Latest comments posted about The high cost of low carbon on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/2800-The-high-cost-of-low-carbon http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/2800-The-high-cost-of-low-carbon "China’s environmental organisations have started to advocate low-carbon lifestyles and the reduction of carbon footprints to help combat climate change. But they have overlooked one fact: in China, low-carbon living comes at a high cost." "With all these problems, choosing a low-carbon life and investing time and money could still lead to you being cheated by the market. Low-carbon lifestyles now, like the first generation of biofuels, are simply the transfer – or even increase -- of carbon emissions, not their reduction." These two key points are the reason I like this article. In relation to the first problem, many Chinese environmental organizations have expended a great deal of energy (and not always in the most environmentally friendly fashion) alerting people to the importance of living the kind of environmentally friendly lifestyle that they advocate, but their results haven't entirely lived up to expectations. I think the basic reason for this is that these things will only work in the long run if they're actually convenient for people. Pedestrian-designated walkways would be a good example of the right kind of approach. The second point strikes closer to the heart of the matter: in an environmental protection system riddled with "all these problems," who defines what the concept of 'environmentalism' actually means? Who's setting the standards? If, as the author has it, it's all a mistake, who's going to stand up against the current crop of environmentalists and say "you're all phoneys!" ? I think the key to solving problems with the environmental movement stems back to a need to solve problems inherent in the way we currently think. Since we can't find out who was behind opening Pandora's Box in the first place, there's no harm in adjusting our focus; if we can observe current system and its deficiencies from a more detached position, we might be able to find ways to close some of its loopholes. Thank you Mr. Huo! Tue, 05 May 2009 09:24:32 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8814 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8814 For whatever reason, there are some major omissions to my last comment entry. I will have to add something here. Energy-saving is money-saving, and this is the basic concept of all energy-saving projects. The reason why we need to save the energy started in the Arab oil crisis in 1973. Many enterprises were devastated by the high price of oil. If they couldn't find a way to save the cost of energy, the enterprises would go bankrupt. As simple as that. At that time, we had not started to consider the problems of climate change, or acid rain. The cause is money-saving, and the result is energy-saving. Now it seems that we are having a reversed cause-effect relationship here. It turns out that everyone is worrying about the problem of extra cost incurred by energy saving projects. We want to save the energy, but we do not have the money; on the other hand, rich people do not care about how much to pay for the energy. What does saving money mean to them? You need to look at the Life Circle Cost. If you only calculate the initial input, then you can not be a smart businessman. Energy-saving products must be compared with technology not only in terms of their prices, but also in terms of their reliability and efficiency. Reliability is the most important criteria here. China is far behind the western countries in this respect. False energy-saving, pseudo energy-saving products are simply too many. We can not control that. If we run into a false or a defected product, and we can not return it, we have to suck it up. The concept (saving energy is saving the money) is so important, that I believe it is more important than developing solar or nuclear energy. If we cannot understand what we are going to save, how can we start the energy-saving revolution? We cannot assume that only when everyone is rich, and everyone is well-educated that we can start energy-saving projects. By then everything will be beyond remedy. Actions that are not driven by economic profits won't last long. And Comrade Lei Feng is not the only one who cares about energy-saving. Why are developed countries more energy effective, and why are we playing the “generosity of the poor”? This is a serious issue, and it needs our wise thinking. Are all westerners good, smart people? Not really. Take solar energy as an example. Why is Germany doing well? Because the government supports it with subsidies. As long as you invest in solar energy, the government ensures your that you will get a stable economic payback within the next 20 years. Let's extend the discussion here. Besides environmental protection, climate change is also bringing business opportunities. If you know about the conflict between the US and Europe in terms of who is the leader, you will understand why they all want to be the leading force, and why Obama considers energy one of the major policy that will put US back to the leading role of the world arena. Environmental protection is a problematic issue in China, mainly because we lack a clear penalty, or an effective law enforcement for dirty water and Sulfur Dioxide emission. It is not like electricity -- if you don't pay your bills, the electricity company will cut you off. The problem is: if there is a clear price for Carbon emission in the world, why don't we have one for water and gas pollution? Is it reasonable? It is hard for us to understand. If we can not deal with our own small problems, why are we still caring about other people’s problems? That is a big question that must be considered carefully by China and the rest of the world. It is not right to simply think in terms of energy-saving. The pre-requisite of saving the energy is that we will not compromise the comfort and production level of the times. We can not save energy by wearing more clothes in winter or no clothes in summer. Energy-saving is a professional, scientific, and practical activity, rather than mere technology contest. It is of course very good if the people can be conscious about energy saving, but without clear law, price, and market orientation, everything is only empty talk. After all, how can you count on people to be that conscientious? By the end of the day, we still need to position our energy saving projects in people. Without talented people, without the plan of experts, the device of policies, and the connection with economy, no one can really do this job. They are just fooling around. samuelzhoujc@hotmail.com Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:33:05 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8584 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8584 The problem Mr. Liu came across is not uncommon in energy conservation projects. There are two reason for the light-bulb breakdown: poor quality (bad luck)- then you should go to get another one- or something wrong with the circuit, like voltage or ballast. We should try not generalizing from a blown CFL to all energy-saving products. And besides, we should not replace a filament bulb with a low-energy one and be done with it. Before making the change, we'd better ask ourselves several questions, like what is the point of using a CFL? Why CFL bulbs? Is there any alternative to artificial illumination? Many households put a lot of lights at the porch. In fact, one or two CFLs will can give out the same level of illumination. People who have some knowledge of electricity know that if you