China's Climate Change Report: "It's Getting Hot in Here"
by Alex Pasternack, Beijing, China on 12.28.06
Two months after former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern warned that developing countries would be worst hit by climate change, the most developing developing country of them all has issued its own weather forecast: rising temperatures, worsening drought and a slate of 'extreme weather events.' Already the country is suffering from decreased grain production and severe water shortages. A director of the National Climate Centre said that by 2030-2050, China's potential grain output could fall by 10 percent, unless crop varieties and practices adapt to the increasingly turbulent climate. In the south, heavier rainfalls could trigger more landslides and mudslides, the report also warns. Global warming is everyone’s problem—but with China on course to overtake the United States by 2009 as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, the report adds to the crucial call for the Middle Kingdom to put all hands on deck.
"The report will serve as the country's scientific and technical reference in policy making and international co-operation," said Li Xueyong, vice-minister of the Ministry of Science and Technology.
Aside from the serious official predictions—the likes of which the White House has not made—what looks to be significant about the report is the way that it continues to push China to recognize how dirty it is, and to clean up for itself. Of course, no one breathing in China today would deny the country has serious environmental problems; the question, now more than ever, is how to deal with it.
At a Party meeting the same day the report was released, President Hu Jintao called for intensified efforts to save energy, including price, tax and other financial measures to promote energy saving and curb wasteful use. Hu also indicated that industries that consume excessive energy and pollute the environment should be shut down—presumably not in the still-fashionable style of Potemkin (factories will be temporarily shut down for the 2008 Olympics, officials announced yesterday).
Of course the central government’s wishes matter little without the cooperation of local officials—and with so many officials on the take, the environment, along with a plethora of social concerns, is at risk. That was the gist of a report also made yesterday to the country’s top legislature by the country's environmental minister.
“In some places, officials still focus on economic growth and neglect environmental protection,” Zhou Shengxian, director of the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), told the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.
Others meanwhile are busy blaming the West for China's smog; eco-hero Pan Yue even claimed "ecological colonialism." But I think Pan misfires here. Of course Western countries have benefited from China's lax environmental standards (not to mention labor laws), and as activist Ma Jun recently announced, around 30 multinationals, including Pepsi and Panasonic, have been found to be breaking China's pollution laws (out of 2,700 violators). But, as Elizabeth Economy recently pointed out, a fervent blame game doesn't help. As the new report will acknowledge--it won't be fully released until next year--global warming is everyone's problem, and China must figure out how to be part of the solution.
Both India and China are two of the fastest “developing” nations at the same time that they are two of the most populous. It doesn’t take a mathematician to figure out that two billion people beginning to act like 200 million Americans (who with 5% of the Earth’s population consume 20% of its resources) adds up to Very Big Trouble for an already troubled world. It is great that China is beginning to acknowledge a problem, but given the environmental devastation that already exists in their nation, I see little indication that they have the willpower to make the needed changes.
We should also consider smaller numbers and fractions of the population as well. It is doubtful that two billion people anywhere would even wish to live like Americans; however, what if only 300 million Chinese do so? What if 500 million become, as President Bush has recently encouraged, ". . .a nation of consumers and not savers"? What if a billion, even in part, neglect some element of sustainable living in favour of perceived expediency? In any case, the environment will have made no net gain.
Also, say the Chinese government does decide to take drastic action to curb climate change; in their context, what are the political and social requirements for success of such efforts (or, at least, the plan they may come up with considering their past actions)? Are we [I'm speaking from a westerner's viewpoint] willing to support a new series of Five Year Plans?
It may be that only China could implement such large scale environmental projects. And, it may be, while we stand around and argue about predictions and consequences, China steps to the forefront and becomes a truly green nation. And that, in this next era we face, will be the mark of a Superpower. Which nation will the world community look to when we face even harsher consequences of climate change? It won't be (unless we discuss some doomsday scenario) the one with the greatest military might; it will be the one with the greatest innovations and commitment to the environment. What if, in reports like these, it becomes readily apparent that China is one nation that is serious about climate change? How will that drive political language and action in the West; will western politicians be willing to lag behind their eastern counterparts?
China is running out of time on this and the situation there is far worse than the official numbers. I do not see things getting better for years, but I do think things will eventually change.
“Green” rhetoric is everywhere—political speeches, articles touting “green” initiatives by various cities and states, movies and television, and yes, ubiquitously in marketing and advertising. While a more environmentally conscious society is certainly desirable, the push of this rhetoric can be overwhelming and may even have the opposite effect: desensitization.
WHO CARE? YOU GUYS DO NOTHING.