The Rise of Asia and What It Means for the Environment
Here are a couple of graphs from “The Economist” that illustrate China’s rise to dominance in the manufacturing sector and suggest where this may go from here. We need also to keep in mind that the average factory worker in China earns $27.50 per day compared with $8.60 in Indonesia and $6.70 in Vietnam, meaning that there are other places in Asia that represent even greener pastures for global manufacturers.
The reason I mention this is not to make some obscure comment on the world economy, but to suggest the possible implications that all this might have on the issues of energy and, by extension, climate change. Assembling a new widget that will be a part in your washing machine or your car’s braking system may be less expensive if it that process happens in Asia, but if it occurs in the developed world, ironically, the energy that goes into making that part will be less in magnitude and far less in terms of its environmental footprint .
This, btw, is why putting a tax on carbon in the U.S. is such a terrible idea; it only hastens the migration of manufacturing to places where energy is dirtier.
There’s nothing we can do about the trend of the manufacturing industry’s moving to Asia. This is why we need to solve the energy problem (i.e., our dependence on fossil fuels) on a global basis. If we can’t improve this situation for every country on Earth—and especially in Asia—our civilization is doomed.
I dont see a way around taxing CO2 emitters domestically. Thats the fair way to appreciate the true costs of energy. As for imports, it seems like we should tax our imports with an estimate of the equivalent carbon tax given its origin.
Greener foreign manufactures could opt to be certified under a low emitter status after submitting to a review.
It’s very clear that in allowing China to export far, far more goods to the U.S. than it imports from the U.S., and by then borrowing trillions of U.S. dollars from China, we in America are essentially financing the huge upsurge in China’s power over it’s neighbors and it’s power globally, which ultimately will hand China the power to control all regions except perhaps it’s neighbors Russia and India and it will gain more control of the American economy and keep the U.S. economy permanently subservient to China’s economy. In short we are financing our own downfall among world powers by allowing this insanely huge trade deficit with China.
So then the implication is that putting a tax on carbon produced in the US alone is not sufficient unless goods are equally taxed over seas or in the absence of a tax there we have to tax the imports. ….
Isn’t this exactly what the EU was trying to do with air-flights and it looked like (elements within) the US were ready to go to war with Europe over this. http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/25/rep-majority-house-votes-trade-war-against-europe/ Fast forward 4 years, has the political environment changed so much that a carbon tax now seems likely or is this just a talking point?
Oh, regarding the environment, I probably should point out that we are also allowing China to undercut American business and American workers by spewing emissions that along with all those we and the rest of the world are spewing are boosting global warming to the point that tipping points will soon be passed that will eventually end all human habitation of this small blue-dot planet of ours. In other words we are financing human extinction and are letting the extraction firms like Koch Industries get a free pass to continue the killing unabated.
Unless we (as a country) buy from “our country” we are going to place our manufacturing, overseas, and become dependant on those prices. Saudi Arabia is now starting to sweat because the U.S. (with the Bakken oil reserve) is now the largest supplier in the world and we can sell oil cheaper than they can.
Result? Their imports are now going to cost them more because they are exporting less. Their population never learned how to “manufacture”, they always relied on Ex-pats to do their work for them, because they could pay for it with their oil export prices. If – and when – the Ex-pats leave “The Kingdom”, Saudi Arabia will implode within months.
If we allow our manufacturing to leave our shores, we will invite the same result. Buy America, keep America, or else.
Paul I doubt Americans will buy American products as long as there is a significant cost advantage in buying foreign made goods. If we are not willing to deal with that issue in a fair and aggressive manner that corrects the imbalance in trade and creates jobs here at home I say we are doomed not only for economic decline but also environmental decline.
I was recently reviewing some of the talks of Elon Musk. Here are a collection of companies that are building in America, paying workers a higher price than overseas, and demonstrating the reasonably successful companies Tesla and Space X and Solar City. It is not written in stone that you have to pay workers less to be successful. It is perhaps true that you have to run a smarter company if you don’t exploit cheap labor.
With regard to the good writer’s position that “There’s nothing we can do about the trend of the manufacturing industry’s moving to Asia” I must disagree. I propose the United States move quickly to pass a carbon tax and along with that impose an import duty on all goods coming into the U.S. from any country that exports more than $1Billion per year to the U.S. than it imports from the U.S. regardless of whether it has passed a carbon tax on it’s own or not. I also propose that that import duty be aggressive in the sense that the more the trade deficit with those countries the more the import duty be and those import duties could be used to reduce the debt the U.S. owes and to spur manufacturing here at home which will create more jobs here in the U.S. than anything else that the Congress could do and at the same time help keep global warming under 2 degrees above the previous 100 year average.
