Chinese Perspectives on the Environment and Sustainable Development [1 ed.] 9789004254428, 9789004254411

Citation preview

Chinese Perspectives on the Environment and Sustainable Development

Issues in Contemporary Chinese Thought and Culture Edited by

Arif Dirlik Yu Keping

VOLUME 4

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/icct

Chinese Perspectives on the Environment and Sustainable Development Edited by

Ye Wenhu Translated by

Christopher Heselton

Leiden • boston 2013

This book is the result of a co-publication agreement between Chongqing Publishing House Co. Ltd and Koninklijke Brill NV. These chapters were translated into English from the original «中国学者论环境与可持续发展» (Zhongguo xuezhe lun huanjing yu kechixu fazhan) with the financial support from China Book International. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Chinese perspective on environment and sustainable development / edited by Ye Wenhu ; translated by Christopher Heselton.   pages cm. — (Issues in contemporary Chinese thought and culture ; volume 4)  Includes bibliographical references and index.  ISBN 978-90-04-25441-1 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-25442-8 (e-book) 1. Sustainable development—China. 2. Environmental policy—China.  3. ­Environmental protection—China. I. Ye, Wenhu.  HC430.E5C438 2013  333.70951—dc23

2013017440

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN  1874-0588 ISBN 978-90-04-25441-1 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-25442-8 (e-book) Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Contents List of Figures and Charts .............................................................................. List of Contributors .......................................................................................... Series Foreword .................................................................................................

vii ix xi

1.. Contemporary Chinese Environmental Policy: Its Genesis, . Characteristics, and Value ........................................................................ . Zhang Kunmin, Wen Zongguo, and Peng Liying

1

2.. Government Actions in Environmental Regulation ........................ . Xiao Wei and Qian Jianxing

23

3.. The Institutional Origins of Eco-Environmental Problems and . the Way Out ................................................................................................. . Fang Shinan and Zhang Weiping

39

4.. The Economic and Political Impacts of Mitigating Climate . Change and Regional Disparities ........................................................... . Pan Jiahua

51

5.. The Paradox of Sustainable Development and Globalization ...... . Xu Chun

67

6.. The Diplomatic Political Effects of International Sustainable . Development in a Globalized Economy .............................................. . Huang Jing

81

7.. The Conflict and Mediation of the Free Market and . Sustainable Development ......................................................................... . Ren Qing

95

8.. International Environmental Security: Real . Dilemmas and Theoretical Considerations ........................................ 105 . Xun Qingzhi and Li Ping 9.. The Harmonious Development of Humans and Nature ................ . Shen Guofang

121

vi

contents

10.. A Discussion on the Problems of Ecological Culture and . Sustainable Development ........................................................................ 167 . Liu Sihua 11.. The Evolution of Civilization and Prospects of an Ecological . Culture ........................................................................................................... 185 . Liu Xiaoying Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 199 Index ..................................................................................................................... 203

List of figures and charts Figures 1.1. Shifts in Chinese investment in environmental pollution controls .................................................................................................... 9.1. Ecosystem ............................................................................................... 9.2. China’s deserts are clearly visible in this satellite photograph of Earth ............................................................................ 9.3. A view of soil erosion on the loess plateau .................................. 9.4. Air pollution in Benxi City, Liaoning Province ........................... 9.5. Pollutants dumped into Dongting Lake, which has yet to be cleaned ............................................................................................... 9.6. Jian’ou Shanmu forest plantation in Fujian Province ............... 9.7. Xichang aerial-seeded forest in Sichuan Province ..................... 9.8. Man-made forest in the western hills of Beijing ........................ 9.9. Reforestation of former farmland in the loess plateau of Shaanxi Province .................................................................................. 9.10. The results of the Feng Shan Forest and Grasslands Nursery in Wuqi County, Shaanxi Province, three years later ................. 9.11.Natural forest protected by the Muling Forestry Bureau of Heilongjiang Province .......................................................................... 9.12. China’s first natural reserve: Dinghu Shan National Nature Reserve in Zhaoqing City, Guangdong Province ........................ 9.13. Ecological footprint and human development indicators ....... 9.14. Trends in the intensity of energy consumption ......................... 9.15. Changes in carbon dioxide emission trends ................................ 9.16. Changes in COD emission trends .................................................... 9.17. Map of the Green Wall System Plan .............................................. 9.18. Stabilized sand and planted trees in Da’an County, Jilin Province .......................................................................................... 9.19. An alfalfa seed base in Baicheng City, Jilin Province ................ 9.20. A section of grassland in the Horqin Desert that was able to grow due to natural enclosing ..................................................... 9.21. A network of windbreaks around farm plots ............................... 9.22. A double-layered shelterbelt forest around farm plots ............ 9.23. A soil-and-water-conservation forest in Fangshan County, Shanxi Province .....................................................................................

9 122 126 126 127 127 130 131 131 136 136 137 138 146 149 149 150 155 157 157 158 158 159 159

viii 9.24. . 9.25. . 9.26. .

list of figures and charts Water-and-soil-conservation forest along the Chernozem Belt of Heilongjiang Province ................................... 160 Dried-up Qingtu Lake in Minqin County, Gansu Province ................................................................................................... 162 Trees planted in Huan County, Gansu Province, in the 1950s are still stunted today ...................................................... 163 Charts

1.1. 1.2. . 1.3. . 1.4. 4.1. 9.1. 9.2. 9.3. 9.4.

A comparison of studies on the economic losses in China due to environmental problems ........................................................ 4 Recent quantities of waste water and Cod emissions in China ..................................................................................................... 11 Types of environmental protection policies often used currently by China ................................................................................. 13 The environmental EKC curve as derived from various studies ........................................................................................................ 17 Emissions cost in some major developing countries .................. 56 A few milestones in the environmental awakening .................... 132 Major international environmental treaties, conventions, and agreements ...................................................................................... 133 The socioeconomic development targets concerning population resources and the environment in the eleventh five-year plan ........................................................................................... 141 The population, economic, and environmental situation of China and fourteen countries ............................................................ 144

List of Contributors Fang Shinan is a professor at the School of Politics and Public Administration at Soochow University. His main research interests are environmental philosophy and ecological politics. Huang Jing is a researcher at the Administrative Center for China’s Twenty-First Century Agenda. Her main research interests are global environmental problems and policies on sustainable development. Li Ping is a graduate student at the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University. Liu Sihua is the director and professor at the Institute of Sustainable Economic Development at Zhongnan University of Economics and Law. He is also the deputy chairman of Chinese Society of Ecology and Economy. His main research interest is economic theory of sustainable development of ecology and economy. Liu Xiaoying is an associate professor at the Department of Political Theory, School of Political Science and Public Administration at Wuhan University. Her main research interests are Marxist philosophy and cultural studies. Pan Jiahua is the director and researcher at Research Center of Sustainable Development, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. His research interests include economics in sustainable development, economics in land and resource, world economy, and energy and climate policy. His major works include Economic Analysis of How to Achieve Sustainable Development (China Renmin University Press, 1996). Qian Jianxing is an associate professor at the Department of Social Science of Fudan University. His research interests include the world economy and politics, world’s environmental problems and the development of environmental campaign.

x

list of contributors

Ren Qing is a Ph.D. candidate at the College of Environmental Science and Engineering at Ocean University of China. Shen Guofang is a famous forester, forestry educator and the creator of Chinese modern silviculture. Wen Zongguo is an associate professor at the Department of Environmental Science and Engineering at Tsinghua University. His research interests include industrial policy and management on pollution control (including CO2 emission) and energy conservation. Xiao Wei is a professor at the Department of Social Science of Fudan University. His research interests include development of Marxist theory, socialist thought and movement, environmental issues and sociology of science. Xu Chun is an associate professor at the Department of Philosophy at Peking University. Her interests include classic works of Marxist philosophy, human theory, and environmental philosophy. Xun Qingzhi is a professor at School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University. Zhang Kunmin is the Chief Consultant at the Ministry of Environmental Protection of China and professor at Tsinghua University and Renmin University of China. His research interests include theory and practice in sustainable development, environmental policy and management. Zhang Weiping is a graduate student at the School of Politics and Public Administration at Soochow University.

Series Foreword Arif Dirlik This series of edited volumes is intended to make available to Englishlanguage readers debates among prominent Chinese intellectuals and academics over issues of globalization; political, constitutional, and legal reform; modes of governance in urban and rural China; development and ecology; and culture and cultural policy. A basic goal of the Issues in Contemporary Chinese Thought and Culture series is to convey a sense of the issues that are important to Chinese intellectuals and academics, which are often overshadowed in foreign reporting by what Americans and Europeans think should be important. What often follows is a consequent misreading of the Chinese political scene, which is more often than not driven by wishful thinking and tendentious distortion. These intellectuals and academics are, for the most part, committed to the socialist system and the regime that speaks in its name. These volumes seek to let some of the more politically influential intellectuals speak for themselves, with all their ideological inclinations and stylistic idiosyncrasies, which are no less significant as markers of difference than the ideologies themselves. The writers included in the various volumes are individuals whose views have drawn some attention in the formulation of party and government policy. The intellectuals who capture the imagination of European/American commentators usually are those who have achieved prominence for their opposition to the regime, their critical stance, or their free-floating intellectual and cultural activity. But there are also party and government intellectuals, as well as academics committed to the regime, who work to reform the regime from the inside. These “official” intellectuals, as we might describe them, are committed to the system within which they work, but they are not therefore political hacks or uncritical apologists. Their own works are on occasion subject to censure and censorship. And as these volumes should substantiate, they represent a wide range of political and ideological orientations in their approach to questions of systemic reform and transformation. One important thing they share in common, in addition to a shared commitment to the system, is access to information not easily available to outsiders, as well as an insider’s political sense of what is possible and desirable that is a product of their

xii

series foreword

participation in officially sanctioned political discourse. The discourse no doubt limits how far they can go in the imagination of reform. The selfimposed limitation is a condition of access to policy makers, an unfortunate characteristic of most political systems, including our systems in Western countries, but it also renders their ideas important because of their practical political implications. This series was conceived during the course of my conversations with Dr. Yu Keping, a prominent party intellectual, vice-director of the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau (a party think tank responsible for ideological work), and director of the China Center for Comparative Politics and Economics and the China Center for Government Innovations at Peking University. Keping and I have known each other for two decades, but it was when I was a visiting professor at the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau in the summer of 1986 that the idea took shape of publishing, simultaneously in Chinese and English, a set of volumes on policy discussions in China. Our discussion coincided with a new China orientation at Brill Publishers, whose editor, Albert Hoffstädt, responded with enthusiasm to our proposal and, since then, has given persistent support to the project. Matt Kawecki, who joined Brill as China editor as this project got under way, has been equally supportive. The greatest obstacle to any such undertaking is translation, and the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau helped out with that, although that, too, has presented technical problems that have led to the lagging of the English behind the Chinese publications. Mr. Yan Jian, assistant to Dr. Yu and presently a political science PhD student at People’s University in Beijing, has played an indispensable part in the processing of the volumes. Still, without the meticulous work of the freelance translators and editors hired by Brill, these volumes might not have seen the light of day. The translations have also been difficult because of the aforementioned stylistic idiosyncrasies I referred to (and some of these selections were more like conference presentations than finished papers). A number of these difficulties remain in the texts but hopefully help to convey a flavor of the originals, rather than obscure their meaning. 2007

chapter one

Contemporary Chinese Environmental Policy: Its Genesis, Characteristics, and Value Zhang Kunmin, Wen Zongguo, and Peng Liying China was among the earliest developing countries to implement a sustainable development strategy.1 China faces many prominent problems: a large population, few resources per person, rampant air and water pollution, soil degeneration, and ecological destruction. China also faces the pressure of economic growth while lacking sufficient resources to a degree unlike any other country. The scope and depth of environmental issues are even graver than most are able to imagine. After the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, even as a developing country with a per capita income under three hundred dollars, China developed policies to regulate pollution and protect the environment. In the thirty years since, all levels of the Chinese government have worked diligently on these issues. Although the Chinese government has certainly had success stories, it has been very difficult to control the growing devastation of the environment with China’s recent rapid economic growth. With the increasing globalization of the world and the upgrading of the global industrial structure, many major polluters around the world, such as the steel, chemical, and concrete industries, have been continually moving production into China, and then from China’s east coast, they have been moving into the interior of the country. Many people have begun to realize through experience that if we wish to fundamentally reverse the continued degradation of China’s environment, we must make a conscious effort to transform the mode of economic growth and unflinchingly work toward a sustainable development strategy. This chapter will generally describe the genesis of China’s environmental policies, their characteristics, and their evaluation in the global community.

1 Zhang Kunming, Guanyu Zhongguo kechixu fazhan de zhengce yu xingdong [Policies and actions on the sustainable development in China] (Beijing: Zhongguo Huangjing Kexue Press, 2004).

2

zhang kunmin, wen zongguo, and peng liying The Genesis of China’s Environmental Policies

The 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (in Stockholm, Sweden) pushed China to take its first steps in environmental protection. After the conference, China established environmental organizations in conjunction with industries with policies that regulated the “three wastes” (waste water, exhaust, and solid waste), and implemented environmental planning. The 1979 Environmental Protection Law (pilot) provided the main basis for the gradual improvement of China’s environmental laws and regulations. In 1987, China immediately translated the United Nations Our Shared Future report once it was released. In 1992, only two months after the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) had ended, the Chinese government released its Ten Major Countermeasures for the Environment and Development, which proposed ten major policy changes and declared the Chinese government’s intent to implement a strategy for sustainable development. In 1994, China was the first country in the world to hold the Agenda 21 Conference. In 1995, China affirmed that it would “begin two major fundamental shifts” (with regard to economic structure and the manner of economic growth) and begin to regulate the seriously polluted Huai River watershed. In 1996, as part of the Ninth Five-Year Plan, the government pushed forward two major national initiatives—“controlling production quantity” and “managing environmental projects”—in order to reign in spiraling environmental destruction.2 Since 1997, every three months the central government has held a basic domestic policy forum where members of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, the State Council, provincial and metropolitan governments, and government bureaus meet. Their discussions center on issues of population, resources, and the environment in order to clarify policies. This has already become systematized. In the thirty years since then, China has passed over 130 major environmental policies and actions. In the twenty-five years between 1981 and 2005, the State Council strengthened its efforts at environmental protection by pronouncing five Decisions—particularly rare for the departments of the State Council. From this we can see that Chinese environmental policies have focused on improving environmental administrative and management structures, as well as establishing environmental laws and regulations 2 Zhongguo huanjing baohu “Jiu Wu” jihua he 2010 nian yuanjing mubiao [The ninth five-year plan and the long-term 2010 goals on the environmental protection in China] (Zhongguo Huanjing Kexue Press, 2004).



contemporary chinese environmental policy

3

in order to strengthen environmental management. Since then, these policies have shown that there can be substantial coordination between them and that they can produce a win-win situation for both the environment and environmentalism. This is particularly the case for the State Council’s December 2005 announcement of the Interim Policy for Structural Adjustment to Promote Industry and the Decision Concerning the Improvement of Environmental Protection through the Implementation of Scientific Development. The latter proposed for the first time that certain regions be considered an “environmental priority” and maintained under an “environmental protection” status, with separate distinctions regarding “optimized development,” “limited development,” and “prohibited development.” This shows that China is committed to reversing an inclination of “heavy-handed economic development, and weak environmental protection” through structural adjustment to industries and the strengthening of environmental protection. It is through maintaining policies that are conservative, clean, and safe that real sustainable development can be attained. Environmental pollution and ecological destruction harm not only China’s economy, but the economy of every nation. Chart 1.1 lists some of the results for China. The World Bank pointed out that in 1995, China’s air pollution primarily accounted for 7.7 percent of losses in the country’s GDP. It recommended that China increase its investment in controlling pollution in order to lower the economic loss from pollution to about 2 percent of the GDP.3 Special Characteristics of China’s Environmental Policies During the early and maturing state of China’s efforts at environmentalism, environmental management was quite difficult. Consequently, China’s environmental policies are particularly keen on taking into account the experiences of developed countries. The following, however, describes the characteristics of China’s environmental policies that are unique to China’s particular circumstances. Reliance on Direct Orders as a Means of Control Public health hazards often happen because a polluting industry or other infrastructural project did not carefully perform an environmental impact study and take appropriate measures. Because of this, China has borrowed 3 World Bank, Clear Water, Blue Skies: China’s Environment in the New Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).

2.1 4.5

36.7 109.7 182 108.5 443 97.1 (billion USD) 511.8

1993

1993

1995 1999

2004

3.05

7.7 9.7

3.16

5.3

6.75

38.2

1983 1985 1990 1992

Research Losses from Environmental Point of Pollution Reference Billions Percentage (Year) CNY (Y) of GDP

236.1

49.8 104 95.3

Billions CNY (Y)

6.87

8.9 12.47 5.4

Percentage of GDP

Losses from Ecological Degradation

344.6

132.5

88.3

Billions CNY (Y)

10.03

7.5

15.6

Percentage of GDP

Total Losses from Environmental Problems

Sources: The data in the above chart was compiled from the following sources: Xu Songling, Zhongguo huanjing rohuai de jingji sunshi jiliang: Shili yu lilun yanjiu (Zhongguo Huanjing Kexue Press, 1998); Wang Jingnan, Yu Fang, and Cao Dong, “Zhongguo lüse guomin jingji hesuan yanjiu baogao 2004,” in Zhongguo renkou: Ziyuan yu huanjing, vol. 6 (2006); Fu-chen Lo and Yu-qing Xing, China’s Sustainable Development (Tokyo: United Nations University, the Institute of Advanced Studies, 1999); Jeremy J. Warford and Li Yining, eds., Economics of the Environment in China, a publication of the CCICED, USA (Aileen International Press, 2002).

Guo Xiaomin and Zhang Huilei Jin Jianming, et al. East-West Center (US) National Environmental Protection Bureau Policy Research Center United Nations University and Chinese Collaborators Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Environment and Development Research Center World Bank Chinese Committee for International Cooperation on Environment and Development The National Environmental Protection Bureau and National Statistics Bureau

Source of Data (Institutions or Researchers)

Chart 1.1. A comparison of studies on the economic losses in China due to environmental problems.

4 zhang kunmin, wen zongguo, and peng liying



contemporary chinese environmental policy

5

from foreign environmental impact report systems and created its own “three simultaneous” reports system, which was incorporated into the 1979 Environmental Protection Law (pilot) in order to prevent the creation of new sources of pollution. Its experience has shown that it has been very effective for many industries, but it has not been very useful in controlling heavy industries that hide behind “fronts” and some township industries that take a “I ain’t afraid of nothin’” attitude. As a result, there has been little choice but to add yet another level to the environmental pollution regulation and approval system, the deadline management system, the general control system, as well as what the media has dubbed the “environmental storm.” At the same time, in order to reinforce the power of the environmental enforcement structure and the possibility of integrated participation in the decision-making process, environmental institutions have been continually adding more and more layers—partly to increase its strength and partly to avoid the inappropriate interference of local governments—into a system that looks something like the parallel systems of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s ten regional offices and the environmental agencies of all fifty US states. Efforts to Mobilize Funding for Environmental Protection China has been working at environmental protection for over thirty years, but for a substantial period of time, there was no specialized mechanism to fund the regulation of environmental pollution in either central or local financial institutions. Subsequently, China has adopted an international system of pollution fines based on the principle “polluters pay.” Initially, approximately 80 percent of the accumulated funds collected from these pollution fines were returned to the original company that paid the fine as an investment in pollution control. Later this would change into a “Pollution Control Special Fund” from which companies could borrow capital as a compensation benefits with the view of effectively mitigating pollution and appropriate repayment relief. The remaining 20 percent of the funds are used for building up the capacity of local environmental protection agencies as is stipulated in regulations. It should be said that, at a time when funds were highly scarce, this was able to solve many urgent pollution problems. However, due to the low cost of breaking the law for violators and the high cost of complying with the law, some polluting industries prefer to do nothing about pollution and just pay the fines, making it quite difficult for these pollution fees to actually achieve their original goals. In 2006, environmental protection expenditures were

6

zhang kunmin, wen zongguo, and peng liying

formally listed as part of the national budget. As for issues concerning the collection of fines for improper waste disposal and for the pollution of urban drinking water, only after a ten-year debate that began in 1990 was any law put into effect, and to this day there is still no complete consensus on an “environmental tax.” Many other problems, such as the excessively low standard for pollution fines and how to effectively employ economic means, have yet to be resolved and await further progress. A Focus on Clarifying Who Has the Responsibility to Protect the Environment As the environmental administrator and regulator, the environmental protection bureaus at every level will be ineffective at unifying regulations and managing the environment if they do not act in accordance with the law and if they do not take responsibility for inefficiencies in regulating and managing a unified environmental policy. Article 16 of the Environmental Protection Law states, “The People’s Government of every locality bears responsibility for the quality of the environment in their jurisdiction, and should take measures to improve environmental quality.” Here, the responsibilities are clearly delineated by the law. In the 1992 Ten Major Countermeasures for the Environment and Development, the responsibilities of each level of government in respect to environmental protection were further clarified. The Environmental Protection Goals Responsibility System, the Urban Environment Comprehensive Improvement Assessment, and other systems in the Five New Articles policy, as well as recent research and pilot programs on “green GDP,” clarify and urge each level of government to earnestly accept responsibility based on the regulations of environmental laws and the experience of international society. Encouragement of “Combined Prevention and Regulation” and “Integrated Usage” The environmental policies of China have inherited historically simple ecological principles and an ideology of sustainable resource usage. At the first national environmental protection conference in 1973, they stated as their ideal that environmental protection would be “completely planed, rationally arranged, and comprehensively used to change what is harmful to our benefit by relying on the masses with everyone pitching in to protect the environment and enrich the people.” In reality, a well-



contemporary chinese environmental policy

7

planned arrangement, the implementing of an environmental assessment, the “three simultaneous” reports and “pollution permit” systems are all essential “source controls” and are not passive means by which to “end the need for control.” The so-called integrated usage of the 1970s is very closely related to today’s circular economics and societies focused on resource conservation. China’s environmental policies are reflected in the positive push for ecological agriculture, renewable resources, clean industrial processing, and circular economics. The succession of the Ten Major Countermeasures for the Environment and Development, the Resource Conservation Law, the Clean Production Promotion Law, and the Renewable Resource Law, as well as the pilot programs for ecological agriculture and industrial parks, green GDP, and circular economics, are all evidence of this. Early Experience Opening to the Outside and International Cooperation The Chinese delegation at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment brought back with it a vast amount of information and resources on the international environmentalism wave. Among the things brought back was Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet, along with ten other books, which were immediately translated and distributed nationally. Examples of public hazards and environmental policies discussed in these books particularly got the attention of the State Council. Although it was not until 1979 that the Chinese government began to walk the road of capitalist reform and liberalization, we could say that China began to reform its approach toward the environment in 1972. Since then, China has sent many delegations to the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and other organizations, and many exchanges with Europeans, Americans, and Japanese have taught us about their experiences and environmental policies, raising the interest of many Chinese. It was at that time that important concepts such as pollution fines and environmental impact reports were included in China’s approaches. Since 1979, exchanges on the environment have become more vibrant. China has actively participated in the World Commission on Environment and Development and gave impetus to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. On this foundation, China quickly gave rise to the Ten Major Countermeasures for the Environment and Development and Agenda 21. The China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED) was established in 1992 to act

8

zhang kunmin, wen zongguo, and peng liying

as an international senior advisory organization to the State Council. Its primary purpose is to provide the Chinese government with proposals for comprehensive solutions for the environment and development, as well as to improve international cooperation and dialogue. China cooperates with many national governments, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations on issues of the environment. The Evolution of Chinese Environmental Policies In recent years, Chinese environmental policies have undergone five major changes.4 From a Basic National Policy to a Sustainable Development Strategy In 1983, the State Council announced that environmental protection was counted as being among the two most basic national policies, emphasizing that the environment, just as China’s population problem, was among its most urgent problems. Nine years later, the Ten Major Countermeasures for the Environment and Development was ratified to implement a sustainable development strategy. In 1994, Agenda 21 was released, leading to every agency and local government releasing their own Agenda 21, which implemented various plans, regulations, policies, publicity, and public participation schemes. In 1996, the Ninth Five-Year Plan listed sustainable development along with technology and science education among its two main strategies. From the national to the local stage, sustainable development is understood as the main goal for development planning, which requires every bureau and local government to consider the environment and development together when directing projects. From Controlling Heavy Pollution Centers to Controlling Pollution and Ecological Protection Together In the 1970s, China’s environmental protection efforts began with controlling the “three wastes” (waste water, exhaust, and solid waste) of polluting industries; throughout the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, the emphasis remained on controlling pollution. Recently, China’s investment 4 Qu Geping, “Jianzheng Zhongguo huanjing yu fazhan de juda bianhua,” in Zhongguo Huanjing yu FazhanGguoji Hezuo Weiyuanhui diwuci huiyi wenjian huibian (Beijing: Huawen Press, 2002).

contemporary chinese environmental policy

9

����

Investment in Environmental Pollution Controls

�.� �.�

����

Investment in Environmental Pollution Controls as a Percentage of GDP of the Same Year

�.� �.�

����

�.� ����

�.� �.�

��� �

Percentage

Hundreds of Million Yuan



�.� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

�.�

Year

Source: China Environment Statistics Newsletter [Zhongguo huanjing tongji gongbao], 1992–2005.

Figure 1.1. Shifts in Chinese investment in environmental pollution controls.

in preventing and regulating pollution has continued to expand. Under the Ninth Five-Year Plan (1996–2000), investment in environmental protection accounted for CNY 346 billion, or 0.93 percent of China’s GDP. In 2000, total investment reached CNY 106 billion, which was 1.1 percent of China’s GDP that year. Between 1996 and 2004, investment in environmental pollution control reached CNY 952.3 billion, which was over 1 percent of the GDP during that same period. In 2004, investment in environmental pollution control expanded by 17.3 percent compared to the previous year, making it a total investment of CNY 190.9 billion, or 1.4 percent of the GDP—the highest level ever reached in history. After the great flooding of the Yangtze River in 1998, the national government approved a slew of new policies to protect the natural ecology of the country. For example, a moratorium was announced on all logging of natural forests along the upper and middle reaches of the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers; the restoration of the ecology was made an integral part of the development of China’s western regions; and policies were enacted to “abandon cultivation expansion in favor of forest (and grasslands) and close mountains to allow flora to grow by hiring the people as personal caretakers.” This symbolizes a major historical shift in China’s environmental policies. In 2005, the total area of China’s forests reached

10

zhang kunmin, wen zongguo, and peng liying

432 million acres, which is forest coverage of 18.21 percent, or a forest stock volume of 4.3 trillion ft3. Up until the end of 2005, there were 2,349 natural preserves of various types and levels across the nation. Altogether they made up 15 percent of China’s territory. Currently there are over 528 established ecological pilot model regions and work units, among which 233 have been named national-level ecological models. From Treating Pollution to Controlling the Source In the 1990s, China’s prevention and control of industrial pollution shifted from treating pollution to controlling the entire process, from a focus on purely concentrated efforts to a combination of concentrated and comprehensive control, and from dispersed regulation to both dispersed and centralized regulation. Efforts to clean up the various industries began with limited resources, heavy pollution, technologically backward industrial development, and a reliance on loans from the World Bank. During the Ninth Five-Year Plan, over 80,000 small companies that polluted heavily were shut down as part of the economic structural adjustments. Of the 230,000 companies across the country that were responsible for pollution of various degrees, over 90 percent were able to meet emissions standards by the end of 2000. They were able to mitigate the destruction of resources and reduce environmental pollution from the source. At the same time, they were able to support the development of high-tech and tertiary industries encouraging informational technology in the economy and society. Since 1995, industries across the country have continued to reduce wastewater and industrial Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) measurements while industrial output has maintained a rapid pace of growth (see Chart 1.2). From Site Management to Watershed and Regional Management In the past, China operated on a policy in which polluting industries were responsible for dealing with their pollution, which focused on site control and concentrated control. The 1996 Ninth Five Year Planning Period Main National Plan for Controlling the Quantity of Pollutants sought to control the quantity of twelve common varieties of pollutants. Previously, in order to make up for the lack of data on the quantity of pollutants from village enterprises, the government instituted the 1995 National Village Enterprises Pollution Survey. Under the Ninth Five-Year Plan, the government took a generally stronger stance against pollution while developing a large-scale foundational infrastructure for the environment.



contemporary chinese environmental policy

11

Chart 1.2. Recent quantities of waste water and Cod emissions in China. Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Waste Water (Billion Tons)

COD Emissions (Billion Tons)

Living

Industry

Total

13.4

28.2 20.6 22.7 20.1 19.7 19.4 20.3 20.7 21.2 22.1 24.3

41.5

61

162.3

223.3

41.6 39.5 40.1 41.5 43.3 44 45.9 48.2 52.5

68.4 69.5 69.7 74.1 79.7 78.3 82.1 83 85.9

107.3 80.1 69.2 70.5 60.8 58.4 51.2 51 55.5

175.7 149.6 138.9 144.5 140.5 136.7 133.4 133.9 141.4

18.9 19.5 20.4 22.1 23 23.2 24.7 26 28

Living

Industry

Total

Source: Compiled from the annual Zhongguo huanjing tongji gongbao and Zhongguo tongji nianji.

Between 1996 and 2005, China outlined the Cross Century Green Project Plan, which concentrated on the “three rivers,” “three lakes,” “two regions” (regions affected by sulfur dioxide pollution and acid rain), “one city” (Beijing), “one sea” (the Bohai Sea), as well as the Three Gorges Dam region and its upper reaches, and the South-North Water Transfer Project. Priority was given to the Yellow and Songhua Rivers in 2006. Multiple approaches were taken to get funds (which were acquired from the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Japanese Bank for International Cooperation, government loans from several European countries, the Bank of Taiwan, and various domestic sources) for these focused projects for various specified watersheds and regions with the intent to comprehensively implement expanded regulation and control, including the following aspects: implementing quantity-control policies, pollution-fining policies, and policies directed toward “replacing coal with natural gas and electricity” as the main sources of energy; encouraging industries to meet pollution standards; rapidly building the foundational environmental infrastructure for China’s expanding cities; and diligently working toward improving the deteriorating ecology of the specified regions. From Rule by Edict to Rule of Law and Economic Means Since the 1990s, the construction of China’s environmental legal system has been significantly bolstered. As of today, the government has passed

12

zhang kunmin, wen zongguo, and peng liying

the Environmental Protection Law, Water Pollution Prevention and Management Law, and nine other environmental legal codes along with the Forest Law, Water Law, and fifteen other major legislations on resources. Revisions to the Penal Code also include stipulations for “crimes that destroy the environment and resource protection.” The State Council also announced the Safe Management of Hazardous Chemicals Act along with fifty other administrative laws and regulations. The Environmental Protection Bureau has nearly two hundred regulations and specifications, over five hundred national environmental standards, and fifty-one approved and signed multinational environmental treaties. Every province, district, and municipal government has issued over 1,600 local environmental regulations. All of these laws and regulations make up China’s environmental legal system, but it still needs further improvement. In 2005, over ninety thousand projects were completed and put into operation nationwide— a real completion rate of 96.2 percent for projects that went through the “Three Simultaneous Reports.” The government also collected pollution fines from over 746,000 companies and organizations, totaling CNY 12.3 billion.5 According to the principle that “polluters must pay, users must reimburse, developers must maintain, and violators must restore,” the State Council and its subordinate agencies established and enhanced economic policies that benefited the environment in terms of foundational infrastructure, broad usage, finances, taxes, credit, and attracting foreign investment with the aim of encouraging market incentives. The central government provided policy and financial support toward watershed environmental regulation. For instance, the central government subsidized one-sixth of the construction cost of water treatment plants and waste disposal sites in the eastern part of the country; in the center of the country, the government provided a 30 percent subsidy; and in the west (e.g., in the Three Gorges Dam region), the government provided a 70 percent subsidy. Moreover, the government is gradually raising pollution fine standards and researching the feasibility of an environmental tax. In Chart 1.3, we see many of the environmental policy standards that China currently employs.

