Comments on: How green is your stimulus? http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/03/19/how-green-is-your-stimulus/ Global risks and how to respond to them, edited by Alex Evans and David Steven Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:49:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Leo Horn http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/03/19/how-green-is-your-stimulus/comment-page-1/#comment-9044 Leo Horn Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:54:26 +0000 http://www.globaldashboard.org/?p=8601#comment-9044 (continued) close to 80% of what the HSBC badges as 'green' expenditure in the Chinese fiscal stimulus is investment in rail and the grid alone. The primary purpose of these investments was always going to be to support economic development, rather than a 'low carbon' economy. The HSBC report admits that: "there is limited visibility over how the plan will underpin further expansion of low-carbon power such as renewables." The Chinese govt itself would be surprised to hear that 38% of its stimulus is considered 'green' as it's own target for green expenditures in the fiscal stimulus is 9% (see my previous posting). (continued) close to 80% of what the HSBC badges as ‘green’ expenditure in the Chinese fiscal stimulus is investment in rail and the grid alone. The primary purpose of these investments was always going to be to support economic development, rather than a ‘low carbon’ economy. The HSBC report admits that: “there is limited visibility over how the plan will underpin further expansion of low-carbon power such as renewables.” The Chinese govt itself would be surprised to hear that 38% of its stimulus is considered ‘green’ as it’s own target for green expenditures in the fiscal stimulus is 9% (see my previous posting).

]]> By: Leo Horn http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/03/19/how-green-is-your-stimulus/comment-page-1/#comment-9043 Leo Horn Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:37:05 +0000 http://www.globaldashboard.org/?p=8601#comment-9043 Alex - tx for sharing the report. This one is to read with caution. The headline figures in the HSBC report are hugely misleading, at least for China. China's fiscal stimulus is anything but 'green': most of it is going in to energy-intensive sectors and large infrastructure projects many of which have been on the books for years but slowed or halted by negative environmental assessments which are now being overridden in the interests of salvaging the economy. A sign of the times: Environment Vice Minister Pan Yue - a staunch and progressive advocate for the environment - has been sidelined and stripped of his responsibilities overseeing Environmental Impacts Assessments of large projects (see recent guardian article on this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/12/activism-china/print). The HSBC report employs very dubious arithmetics to reach the figure of 38% of the stimulus being for 'green themes'. There are significant flaws with the analysis which are evident at a glance, namely: (i) it applies 'industrialised world' assumptions to its analysis of emerging economies (e.g. invt in rail is the Chinese context is not about creating a green alternative to other forms of transport - NB: China is also planning to build 40 odd new airports by 2020. Likewise, massive invts in to the grid are about infrastructure keeping pace with breakneck growth, rather than retrofiting 'green' features in to existing infrastructure); (ii) it includes potentially vaguely environmentally-related investments, such as in housing and grid expansion in its definition of 'green' on the basis that these are areas where there are opportunities (underlined) for greening; (iii) likewise its 'climate themes' are defined as areas where there are potential climate change related investment opportunities, rather than investments having a positive impact on climate change mitigation /adaptation. Alex – tx for sharing the report. This one is to read with caution. The headline figures in the HSBC report are hugely misleading, at least for China. China’s fiscal stimulus is anything but ‘green’: most of it is going in to energy-intensive sectors and large infrastructure projects many of which have been on the books for years but slowed or halted by negative environmental assessments which are now being overridden in the interests of salvaging the economy. A sign of the times: Environment Vice Minister Pan Yue – a staunch and progressive advocate for the environment – has been sidelined and stripped of his responsibilities overseeing Environmental Impacts Assessments of large projects (see recent guardian article on this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/12/activism-china/print).

The HSBC report employs very dubious arithmetics to reach the figure of 38% of the stimulus being for ‘green themes’. There are significant flaws with the analysis which are evident at a glance, namely: (i) it applies ‘industrialised world’ assumptions to its analysis of emerging economies (e.g. invt in rail is the Chinese context is not about creating a green alternative to other forms of transport – NB: China is also planning to build 40 odd new airports by 2020. Likewise, massive invts in to the grid are about infrastructure keeping pace with breakneck growth, rather than retrofiting ‘green’ features in to existing infrastructure); (ii) it includes potentially vaguely environmentally-related investments, such as in housing and grid expansion in its definition of ‘green’ on the basis that these are areas where there are opportunities (underlined) for greening; (iii) likewise its ‘climate themes’ are defined as areas where there are potential climate change related investment opportunities, rather than investments having a positive impact on climate change mitigation /adaptation.

]]>