Craig’s information is good, however his conclusions are suspect, including as Les rebuts regarding the statement “There’s nothing we can do about the trend of the manufacturing industry’s moving to Asia.” The real point is that we don’t have to accelerate the insanity by the policies that the Obama Administration is now trying to pull off with a “Fast Track” vote (without debate) for the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) trade deal that will allow corporations to sue governments if environmental laws interfere with their businesses, and whose details Obama has classified to prevent Congress from disclosing or commenting to the public, yet has let corporate lobbyists be part of the drafting. This is happening RIGHT NOW.
What Les proposes has merit, and should be looked at seriously using triple bottom line accounting or another metric that looks at the full economics rather than the skewed economics that is espoused by the families that own the Federal Reserve (the 0.01%).
In the meantime, 10 days ago, President Obama lashed out at activists and elected representatives who have opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as the next NAFTA and a secret corporate giveaway, saying that “when you dig into the facts, they are wrong.”
In response, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown, two of the leading opponents of TPP, said they agreed with President Obama that the American people should dig into the facts on the proposed deal. However, this would require the Obama administration to declassify the draft of the deal, because right now the public isn’t even allowed to read it.
I hope that everyone will join CREDO and Daily Kos in becoming a citizen co-signer of a letter from Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown to President Obama: Release the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership draft before Congress votes on Fast Track. Here is the link, which you will probably have to paste into your browser.
https://www.dailykos.com/campaigns/1220
Thanks
Here in Canada we are going into an election this fall, with 3 of 4 of the parties involved (namely, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, and the Green Party) all favoring the establishment of a carbon tax. Only the Conservative Party (which due to a quirk won a parliamentary majority in the last election despite receiving only 38 % of the popular vote) oppose it. Most Canadians realize the need to do something about climate change, as we’re on the front line, watching the melting in our Arctic region (the polar regions are the first to feel the effects of climate change).
Given the inaction by our federal government, our provinces are stepping up with regional action. British Columbia has enacted a carbon tax; Ontario and Quebec are committed and in joint talks to establish a regional carbon tax, and, ironically, Alberta (where the Tar Sands are) is considering one. Most of us are hoping for a federal change of course after the election.
The important thing about a carbon tax is how it is implemented. It must target the most polluting industries in an effective way, and must target imported, exported, and domestic sources. It can and should be designed to discourage the action you (Craig) fear, the migration of manufacturing to more polluting countries.
Keep in mind, also, that the population of each of these “more polluting countries” is much larger than ours; pollution per capita of these countries is lower, chiefly because of lower energy consumption per capita. North Americans are energy hogs; Canada and the U.S. rank number 1 and 2 in energy consumption per capita.
Craig,
I agree with your conclusion.
Carbon Tax, like most taxes born from ideology, is a very bad idea. Not only is a national economy saddled with an unproductive new tax, but national Carbon Taxes are ineffective in the reduction of global environmental pollution.
Like most simplistic “punitive” taxes, Carbon taxes are long on idealism, but very short on effectiveness.
If the polluting industry has no economically viable method of avoiding the tax, the cost is, a) past to consumers, but the industry continues to pollute b) moves to a more favorable tax locale c) closes down unable to compete with imported goods.
In fact, experience shows that a carbon tax, could actually increase pollution, by providing a “licence to pollute”. In addition the goods that were once produced locally, are now shipped adding to the pollution count.
Carbon Taxes affect the least affluent in any society. The people who depend on low cost, mass manufactured items. Even basic items like food, depends on cheap energy.
The idea that a “Carbon Tax” can be effective in reducing a global problem like environment pollution by imposing a carbon tax on a single national economy, is just silly theatrical political posturing.
Endless expensive talkfests, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Mexico, etc, produce nothing more productive than political posturing, and sanctimonious rhetoric.
If those support ” carbon tax “, really wanted to effectively assist the planets environment and make a significant impact on global pollution, they should forget about supporting, silly unworkable carbon taxes, and focus on the most effective global solution for the planets largest single cause of Toxic Environmental Pollution !