5 National Statistics Bureau and National Environmental Protection Bureau, Zhongguo huanjing tongji nianjian 2006 (Beijing: Zhongguo Tongji Press, 2006).

Ecological Agriculture

Eco-Industrial Parks

Emissions License System

Environmental Protection NGOs Model Environmental Cities, Environmentally Beautiful Towns, and Environmentally Friendly Businesses Green GDP Pilot Program

Centralized Pollution Controls Ecological Compensation Pilot Projects

Urban Environmental Regula-   tion, Quota, and Inspection Systems

Administrative supervision on Environment

Subsidies for Energy Star Products

Ecological Model Regions (Counties, Municipalities, Provinces)

Temporary Regulatory Systems Carbon Dioxide Emissions Trading

Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Trading

“Three Simultaneous” Report System

Environmental Quality Labels on Packaging ISO 14000 Environmental Management System Clean Production Methods

Fines on Pollution

Controls on the Concentration of Pollution Emission

Voluntary Action

Controls on the Total Penalties for Violating Quantity of Pollution Emission Standards Environmental Impact Report Fine for Emitting Sulfur Dioxide

Market Economy

Mandate/Regulation

Chinese Environmental Protection Century Project (Overseen by Public Discourse and Media)

Improving Environmental Education at Every School

Environmental Impact Evaluations Available for Public Hearings

Publicizing the Environmental Score of Businesses

Publicizing Environmental Air Quality Index Data

Environmental Statistics Available to the Public Water Quality in Major Bodies of Water Available to the Public

Environmental Reports Available to the Public

Public Participation

Chart 1.3. Types of environmental protection policies often used currently by China.

contemporary chinese environmental policy 13

14

zhang kunmin, wen zongguo, and peng liying The International Community’s Discussion of China’s Environmental Policies

The World Bank In the World Bank’s 1997 publication Clear Water, Blue Skies: China’s Environment in the New Century, China’s “quantity control” and “green projects” were highly praised. The report states the following: Many nations have only made vague promises about their duties to protect the environment, but China has established a set of clear and doable goals. The 2005 World Bank report China: Country Assistance Assessment claimed: China faces very serious environmental issues, and because it is such a large country, these issues (such as the emission of greenhouse gases) are global problems. The Chinese government has increasingly attached importance to environmental issues since the 1990s. Many influential reports from abroad and domestic incidents have raised the environmental awareness of many Chinese. In the highly industrialized North China Plain, a major epidemic broke out in 1994 among many residents who drank water from the Huai River. This proved to be a major environmental turning point for the Chinese government, and resulted in the closure of 75,000 heavy polluting industries in villages. The major floods of 1997 and 1998 led to a blanket ban on logging in sensitive regions. The Chinese government has also utilized more lighthanded measures including a more open environmental reporting system, price incentives system, and, moreover, has placed sustainable development as guiding principle of its Tenth Five Year Plan. . . . China has made progress in reversing and containing environmental degradation because of these policy shifts, but the problem remains severe, and future developments remain uncertain. In terms of the consumption of non-renewable resources per unit of GDP, China remains among the major economies of the world the least efficient (as of 2001, it consumes about 3.3 times more than the United States, and is 40% higher than India), but between 1995 and 2005, China saw a 30% improvement in energy consumption per unit. In the late 1990s, China began to see a major reduction in industrial pollution despite the continued expansion of industrial production. In the 1990s China also saw an expansion of the area of forested lands although there has been a decrease in biodiversity. China has also managed to control the halting flow of the Yellow River on the Loess Plateau, which benefits not only the lives of the people that live there, but also improves the water quality of the entire Yellow River and affects the periodic sandstorms in Beijing. Recently, China has greatly contributed to the global environment by substantially reducing the usage of ozone depleting substances.



contemporary chinese environmental policy

15

The United Nations Development Programme The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) completely analyzed China’s macroenvironmental background, circumstances, social interactions, challenges, and future choices in the 2002 China Human Development Report,6 the 2004 Chinese National Assessment Report,7 and the National Project Outline of China (2006–2010). These reports sharply point out that the strategy of getting rich quickly and cleaning up later is particularly unpractical for China. China’s environment, due to its unprecedented economic growth, faces a massive challenge equal to China’s issues surrounding social development. Traditional methods are not enough to overcome this challenge; more innovative and systematic methods are required to ensure environmental security and resource sustainability. What should be particularly emphasized is the need for (1) systematic methods for treating soil erosion; (2) the incorporation of biodiversity into mainstream development considerations; (3) an improvement in the efficiency of water usage and the assurance of safe drinking water; (4) an improvement in the efficiency of resource usage and the use of renewable resources; (5) a strengthening of environmental management; (6) an improvement in the waste disposal and sanitation infrastructure; and (7) the strengthening of disaster prevention and response capabilities. The urgent challenges that China faces are in how it can grapple with balancing its need for economic growth and its need for protecting the environment. Its greatest challenge is to strengthen environmental management while promoting the growth of green industries, which requires an improvement in bureaucratic cooperation, full planning, and effective oversight. Japan The Japan Environmental Council, a Japanese nongovernmental organization, published the Asian Environmental White Book, which contains three exhaustive volumes that evaluate China’s environmental issues and policies. In the first chapter, it explores unique characteristics in China’s environment, which it abbreviates into five short points:8 6 SEI/UNDP, China Human Development Report 2002: Making Green Development a Choice (Beijing: China Finance and Economy Publishing, 2002). 7 UN Country Team China, Common Country Assessment 2004: Balancing Development to Achieve an All-Round Xiaokang and Harmonious Society in China (2004). 8 Japanese Environmental Conference, Yazhou huanjing qingkuang baogao [Report on the environment in Asia], vol. 1 (Beijing: Zhongguo Huanjing Press, 2005).

16

zhang kunmin, wen zongguo, and peng liying

1) China’s environmental problems are not a future problem, but are a crisis currently unfolding; 2) China’s natural environment is particularly detrimental to China; 3) millennia of cultural development, imperialist invasion, civil war, and government failures have had a massive impact upon China’s land; 4) historical circumstances have led to a focus on heavy industry and coal consumption, which has led to a heavy burden on the environment and has experienced no fundamental change since China’s liberalization; 5) at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, both China’s cities and rural hinterland will continually become more consumerist oriented and wasteful. . . . As China’s economy develops, will sustainable development become a casualty? The authors of this publication do not think these criticisms are excessive. Kazuki Taketoshi, an economics professor at St. Andrews University, researched China’s environmental Kuznets curve (EKC).9 He used data from the China Statistical Yearbooks and China Environmental Statistical Yearbooks between 1993 and 2002 to predict mainland China’s EKC model in twenty-nine provinces, cities, and districts (though no data was provided for Tibet and Chongqing). From this calculation, he was able to show the inflection in the curve for COD, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and soot corresponding to per capita GDP. For the results of his study, see Chart 1.4. From current research, we can see that the inflection point of China’s EKC curve will perhaps be less than what many developed countries previously experienced, but protecting the environment must remain a priority. The United States Elizabeth C. Economy, director of Asia Studies at the US Council on Foreign Relations, published a book on China’s environment entitled The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future.10 The book begins with the dead waters of the Huai River and moves on to the history of Chinese civilization and the destruction of the environment, the cost of China’s explosive economic growth, China’s response, new political science on the environment (the use of nongovernmental organizations), environmental problems of the international community

9 Kazuki Taketoshi, China’s Environment Policies: Regulations and Solutions (Chugoku no kankyō seisaku: Seido atae taisaku) (Tokyo: Koyo Shobo, 2005), 142–156. 10 Elizabeth C. Economy, The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004).

1141

1603

7130

5075

622

USD GDP per capita 2000 value

2766

yuan GDP per capita 1990 value

5431

7630

2960

USD PPP per capita     Approx. 4000  

 

USD PPP per capita

Shafik 1994

 

6151

4053

7583

USD GDP per capita

Grossman & Krueger 1995

Source: Data according to Taketoshi Kazuki, Zhongguo huanjing zhengce: zhidu yu duice, 142–156.

Particulate Matter per capita

SO2 Per capita

COD per capita

Study

Taketoshi Kazuki 2005 Chinese Case Study

 

 

8916

 

USD GDP per capita  

 

8747

 

USD GDP per capita

Selden & Matsue, Matsumoto, and Song Kawachi 1994 1998 Japanese Case Study

Chart 1.4. The environmental EKC curve as derived from various studies.

contemporary chinese environmental policy 17

18

zhang kunmin, wen zongguo, and peng liying

and China, foreign experience and lessons, and the prevention of environmental disasters. She concludes with three vignettes of China’s potential future (will it be an environmentally beautiful China, will China remain inert and continue on its worsening path, or will China’s environment completely collapse?) as well as a discussion on how the United States can assist. The author researched historical and contemporary literature on the Chinese environment, interviewed many movers and shakers, and raised the alarm for China’s environmental problems as well as China’s future. In addition to this, China received a 56.2 according to the Yale and Columbia Universities’ recently released 2006 Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which ranks China as ninety-fourth among 133 countries. The EPI system is measured by calculating sixteen standards among six categories of government policies (environmental health, air quality, water resources, biodiversity and habitat preservation, productive natural resources, and sustainable energy policies). Among Asian countries, China is in the middle. The EPI reflects that in some environmental issues, China is making progress, such as in conserving biodiversity and productive natural resources; however, it also reveals that China needs to commit more of its efforts to air quality, water resources, and sustainable energy policies. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development In November 2006, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) completed its environmental efficiency assessment on China and proposed fifty-one suggestions for change. The OECD pointed out that China experiences an annual growth rate of about 10.1 percent, making it the fourth largest economy in the world; however, despite this, poverty in rural China remains a serious problem. China currently looks toward ideas of “a harmonious society” and “scientific development” to determine national economic and social development planning and its modern environmental legal system, as well as to strengthening environmental structures and the management of the environment and natural resources. The OECD believes that contemporary China needs to, first, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of implementing environmental policies and, second, raise awareness of environmental issues as a part of a comprehensive economic understanding. In discussing the discrepancy of the implementation of environmental policies, the OECD suggests that China should continue to encourage local



contemporary chinese environmental policy

19

leadership to take responsibility for environmental protection, raise the national Environmental Protection Bureau to the level of a full ministry (an organ of the State Council), expand the role of market mechanisms, and increase and diversify funding for environmental protection. Concerning the incorporation of environmental considerations in economic and social decision making, the OECD proposes that the real value of natural resources should be estimated and, moreover, reforms to environmental taxes should be considered; attention to the environment should be paid when incorporating systems into economic policies; environmental democratic participation should be strengthened; quality environmental services should be provided to the poor and rural residents; and the effects of environmental degradation on health should be monitored. To improve international environmental cooperation, the OECD believes that a coherent national plan for climate change should be established; the elimination of substances that degrade the ozone layer should continue; the government should improve its monitoring of Chinese companies operating abroad; regional environmental issues, such as acid rain, should be given importance; and funding for the environment should be increased. The Future of China’s Environmental Policies From the reports and publications of the World Bank, the UNDP, Japan, the United States, and the OECD, we can clearly see the concern about China’s environmental problems. The continued occurrence of environmental disasters like those on the Songhua, Bei, and Mudan Rivers deepens the anxiety held by the public and much of the world. However, as the old Chinese proverb says, “When reaching an extreme, one can only turn back”—particularly when facing a challenge. People will not allow things to develop to a point where they cannot be restored. In the evolution of China’s environmental and developmental policies over recent years, we can already see that China has been continually pushing for the protection of the environment, which provides a blueprint full of hope, such as in the State Council’s December 2005 Decision Concerning the Improvement of Environmental Protection through the Implementation of Scientific Development (hereafter referred to as the Decision). This is different from the previous four attempts at outlining policy to improve environmental protection, and even different from the 1992 Ten

20

zhang kunmin, wen zongguo, and peng liying

Major Countermeasures for the Environment and Development. The Decision is much longer, with over 9,600 words; there are thirty-two articles with much broader implications to the environment; and, moreover, it has concrete stipulations with very stringent requirements. The Decision clarifies that “the Environmental Protection Bureau is in charge of overseeing and inspecting other bureaus to see that this decision is thoroughly implemented, and shall report annually to the State Council”—that is to say, the Environmental Protection Bureau can draw upon the strength of the national administration to ensure the implementation of the Decision. The most attractive points of the Decision are the following: (1) It recognizes that environmental trends will continue to get worse, the population will continue to grow over the next fifteen years, the economy will quadruple, and energy and resource consumption will grow, which all mean that environmental protection will face greater pressures. The environment must be given greater priority as a national strategy through scientific development theory, which requires that painful decisions be made for the sake of the environment. (2) The Decision also emphasizes that “environmental issues must be solved while in the middle of development.” We must actively support the readjustment of the economic structure and fundamental changes to our economic growth models. The idea of “pollute now and deal with it later; regulate here and there while tolerating some [environmental] destruction” must be changed. (3) It seeks to conclusively solve the seven biggest environmental problems, giving particular priority to drinking water safety and the cleanliness of major watersheds. (4) The Decision seeks to improve environmental laws and regulations and increase the penalty for breaking these laws by evaluating legislation and regional enforcement. Of particularly paramount importance is the need to rectify the fact that violating the various environmental laws costs less than adhering to them. (5) It attempts to use market mechanics to regulate pollution by establishing policies on pricing, taxation, credit, trade, land usage, and government acquisitions that are beneficial to the environment. (6) The Decision strives to improve ecological compensation policies and quickly establish an ecological compensation mechanism. Central and local financial transactions should consider various factors in ecological compensation and start experiments in developing national and local ecological compensation. (7) It also promotes regional economic and environmental developmental adjustments toward circular economics. (8) Lastly, the Decision attempts to strengthen the foundation of environmental technologies by prioritizing environmental technology research projects as a part of national technology planning,



contemporary chinese environmental policy

21

and, moreover, it makes the environment and health critical new parts of its national planning direction. Among the major socioeconomic development goals of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan (2006–2010) is the expectation that the GDP will continue to rise at an average rate of 7.5 percent over the next five years. This goal is prominently placed in the planning structure based on the idea that it will be achieved by raising efficiency and lowering the foundation of consumption. The next goal is to decrease energy consumption as a proportion of the GDP by about 20 percent and decrease the emission of pollution by 10 percent. This, despite the increased pressure on environmental resources, clearly delineates the direction that national policy is going. It shows that China is determined to move toward goals of sustainable development in environmental and developmental policies.

chapter two

Government Actions in Environmental Regulation Xiao Wei and Qian Jianxing Issues of “regulating” often pique the attention of most people, particularly since it emphasizes social participation in public management, and regulating the environment is no exception. Currently, governments around the world are expanding their functions to manage society and provide services. Among them has been the regulation of the environment as a public good for the benefit of society. These matters, of course, were not a part of the authority of governments by default, but are the consequence of worsening environmental conditions, increased public awareness of environmental issues, and coalescing grassroots conservation movements that have forced governments to act. As a public good, the environment, from a supply perspective, can basically be divided into two categories. There is the natural environment, which includes everything from rivers, mountains, and seas to the atmosphere. Since it is difficult to demarcate clear lines of ownership over the environment, it is considered a public good available for all to use. There is also the public environmental infrastructure (the “hardware,” such as manmade protective forest lines) and environmental policies (the “software,” such as water pricing systems) that are created by social actors (chiefly governments). From a consumption perspective, the environment—when seen as a public good—has collective consumerist properties. There are some public goods, such as the air, where public consumption will never fall into disuse; however, there are some public goods, such as the consumption of freshwater, where after a certain limit, they will exceed necessary usefulness. The latter has often been referred to as (environmental) “quasi-public goods” or “crowded goods.” Within certain limitations, the consumption of these goods is much like any other purely public good. Individual consumption will not lessen the consumption of others. Were one to exceed this limitation, then it may lessen the supply available to other consumers, resulting in inefficiencies in the environment. Many environmental problems can be counted as deriving from similar issues.

24

xiao wei and qian jianxing

In a market model that encourages consumerism, it seems unavoidable that the use (or consumption) of environmental quasi-public goods would exceed the limitations that are provided (supplied) by the environment. If we cannot effectively use scarce resources, then environmental resources will be inefficiently utilized in a market economy. This inefficiency primarily derives from negative external factors (or external inefficiencies or uneconomic externalities): “When the by-products of production or consumption are not included in the market, then external economic forces will occur.”1 Externally produced inefficiencies do not reflect social and future costs in terms of the actual cost to the individual. That is to say that the market price of products is unable to truly reflect the marginal cost of environmental resources—and this is where markets fail. “Economic activities generally will lead to external influences that supersede the determined primary activities of the economy, and this will produce social cost that will not be completely reflected in individual cost (including environmental cost).”2 The failures of markets distort the actual value of the public environmental goods, which is strongly felt by people as shortages in environmental resources and the so-called revenge of nature. In reality, it is a lagged response from market failures. In light of this, the nascent environmental movements have sought the participation of governments to rectify market failures. In 1962, the American marine biologist Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, igniting a debate in American society over environmental issues. In the United States, this resulted in investigations into the use of chemical pesticides and oversight of agricultural pesticides and fertilizers. Not long thereafter, western European countries followed suit, and the grassroots environmental movement began to take shape in nongovernmental environmental research and social organizations like the Club of Rome (1968) and Greenpeace (1971). These institutions used a variety of methods to pressure governments to take action. In the eyes of the public, environmental issues were no longer matters of little consequence. The public was in general agreement that protecting the environment was for the benefit of all and harshly criticized corporations that pursued profit at the expense of the environment as well as governments that seemed to be unresponsive to such issues. In 1969, after a lot of armtwisting, the US government passed the National Environmental Policy 1 Paul A. Samuelson and William D. Nordhaus, Economics [Chinese translation] Zhongguo Fazhan Press, 1992), 1136. 2 OECD, Huanjing guanli zhong de jingji shouduan [Economic methods in the environmental regulations] (Beijing: Zhongguo Huanjing Kexue Press, 1996), 23.



government actions in environmental regulation

25

Act, and established a responsive environmental regulatory system. Since then, the social foundations that have paid attention to environmental interests have expanded, and the government has made the environment a high priority in its agenda. For developing countries imitating or relying upon Western “modernization (industrialization),” there is a new environmental problem: the intersection of poverty, population, and pollution. This has made them the main region and bearers of global environmental problems today. Compared to developed nations, the people of developing nations have few demands of their environment and have a much lower awareness of environmental issues. Social activists are also significantly weaker, and the active regulation of the environment by governments is even more necessary. Within any given country, environmental problems prove to be transregional issues. For example, a place upstream can deplete the water supply of a place downstream, or the waste dumped into the water upstream can pollute the water downstream. Control of water resources is clearly not just a problem for one government to handle alone; it requires a higher level of government authority to implement transregional regulation and management. Consequently, governments at every level not only have to play the role of protector of the local environment, manage the use and development of local environmental resources, and regulate the relationship of every environmental resource, but they must also comply with macroenvironmental policies at the next level of governmental authority and cooperate on environmental issues. In the international arena, many environmental problems are transnational, such as global climate change, ozone depletion, cross-border pollution, and endangered species, which all threaten the future of the human race and force the nations of the world to act together in implementing regulations. These regulations, however, can only be accomplished through the commitments and policies of every individual government. If one government just wants to maintain the interest of its own country, there may be no agreements made for global improvement, or promises may be made but not kept. In the end, this severely handicaps the advancement of international cooperation on the environment. The most salient example is the refusal of the United States to this day to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which would have significantly reined in the production of greenhouse gases. Whether it is on an international or domestic scale, governments must maintain the benefits of the environment for the people. In fact, the international community considers environmental rights to be among the most

26

xiao wei and qian jianxing

important of the third generation of human rights:3 “Humanity has the right to live in an environment of sufficient respect and dignity, to enjoy freedom, equality, and basic conditions sufficient to live, and, moreover, bear the responsibility to protect and improve the environment of current and future generations to come. . . . The local and national governments have the greatest responsibility in creating large scale environmental policies and actions within their respective jurisdictions.”4 The Agenda 21 plan passed by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992) was a symbolic step in turning sustainable development from theory into practice. China was also among the earliest respondents to Agenda 21 and quickly adopted a national strategy for sustainable development. Just as with the right to development, environmental rights are rights shared by all, and their fulfillment can lead to an awareness of “the rights of solidarity” on a national and international scale. In many ways, they require the support and protection of nations (governments): “We do not say this is important because it symbolizes a fundamental departure from past policies or because the government should fundamentally change its future policies, but because this embodies the demands of the people that the government should formally solve the surmounting crisis to the environment.”5 These ideas certainly represent a new step in the environmental movement and demand that governments take proactive measures. Unlike the methods of ruling (tongzhi) used by governments, the power to govern (zhili) does not solely reside in the strength of the government. Society also has the right to participate in managing public issues; the scope of governing is not limited as an object of rule and has the potential for more space. So-called good governance seeks to socialize the management of

3 The first generation of human rights includes the rights of citizens and political rights; the second generation of human rights encompasses economic, social, and cultural rights; the third generation of human rights is represented by the right of development, which includes the rights to national self-determination, peace, security, environment, and disposal of natural wealth and resources, as well as the right to humanitarian assistance. They bring together the unique properties of all human rights. 4 Wan Yicheng et al., Xin wenming de lubiao: Renlei lüse yundong shi shang de jingdian wenxian [The landmark of new civilization: Classic literature in the history of the green movement] (Changchun: Jilin Renmin Press, 2000), 3. 5 David Reed, ed., Structural Adjustment, the Environment, and Sustainable Development [Chinese translation] (Zhongguo Huanjing Kexue Press, 1998), 27.



government actions in environmental regulation

27

the greater welfare of the public.6 Changes in the function of governments do not imply the diminishment of important governing activities. In the case of managing the environment, what the public demands of the government are those public goods that only the government can provide. Of course, these public goods do not mean a good environment, but are measures, policies, and systems to protect the environment and, with this, establish the foundation of new environmental order. In matters of practical economic life, individuals generally do not internalize environmental costs on their own; nor do they include the cost of scarce environmental resources and pollution in the price of their commodities. In essence, the market uses the environment as if it were a cost not worth counting, which does not lead to the optimal use of environmental resources. If the government does not intervene, the market will not fill in this hole on its own. The power of the government is a form of public power; “it pursues certain collective goals and derives its authority from the political order, from which it is able to exercise that power according to certain rules within its jurisdiction.”7 The government has hegemony over public finances, which can be heavily invested to support the management of the environment. This is something that social institutions and grassroots organizations cannot do. More importantly, the government can use laws and policies to direct people to protect the environment. In fact, an effective (environmental) policy is dependent upon whether or not the government chooses to intervene, in which ways the government decides to intervene, and how these interventions are implemented in practice.8 One effective method to compensate for market failures is to collect taxes from companies that exploit the environment. This helps to internalize uneconomic external costs on the individual to approach the real social cost. This kind of tax increases the cost of some products, forcing others to lessen their environmental impact as well as providing revenue that can be invested in the environment.9 Another method is to

6 “Good governance” is different from “good government” in that the latter refers to the expectations of the people of what is good ruling. 7 Wolfgang Kasper and Manfred E. Streit, Institutional Economics: Social Order and Public Policy [Chinese translation] (Beijing: Shangwu Yinshu Guan, 2000), 357. 8 Judith Anne Rees, Natural Resources: Allocation, Economics, and Policy [Chinese translation] (Beijing: Shangwu Yinshu Guan, 2002), 257. 9 Current Chinese environmental fines are still crude “assessments” by the government; however, since the cost of the fine is significantly less than the cost of actually controlling pollution, many individuals choose to pay the fine instead of investing in environmental controls. Moreover, these fines have many problems, such as many different government agencies with their own regulations.

28

xiao wei and qian jianxing

permit marketable pollution (marketable pollution permits). What the government controls is the total pollution. How the individual costs of that pollution is dealt with depends on market forces through effluent licenses for marketable pollution, which follow the Pareto efficiency. This initiative expands government administrative measures to direct (not replace) market-driven instruments and reduce the need to collect and manage costs, making it relatively more effective; however, marketable pollution relies on a mature market economy, a full and complete legal system, management structure, and public oversight. The efficient allocation of resources is achieved through market exchange and a clear property rights regime, which is conducive to internalizing externally produced effects. An important line of thought in environmental regulation is that rights to environmental resources should be defined as clearly as possible, and the government should only manage the rights to resources that produce externalities. Resolving externalities has become a matter of gaining property rights. And when property rights are difficult to define (such as in the case of the atmosphere or water resources), the government can also assist in indirectly defining the property rights of environmental resources. In 2000, two cities in Zhejiang Province, Yiwu and Dongyang, signed a water rights agreement. The city of Yiwu agreed to pay in perpetuity CNY 200 million to the city of Dongyang for the right to use fifty million metric tons of water. There was no lack of disagreement on how exactly this agreement was to be implemented, but it has been very significant in reforming the water rights system of China, as well as advancing the scale of water rights exchanges, the water market, and water resource laws. As new policies and regulations emerge, the definition of property rights vis-à-vis environmental resources and market transactions in China will gradually be normalized. Issues of transregional market impacts on the environment and compensation for environmental damages have also begun to enter the proceedings of government.10 An important part of the modern transformation of government has been the strengthening of environmental regulations. If governments desire clear environmental functions, then they must center their decisions on the combined interests of both environmental and developmental needs 10 The National Ministry of Water Resources recently proposed a new approach to the South-North Water Transfer Project, which in fact has established a water rights market according to central government macroregulations, local government participation, and the operations of publically traded corporations. This is a major attempt at bringing market mechanisms into transregional (watershed) environmental controls. This will greatly improve the efficiency of the South-North Water Transfer Project.



government actions in environmental regulation

29

according to the demands of sustainable development. If governments are unable to establish strategic goals for sustainable development at a fundamental level, are unable to increase authority in the decision-making process, and simply seek to satisfy small interest groups with just minor adjustments, then they will never be able to achieve a comprehensive plan that will improve upon the environment and develop their respective economies. Specifically speaking, governments can no longer act as just representatives of local economic interests and enforcement, but must strengthen environmental management through specific environmental standards, decrease consumption through structural adjustments and the encouragement of industry, reform models of development with policies that decrease industrial pollution, and lead companies on a road toward sustainable development. Society currently judges governments on how well they can or cannot promote sustainable development by observing their performance on environmental issues. Governments have the following advantages in implementing environmental measures: (1) They have the right to impose taxes. Governments can create differential taxes for green industries and polluting industries. They can impose different taxes on green products and non-green products in order to direct production and consumption. Furthermore, they can provide necessary subsidies to environmental industries. (2) They have the right to impose bans. Governments can ban any action that is destructive to the environment through laws, regulations, and political institutions. For example, they can ban logging in protected forests, or they can ban the exploitation and poaching of plants and animals in protected wildlife areas. (3) They have the right to impose penalties. Through legislation, governments can implement criminal sentences and hefty fines on those that damage the environment. For example, if industries violate regulations by dumping waste into waterways, then governments can impose fines or shut down the producers. (4) They can save on transaction costs. Governments can demand that free riders and those that benefit from public goods pay for relevant environmental costs. Especially when a government has established a sound social environmental system, then it can resolve, to some degree, issues of rising transaction costs caused by insufficient data, inefficient choices, and free riders, diminishing unnecessary friction costs.11 From this we can see that governments primarily act through political systems, policies, and laws in order to make various adjustments for the 11 World Bank, 1997 Report on World Development [Chinese translation] (Beijing: Zhongguo Caizheng Jingji Press, 1997), 25.

30

xiao wei and qian jianxing

benefit of the environment and are not directly involved in the reallocation of environmental resources. Governments organize, enforce, and oversee environmental works from a macro level perspective through long-term local economic, social, and ecologically sustainable development plans. They also direct societies’ energies to participate in environmental protection, strengthening dialogue and communication among each level, organization, and association in order to promote cooperation on the environment. In fact, many policies of modern governments use legislation or at least a legislative basis, which is quite apparent in many environmental laws. Moreover, standard documents released by governments on the environment are often taken as law; legislation often proposed by environmental administrative organizations is often included within the scope of environmental legislation.12 Governments have the power to provide public goods, but whether or not they can use this power depends on their capabilities. Similarly, there are disparities in the governability of a government. When it comes to governing the environment, the effective capabilities of a government are primarily displayed in its ability to produce public goods in the form of an established and maintained environmental order. Of course, the ability of a government to manage the environment is limited by its economy, society, and level of cultural development. Developed countries (and regions) have the wealth and power to allow their government to provide sufficient investment in public environmental goods; moreover, in the face of surmounting pressure from the public, their governments have been forced to define strict environmental standards on domestic and international economies and transactions. For developing countries (and regions), the main concern of the people is survival and alleviating poverty. Demands to improve the quality of the environment seem more like a relative luxury, and governments in these developing countries are either unable or unwilling to respond to demands to protect the environment. However, as the environmental crisis deepens, developing countries (and regions) are gradually realizing that poverty and the lack of development are not only the principal concern in need of resolution but are also the principal reason for the degradation of the environment. Environmental degradation in turn leads to further poverty and a lack of development, thus leading to a vicious cycle. Consequently, developing countries (and regions) must

12 Lü Zhongmei, Huanjing fa xin shiye [New perspectives on environmental law] (Beijing: Zhongguo Zhengfa Daxue Press, 2000), 76.



government actions in environmental regulation

31

quickly establish their own environmental goals within their own means by prioritizing the management of environmental degradation that threatens the people’s survival. The amount of importance governments place on their ability to regulate the environment directly affects the environmental conditions at the local level. Only after thirty years of intense long-term regulation did London manage to finally leave behind the “London Fog” until the 1980s. In the 1970s, the northeast Chinese city of Benxi had such severe air pollution that it was often referred to as “the city that cannot be seen by satellite.” The local government finally made the painful decision to restructure its industries and make large-scale technological improvements. After decades of regulation, the air has vastly improved. The first phase of the river renovation project for the area surrounding the cities of Shanghai and Suzhou marked a move from simply maintaining a clear waterway and dredging silt buildup to considering ecological protection, improvement of the water quality, transportation, and leisurely activities. Since 1998, China has invested over 1 percent of its GDP into the environment, and this proportion is still rising.13 The government’s investments in environmental protection and environmental systems are complementary: The government seeks to regulate resources on a macro level. Under the careful organization and planning of the Ministry of Water Resources along with relevant local authorities, the Yellow River has managed to maintain a continuous flow for three years since 2000, reversing over ten years of being essentially dried up. In order to alleviate the deteriorating ecological conditions downstream of the Tarim and Hei Rivers, the central government released water from Lake Bosten several times into downstream water diversion projects. It also implemented unified policies on water usage along the entire Hei River, and in 2000 achieved a cross-provincial standard for water allocation.

It also seeks to invest in basic environmental infrastructure. Since 1998, China has invested over CNY 160 billion into water infrastructure. This number represents an investment seven times greater than what it was just after the Chinese Communist Revolution. In order to contain the

13 International experience shows us that once the cost of environmental regulation exceeds 1–1.5 percent of the GDP, the degradation of the environment becomes manageable; and if it is increased to 2–3 percent, then there will be a noticeable difference in the environmental quality. In developed countries, investments in the environment are generally about 3 percent.

