I read with interest Daniel Gardner's piece in yesterday's NY Times about China's recent enthusiasm for environmental awareness. Although he places significant emphasis on 2013...and with good reason...seeds of discontent can be traced back to the 2008 Olympics when citizens saw their government place regulations and restrictions in place to improve air quality for the athletes in the venues. I would imagine that much of the middle class population in those areas began to wonder why China's own people did not merit equal consideration to the world's athletes. Protests have sprung up in China's major cities in response to the significant worsening of the air and water quality in the country, but those protests can only happen with a strong organizing force already in place, and my guess is that much of that organization "got legs" in 2008.It is interesting to note three things about the state of the Chinese environment, and the comparisons to the US's approach over the past 40 years. First, the situation in China finds its root in the rapid industrialization that has occurred over the last half-century. Although that industrialization has certainly been partially in response to increased demand by the Chinese people for goods and services, much of it has to do with demand for cheap goods by us in the US. It is easy to say that in a "free market economy" it is up to each group of people what sacrifices they are willing to make for economic development, but during an era when we were working to clean up our air and water here at home, should we bear some of the responsibility for what has happened to China's environment?
The second observation has to do with that economic development that occurred. In a counterpoint to the question about our culpability in the poisoning of China's air and water, I wonder how much we can also take responsibility for the rise of China's middle class. Our resources spent in China for the better part of a half century have provided the capital for the growth there, and combined with other economically developed countries, that capital provided the seed for the economic prosperity that created the large and ever-growing middle class. That middle class, certainly since the mid-1990s, has pushed for economic reform, social reform, and now environmental reform.
The last observation has to do with speed and endurance. In the US, the great environmental disasters of the 1960s lead to the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of the 1970s which lead to great innovations and improvements to our environment. Notably, we cleaned up lakes and rivers, made marked improvement in the air quality in our cities, and addressed lead in the air and acid rain with not only a minimum of costs but with a boost to our economy and quality of life.
And then we stopped. We still have localized wins on the environmental front. But for the better part of twenty years, we stopped leading and started posturing. We ignored science...the freedom that made this country great, the freedom of scientific pursuit...and allowed industry to drive our policy. For the better part of a decade we have listened to challenge after challenge against the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts...ignoring all of the economic growth that has occurred because of them in favor of an antiquated thought that a laissez faire approach to industry is the only way to deliver economic growth. Most egregiously, we completely buried our head in the sand over climate change and its root cause in climate emissions. We allowed corporate interests tied to fossil fuels to use their capital to poison the conversation, control our lawmakers, and stall most reasonable action that would have solved the problem and created a great economic boon for the country. Perhaps most patronizingly, the richest country in the world said it would not act until lesser developed nations did so...nations whose carbon pollution came largely due to American-financed offshoring of manufacturing to meet the American desire for cheap goods.
Well, now China has acted. It will extend its existing carbon trading markets to the whole nation by 2016, almost daring the US to act. China, with its communist government that exerts more influence over industry than our approach in the US, will tackle air and water pollution...likely looking to the successes we had in the first two decades of environmental action. As that changes the economics of some industries, it will be interesting to see if after progress is made, whether they too will succumb to apathy and accept a partial response as we have. I would imagine that with the availability of renewable energy technology, replacing fossil fuels will be easier now than it would have been for the US two decades ago. With the impacts of climate change already taking root, it would be hard to imagine that the Chinese people will be as ready to bow to the pressure of industry as we did in the US.
But then again, I would have said the same thing about the US in 1990 fresh off our wins on acid rain and leaded gasoline, so only time will tell.
Perhaps more importantly, the question is whether since the US would not lead, will we have the grace to follow.
