"But what about China?" That's one argument often put when Greens sit down to debate the need for dramatic action to cut greenhouse gas output in the West from their opponents. The line runs that since China's economy and greenhouse gas output is growing so fast, and its population is so vast, that there is no point in doing anything in the West, at least until the Middle Kingdom signs up for considerable restrictions on its emissions.
But what is the state of environmental thinking in China? At a London School of Economics Environmental Initiatives Network seminar this week, the editor of the website China Dialogue, Isabel Hilton, attempted to answer that question.
She said that much-touted "new city" of Dongtan was typical of the top-down environmental model now being applied in China. If you spoke to the senior leadership and read the 11th Five-Year Plan you'd feel good about China's moves on sustainable development, she said. That plan represented a substantial change in direction from the 10th, which although it set a few environmental targets, all of these were missed and there were no consequences.
The 11th Plan by contrast represented a rebalancing of growth model - the terminology was of working "towards a harmonius society" At the official level that's fine, and also encouraging is the view on the street. The general view is clearly that the environment needs to be cleaned up.
Where the problem lies is in the middle levels of officialdom. Ms Hilton spoke about Anwei province, which has a huge coal industry that has caused enormous environmental damage about which there is great local concern. But the businessmen who run the companies that run the mines aren't worried, because of course they don't live in Anwei province, and the environmental damage doesn't affect them.
"The 'development first, environment second' Jiang Zemin model is still held very widely across the country," Ms Hilton said. For most Chinese, pollution was the price you have to pay for prosperity. Memories of hunger and deprivation were still strong.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Lumpy
Strange news considering that china is building a new dirty coal power plant every week.
2 - Aku
"A lot of that is going to be determined by the approach of the US. If there is no pressure from the US, China is not going to put pressure on itself."
Yeh, every other time we have came in and gave them lectures, actilng like the bossy, ugly Americans, we get exactly what we want. Yeh, that's the ticket . . .
3 - Natalie Bennett
It does say "starting" to go green, not that it is...
4 - Vicki McCollum
Great article, Natalie!
Vicki
5 - Lumpy
pressure from the US would be things like not signing onto the kyoto agreement, something serious environmentalists ought to be thankinf us for.
6 - Zedd
If there is no pressure from the US
You cant be serious. To do what we don't do??
China has already told us to "shut up" about telling people what to do.
Side note: Last March, China enacted a 5% tax on the purchase of disposable chopsticks. 45 billion pairs of Chopsticks are disposed of annually in China. Can you imagine a tax on paper plates or plastic utensils. Dave would, well, git-a-gun and start a militia.
In China TODAY, students study that:
(1) Economic development brings environmental costs as well as economic benefits. Responsible governments will recognise this and may begin to act more sustainably as time passes, usually by passing environmental laws.
(2) Development processes involve the operation of a multiplier effect. Growing wealth can drive other economic growth through both spending and a growing ability to tolerate taxation. In time, tax revenues may help foster a better-skilled, healthier and well-paid society of workers who can, in turn, pay even greater taxes as they purchase more and more goods and services! Thus the growth process becomes circular and self-sustaining.
In response to this, Dave would uhmmmm git-a-gun if his kid was taught that in school.
I wonder who needs to influence who?
7 - Clavos
Nonetheless, China will surpass the USA in carbon emissions by 2009, according to the International Energy Agency.
8 - China Law Blog
Ms. Hilton really knows whereof she speaks regarding the environment in China. I am impressed!
9 - Zedd
Clavos
Should they not considering their population?
10 - Clavos
Zedd,
Their population figures into it, yes.
But the bigger problems are twofold:
They are the world's largest user of coal on a per capita basis.
They are exempt from doing anything about it, and, as Natalie points out in her article, climate change (and their emissions problem) are way down on their list of priorities. Naatalie mentions in her article that their target date for doing something about them has just been adjusted to 2018 from 2050, but that still leaves a full 9 years where they will be the biggest polluter in the world and doing nothing about it.
