Blog home >

Recently, heaps of attention has been paid to the fact that China leads the world on carbon pollution. While this is true in terms of total pollution output, the average Chinese person has roughly 20% the carbon footprint of your average American person. The only problem is China has more than 1.3 billion people.

China has major ambitions to become the most productive economy on the planet, and this marks one of the reasons why China focuses on developing low carbon industrial solutions. Being green makes businesses more profitable, and also insures that the business can maintain a steady supply of resources without depleting the environment’s ability to replenish those resources. A great example of this would be rice. If you are running a rice company and you do not take excellent care of your farms, then very soon your crop yields will go down and the quality of your rice will decline. You need good and plentiful ingredients to compete in the food marketplace. The more green China becomes, the more fearsome they will become as an economic superpower.

China also has an enormous population that takes up more habitat space each year. This population has placed a burgeoning burden on the ecological habitats of China. You may remember the huge deal made out of the air quality in Beijing prior to the start of the ‘08 Olympic Games. Check out this news story [www.sundancechannel.com] for more info on the environmental considerations China was forced to deal with because of the Olympics.

In recent international summits on climate change, the U.S. has maintained its position that it cannot invest in a low carbon economy until other countries like China and Russia do likewise. The fear is that the U.S. will spend a lot of money adapting to low carbon industrial infrastructures and other large countries who do not spend this money will be more competitive than America. This argument is dangerous to the future of the United States for a few reasons.

You only get one backyard. Regardless of what the rest of the world does, the U.S. controlled portion of the North American Continent will have to supply natural resources like food, water, clean air to the population of the United States. These are necessary services that only a strong, healthy and robust nature can provide. No matter how strong your economy becomes, if the fields are filled with poisonous pesticides, then you will have to spend a lot of money cleaning up that pollution after it has already started to affect your bottom line. With the application of some foresight, you could spend a little money to prevent the pollution problem from becoming critical, thereby shielding your bottom line from jeopardy.

The second problem with the U.S. climate change position of “everybody or nobody” stems from economic reasons. China currently leads the world in the production and exportation of solar panels. They are poised to be the world’s largest producer of wind turbines. China heats up water internationally by controlling two-thirds of the solar water heater industry. China wants to be the world’s most influential and powerful superpower, so you can bet they have some great economic reasons for investing this kind of money into environmentally friendly industries such as the ones listed above. Chinese people, by and large, desperately want to prove that their Communist State rivals all other countries in the world. They would not be pursuing industries like wind energy, solar energy and sustainable water heating if they did not believe that this was the most advantageous economic position to occupy. Is the U.S. willing to let China fulfill the demand for alternative energy industries?

Phelps may have dominated swimming events in the ‘08 Summer Olympics with his large collection of gold medals, but who is winning the gold medal for investing in a healthy planet?



In the international summits about what nations can do to prevent further global warming, there is one particular debate that pops up every time. Rich (developed) nations will not sign agreements to limit pollution until poor (undeveloped) nations agree to limit or sequester carbon release from coal and fossil fuel burning. There is a very good technical reason why poor nations never agree to this demand. The answer comes after you answer another question. How did all of the rich, developed nations create the infrastructure and industry which one needs to have a rich country? Why, they burn(ed) a lot of fossil fuels and coal of course.

The argument is made every time that most of this fuel was consumed before humanity knew the threats of greenhouse gases. While this is true, it does not change the fact that becoming a rich nation is still the objective of every country in the world, and that objective becomes much harder if creating energy requires more expensive and newer solutions. It also makes these developing nations more dependent upon richer nations that have an understanding, and in many cases, existing patents on alternative technologies. Developing nations desire to be free of globalization forces that might force unfavorable loans or lucrative resource collection deals in exchange for access to new technologies and the training needed to use the same tech.

One can only hope the spirit of compromise will hover over all climate summits from now on. If greed wins the day, and nobody can agree to anything because someone else is getting more cake, well then we might as well throw in the towel on humanity. Compromise allows a long-term business investment strategy for every big trader on the market. Making a little less GDP from an economy that continues to exist is a lot better than making no profit when the economy falls apart during a global warming melt down.