A “competition for dominance in the greentech “war” is being quietly started;” our competitor has “launched a new ‘carbon-economic revolution’” and we have been left behind at the “starting gate.”
Is Tom Friedman having another China moment? No, these words come from a Chinese columnist in the China Youth Daily (A new era of “the old carbon seller;” a new energy strategy of playing “catch up.” 新时代的”卖碳翁” 新能源战略要”迎头赶上”). In comparison to the West which has developed a careful industrial strategy and accumulated significant technological advantages, the columnist says that China’s foray into the greentech economy has been a little naive. He asserts that the development of a Chinese greentech sector has been misguided, fuelled by dreams of “quick profits,” leading to crazy investments, excess capacity, and a greentech “bubble.”
While there may be some truth in what the columnist says, his rhetoric makes it clear that there are factions in both China and the US that believe they can benefit from greentech war and competition metaphors. They seem quite stale, unreflective, and insincere to me. They also exploit deep seated, if irrational, fears on both side. I don’t recall any articles warning that the US was falling behind Germany in the greentech war (although that would have made more sense). On the Chinese side, the war metaphors are pushed by those who believe that Western efforts to get China to limit its carbon emissions are simply ploys to contain China’s rise and put a “noose” around its economy.
Can we please retire this rhetoric? Both countries have their strengths and can make unique contributions to our shared goal. Let’s stop fighting a war where both sides believe they are the losers.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Christina Wang // Dec 4, 2009 at 6:01 pm
I agree with your last paragraph, and it is frustrating. I have confidence that our government leaders can move past that kind of rhetoric - and hopefully the middle-level people involved will as well. However, the media, hardcore political scientists and xenophobic or nationalist types will always make everything about whether their country is #1…
2 Greener China // Dec 5, 2009 at 12:11 am
erg.
How about jsut ignoring journalists and their ideas on cleantech wars altogether?
While I cannot say there were any big breakthroughs at the recent smartgrid conference, what was clear was that some of China’s top people were actively visiting with and speaking to their counterparts in the EU and US. There was no sense of anyone having the best solution, but that each had something to learn.
Perhaps that will change when contracts get awarded, but to say there is a global competition would require the general cleantech movement to be in a much better place than where it is.
R
3 darnoc // Dec 5, 2009 at 4:23 am
I agree. It’s certainly helpful to raise awareness, one side to another, of measures being taken to advance cleantech…..likewise, a further awareness of relative strengths and weaknesses is helpful. However, the identification of strengths and weaknesses (rate of spending, tech, etc) should not be the basis of a race, competition or war argument. Rather, a complete and rational understanding of these can lead to productive and meaningful partnerships and cooperation towards bilateral and global goals. Frankly, the area of competition I’m most concerned about is in competition for fossil fuel based energy resources…it’s all the more important to foster cooperation on cleantech initiatives to reduce ultimate dependence on increasingly scarce resources.
4 Greg // Dec 7, 2009 at 9:07 am
Green technology is becoming a part of national security as the nations with the best green tech will reduce their fossil fuel consumption, saving money, reducing their geopolitical exposure and have valuable technology to export for economic and political leverage.
Case in point, the US military is developing biofuel blend and engines, as well as advanced hybrid and solar technologies. A few bases in the western US run almost completely on solar.
This technology won’t end up in the civilian sector for quite some time. Same with any other military’s work on fuel efficiency and self sufficiency.
Leave a Comment