32

xiao wei and qian jianxing

expanding desertification of northern China, the government has begun regulating over twenty thousand square miles of land that has become desert, requiring an investment of CNY 240 billion, which does not include large sums of money raised from social grants. The central government predicts that every year it will arrange special project funds for nationally defined projects for desertification protection and management. Local governments have also made similar arrangements. The first round of the environmental Three-Year Action Plan (2000–2002) invested CNY 45 billion and was greatly successful. In 2005, the latest round of the ThreeYear Action Plan has brought Shanghai to a new level of environmental quality. In 2002, the Zhejiang provincial government began the ThousandMile Clear Waterways Project, which will invest CNY 20 billion over ten years, to manage the waterways of many urban and rural environmental infrastructures. The Chinese government also takes a strong stance against polluting industries, closing down major polluters and regulating companies that do not meet pollution standards. At the beginning of 2002, the Chinese National Inspection Bureau found that of the thirty most polluted cities in China, eight of them were in Shanxi Province, forcing the Shanxi provincial government to make these problems its primary concern. At midnight, January 1, 2001, across the province, the government shutdown 209 companies that did not meet pollution standards and were major sources of pollution. The Chinese government also positively supports the environmental industry, which is truly the “rising star” industry of the world. It is estimated that several decades in the future, the environmental industry will develop rapidly and grow at a rate of over 15 percent a year. Government financial subsidies and tax policies go a long way in supporting the development of the environmental industry. Similarly, local governments have made choosing a model of public transportation that meets environmental protection needs and increases the usage of roadways a priority. Doing this requires government agencies to have farsighted policies and effective infrastructural coverage. A thorough systematization of Chinese environmental protection has been another major effort of the government. Since the 1980s, China has begun an environmental-impact study system. Since then, the government has continually established more systems to regulate dumping fees, environmental responsibility goals, time-limited environmental regulations, comprehensive urban environmental improvement investigations, and natural resource and ecological protection permits (including permits



government actions in environmental regulation

33

for things such as logging, mining, fishing, hunting, and dumping). The effect of these environmental systems is increasingly apparent. The promotion of long-term environmental planning for sustainable development has been another major step taken by the Chinese government. The government cannot simply look at development in economic terms. It must also look at cultural, resource, and environmental indicators. Through a variety of ways, it must effectively seek to resolve many of the problems brought on by economic transformation in order to help people today appreciate environmental resources that they wish to develop and exploit for future generations. If we truly care about the environmental benefits of later generations, we cannot deprive these future generations of opportunities to develop just so we can develop today; otherwise, these future generations will bear the price of a severely devastated environmental foundation. What is important is that the government, when possible, makes every effort to approach environmental management in a market-oriented fashion by bidding, contracting, and commissioning projects and by signing administrative contracts. Doing so will place public environmental matters into the hands of private companies and nongovernmental organizations (such as local community organizations). Those environmental projects that require government management should also approach these issues just as private companies would: by lowering costs and raising efficiency to the greatest degree possible. Government intervention can make up for market inefficiencies, but the government also has problems with efficiency; furthermore, the incompetence of an individual in a company only affects a single company, but the ineptitude of the government has much broader effects. Problems that the market cannot resolve are not necessarily more effectively solved by the government either; when government intervention leads to other types of environmental inefficiencies, “government failures” can occur with respect to the environment. Consequently, “government action cannot correct market failure; on the contrary, it makes resource allocation inefficient and even more unfair, as well as resulting in government actions resulting in a lack of competitive markets.”14

14 Luo Yong and Zeng Xiaofei, Huanjing baohu de jingji shouduan [Economic means to protect environment] (Beijing: Beijing University Press, 2002), 43.

34

xiao wei and qian jianxing

A very common problem is that local governments often look only toward local interests and short-term gains in their territory—particularly, interests that can be gained within the term of a local official’s tenure in office (these are often expressed in terms of “political achievements.” Objectively speaking, some of these political achievements are clearly short-term actions taken by officials in local governments and agencies). Since economic achievements have been seen as the primary marker of political achievement, local governments often formulate intricate plans for economic growth and improved employment. If they come upon new means of economic growth that do not take into consideration how much the environment can bear or meet the environmental demands of sustainable development, then the failure of government environmental functions is very likely. With China’s market reform, local governments have gained more power in developing economic policies and allocating resources. In the central government’s environmental game, their goal is always to expand their own interests—“the central government has its policies, but the local government has its countermeasures”—and through formal administrative approvals, they can vigorously pursue many political achievement projects to strengthen local interests while evading environmental protection (after all, even today, it is rare that environmental considerations are openly placed over others) or only allow superficial oversight. In order to protect the interests of local administrations and revenue sources, companies that are uneconomic toward the environment fall under the protective umbrella of the local government and play a game of hide-and-seek with environmental regulators. As for locally created cross-regional pollution, local governments also keep one eye closed to the practice. Even though the resolution of these problems requires a higher government administration to coordinate and manage, local governments also cannot shirk their environmental responsibilities. Another problem is that between some local governments and government agencies environmental measures are incomplete and are not implemented, which leads to government failures. For instance, many water conservancy facilities along transregional watersheds must also consider the interests of those downstream; otherwise, the water interests of those upstream will be to the ecological detriment of those downstream. Along Xinjiang’s Tarim River, there are over nineteen mid- to large-sized reservoirs with the ability to store over a million tons of water. These socalled water conservation projects have led to the downstream Kongque River becoming nothing more than a stream. In order to conserve the soil



government actions in environmental regulation

35

and water resources in the ecologically weakened northwestern region of China, the government has required residents to reduce agricultural cultivation and restore forested land, grasslands, and lakes, but because no accompanying policy measures have been put into place and implemented, the local residents are left with no means to earn an income, and so many environmental policies are only partially adhered to. Currently, since China’s urban water management administrations are fragmented into departments that deal separately with flooding, water management, and sewage, each acts on its own behalf. The waste of water resources and environmental water pollution receive no comprehensive regulation. What can the government do? For one, it can establish a specialized organization (such as a water affairs bureau) to manage water resources as a whole, including water conservation, flood protection, environmental maintenance, and water resource revitalization; it can regulate the quality and quantity of water flow upstream to ensure that local pollution is kept to a certain level and that water flows at an appropriate quantity; it can manage the extraction of water from aquifers and waterways; it can establish quotas on the use of water by industries and households; it can establish policies to develop water conserving and treatment technologies; and it can require that all major projects conduct environmental impact reports. These are all issues that certainly merit discussion. Another kind of government failure derives from errors in policies. For example, government subsidized fertilizer policies encourage the largescale use of fertilizers among farmers, but they do not take into consideration the long-term harmful effects of fertilizers on soil quality and water resources. “In the past there have been government policies that ran counter to market forces which have led to the squandering of resources and the harming of the environment. For example, policies that artificially lower the price of coal have restricted the development of innovative coal technologies, resulting in significant environmental problems and misuse of resources.”15 China’s per capita freshwater resources are generally about one-quarter of the world average, but in some places in China where there is a lack of water (particularly northern China), there is still a massive waste of water resources. One of the main reasons for this is the serious disparity between the price of government subsidized water and its real

15 Wang Weizhong, ed., Zhongguo kechixu fazhan taishi fenxi [Analyses on China’s sustainable development] (Beijing: Shangwu Yinshu Guan, 1999), 10.

36

xiao wei and qian jianxing

value (the water expenses of all Chinese industries in proportion to the cost structure of their products as well as the cost of water for residents as a proportion of their income are significantly lower than the world average). Long-term policies of subsidizing water are essentially unable to reflect the scarcity of water through supply-and-demand mechanisms, leading to an extremely inefficient use of water resources and waste. With the accelerated consumption of scarce freshwater, whether or not regulations are used as a means to replace market pricing through a process of first come, first-served or society is just left to endure scarcities, water scarcity will affect the lives of everyone. Water scarcity will also make it more difficult and risky to maintain social stability, as the many recent conflicts over water resources can attest to. The government’s inaction, inefficiency, and mistaken policies with respect to the environment are often caused by its shortsightedness, lack of an environmental perspective, and inability to understand public opinion. Government failures also imply the limitations of government actions. Without oversight and competition, local governments and government administrations often pursue their own interests. This is a symptom of government failure. Particularly worth noting is that governments use administrative authority to create a “rent making” and “rent seeking” pretext in order to pursue the interests of local governments and government agencies. In a market economy, the government can use its authority to create inequalities in the competitive environment. From the moment it distorts the distribution of resources, it grants some special privileges to certain “legal” renters. This action is nothing more than administrative corruption and an abuse of power. The expansion of government environmental powers also creates opportunities for environmental rent seekers. For example, the government may issue permits, but because these permits also redistribute power in the market, some may bribe those in power in order to gain these permits; moreover, by accepting the rent payment of others, government efforts at regulating the environment are greatly reduced. In some places, environmental agencies just simply accept money for various fees, and even more heinous is that they often do not enforce any environmental regulations. Before 2000, the local governments of Hengshan and Jingbian in Shaanxi Province overstepped their authority and issued permits to private companies for oil drilling. Although the revenue of the local government greatly expanded as a result, it also led to the illegal poaching of local resources and devastated the local ecology to the point that local farmers could no longer



government actions in environmental regulation

37

cultivate, directly attacking the livelihood and environmental rights of the people. The Chinese government has already established eight environmental protection legal codes and twelve natural resource codes within the environmental code (as well as dozens of environmental protection and resource management administrative regulations, several hundred national environmental standards, and several hundred local environmental and resource management regulations). It has also increased the penalties for violating environmental codes. Despite this, however, major instances of local environmental destruction still occur. Among these incidents, the local government is often complicit by not obeying the laws, loosely enforcing them, and in some cases actively participating. Between Chinese environmental laws and economic laws, there still remains much work to be done; China’s environmental inspection agencies are still inadequate—particularly when considering how inaccurate or insufficient the data that regulators receive is, oversight is often just a formality. Environmental laws strictly punish those that directly harm the environment but have few restrictions for local governments and government agencies. Environmental laws and regulations lack the power to impose sanctions and lead to criminal investigations on those government actions that illegally approve and abet environmentally harmful projects. It is undeniable that other factors play a role in the ability of the government to implement environmental responsibilities. “In order to fulfill employment and economic growth goals, governments may relax regulations on pollution and land usage; as a way to mitigate inflation, governments may delay the expansion of renewable resources and maintain investment in projects that maintain non-renewable resources and continue to pollute. This in turn deeply affects the political landscape of fuel security and price changes, energy reserves, or research into renewable sources of energy. With the increased pressure to pursue economic benefits, the government may become lax in its pursuit of renewable resources.”16 Resolving these issues requires that we not only rely on effective environmental regulations and strong environmental laws but also reexamine our standard of government success. In the recent Chinese environmental campaign to resist desertification (the 2002 Desertification Prevention and Management Law), it was required that a system of 16 Rees, Natural Resources, 471.

38

xiao wei and qian jianxing

measuring environmental political achievement be established to determine government effectiveness in desertified regions. We can see that in measuring government performance on the environment, we must look to long-term results, not short-term investments; and no matter what, effective leadership in the market is far better than a simple laissez-faire approach.

chapter three

The Institutional Origins of Eco-environmental Problems and the Way Out Fang Shinan and Zhang Weiping The global eco-environmental crisis reflects the relationships between humans as well as the tension involved in social relations. That is to say, the existential crisis of humanity is also a cultural and institutional crisis. When it comes to eco-environmental problems, only by dissecting the problem at an institutional level can we go beyond superficial issues and grasp the material essence. Through scientific institutional design and innovation, we emerge from the ideology “regulate here and pollute there” (bian zhili bian wuran) that has arisen from eco-environmental problems. As one old problem is solved, a new problem appears, creating a vicious cycle. The Systematic Origins of the Eco-Environmental Crisis As a scarce economic resource, environmental resources, in terms of rational distribution and usage, should reflect the most fundamental of microeconomic principles: market forces and government intervention. Consequently, when examining the eco-environmental crisis, only when we look at the main threads of either the success or failure of market or government distribution of environmental resources can we, theoretically speaking, clearly describe the institutional origins of eco-environmental problems. The problems that exist in the distribution of environmental resources are caused mainly by failures in the market and in governance. Therefore, in recognizing the eco-environmental crisis, we must investigate both market and government failures. Problem 1: Market Failure in Distributing Environmental Resources Under the idealized concept of the invisible hand, the market is the most efficient distributor of ecological resources. The market can become Pareto efficient under normally functioning market mechanisms by ensuring the

40

fang shinan and zhang weiping

supply of environmental resources and a degree of socioeconomically sustainable development. However, in real economic activity, all the magic of market economics that makes “the tables dance”1 leads all participants in market economics, in order to maximize profits, to ignore the optimization of environmental resources, thereby making it difficult to realize the market ideal of the invisible hand with environmental resources and unable to efficiently distribute resources through market mechanisms. This inevitably leads to the markets’ failure to produce a system that can viably distribute environmental resources. Specifically, the markets fail in three important areas. First, the ownership rights to environmental resources are unclear. The property-rights school of thought argues that market forces under normal circumstances are clearly able to facilitate the transfer and usage of proprietorship. Ownership is an effective means of exploiting, exchanging, maintaining, and managing resources, and it is a prerequisite for investing in them. Clear proprietorship over eco-environmental resources is the most important incentive for the market to deliberately maintain the environment. It encourages participants in the market economy to maintain eco-environmental resources as a prerequisite and guarantee for sustainable usage. Ownership over eco-environmental resources compared with general property rights is particularly complicated and difficult to assess. Rights to eco-environmental resources have never been clearly defined—unspecified multiple rights and insecure, inoperable, untransferable types of property have been insufficiently clear and ill-defined. For instance, the proprietorship of ecologically functioning and environmental capacity resources is poorly delineated; moreover, multiple property rights inevitably lead to the quick and excessive development of its resources and do not seek renewability and the efficient use of resources. Another example is the usage reparation tax system for eco-environmental resources that the government has publicized. In the long run, in many places, it rarely becomes a reality, or the tax is significantly less than the cost to regulate and maintain, and as a result, economic actors are willing to pay the tax but unwilling to actually protect and regulate the environment. In the end, it makes it difficult to effectively maintain resource ownership rights and reasonably sustainable usage. 1 Karl Marx, “Section IV: The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secrets Thereof,” in Capital, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1959), fn 26a.



the institutional origins of eco-environmental problems 41

Second, the market for eco-environmental resources is imperfect. Since the environment is a resource, then its allocation should be through a marketized channel. However, because people have an imperfect understanding of eco-environmental resources, laws and regulations on marketization are also imperfect. Thus, many problems exist in the operation of the environmental resource market. On the one hand, the market for many environmental resources has not yet developed enough or essentially does not exist. For example, the market still lacks an understanding of the ecological function of watersheds in terms of the reasonable configuration of capabilities and the relationship between upper, middle, and lower streams. Some environmental resources, although they exist in the market, are unreasonably valued—that is, the prices of natural resources are very low, only reflecting the labor and capital costs but not the opportunity costs of the consumption of these natural resources. This then leads to the massive consumption and waste of natural resources, the production of large quantities of by-products, and the wanton release of pollution into the environment. On the other hand, even if a market for eco-environmental resources exists, the failure of the market is in its overly monopolistic nature and lack of competition. In a capable market, there should be vigorous transactions between buyers and sellers, few obstacles, and low and convenient transaction costs. Nonetheless, China’s management of the environment has been seen as a matter for the public good that is under the auspices of the state. Government agencies are more than an oversight organization; they are also the regulators and enforcers, and they pay for the main expenses. The lack of competition and inefficient production have led to an increasingly severe waste problem, while pollution is a growing and serious issue. With all of this, the burden of regulating and protecting the environment has increased, yet the government is unable to manage it appropriately, and corruption permeates its ranks. Third, the consumption costs of eco-environmental public resources are unequally borne in the economy. As far as society and the individual consumer are concerned, it is imperative that public goods are provided; yet providing public goods is required, and these costs require that the beneficiaries of public goods share the cost. Furthermore, another problem that must be considered is once a public good is provided, there is no way to exclude those consumers that have not paid the cost and yet continue to consume the public goods. These are “free riders,” whose very existence removes any motivation to voluntarily pay for the cost of public

42

fang shinan and zhang weiping

goods. As far as agents that maintain eco-environmental resources are concerned, as long as the return on their investment is greater than the cost, they will continue to invest. This, in the end, leads to imbalances in the provision and erection of eco-environmental resources. In the previous analysis, we can see that the main reason for market failure is the peculiar issue of using eco-environmental resources as public goods. The distribution of environmental resources relying solely on the market is still unacceptable. To avoid market failures and sustainably and reasonably use environmental resources, the government must come forward and intervene. Only with both the invisible hand of the market and the perceptibly visible hand of the government can eco-environmental resources be effectively distributed. Problem 2: The Failure of the Government to Redress Market Failures in the Distribution of Environmental Resources In the distribution of environmental resources, the government often employs economic policies to correct for market failures. The intervention of government economic policies does not directly interfere with the normal operations of actors in the economy but instead changes the conditions that effect the actions of the economic actors. Under these altered conditions, economic actors that seek to maximize profits must invariably modify their actions in the economy, which leads to a more effective distribution of resources. These government economic policies still work through market mechanisms, so they are not necessarily intervening but rather affecting the condition upon which the market operates—for instance, when external interests arise, the government may provide subsidies to stimulate certain sustainable economic activities. From this analysis, we see that the government can be used as a corrective measure for market failures in the distribution of eco-environmental resources; however, although government intervention is necessary to redress market failures in resource distribution, it is not a perfect solution. Unfortunately, government intervention generally fails to successfully curb pollution and emissions and regulate the rational use of natural resources with its ecoenvironmental resource policies—particularly those economic development policies that view growth of the GDP as their primary goal. As far as eco-environmental resources are concerned, the failure of the government can be seen in two respects: The first is the lack of good ecoenvironmental policies. In the mid to late 1970s, global ecological policies focused on regulating the results of environmental catastrophes, such as



the institutional origins of eco-environmental problems 43

when the first generation of environmental policies regulated the “three wastes.” This was largely a policy of passive response and prevention. By the middle of the 1980s, the focus of environmental policies had partially shifted toward measures that mitigated the front-end waste in the economic production cycle, which was expressed in the second generation of environmental policies as “wide-ranging prevention.” At this point, the focus had gone from passive response and prevention to policies that were more active and responsive. In the 1990s, the focus of eco-environmental policies shifted yet again—this time to responsive control of the economic cycles of reproductive economics in production, exchange, distribution, and consumption, which manifested as the “green economics” of the third generation of eco-environmental policies. These policies were proactively supportive of the development of eco-environmental resource policies. Generally speaking, the aforementioned evolution of ecological policies clearly describes how our environmental consciousness has progressed and how our eco-environmental policies have gone from passive to increasingly proactive; however, countries like China that are late to develop have the difficult task of pushing rapid economic development in order to catch up with developed countries. Because many places desiring rapid economic development have neglected the environment, it is obvious that there are many deficiencies in the operation and scientific nature of eco-environmental policies. Even today, in places where ecological devastation is already extreme, vacuous slogans of “We want mountains of gold and silver, but we want clean water and mountains even more” are very evident. Second, other government policies, particularly those dealing with economic development, often spill over into the environment. The government is responsible not only for eco-environmental policies, but also for the more important policy-making goals that attempt to achieve social and economic development. However, these policies inadvertently have negative effects on eco-environmental issues—chiefly, in that they exacerbate environmental devastation. Such is the case of urbanization policies that seek to centralize the economy in major cities, resulting in densely populated megacities that lead to a host of ecological problems devastating to the environment: land developers, in their pursuit of maximizing profits, tend to intensify their use of land, which inevitably worsens local urban ecological problems, and industry policies focus on the pursuit of industrial profitability, which often exceeds the carrying capacity of resources and the environment. Although regional economic policies on average often improve the local economy, they neglect the environment, which

44

fang shinan and zhang weiping

devastates the local ecology. The government is already cognizant of its need to bring together issues of economic development and sustainable eco-environmental development in its economic development policies. It should be noted that economic modernization and urbanization and ecological sustainability are not mutually exclusive. If approached through policy in a scientifically rational way, developing the economy while optimizing the environment can be a win-win for everyone. As we have seen in the previous discussion, the systematic root of many eco-environmental problems is the failure of the market and the government to efficiently distribute eco-environmental resources. Because eco-environmental problems are the result of the failure of man-made institutions, we must design an innovative scientifically rational institution and realize a truly sustainable strategy for development if we wish to eradicate these problems. The Value of Designing an Institution for Constructing an Environmental Ecology For a long time, eco-environmental problems have served as a kind of free access to goods of noneconomic quality and have become the necessary condition for production and life in human socioeconomic activities. Yet since the Industrial Revolution—particularly with the explosion in the human population, the increasing scarcity of resources, and the degradation of the environment—eco-environmental resources have, almost in the blink of an eye, become a scarce economic resource. The economic properties of environmental resources experienced a fundamental shift, transforming from being free to being scarce, and this scarcity manifested itself with the expanded demands of human development. Upon inspection of the history of human socioeconomic activities, it is not hard to find that this fundamental shift in the economic properties of eco-environmental resources is the inevitable result of the intensified incongruity between the needs of the environment and the socioeconomic activities of human beings. The contradiction between the socioeconomic activities of human beings and the environment is one of the most ubiquitous contradictions of human society. It is manifest clearly in the contradiction between the inexhaustible resources required by economic growth and the limited supply of resources in a stable eco-system. This is present in two areas: First, it is present in economic growth. This is an objective requirement



the institutional origins of eco-environmental problems 45

for developing the production of human society, as far as a modern China’s focus on modernizing is concerned, and it goes without saying that it is also significant for developing the economy. However, it is apparent that it also adds to the pressure placed on the environment. Another area in which this contradiction is present is in the need to maintain balance in the natural environment. This is the necessary precondition for ensuring the sustainable development of production, as well as for contributing to the objective demands of eco-environmental development. In a traditional agrarian society, economic growth is exceptionally slow and the impact on the local eco-system is negligible, but the potential of this contradiction is still innate. With the swift development of the productive capabilities of human society, particularly with the population expansion and Industrial Revolution, the economic growth of humanity has been primarily through plunder. In its need for socioeconomic development, humanity has continually stripped the environment of resources, thereby leading to the acute intensification of the paradox between human socioeconomic activity and the environment. Now they have developed into the two extremes of a causal relationship: on the one end, the need of economic development for eco-environmental resources has grown, transforming once freely accessible goods into scarce economic resources; on the other end, there is a dwindling supply of eco-environmental resources, which are overloaded and devastated by pollution, adding icing to the cake of environmental resource scarcity. Although technology has the potential to resolve many eco-environmental problems, it is a double-edged sword, especially with the voracious expansion of the industrial chemical industry, the negative effects of which are increasingly apparent on the environment. Whether it is Adam Smith’s social theory, Garrett Hardin’s tragedy of the commons, or Elinor Ostrom’s institutional incentives and sustainable development, they all emphasize the value of institutions when it comes to eco-environmental problems. Although problems with environmental culture are the most determinant factor, there is nevertheless a rational argument that institutions attempt to do more to solve eco-environmental problems than can be technologically accomplished. An effective institution design, such as rigorous environmental protection and infrastructural laws, scientific planning, effectual management, and a realistic order, has the ability to solve these problems at the source. Only by focusing on institutional design and strengthening institutional innovation can effective environmentalism be made into an actionable and implantable idea.

46

fang shinan and zhang weiping

When we talk of designing an institution to address eco-environmental problems, at its most fundamental level it is the institutional design of government. All of today’s environmental problems are related to issues of the government. Whether or not the government succeeds in designing institutions will directly and decisively affect eco-environmental issues. In regulating the environment, institutions must navigate between the goals of privatizing government functions, opening government regulations, restricting the government to the rule of law, democratizing government decisions, and growing multipolar government authority according to the principles of a socialist market economy and the needs of sustainable development. This will positively benefit the construction of a government that improves the environment for the people and is limited in its responsibilities, ruled by law, democratic, transparent, honest, efficient, low cost, proactive, and that provides services of the utmost quality. This will cultivate a citizen society that will have multiple and diverse participants regulating and building the environment. The government’s power over and control of eco-environmental resources is not unlimited and monopolistic, nor can it abandon its responsibilities in regulating and building the environment. In determining the regulation and construction of a healthy environment, the government must abide by the dictates of democracy and science and utilize legal channels. The government must strive for the transparency of information in the distribution of eco-environmental resources. To pragmatically regulate and build a healthy environment, the government should seek to achieve the greatest gain at the lowest cost possible in input and output. Regardless of whether it is the regulation of pollution or the development of a technologically sophisticated ecological institution, the government must act proactively to grapple with the issues most relevant to the good of the nation and people. The government must also pioneer an ecologically sound culture that builds an environmentally conscious social ethos that broadly encourages citizen participation in the construction of an environmental society. The design of institutions that address eco-environmental problems is also expressed in the input and output, production and consumption, and constructiveness and destructiveness of environmental policies and laws. For example, institutions as well as stringent laws can control the evasion of responsibility, inaction, corruption, and help in building mechanisms of oversight and incentivizing. When talking about environmental problems, the ancient philosopher Xunzi had a brilliantly insightful theory that is relevant today: “Improve upon the root and use sparingly, and the realm shall not lack; keep prepared [stocks of medicine] and use at the



the institutional origins of eco-environmental problems 47

right seasons, and the realm shall not have sickness; adhere to the way [of the law] and do not waver in it, and the realm shall not face calamity. If this is done, then nay flood nor drought shall cause the land to have a famine, nay cold nor heat shall cause the land to have disease; nay the inauspicious nor ominous shall lead the land to misfortune.”2 What he meant is that if we have the “root,” are “prepared,” and follow the way in our actions, then there is no calamity that can befall us. From this it is not hard to see that Xunzi was also aware of the importance of a welldesigned institution for the environment (in terms of what he called the relationship between man and heaven). Institutions are important, but, of course, institutions cannot do everything. Behind any institution is a culture. Culture is the mother of all institutions. Environmental problems at their root are human problems. Humankind is the progenitor of eco-environmental issues. The environmental crisis substantially reflects a crisis of the humanities. Solving the problems of the environment, therefore, requires a profound and broad cultural revolution. We must rectify the cultural value of the ecology and correctly recognize the role of humanity; we must consciously reposition the relationships between people and nature, people and society, and even people and people. The construction of a healthy cultural ecology for society is a problem that government institutions should pay particular attention to. Only if we improve the cultural ecology and form a cultural atmosphere of scientific environmentalism in society can people rationally realize the value of the environment and actively work to care for it. This would render nearly any institution irrelevant. Even if this were the case, we do not teach in order that we need not teach again, nor do we regulate in order that we need not regulate again, and these are the kinds of places where institutions are necessary. To some degree, institutions show us where cultures are lacking and deficient. From its inception, cultural ecology education must help people understand that the reason we protect the environment is to protect all humanity, to form a scientifically rational way of life and mode of consumption, and to encourage a harmonious relationship between people and nature as well as among all humankind. In short, if we can bring together institutions (hard management) and culture (soft constraints), then we can fundamentally alleviate the worsening contradictions in the present eco-environmental problems and change the direction of the environment for the better. 2 Zhang Shitong, Annotated Xunzi (Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Press, 1974), 176.

48

fang shinan and zhang weiping Institutional Innovation Is the Way Out of the Eco-Environmental Crisis

The economist and founder of the new institutional economics school of thought, Douglass C. North, argued the following: “The rules of the game in a society, or more formally, [the] humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction. In consequence they structure incentives in human exchange, whether political, social, or economic. Institutional change shapes the way societies evolve through time and hence is the key to understanding historical change.”3 Institutions and institutional change along with innovation are inborn variables of economic growth and development. Effective institutions have the power to take the potential forces of land, capital, labor, technology, and knowledge production and transform them into real productive forces, as they can only operate effectively within a well-functioning institution. In some respects, resources are distributed through specialized institutions. And since institutions directly affect efficiency, what makes one institution better than another is how efficient it is. Society is constantly seeking more effective systems to replace older, less proficient ones. That is institutional change. Thus, the driving force behind all economic development is institutional change. Each country’s economic development, regardless of its stage, faces a scarcity of environmental resources to one degree or another. The main reason for this is the inadequate institutional distribution of environmental resources, particularly in that it lacks the ability to transform the advantages of environmental resources into real advantages for the economic institutional environment; it lacks a complete and real institutional framework to effectually distribute environmental resources. Institutions’ current ineptitude to distribute eco-environmental resources is manifest in all formal and informal environmental rules in which there is a dissonance between people’s efforts and what they get in return for those efforts. It is also manifest in its lack of fair competition and an institutional environment that allows for true economic benefits. In addition to this, it is present in the environmental and resource consciousness of people, in the indifference to legal reform and innovation, and in conservative and outdated thinking. There is a clear deficiency in institutional

3 Douglass C. North, Institution, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 3.



the institutional origins of eco-environmental problems 49

incentives for economically renewable environmental resources in production, exchange, distribution, and consumption. The economic motivation to protect and use eco-environmental resources lacks any form of effective institutional security. As we can see, the inadequacy of institutional environmental resource distribution is inexorably detrimental to human socioeconomic development and leads to environmental disaster—particularly with the exacerbation of the scarcity of resources. The eco-environmental crisis is man-made. Human action is determined by its social consciousness and motivations, but the ideas and impulses of humans are not produced in a vacuum. They are a reflection of the role of institutions. We cannot simply judge people’s actions as either rational or irrational; instead, we must look at whether or not the institutions behind those actions are rational. If people’s actions make no sense, then the institutions do not make sense. Hence, the way out of our current crisis is through institutional innovation in the way we distribute environmental resources. If we can design our institutions around sustainable development strategies, then we can successfully limit the activities of people to allow for the building of a beneficial environment. As pointed out in the Agenda 21 global sustainable development strategy initiative, the policy strategies for sustainable development should include population control, protecting the natural environment, improving the natural ecology, maintaining biodiversity, the sustainable exploitation of resources and energy, promoting cleaner manufacturing and environmental protection, and controlling problems at the source. Consequently, implementing any sustainable development strategy and rational eco-environmental resource distribution institution requires not only that human activities change, but also that there is effective coordination between the markets and governments. To achieve this, we must first establish a healthy property rights regime for environmental resources, incorporate competitive mechanisms for environmental resources, use market incentives to encourage people to put their economic activities on the road to sustainable development, and avoid the activities of free riders. On the other hand, the government must rigorously implement sustainable development strategies, compensate for the competing needs for environmental resources and environmental protection, and improve the regulation of environmental resources. The government should consider the environment to be an important factor of economic growth and should also consider the effect of the GDP on the ecology. Macroeconomic calculations should reflect the destruction, investment, and consumption of resources and the environment in production while avoiding the

50

fang shinan and zhang weiping

unintended negative effects of environmental policies if it wants to realize unified social and economic development goals. The twenty-first century will be a century of ecology. It will be a new stage in the exploitation of eco-environmental resources and economic development. It will also be a new era for building an environmental social culture. According to Marx, “communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man—the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species.”4 Therefore, the highest pursuit of human civilization is harmony between nature and humankind. To achieve this highest pursuit, we must hold onto the core problem of eco-environmental resource distribution. We must rationally and scientifically design our institutions to avoid market and government failures and create effective ways to distribute environmental resources while fundamentally changing modes of economic growth to bring about sustainable development strategies and a new outlook on ecological development. With this we can effectively resolve the eco-environmental crisis and allow all of humanity to thrive, develop, and enjoy the bliss of a verdant ecological culture.

4 Karl Marx, “Private Property and Communism,” in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, trans. Martin Mulligan (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1959), 43.

chapter four

The Economic and Political Impacts of Mitigating Climate Change and Regional Disparities Pan Jiahua According to the definition provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Work Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change (WG III),1 the mitigation of climate change refers to any reduction in the sources of greenhouse emissions or the absorption of greenhouse gases through human intervention in the climate system. Society has the choice to decide the appropriate measures and methods to mitigate climate change. It can control or reduce greenhouse gas emissions or reduce the density of greenhouse gases by improving the absorptive capacity of carbon dioxide by plant life; however, any action that seeks to mitigate climate change will, by necessity, have implications for the economy. Since much of the current economic analysis is found in the Kyoto Protocol,2 we should look at what economic effects the declared goals of the Kyoto Protocol have had on different regions. Additionally, the economic significance of different density goals of atmospheric greenhouse gases must also differ. The differences in economic implications lead to the restructuring of national interest groups and forge international political patterns to respond to climate change. The “No Regrets Measures” of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions The so-called no regrets measures signify that, even if there are no real policies to mitigate climate change, companies and governments, by reducing energy costs or reducing pollution, which reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not only directly decrease their own costs, but have an equal 1 Bert Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart, and J. Pan, eds., Climate Change 2001: Mitigation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 716. 2 The Kyoto Protocol was an agreement reached in December 1997, which stipulated that industrialized countries must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent of 1990 levels between the years 2008 and 2012. Currently, there are ninety-seven signatory nations to the protocol. Since the United States withdrew from negotiations and the Russian Federation has yet to sign it into law, the Kyoto Protocol has not yet gone into effect.