The voters of just 11 modern, maritime democracies possess the power, (without any damage to their national economies or the global economy), to make an immediate and effective impact of the planets largest single cause of both environmental ( climate change) and toxic emissions.
How ? By simply refusing entry (on a graduated time schedule) to any ship rigged to operate on Marine Grade No. 6 Fuel. (Bunker Oil ).
Enforceability is simple. The economic impact of the world shipping fleet to higher grade, less pollutant fuels, using modern technology isn’t that great. National economies wouldn’t even notice the effect. ( In fact, for many economies, any impact would be positive, since imported goods would become less competitive than locally produced products).
Since, a single large container ship can emit more pollution than 50 million cars, ( or just 20 ships the equivalent of a huge coal fired generating plant !) , the abolition of bunker oil as a maritime fuel, must be a far more effective method of reducing the world pollution than empty gestures like carbon Taxes.
You make two excellent points here (the taxes and the bunker fuel). I’ll be writing in more detail about this shortly, but I wanted to acknowledge that.
Soon or later many factories will be moved from China to other South East Asian countries. We cannot change this economic trends or deny their incentive to grow their industries. In near future, I would like to support local companies in Asia to disseminate decentralized energy systems with renewable energy, which contributes to local economy. Large-sized foreign-owned projects tend to get backlashed if they vacuum profits and transfer them to headquarters in developed countries. I hope that South East asians start renewables now in a way to help their local economies and we will see an significant impact on environment in next decade.
(BTW, I am a Japanese living in Japan where we have structural problems in energy.)
Susumu I would just like to say that the decentralized energy system technology I’ve been researching and developing since 1980 could play an important role in Japan, Indonesia, India and throughout Europe and in many developing countries. Opportunity is knocking!!
Thanks, Les Blevins. I will work hard!
marcopolo proposes that “national Carbon Taxes are ineffective in the reduction of global environmental pollution” and adds “Carbon taxes are long on idealism, but very short on effectiveness” but I noticed he doesn’t cite and so far as I know there isn’t any case history nor any supporting data for his position. He also does not address the concept of a neutral carbon tax where the taxes paid by the middle and lower economic classes are returned to them while the taxes are not returned to the heavily polluting industries. He also does not address the issue of placing import duties on goods coming in from nations that do not also add carbon taxes and those that export more goods to the U.S. than they purchase from the U.S.
Again I propose the United States move quickly to pass a carbon tax and along with that impose an import duty on all goods coming into the U.S. from any country that exports more than $1Billion per year to the U.S. than it imports from the U.S. regardless of whether it has passed a carbon tax on it’s own or not. I also propose that that import duty be aggressive in the sense that the more the trade deficit with those countries the more the import duty be and those import duties could be used to reduce the debt the U.S. owes and to spur manufacturing here at home which will create more jobs here in the U.S. than anything else that the Congress could do and at the same time help keep global warming under 2 degrees above the previous 100 year average.
Les,
” far as I know there isn’t any case history nor any supporting data for his position “.
Try studying the history, and thankfully short, life of the Australian “Carbon tax”. !
Taxation can’t cure social ill’s, nor should it be used as a weapon of social engineering. Taxation should be reserved to pay for those services that can only be provided by governments.
Governments already have have adequate regulatory power to eliminate industrial or social policy that are against the commonweal, and the power to provide adequate enforcement.
It’s when governments try to enforce ideological agenda’s, that society finds itself burdened with unnecessarily complicated laws and regulations. Grand schemes to reshape economies, in order to enforce social engineering, inevitably end up strangling the economy and causing a great deal of injustice and social misery.
The idea of passing a tax, then exempt some things,and some people, even paying “compensation” to others, would become an enormous bureaucratic nightmare. The result would produce no benefits (except for more civil servants !) , and not achieve any positive result.
Regardless of the desirability/effectiveness of a carbon tax and how that does or doesn’t get passed on to consumers, I agree with Craig’s core point that the priority is to move our civilizations off filthy prehistoric sunlight and onto clean modern sunlight – and to do this globally on every continent.
This will require a mobilization of public and political will, as well as financial and infrastructure initiatives of the scale of WWII efforts in the US. Until the threats of human climate disruption are admitted within media and politics as the reality they are, such a mobilization will prove impossible. The barrier against this admission is the money influence of filthy fossil energy firms and their allies.
