Krugman to China: Go Green or Pay the Price

Paul Krugman appeared to be channeling Al Gore in his editorial in the New York Times Friday. The good professor suggests that it is past time to clamp down on evil Chinese polluters before they choke us all to death.

It seems Dr. Krugman spent the last week in China and was shocked at the amount of carbon generated by the Chinese economy. He has discovered that a great deal of the energy that the Chinese produce comes from coal-fired electricity plants. As if that weren’t bad enough, the Chinese told him that they intend to go right on producing electricity in this manner.

Dr. Krugman asks indignantly what is to be done about this?

Nothing, say the Chinese. Each time I raised the issue during my visit, I was met with outraged declarations that it was unfair to expect China to limit its use of fossil fuels. After all, they declared, the West faced no similar constraints during its development; while China may be the world’s largest source of carbon-dioxide emissions, its per-capita emissions are still far below American levels; and anyway, the great bulk of the global warming that has already happened is due not to China but to the past carbon emissions of today’s wealthy nations.

And they’re right. It is unfair to expect China to live within constraints that we didn’t have to face when our own economy was on its way up. But that unfairness doesn’t change the fact that letting China match the West’s past profligacy would doom the Earth as we know it.

So, I think this is the “end is nigh” argument. We, the West, have sinned but found religion and all others must follow for if you emulate us we are all goners. Sorry, your arguments make a lot of sense but, valid though they may be, our view trumps all others.

Having dived into very deep waters, Krugman then writes that the Chinese have no alternatives and if they do not comply will pay the consequences:

As the United States and other advanced countries finally move to confront climate change, they will also be morally empowered to confront those nations that refuse to act. Sooner than most people think, countries that refuse to limit their greenhouse gas emissions will face sanctions, probably in the form of taxes on their exports. They will complain bitterly that this is protectionism, but so what? Globalization doesn’t do much good if the globe itself becomes unlivable.

Dr. Krugman is playing with fire here. He may well believe the extremist views he’s espousing, I hope not, but if he does that’s his right. Unfortunately his assertion that crippling China’s export engine in the name of environmentalism is a concept that will come to no good end once the political process adopts it. I’m sure that he is not a protectionist but affording an environmental excuse for tariffs to those who seek to limit trade is irresponsible to say the least and that is precisely what he has done.

There are lots of ways to lead the Chinese to the promised land of clean energy. Even Krugman admits that they may be slowly coming around. Force, however, is not one of those methods. Quite frankly, the U.S. is not in the position fiscally to be demanding much of anything from its largest creditor. Time and peer pressure will probably bring the Chinese around. Pounding on one’s chest and issuing threats will not.

More here (Tyler Cowen’s thoughts on the article).

It’s time to save the planet. And like it or not, China will have to do its part.

Comments

[socrateazz:]

Interesting. What ever china or any of the propagandist groups do Carbon dioxide will not destroy the planet. China knows most of the green movement has moved from reality based helping the planet to propaganda based controling the people and companies. Green movement people believe in their own particular action. Does any of those ideas make sense? Yes! But not in the way they say! Control carbon dioxide emissions. That makes sense but not for global warming purposes. Climate change is very very suspect concerning Carbon Dioxide also. Two valid reasons to limit carbon dioxide are increasing levels of actual carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans. Carbon dioxide is very important to plant life and it thrives with higher content. But ocean animal life may suffer as levels of CO2 increase. I expect the bigger animals will be the first to go because a small increase in CO2 would mean more difficulty removing excess CO2 from a large animals lungs because the entering CO2 is greater. two other valid arguments are fossil fuel is limited and storing CO2 waste underground in vast caves is dangerous to future populations. What would a sudden release of megatons of CO2 do? Think ancient Egypt if you do not know! When idiots control countries you get idiotic control. You will find it hard to find the countries not currently controled by idiots. I will let you to wonder who I think the idiots are.

May 17 06:53 AM

[Truyen:]

Dr. Krugman is paying a visit to Vietnam this May. I do hope to hear from him about the situation in Vietnam.
Mr.Truyen Pham

May 17 09:10 AM

[TCK:]

The only outcome of the environmental movement will be to cripple the world economy. The "Greenies" won't be happy until we are all living on farms, at which point they will start a political movement to tax cows to control methane and pay for their private jets !

May 17 12:00 PM

[ArtfulDodger:]

The Chinese are not fools; they don't believe C02 is harmful. In fact, my contact who's lived there all his life says they don't even believe in the fosil fuel theory. I.e., it's not taught in their schools.

I think they will continue along the same path they're on today: burning the fuels they need to grow and run their nation.

May 17 02:52 PM

[Troy Jensen:]

I actually am in clean energy - and I'm a full-blooded Capitalist, not a Green. So I think I can speak with a reasonable future outlook.

1. Sorry, we SHOULDN'T force restrictions on China's emissions. Stupid, stupid, stupid move, if you want to continue to enjoy your Prius', your solar arrays (bulk of manufacturing quickly shifting to China), those slick iPods, etc etc, and get the economy rolling, stay off their backs. Burn, baby, burn. Basic capitalism. I don't endorse the Chinese turning their skies dark - but imposing restrictions on emissions through tariffs and the like is just....fundamentally....