52

pan jiahua

or greater chance of reducing energy costs and social harm. For example, incandescent light bulbs consume many times the amount of electricity that energy-saving light bulbs do. If one installs energy-saving light bulbs, then there would be significant savings in electricity costs. As far as the individual consumer is concerned, it is a net gain. At the same time, the savings in energy would also reduce the quantity of fuel used to produce electricity, which would reduce the emission of greenhouse gases without government policy intervention. Similarly, burning less and less fuel for energy would reduce the deleterious health effects of air pollution on people while having the added social benefit of preventing pollution. If there is no climate change, then people will act accordingly without feeling regret. Analysis of “no regrets measures” is mostly on the technological level. From the perspective of suppliers, producers have economic incentives to reduce the consumption and waste of energy, which lowers costs while raising profits. For example, the efficiency of energy transfer in highpowered electricity generators is superior to lower-power generators. The Chinese government has already made clear plans to retire all lowpower generators of under 50,000 kilowatts.3 The loss of energy in highvoltage electrical cables is much less than in low-voltage cables, and so many long-distance power grid voltages are generally higher. On the side of demand, any reduction in the cost of, say, heating or electricity is the equivalent of a real increase in people’s total salary, which improves their well-being. According to one European study based on currently planned improvements in energy efficiency, Europe will, by 2030, emit about 50 percent of the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in 1990.4 These measures were accomplished through nothing more than legislation that required various national agencies and economic actors to adhere to certain technological standards, while encouraging certain educational and economic programs. Relevant research in the United States argues that signing the Kyoto Protocol will not only cost the United States nothing, but will bring a net savings of US$7 billion to $34 billion.5 The situation in Canada is quite similar; according to estimates that do not include measures that would improve energy efficiency, the goals of the Kyoto 3 Zhou Fengqi and Wang Qingyi, Zhongguo nengyuan 50 nian [50 years of China’s energy] (Beijing: Zhongguo Dianli Press, 2002), 355. 4 W. Moomaw and J. Moreira, et al., “Technological and Economic Potentials of GHG Emissions Reduction,” in Metz et al., Climate Change 2001, 166–299. 5 S. Brown et al., A Clean Energy Future for the US (US Department of Energy, 2000).



mitigating climate change and regional disparities

53

Protocol in Canada would result in a savings of US$20 billion. However, if we include improvements in energy efficiency, then the savings would be more like US$26 billion.6 As for the optimism of technological advancement, many economists remain skeptical. They argue that the idea of “no regrets measures” is overly optimistic. From an economic standpoint, any “no regrets measures” will involve cost transactions. Currently, the fact that producers and consumers have not applied this idea shows that there must be obstacles in the market, such as imperfections in sharing knowledge. Moreover, “no regrets measures” involve many “hidden” costs. For instance, many new technologies carry many risks, such as customer service problems. The savings produced from “no regrets measures” may have a “rebound effect.” An example of this is if the gas mileage of a car is improved, consumers may drive even further, thereby increasing the overall mileage driven and completely eliminating any gains from “no regrets measures.” In addition, consumer preference may also reduce any gains made by “no regrets measures.” Some consumers may choose a car regardless of how much it costs or how much it pollutes simply because it is a status symbol. Although the previous examples may result in diminishing the effects of “no regrets measures,” there is nevertheless little doubt that “no regrets measures” do have an effect in real economic terms and can play a major role in reducing greenhouse emissions. Generally speaking, “no regrets measures” in developed countries lie mostly with consumers, but in many developing countries, there is a lack of capital and technology to do so. Subsequently, many developing countries blame environmental degradation on extravagant consumption, while developed countries demand that developing countries use “no regrets measures” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Discrepancies among Developed Countries in Reducing Emissions Since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change7 went into effect, many developed countries, particularly member states of the OECD, have used the emission levels of 1990 as a baseline for the economic analysis of different major emission reduction goals. The marginal cost of emission reductions in the European Union (at current emission 6 R. Loulou et al., Integration of GHG Abatement Options for Canada, report prepared for the Canadian Government (2002), 232. 7 This treaty was signed in 1992 and went into effect in 1994.

54

pan jiahua

reduction cost levels per metric ton of carbon) is slightly lower than in the United States and Japan. For the United States, even if it could maintain emission levels at the 1990 level, the marginal cost in emission reduction per ton of carbon would reach US$130 to $250. The marginal cost in emission reduction per ton of carbon in Japan would be between US$10 and $230; however, the marginal cost of reducing emissions is modest—mostly within 10 percent. Estimates for the European Union claim that marginal differences between cost and the reduction of emissions on average vary greatly. The marginal cost ranges from US$0 to $200, but the reduction in emissions varies from 0 percent to 70 percent.8 There is a lot of uncertainty in economic analysis, and there are a lot of discrepancies between countries that are directly related to the resources and economic structure of every state. Carbon emissions are constrained by the natural endowment of resources. For example, in the past, the United Kingdom used primarily high-carbon coal for fuel, but after the discovery of oil fields in the North Sea, the United Kingdom replaced coal with natural gas, which significantly reduced emissions, cost little, and produced a net gain. In several other countries, all the energy consumed and produced has either low or no carbon emission; therefore, there are limited options for reducing emissions, and the costs are high. For example, Norway relies primarily on hydroelectricity, while France and Sweden rely chiefly on hydroelectric and nuclear energy; these sources of energy essentially have no carbon emissions, so emissions will not be reduced by a major shift in energy sources. Energy intensity is another important factor. The steel, aluminum smelting, concrete, industrial chemical, and transportation industries are all energy intensive. When energy intensity is high, then the intensity of carbon emissions will also be high. If the economic structure of a country has a higher proportion of heavy industry, then the intensity of energy usage will certainly be greater than in a country that relies on light manufacturing and service industries with less-intense carbon emissions. Besides industrial factors, there is also the issue of current energy efficiency. If energy efficiency levels are relatively higher, then it becomes progressively more difficult to improve even more, and costs will be higher. Furthermore, industries that consume a lot of energy are capital intensive, requiring a high-level of initial capital with longer periods needed to

8 J. C. Hourcade et al., “Global, Regional and National Costs and Ancillary Benefits of Mitigation,” in Metz et al., Climate Change 2001, 499–560.



mitigating climate change and regional disparities

55

make returns on their investments. If a certain technology is chosen, then the current capital investment cannot be immediately disregarded for a new technology. This has two very significant implications for economic growth: on the one hand, rapidly growing economies have a quicker pace of capital turnover, which allows for more opportunities to switch to more efficient or lower-carbon technologies; on the other hand, economic growth invariably must be accompanied by a growth in energy consumption. As a result, countries with rapid economic growth experience a substantial decrease in energy intensity while the total consumption of energy continues to grow. Were we to take any given year as a baseline requirement for emissions reduction, these countries would certainly have extremely high costs. Conversely, for countries that are economically stagnant or in a recession, such as countries formerly a part of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, energy intensity rises considerably due to economic decline while the total emissions decrease. There are also some countries with uniquely special cases, such as the former East Germany: when it reunited with West Germany, the base emissions level of East Germany was incorporated into West Germany while West Germany had the technology to extensively reduce emissions at a low cost. The previous discussion not only explains why developed countries have discrepancies in marginal emission reduction costs, but also helps us understand why the Kyoto Protocol has different emission reduction goals for different countries. It also explains why among developed countries different political alliances form. The European Union heavily promoted the passage of the Kyoto Protocol; the United States and Australia opposed it; Japan signed it but was very reluctant to; and the Russian Federation leisurely used its political position for economic interests to the greatest extent possible. A Study on Differences among Developing Nations The situation for developing nations is certainly different from that of developed countries. Their energy consumption and carbon emissions per capita are significantly lower, they are economically less developed, and they are technologically backward. This tells us, on the one hand, that in order to develop further, developing countries will need to experience a greater increase in carbon emissions and energy consumption; on the other hand, any incorporation of new technologies will also increase the efficiency of energy use. Therefore, the cost of emissions per unit will inevitably be less than in developed nations. Since developing countries lack

56

pan jiahua Chart 4.1. Emissions cost in some major developing countries. China

Time Period (Beginning and Ending Year) Level of Emissions in 1990 (MtCO2) Level of Emissions by End Year (MtCO2) Percentage Change in Emissions Level of Emissions by end year if Measures to Reduce Emissions are taken (MtCO2) Percentage Change in Level of Emissions by end year if Measures to Reduce Emissions are taken (MtCO2) Net Change in Emission Reduction by End Year Marginal Cost of Emission Reduction by End Year (USD/tCO2)

1990–2020

India

Brazil

1990–2025 1990–2025

2411 6133

422 3523

264 1446

154% 4632

735% 2393

447% 495

92%

47%

88%

–40%

–36%

–80%

32

–16

–7

Note: MtCO2 refers to one million tons of carbon dioxide; tCO2 refers to one ton of carbon dioxide. Source: Metz et al., Climate Change 2001, 511.

the necessary capital and research capabilities, many developed countries and some international organizations invest a lot of capital into developing countries, especially in the research of economic emission reductions in major developing countries. These studies include ones by the US government, the Asian Development Bank, the Global Environment Facility, the Asia Least-Cost Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategy (ALGAS) funded by the United Nations Development Programme, and the country studies at the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Collaborating Centre on Energy and Environment.9 The data in Chart 4.1 shows us the results of research on three major developing countries. The end years for the data set are 2020 and 2025. Since the data set ends on a future date, the emission levels derive from estimates based on population growth and projected economic growth under the assumption that no major measures will be taken to reduce 9 “Asia Least-Cost Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategy,” Country Studies: Summary Report (Manila: Asian Development Bank, 1999); United Nations Environment Programme, Economics of Greenhouse Gas Limitations (1999); United Nations Environment Programme Collaborating Centre on Energy and Environment, Riso National Laboratory, Denmark.



mitigating climate change and regional disparities

57

emissions. Compared to 1990, each of these major developing countries will experience substantial growth. The emission levels of India are expected to grow 7.35 times the level in 1990. Installing new technologies should not be difficult for many of these developing countries. Since they are not particularly expensive, technologies like high-efficiency light bulbs, ENERGY STAR heaters and air conditioners, high-efficiency boilers, and other technologies that reduce energy loss should be able to make the cost of reducing emissions lower. For example, in China, if by 2020 emissions are reduced by 40 percent compared to the base datum set, then the marginal cost for reducing emissions will only by US$32 for every metric ton of carbon dioxide. In Brazil, if the marginal reduction in emissions reaches 80 percent, not only will it not cost anything, but reducing every ton of carbon dioxide will have the added benefit of a net gain of US$7. The data from these countries reveal that between the years 2000 and 2020, there will be a relative cut in emissions of approximately 10 percent to 25 percent, and the marginal cost for a reduction of every ton of carbon dioxide will be below US$25. We can see here that as developing countries develop their economy and improve the living standards of their citizens, there is plenty of room to reduce greenhouse gases by increasing energy efficiency while the cost of reducing emissions is comparatively low. However, in some regards, we need to keep in mind that the potential developing countries have for reducing emissions is limited by a host of factors, and real costs may be exceptionally greater than the aforementioned estimates. For example, developing countries lack the productive technologies, capabilities, and capital to produce high-efficiency light bulbs; when it is difficult to buy even relatively cheap incandescent bulbs, many consumers in developing countries can only look at the lights and despair (wang deng xing tan) despite the fact that high-efficiency light bulbs will save on electricity. As a result, if we consider factors of technology, fundamental infrastructure, marketization, institutional capabilities, and capital, the real cost may increase considerably and the real quantity of emission reduction may be further discounted. Other Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration In the Kyoto Protocol, five other greenhouse gases were slated for restriction besides carbon dioxide. These include methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur

58

pan jiahua

hexafluoride (SF6).10 The Kyoto Protocol also allows for the inclusion of man-made forests and reconstructed forests as a form of carbon absorption in the statistical calculations of emission reductions. Clearly, this furthers the options for emission reduction for other greenhouse gases and carbon sinks and has an undoubtedly beneficial effect for the cost of reducing emissions. In one US estimate on the cost of reducing emissions in the United States,11 the six greenhouse gases and forests were included as a form of carbon sequestration from the Kyoto Protocol. First, this study altered the method for measuring the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions against the baseline year for comparison. If only carbon dioxide from 1990 was included, then the United States would be responsible for 1.4 billion tons of carbon. If, however, this calculation included other greenhouse gases based on carbon equivalency with the projected index of global warming over the next one hundred years, then greenhouse emissions for the United States would increase to 1.7 billion tons of carbon, which would be an increase of nearly 300 million tons of carbon, or 21.4 percent. According to the goals of the Kyoto Protocol, the goal of the United States is to cut carbon emissions by 7 percent. In 2010, the United States emission numbers will go from including just the 1.8 billion tons of carbon from carbon dioxide to the 2.7 billion tons of carbon or carbon equivalent that includes sources other than carbon dioxide. Thus, if in 2010 we consider only greenhouse gases that come from carbon sources, then we would only need to cut 571 million tons of carbon; if we include other greenhouse gases in our calculation, then that number would be 650 million tons of carbon. Studies like this one from the United States analyze three scenarios that show the importance of the economy and policies: 1) If, as a goal, they only control the carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, then the cost of reducing emissions for every ton of carbon will be US$269 (according to 1997 pricing). This scenario only considers targets that control and limit carbon dioxide. 2) If they consider multiple types of greenhouse gases but only strive to control carbon dioxide, this will increase the marginal cost of reducing emissions to US$330 for every ton of carbon dioxide (according to

10 UNFCCC Secretariat, Kyoto Protocol, 1997. 11  J. Reilly et al., “Multi-gas Assessment of the Kyoto Protocol,” Nature 401 (1999): 549–555.



mitigating climate change and regional disparities

59

1997 prices). This is because the figures for emission reduction include the effects of other greenhouse gases, but since they do not seek to limit these other greenhouse gases, the cost of limiting the emission of carbon dioxide will be substantially more severe under the goals set by the Kyoto Protocol. 3) If they incorporate multiple forms of greenhouse gases as their target for control, then the cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions will decrease to US$216 (according to 1997 prices)—which is 20 percent less than the first scenario—because the conditions are more relaxed. Under this scenario, the United States can include other forms of greenhouse gases and carbon sinks, which will reduce the cost of emission reduction the most. If we look at the economic impact on the United States, the first scenario would cause a loss of US$54 billion; the second scenario would cause a loss of US$66 billion; and the third scenario would cause a loss of US$40 billion. This study has become a major basis for the United States’ rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. As we can see, there was clear economic significance in the United States’ forceful demand that other forms of greenhouse gases and carbon sequestering were included during the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Ancillary Benefits Studies on ancillary benefits touch upon regions, primarily the United States, Europe, Chile, and China. These studies mainly consider pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, suspended particulates, volatile organic compounds, particulates less than ten microns in diameter, and ozone. The chief measure for reducing the emission of greenhouse gases has been a carbon tax.12 Assessments of the ancillary benefits of reducing greenhouse gases have focused mostly on health effects. Some have been particularly detailed, considering instances of disease, the death rate, IQ, and a host of other factors, including pollutants. Furthermore, many studies have considered negative impacts on plant and animal life, the corrosion of metals and architectural structures, the landscape of forests and bodies of water, visibility, traffic noise, road maintenance, and other 12 OECD, Ancillary Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, proceedings of IPCC Expert Meeting (Paris: OECD, 2001).

60

pan jiahua

factors. The cost in these analyses ranges from US$1 to $840 for every ton of carbon. The disparities between various ancillary benefits also vary greatly. They can differ from US$2 to $508 per ton of carbon. Generally speaking, the rates of carbon taxes are relatively high in developed countries while the ancillary benefits are much less. For example, one US study claims that every US$10 tax per ton of carbon imposed would only bring an additional benefit of $3. In a country like Norway, which relies chiefly on hydroelectric sources of energy, the carbon tax rate can be as high as US$840 but bring an additional benefit of not even one-third of that amount. For many developing countries, the situation is quite the opposite. For example, some studies on China argue that a tax rate of just US$2 on every ton of carbon brings ancillary benefits as high as $52. The situation in Chile is very similar. An emission reduction of just 10 percent would require a tax rate of US$67 on every ton of carbon, yet it would bring $251 in ancillary benefits. From this analysis we can see that the ancillary benefits of greenhouse gas reduction for developed countries can lower the cost of emission reductions while increasing the economic feasibility of emission reduction policies. For developing countries, the ancillary benefits of emission reduction are well above the cost. That is to say, developing countries can also greatly lessen greenhouse gases as a way to prevent negative health impacts from pollutants. It seems to be true. In developing countries, even if they do not implement any direct measures to reduce emissions, the intensity of carbon emissions can continue to decrease. From another perspective, however, can these ancillary benefits serve as a basis for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions? Not only have developing countries not taken this approach, but developed countries have avoided it as well. Upon closer inspection, the reason is, first, that this kind of analysis is very uncertain, its methodology very simple, and the prescription derived from studies of other countries is, in retrospective and estimated data, low in credibility. Second, the main added benefit is in the form of health effects. The estimated value of health effects relies on labor losses from death rates and sickness and value of statistical life calculations (the VSL estimates in the United States are US$3 million to $4 million per person). For developing countries, famine and other diseases perhaps have a much more severe impact on health than pollution. Consequently, these estimates of value may be on the high side. Third, many added benefits of emission reduction (such as better health, less noise pollution, an improved natural landscape, etc.) are generally for the public welfare and should be considered social costs with relatively few direct effects on individuals. Fourth,



mitigating climate change and regional disparities

61

calculating the value of health effects poses a problem where a basis of comparison is concerned. If the point of reference is not appropriate, then the results may significantly differ from reality. Consequently, it is imperative that we analyze and understand the added benefits of a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions according to the real conditions in different countries. For those in developing countries, especially scholars trying to understand the conditions in their own country with original research, it is essential to avoid using data from developed countries as a point of reference and comparison to prevent biases in the data. The Economic Impact of the Kyoto Protocol Goals Signed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, the Kyoto Protocol established goals to reduce or limit the emission of greenhouse gases in industrialized countries. It required developed countries to reduce average emissions by 5.2 percent from the baseline estimate of 1990 emission levels by between the years 2008 and 2012; developing countries, because of their low level of emissions per capita and their need for economic development, were not required to make commitments to reduce emissions. The United States, as the world’s largest economy and the number one producer of greenhouse gases, found that fulfilling its obligations according to the Kyoto Protocol would cost their economy too much, so in March 2001, it announced its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.13 With the emergence of a globalized economy, any economic instability in developed countries will inexorably have an economic impact on developing countries—something that we must be cognizant of.14 Among member states of the OECD, the reduction or limitation of emissions in developed countries is already defined. In principle, a state can reduce emissions within its territory. It can also reduce emissions in other countries or purchase greenhouse gas emission reduction credits from other countries as a means for accomplishing its emission reduction 13 Pan Jiahua, “Guanzhu meiguo wenshi qiti jianpai xin fangan,” [Attention to the U.S. new program on greenhouse gas emission reduction] Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan yuanbao 16 (March 5, 2002), 1. 14 After the United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union, in order to save it, agreed to allow Australia, Japan, and Canada to include carbon sinks as part of their calculation of carbon reduction and also yielded on lowering the financial penalty for not attending the sixth United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in July 2001. As a result, some of these economic analyses may have changed.

62

pan jiahua

goals. In practice, however, some countries, such as the primary states of the European Union, have strived to reduce domestic emissions, but have not worked to encourage emission reductions abroad in order to prevent carbon leakage. This has resulted in no real reduction in emissions as these emissions just move to other states where emissions have no restrictions. Consequently, any analysis requires a host of presuppositions, such as whether or not carbon emissions trading among developed countries is completely permitted in a free market. Under different assumptions, any estimation of economic costs will vary greatly. If industrial countries are not allowed to trade emissions amongst themselves, then these countries will experience an economic loss to their 2010 GDP of 0.2 percent to 2 percent. If industrialized countries are entirely allowed to trade emissions, then it is projected that the economic loss will be 0.1 percent to 1.1 percent of their 2010 GDP.15 These calculations are perhaps on the high side, as these numbers do not include the employment of cleaner development technologies: many developed countries are able to accomplish emission reduction quotas in developing countries at a much lower cost. These calculations also do not include emission reductions from “no regrets measures” since, even in developed countries, much of the cutbacks in emissions come from increasing energy efficiency, which were opportunities to their advantage anyway. For instance, many of the emissions reductions achieved by BP are made under the condition that they not cost the company anything extra. Moreover, under the current macroeconomic analysis, many do not consider the general mutual benefits of cutting emissions, such as sanitation, improved health, and biodiversity. So in reality, the economic impact of the Kyoto Protocol’s goals on the populace of developed countries is not as significant as commonly thought. For the United States, an OECD member state, the losses will be slightly higher when compared to Europe or Japan. According to US estimates, the cost could be as high as 4 percent of the gross national product and cause the loss of over four million jobs. This is chiefly because the per capita energy consumption of Americans is very high—more than twice that of Europeans and Japanese. Reducing emissions on a large economy is bound to have adverse effects. From another perspective, the economic development of Europe and Japan is essentially about as far as it can get. The marginal physical space for expansion is essentially limited, and its .

15 J. C. Hourcade et al., “Global, Regional and National Costs,” 499–560.



mitigating climate change and regional disparities

63

population has stopped growing, restricting its ability to develop. The United States, quite to the contrary, still has a lot of physical space for its economy to expand while the population is continuing to grow, which means its demand for carbon emission will indeed be greater than Europe and Japan. This is also an underlying reason as to why the United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol. Looking at the marginal cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions for each country, however, we see that since Japan’s energy consumption is, relatively speaking, very efficient, the unit cost for reducing emissions is very high in Japan. The European Union is also very efficient in energy use due to a series of heavy tax policies on energy. Since the United States’ energy consumption is very high and its taxes on energy are very low, the marginal cost of reducing greenhouse gases is also a bit lower. In the case of countries in economic transition, such as the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, they have already industrialized. Their energy consumption and carbon emissions per capita are relatively high. Beginning in 1990, these countries abandoned centralized planned economies and gradually transitioned to market economies. During this economic transition, the preexisting economic structures were destroyed. The new economic systems took time to construct, and consequently, their economies were in a state of decline for a long period of time. This led to a decline in energy consumption and carbon emissions in these countries, which were significantly lower than the emission levels at the end of the planned economy era. The baseline for carbon emissions from the Kyoto Protocol was the year in which these countries ended their state-planned economies and was used as their reference point for emissions. The targets for reducing or limiting emissions in these countries in the Kyoto Protocol maintain the same baseline year for emissions with no increase or decrease. Under these advantageous circumstances, the goals of the Kyoto Protocol included these countries in economic transition experiencing an economic impact of an additional few percentage points.16 This is mainly because, even with the economic depression these countries experienced after 1990 and the later recovery to the 1990 levels, they are unable to emit carbon at 1990 levels due to improved energy efficiency and economic structural adjustments. This implies that they are balanced favorably for market trading. If we assume that there is a substantial increase 16 Metz et al., Climate Change 2001, 10.

64

pan jiahua

in energy efficiency or that some national economies will continue to decline, then the Kyoto Protocol in reality gives these countries a large quantity of resources for carbon emission. Hence, not only do these countries have little need to reduce emissions, but they have a large quantity of excess emission credits to sell. The result has been that these countries have been able to derive an income by distributing a quantity of their credits through emissions trading, so not only has their GDP remained unharmed, it will actually be able to grow from it. For developing countries,17 the Kyoto Protocol is based on the principle of different yet shared responsibilities. The Kyoto Protocol does not require developing countries to reduce or limit the emission of greenhouse gases; moreover, it requires developed countries to assist developing countries—through grants and technological aid—in raising energy efficiency, decreasing greenhouse emissions, and implementing sustainable development policies. In an economically globalized age, the economic impact of developed countries can be directly felt in developing countries through international trade. Yet the economic impact can be quite different for different developing countries since there is a great deal of variety in these countries’ economic structures. Member states in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) rely primarily on the export of oil as a source of income, and oil is an energy source high in carbon; therefore, any reduction or limitation of greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries will unsurprisingly have an impact on the importing and exporting of oil. Since developed countries are the main consumers of oil, a reduction in the demand for oil will certainly lead to a decline in the price of oil in the international market, which will lead to a reduction in the export of oil. For countries that rely on the export of petroleum as their main national industry, the estimated decline in income from oil will definitely have a major financial impact. Generally speaking, as the pressure on developed countries to reduce emissions continues, the lower their emissions will be, but this will mean that the demand for oil will also be less, which will very negatively impact oil-exporting countries. One study18 shows that in 2010, if emissions trading is not allowed, OPEC nations will experience a 0.2 percent loss to their GDP. If developed countries are allowed to trade

17 Ibid., 11. 18 T. Baiker et al., “Sector Costs and Ancillary Benefits of Mitigation,” in Metz et al., Climate Change 2001, 571.



mitigating climate change and regional disparities

65

carbon emissions, the degree to which the demand for oil decreases in these countries will be slightly less, so the cost to the OPEC nations’ GDP could be, accordingly, as low as 0.05 percent. As far as the oil income of OPEC nations is concerned, the impact of emission reduction is much more direct and greater. In 2010, if emissions trading is not permitted, then the loss to oil income could be as high as 25 percent; if developed countries are allowed to trade, then the loss to oil income could be as high as 13 percent. Since developing countries do not have any limits and are not expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, their economic expansion will require a greater quantity of oil consumption. Consequently, OPEC nations have the opportunity to develop new markets by expanding exports to other developing countries, which can suppress some of the negative impacts of these rules. Therefore, the calculations on this matter may exaggerate the economic impact and general cost to these countries. Additionally, OPEC countries may be able to increase the use of natural gas as well as diversify economically by eliminating fossil fuel subsidies through an energy tax based on carbon emission quantities as a way to mitigate any possible negative economic impacts. Since the goals of the Kyoto Protocol include incorporating provisions that require developed countries to decrease the import of high-carbon products such as petroleum and natural gas, the export price of high-carbon products will increase for many developed countries, which will negatively influence imports for many developing countries. From another perspective, however, since the market price for oil will decrease, developing countries can take advantage of lower fuel costs to increase exports of carbon-intense products and transfers of environmental technologies. According to regulations in the Kyoto Protocol, developing countries will be the main beneficiaries of the participation in projects with clean development mechanisms, and they will be the main recipients of funds and technology transfers. However, it is important to point out that the impact on many developing countries is indirect, as they are in a subordinate position. If the cost of reducing emissions in developed countries is high, it may encourage the flow of capital and technology to developing countries; if developed countries are able to improve through technological advancement and expanding domestic carbon sinks, the role of clean development mechanisms in developing countries will be very limited. As we can see in this study, due to disparities in the interest for development and demands, developing countries generally were able to form a political alliance against developed countries on climate-change issues— a global north-south war. Since the economic structures and levels of

66

pan jiahua

development were different, developing countries certainly had many internal conflicts, such as OPEC states, newly industrialized countries, major countries in the midst of becoming developed, less-developed countries, and other international political cliques, which made international negotiations on climate change all the more complicated.

chapter five

The Paradox of Sustainable Development and Globalization Xu Chun Amidst the wave of economic globalization in the world today and the greater global movement and distribution of capital, technology, labor, and other major factors of production brought about by the rapid development of information technology, every country is being pulled ever deeper into a unified and continually expanding global market. Even the everyday social interactions of people are increasingly globalized. This has led to a new integration and transformation in global patterns. At the same time, the effects of globalization have proven to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it has led to the rapid development of social productive forces furthering the progress of all of humanity; on the other hand, it has also led to an explosion in the human population, food shortages, an exhaustion of resources, ecological destruction, air pollution, and other unintended consequences, which jeopardize the survival and development of the human race. In this paradox in which globalization pulls human society further toward globalized problems, people have begun to question traditional paths of industrial development in an attempt to find a new way for human society to develop, and from this has emerged the theory of sustainable development. The concept of sustainable development has its beginnings in the 1980s, when people began raising the issue of long-term strategies for human development from the perspective of the environment and natural resources. It emphasizes the importance of the long-term carrying capacity of the environment and natural resources for economic and social development, as well as the importance of socioeconomic development on improving quality of life and the natural ecology. The core of this idea is that the economy, society, technology, the population, resources, and the environment should be coordinated and sustainably developed by lowering the cost and effects of development in order to avoid the irreversible destruction of global resources and the environment and, with it, economic development. It also emphasizes the preservation of resources that current and future generations depend upon

68

xu chun

for survival and for continued development. As scholars and government leaders have increasingly accepted this theory, its significance has gone well beyond its original concept and it has rapidly become a mainstream social development theory. As a new perspective on social development, it has gone from an older model that attempts to mark economic growth as a means for balancing social development purely through industrialization to broader aims of social development; from a focus on materialism to one of human development; and from the economic prosperity of a generation to socially sustainable development. The importance of development is no longer seen as economic growth and technological progress, but as the coordination and promotion of the understanding of society, economics, politics, and culture, as well as the reconstruction of our way of life, our psychology, and our values system. It contains both a horizontal approach toward society that coordinates with social substrata and a vertical approach toward society in its continuity. From the definition of sustainable development, this path to development represents the interests of each nation and each human being. One could say it is the ideal development model. However, the question is whether or not globalization can “naturally” lead to sustainable global socioeconomic development for “global interests.” Does sustainable development require the compliance of just one nation or is it a path to development that requires the cooperation of the entire world and humanity? Is it an “idealistic pursuit” of humanity or is it a difficult choice in the paradox of globalization? If we analyze all of the problems globalization poses, we will find that there are profound contradictions—both practical and in interest—between the current reality of globalization and the theory of sustainable development. The Contradiction of the Balanced Needs of Sustainable Development and the Unbalanced Realities of Development According to popular perception, sustainable development is a mode of development that chiefly fulfills the needs of the current generation while not threatening or harming the capability or opportunity of later generations to fulfill their needs. Sustainable development is both integrated and coordinated in its horizontal relations in that it underscores the improvement of the relationship between humans and nature and between persons through the pursuit of the comprehensive and coordinated development of all strata of society such as the economy, society, culture, and ecology. Looking from the perspective of sustainable development, whether the



paradox of sustainable development and globalization

69

development of society should be balanced or should not develop at all should not be determined by any single economic marker, but by a series of economic, social, cultural, and environmental markers and their interactions. Sustainable development does not simply pursue the resolution of any particular contingent of a problem or temporary stopgap measures, but effective long-term comprehensive measures. In its vertical relationship, sustainable development is continuous and long-term. It holds that the long-term and continuous profitability of society is an important standard of balanced development. Any calculation that focuses on the immediate advantage without considering the potential harm it could have on so-called future development should not be considered scientific and rational development. In addition, sustainable development highlights the moderation of development. Through moderation, environmental resources can be protected so that they can be used on a continuing basis. Moderated development is embodied in sustainable development in three respects: the moderation of population growth, the moderation of productive progress, and the moderation of personal consumption.1 Theoretically and ideally speaking, sustainable development implies not only a long-running dynamic process of development, but also an enduring process of general balance. It also implies that development is not just for one particular nation, but for the general good of the globe. The core question of sustainable development is, How do we give every person, every nation, and all generations to come the ability to equally enjoy all the fruits of social progress? The goal of sustainable development is, namely, to protect the natural ecology as well as optimize the social ecology. Only when a balance is struck between these two can humanity truly construct a society that is sustainably developed.2 Balance, in terms of the stability or idealness of economic development, is achieved through economic mechanisms and regulated control. According to these requirements for achieving balance, economic growth must be maintained at an appropriate rate in order to prevent insufficient growth or economic overheating; the general supply and demand must be kept in balance in order to prevent oversupplying or excessive demand; and the entirety of society’s economic resources must be distributed at optimal proportions in order to prevent shortages of resources or their

1 Xu Chun, Kechixu fazhan yu Shengtai Wenming [Sustainable development and ecological civilization] (Beijing: Beijing Press, 2001), 96. 2 Ibid., 106.

