Is China Going Green, Part VIII? -- Well The Wall Street Journal Says It Is So You'd Better Believe It
Today's Wall Street Journal, which I frequently cite as one of the few western newspapers that consistently covers China accurately, has an article today, entitled, "In China, More Facilities Go Green." Written by China correspondent, Andrew Batson, the article focuses on how foreign firms operating in China are starting to look beyond China's own environmental regulations and using "independent, international standards to guide their local [China] operations."
The article cites a new Plantronics plant as an example of how foreign companies doing business in China can benefit by going green:
Plantronics Inc., a U.S. company that makes headsets, is one of those staying ahead of the regulatory curve. It says its new $23 million factory, near the eastern city of Suzhou, is the first manufacturing plant in China to be certified by a private, nonprofit American group. Meeting that voluntary code developed by the U.S. Green Building Council -- called Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED -- requires cutting electricity consumption and reusing water, practices that are new priorities for Chinese government officials.
Moves by Plantronics to go beyond basic environmental requirements helped ensure that local authorities became very enthusiastic for this project, said Terry Walters, the company's senior vice president of operations. "They were in our corner the whole time, fighting for us to get through the approval process, and fast."
We have found the same thing in our China work for foreign companies, particularly in the last few months. Registering a company to do business in China is often easier if the company you are seeking to register does not pollute or goes to great lengths to minimize pollutants.
The article goes on to talk about how foreign property developers are starting to build their buildings to meet not just "today's lax standards" in China "but tomorrow's tougher ones":
"Clearly, over time the regulations are going to change, and they are going to be forced into doing environmental things," said Patrick Bruce, head of planning and design firm Integer China Ltd., which advises on green buildings.
The article attributes the Chinese government's increased environmental awareness to a desire to address public discontent:
China's environmental authorities have turned more aggressive in recent months, spurred on by the string of well-publicized mishaps, including a November chemical spill in the Songhua River that left a city of millions without safe drinking water for several days. Meanwhile, government officials say they are shifting longer-term priorities away from emphasis on faster economic growth -- a move aimed at addressing public discontent at the unwelcome side effects of inequality, pollution and corruption.
Back in early February, in my first post of this series, entitled, "Is China Going Green?" I lauded a United States retailer that builds its outlets in China to comply with the toughest United States environmental standards:
We are aware of a large Fortune 500 retail company that is opening units in China that meet or exceed the toughest United States environmental laws I estimate this company's environmental sensitivity will cost them at least an additional $25,000 per unit, yet I am firmly convinced this company is doing the right thing. This company's actions make sense because the odds are good that China's environmental laws and enforcement will get tougher over time, and building environmentally sound units now will almost certainly cost less than having to retrofit existing units a few years from now. On top of this, people often get very emotional about the environment and I can see Chinese citizens getting very angry at a foreign company whose units in China are less environmentally sound than their units in the United States or elsewhere. This is obviously even more likely to be the case if there were to be some sort of environmental disaster.
In my most recent post on this subject, "Is China Going Green? -- Part VII -- Doesn't Matter Because You Should No Matter What" I talked about how so many of our readers refuse to believe the Chinese government is getting serious about the environment:
I am constantly blogging on how China is serious about improving its environment, most recently in this post, "Is China Going Green? -- Part VI -- So Green It Is Going To Hurt" a couple days ago. China is serious about the environment for one simple reason. It wants to keep its citizenry satisfied because satisfied citizens do not to take to the streets. Clean air and clean water are the basics citizens expect from their government.
Yet nearly every time I blog on this, someone sends me an e-mail claiming the Chinese government does not care at all about the environment and its statements of environmental concern are purely political, with no enforcement behind them.
That post focused on a recent violent rampage by Chinese villagers against a foreign factory the villagers believed were polluting their town and damaging their health and I ended it with the following admonition:
Bottom Line: The Chinese are becoming more and more sensitive to their environment. So whether or not you agree with my assertion that China's government is sincere about seeking to clean up China's environment, you should still do what you can to clean up your own operations. Doing so is just good business.
I can now say the Wall Street Journal agrees.
http://www.chinalawblog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/1176
» Foreign Business In China: Know Thine Internet Buzz China Law Blog
Imagethief is such a good blog I would read it even if it were not about China. It is a great example of what a blog should be. It is consistently interesting, with a clear, distinct voice, and often very funny. As a bonus, it provide... []
» China Law Evolving -- Businesses Take Note China Law Blog
Twenty year old Luo Xiaoming died at a friend's house after drinking too much. His parents sued the homeowner and the Yiwu City of Zhejiang court awarded them 35,192 Yuan (US$4,399) in compensation. According to the China Daily, this landmark &qu... []
» China -- Start Lawyering Up China Law Blog
Those of you in China or thinking of going there, I have two words for you: lawyer up. These are the words every lawyer loves to hear (come on, admit it), particularly when spoken by a very knowledgeable non-lawyer. And when that non-lawyer... []
Comments
An interesting paradox is looming... As China and other developing countries reduce particulate emissions (to improve health concerns), the "Global Dimming" effect will diminish, unmasking a larger-than-expected "Global Warming", as greenhouse gas emissions (such as CO2) continue to rise. As "green" becomes "scorched", the Greens will eventually look back with remorse at their steadfast opposition to nuclear energy. For right now, the only available solution to the looming crisis is reduction in energy usage -- and that is not happening.