2. The author is wrong - yes, indeed we can dictate to China anything we want, BECAUSE of the very fact they are our largest creditor. The author needs to seriously study the new global economic model. I don't intend to offend - most economic models built over the past 2,000 years are totally irrelevant today, we are in entirely uncharted waters, and most of the media, many analysts, etc are absolutely clueless on the current new global environment. Very common human behavior is to look to the past, search history for commonality, assurance and answers. We have to move beyond that - it's a brave new world.

3. Some silly comments attacking the Green Movement here. FAIR BALANCE - I admit, I profit very well from the Green Movement, yet I'm not a believer in much they espouse, or the political agenda attached to "saving the world". But I'm very much a realist - most of our cultural trends, especially the longest and strongest trends, come from California. And when my neighbor confronted me - hostilely - on my negligence to ever put my recycle bin out with my trash, my marketing brain had that tipping moment (funny aside - he drives an Escalade!). The Green Movement is very much here to stay, it will expand much faster than you think, and rather than draw a line in the sand and call them "fools", "retards", and "complete idiots" - let them advance while maintaining control of it through FISCAL influence (historically the ultimate influence). Efficient energy markets, liquid trading forums for energy, technology advancements that drive efficiency to new heights while lowering solar costs...money talks, bulls**t runs the marathon. So chill on the attacks guys - you aren't gonna change this cultural trend with lowbrow, rather unintelligible attacks (with references to ancient Egypt and the sort - influence if you want change, don't let us all know your IQ is higher than ours, I'll let you have it bro!).

4. GreenTech is not only here to stay, but over the next 20 years, very firm plans in place by the top 8 economies in the world point to the largest capital infrastructure investment in history. Smart grids WILL arrive and be revolutionary (I bet on Google and their giant investment in an IP Smart Grid over our author here, every day!), micro-generation on residential and commercial buildings, continued, rapid technology and efficiency improvements (based largely on the same models, like Moore's Law, applied to the microchip), and the large cultural shift we see are all forces that won't be stop. Embrace it, invest time studying the trends, and benefit - no matter if your agenda is buying that new McMansion or saving the Earth, GreenTech is here to stay.

May 17 05:20 PM

[Jasper M:]

Mr. Jensen,
"most of our cultural trends, especially the longest and strongest trends, come from California"

Like embracing poorly thought out fads, that lead to bankruptcy?
Trees do not grow to the sky. Trends end. No culture can hope to lead when it is demonstrably failing. California's time is Done.

I do not doubt that your neighbors will cling to the Green mythology into, and probably well past the bottom. But aim your "marketing brain" higher - what do you suppose the impact of the coming depression will be on those various movements championed by the guy who was at the helm? The Green movement is headed for a sticky, and well deserved end.

May 17 08:25 PM

[M.R. Henderson:]

Thanks for the update on Krugman.

However the world's current views will remain in history, the argument that the U.S. wiped out the native americans and the British used child labor should not be an indignant explanation for the destruction of cultures and the exploiting of childhood in 2009. I believe this goes for pollution, too. Not to mention the scale on which industry is now working. That said, of course the name of the game is push and pull, talk loud, talk soft, but it is also a strategy of moves within moves.

I would note a slyness to Krugman's actions in the face of a nation that uses diplomatic tactics not unlike a five year old throws temper tantrums.

May 17 09:37 PM

[Dustinian:]

Dr. Krugman tends to get very worked up on issues and his extremism is probably a result of his trip being so recent and will subside a bit over time.

This is a difficult situation because both the Chinese and Krugman make valid and correct points.The Chinese are starting to come around towards understanding the catastrophic effects of their river pollution and are attempting (at least in certain areas) to remedy this problem. They will most likely change their views in fossil fuels over time though it will probably be due to economics rather than morals when that time comes.

The question is will irreversible damage be done to our planet (in part due to the Chinese) by the time that change comes.

May 17 09:39 PM

[M.R. Henderson:]

Reading Krugman's column, I believe there is an argument to be made that it is irresponsible of him at this time to suggest "green" means by which rising global protectionism could be implemented against China. A China without growth could disintegrate into a larger polluter than it is currently.

I'm reminded of an essay that detailed how the Chinese might diplomatically outflank global protectionism (and specifically a US consumption tax) making use of "green" arguments. To level the playing field, as it were, I leave the link below.

sinocircle.wordpress.c.../

May 17 10:25 PM

[Sam Lee:]

Americans should consume less, and the Chinese should consume more. The market would make them do it.
Both should undertake cutting emissions. The Chinese are already beginning with the newer, cleaner coal plants. And the Obama administration has already changed course. How to push both further on?

May 18 06:33 AM

[Road Runner:]

Like usual, people are stuck in one extreme or the other on this debate, when the solution is in the middle. The new green economy does not have to be a burden on the US economy if it is implemented with the right incentives and at the right pace.

Eventually, it will be the best thing economically to use solar power instead of coal and oil. The technology and manufacturing is advancing very quickly. The key is to create incentives to "get over the hump" of near term higher expense without heavily burdening the economy so that manufacturing scale will bring down prices and make alternate energy more cost effective that coal and oil. It’s a matter of hitting the “sweet spot” best balance between higher short term energy costs and long term alternate energy development.

Let the Chinese stay in the past depending heavily on coal and oil.

May 18 04:48 PM

[derryl:]

Solar doesn't work at night or when it's cloudy. Wind power doesn't work when it's calm. Battery technology to store power on a utilities scale does not exist. Exactly which science fiction alternate energy does Krugman advocate the Chinese should immediately adopt?

May 18 11:25 PM