70

xu chun

inefficient use. From a more practical perspective of economic development, however, inequity is a normal and objective reality of economic mechanisms, without exception. Economic inequity, generally speaking, is visible in the disparities in economic growth, the unequal distribution of resources, and the imbalances in market supply and demand. One of the ways in which the inequity in resource distribution is directly linked to sustainable development is in the shortages of resources seen in many developing countries, such as the energy crises, the shortages in raw materials, the insufficient foreign currency reserves, and the insufficient working capital for enterprises. This highly restricts the ability of these places to be economically sustainable and is a restriction on growth that is difficult to resolve in the short term. Going from macroeconomic inequity to economic balance requires that governments intervene and highly regulate macroeconomic trends. Under the onslaught of economic globalization currently, there is clearly unequal development between different countries and regions. This inequity is largely expressed in vast disparities between developed and developing countries, as well as the imbalance within the economic structures of developing countries. This kind of development contradicts the theoretical principles of sustainable development. From an economic perspective, globalization has been seen as the mutual interdependence of the world’s economic activities, particularly in the formation of an international market—a capital market that surpasses national boundaries to freely flow around the globe—and the distribution of resources across the entire world. As a system, globalization has been seen as the internationalization of capitalism or the expansion of international capitalism. Nonetheless, the nature of this system is global economic capitalism. The present world economic order began after the Second World War, when a victorious United States, as a leader of Western developed countries, was able to use its position of superiority to build an international economic order that made the “rules of the game” play to its advantage. In this system, international production was based on an irrational division of labor. From this emerged a global regime of unequal exchanges with a core/semi-periphery/periphery relationship. The long-standing relationship between “industrial Europe and America and raw-resource-producing Asia, Africa, and Latin America” created by the developed countries’ colonial rule did not face any fundamental change in this period. Currently, the leading countries of globalization are still, to the greatest extent possible, solidifying the status of dependent states as suppliers of raw materials, a market for their products, and



paradox of sustainable development and globalization

71

a producer of the most environmentally harmful products. In this process, these countries are drawn further into the global economic system of transnational capital. This leaves many dependent states unable to obtain modern technology and eliminates the possibility of independently developing. The irrational division of labor internationally will inevitably create an irrational trade structure and the conditions for unequal trade. For a long time, international trade has been marked by unequal exchanges. Western developed countries have been able to use their monopoly and various conveniences of power to artificially inflate the price of industrial products and suppress the value of agricultural and mineral resources by exploiting developing countries with the “price scissors” of international trade. The economic structures of many developing countries are still largely based on a single product. Although there may have been some industrial development, one or two industrial or mineral primary products remain the mainstay of these national economies, such as the cattle industry in Botswana, which is responsible for over 50 percent of the gross national product. These malformed national economic structures hinder the economies of developing countries from balancing development and make consumers and production demands overly dependent on the outside, thus heavily influencing the national economic initiative of developing countries to the point where there is no substantial change to poverty for the foreseeable future. It is easy to see that this inequity in the international economic system is a serious obstacle for developing countries to escape poverty and find their own path to development. It weakens the ability of developing countries to sustainably develop and polarizes the development of the world economy and society, not to mention makes global development highly unbalanced. If these developmental predicaments are not removed, then the development of developing countries will falter and the development of developed countries will be severely constrained and stagnant. Presently speaking, globalization has not led to the sustainable, universal, or equitable development of global society, nor has it led to sustainable or equitable development within developing countries; instead, it has proven to be out of sync or drastically uneven. The interests of various groups have produced a plethora of incongruities in this system. If this is not changed, then the global development brought by globalization will not lead to the positive path of sustainable development, and sustainable development will remain a theoretical debate only tangentially related to reality.

72

xu chun The Strengthening Market Mechanisms and the Weakening Government Services

There have been two unique characteristics of the socioeconomic development of the twenty-first century: first, the globalization of the modern market economy and second, the ecological transformation of modern economic development. Presently, both developed countries, like the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Japan, and developing countries, like China, Brazil, and much of Latin America, have made it clear that they wish to implement sustainable development strategies; as a result, the transformations accompanied by sustainable development in their economic systems are already quite clear. A unique property of sustainable development as an economic system is that it brings together ecology and economics as one. It is based on a positive cycle between an ecologically sound environment and economic mechanisms. In the process of economic operations, it can maintain natural resources and environmental quality as well as a sure supply of ecological capital, and it can grow with time while providing stability to humanity for economic and social development. This kind of economic system needs to put modern socioeconomic development on the right track for positive ecological and economic cycles if we wish to achieve sustainable development, which coordinates the ecology with the economy and society. Looking at the production and reproduction of society, a sustainable economy is one in which there is gradual growth and profitability for producers and enterprises. This requires that the national economic system maintains production at levels greater than or equal to its average historic capacity and that there are not any systemically negative growth trends. Furthermore, it requires that economic growth emphasize growth in numbers, as well as improve quality, mitigate consumption, conserve resources, reduce waste, and increase efficiency in order to strive for less or the least variability in economic growth and earnings, and from this ensure the sustainability, stability, and coordinated development of the national economy. Modern economic development increasingly shows us that the main force of economic sustainability is technological progress. The interaction between this and the investment mechanisms determines the degree to which the economy is sustainable. Economic sustainability and other sustainable practices are interwoven together. For example, the rational distribution of resources, such as the effective use of resources and their equitable distribution, is chiefly an economic problem; however,



paradox of sustainable development and globalization

73

at the same time, it is also an ecological and social problem. As devastation to our environment continues, the natural productivity of our ecosystem shall decrease, causing severe shortages for some essential natural resources and sources of energy. The effects of this kind of devastation, if allowed to build up over time, will inevitably become apparent in the economy with its inability to obtain sufficient resources and energy. This will not only lead to a difficult time maintaining balance, but exacerbate imbalances in the mechanisms of the economic system and the loss of control for many relevant government agencies. On the contrary, protecting and improving the environment certainly has ecological benefits, but it requires the support of the economy and the payment of certain economic costs that over time will turn ecological benefits into economic and social benefits. In order to build a sustainable economic system, there must be the following: a uniting of the value of humanity and nature, a uniting of the right of all humanity to exist and develop with the right of nature to exist and develop, and a uniting of the right of people today to exist and develop and future generations to exist and develop. In addition, a sustainable economic system must adhere to four codes of conduct: it must remain steadfast in opposing development at the cost of sacrificing endangered ecological resources, it must remain firm in opposing development today at the cost of impairing future development, it must remain strong in opposing the development of only certain sectors at the cost of harming the development of the entire world, and it must remain resolute in opposing personal development at the expense of depriving others of the ability to develop. Finally, a fundamental issue that must be clarified is that we must ensure the coordination of socioeconomic development with environmental development in order to lessen the real ecological cost and social cost present in modern economic development and achieve ideal modern sustainable economic development. Building a sustainable economic system cannot be separated from government regulation, but the globalization of the world economy has proven to strengthen market forces while weakening the capacity of governments to regulate. Under these conditions, the prospect of economically sustainable development has very stark contradictions in practice on an operational level. A newly unique property of globalization is the universalization of the market. The basic properties of market economics— the market, market competition, market pricing—and other fundamental factors in a market economy and economic mechanisms, as well as the profit maximization motive of free enterprises generally conflict with the

74

xu chun

goals pursued by sustainable development. In a completely free market economy, the modus operandi of the “homo economicus” is essentially self-interest. In this sense, it is the maximization of personal benefit, and people are only motivated to seek the “interest of others” when it intersects with their self-interest. These actions of strongly “shortsighted” and “self-interested” pursuits easily lead to uneconomic externalities such as ecological destruction, environmental pollution, and noise pollution. In a laissez-faire market economy, the expansion of these uneconomic externalities has the potential to accrue and threaten the existence and development of other people and threaten the security of humanity. The inherent deficiencies of market mechanisms are in their failure to distribute environmental resources, because it is difficult for them to protect environmental resources and restore the natural ecology. The primary way to resolve these uneconomic externalities in supply-side options is through government regulation. This requires that, in order for the government to exert its regulatory authority, it must rely on systematic arrangements and formulations, the strict enforcement of laws and regulations, the building of a rational relationship between ecological and economic interests, and the interests of sustainable economic development. Generally speaking, there are six respects in which a government can intervene in market failures: it can provide public goods, maintain macroeconomic stability, internalize economic externalities, limit monopolies, and adjust the distribution of wealth and income.3 Protecting environmental resources, preventing environmental pollution, and engaging in ecological reconstruction require the intervention of government policies. With the globalization of the world economy and the placement of economic interests above all others, if the government fails in its regulatory responsibilities, it will be very difficult to build an economic system that develops sustainably. “Government failures” are manifest in the government’s inability to achieve expected public goals, and they harm an effective market network, which decreases its own efficiency. Government failures are primarily caused by defects within a government’s internal organization. According to public choice theory interpretation, the political market sees creating a “good government” that conforms to the interests of the general public as very difficult. The public options in a

3 Hu Angang and Wang Shaoguang, Congxin renshi guojia de zuoyong: Zhengfu yu shichang [A new recognition of the role of the nation: Government and market] (Beijing: Zhongguo Jihua Press, 2000).



paradox of sustainable development and globalization

75

democratic system are always myopic and are heavily influenced by financial gains, making it highly inconsistent with the general social welfare. Consequently, it is difficult for a government bureaucracy to effectively redistribute resources and satisfy the public’s demand for public goods such as environmental quality, which only leads to further government failure. As we can see, in the past the main participants in the global economy were nation-states. In the globalized economy of today, the main actors in the market have become transnational corporations that provide investments and trade. In this form of international monopoly, the transnational corporations rely upon advanced telecommunications technology and business management techniques to effectively regulate internal organization and highly structured production plans. This assists in the transnational flow and global distribution of resources; however, since the actions of transnational corporations have gone beyond the conventional boundaries of the nation-state by expanding to a global stage, it is now impossible for any single state to exert control over the global market. Moreover, due to intense international competition, transnational corporations work tirelessly to expand and increase production no matter the cost in order to lower costs, exclude competitors, and increase their share of the global market, which in the end inevitably leaves them blind to the cost of development and production. Since transnational corporations have so much power and effective internal organization, the expansion of the scale of production has been fiercely rapid, not to mention that the actions of transnational corporations have gone way beyond the ability of their home government to manage and control. This has made it often impossible for governments to control their transnational corporations, while other governments have extreme difficulty designing policies to intervene and regulate these corporations. This is also the main reason why the globalized economy can be considered a stateless sector. The liberalization of capital transfer has been a major force in the increasing pace and tenacity of economic globalization; moreover, the openly liberal policies of many national economies that allow for the free flow of trade, products, services, personnel, and capital have made neoliberal market economies the guiding ideological principle. In order to effectively allow for privatization and market liberalization, government authority to regulate the economy has been watered down. Whether it is an industrialized country or a developing country, the deficiencies of policies twist many of the actions of governments. For example, many advanced industrialized countries believe that in order to maintain their

76

xu chun

international economic competitiveness, they must maintain military superiority and, therefore, have legalized the stockpiling of massive quantities of high-tech weaponry in their pursuit of economic security. Developing countries with their abundant resources, in order to cope with the increasing need for foreign currency reserves, often increasingly shift the focus of their economy toward cash crops and the export of metal, mineral resources, lumber, and other natural resources, even if this means their natural resources will be entirely exhausted, leaving them with no further wealth to replace them. It is evident that regardless of sector, country, size, strength, or stage of development, in order to strengthen the competitiveness of its products, companies and nations in the globalized economy ignore the rational distribution of resources in the world economic system. The economic rationality of today legitimizes short-term policies, and these policies are directed toward maximizing competitiveness and profitability—they rarely consider the long-term consequences. No matter the cost, all governments are often unwilling to enforce policies that could weaken the competitiveness and productivity of their national industries. Many governments would rather bear the burden of environmental degradation caused by amassing chemical fertilizers, toxic substances, and radiation and are unwilling to limit the creation of wealth through ecological directives and regulations. From the present situation, it looks as if policies lean toward short-term gains that lead to a blind spot in economic principles that only consider investing all financial resources into the economy for quick profits. This blind spot in the economy is a very serious “government failure” that will severely impact the possibility of establishing a sustainable economic system and make it difficult to maintain public interests such as the environment. The Intensification of the Conflict between Private and Public Interests The globalization of world economic development is revealed in the emergence of various global problems as a negation, and it affects the formation of a common interest for humanity in a very peculiar way. The formation of a common interest for humanity and the emergence of various global problems, objectively speaking, bring about some very unique normative values for contemporary society. If humanity wishes to continue to exist and sustainably develop, people must orient their values



paradox of sustainable development and globalization

77

toward common public interests in order to manage the relationship of the individual with the world so that many of the various contemporary global conflicts can be resolved. Global warming, the destruction of the ozone layer, air pollution, water pollution, the explosion of the global population, resource depletion, the destruction of forests, desertification, and a whole host of other problems humanity faces today are not just problems for any one country or region—they are global problems and, thus, must be resolved by the efforts of the entire planet. This makes the common interests of all humanity an increasing reality. Based on this, the theory of sustainable development emphasizes that, in order to maintain the long-term interests of both humanity and the environment, at no time is it acceptable to harm the global ecosystem. It embodies the universal and ultimate concerns of humanity. If we consider it from this perspective, we naturally come to the conclusion that the interests of humanity should be placed above all else, including the special interests of any particular state or region. However, the reality is that the world is not united; we have not produced a rational world government based on democratic principles. Instead, our world is based on many divided sovereign nations—countries separated according to whether they are developed or developing. Developed countries employ their economic, political, technological, cultural, and military might to amass the majority of the world’s wealth in order to maintain their own national interests. They marry the consequences of ecological destruction, which they caused, to developing countries, leading to the greater polarization of the world’s wealth and the exacerbation of conflicts of interest. Under these circumstances, who can regulate the common interests of humanity? This is the paradox of globalization, and it is directly expressed in the conflict between private and public interests. Interests are defined in terms of the demands of an individual (whether it be a person, a corporation, or a society) toward the surrounding world. Interests are directly expressed in social relations (particularly in socioeconomic relations) and are the driving force behind the interactions between individuals and social groups. The economic relations of every society are, first and foremost, expressed as interests. “Public interests” and “private interests” express the scope of the relationship and degree of the occupied interest of two different interest groups. “Public interests” signify the interests of humanity, the nation, the common good of most people, or just simply the general interest. “Private interests” signify the segmented interests of an individual or a small group. In fact, market forces do take into consideration very urgent and practical issues, but

78

xu chun

they often neglect the long-term interests of humanity. As the main forces of globalization, both the transnational corporation and the nation-state form a common realm of exchange across the globe for the pursuit of the maximization of their own interests. It places all people, wealth, and material at the same level and gathers all of the means of pursuing and achieving different interests across humanity in the same space. This also intensifies the conflict between private interests and public interests by placing the private interests of transnational corporations above the interests of nation-states and the interests of nation-states above the common interests of humanity.4 A common problem is that market forces seek to develop to the greatest extent possible private interests—not public interests, even though these “private interests” may include the interests of transnational corporations. The logic of capital is that in order to gain more profit, corporations must produce products that satisfy people’s desires while minimizing as much as possible the cost of production. This can lead to the destruction of the environment, as it is incapable of producing a logic that will actively seek the protection of the environment. As the wave of globalization has engulfed the world, the flow of capital has also intensified in speed. The path of its flow invariably will be toward wherever there is an abundance of resources and wherever the prices are low. That is where transnational corporations will invest their capital and, inevitably, pollute the environment and destroy the local ecology. The globalization of the economy and technology is bound, in certain respects, to also bring these ecological problems to the global stage. In order to accommodate the demands of the limitless expansion of production, transnational corporations are continually developing markets and opening new fields of production, and this endless economic expansion in the end will conflict with humanity’s limited living space. Meanwhile, the globalization of the economy and trade also gives rise to global environmental problems that prove to be serious erosions of the common interests of humanity. As we can see, the world’s material resources will always be limited, while people’s desires will always be unlimited. Consequently, resources will always be “scarce,” which means that the conflicts of interest between nations, people, and interest groups will be here for a long time to come.

4 Song Shichang and Li Ronghai, “Quanqiu hua: Liyi maodun de zhanshi guocheng” [Globalization: The process of unfolding conflicts of interest], Zhexue Yanjiu 1 (2001): 10–15.



paradox of sustainable development and globalization

79

The globalization of the world economy shows us that there is an increasing interdependence between the interests of nations as the competition for people’s existence and development has intensified. The relationship of the world economy and the competition between economic interests is inherently governmentless; there certainly are rules, but there are no referees on the field to enforce them. There is no high central authority that is universally recognized with the power to limit and constrain the actions of all entities. Regardless of the regulations or the agreements that exist, they intrinsically lack the tools to be effectively enforced, and as a result, the established rules and institutions of the international economy cannot be expected to have any authority to force “public institutions” to manage global “market failures.” Meanwhile, the distribution of the benefits and losses (costs) of economic globalization is unequal— the most powerful states benefit the most while other countries receive few benefits or gain no fundamental advantages from the arrangements. This is not a balanced sustainable global economy but is inequitable development in conflicts of interest. In this case, how we are to successfully regulate the contradictory relationships of diverse interest groups, minimize conflicts of interest to the greatest extent, and maintain the balance and stability of interest groups as much as possible are the essential questions we must find answers to in order to maintain the balance, stability, and sustainable development of global society and each sovereign country. Sustainable development poses a series of complex projects consisting of cooperation among international organizations, government regulatory actions, the construction of technological infrastructure, and public participation. This implies that in order to achieve truly sustainable development, equally beneficial international cooperation is essential; government regulation is necessary; the development of new technological and scientific capabilities is vital; and social participation is fundamental. If we wish to achieve sustainable development, we must construct a new international order, and essential to this is international cooperation and government regulation. Only by strengthening the role of international and government regulation can we contain the erosion of public interests by private interests and maintain the sustainable and healthy development of society. Globalization is an objective reality of world development. It is an unavoidable fact for any nation or people. Sustainable development must face the problems caused by globalization and the aspirations of all humanity; however, both ideological and real contradictions exist

80

xu chun

between these two. There exists a long and difficult journey toward development amid this paradox that requires humanity to continually readjust its model for development in order to benefit all and mitigate harm and to turn what is harmful into something beneficial. Only in this way can humanity hope to achieve a truly long-lasting space for sustainable development.

chapter six

The Diplomatic Political Effects of International Sustainable Development in a Globalized Economy Huang Jing Since the 1980s, the idea of sustainable development has gradually been recognized around the world as most countries have instituted a large number of international conventions and legal regulations. At the same time, the globalization of the world economy has intensified, proving to be a double-edged sword for sustainable development: On the one hand, the division of specialized labor and the rational distribution of resources on a global scale have increased the efficiency of the use of resources, allowing for stronger links and interdependence among the nations of the world while providing more market mechanisms and paths for supply that resolve global environmental problems. On the other hand, it has intensified the transnational flow and consumption of resources, as well as the problem of environmental pollution that goes beyond national boundaries, while accelerating global ecological problems. The international rules that allow for inequality around the globe have led to the expanding gap between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and the stark contrast between stronger and weaker groups. This seriously tests the equality espoused by sustainable development. Intense debates have arisen between developed and developing countries surrounding historical responsibilities and the solutions to global environmental problems and have begun to stretch into prolonged negotiations. The “confrontation” between the East and West that followed the disappearance of the “dialogue” between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres has had complex new impacts on the debate. It has also helped people to further understand that the so-called dialogue between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres is in reality an attempt to replace confrontation with cooperation, but this will require further struggle in this contradictory, intricate process. With the influence of economic globalization, the strategic choices, formulations, and measures taken by states for sustainable development will inevitably have an impact on national production;

82

huang jing

consequently, how to maintain national interests while adhering to the principles of sustainable development and the rules of globalization has become a major issue for researchers around the world. At its core is the issue of the cooperation and struggle between developed and developing countries in moving sustainable development forward. The strategic sustainable choices and measures taken by states in a globalized context not only has had a major impact on the national socioeconomic development of those states, but also has given rise to a new contest between the two major camps—developed and developing nations—in the emerging new forms of international relations. As the globalization of the economy accelerates economic growth and improves the material lives of people, it is also proving to be a potential threat to local cultural traditions (predominantly in developing countries and regions), socioeconomic security, and especially national sovereignty. First, as developing countries have been enveloped by globalization, they have been forced to forgo some of their authority and relax some of their regulations, diminishing national sovereignty and narrowing the scope of national policies. Second, transnational corporations have come to control certain industries in developing countries—particularly industries of key strategic significance—which also erodes national sovereignty. Third, the harsh conditions of loans from Western developed nations and international financial institutions cost debtor nations varying degrees of national sovereignty. Since globalization affects the unassailable authority of a nation’s sovereignty and core theories in international political science, the strategic choices and measures of sustainable development in a globalized world will by necessity have a major impact on international diplomatic politics. Sustainable development strategies in a globalized world, as a result, are not just ideas for the natural resources of a nationstate, the ecology, or economic development; they are also a new form of international political relations that employ environmental resources as an object that involves strategic national security and diplomatic political actions on the behalf of national sovereignty. While national sustainable development strategies point to the relationship between humans and nature, they must also encompass the order of national actions and diplomatic political actions in international relations. As the international debate on sustainable development comes to include the relationship between environmental resources and national measures, the sustainable development strategies of states will inevitably have a series of major impacts on international institutions and international relations. The



international sustainable development

83

attention paid to questions of state sustainable development has gone from so-called “low politics” to “high politics.”1 Sustainable development has also gone from being a nonpolitical question to a question of strategy and security in the political realm. Hence, sustainable development is not like so many philosophical theories that are just a “leap” in the concept of human development; nor is it like many economic theories that claim a major shift in developmental models. From the perspective of international politics, any consensus reached by states on sustainable development could be called a “political consensus.” This was made highly apparent in the Rio Declaration, and the politics of this consensus was reinforced further in the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. This consensus was reached as political blocs and those looking for political influence were searching for a new balance after the Cold War. In this context, the impact of global sustainable development on international relations must not be overlooked. Making the Response to Global Environmental Problems a Part of the Agenda of National Governments, and the Introduction of “Eco-Politics” into the Ideology and Real Management of States Internationally, with the exacerbation of the global eco-environmental crisis, the leaders of every country have come to focus on solving the global environmental problems. For example, in the poll held among the seven hundred world economic leaders that attended the Davos World Economic Forum in 2005, climate change ranked third among forty different world issues (following poverty and issues of globalization),2 receiving unprecedented attention from the international community. At the 2005 Group of Eight + Five summit attended by the leaders of the principal developed and developing countries, climate change was designated as one of the two main items on their agenda. This signifies that global environmental problems have become a priority on the agendas of world politics. It also implies that global environmental problems will, in the long run, become an important future stage for international 1  Zhang Xiaojing and Jing Yuejin, Bijiao zhengzhi xue daolun [A comparative study on politics] (Beijing: Zhongguo Renmin Daxue Press, 2001), 287. 2 Gao Feng, “ ‘Qihou waijiao yu dafosi liu da tiaozhan” [The six major challenges of climate diplomacy and Davos], Qihou bianhua yanjiu jinzhan [Climate change research progress] 1 (2005).

84

huang jing

actions. International negotiations on global environmental problems will become increasingly tense, making them one of the greatest multilateral problems that will aggravate conflicts between states and make it more difficult to reach an agreement. In domestic politics, responding to the global eco-environmental crisis, objectively speaking, will deeply impact concepts of governance and the preexisting authority structures of nation-states: On the one hand, in order for governments to respond to global environmental problems and reform domestic policies for sustainable development, they will have to expand the impact of state strategies in protecting the environment while reinforcing the capabilities and authority of institutions for environmental protection. If we take as any indication the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), where many states came to a historic political consensus on how to grapple with problems of development and the environment, most of the nations after the conference formulated their own Agenda 21 or sustainable development strategy, which had a major impact on the operation of management structures and concepts of governance in each country. On the other hand, grassroots Green movements have struck the conventional political and regulatory institutions of many nations. Every grassroots environmental protection team, antinuclear organization, and each specialized international nongovernmental organization has become politically mature to some degree or another. Their proposals and actions have left an impression on their nations that can hardly be ignored. In the 1990s, Green parties began to emerge in several European countries. They participated in the politically sensational Red-Green Alliances (i.e., coalitions of Social Democrats and Green Party members) that shook the mainstream political consciousness of many Western developed countries and made it impossible to ignore the “eco-environmental effect” that pushed the Green agenda in the political parties of developed countries. In 1998 elections in both Germany and France, the Green Party was incorporated into the cabinets of their governments. The leaders of the Green Party obtained many important positions in key ministries. In the 2006 ruling united government of Italy, there were also some members of the Green Party that participated in the government office and began to become an increasingly involved mainstream political force. The participation of the Green Party in political office has politicized the grassroots environmental movement, reflecting the reality of “eco-politics” as a formal authority and field for national and international politics. It is having a major influence on the direction and character of sustainable development in countries around the world.



international sustainable development

85

The Influential Factors in Transforming Eco-Environmental Problems in National Politics into a New Paradigm for International Relations, and Turning “Environmental Diplomacy” into a Problem of National Sovereignty The flourishing of a new paradigm of international relations that arose as more attention was paid to the global environment is a new shift that emerged in the confrontation between the East and West camps that followed the dissolution of the Soviet Union after the Cold War. The founding of the UNCED in 1992 and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002 marked the continued development of this new paradigm in international relations. It also shows that issues of sustainable development had already become an important part of the construction of a new political economy for the international order. In the process of building this new order and new paradigm in international relations, “environmental politics” actively flourished. Not only did the United States fully cast its hand into environmental diplomacy,3 but other developed countries as well as developing countries, without exception, frequently played the “environment card” in negotiations and diplomatic activities. Presently, there are three unique characteristics of environmental politics in the world: First, it has communitarian qualities. The enduring internal motivations of environmental diplomacy are its shared communitarian objectives. The global environmental problems that emerge in environmental diplomacy have a major influence on socioeconomic development in every country and cannot be resolved by any one or even a few countries; they require a joint effort on a global scale. Common slogans such as “Protect humanity’s only home” and “Protect humanity’s shared heritage” have become the common goals of environmental diplomacy for every country. This kind of communitarianism has led to the rapid development of environmental diplomacy and its gradual emergence on the international stage. Second, environmental politics has practicality. Environmental diplomacy in practice is in principle based on the pragmatic strategies of national interests at its core. When sharing

3 In April 1996, Warren Christopher, former US Secretary of State, gave a talk at Stanford University entitled “American Diplomacy and the Global Environmental Challenges of the 21st Century,” in which he discussed the relationship between environmental problems and US global strategies. In 1997, the US State Department released its first annual report on environmental diplomacy. Environmental diplomacy has already become an important part of American diplomacy, further advancing its progress.

86

huang jing

these interests through participating in cooperative international actions, it is the appearance of being openhanded, cooperative, and actively or passively willing to transfer partial authority that is considered to be a part of conventional sovereignty and through which one can truly obtain material interests and erect an international image of self-responsibility. When environmental politics touches upon sensitive issues of national security and political interest, when it diminishes one’s own international position due to shifts in interest structures, or even when it affects economic interests, the belief that environmental politics will harm national sovereignty immediately grows and it is fiercely resisted in diplomatic actions. In international society, the organization Greenpeace has been received both warmly and coldly by each sovereign nation. This is a typical reaction from pragmatists.4 Third, environmental politics has scientific rationality. The scientific rationalism of environmental diplomacy is mainly expressed in its reliance on and close connection with scientific and technological advancement. As compared to conventional diplomacy, environmental diplomacy is not only affected by international political relations and all kinds of ideological differences, but also the impact of scientific and technological advances. The solutions to global climate change, the destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain, the transnational flow of hazardous waste, diminishing biodiversity, desertification, global water pollution, and other contemporary environmental problems will require science and technology. In Agenda 21, which was approved at the 1992 UNCED, there are two chapters (chapters 34 and 35) in which the importance of science and technology are discussed at length.5 Therefore, if there is no development in modern science and technology in this respect, environmental diplomacy will lose a major branch of support. One could say that to some degree, environmental diplomacy is also the diplomacy of science and technology.

4 Wang Yidan, “Shengtai huanjing zhengzhi yu dangdai guoji guanxi” [Eco-environmental politics and contemporary international relations], Zhejiang shehui kexue [Zhejiang sociology] 3 (1998). 5 Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (New York: United Nations Publications, 1993), 382–399.



international sustainable development

87

The Intensification of Resource Depletion by the Unsustainable Consumerist Practices of Developed Countries and the Formation of an Indirect Form of Occupation through the “Ecological Footprint” of Developed Countries’ Effects on the Ecological Services Shared by the Citizens of Developing Countries To begin with, the highly consumerist lifestyle of developed countries has intensified the depletion of energy and natural resources. The amount of resources used and consumed by developed countries, when compared to their population, is alarmingly high. With only about 20 percent of the world’s population, developed countries consume the equivalent of 85 percent of the world’s lumber supply. They also consume about 75 percent of the world’s processed metals supply and 75 percent of the world’s energy supply. The richest 20 percent of the world’s population consume about 86 percent of global goods and services and 87 percent of the world’s automobiles, while the poorest 20 percent of the world’s population only consume about 1.3 percent of the world’s goods and services.6 While consuming the majority of the world’s resources, developed countries emit large quantities of harmful gases. Every year, they emit 50 percent of the total carbon dioxide in the world. The population of the United States makes up only 3 percent or 4 percent of the world’s total population, yet it emits over 25 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide. The average annual per capita consumption of petroleum is about nine tons— five times the global average and sixteen times the average consumption in India.7 At the current levels of consumption, an American with an average life span of eighty years will consume over fifty-two million gallons of water, 528,000 gallons of petroleum, eleven thousand tons of steel, and wood from over one thousand large trees. If everyone in the world were to consume at the same level of the average American, then we would need twenty planet earths. Second, since there are massive disparities in the consumption and exploitation of natural resources among the nations of the earth, some

6 United Nations Development Program, Human Development Report (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). 7 United Nations Development Program, Global Resources Report 2000–2001 (Beijing: Zhongguo Huanjing Kexue Press, 2002).