And to top it off, they are playing politics, demanding that the USA, Europe, Japan, and other developed nations should have even tighter controls than currently set. This, of course, is intended to make the playing field uneven for the developed nations to compete with the Chinese in world markets.
Here's an excerpt from the NYT article:
China’s rise, fueled heavily by coal, is particularly troubling to climate scientists because as a developing country, China is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol’s requirements for reductions in emissions of global warming gases. Unregulated emissions from China, India and other developing countries are likely to account for most of the global increase in carbon dioxide emissions over the next quarter-century.
The agency’s prediction highlights the unexpected speed with which China is emerging as the biggest contributor to global warming. Still, China has resisted limits on its own emissions and those of other developing countries.
Up until now, Chinese officials have instead called repeatedly for even tighter limits on the industrialized countries’ emissions of global warming gases after the Kyoto Protocol’s limits expire at the end of 2012. China says rich countries bear responsibility for the increase in global carbon dioxide levels that has already taken place.
11 - Natalie Bennett
Except of course that China has made effectively no contribution to our current evident problems - which come from the West's industrialisation, so the basic model of "contraction and convergence", whereby the west reduces output and the two come together at some equitable level is really the only possible way to proceed.
12 - Clavos
First, I don't know what happened above to cause my last comment to post twice minutes apart. Christopher, can you fix it? Apologies for whatever I did.
Natalie writes:
so the basic model of "contraction and convergence", whereby the west reduces output and the two come together at some equitable level is really the only possible way to proceed.
I'm not sure how "contraction and convergence" can even figure into a scenario whereby if no one does anything, and the current status quo as far as emission growth rates is maintained, the Chinese will surpass US in 2009; especially since they are exempt from "contracting".
I got a little convoluted there: Even if nothing further is done, convergence is already underway, and will occur in 2009, at which point US will no longer be the world's largest polluter; China will, and they are exempt from controls, while the US is actively working to reduce its emissions.
It's worth noting that, among the developed countries signatory to the protocol, the EU, led by the UK, will meet their targets by 2008, as will New Zealand.
Natalie writes:
Except of course that China has made effectively no contribution to our current evident problems
On the contrary, China is and has been for some tome, a heavy user of coal:
China's rise, fueled heavily by coal, is particularly troubling to climate scientists because as a developing country it is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol's requirements for reductions in emissions of global warming gases. Unregulated emissions from China, India and other developing countries are likely to account for most of the global increase in carbon dioxide emissions over the next quarter-century
13 - Zedd
Clavos
China is trying to DEVELOP. Yes climate control is not the biggest thing on their plate nor should it be. They are transitioning and we need for them to do so. They've got their hands full.
As for us, what is our problem?? In all of the submissions about the climate issues, I have not read a contribution from you chastising the U.S. for our #1 slot RIGHT NOW.
To be fair, lets take a looksie as to what the co2 emissions are by country per capita. Where does the US rank and where does China rank. QED
14 - Natalie Bennett
The average greenhouse gas emissions of an inhabitant of Phoenix, US, is 1,400kg, that of the people of Hong Kong: 50kg (which would be rather higher than in the rest of China: Source.
15 - Clavos
You're both missing my point.
I SAID the US is the biggest polluter; nobody, including me, denies that.
What I was trying to point out is that China SHORTLY WILL TAKE OUR PLACE as the world's worst polluter, in large part because they ARE developing; more rapidly than practically any nation on the planet, and in large part with US money and investment.
That said, since the scientists agree they will pass the US in carbon emissions as soon as the YEAR AFTER NEXT, they should not be getting the pass on those emissions that Kyoto gives them.
If we want to really rid the world of these emissions, we cannot let the soon-to-be worst polluter off the hook, developing or not; it just doesn't make sense on a global level, and will probably screw up the whole effort to reduce carbon emissions.
