US ranks 17 as clean tech producer, China is No. 2

[Keith Bee]

Source: AP

Denmark earns the biggest share of its national revenue from producing windmills and other clean technologies, the United States is rapidly expanding its clean-tech sector, but no country can match China's pace of growth, according to a new report obtained by The Associated Press.

China's production of green technologies has grown by a remarkable 77 per cent a year, according to the report, which was commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature and which will be unveiled on Monday at an industry conference in Amsterdam.

"The Chinese have made, on the political level, a conscious decision to capture this market and to develop this market aggressively," said Donald Pols, an economist with the WWF.

Denmark, a longtime leader in wind energy, derives 3.1 percent of its gross domestic product from renewable energy technology and energy efficiency, or about euro6.5 billion ($9.4 billion), the report said.

Read more: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/may/07/eu-climate-clean-tech/

---

Uh.....okay...could someone please explain to me why we're 15 places behind a country whose cities always have air you can see? (With thanks to Room: 222)

[WCGreen]

1. Why does this not suprise me....

what with all the yea oil company propaganda commercials running everywhere...

[wickerwoman]

2. The "Information Economy" of the 1990s was complete bullpucky.

China has four times the population of the US and by extension, four times as many geniuses. They were set back a lot in the 20th century by war, genocide and Mao's ridiculous economic policies, but historically China has always been incredibly innovative (paper, gun powder, silk, porcelain, compasses, printing presses, paper currency, etc.) to the point where, when the British first started trying to trade with them, they couldn't find anything that China would want (hence the Opium Wars). Assuming that we could dump our manufacturing base on China and stay ahead through "innovation" was a colossally stupid and fundamentally pretty racist mistake.

China has been investing heavily in green technology for the last decade in part a.) because they have so much pollution- it's an obvious problem to the point where social stability is threatened (and the Chinese government is *all* about social stability... they know they don't have a chance against a well organized grassroots resistance) and b.) because it would be a huge coup to take the lead in green technology and show up the West.

This may well be George Bush's most harmful legacy. He lost us the window where America could have taken the lead in next generation energy technologies. Now we get to play catch-up with China and Germany.

[harmonicon]

3. We're number 1 ........ 7!!! nt.

[Vinca]

6. You beat me to it. Go 17!

[gtar100]

4. No thanks to republicans, conservatives, libertarians and all the other ignorant backward ass people

we are surrounded by. If these right-wing, fundamentalists had their way, we wouldn't be on the chart at all.

Let's not let the idiots take us down with them!!

[Enthusiast]

5. The fossil fuel industry and

their useful idiots.

[hack89]

7. Why do you think manufacturing clean technologies is a clean process?

batteries and solar panels, especially done cheaply, involved some pretty nasty chemicals for example. When the Chinese build more factories to make this stuff, they will burn more coal to power them.

I am sure they will use some of the stuff they make, which is a good thing. But this also may be a case of the Chinese polluting their own country to boost their economy

[primavera]

11. Is it worse than fracking and oil spills? - n/t

[hack89]

13. Never said it was nt

[joshcryer]

8. Clean technology production is not in itself clean.

It has to be made clean, and that is expensive, prohibitively so.

So your premise is nonsensical.

[cartach]

9. "Conscious decision to capture this market and to develop this market aggressively"

Of course because China is a totalitarian communist state there is no mention that they might also be persuing the development of clean technologies because they might be concerned about the future of the planet. No, that would be too much, to credit the "bad guys" with any humanitarian concerns wouldn't it? So supposedly their only motive is to make a buck like any other pure capitalist country. In fact that's why countries like the US are not taking the lead with this,because the monetory returns are too small, meanwhile ignoring the fact that the ice is melting and our children and grandchildren will be walking around in hipwaders and wearing gas masks.