88

huang jing

countries have, when it comes to consuming natural resources, had an ecological impact that goes well beyond their own country’s borders, creating a transnational occupation that is functionally ecological in nature but that is leading to ecological scarcity. Not only have developed countries been able to harvest natural resources from developing countries through the direct importation of cheap goods or investments by transnational corporations, but they have, through the effects of their unsustainable consumption and lifestyle, directly occupied the ecological property of developing countries through their ecological footprints. As a potential marker of an ecology’s weakness, an ecological footprint provides a warning for developed countries—which have a scarcity of ecological resources per capita—that the lifestyle and consumption of their citizens is already far beyond their capacity to replenish resources domestically. The result is the intensified degradation of their environment or a shifting of this ecological crisis to other regions and countries. In Ecological Footprints of Nations, Mathis Wackernagel and his coauthors estimated the ecological footprints of fifty-two countries and regions.8 They showed that the global ecological footprint per person was about 6 acres, and while the average ecological footprint in developing countries was only 5 acres per person, the average ecological footprint in developed countries was 15 acres per person—three times that of developing countries. The United States had the largest ecological footprint in the world with an average of 27 acres per person, while Bangladesh had the smallest ecological footprint in the world with 0.5 acres per person. This gap in the ecological footprints of developed and developing countries continues to grow. In the ten years between 1992 and 2001, the ecological footprints of the wealthiest twenty-seven countries in the world grew by 8 percent while the ecological footprints of the poorest countries in the world fell by an average of 8 percent.9 This discrepancy in the transnational use of resources reflects the inequality between the citizens of one nation and another in sharing in the ecosystem services of the world. Third, in recent years, the importance of quantifying the value of the environment has already been recognized around the world. Professor R. Costanza of the University of Maryland and his colleagues have estimated the value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. They

8 Mathis Wackernagel et al., Ecological Footprints of Nations: How Much Nature Do They Use? How Much Nature Do They Have? (Costa Rica: The Earth Council, 1997). 9 World Wide Fund for Nature, Living Planet Report 2004 (2004).



international sustainable development

89

calculated that the global ecosystem contributes an average of US$33 trillion per annum—the equivalent of 1.8 times the global gross national product (GNP).10 The global nature of ecosystem services makes the transnational usage and exchange of ecosystem services increasingly common.11 As natural capital and ecosystem services face more pressure and become ever scarcer, how can a state formulate an appropriate sustainable development strategy and policy according to the value of ecosystem services that would allow for the maintenance and growth of natural capital while ensuring that the state receives all the ecosystem services it requires? This is another important question asked by states that are gradually being introduced into the global economy. The massive value of the ecosystem, as shown by its quantification, exacerbates the conflicts between states for ecological resources and services and furthers the politicization of the environment. The Effects of the Rapid Development of a Multilateral Environmental System on Developing Nations and the Growth of the “New Barriers” in International Competition Recently, a multilateral international environmental system has appeared and grown rapidly. It has had a major impact on the economic development of countries and international competition. Developed countries have used the problems of sustainable development and the global environment to limit and restrain developing countries. This has affected developing countries in a way that cannot be ignored and which can be shown in the following two respects. First of all, developed countries have relied upon their economic strength and advanced technology to direct the drafting and enforcement of the international environmental system, regulations, and treaties. With the goal of gaining the greatest benefit and having an unfair advantage of strength and better opportunities in development, they have operated under the guise of global common interests to push for standards and regulations to protect the environment and force developing

10 R. Costanza et al., “The Value of the World’s Eco-system Services and Natural Capital,” Nature 386 (1997): 253–260. 11  Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees, “Perceptual and Structural Barriers to Investing in Natural Capital: Economics from an Ecological Footprint Perspective,” Ecological Economics 20 (1997): 3–24.

90

huang jing

countries to accept conditions that they should not have accepted (or not have accepted in their entirety or at least not have accepted right away). Developed countries took their own environmental protection standards or ecological measures and turned them into universal standards for the international community, “equally” imposing them upon developing countries. In reality, it was an attempt to strengthen their demands upon developing countries by restricting their opportunities to develop and to contain the strength of developing countries under the auspices of preventing ecological destruction. International regulations on economic and technological aid have been where the intentions of developed countries are most easily seen. The most obvious example has been the demands of the World Bank along with several developed countries that environmental protection standards be applied to development assistance loans. The multilateral international system that was formed on the basis of solving environmental problems actually allowed for the consolidation of developed countries to directly or circuitously interfere with developing countries. This has, to a large degree, made it extremely difficult for an international sustainable development standard to achieve a united and comprehensive logic. Limited international cooperative measures have become the object of exchange and compromise for international interests. There is more scrutiny and bickering after the ratification of these international environmental treaties than any actual actions. The political nature of these international negotiations is fully reflected in the conflicts and disputes involved in negotiating the Kyoto Protocol. The power to make policy decisions on the sustainable development strategies of the international community has also mostly resided with developed countries. For example, when it comes to appointing experts on the environment from international organizations and institutions, most have come from developed countries and regions; representatives from developing countries only receive titular and figurehead positions of little import.12 On the surface, these decisions on sustainable development or the approval of environmental standards appear to be the common will of the international community, but in reality, the process of drafting these decisions and standards is used by developed countries to plant, either in a concealed or compulsory manner, many conditions and demands, paving the way to further their interests in the future.

12 Wang, “Shengtai huanjing zhengzhi yu dangdai guoji guanxi.”



international sustainable development

91

Another aspect that has restricted the development of developing countries is the constant redesigning of protective barriers by developed countries under the guise of environmental protection. With the complication of environmental issues in recent years, the opposing positions between developed countries and developing countries have become starker as negotiations often arrive at an impasse and attempts by developed countries to restrict the economic development of developing countries under the guise of environmental protection have met fierce resistance by developing countries. Consequently, they have changed strategies to hype up the “social dimensions” of sustainable development at every negotiation where sustainable development issues were involved. For example, negotiation documents bring up issues such as “environmental rights” that include human rights and labor standards. These documents, which use the pretext of “environmental regulation” as a means to “regulate governments,” raise ideas of “good governance” and “global governance”13—like environment, trade, and society issues—and then add the issues of labor standards, human rights, democracy, and corruption in their conclusion, pushing the politicization of sustainable development issues. Their intent is to establish a “new protectionist barrier” and to “repackage protectionism” in order to gain the initiative in new rounds of negotiations that force developing countries to compromise, weakening and containing their competitiveness. Although in the current foremost international agreements and documents, there has yet to appear anything really damaging to development; nonetheless, in these ostensibly exists the possibility that these conditions, under the vigorous insistence of developed countries, could restrict the development of developing countries. If developing countries wish to overcome these issues, they must be more aggressive and work together to formulate a unified response.

13 “Good governance” refers to the pursuit of all people for a common social structure and condition, which also includes the building of relations between the government, businesses, and local organizations. It is a sociological concept that emerged after the Cold War and later became employed in political and government studies. As for “global governance,” there has yet to emerge a clear definition, but it mainly refers to any binding international regime that has the authority to resolve global problems, like issues regarding armed conflicts, ecological crises, human rights, immigration, narcotics, trafficking, or infectious diseases, in order to maintain a normal international political and economic order.

92

huang jing A Few Thoughts on the Response Strategies of Developing Countries

Sustainable development is an indispensable option for the long-term development of developing countries. Developing countries must make concerted efforts to this end. However, due to the limitations of their economy, the simple truth of sustainable development in developing countries is that there is a contradiction between these countries’ desire to develop and objective realities. That is to say, most developing countries are critical of the “negative consequences” of industrial culture while continuing to industrialize. In critically reflecting on the “market rationality,” they are still headed toward market liberalization, but in the struggle to prevent developed countries from using the environment as an excuse to build “new barriers,” they are still susceptible to limitations from the protectionist developed countries. How is it possible for developing countries to extricate themselves from this awkward pattern? How can they respond to the many challenges of sustainable development under the modern wave of globalization? There are many issues in this respect that are worthy of in-depth research and discussion, but here I will only address a few. The first concerns the importance of managing the relationship between globalization and defending one’s own rights. First, developing countries need to conform to the globalization of the world economy and the expansion of free markets, but they must not go completely “laissez-faire,” as they need to avoid environmental devastation from opening markets and developing resources, which would affect future development. Second, it is necessary to keep pace with the progress of the human understanding of sustainable development, and in the dog-eat-dog reality of the international political order, developing countries must protect their own rights in order to avoid being trapped by the game, especially when it comes to the fundamental right of national sovereignty and security. Third, there is a need to formulate an economic development strategy and technological innovation advantage that conform to developing nation’s needs without causing these nations to become “dependents” of developed countries and while ensuring that their own longstanding interests are not eroded. The second concerns the importance of managing the relationship between imitating developed countries and catching up to them. First, in facing economic globalization and sustainable development, developing countries must emulate the successful methods of developed countries by reflecting on the experience of the Industrial Revolution and incorporating and absorbing the technology and management techniques



international sustainable development

93

of the most advanced nations—and they must do so quickly. They can accomplish this by struggling for a comparative economic advantage that will spark a leap in real technological and social production. Developing countries can no longer remain passive in seizing the high ground in international competition. Second, developing countries must take advantage of their socioeconomic conditions and their endowment of natural resources to compete with other countries in our globalized world. At the same time, they must learn from the mistakes of developed countries so they can avoid these same errors. For example, in managing the relationship between economic growth and environmental protection, they must shun the developed countries’ old method of “polluting now and dealing with it later.” The third concerns the importance of knowing when to stick to your principles and when to be flexible and pragmatic. On the one hand, states should unswervingly adhere to their “common yet distinct obligations” concerning environmental and development issues; urge developing countries to honor “additional debt assistance” and “discounted technology transfers”; support developing countries in improving their capacity to achieve a sustainable development strategy; and employ as well as strengthen preexisting intergovernmental cooperative channels. On the other hand, states should actively participate in diplomatic activities and international cooperation; closely follow the direction of “new innovative mechanisms” proposed by developed countries (e.g., “public-private partnerships”); study and analyze changes in international circumstances (and capitalize on the situation, actively participate, aggressively move, and integrate these changes with their own real interests); create opportunities that benefit their own sustainable development; and build an international space for cooperation on sustainable development.

chapter seven

The Conflict and Mediation of the Free Market and Sustainable Development Ren Qing The free market1 and sustainable development are both pursuits currently followed by every country in the world for economic and social development; however, with the continuing development of markets and the globalization of the world economy, humanity is intensifying the destruction of the environment as its economies grow. The contradiction between the free market and sustainable development is sharply clear, so we must strive to protect the environment and promote economic development while realizing a sustainable economy, society, and environment. A Reinterpretation of Sustainable Development Sustainable development is an abundantly broad and vague concept. In 1987, the United Nations–funded Brundtland Commission, in its publication Our Common Future, clearly defined for the first time sustainable development as development that is “sufficient to fulfill the needs of people today without harming the capability of future generations to fulfill their needs.” This interpretation merely tells us that sustainable development implies that we should not deprive the future; although this clearly defines what it means to be “sustainable,” it seems to fail in defining “development.” The economic activities of human beings are naturally constrained by a finite, nonrenewable, and materially closed-loop ecosystem. Economic production is just a subsystem that is externally restricted by the

1 Here, free trade refers to transnational exchanges undertaken by individuals or companies that are not susceptible to additional controls. The antithesis of free trade is not self-subsistence, but regulated trade, particularly when a state imposes control over members of that state who initiate trade with other states. The point of this kind of control is to protect national interests.

96

ren qing

ecosystem. The development of any subsystem cannot surpass the scale of its parent system. If there are any services that a subsystem itself cannot provide, then it must rely upon the parent system to provide it. The subsystem must avoid expanding to a degree that will cause conflict with the parent system, because this would invariably weaken the parent system’s ability to continue providing the service. The economic activities of humanity demand that the ecosystem provide raw materials as “input” for production and then absorb the “output”—waste—from that production. As a perquisite for sustainable development, these demands must be maintained within limits that the ecology can bear. Consequently, the quantitative growth of the economy is limited in scale. What sustainable development tells us is that the growth in the scale of the economy cannot surpass the biological carrying capacity of the environment. Only at this time “will the subtle complexities of the economy be sustainable, qualitatively improved, equitable, conserve resources, and conform to the limitations of nature.”2 First, sustainable development requires that there be a limit to the size of the economy. Since the macroeconomy is certainly not an independent entity but is instead a subsystem of a finite, nonrenewable, and materially closed-loop ecosystem, there must be a certain limit to its scale. The limitations of its scale is an economic flow (the process that begins with raw materials as input, which are then transformed into a product and then released as a byproduct or output) that is limited by the capacity of the ecosystem to reproduce and absorb. Furthermore, sustainable development requires a sufficient degree of per capita wealth so that a greater part of the population can enjoy a more privileged life over time. And enjoying a more privileged life not only necessitates the creation of wealth, but also the protection of natural capital. At the same time, overpopulation or overconsumption will surpass and harm the carrying capacity of the planet, eventually leading to a decrease in the number of lives on the planet or the inability to satisfy the most fundamental needs— and because of this, there will be fewer lives to enjoy a more privileged lifestyle. In addition, sustainable development requires an equitable distribution of resources. Based on the principle of balancing the needs of contemporary and future generations, the basic needs of people today should be a priority over the basic needs of future generations; however, the basic needs of future generations should be a priority over the excessive 2 Herman E. Daly, Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development (Beacon Press, 1997), 238.



the conflict and mediation of the free market

97

luxuries of people today. The limited and difficult-to-renew stock of natural resources necessitates that we be more equitable in the distribution of resources among current generations and between the current and future generations. Equitable distribution implies that the basic needs of everyone are fulfilled. In fulfilling these basic needs of life, we should limit inequality as much as possible. Of course, this does not imply that wealth should be equally distributed since at a certain level, some inequality in justice, efficiency, and social development is necessary; but the inequality of current society has well surpassed the demands of economic incentives and is inconsistent with social values. The objective reality of disparities in wealth has led China to indulge in pilfering and extensively exploiting the environment and resources in the pursuit of instant results in economic construction. In order to efficiently gain a sufficient ecological scale and justice in value distribution, sustainable development requires that we use the market to distribute resources. Therefore, sustainable development is considered economic growth as long as it does not surpass the biological carrying capacity of the environment and strives for sufficient equality in per capita wealth so that it fulfills the basic needs of the greater part of the population. “As a nation and people, the true measure of balancing development should be that as our lives improve the measurement will rise with it; and as our lives deteriorate, then it shall fall with it. This measurement has been referred to as the welfare standard.”3 Sustainable development necessitates the simultaneous use of a sufficient ecological scale, socially equitable distribution, and efficient economic configuration. Goals that emphasize wealth equity can be enough to fulfill our basic needs, while material consumption may not be the most efficient; equity, thus, emphasizes that a sufficiently affluent lifestyle is something all should have, while efficiency means that we effectively use natural capital so that it allows even more people to enjoy sufficiently affluent lives. The Damage of Traditional Free Markets to Sustainable Development At the core of economic globalization is the globalization of the market economy. Its significance is in the free flow of resources and capital, as well as in the financing between nations and regions to satisfy the demands of all nations to the greatest extent possible, to optimize the distribution of 3 Tom Tietenberg, Environmental and Natural Resource Economics (Prentice Hall, 2011), 95.

98

ren qing

resources in the world, and to improve the welfare of all nations. Therefore, we can say that the liberalization of trade and economic integration are fundamentally in line with the demands of sustainable development; however, the consequences of the traditional system of liberalized trade are not entirely consistent with the expectations of sustainable development. While promoting global economic development—particularly in terms of gross national product (GNP) growth—it also weakens the capacity of the earth for life, challenging the limits of the planet’s carrying capacity, and in reality gradually leading the economy down an unsustainable path. I. Traditional Free Trade: The Difficulty States Face Internalizing External Costs, and Its Effects on Efficient Distribution Free trade has intensified competition, which has brought with it cheaper commodities. In reality, there are essentially two ways in which these products are made cheaper: an increase in efficiency or merely the externalizing of costs. Companies in a competitive environment all have the motivation to externalize costs—at least to the point in which they can avoid any penalties. Domestic laws and regulatory institutions can effectively prohibit many of these externalizations of cost, yet there are few of these laws that apply internationally, and, moreover, the laws and the regulatory strengths of every country are quite different. Since fewer standards generally imply lower costs and prices, international competition is inclined toward lower standards (and thus the ability to externalize costs), which, of course, destroys the prospect of building a common lifestyle based on higher standards. The ways in which costs are externalized between states are many—for example, safety standards, lower salaries, benefits, social security, working hours, health care, environmental controls, or accident liability. Countries that internalize costs can use the quantity of trade and control elements on a scale that is not detrimental to domestic producers; nonetheless, these countries that internalize costs do not have free trade with countries that do not internalize these costs. The result is that the prices of commodities from the latter become even cheaper and will oust competitive businesses from the former countries. Thus, there should be defined standards that limit trade internationally on a scale that is not detrimental to domestic producers. Of course, this would no longer be free trade. There is clearly a conflict between free trade and national policies that internalize external costs. If there were some sort of consensus of



the conflict and mediation of the free market

99

common principles to define and evaluate the internalization of external costs, then these barriers would disappear and standards on free trade would be fashioned in a new context; however, making every country internalize external context according to common rules for diverse environmental demands and income levels would be an extremely difficult task, whether in theory or practice. II. Free Trade’s Expanding Inequality in Labor and Capital, and Its Damage to Equitable Distribution There is great disparity in income levels among countries. This is mainly because of the supply of labor in addition to the size of each country’s population and each nation’s rate of growth. Overpopulated countries naturally have a lower income level, and if the population growth rate is overly high, then incomes will remain low. For most trade commodities, the cost of labor is the largest component of a product’s cost and, hence, is also the deciding factor in the price. Cheap labor implies a lower product price and an advantage in trade. As capital and products flow freely between countries, capital will flow where it will gain the greatest advantage, which is often countries with low salaries, because capital pursues the highest profitability possible. Of course, there are other profitable incentives that attract capital to countries with lower incomes, such as lower social security costs and lower environmental internalization costs. Many believe that the free market has allowed for exponential growth in production and that this will lead to an equalization of labor wages around the globe, but this kind of thought neglects the issue of limitations on the scale of economic growth. For the people who live on the planet today, it would be impossible for the average person to consume resources and absorb capital at a level comparable to the United States or Europe under ecological constraints, and it would be even more impossible to extend this level of consumption for several generations. There are six hundred cars in the United States for every one thousand Americans, while in India there are only two; the consumption of energy by two hundred million Americans is equivalent to the global average if the global population were twenty billion.4 The American developmental model is only possible for a small part of the world population over a 4 Jiang Yupeng and Jiang Xuemin, “Qianxi guoji maoyi zhong de huangjing lüduo” [An analysis of environmental pilfering in international trade], Qilu xuekan [Qilu journal] 1 (2006).

100

ren qing

couple of generations. That is to say, this kind of development is unequal and unsustainable. Yet the goal of sustainable development is to achieve a shift in the distribution of resources and economic scale that will allow the world to progress toward some sort of viable development. Regardless of what development implies, it is something that should be for people of all generations to come. III. Free Trade: Leading the World to the Limits of Its Carrying Capacity, and Violating the Norms of Global Limits on Scale Sustainable development implies that economic activities must be within the constraints of the environment’s carrying capacity. These constraints are both global (the greenhouse effect and ozone depletion) and local (soil erosion and deforestation). National and regional trade is a way for a country to import environmental services (including waste disposal) from other countries in order to relieve local environmental constraints. Within these limitations, this kind of relief is rational and fair, but when taken to its extreme, free trade can become destructive. This leads every country to attempt to offset domestic scarcities by importing the reproductive and absorptive capabilities of the environment from other countries. All countries are seeking to grow the scale of their economy, but in reality, there are only a few countries that have not reached their fullest limit; hence, they allow other countries to import their carrying capacity. Since free trade leads to a succession of mergers, all countries face heavy environmental constraints that are global and simultaneous. It takes regional constraints and turns them into fully global constraints. In this series, there are some manageable problems that can become even bigger uncontrollable problems. IV. Free Trade Weakens National Sovereignty and Destroys Macroeconomic Stability National boundaries can be broken by the free flow of products, labor, and capital. This implies that states are gradually losing control of their economic life to the point where it will no longer be a reliable source of strength. The predicted goals of a common global free trade are only empty words. When a sovereign nation implements domestic polices, it is powerless and is unable to abide by its own independent salary system, interest rate policies, price controls, population control policies, and even treaties signed and agreed upon to protect the global environment. Instead of having to satisfy hundreds of independently determined national policies, it



the conflict and mediation of the free market

101

has now become part of a massive global market. The free market and the free flow of capital allow for the transfer of large quantities of capital and international revenue imbalances, which leads to situations where many debts cannot be repaid and to excessive financing, which hinders the stability of the macroeconomy. The efforts to repay these debts often lead to the excessive exploitation of exportable resources. These efforts also fuel the thirst for new loans to receive foreign exchange to pay back older loans. The consequences fail to consider the real productivity of the projects supported by these loans. While fulfilling domestic demand, efforts to repay these loans also bring about rapidly growing budget deficits for governments, which lead to inflation. Inflation in addition to the demands to export resources in order to pay back loans lead to the devaluation of the local currency. This increases speculation in foreign currency exchange markets, causing the flight of capital and the transfer of floating currency, hence destroying the original goal of achieving macroeconomic stability. The Development of Green Trade under a Sustainable Development Framework Trade liberalization and economic integration are an objective and certain demand in the development of productive forces. Mutually beneficial commodity exchanges in trade are to the advantage of sustainable development for the economies of every country; however, free trade cannot surpass the carrying capacity limitations of the environment. Only in this way can the sustainable development of all society be guaranteed. This means that whether for economic development or environmental protection, society should look toward the state as the main force driving sustainable revisions of national policies and regulations and international trade criteria. On this basis, the push for the development of green trade can gradually become the foundation of international cooperation. I. Transfer Subsidy System Were national funds for subsidizing environmentally destructive actions used instead to subsidize actions that had a constructive purpose for the environment, and if these funds were used in domestic markets as the main force for developing production by maximizing a specialty in producing whatever the nation had a comparative advantage in, only then, under the utmost efficiency, could a nation allow its resources to

102

ren qing

participate in international trade. With the localization of production and sales, it is possible to export fewer funds while also consuming fewer natural resources. Specifically speaking, nations should not subsidize mining operations but should subsidize recycling operations; they should not subsidize fossil fuels, but should subsidize energy sources beneficial to the environment; they should not subsidize urban transportation systems based on automobiles, but should subsidize modern rail transportation systems.5 II. Replace Most-Favored-Nation Status with a Most-Sustainable-National-Tariff Status Those states that sustainably exploit resources, protect the environment, and develop the economy should receive qualifications to enter the market and be given priority in engaging in economic activities in the global market. Those countries that continue to harm humanity and destroy the globe should be penalized with high tariffs in order to convey that they cannot take social and economic shortcuts by saving on costs and so that they may internalize the lessons of those that use sustainable means to develop their countries. III. Give Impetus to the Free Flow of Knowledge and Information The benefits of quickly sharing current knowledge are greater than the risk of costs that are incurred by slowing innovation. Since the novelty of knowledge has innate yet short-lived exclusivity rights, the sharing of knowledge leads to the loss of that novelty; moreover, the short-lived nature of knowledge encourages people to continue discovering new knowledge. As the exchange value of new knowledge tends to be little or nothing, its use value can be transferred to production factors, where it can play an important role. IV. Formulating and Implementing International Environmental Protection Regulations Choosing to build an appropriate legal framework, coordinating the environmental legislation of every country, and universalizing the fundamental level of global environmental protection assist in avoiding the 5 Lester R. Brown, Eco-economy: Building an Economy for the Earth (New York: W. W. Norton, 2001), 277.



the conflict and mediation of the free market

103

creation of distorted conditions from economic competition. In order to be fair, the formulation of regulations must reflect and take into consideration different levels of development, the national interests of different regions, and environments. When each country participates in free trade, it must strictly apply international standards, from the purchase of raw materials for products, the production process, shipping, and warehousing to recycling; the environmental impact domestically and to neighboring countries must be controlled according to international standards as well. Domestic legislation must be based on domestic and international trade developments in order to formulate laws and regulations that are consistent with international standards for environmental protection. In countries with a more complete regime of environmental legislation, free trade must be consistent with the regulations from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. For countries with weak environmental legislation that wish to enter the field of global free trade, they must revise their domestic legislation in order to make domestic laws consistent with international standards. V. Exerting the Role of Regional International Organizations Regional international organizations not only resolve disputes and maintain regional peace, they are also able to assist and regulate domestic social and economic cooperation as well as push forward sustainable development. Article 8 of the Charter of the United Nations confirms the legal status of regional organizations. Their function is to maintain international peace and sustainable development through regional actions, but their actions cannot violate the principles and guidelines of the United Nations. In sustainable development and free trade, many regional organizations (like the European Union) have formulated united trade and environmental policies and adjusted the environmental legislation of member states, allowing the domestic legislation of member states to emulate higher standards.6 This not only helps states within the region to implement unified trade and environmental legislation but, moreover, poses corresponding demands for states seeking to participate in trade activities in the region. Regional international organizations will play an enormous role in global environmental problems.

6 Alexandre Kiss, Droit international de l’environnement (Paris: Editions A. Pedone, 2004), 196.

104

ren qing

The liberalization of trade is an inevitable demand of the market economy, but left unchecked, it can lead to unstable socioeconomic development. Only under a framework of sustainable development should free trade be restructured, green trade be propelled, the role of the state be directed, and international environmental and market standards be formulated. Only then can we effectively resolve the environmental crisis and transform the ideals of social and economic sustainable development into reality.

chapter eight

International Environmental Security: Real Dilemmas and Theoretical Considerations Xun Qingzhi and Li Ping The number of theories on the environment and security has flourished both domestically and abroad, but the reality of global environmental security has not been the theoretical catastrophe or the substantive improvement laid out by many people. These authors believe this can be attributed to severe ambiguity and conventional methods of thought in academic discourse concerning the environment and environmental security, and on a deeper level, there is a disconnect with reality in understanding and countering the “environmental security threat” in international society.1 This article attempts to provide a new theoretical or “spiritual motivation” for the construction of a framework for international environmental security, and to act as an appropriate starting point for an objectively balanced and certain international environmental security reality. Real Dilemmas and Their Causes The so-called environment refers to the natural ecological space and material basis of existence upon which human communities rely. Along the same lines, environmental security refers to a sense of severe distress or threat to existence felt by human communities and a recognition of the need to avoid the aforementioned and overcome said issues with a counter reaction. Human communities, whether in a political, economic, social, or cultural sense, include within their boundaries the existence of the natural environment upon which they rely, as well as the natural 1 Currently, the mainstream explanation of environmental security is different from the traditional sense of the word in military, political, and economic security. Since the rise of the environmental debate and the emergence of eco-environmental national security issues, it has been thought of as “unconventional security.” See, Andrew Hurrell, “International Political Theory and the Global Environment,” in International Relations Theory Today, ed. Ken Booth and Steve Smith (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995), 150–152.

106

xun qingzhi and li ping

environment outside their boundaries. It is not difficult to establish that ecological security is based on the ecological survival of human communities on various levels and a multidimensional global network, as well as their real circumstances. However, in all practicality, the nation-state undoubtedly remains the most fundamental and influential force in human communities for contemporary society; because of this, environmental security in many ways can still be understood as the environmental security of nation-states. In reality, multifaceted divergences in socioeconomic development still exist among nation-states, regardless of geography, population, or cultural traditions. These divergences profoundly impact their understanding and response to their own environmental security. From this has emerged a “polarized competition” between developed countries and developing countries in the present-day world—not a realistic structure of “cooperation.” If we take Europe and North America as being representative of what it takes to be a developed country, with a concept of environmental security that focuses on “eco-environmental” quality, even still a host of differences exist, though these differences may concern the concrete understanding of a particular security issue and may only be internally expressed.2 For developed countries, security factors in the “environment” or environmental threats are primarily expressed in three respects, or three categories. The first is orthodox and unorthodox issues of survival in developed countries. Generally speaking, mainstream politics and the public in developed countries do not deny that industrialization and urbanization have historically caused massive pollution and ecological destruction, nor do they believe that these problems have been fundamentally solved. However, on the one hand, the catastrophic atrocities of industrial pollution or “environmental hazards” experienced in the West between the mid-nineteenth century and the 1950s and 1960s no longer exist, except in a few cities and regions at certain periods of time; instead, “clean water and blue skies” are basically a reality for many Western developed countries. On the other hand, eco-environmental problems still exist, such as nuclear waste, urban air pollution from automobile exhausts, noise pollution from construction, transgenic crops, and other problems that the public considers to be scientific development and localized or technical

2 For example, the dispute over the Kyoto Protocol since 2001 in the European Union and the United States has shown that there are significant differences that have emerged among developed countries in their understanding of and response to the environmental threat.



international environmental security

107

issues of management—not fundamental problems of social structure and economic mechanisms. The second respect in which environmental security is expressed is localized industrial pollution and global ecological destruction caused by economic growth in developing countries. With the discussion of domestic eco-environmental problems having become increasingly marginalized beginning in the early 1980s, government institutions, ecological political parties, and environmental nongovernmental organizations in developed Western countries have gradually come to focus on the internationalization or “globalization” of environmental security problems. In this perspective, the population explosion and rapid economic growth achieved mainly through the consumption of resources at the cost of the environment by developing countries constitute an environmental threat not just to them but to developed countries as well. That is to say, the “environmental” security of developed countries is threatened more by the development of developing countries. If we claim that the assessment by Lester Brown in his 1977 book Redefining National Security is only a general consideration of the link between the environment and national security, then his 1994 article, “Who Will Feed China?,” should be considered a classic example of the theory that the “ecological threat” derives from developing countries.3 Since its publication, the eco-environmental problems of developing countries have become the object of criticism from developed Western countries and their international organizations.4 The third way in which these environmental security issues are expressed is in the localized environmental destruction wreaked by the social instability and wars in totalitarian and failed states that are generally impoverished. Developed Western countries generally believe that the “developmental threat” posed by developed countries to “environmental” security is different. What totalitarian and failed states lead to is a kind of “threat of no developed” in “environmental” security problems. Originally, this was applied to places with relatively poor natural environmental conditions in addition to a political, economic, and social system that lacked effective stability. This often leads some countries to destroy the environment by looting the natural resources of their country—“killing the goose that lays the golden egg”—to assist in ethnic conflicts. This

3 Lester R. Brown, Redefining National Security (Washington DC: World Watch Institute, 1977); “Who Will Feed China?,” World Watch 7 (Sept/Oct 1994): 5, 10. 4 See Asian Development Bank, 2001 Forecast of the Asian Environment and Japan’s 2001 Environmental White Book, quoted in Cankao xiaoxi [Data for consideration], June 20 and June 4, 2001 (7th edition).

108

xun qingzhi and li ping

results in a vicious cycle involving an “abysmal natural environment, a failed political economy, social instability and conflict, and the further exacerbation of eco-environmental problems.”5 The environmental problems caused in these countries are, generally speaking, localized issues of eco-environmental destruction and are only tangentially an environmental threat to developed countries in North America and Europe; however, if these places lie on critical natural resources or ecologically sensitive regions, then their environmental threat may be global as well. As we can see, the environmental security spoken of by developed countries has a certain bias when it comes to their concept of security in “ecoenvironmental” quality. Their focus is more on excessive socioeconomic development or inappropriate actions that may harm the natural environment and cause ecological destruction; moreover, they view this from an “international” perspective, particularly when it comes to the stream of global environmental problems that began to emerge in the 1980s. From this we can understand the environmental security strategies adopted or preferred by developed countries. Broadly speaking, the environmental security strategies of developed countries can be generalized as having internal and external concerns. Internally speaking, developed countries primarily focus on the formulation and implementation of environmental regulations through national or transnational organizations to assist in pushing economic production and consumption gradually toward more ecological practices through legal means and the economic lever. The environmental political parties and political organizations of North America and Europe have played a special role in making political policies and political culture greener.6 Externally speaking, they have employed different tactics when dealing with developing countries and impoverished states. Among these tactics are those that include funding environmental projects or socioeconomic development projects that benefit the environment by providing financial aid either in part or in whole; encouraging socioeconomic construction projects to conform to the highest environmental standards possible in aid-receiving countries through affixing environmental conditions to economic cooperation and investments; and exerting economic political pressure or influence through government institutions and international organizations to encourage 5 Douglas Anglin, “The Greening of International Relations,” International Journal 45 (Winter 1989–1990). 6 See, Xun Qingzhi, Ouzhou lüdang yanjiu [Study on Green Parties in Europe] (Jinan: Shandong Renmin Press, 2000).



international environmental security

109

aid-receiving countries to change certain decisions that are disadvantageous to the environment. In this way, developed countries are directly changing the basic structure of the political economy. It should be recognized that the focus of developed Western countries on the security of “environmental” quality and domestic environmental security strategies certainly has its positive and sophisticated components. These countries’ emphasis on the importance of the eco-system’s health that focuses on the stress on ecological sustainability in economic development and the probing of a closed-loop social model embody postmodern and holistic aspects of environmental security for modern human society.7 However, the problem lies in their view of external environmental security strategies, particularly in that they limit their strategies to a framework of conventional international political economic relations that are still inequitable for developing countries, and this, at most, can only lead to a hierarchical and localized “environmental” security—not an enduring or inclusive “environmental” security.8 Unlike the view of environmental threats and their effects on security held by developed countries, developing countries understand environmental issues from the perspective of the inadequacies or lower stage of their own development. For most developing countries, environmental security falls under the umbrella of a nation-state security, particularly in terms of the environmental “material security” of socioeconomic development, with the cost to the “eco-environment” being merely an “unpleasant” hiccup or phase in the development of the society as it “progresses.” Thus, the concept of environmental security held by developing countries is more than just integrated “security,” though this certainly does not mean that all developing countries have the same understanding.9 As far as developing countries are concerned, they do not deny that they face severe industrial pollution and ecological degradation caused 7 The current discussion on closed-loop societies and economies has become a hot debate both domestically and internationally, but this author believes that just as with the theory of sustainable development, developed and developing countries have vastly different understandings of this. The current discussion on closed-loop societies and economies is much like the 1972 A Blueprint for Survival, which proposes a stable society that conserves material resources and maintains the natural ecology. See Edward Goldsmith et al., A Blueprint for Survival (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972). 8 Stanley Hoffmann, “A New World and Its Troubles,” Foreign Affairs 69, no. 4 (Fall 1990): 115–122. 9 Wang Yi, “Gongtong liyi yu shenke fenqi: Guoji huanjing waijiao de xianshi tujing” [Communal interest and profound disputes: International environmental diplomacy and the realistic picture],” Dongfang 2 (1996).