Therefore the core target is bribery, in all its many forms, from “campaign contribution” to the more hidden revolving door syndrome that hobbles all our protective regulatory agencies and poisons legislation. As long as cash reigns as tyrant over our nation, we’ll all suffer more and more beneath the most vicious greed and craven cowardice imaginable.
Cameron,
It does my heart good to read the passionate soap-box oratory of a good old fashioned socialist !
(Although, like watermelons, today’s socialist is green on the outside, but gets redder, closer to the core !)
I don’t think Craig, or any serious Solar Industry advocate, would go so far as to suggest that Solar Energy is anywhere near replacing the Oil Industry. Your wild claims and extreme language, only hurt the creditability of Solar , while your absurd (and alarming) demands that governments be granted “wartime” powers, displays a dangerous level of fanaticism and hysteria.
The fact that the vast majority of people don’t agree with you, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are all fools, and you and your small band of fellow travelers, are correct. It’s far more likely that you are just a fringe group of of overly-excitable extremists. with a lack of perspective !
It’s not surprising people don’t want your vision of “revolution” ! The majority of people are willing to accept a secure, economically responsible “evolution”, preferably with as little disruption as possible.
The twentieth century was created largely by the oil industry. Most of the twenty-first century will dominated by the economic dynamics created by the oil industry. Eventually, amazing new technologies emerging in the twenty-first century, will start to reshape those dynamics, hopefully, in a long, non-disruptive, rational evolutionary process.
The twentieth century saw far too much disruptive revolutionary activity. Far too much human misery and destruction, created by fanatical ideologues. Far too many selfish egotists, crying “hooray for my side”, while demanding extremist agenda’s full of simplistic, ill-considered idealism.
As Elon Musk and Tesla are proving, ” build a better mouse-trap”, is a better method.
Fossil Fuel industries are not “enemies” or “demons” , nor are they replaceable. (well not for a very long time). These industries, produce the economic conditions that will allow alternate forms of energy to develop.
Nor do these industries need to be excessively environmentally harmful. Like all industries, they possess the potential for environmental damage, yet with careful monitoring and regulation, coupled with advanced technology, any environmental depredations can be kept to an acceptable minimum.
It’s true that our western style of imperfect, corporate “democratic capitalism”, hasn’t provided a great past record for environmental stewardship.
However, in contrast to the environmental devastation wrought by Marxist-Leninist communists, Mao’s Communist-fascist state, or even the bungling of more moderate Socialist states, Western Corporate Capitalism, has proves very environmentally moderate and responsible by comparison. (At least we make an effort to clean up sometimes).
It’s worth noting that the father of modern Solar Power, ( Russell Shoemaker Ohl ), did his research as an engineer working for AT&T. Just as Michael Stanley Whittingham was an engineer working in an Exxon laboratory, when he invented the Lithium battery. The first company to commercialize large scale Solar Panel installations, was British Petroleum ! Chevron Oil is the only corporation to successfully develop, and commercialize large scale Geo-thermal power.
Economies can no longer stand alone. In the present internationalized ” information age” , Nineteenth century ideas, like tariff barriers, old fashioned taxation regimens, are unworkable. The USA can no more return to the era of isolation, with the sort of society portrayed in ” A wonderful Life” ! It wasn’t real then, and is even more of a fantasy today.
Effecting change, costs money ! That money can only be generated from surplus profits generated by prosperous economic conditions. Individuals and institutions, must be able to generate sufficient surplus capital to finance “venture capital” to new technologies.
Evolution, not “revolution” !
I applaud your admission – though anonymous – that, “It’s true that our western style of imperfect, corporate ‘democratic capitalism’, hasn’t provided a great past record for environmental stewardship.” While standing as rather a gargantuan understatement, it still represents a realization that will prove useful to you if you continue to more fully consider the ramifications of that reality.
However, I must confess I’m deeply disappointed with the opening five paragraphs of your comment.
“It does my heart… …green on the outside, but gets redder, closer to the core !” As with so many of your reactions to ideas with which you disagree, you resort again and again here to ad hominem attacks and straw-man attacks.
You then follow up this shallow beginning with further ad hominem and straw man examples in your third, fourth and fifth paragraphs.
I must try yet again to make clear to you how hapless and ineffective it is to attack the messenger in any debate. That tactic has all the maturity and intellectual impact of, “Yeah? Well, you suck!” It carries no weight with thinking people. You thus damage your credibility and cause people to suspect your entire message, and you as a source (over and above the reliable and understandable suspicion always attached to anonymous sources).
