As China’s appetite for coal is booming, American investors and businesses are cashing in.

American pension and mutual fund money is being invested in the Chinese coal industry …

“In general, they’re doing a very smart thing,” said Mike Tian, an analyst with independent investment research company Morningstar. “That’s where the money is.”

According to his research, the World Bank’s go-to guy on these matters believes: “It will be difficult or even impossible for China to reduce CO2 emissions in absolute terms.” Depressing conclusion. As he saw it, “The question now is, what can be down to reduce China’s growth rate [of CO2 emissions]?”

While refusing to sign international agreements on carbon caps, Beijing has issued some fairly ambitious goals of its own. One is to have 15 percent of energy come from renewable sources by 2020. Of course, whether this target is based in reality is another question. As Dr. Zhao told me, “In most other countries, you do the analysis first, then set goals. In China, you set the goal first, then you do the research and set the policy to try to achieve it.” Translation: the temptation to fudge numbers to reach preordained conclusions is dangerously high.

It is, after all, impossible to talk about China’s capacity to either reduce or control CO2 emissions without also sizing up the reality of Chinese politics. On the one hand, a one-party system allows the government to reach decisions more quickly, on all matters. On the other hand, the lack of independent oversight and endemic corruption makes it more difficult for Beijing to actually implement its writ across far-flung provinces.

Finally, a point that gets back to David’s original inference about our responsibility at home. Given the structure of America and China’s economies, and the respective levels of technological sophistication, Dr. Zhao thought that, “It’s actually a lot easier to reduce CO2 emissions in America than in China.” Things like, you know, raising fuel efficiency standards and creating a consumer market for electric cars.

Not that this last point excuses either party, but just sayin’.

That day there were blue skies in Beijing. No kidding. The streets were swept clean, the sidewalk vendors gone, the DVD hawkers on holiday. There were many more police on the street, fewer cars. The sunset looked oily, a slick translucent glow to the clouds — but the last time I visited Beijing in April, I hadn’t even seen the sun through the smog.

Beijing during the Congress. Photo: Christina Larson

I spoke with a representative from the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau the following Monday who neither confirmed nor denied — typical here — what everyone else told me: In time for the big event, the city had ordered official cars off the road and shuttered surrounding factories. And voila, brighter skies. (As a test, I even went for a run.)

Two days later, the conference was over. The skies were grey, the sun obscured. There were once again cigarette butts and orange peels on the sidewalk; the clack-clack of sidewalk cobblers, and the men waving “Bourne Identity 3″ DVDs. I coughed as I walked down the street; the air left a strange aftertaste.

Beijing returns to normal. Beijing two days after the Congress. Photo: Christina Larson

The previous week of unusually blue skies showed the Chinese government’s ability to clean up superficially, for a short period of time, in a discreet place, when it knows the whole world is watching. And it was impressive, eerily so. I felt a bit like I’d been on an immaculate factory tour, after the owner has been given plenty of advance notice.

I had my doubts before, but I’m becoming more optimistic that Beijing will be able to put on a good show for the Olympics. Challenges remain, including the city’s dreary sewer system, but air quality has long been seen as the biggest hurdle.

Of course, sprucing up Beijing for a month is a wholly different task from fixing China’s environmental problems long term, let alone fixing the problems in the political system that exacerbate rising levels of pollution and dwindling water supplies. (I’ll write more soon on this topic.) It’s not even equivalent to fixing the city’s problems short term, once the factories resume and official vehicles come back from holiday.

The international media will take back the wrong message if reporters attempt to draw far-ranging conclusions about China’s progress on environmental cleanup solely from the capital’s high-profile Olympic performance.

Still, I am taken by how stunning Beijing can be when the wind blows the right way, when smog isn’t obscuring its skyscrapers and white pagodas.

After years of research into lightweight carbon-fiber, which now replaces heavier aluminum for the jet’s fuselage and wings, the Dreamliner can sail with an estimated 20-30 percent less fuel per passenger. What’s the company’s reasoning behind increasing fuel efficiency? It’s better for business, of course.

Maybe the marketing theory is, “Hook ‘em while they’re young.” Works for soft drinks and breakfast cereals. Perhaps it will work for Energy Star, too.

Having spent much of this spring reporting in China, I’d like to second just about everything David said yesterday on the topic. But I have one ginormous point to add.

It’s not just money that’s needed. Yes, it’d be a good thing if Hill folks stopped bashing technology-exchange programs as lending an “unfair competitive advantage.” And yes, let’s stop painting China as the international bad guy. It ain’t helpful, especially when the Chinese can rightly point out that Americans and Europeans are still, per capita, the world’s energy hogs.

But the really troubling thing is that, even when Beijing is trying to do the right thing — and they have some surprisingly progressive energy targets on the books — the government often can’t enforce its own edicts. Wonks call this a “rule of law” problem. By Beijing’s own estimates, one-fifth of power plants operate illegally, dodging the government’s own environmental regulations and best intentions.

I don’t mean to sound hopeless. I’m actually hopeful about some of the broader changes underway in China that might make solutions more workable. (Sorry to be elliptical; I write about this in an upcoming Washington Monthly article, but, jiminycrickets, I don’t have an online link yet.)

In the meantime, yep, the West should take some responsibility for helping China, India, and Africa avoid the worst of the worst on global warming. If not for their sake, then for ours.

Yesterday, London-based One World Trust unveiled its “2006 Global Accountability Report” at the Washington HQ of the World Bank. The report scored large international organizations (World Health Organization, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc.), corporations (Exxon-Mobil, Microsoft, etc.), and nonprofits (WWF International, Nature Conservancy, etc.) on how well they solicited and responded to public feedback, made decisions transparent, involved many stakeholders, and reacted to complaints.

Nonprofits, as a group, were tops in public participation. Big businesses had the best mechanisms in place to handle complaints. You can quibble with the particulars (“um, about that pipeline?”), but it’s an important idea.

Summary here. Full report here.

Shares of Archer Daniels Midland Co. and VeraSun Energy Corp., the two biggest U.S. ethanol producers, soared on speculation that Democratic control of the U.S. House of Representatives will boost demand …

“A Democrat-led House is likely to amount to a political net plus for the ethanol industry,” Stanford Group Co. analyst Mark McMinimy wrote today in a report to clients. “The political climate for ethanol in the Congress will shift from an environment that was already favorable to one that is promising for ethanol-friendly legislation over the coming two years.”