[dotymed]

10. Presently, the returns may be too small,

If we can inform Americans (most of the world already understands this) that "green technology" is not optional, it is necessary, then maybe we can greatly increase our green production.
While the initial manufacturing of these green materials are ecologically "dirty", we do have (still I think) many regulations in effect (if they are enforced) that will cut the environmental impact of this production. China does not have these regulations or many others to protect anyone except the ruling class. We are getting there. Obviously, it should be the other way around.

Vann Jones was a great spokesman for doing this. Too bad he was thrown under the bus to satisfy our political Nazi's.
If President Obama would Re-instate THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, updated (of course) to cover cable tee vee, etc... then Americans could actually be (more) honestly informed (about everything, including) our desperate need for green production and technology.

Our need to create millions of GOOD PAYING JOBS with the opportunity for those people to organize and collectively bargain. These jobs must provide benefits, including health. Actually, IMO, health care should be a guaranteed right, just as it is in ALL of the other "civilized countries."

Our government could create these jobs (instead of giving our money to the financial, MIC, and other elites). Once established, (since the wealthy corporations are not creating these jobs) we could sell these factories to the workers, for a profit. (Capitalism)

Co-ops work. If an employee owns a part of the company he works for and he/she has a vote in running that company including the wages that everyone gets paid, the company will be treated like a favorite child and nurtured. This is a lot more plausible than guessing that if we give the banksters trillion$, they will loan some of it to small business etc...instead of sitting on the money, giving huge bonuses, "loaning" it back to the government at triple the interest rate and further hurting our (not Wall Streets, economy).
Dammit, we have to get real about good paying jobs for our citizens. Wall Street is thriving while Main Street dies. True Information MUST be given to our citizens. REINSTATE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

[Red Knight]

12. We don't need "clean" technology.

Look--if we just let the oil companies drill where they want to---like offshore or in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge we'd have more oil than we would ever need AND we would not be dependent upon foreign oil. All the wars would end. And if we did need any foreign oil Obama could just follow Donald Trump's lead and just TELL Saudi Arabia how much oil we want and at what price--period.

And lest we forget---oil comapnies throw all of their profits back into the communities. They said so.

If we all just keep chanting U.S.A.! U.S.A.! loudly enough, everything will be fine.

[Keith Bee]

16. You've not been here long enough to eschew this icon:

:sarcasm:

[burrfoot]

17. Pretty sure use of that icon is not a DU rule....

however, it IS a DU rule that posts should not call out other DU'ers based on their time here or number of posts.

[Trajan]

18. Simply talking to another DUer and showing them stuff ...

Isnt really calling out ....

[burrfoot]

19. True, simply doing that wouldn't be a problem.

However, "you haven't been here long enough to eschew" is a bit more pointed than "hey, this icon makes your meaning clearer to people."

Anyhow, it obviously hasn't bothered the poster, so I suppose it's not a big deal.

:toast:

[Keith Bee]

22. Really?

Because I've gotten that "I was here way before you" treatment more than once.

[burrfoot]

23. I know- I've gotten my share of it as well.

However, from the forum rules section....

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

Now again, since the poster the comment was made to hasn't mentioned having any problem with the response that in turn drew my comment; this is more of an academic discussion than any real complaint at this point.


In my mind, anyway, comments along the lines of "I was here before you...." or "you haven't been here long enough to...." fall under "negative attention."

YMMV

:toast:

[KurtNYC]

14. Making green tech products and using them are 2 different things

electronics manufacturing in particular can be pretty eco-nasty.

[SkyDaddy7]

15. SAD! SAD! SAD! nt.

[Brickbat]

20. I'd like to see the factories where those windmills are made. I'm guessing they don't look like

Denmark factories, or even U.S. factories. Just a thought.

[backtomn]

21. China produces a number of "green" materials, but.....

most of it is produced for other countries. I believe they are the biggest producer of solar panels used in the U.S. Wind and Solar energy is a very small percentage of what is used in China. They are mostly the low-cost producer of solar panels and wind turbines to the world. It is a very different situation to that in Denmark. You can have really bad air and water and still make a bunch of money producing materials for the U.S.