WSJ Blogs

Real-time commentary and analysis from The Wall Street Journal
Environmental Capital

Chinese Checkers: Steven Chu, China, and the Clean-Tech Question

Even as the health-care push begins on the Hill, you could argue that Energy Secretary Steven Chu has been tasked with the Obama administration’s mission impossible: Convince the Chinese to take strenuous steps to fight climate change.


Steven Chu: We’re in it together (AP)

Dr. Chu and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke are both in China this week—not to sign the sort of bilateral climate deal that so worries Europeans, but to try to jumpstart U.S.-Chinese cooperation when it comes to energy and the environment.

They got what they wanted: Dr. Chu announced today the creation a joint clean-energy research center. Baby steps though, notes Reuters: “Chu said the United States and China would commit an initial $15 million to the project, which will also focus on new technology to reduce and sequester carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal.”

What’s interesting is the different perception of Dr. Chu’s mission to Beijing. In a speech, the energy secretary acknowledged—as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did before him—the West’s historical role in pumping lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. He also urged China—as Ms. Clinton did—to take stronger actions to clean up its economy.

The WSJ headlined its article “Chu Warns China on Emissions.” China Daily’s headline? “Steven Chu: U.S. Ready to Lead on Climate Change.”

The really big question, though, is what happens with that clean-tech cooperation. The Chinese have been clamoring for rich countries to both underwrite their clean-energy advances and to provide them with the technology. Many Western companies are leery they’ll end up taking one for the team, in the form of clean-tech transfers to China which could threaten their fast-growing businesses.

All of which might put the onus back on Commerce Secretary Locke. He has the difficult job of untangling thorny trade issues with China. That is, China is furious that the U.S. climate bill calls for mandatory carbon tariffs on products from “dirty” countries, even as China is building its own protectionist walls to shelter its nascent clean-energy companies.

Add a Comment


Comments (5 of 9)

View all Comments »
    • even if we accomlish painting every possible surface white for how long are they going to stay white? five years ago there whas nothing to combat the distructive force of mother nature,.till now .our company pride its self to be one of the very few company’s to apply self cleaning coatings on almost any surface guarranteed to stay clean for the next seven more distructive pressure cleaning or need to look any further for greener grass on the other side! your looking at it!

    • “It seems they are much farther ahead of the U.S. in terms of making progress towards cleaning up their environment. I do not think we are in any place to lecture them.”

      Actually we are way ahead of China! The US passed the CAA in the early 70s. US coal plants and steel mills are very clean and efficient and especially compared to those in China. China is 40 years behind the US in nuclear power and decades behind in wind.

      China is way ahead when it comes to slave labor and unsafe working conditions. A few years ago when China and the US produced the same amount of coal less than 50 US miners were killed but more than 5000 died in China. If you want scary, search the internet for firework explosions in schools. While using school children for cheap labor is outlawed in the US, elementary schools blowup killing everyone all the time in China.

      In any case, China should be furious about ‘mandatory carbon tariffs’ since it a extreme departure from the Bush administration that was working with countries like China to reduce ghg by doing such things as building new nukes while creating jobs in the US.

    • I just realized how far out of context my previous comment could be observed. I meant it in reference to a possible hard cap once a country reaches a ‘developed’ state. Once a country reaches that state I believe a hard cap would be unnecessary because they would be in a position to embrace the luxury of decarbonizing their energy intake.

    • Jack f.,

      Your darn right I don’t hold a candle to Secretary Chu. A Phd alone in Physics should be absolutely respected not to mention his Nobel Prize, but the fact that the author may have referenced his ethnic background is not a slight against Chu. For instance, calling someone who is Mexican a Mexican is not derogatory. It’s fact.

      On another note,
      Once China and other developing nations have hit a ‘developed’ state then their GHGs will also fall per capita. Around the world, as nations have developed, there is a trend of ‘decarbonisation’ with respect to energy usage. People naturally prefer cleaner energy, global warming or not, but it is a luxury.

    • Man, the run-up to Copenhagen is going to be fascinating to watch.

      I think everyone knows the answer with respect to developing economies, but it seems like we (and China) are still in posturing mode. China (and India and S.Africa and Brazil and Mexico and Indonesia, etc.) will ultimately agree to an intensity cap, where emissions as a percentage of GDP are capped. So China could emit, say, a thousand tons of GHGs for every million dollars of GDP. And the intensity cap would ratchet down over time, just like the hard caps in the developed world. If their economies don’t grow, it would have the same effect as a hard cap. But if, as presumed, their economies grow, their ‘caps’ would grow too. I’d like to see a provision where a hard cap kicks in once a nation attains “developed” status.

      It’s not a perfect solution, but it is just, common-sensical, and probably the best we can hope for.

About Environmental Capital


    • Environmental Capital on Twitter
    • Environmental Capital on Facebook