That's it. My only point. Simple, like me.
16 - Zedd
Clavos
I now see your point.
However there are a lot of things that the world wants China to do. We have to prioritize them.
I think that it is fair to give China a short window to get their levels down.
Have we signed yet?
17 - Natalie Bennett
Additionally, a significant proportion of China's emissions are actually a result of producing things sold in the West (all those so wide-screen TVs), so you have to ask to whom the responsibility for them should be allocated.
18 - Clavos
Additionally, a significant proportion of China's emissions are actually a result of producing things sold in the West (all those so wide-screen TVs)
Exactly right, Natalie, which is why I mentioned US investment in China above.
so you have to ask to whom the responsibility for them should be allocated.
The Chinese aren't making those TVs for free. They have the rseponsibility.
19 - troll
you can politic all you want about assigning responsibility for fouling the infested nest and about the evils of capitalist 'anarchy' vrs socialist 'planning'...but what difference will it make - ?
be merry humans...and rest assured in the knowledge that:
Die-Offs Happen
20 - Clavos
troll writes,
you can politic all you want about assigning responsibility for fouling the infested nest and about the evils of capitalist 'anarchy' vrs socialist 'planning'...but what difference will it make - ?
Big polluters; big cleanup. China. USA. Japan. All of them.
Agreed. If you read through the thread, you'll see that I advocate that China NOT be given a free ride precisely because it's about to become the biggest polluter in the world.
That's it. No politics. No agendas. And no free rides.
21 - Zedd
The United States, the biggest offender has not signed the agreement. We are not participating AT ALL in the global commitment.
I'm still confused as to how we can pressure anyone?
22 - Dave Nalle
Zedd if you still don't understand why the US hasn't signed Kyoto, you're not paying attention. The treaty is not about reducing emissions, it's about reducing competitiveness. It's structured in such a way that it encourages emerging nations to start off on the wrong environmental foot from the very beginning, rather than taking a cleaner route from the start, thereby reducing the expense of their eventually having to retrofit and redo everything.
The whole element of buying and selling carbon credits is ridiculous, allowing the worst polluters to buy their way out of responsibility by paying poorer countries and providing those poorer countries with an incentive to ALSO continue to pollute. It's completely insane.
A real, effective treaty would set universal standards which are actually achievable - keep in mind that at this point none of the signatories are actually meeting the standards they agreed to on schedule.
China is building a dirty coal power plant every WEEK and the treaty does nothing to stop it. Instead it targets the US where we aren't even building dirty coal powerplants anymore. Again, insane.
Dave
23 - Zedd
Dave
How many years has the U.S. been THE major polluter of the world?? We pride ourselves on the headway that we made during the industrial era. What that success produced was pollution which affected the entire planet. We don't get to be fussy about this issue. We've had our day and we competed while polluting, heck we are STILL doing it. Your reasoning on this is not lucid.
You are saying that WE are willing to continue to pollute the planet for everyone because others want to do what we have been doing for a hundred years? Where's the logic in that.
Dave that is double speak for greedy and lazy corporate committed types. What will actually happen is that other countries (as usual) will develop ingenious methodologies to deal with this issue while we sit back touting our Amerrrricanness.
24 - Zedd
Dave
Instead it targets the US where we aren't even building dirty coal powerplants anymore.
You cant be serious. Do you know what our levels are?? We NEED to be targeted.
There is a consideration of character that seems to be missing in a lot of your arguments. You focus a lot on tit for tat and spouting the latest nonsense from the greedy. Its as if you don't even consider the reasonability. Its as if as long as it is supported by the people that you "follow", you take it to be gospel, no matter how much rubbish it is. Cause and effect just go out of the window and you buy and promote the spin of the day.
As for you saying that I have not been paying attention, if you mean to that rubbish, I have heard it and I have concluded that it is what it clearly is.
25 - Zedd
Dave
On the coal plants. You know what just happened here in Texas. Cut it out!!!