. He returned and told Jiabao something amazing. In just 15 years we reduced energy intensity 44.4% without even trying!.

So Wen Jiabao was very pleased again and said, Good, we will promise 40% in the next 15 years. That sounds like a lot but it is 5% less than nothing. Even better than Bush’s trick. Now Wang, just to be sure, go and find out what the US DOE thinks we will actually accomplish from 2005 until 2020. So Wang went to this website
http://sites.google.com/site/globalenergycenter/lib/2009/09-08
where someone had already read DOE’s May 2009 IEO and figured it all out.

He returned to Wen Jiabao and said this is truly amazing. DOE has two ways to figure it: PPP and Market. One way the answer is 44.5% and the other way 45.5%.

Wen Jiabao was delighted, and said, This is perfect. We did it before and it is predicted that we will do it again–without even trying. But still let us say 40% just to be safe. Besides I have a plan for how to do this easily.

We must have done much better from 1990 to 2000 because after that we started exporting embodied carbon to the rich countries and they count that against us. Now we will switch to higher quality exports with more value per ton of carbon. That way we can grow as fast, and let someone else get in trouble for the carbon.

And so it was. China did 5% less than nothing, and India took over the embodied carbon.

But of course, India also had learned this trick from Mr. Bush, but they had promised to do only half as much as nothing, so they had no problem keeping their promise while they exported the embodied carbon and grew rich.

Of course all of this was predicted by the the Polarization Theorem of Cap-and-Trade game theory back in April of 2010. Which you can find here: http://sites.google.com/site/globalenergycenter/international/games/cap-price-games

Or check the home page and download the World Bank talk of May 20.

]]>