110

xun qingzhi and li ping

by the processes of economic modernization and urbanization, because they know it is them—not surrounding countries—that will be directly harmed by the rapid destruction of environmental quality. That is also to say that developing countries do not refuse to recognize that “ecoenvironmental” insecurity and environmental threats exist much in the way it is understood by developed countries, but they have their own understanding of the nature and causes of environmental security problems. Broadly speaking, the source of environmental insecurity and environmental threats emphasized by developing countries can be seen mainly in three respects. The first is the unavoidable “eco-environmental cost” or “environmental security give-and-take” of economic modernization. When it comes to the real contradictions between socioeconomic development and ecoenvironmental protection, the dominant explanation given by developing countries is that they must, in the end, overcome a process of raising public consciousness as well as a continuous process of structural readjust­ment and technological innovation, particularly in raising their own capacity to develop general security.10 In this sense, it is very difficult for a developing country at the beginning stages of development to avoid any and all forms of environmental pollution and ecological destruction. The second is the “unintended environmental legacies” that were delayed by the modern expansion of developed countries. For many developing and impoverished nations, the insecurity of the environment and the insufficient development of their countries are currently directly or indirectly related to developed European and North American countries. On the one hand, the aggression and encroachment of Western imperialism in the early modern period not only looted massive quantities of material wealth from other countries and regions of the world, but directly created a universalized structure of economic production and consumption in these countries and regions, which had a major impact on the social impoverishment and eco-environmental destruction in these places. On the other hand, the massive quantity of environmental pollution and the host of ecological problems that amassed in the course of the industrialization and urbanization in Western countries were the 10 Qu Geping, “Dui zhongguo huanjing yu ziyuan baohu qianjing de guji” [Estimates on the future of China’s environmental and resource preservation], in Lüse zhanlüe: 21 shiji zhongguo huanjing yu kechixu fazhan [Green strategies: Chinese environmental and sustainable development in the 21st century ], ed. Niu Wenyuan (Qingdao: Qingdao Press, 1997), 40–43.



international environmental security

111

principal impetus of many of the global environmental problems in the world today, such as acid rain, the greenhouse effect, the destruction of the ozone layer, and the loss of biodiversity.11 And the majority of developing and impoverished nations now are the main successors and inheritors of the “unintended environmental legacies” of the past. The third is the “export of the environmental threat” caused by the transfer of industries and technology from developed countries. The majority of developing and impoverished countries believe that currently, developed North American and European countries have not provided a model for sustainable development that harmonizes the ecology, society, and the environment. What looks to them like an ideal balance of material wealth and a good environment is actually the result of historical injustices and a political and economic hierarchy that is inequitable. This is particularly the case when we talk about the environmental strides made since the 1980s in North American and European countries, which were, for the most part, based on the transfer of their most polluting industries and technologies to other countries and regions of the world. For example, many toxic pesticides that are banned by law in their own countries are exported to developing and impoverished countries, or large quantities of toxic waste are disposed of in developing and impoverished countries through a variety of channels. That is to say, to a degree, developed Western countries rely upon the “export of environmental threats” to developing and impoverished countries to fulfill their own “environmental” security, which has been denounced by many scholars as “ecoimperialism” or “environmental imperialism.”12 Consequently, what developing countries on the whole mostly consider is how to protect and respect the natural environment and ecology while improving socioeconomic development. The environmental security strategies adopted or favored by developing countries, internally speaking, are embodied in their reflection on North American and European experiences in the construction of environmental regulations, the adoption of administration and management techniques, and the education of the public on environmental issues in order to gradually push for 11 Shridath S. Ramphal, Our Country, the Planet: Forging a Partnership for Survival [Chinese translation] (Beijing: Zhongguo Huanjing Kexue Press, 1993), 30. 12 Tao Xiliang, “Lüelun dangdai guoji guanxi de huanjing zhimin zhuyi” [On environmental imperialism in contemporary international relations], in Guoji guanxi xueyuan xuebao 3 (1996); Wang Maotao and Wu Yun, “Huanjing anquan yu juedui zhuquan guan de dangdai kunjing” [The modern paradox of environmental security and absolute sovereignty], Wuhan daxue xuebao 6 (2002).

112

xun qingzhi and li ping

more ecological production and consumption activities while still ensuring that the domestic economy continues to develop. It should be noted that since the 1980s, there has been great progress by many developing countries in the improvement of environmental regulations, the strengthening of administrative oversight, the guiding of green industries, and the construction of an ecological culture.13 Externally speaking, developing countries have basically taken a simultaneously cooperative and hostile stance toward developed countries. On the one hand, they hope that by pointing out the historical and real responsibilities of developed countries both domestically and internationally in terms of environmental problems, they can initiate broader bilateral and multilateral cooperation with developed countries for environmental and economic technologies through financial aid, investments in projects, and technology transfers, so that they can mitigate the ecological destruction caused by modernization while increasing socioeconomic development. On the other hand, developing countries also desire to emphasize their national sovereignty by resisting or refusing the interference of developed countries in their government’s policy decisions and even in their innate political economy through the imposition of environmental conditions and the economic and political pressures attached to eco-environmental aid projects, economic investments, and cooperative projects from government institutions or international organizations. What must be pointed out is that the majority of developing and impoverished countries emphasize their right to socioeconomic development and a view of environmental “security” that places historical and real responsibility squarely on the shoulders of developed Western countries while still recognizing that their environmental security strategies certainly do have a sense of justice or rationality. The rationality or positive connotations of these demands or “claims” are not just that they are fighting to obtain some form of eco-environmental compensation or mechanism from North American and European developed countries— such as a theoretical basis for an ecological “Tobin tax”—but that they are 13 As a part of the implementation of the Chinese Agenda 21 and its expansion, China, as of the end of 2003, has seven provinces and municipalities that have begun provincial ecological construction plans, which are mostly on the eastern coast. For example, the Shandong Provincial Ecological Construction Plan stipulates the building of a closed-loop economic theory to direct an ecological economic system, a sustainable resource conservation system, a naturally harmonious residential environmental system, an environmental beautification system, a sustainable development safety system, and a modern ecological cultural system.



international environmental security

113

incorporating “eco-environmental” security into a new ideology of “integrated security” based on new developmental models that will at the least be a more practical and rational option for developing countries. The difficulty, however, rests in the reality of the weaker position of developing countries in the world vis-à-vis developed countries, which often forces developing countries to accept an international economic structure and a system of labor division that is detrimental to the domestic ecology, and which leaves them to denigrate themselves with international environmental regulations that they are unfamiliar with or do not like. The result is that an initially insecure “environment” becomes all the more insecure. Theoretical Solutions The previous analysis shows us that there is major divergence among developing and developed countries on the issue of environmental security and its corresponding strategies. In the present international system, where it seems impossible to extricate the supremacy of the nation-state and where there is conventional socioeconomic competition over interests, it is difficult to realize lasting or shared environmental security for all of humanity. In fact, these factors may very well have been a catalyst for the unrelenting deterioration of the global environment since the 1970s.14 That being the case, the question remains whether or not humanity can and how it should solve the aforementioned predicament of “polarized competition” in our understanding and realities of environmental security while attempting to construct an international concept of and strategy for environmental security that is intensely green and that is based on a proclivity for cooperation. This author believes the principal thing is to adopt the theoretical perspective of environmentalism in environmental security. Although scholars around the world differ on the precise explanation and definition of environmentalism,15 their direction and values are clearly much the same. In the opinion of these authors, what characterizes environmentalism is a historical reflection on and awakening to the

14 Worldwatch Institute, “The Dangerous Crossroads of the Global Environment,” State of the World (April 30, 2001). 15 Dick Richardson, “The Green Challenge: Philosophical, Programmatic and Electoral Considerations,” in The Green Challenge: The Development of Green Parties in Europe, ed. Dick Richardson and Chris Rootes (London: Routledge, 1995), 7.

114

xun qingzhi and li ping

relationship of humankind and nature in the modern world, particularly placing at its core the integrity and endurance of the natural ecology in an existence dominated by the human economy, society, and politics.16 Based on this, we will have an entirely new perspective and standpoint when we try to understand the properties of the “environmental security threat,” the real mechanisms of environmental security, and the role and function of the nation-state in a future environmental security framework. Primarily, the “environmental security threat” originates from modern civilization and is a central and profound crisis of existence faced by all of humanity. Superficially, environmental issues manifest themselves as the noneconomic and nonsocial problems of environmental pollution and ecological destruction—that is, environmental imbalances—such as air pollution, shortages of drinking water, soil erosion, desertification, sea water pollution, loss of biodiversity, depletion of the ozone layer, and climate change. The reality, however, is that on the one hand, the natural ecology that has continually been devastated is also the same material upon which all living things, including human beings, depend for their continued survival. One could say that since the dawn of humankind, humans have faced no greater threat to their own existence than what they are facing in modern society. Hence, this “environmental security threat” is undeniably grave and fundamental and is leading humanity in a direction of unparalleled insecurity in its existence, or as Ulrich Beck explained, it is leading humanity into an ecological “risk society.”17 On the other hand, what truly reflects the serious deterioration of environmental quality is the oppositional nature of the relationship between humans and nature in modern civilized society, and society’s inability to understand environmental deterioration as anything more than a by-product of modern progress as represented by industrialization and urbanization. Although we cannot attribute all of the environmental problems humanity faces today to the process of modernization and its global expansion, at the very least it has unveiled the severity and depth of today’s environmental issues. Fundamentally speaking, the environmental crisis can be found in a capitalist lifestyle marked by the mass consumption of resources and mass consumerism—the two of which are mutually dependent. Hence,

16 Robert Rienow, “International Relations and the Environment,” in Environmental Politics, ed. Stuart Nagel (London: Praeger, 1974), 97–102. 17 Ulrich Beck, Risk Society (London: Sage, 1991).



international environmental security

115

what characterizes the “environmental security threat” is not a crisis of development faced by humanity in terms of degrees or levels, but a crisis of development models and ideologies. In other words, for modern human beings an increasingly prominent question is this: Is exchanging material prosperity for environmental security acceptable, and to what degree is it worth it? Consequently, the “environmental security threat” is a profound crisis or challenge that is transnational in the development of modern human civilization and that touches upon the internal core of modern civilization and even humanities’ traditions. Any agent that enters into the human community’s historical process has its own responsibilities. In these terms, the “environmental” security of developed Western countries is far from any real security in the true sense of the word, because it does not create the possibility of the mutual existence of humanity with nature in a way that allows for sustainable socioeconomic development, and it cannot hope to create a secure island while the environmental circumstances of developing or impoverished countries deteriorate. Similarly, developing and impoverished countries cannot use the historical and real responsibilities of developed Western countries in this environmental threat and the emphasis on the importance of socioeconomic development in their environmental security strategies as a reason to shirk their increasing responsibilities and active participation in innovating sustainable development models. Secondly, environmental security is something that can only achieve a communal, integral, and global security through the mutual cooperation and continual innovation of the human community. Environmental security should unquestionably be ascribed the kind of nonconventional security generally debated by academics today and should not be limited by security in the conventional sense of the word, such as military security, economic security, and political security. This is because there are major differences between conventional security and the security goals and security mechanisms it pursues. I even think that to a large degree it was only after the environmental problems that emerged during the Cold War that the importance of nonconventional security and nonconventional security became clear.18

18 The World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future [Chinese translation] (Beijing: Shijie Zhishi Press, 1989), 289.

116

xun qingzhi and li ping

In some respects, the nature of environmental security is that it is a comprehensive security that can only be shared by the human community. This is because the depth and expansion of modern civilization has not only linked historically isolated continents and regions into a greater human community, but also proven the undeniable integrity of the environment as the natural environment has been severely weakened in the face of human civilization. That is also to say that since it is not possible to create an isolated “Shangri-La” community in the modern world, even in nation-states, no single geographical region or ecosystem can maintain an integrally closed system in a natural human environment. For example, even for a country that occupies an entirely closed region, it is impossible to independently manage air pollution in the region, and for the world’s only superpower, the United States, it is similarly impossible to independently ensure the security of the ozone layer within its national borders. In other respects, the realization of environmental security must assist human communities in mutual cooperation and innovation on multiple levels. If the majority of the human community recognizes that we are all members of the “global village” and passengers on “Noah’s Ark,” then the sharp divergence among developed and developing countries on their responsibility for environmental security and the distribution of benefits could be transformed into broader cooperation so that they may realize their shared responsibility for environmental security and share their efforts on revitalizing the ecology. The two key links to this historical shift are that developed countries show their concern for the global environment through environmental security initiatives that are practical and go beyond the scope of the nation-state, and that developing countries, in a world that has already entered the postmodern era, take responsibility for their own development and innovation from a more proactive position. Thirdly, the nation-state must reposition itself in a “multidimensional global environmental security community” framework. Just as was emphasized previously, the nation-state will remain, for the foreseeable future, the most important social force of human communities; thus, real environmental security issues will still be seen through the lens of the environmental security problems of the nation-state.19 From an environmentalist perspective, however, the nation-state should be, and in fact has been, repositioned in forming a “multidimensional global

19 Andrew Hurrell and Benedict Kingsbury, eds., The International Politics of the Environment (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).



international environmental security

117

environmental security community” framework; or, in other words, since the nation-state’s political importance has been greatly enhanced and the environmental security debate has been globalized, the nation-state has been given the mission and ability to improve in a green way. The basic distinction between the “global environmental security community” and human society is certainly not a quantitative relationship of the one and the many or the whole and the parts, but is the comprehensive “greenification” of community members in their understanding of environmental security and is a complex relationship based on the formation of respect for the natural environment. In this kind of human community, the classic socioeconomic interests, as well as their means to fulfillment, that to a greater extent have conventional political interests in mind will be modified or abandoned upon realizing the reasons for environmental security, and the majority of suprastate (transnational), substate (regional), and nonstate institutions (grassroots organizations) that have been excluded from traditional security policy making and implementation may very well play a vital role. But nation-states, this author believes, must expand or take responsibility for environmental security in the following four ways. The first way involves the drafters and enforcers of domestic environmental regulations. Just as the experience of many developed countries in North America and Europe has shown, the gradual implementation of environmental laws and administrative regulations is the basic means for leading a country to more ecologically sound development or improving domestic or environmental security. And even if we consider the other domestic and international roles, particularly the increased involvement and penetration of intergovernmental international institutions and nongovernmental organizations, the nation-state is still the main enforcer of environmental security domestically. Consequently, the environmental legislative, law enforcement, and administrative institutions of national bureaucracies should be further institutionalized and professionalized and not disassembled. The second way involves the coordinators of grassroots environmental movements. What is particularly distinct from conventional concepts of security is that environmental security at any level is inseparable from the participation of the general public and politics. For the nation-state, besides the essential regulations and supervision of grassroots environmental groups, it must also encourage the innovative combination of the participation of citizens and a sustainable development model for society and the economy. Since the United Nations Conference on Environment

118

xun qingzhi and li ping

and Development in the early 1990s, the experience of carrying out the principles of sustainable development has shown that the latter has been particularly important for the governments of most developing countries. For example, a common occurrence is that local governments, public organizations or a lack of knowledge, or for short-term economic interest, harm the environmental security of the majority of the populace and later generations. The third way involves the mediators in domestic and international environmental conflicts and crises. Responding to and solving domestic and international environmental conflicts and crises are ostensibly what most scholars point to when referencing environmental security problems.20 Managing transnational environmental problems, international environmental interest conflicts, and unexpected domestic environmental disasters are, of course, one of the primary responsibilities of nationstate governments, but what is different from conventional resolutions for security issues is that it is very difficult to eliminate transnational environmental threats and solve international environmental interest disputes through military means. One could say that this was demonstrated in the SARS and bird flu scares in some Asian countries in the latter half of 2003 and early 2004. Additionally, many national governments also have the responsibility, to some degree, of mediating domestic environmental interest conflicts between various regions and communities. For example, there are often environmental interest disputes among different regions within many developing countries over issues such as transregional environmental pollution, exploitation of natural resources, unequal distribution of water resources, and other such problems. The fourth way involves the primary actors in international environmental cooperation. In this author’s opinion, even if people are generally discussing problems of environmental regulation or of the global community,21 the nation will remain, for the foreseeable future, the main actor in international environmental cooperation. This does not mean that developing countries can neglect transnational “soft constraints” that are increasingly enacted through international treaties and that are 20 Zhang Haibin, “Guowai huanjing yu anquan wenti yanjiu shuping” [A review of the research on foreign environmental and security issues], Ouzhou 3 (1997); Liu Dongguo, “Guoji anquan de xin lingyu: Huanjing anquan” [The new field of international security: Environmental security], Jiaoxue yu yanjiu 5 (2002). 21 Ronnie Lipschutz and Judith Mayer, Global Civil Society and Global Environmental Governance: The Politics of Nature from Place to Planet (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996).



international environmental security

119

gradually strengthening, nor does it mean that developing countries can simply ignore the accusations of increasingly international environmental nongovernmental organizations. That is to say, I am afraid that the international environmental intervention through the United Nations’ institutions or various organizations from developed Western countries, as recommended by many Western scholars, will be unacceptable to many developing countries over the short term.22 Hence, since the nation-state will be an entity that will be the object of international environmental exchange and continued “greenification,” it will be an essential member or link in the future of a “multidimensional global environmental security community.” Conclusion If we define environmental security as the recognition that there is a serious existential threat to the natural ecological space or material basis of survival upon which human communities rely and the response to this recognition, then the polarization of the developed and developing countries over the concepts and strategies of environmental security is certainly not pleasant. The opinions expressed by the author in the preceding pages are to help us understand the depth and attempt to construct a sustainable or universal international environmental security system as well as practical mechanisms from the theoretical point of view of environmentalism. It goes without saying that, first of all, the “environmental security ideology” of environmentalism will never be able to change the very real possibility that the nation-state will remain the main actor on behalf of human communities. It will also be unable to automatically eliminate the socioeconomic divergences and conflicts of interest over environmental security among developed countries and developing or impoverished countries. Second of all, the “environmental security ideology” of environmentalism will never be able to replace the emerging institutionalization of a “global environmental security institutional framework.” With the current existing international organizations and institutions that are increasingly unifying, whether it be the United Nations or the European Union, it will be difficult

22 Lothar Brock, “Peace through Parks: The Environment on the Peace Research Agenda,” Journal of Peace Research 28, no. 4 (November 1991); Crispin Tickell, “The Inevitability of Environmental Security,” in Threats without Enemies, ed. Gwyn Prins (London: Earthscan, 1993), 23.

120

xun qingzhi and li ping

to take on this task alone, and even with conferences on the human environment (and development), which have been held multiple times, it is still difficult for a new institutional body to emerge. That is also to say, this author certainly does not refute or deplore any practical complexities or arduous work ahead in building a global environmental security initiative and its mechanisms. But in this author’s opinion, even if humanity can take the proper course, the most we will likely be able to come up with is a suboptimal “international environmental security framework,” not the “multidimensional global environmental security community” envisioned by many philosophers in the environmental extremist camp. Perhaps it is simply because of this that I would emphasize that it is only from the theoretical heights of environmentalism that humanity and its wayward modern civilization can find a practical route to the future.

chapter nine

The Harmonious Development of Humans and Nature* Shen Guofang Today’s talk begins with an introduction and then proceeds to four sections that cover the historical relationship of humans and nature, the environmental awakening of modern human society, the modern Chinese understanding of the environment, and development and its measures. The fourth section is on the right means to assure standards for the harmonious development of humans and nature, with a supplement of case study analyses. Introduction Understanding the idea of harmony between humans and nature is a fundamental prerequisite to building a harmonious society in modern China. First of all, as I see it, China is in the middle of a strategic transition from a developmental model that was crude and uncoordinated to a new developmental model. This new developmental model is largely directed by a practical and applied scientific development, which primarily serves the people with well-established, well-coordinated, and sustainable development. This is coordinated in five respects: “coordinated urban and rural development, coordinated regional development, coordinated socioeconomic development, coordinated harmonious development between humans and nature, and the coordinated demands of domestic development and foreign liberalization.” These five aspects for coordination must all be consolidated at the very core of coordinated sustainable development. The emphasis on this tells us that these five respects of coordination have problems. Among these issues, there still exist problems on the part of humans in the harmonious development of humanity and nature. In the Sixth Plenary Session of the Tenth National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) that just * This article was originally presented as a lecture and therefore does not follow the usual academic format with regard to citations and attributions.

122

shen guofang

closed this year, the government proposed the strategic goals of constructing a socialist and harmonious society. The decisions can be described as “constructing a socialist and harmonious society through the implementation of scientific development, from which derives the greater strategic goals of the general pattern of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the complete establishment of a healthy society. This reflects the demands for constructing a prosperous and strong democracy and a civilized and harmonious modern socialist country that realize the common aspirations of the entire party and all the ethnicities of the entire nation.” That means that next year’s National People’s Congress (NPC) and CPPCC will certainly carry on this spirit, which is an important part of scientific development and a basic requirement for building a socialist and harmonious society. This tells us that there is a close link between this theme, the demands of modern society, and the actions we must take. The Historical Relationship between Humans and Nature I. Humanity Is Part of the Ecosystem First of all, this should be common knowledge, but humanity was originally part of the natural ecosystem. This natural ecosystem (Figure 9.1) comprises biomes and the natural environment in which they reside, and within these biomes are producers, consumers, and decomposers, which form a relationship of material cycles and energy flows among them. This is basic knowledge in ecology. Humans are a part of the consumer category. Primitive people were mostly hunters and gatherers. Their

Producer Environment

Environment Natural ecosystem

Consumer

Decomposer

Environment Figure 9.1. Ecosystem.



the harmonious development of humans and nature

123

population was limited, and they lived in a very limited territory. Consequently, their impact on natural ecological cycles, material cycles, energy flows, and reproduction was very negligible. Of course, human beings at the time were still primitive—that is to say, their understanding of their relationship to nature was simply one of awe. II. The Gradually Intensifying Impact of Agrarian Civilization on Nature When humans entered the age of the agrarian civilization, their impact on nature gradually intensified. Agriculture developed in four stages: primitive agriculture, traditional agriculture, early modern agriculture, and modern agriculture. The age of agrarian civilization generally refers to the stages of primitive and traditional agricultural development. Primitive agricultural development progressed from hunting and gathering to herding and a type of planting called “slash and burn farming,” or “shifting agriculture.” In China, this began approximately ten thousand years ago. This method, in which people use fire to eliminate vegetation, farm the soil until it is depleted, then move on and begin the same process in another location, is no longer practiced in much of the world except in some very remote regions where there are remnants of particular ethnic minorities or where there are primitive agricultural means. This kind of agriculture causes soil erosion and severely harms nature, but it was geographically limited and only minimally impacted the natural environment. As humanity entered the age of traditional agriculture, the scale of planting and herding expanded, technology progressed, and the level of production rose, which encouraged population growth. In China, this process began approximately three thousand years ago. Agriculture during this time period was essentially subject to the disposition of nature. Consequently, Chinese traditional agriculture was organic agriculture. Agriculture had its own internal material cycle in which animal waste, including human waste, was returned to the cycle by being returned to the soil. I believe that the ancient Chinese idea that humans and nature are one was formed under this socioeconomic background. As the population grew, however, its demands grew as well, which required the expansion of arable land and greater quantities of domesticated animals. But where did this land come from? Essentially, it was made available in three ways: one way was through the destruction of forests, another was through the expansion into arid grasslands, and another was through the transformation of wetlands (it is relatively easy to transform wetlands into rice paddies). This had a major impact on the production patterns of

124

shen guofang

natural systems. I study forestry. Before the arrival of agrarian societies, China had a lot of forested land. At that time, the forest cover was about 50 to 60 percent, and the rest was mostly arid grasslands and a few deserts. Since the climatic patterns of Eurasia had already stabilized by this period, with the interior of the continent relatively dry and the southeast coastal region very wet, the continental forest coverage was about 50 to 60 percent. By about two thousand years ago, however, the forest cover had gradually fallen to 40 percent, and by one thousand years ago, 30 percent. By the beginning of the Qing dynasty, it had fallen to about 20 percent, and by the formation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), only 8.6 percent of the land was forested (though some say as much as 12 percent). This decline is exceptionally rapid. This most certainly has had an effect on the production patterns of natural systems. This has led to a pattern of regional soil erosion and desertification. With the development of industrialization, agriculture entered the stage of early modern agriculture. At this point, agriculture was no longer a part of the era of agrarian civilization but a part of the era of industrial civilization. III. Industrial Civilization’s Intensified Impact on Nature As humanity entered the era of industrial civilization, its impact on nature greatly intensified. The Industrial Revolution began about 250 years ago in Europe, but when did China join the ranks of industrialized civilizations? From a variety of perspectives, only with the establishment of the PRC can we really talk about industrialization. Production in the age of industrial civilization is marked by mechanization, while agriculture moved toward chemistry. Agriculture no longer needed organic fertilizers—or at least not as much of them—and instead used chemical fertilizers and pesticides, which has led to a rise in agricultural production. The application of chemical fertilizers could be considered a revolution in the study of agriculture, as it greatly increased agricultural production, providing the ability to feed a larger population. Since industrial agriculture places a greater demand on material and energy resources, however, its demands for natural resources have intensified, which has greatly impacted the natural environment. Upon mastering this new force of production, humanity has taken an attitude of reckless abandon toward nature by not only claiming a need to conquer nature, but also taking a series of actions without considering their consequences. These include the mass destruction of forests; the expansion of farmland, which encroaches on forests, grasslands, wetlands,



the harmonious development of humans and nature

125

and even deserts (deserts are also a natural system); the massive exploitation of mineral resources, which consumes large quantities of fossil fuels; the construction of massive reservoirs and dams, which have altered the natural course of waterways; and the creation of rapid transportation networks, which have greatly expanded the geographical scope of human activities to the point that there is essentially no place where the footprint of humanity is not present. On top of all this, large-scale urbanization has profoundly transformed the natural landscape of regions. There is no need to even talk about other regions, as one needs only to look at the Yangtze River and Pearl River Deltas to see that the many cities there have already joined together as megalopolises, obliterating the original natural landscape. These large-scale, deep-seated human activities, on the one hand, have allowed for the greater support of human existence and development, and have improved the quality of life for a part of the population; however, on the other hand, they have also transformed, interrupted, and even shattered the previously existing balance of the ecosystem, destroying the integrity, stability, diversity, and harmony of nature. Clearly, this has had severe consequences. Roughly speaking, what are these consequences? First, they are the devastation of the ecosystem, which can be seen in the sharp decline in forests, the retreat of grasslands, overgrazing, the shattering of natural systems, and the disappearance of biodiversity. Second, they are the intensification of soil erosion and desertification. Third, they are the energy crisis caused by the exhaustion of resources. Fourth, they are the severity of environmental pollution, including atmospheric pollution and surface pollution—particularly, soil and groundwater pollution. Today, people also discuss indoor pollution as a new major problem. Fifth, they are the destruction of the ozone layer and climate change brought on by the greenhouse effect. I am sure everyone is clear on this point. The only point of relief today is that we are starting to see signs of a reversal in the destruction of the ozone layer. This is primarily because we restrict the use of Freon and other similar pollutants, which is now proving to be effective. Despite this, climate change continues to persist. The emission of sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and methane has continued to intensify, which has been an ugly trend. We can see very clearly in the following image of the planet from space that the area of China that is desert is considerably large. China’s soil erosion and air pollution are also considerably severe (see Figures 9.3 and 9.4). Water pollution in China is also quite shocking, as shown in Figure 9.5.

126

shen guofang

Figure 9.2. China’s deserts are clearly visible in this satellite photograph of earth.

Figure 9.3. A view of soil erosion on the loess plateau.



the harmonious development of humans and nature

127

Figure 9.4. Air pollution in Benxi City, Liaoning Province.

Figure 9.5. Pollutants dumped into Dongting Lake, which has yet to be cleaned.

128

shen guofang

This is not the focus of my discussion, however, so I will not discuss it further here. In the late nineteenth century, Engels had already warned of this: “Let us not, however, flatter ourselves over much on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us.” These words ring loudly in our ears, but very few of us have been awakened by them. Many human activities in the modern world are unsustainable, not just because they cannot be supported by natural resources, but also because they have surpassed the carrying capacity of the environment. Recent statistics show that already we would need the resources of two planets to support current human consumption. This is not only a threat to our generation, but also a major threat to the existence and development of future generations. The Environmental Awakening of Modern Society and Its Actions I. Early Consciousness and Action This section will first discuss the early consciousness and actions of human beings. Although a rational environmental awakening in modern society did not really begin until the 1970s, there were still some people who were aware of the environment’s plight before then and took action. The accumulation of scientific knowledge and a deepened understanding of nature, as well as some major environmental catastrophes, led to an early awakening in some people that motivated them to take action. One salient example is the 1930s plan of US president Franklin D. Roosevelt. This was primarily in response to the Dust Bowl catastrophe in the Great Plains, which are located in the western and central parts of the country. This project has been called Roosevelt’s Prairie States Forestry Program, or the Great Plains Shelterbelt, which began in 1935. It stretched 1,150 miles north to south and about 100 miles east to west. Within eight years, this created nearly 18,000 miles of connected forest that protected nearly 4 million acres of farmland. This policy continued until 1992. According to American statistics on the shelterbelt, it has grown by 1.1 million acres since then, totaling an area of 1.6 million acres. Through these actions, the American government has been able to improve its oversight of the Great Plains, such as reverting farmland to nature and revitalizing the



the harmonious development of humans and nature

129

local environment, which has essentially resolved the Dust Bowl problem in the United States. Another example is Joseph Stalin’s Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature in the late 1940s. This plan was instituted in 1949, and by 1965, the Soviet Union had constructed eight lines of national shelterbelt forests, with a total length of about 3,300 miles, that were relatively wide. Between these national shelterbelt lines, they also constructed a web of windbreak lines among farmlands, which brought the total area of the shelterbelt to over 14 million acres of forest that protected nearly 100 million acres of farmland and over 11 million acres of pastureland. This plan was partially successful and also taught some valuable lessons. At the time, the Soviet Union managed to create a lot of arable land in the Karakum Desert for the planting of cotton by constructing large canals. This was quite effective during that time. Back then, I myself went to the Soviet Union to study and went to these canals, which were still being built. But in the end, this project led to further desertification due to the irrational use of water resources. As such, we can say that Stalin’s Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature was an important lesson. In the 1950s and 1960s, China also endeavored to make the motherland green and launched a wave of national water and soil conservation measures, which had some good results. For example, the building of high-yield forest plantations was an important part of this era. Figure 9.6 shows Jian’ou Shanmu Forest in Fujian Province; Figure 9.7 shows a forest in the Xichang region that was planted by aerial seeding on a scale that was unprecedented at the time; and Figure 9.8 is one that many Beijing students should be familiar with: it is a photograph of the man-made forest in Beijing’s western hills, taken while the leaves turned red and yellow in the autumn. This is not the Fragrant Hills, but is Weijia Village, just west of the Fragrant Hills. Beijing’s western hills were largely barren in the 1950s. This line of forest was built sometime between 1957 and 1958. If you go to the western hills now, you will see that it is no longer barren but filled with trees. Thus, these man-made forests have been useful. In Beijing, the forest cover at the founding of the PRC was only 3 percent, but now it is over 40 percent, so we can see that these projects have been successful. II. The Environmental Awakening of Modern Society The previously discussed examples were the earliest forms of environmental awakening, yet these actions were never systematized. At that

130

shen guofang

Figure 9.6. Jian’ou Shanmu forest plantation in Fujian Province.



the harmonious development of humans and nature

Figure 9.7. Xichang aerial-seeded forest in Sichuan Province.