And so I’ve here again repeated my earlier admonition to you, encouraging you to avoid the use of ad hominem and straw man attacks against people with whom you disagree.
I will merely respond briefly to the regrettable strategy of your opening by firmly informing you that – while there is nothing particularly wrong with socialism, as expressed across the many happy and prosperous nations of northern Europe – I am not a “socialist,” …”good old fashioned” or otherwise. My conclusions about necessary strategy – political, economic moral and scientific – cannot be pigeonholed into a single ideology… howsoever convenient and desirable the contrary might be for you to believe.
Relating to the remainder of your comment, I find it particularly revealing that you should refer to the example of Elon Musk. This is curious because one of his companies – Tesla – will now allow its technology patents to be used by anyone in good faith in a bid to entice automobile manufacturers to speed up development of electric cars. Musk also favors a carbon tax (I don’t recommend it, but I can see why people do).
Further, on June 17, 2014, Musk committed to building a SolarCity advanced production facility in Buffalo, New York, that would triple the size of the largest solar plant in the United States.
While I personally find it unfortunate that he chose the rare-element-intensive and rather toxic PV path, rather than the more bio-friendly, resource-available and universally applicable CSP path, I still think it laudable he’s advancing the harvest of modern sunlight, as an alternative to digging finite resource fuel out of the ground.
A carbon tax should be meant to level the playing field and help transition to less polluting, sustainable, renewable energy forms. However by itself a carbon tax would be a give away to nuclear energy where the pollutants are mainly in the form of toxic waste for ever and should be as severely penalized.
When you say “Nuclear “, what sort of “nuclear ” technology do refer ?
As Ron hasn’t replied since yesterday I’ll jump in and suggest he means nuclear energy that produces toxic wastes and my position is no nuclear power plants should be built unless and until the nuclear waste issue has been resolved in a safe affordable and satisfactory manner which pretty much rules out sending it to the moon or some planet or into deep outer space.
Ron,
Thank you for your reply.
All generated energy (Even Solar) comes with some environmental cost. All manufacturing has some environmental impact.
Like most things in any civilized society, it’s a question of compromise. How much benefit for how much cost.
The problem for ‘nuclear’ technology, is all nuclear technologies are erroneously identified in the public mind as the sort of highly toxic Uranium/plutonium technology that created early power plants, and more infamously nuclear weapons.
This is unfortunate, because it meant that the infinitely more benign Thorium technology has been overshadowed and it’s benefits neglected due to a plethora of confused disinformation by “ban the bomb” anti-nuclear hysterics.
Thorium power generations is relatively waste-free, has a very short toxic life, and isn’t subject to the risk of melt-downs etc. The technology is also relatively economical, and the mining of Thorium is no more environmentally harmful than mining lithium. Nor can Thorium technology be used to make weapons, but it maybe the only safe way of safely disposing of existing nuclear waste !
Thorium reactors also have a relati8vely small foot print, so they can be safely built close to population centres, reducing transmission losses.
No technology is perfect, but then it’s also an error to make the “unattainable perfect” and enemy of the ” attainable good “
Personally I know nothing at all about this topic,, but those that do have posted some info on Wikipedia which says “some experts note possible specific disadvantages of thorium nuclear power:
Breeding in a thermal neutron spectrum is slow and requires extensive reprocessing. The feasibility of reprocessing is still open.
Significant and expensive testing, analysis and licensing work is first required, requiring business and government support. According to a 2012 report by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, about using thorium fuel with existing water-cooled reactors, it would “require too great an investment and provide no clear payoff,” noting that “from the utilities’ point of view, the only legitimate driver capable of motivating pursuit of thorium is economics.”
There is a higher cost of fuel fabrication and reprocessing than those that use traditional solid fuel rods.
Thorium, when being irradiated for use in reactors, will make uranium-232, which is very dangerous due to the gamma rays it emits. This irradiation process may be able to be altered slightly by removing protactinium-233. The irradiation would then make uranium-233 in lieu of uranium-232, which can be used in nuclear weapons to make thorium into a dual purpose fuel.
So all things considered I cannot support public tax money being invested in developing and testing any sort of Thorium technology when lower hanging fruit is being ignored that would provide more cost effective and beneficial approaches.