take down one of ten filament bulbs, you will be saving 10% of the power without paying extra money on switching to CFL. In most of the cases, the offices and plants are over-illuminated. The light we get is much more than that we need. Every time when I walk into the brightly-lit restroom, I can't help but feeling sorry for Kuangheng (a top-ranking official in Western Han Dynasty) who, in his youth, studied very hard, but could not afford candle, and had to bore a hole on the wall in order to get some light from the neighbor's house. If he were born in mordern society, he can just bring his books to the men's room of any office building. Believe me, or you can go check it yourself. samuelzhoujc@hotmail.com This comment is translated by Yina Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:25:46 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8578 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8578 Actually, the social responsibility issue is close related to economics -- that is --whether it is cost effective or not. Unfortunately so many intelligent people in our country are unwilling to consider this simple question in China. ——samuelzhoujc@hotmail.com, Chief Energ Efficiency Specialist,Association of Resources Efficiency Certified Energy Manager, Assistant Director, CEM China Program Association of Energy Engineers (Translated by Tian Liang) Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:11:40 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8577 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8577 I have looked at my GE compact flourescent bulbs again and yes, my brothers, they are made in China. I also purchased them at Walmart here in Toronto, Canada. It is ironic and sad that I can get bulbs made in China and shipped half way around the world that last as long as advertised, but you in China cannot. I have photos of my bulbs on my blog: http://dontai.com/wp/2009/03/06/cfl-bulbs-made-and-sold-in-china-are-defective/ I will not purchase any Philips products here in Canada until you resolve your problems in China, and will tell others to not purchase Philips products as well. Philips should not cheat my Chinese brothers. Don Tai (http://www.dontai.com/wp/) Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:45:30 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8482 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8482 Don Tai, somehow I found your answer quite amusing. I don’t know if Canada produces it, but 80% of the world’s compact fluorescent bulbs are manufactured in China, among which many of them are from the famous multinational companies’ plants in China, including Philips, GE, Osram and Siemens. That is to say there is 80% possibility that your compact fluorescent bulbs are manufactured in China too. I am not sure if the package of China’s compact fluorescent bulb bears the phone numbers of the manufacturer, but since both of the faulty bulbs are from Philips, I believe they should follow the similar code of production as those manufactured in Philips’ other plants, it is not an excuse to have inferior quality just because they are manufactured in China. In any case, the consumer will first go to the retailer for refund or exchange for any quality problem rather than go to the manufacturer directly. The retailer, in this case the American giant Wal-Mart, should have responsibility in quality control of what they sell, and they usually will use this happily to bargain with or ask for rebate from the manufacturer for their next mass order, as they do to many Chinese factories. Fri, 06 Mar 2009 06:16:35 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8476 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8476 I am confused by the logic behind comment 17 and comment 18. Energy-saving bulbs are surely saving energy; that's a fact. It is indisputable that it saves electricity. These are not tricks by manufacturers only for more profit; it can be proved proved by any electrical engineering research institute. I don't think anyone would try to convince you there's another more energy-saving bulb. The whole thing is really a quality issue,which may be due to either Philips or Walmart, or possibly circuits in the consumer's room. In order to defend consumer rights,one normally asks for a refund or an exchange from the retailer, or for a circuit check in the room. How can one relate it to whether it's right to adopt low-carbon lifestyle? Either the previous comment is trying to cause a sensation or look for an excuse. No one asks you to pursue a low-carbon lifestyle out of your ability,and no one forces you to do that. It all depends on yourself. Please stop looking for far-fetched justifications, and stop arguing with so much conviction as if your points are sensible. In this way, you are speaking in a tone similar to that of the Western world, which often makes China the scapegoat. Wang Tao (translated by diaoshuhuan) Fri, 06 Mar 2009 06:14:17 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8475 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8475 It is absolute unacceptable for Wal-Mart to sell either fakes or inferior runs of exported products. If all these multinationals quality control is to make sure that western consumer have good quality products while Chinese consumers are left with their inferior products or exports return, then I think that is more than just a quality problem! By the way, Don Tai, if you do some research, you will quickly find that the compact fluorescent bulb is more expensive in the European or American market than in China is not for the reason of quality, because mostly of them were produced in the same Philips/GE plant, but for the reason to protect the rest plants they have in the EU or US. Since the EU’s controversial anti-dumping duties on imports of Chinese produced compact fluorescent bulbs were scrapped on 18 October 2008, I did find their price in the UK shops dropped. Tao Wang Tyndall Centre Fri, 06 Mar 2009 06:18:48 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8477 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8477 And to Liu, I believe you must also feel it unacceptable for Wal-Mart or Philips to sell you bulbs with inferior quality. And I also believe as a consumer you have every reason to ask for refund or exchange in Wal-Mart, or contact Philips in China, whichever way you like as long as you can provide receipt or prove you bought the bulbs from them. If neither of them can give you an acceptable response, China has consumers association in every city and your rights are protected by the Law of the People's Republic of China on Protecting Consumers' Rights and Interests. If the bulbs continue to blow and you suspect Wal-Mart or Philips is, for any reason, selling bulbs with lower quality or defective products, collect the evidence and sue them. But before that, make sure you have your own electrical wiring checked by electrician. I hope this event wont discourage your pursuit of a low carbon life, but instead lend a lesson to us all about how important a role the consumer should play in quality supervision, not only for a better image of “made in China”, but also to safeguard our enthusiasm for a low carbon life. Tao Wang Fri, 06 Mar 2009 06:29:11 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8478 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8478 显然，“低碳生活方式”的概念被市场滥用了。空有一腔热情对我们的地球、我们的社会和我们的钱包都没有任何益处。它只会帮助狡猾的商家继续以美好的名目欺骗消费者。明智且负责的消费者首先应该要求得到信息。只有在消费者了解可持续产品的情况下，可持续消费才有可能。购买所谓的“低碳灯泡”事实上鼓励了欺骗行为。三思而后行。 Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:05:15 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8472 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2800#comment-8472