Posted by: Howard Lee Harkness | April 25, 2006 6:44 AM
Howard -- Thanks for checking in.
But if countries like China reduce their energy usage, won't that lead to a corresponding decrease in greenhouse gas emissions? I know China is looking to build a number of nuclear power plants. Do you know when those are expected to come on line and how much of China's power they will provide?
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 25, 2006 7:17 AM
PRC has nine nuclear power plants in operation and a further two units under construction. Additional reactors are planned, to give a fivefold increase in nuclear-electric capacity to 40 GW by 2020. I don't have the figures for other countries, but PRC will probably be the country with the largest percentage of its electricity generated by nuclear power (if it isn't already) by 2020. However, demand for electricity in PRC is growing even faster than new nuclear sources can be brought online. With regard to existing coal-fired plants, PRC is making a large effort to reduce particulate emissions to reverse the severe smog problem, but emission of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases is still increasing.
A similar trend is occurring in the US, except that opposition to nuclear power is keeping us from implementing that solution. We are also reducing particulates (it's actually easier to breathe in LA now than it was in 1960), but we are increasing overall energy consumption and greenhouse gas generation, both made worse by misguided political mandates, such as use of ethanol blend gasoline.
Posted by: Howard Lee Harkness | April 25, 2006 8:25 AM
Howard, more questions for you. I keep reading that China is making a huge effort to increase its energy efficiency. I also have read that China is so inefficient right now that it will be relatively cheap and easy for it to show huge efficiency gains. There are even some people out there predicting its energy consumption will barely rise in the next 3-5 years. What do you think about that?
And, what do you know about bio-diesel. That is all the rage here in Seattle as it now actually costs less than gasoline. Where does it rank in terms of pollution.
Sorry to inundate you with all of these questions, but you obviously have knowledge in this area and mine is pretty weak.
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 25, 2006 8:32 AM
Although I have a professional background that includes both chemistry and nuclear power, that was a long time ago, and I'm not sure I could be considered an expert on either.
As for whether China's energy consumption will rise or stabilize in the next several years -- well, my crystal ball is kinda cloudy, but I would guess that it would increase, not level out, given historical trends of developing countries. The one thing that will influence that much more readily than government efforts and edicts is the market cost of energy. If it goes high enough, people get creative about conservation.
Biodiesel is an interesting item. It's really cheap now, but its lower cost relative to petrodiesel may be partly a function of relatively few people using it. I don't know whether enough vegetable oil can be grown to fill that demand (and enough beneficial use found for the massive quantity of leftover vegetable matter), but if so, biodiesel would definitely be a good substitute for petrodiesel. More interesting (economical?) would be engines that can burn straight vegetable oil (SVO), since that would cut out most of the cost of processing, as well as the need for some noxious and hazardous chemicals used to process biodiesel. At least theoretically, either biodiesel or SVO use would actually have a net negative carbon balance (growing soybeans actually consumes more CO2 than is released from the derived biodiesel), which could reduce atmospheric CO2 if enough people used it. Biodiesel burns a bit cleaner than petrodiesel, and is reputed to have better lubricating qualities.
Is biodiesel (or SVO) the fuel of the future? Maybe. Unlike ethanol (the use of which has been promoted with gross distortions and outright lies), it *is* actually cheaper than the petrodiesel that it replaces (at least in the short term). I would like to see a complete and honest energy balance accounting for biodiesel, including all of the energy required for farming, fertilizing, and harvesting. One thing that would help the economics and energy balance of biodiesel would be the use of genetic modification to increase the percentage of oil produced in whatever seed or bean is used, but GM is not any more politically correct than nuclear power.
Posted by: Howard Lee Harkness | April 25, 2006 11:41 AM
Interesting that you write about China's environmental laws. I have been studying Green laws, and am interested in what Asian countries are doing. Are they moving towards legislation similar to WEEE and RoHS of the European Union?
Posted by: CompanyCounselor | April 27, 2006 11:20 AM
Company Counselor --
Thanks for checking in.
I can speak for only China and with respect to China, the answer is yes. You can find more on this here: http://www.chinarohs.com. This is the only site of which I am aware that has much on this in English.
Dan
Posted by: China Law Blog | April 27, 2006 3:17 PM