Figure 9.8. Man-made forest in the western hills of Beijing.

131

132

shen guofang

time, people were still not clear about how to deal with people and nature and how to initiate environmental awareness. Let me give you a couple of major milestones in this awakening (Chart 9.1). In 1962, the book Silent Spring was published, which exposed the frightening effects of pollution on the human environment. In 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm, which called for the world to take action and protect the environment. This conference was very important, but unfortunately it was in the middle of the Cultural Revolution; although China participated and sent a delegation, its follow-up actions were limited. Comrade Qu Geping participated in the conference. Later, he would become China’s first minister of the National Environmental Protection Ministry—the creation of which was a milestone event. The next milestone was the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro. This was a conference attended by many heads of state dedicated to researching the environment and development. At the time, Premier Li Peng represented China. This conference had a major impact. Only from this point on did people really begin having in-depth discussions about sustainable development. Another milestone was the 2002 United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development. This was personally attended by Premier Zhu Rongji. By this time, China had become a major player in discussions on the global environment and development. From this we can see that through these milestones, China has gradually become more deeply involved. Chart 9.1. A few milestones in the environmental awakening. Year

Name

1962 1972 1972

Silent Spring The Limits to Growth United Nations Conference on Human and Environment Our Common Future United Nations Conference on Environment and Development United Nations Millennium Summit

1987 1992 2000 2002

United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development

Location

Stockholm, Sweden Rio de Janeiro, Brazil United Nations Headquarters, U.S. Johannesburg, South Africa



the harmonious development of humans and nature

133

III. International Measures (Treaties) to Protect the Ecology and Environment When it comes to the environmental awakening and actions of modern human society, we must also include international measures. I asked a colleague of mine from the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED) to collect data on exactly how many treaties, conventions, and agreements on the environment China has participated in. He found fifty or sixty, and among these I chose several that are particularly pertinent to China (Chart 9.2). The first is the Ramsar Convention, which was the earliest, signed in 1971. Afterwards came the 1972 London Dumping Convention and the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and in 1973, the Washington Convention—this was very important as it no longer allowed people to trade ivory, rhinoceros horns, and tigers. The International Tropical Timber Agreement was signed twice—once in 1983, which reflected everyone’s demands to protect tropical rainforests, and a second time in 1994. There is also the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. These two are very relevant to us now, because China is where much of the international hazardous waste ends up. This is an Chart 9.2. Major international environmental treaties, conventions, and agreements. Year

Name

1971 1972 1972

Ramsar Convention London Dumping Convention Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage Washington Convention The International Tropical Timber Agreement Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty Framework Convention on Climate Change Convention on Biological Diversity Convention to Combat Desertification Convention on Nuclear Safety Kyoto Protocol

1973 1983–1994 1985 1989 1991 1992 1992 1994 1994 1997

134

shen guofang

extremely important matter. In 1991, the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty was signed, and in 1992, the Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was signed, and now the mechanisms of implementing the Kyoto Protocol have become a hot topic of debate around the world. Besides this, there is also the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and the 1994 Convention to Combat Desertification and Convention on Nuclear Safety. From this review of international treaties, we can see that there have been a lot of international measures since the 1960s, and many treaties have been signed. This represents the awakening of humanity to the ecology and the environmental link between humans and nature. The Environment and Development in Modern China: Consciousness and Actions I. Improving Consciousness and Developing a Course of Action (1978–2002) At this stage, we could say that environmental consciousness is continually improving and a course of action is constantly being developed. First, environmental consciousness began with disaster prevention. The earliest program was the Green Wall system that began in 1978, which gradually expanded into a series of shelterbelt projects including the upper Yangtze River shelterbelt projects, the upper Pearl River shelterbelt projects, the Taihang Mountains greenification project, and the North China Plain farmland windbreak network project. Second, there was a gradual recognition of the severity of environmental pollution, which elevated environmental protection to the status of national policy—the same level as population policies. In China, family planning is a basic national policy. Another is environmental protection. Third, under these circumstances, China established an independent government institution for environmental protection in 1987. This was formally an environmental department that was a branch of the national planning committee. In 1998, its status was elevated to full ministry, going from a second-tier department to a formal state administration. This illustrates how seriously the nation takes environmental protection, and recently, some have proposed that its status be elevated to a formal ministry—its current status as a state administration is not high enough, because a state administration is not part of the national cabinet. As such, they wish to raise it yet another level. In 1992, China also established



the harmonious development of humans and nature

135

the independent CCICED, which has had three councils over the last fifteen years. This year (2006) is the final year for the third council. I just participated in this meeting. At the meeting, there was a summary of the previous fifteen years and a summary of the future outlook for the council, which asked reputable international and domestic environmental specialist to point out what the government should do for the environment and development. It can be said that the CCICED has been an effective activity. Fourth, China has actively participated in international events to protect nature and the environment, particularly since the Rio de Janeiro conference when the State Council immediately announced the Ten Major Countermeasures for the Environment and Development, which sought to “implement strategies for sustained development that will allow for a transformation of conventional development models” as the primary part of the ten countermeasures. Originally, “sustainable development” was translated as “chixu fazhan” (sustained development), but later, people said this was not suitable and that it should be called “kechixu fazhan” (sustainable development), where the “ke” (-able) was added as a part of the historical process. Fifth, China was able to fulfill its responsibilities and obligations as part of the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development after two years. In 1994, the Chinese State Council announced China’s Agenda 21. This was the first national Agenda 21 action plan in the world at the time. Sixth, progressing further, the nation learned from the large flooding in 1998 and developed a series of ecological infrastructural projects. Chief among these were projects to protect natural forests, as the nation learned a lesson from the massive soil erosion caused by deforestation in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River. Afterwards, there were projects to reforest formerly cultivated land and turn former pastureland back into grasslands. A series of major ecological management projects have started in order to manage the areas where the sandstorms that affect the Beijing and Tianjin areas originate. Figure 9.9 shows an area that is in the process of being reforested from former croplands. This area in the Loess Plateau that was originally farmed is now beginning planted with trees, and there are even grasses growing between the shrubberies. Figure 9.10 shows the process of a combined plan to reforest former grasslands and revitalize grasslands that were once pastures at the Feng Shan Forest and Grasslands Nursery in Wuqi County, Shaanxi Province. This was originally a barren section of the Loess Plateau, but now, only three

136

shen guofang

Figure 9.9. Reforestation of former farmland in the loess plateau of Shaanxi Province.

Figure 9.10. The results of the Feng Shan Forest and Grasslands Nursery in Wuqi County, Shaanxi Province, three years later.



the harmonious development of humans and nature

137

Figure 9.11. Natural forest protected by the Muling Forestry Bureau of Heilongjiang Province.

years later, it has recovered remarkably. Figure 9.11 is a natural forest preserve. Previously, many of the natural forests in northeast China and the upper reaches of the Yangtze River had been cut down. This forest faced only selective logging—that is, the largest and best trees were logged, but other trees were left alone, which is why there is so much space between them. These forests require our protection from logging in order to allow them to steadily rejuvenate. Seventh, we have continued the expansion of the scale of national reserves and strengthened environmental protection work. China established its first natural reserve in 1956—Dinghu Shan National Nature Reserve in Zhaoqing, Guangdong Province (Figure 9.12). Why is this reserve so important? This area is right along the Tropic of Cancer. The majority of the land area along the Tropic of Cancer is marked by arid deserts. Only in southeast China, due to the monsoons, is there a relatively good zone of vegetation. It is also a place where forests of deciduous broadleaf trees grow. Dinghu Shan National Nature Reserve is a great representative of altitudinal transition belts that transition from coniferous forests to deciduous broadleaf forests, and then to evergreen broadleaf forests. Because of this, China made this place the first national-level natural reserve. According to statistics, since then, 2,349 natural reserves

138

shen guofang

Figure 9.12. China’s first natural reserve: Dinghu Shan National Nature Reserve in Zhaoqing City, Guangdong Province.

have been established. Of course, this number is constantly changing, but currently, China’s natural reserves take up a total area of nearly 580,000 square miles, which is about 15 percent of China’s total land area. This is a relatively rational and complete system of natural reserves. Getting to 15 percent is no easy task. Generally, 10 percent would be more than enough, but China has some very large ones like the Sanjiang Waterhead Natural Reserve, which takes up a massive area. Regardless, China still has some issues managing and investing in these natural reserves, but we have, nonetheless, begun building a system that is altogether doing well.



the harmonious development of humans and nature

139

Eighth, we have delineated three major rivers and lakes of China as critical water pollution prevention zones. The three rivers are the Huai, Hai, and Liao Rivers, and the three lakes are the Tai, Chao, and Dianchi Lakes. These are places were pollution has reached critical levels. In the Eleventh Five-Year Plan, one reservoir and one more river were added. The reservoir is the Sanxia reservoir region, and the river is the Songhua River; the Songhua River was added to this list due to a recent environmental catastrophe involving it. Generally speaking, we have already done a lot, but these efforts have yet to have any apparent effects. This is a very complicated problem not only because of problems with prevention technologies, but also because of the much more pressing issue of the economic structure, which has led to broader problems with prevention and other measures. II. A New Stage: Including Ecological and Environmental Issues as Part of the National Agenda (since 2003) In the previous section, we talked about the various actions taken by China between 1978 and 2002. Since 2003—that is, under the support of the new government administration of Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao—we have elevated ecological and environmental issues to the national agenda. On the foundations of the marvelous goals of the originally proposed healthy society plan for 2020, the new administration that came to power in 2003 also put into effect its own series of policies and measures. First, in 2003, it proposed the concept of scientific development, and second, in the spring of 2005, Comrade Hu Jintao took stock of the situation and at the appropriate moment proposed the goals of “building a resource-conserving and environmentally friendly society” in accordance with the will of the people, which gave an abundant number of new goals for constructing a healthy society. Originally, the idea of a healthy society lacked some of these goals, but these were added later. Why is that? By 2004, it was already clear that we were still developing too fast. We consumed too many resources and had too big of an impact on the environment. It was a classic example of excessive development. The cry for change had already reached its peak. The Chinese Academy of Engineering held a series of conferences especially to discuss the idea of building a society that conserves resources, which gave the government many examples and suggestions to reflect upon. Third, at the end of 2005, the State Council declared its Decision Concerning Implementing Scientific Development and Strengthening Environmental

140

shen guofang

Protection. In April 2006, the central government held the National Environmental Protection Conference. Wen Jiabao personally addressed the conference, raising a new recognition of the importance of environmental protection work and the general direction of doing good environmental protection work. It can be described as the “Four Musts” and the “Three Transitions.” I think this is something we should understand a little bit more. The Four Musts can be described in the following way: “In order to completely implement scientific development and promote the harmonious development of the individual and society, we must improve environmental protection; in order to realize the goals of a healthy society, we must improve environmental protection; in order to improve the health and quality of the life of the people, we must improve environmental protection; for the sake of the long-term existence and very survival of the Chinese race, we must improve environmental protection.” The Three Transitions can be described in the following way: To successfully achieve new forms of environmental protection work, it is crucial that we hasten a transition in three respects: the first is a transition from an emphasis on economic growth while neglecting environmental protection to a dual emphasis on environmental protection and the economy. By improving efforts to protect the environment, this transition has the potential to become an important means of adjusting the economic structure and transforms the means of economic growth; we can achieve development through environmental protection. The second is a transition from environmental protection lagging behind economic development to the simultaneous development of environmental protection and the economy. We can no longer take on new debts to pay back older ones. We must change the idea that we should pollute now and deal with it later or selectively regulate here and there and destroy the environment here and there. The third is a transition from primarily using administrative regulations as a means of protecting the environment to using comprehensive legal, economic, technological, and necessary administrative regulations as a means of solving environmental problems. We should, by our own accord, respect economic laws as well as natural laws to improve the level of our environmental protection work.

Premier Wen Jiabao discussed the Four Musts and Three Transitions in his speech at the conference. His speech represents the attitude of the central government and the general direction of environmental protection work from now on, which is extremely important. The problem now is how to implement these policies. Although there are still many problems, they have already been discussed. What we need now is to work hard to realize them.



the harmonious development of humans and nature

141

Fourth, how can we carry out the research we have done? First of all, ecological and environmental problems were made a part of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan. In the spring of 2006, the National People’s Congress proposed making resource conservation and environmental conversation a binding goal in their deliberations on the Eleventh Five-Year Plan. What follows here is a series of required targets of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan (Chart 9.3): First are population requirements. The average population growth should be less than 8 percent a year. Presently, if there were no change in national policy and the current policies were to continue, China’s population growth rate would remain around 6 percent. Despite this, we must remain vigilant and not let up on these policies. Second, we must lower our energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 20 percent. This is quite difficult to achieve. Third, we need to lower the consumption of water per unit of industrial value-added by 30 percent, as well as improve the efficiency of the water usage coefficient in irrigation from .45 to .50 and improve the percentage of the reuse of solid industrial waste from 55.8 to 60 percent. Fourth, the total emissions of industrial pollution must be lowered by 10 percent. This is also a binding target, but it will be difficult to do—particularly, mitigating the emission of sulfur dioxide. Fifth, the amount of cultivated land should decrease from 301 million acres to 297 million acres, but there is no way to stop the increase in cultivated land since modern cities are constantly expanding; nonetheless, cultivated land must be reduced. Several years ago, particularly in 2003, cultivated land had already been reduced by several million Chart 9.3. The socioeconomic development targets concerning population resources and the environment in the eleventh five-year plan. The average population growth should be less than 8% Lower our energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 20% Lower the consumption of water per unit of industrial value-added by 30% Improve the efficiency of the water usage coefficient in irrigation from .45 to .50 Improve the percentage of the reuse of solid industrial waste from 55.8 to 60% Lower the total emissions of industrial pollution by 10% Decrease the amount of cultivated land from 301 million acres to 297 million acres Increase forest coverage from 18.2 to 20%

Required Targets Required Targets Required Targets Expected Targets Expected Targets Required Targets Required Targets Required Targets

142

shen guofang

acres, and it has been falling ever since. In China, 297 million acres is considered the lowest limit possible, but how much arable land is there in China? According to data from last year, China has 301 million acres of arable land. By 2010, it will be difficult to maintain 297 million acres of arable land in China. This is, however, the lowest limit possible in order to be able to maintain the population, since our agriculture must be basically self-sufficient. Presently, China’s agriculture is 95 percent self-sufficient. With population growth, improving living conditions, as well as changes in the world food markets, a slight decrease in China’s self-sufficiency is acceptable, but it cannot go down too much, because we have such a large population. If this percentage goes below 90 percent, then we would have to import over five billion tons of grain a year. If the number goes even lower, this could result in instability in the world food market with a sharp rise in food prices, which would not be to our advantage. This past fall, I went to the Chicago Grain Futures Market to have a look. In the United States, a large quantity of corn is made into ethanol for fuel, which will certainly diminish the supply of grain, which could be a major problem. Sixth, we need to increase forest coverage from 18.2 to 20 percent. As an expert on forestry, I am very familiar with this topic. This is a much more manageable target. In a good year, we can increase forest coverage by a percentage point. Among the aforementioned targets, there are some crucial problems. In Premier Wen Jiabao’s speech, he talked about lowering things by 30 percent, 20 percent, or 10 percent. By 30 percent, he was referring to a decrease in the consumption of water per unit of industrial value-added. By 20 percent, he was referring to a decrease in energy consumption, and by 10 percent, he was referring to a decrease in the total emission of pollution. These three numbers are something he has kept in mind, but when he goes to talks with foreign and domestic experts, he very earnestly admits that—and today I am going to be very honest with everyone—the environmental targets of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan were not met in the latter half of last year, and we will not be able to meet them this year. The failure to meet the energy consumption and emission targets of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan (in fact, consumption and emissions actually grew) is due largely to the inertia of the economy. The central government, however, is working to improve its enforcement in each ministry and local government to reach the goals of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan.



the harmonious development of humans and nature

143

III. Existing Problems (a) The Grim Outlook of the Environment Today From the previous discussion, we can see that the outlook for the environment today is still quite grim. How severe is the problem? If we talk about this generally, I would borrow a quotation from a passage in a decision of the central government on environmental protection: “The emission of major pollutants has surpassed our carrying capacity. The waters that flow into our cities are all polluted, and many cities have severe levels of air pollution. Acid rain has become a more severe problem, and the threat of persistent organic pollution (POP) has begun to become apparent. The area of soils that have been polluted has expanded. Pollution along the coast has intensified. And there is a hidden threat from nuclear material and radiation to environmental security. The ecology has been severely devastated. The area affected by soil erosion has expanded greatly. Desertification and the retreat of grasslands have intensified. There is a decrease in biodiversity. And the ecosystem has diminished functionality. The environmental pollution that emerged in developed countries over the past century at the height of industrialization took China only twenty years to equal, which marks the country structurally as complex and compressed.” (b) An International Comparison of China’s Environment How serious is China’s problem? Let us compare China on an international scale. Chart 9.4 is taken from the June 2005 issue of the academic journal Nature, which compared indicators from China with fourteen other countries. The article claims that China’s population growth rate is 0.7, but in fact, it is 0.6. India’s is 1.5, and Russia’s is –0.4. Additionally, the GDP growth rate it listed for China is on the low side. In reality, our growth rate is higher. I am not sure from which year this data comes. We then look at the rankings of the environmentally sustainable growth indicator. This ranks data from over 140 countries. We are ranked as 129th— that is to say, our sustainability ranking is very low. In the column for sulfur dioxide emissions, the emissions are calculated by thousand tons per square kilometer, and we are 2.7, which is much higher than all the other countries. Do you see it? This tells us that China is already the largest emitter of sulfur dioxide in the world. Why is that? This is because we largely use coal as our main source of fuel. Coal is 70 percent of our energy source. China’s emission of carbon dioxide is 2.78 billion tons, which puts us as the second largest emitter surpassed only by the United States with

China Bangladesh Brazil India Indonesia Japan Malaysia Mexico Nigeria Pakistan Philippines Russia Thailand U.S. Vietnam Worldwide

Country

2003

2003

0.7 1.7 1.2 1.5 1.3 0 1.9 1.4 2.1 2.4 1.9 –0.4 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.2

%

(100 million)

12.88 1.38 1.77 10.64 2.14 1.27 0.25 1.02 1.36 1.48 0.82 1.43 0.62 2.91 0.81 62.71

Population Growth Rate

Population

8.0 5.2 1.6 5.8 2.0 1.3 4.9 2.4 4.1 3.4 4.3 6.7 4.7 3.2 6.5 2.5

1999–2003

%

Yearly Average GDP Growth Rate

129 86 20 116 100 78 68 92 133 112 117 72 54 45 94

2002

(1–142)

Ranking of the Environmentally Sustainable Growth Indicator

2780 30 310 1120 270 1180 140 420 40 110 80 1440 200 5590 55 24210

2000

(Millions Tons)

Volume of CO2 Emissions

2.2 0.2 1.8 1.1 1.3 9.3 6.2 4.3 0.3 0.8 1.0 9.9 3.3 19.8 0.7 4.0

2000

(Tons/ Person)

CO2 Emissions

2.7 0.7 0.4 1.2 0.4 1.0 1.6 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.7 0.3 1.7

2000

(Thousand Tons/ Square Kilometer)

SO2 Emissions

Chart 9.4. The population, economic, and environmental situation of China and fourteen countries.

1.5 0.6 2.2 0.8 1.2 4.3 3.0 2.5 1.2 0.7 1.2 4.4 1.6 9.5 0.8 2.2

2001

(Hectares/ Person)

Ecological Footprint

144 shen guofang



the harmonious development of humans and nature

145

5.59 billion tons. Of course, since China has such a large population, discussing this in terms of the average per person would lower the average. (c) The Ecological Footprint and Cultural Development of China Figure 9.13 was released not that long ago by the World Wildlife Fund.1 It shows the average ecological footprint per person. As the ecological footprint has increased, more and more resources are consumed, which means that there must be more environmental pollution. This graph uses resource hectare area of the earth as a unit of measure. China occupies a level of 1.5 to 1.6 hectares per person. This graph considers 1.8 hectares per person as the upper boundary, which is the dotted horizontal line. Falling below this line means that the region does not have a very high ecological footprint and that the average person does not occupy so much in terms of resources and the environmental carrying capacity. So what are the countries above this line? Everyone can see that there are countries that are already well above this line, with even levels as high as 7, 8, and 9 hectares per person or higher. This graph uses the vertical axis to measure the ecological footprint in terms of the surface area of the planet, and the horizontal axis as an indicator of human development—that is to say, the degree of education, the quality of life, hygiene, and health. Of course, the higher the human development index, the better life is, but as the human development index goes higher, so too does its ecological footprint. This is a major paradox. The current problem is whether or not it is possible to raise the level of human development while halting the expansion of our ecological footprint. This is why China cannot take the same path taken by the United States. If China were to do as the United States has done, with every home having two or three cars, the consumption of energy would be so astronomical that this planet’s resources would not suffice. So where does China fall on this graph? Right here, everyone can see that I have marked China with an arrow. Over time, China has followed this dotted path as it developed, approaching the upper limits, but it has yet to surpass this boundary. In other words, China is still below the average global ecological footprint per person, but it is very close. Imagine this for a moment: as China continues to develop, where will it go? If we continue to go up this graph, then the planet will not have enough resources, because China certainly has a massive population of

1 World Wide Fund for Nature, Living Planet Report 2006 (Gland, Switzerland: WWF, 2006), p. 19, http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report.pdf.

Figure 9.13. Ecological footprint and human development indicators.

Source: World Wide Fund for Nature, Living Planet Report 2006 (Gland, Switzerland: WWF, 2006), p. 19, http://assets.panda.org/ downloads/living_planet_report.pdf.

146 shen guofang



the harmonious development of humans and nature

147

1.3 billion people. Can China maintain itself below this level of the average global ecological footprint per person while still improving its level of human development? This is a problem we must strive to resolve in order to ensure our future development. We certainly need to consider how to conserve resources while improving the level of human development and prosperity on the basis of an environmentally friendly model of development. (d) The CCICED Review of the Environment and Development and the Forecast of the Research Group As I just said, when the CCICED gave its review and forecast this year (conducted by a research group chaired by the scholar Song Jian, who was also the CCICED’s first director), the research group researched what China’s development would be like in the next fifteen years. The nation originally planned to realize its goals of an entirely healthy society by 2020 with the GDP per capita doubling what it was in 2000, an average income of US$3,000 per person, and an average annual growth rate of 7.2 percent. Since 2001, however, under the Tenth Five-Year Plan, the average annual economic growth rate was 9.5 percent. According to the Development Research Center Computable General Equilibrium (DRCCGE) calculations made by the State Council, the average economic growth rate during the Tenth Five-Year Plan reached 9.1 percent. Everyone here knows that last year it grew by 10.2 percent. This year, it looks like it will be over 10 percent, but we will not know for sure until it is announced when the NPC and CPPCC meet next year; the Twelfth Five-Year Plan will reach 8 percent and the Thirteenth Five-Year Plan will be 6.9 percent. These forecast estimates are lower than those made by the World Bank. So, if we continue at the current rate of development, then the imagined average economic growth rate for the first two decades of the twenty-first century will not be the 7.2 percent predicted, but 8.3 percent. If China’s total GDP reaches US$67,000 according to 2004 prices, then China will have an average of US$4,700 per person, and not US$3,000. This is calculated according to the 2004 exchange rate. As everyone knows, in 2005 the currency rate changed. Between 2005 and 2006, the value of the Chinese yuan went up by 5 percent. It is estimated that the value of the yuan will continue to increase by 5 percent every year. So, over the next few years, this GDP growth rate will be even bigger. If we calculate this using the World Bank’s methodology, then due to the increased purchasing power, the total GDP will increase several fold. With these trends in economic development, what will happen to our energy consumption and emission

148

shen guofang

of pollution? If China’s GDP does double and China’s energy consumption doubles, that would be disastrous. China will not be able to handle it, and neither will the world. Hence, it is essential that we lower our energy consumption. In this respect, we are trying to be very emphatic, and our energy consumption has been declining over the last few years. Just as is shown here in Figure 9.14, there are two lines showing energy intensity: one is called the business as usual (BAU) line, which is essentially a calculation based on the continuation of current trends. Although it is falling, it is falling at a very slow rate. If it continues along the green line (a 10 percent reduction), then the drop would be considerable. In Figure 9.15, we see the emission of carbon dioxide. If we continue along these trends, it would be disastrous. Now, this curve shows that we are quickly approaching eight billion tons. If we continue like this, it is estimated that we will surpass the United States by 2016. But based on some recent estimates, we will surpass the United States by 2009. This shows us that the pace of development is constantly changing. The Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) emissions shown in Figure 9.16 also are based on the possibility of a 10 percent decline. The projections in these three images serve as a warning. We must take action to conserve resources and act environmentally friendly. IV. Solution: Sustainable Development Strategies That Conserve Resources, Are Environmentally Friendly, and Socially Harmonious So what do we do? What is the solution? This requires us to seek out sustainable development strategies that conserve resources, are environmentally friendly, and socially harmonious. In this regard, I will bring up a few points. First, we must take the environmental targets in the Eleventh Five-Year Plan as targets carved in stone. Reversing environmental degradation is an important strategic step that we must strive to accomplish. Right now, the central government is signing agreements with each department and provincial government that require them to lower their ecological footprint by specified amounts. Second, there are six essential points proposed in a report by the CCICED for implementing the most important measures of our development strategy: (1) We need to completely promote sustainable production, consumption, and trade to hasten a quicker transition in our growth model. In the past, we only proposed sustainable production, but now just promoting sustainable production is unacceptable; we must also consume



the harmonious development of humans and nature

149

Energy Intensity

�.�

��% Reduction

�.�

BAU

�.� �.� �.� �.� �.� �.�

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

Year

Figure 9.14. Trends in the intensity of energy consumption.

����� ����

��% Reduction

����

BAU

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

Year

Figure 9.15. Changes in carbon dioxide emission trends.

����

150

shen guofang

��� ��% Reduction

���

BAU

��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� �

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

����

Year

Figure 9.16. Changes in COD emission trends.

and trade sustainably. Internationally, this is known as SCPT. (2) We must maintain sustainable growth by actively changing our industrial structure and improving efficiency. (3) We must establish a value taxation and regulatory system for sustainable development. Our current method of determining the value of resources makes it actually too low. Our taxation of pollution and emission is too low. Our ecological subsidies are too low. This is unacceptable. Since we have not been able to conserve resources, we must use economic levers to do this. (4) We need to establish and perfect a new system for sustainable development technologies. We need to be creative in our thinking to develop clean technology and a cyclical economy. (5) We must improve environmental regulations and our ability to govern the environment—that is to say, our “governance” (originally in English). Governance is a hot topic of debate right now around the world. I would like to translate it into Chinese, but everyone translates it differently. Moreover, our current understanding of this is quite poor. Think about it: county directors of the Environmental Protection Office answer to the county government leadership. But since the most important thing to the county head is the GDP, it is very difficult for a county director of an Environmental Protection Office to improve the environment while also allowing projects that will increase the GDP. So this whole issue of how to change the whole regulatory system so it can work through this kind of situation is a major topic. (6) We must improve environmental soft power to ensure peaceful development. Peaceful development, from a global perspective, is essential for ensuring our success.



the harmonious development of humans and nature

151

Third, we must apply the law—economic, technological, and other necessary regulations—to support sustainable development. This is part of the aforementioned Three Transitions. These means must be used in conjunction. We cannot just rely on one method. Thus, legislation needs to catch up; our tax system and technology must improve. Fourth, we must increase our demands on corporations and businesses for environmental and social responsibility (ESR). Companies have responsibilities to society. We must organize the participation of all people. Only in this way can we do this job well. Correctly Understanding the Criteria for the Harmonious Development of Humans and Nature Lastly, I would like to discuss how to understand the criteria for the harmonious development of humans and nature. It is very difficult to understand what the relationship between these two is. Scholars and politicians currently have very wide-ranging opinions on this problem. Here, I would like to talk about my own opinion. I. Speculations on Ecological Theory: Should Humans Come First or Should Nature Come First? Should humans come first or should nature come first? I am a proponent of scientific development theory, which teaches that human beings should come first. Not only is putting humans first the essential meaning of scientific development theory, it is also the only thing we can do at the moment. Frankly speaking, if we purely put nature first and believed that all organisms have equal rights—even the tiniest microbe—then there would be many things we would be unable to do. Although we must put humanity first, however, we must still strive for a harmonious coexistence with nature, and at necessary times, change and limit certain productive and consumption practices of human beings. We cannot allow them to expand without limitation. The material desire of humans cannot be allowed to continue to grow. This should be considered a problem of ecological theory, though I will not go into it any further here. II. A Difficult Balance: Limit Development for Harmony or Find Harmony in Development Whether we should limit development for harmony or find harmony in development—this is a very difficult balancing act. In some places, if we

152

shen guofang

continue on our current path of crude development, then we certainly must limit it, because limiting development is not something that should be absolutely avoided. Generally speaking, however, we must in some respects develop and in others find harmony—that is, finding some sort of harmony in development—because if there is no development, then there is no capital to protect the environment well. It would simply be impossible. So we should continue to develop and while doing so continue to protect the environment so as to achieve some harmony with nature. If we restrict development so much that we decline, then we will not be able to solve the problem. III. Tailoring to the Population, Resources, and Environment of Countries: A Guide and Norm for the Direction, Model, Scale, and Specifics of Economic Development The direction, model, scale, and specifics of economic development must be tailored to the population, resources, and environment of each country. First, we must maintain our course of socialist development—that is to say, maintain the integrity of our harmonious system, which should be thought of as the core concept of our socialism. This must be said. Second, we must develop capital and knowledge-intensive high-tech industries. Only in this way will we be able to benefit from reductions in energy consumption and make it much easier to protect the environment. Moreover, due to circumstances in China, we must also develop some labor-intensive high-employment industries, and coordinate between the two. Our country is very different from some smaller countries. We have a population of 1.3 billion to take care of. We need to give them something to do—that is, we must employ them. That is just the reality of the situation. Third, we must restrict the development of industries that consume high levels of resources and heavily pollute the environment or have them refitted so that they follow cleaner production methods. For example, metallurgy, energy, construction material, chemical, and other such industries have quite a few problems. Although some of them have begun to see the light, such as the steel production industry—in fact, some of the better steel companies have really made major progress. If we bring the energy and construction material industries in line with the steel industry, then they will really have potential. Fourth, we must cautiously make distinctions in our treatment of developing export-oriented industries and instead improve our own innovative strength and expand domestic-oriented industries. Currently, economic development is heavily dependent on exports. Now, we need to be discerning in our treatment of them. For



the harmonious development of humans and nature

153

some industries, we need to improve our own innovative capabilities and grow our own domestic markets. We cannot just work for others. We earn a little money so that others can make a lot more. This cannot continue over the long term. Additionally, there are some industries that we still need to limit a bit. If we let them develop unchecked, it will be bad for us. I will bring up two examples. The first is the coke industry. We take coal and process it into coke (a coal residue used for smelting steel) for export. Western countries have not produced their own coke for quite some time and have been importing it from China. Processing coke, however, leaves behind a lot of pollution here, including sulfide pollutants. We leave the pollution here and give to others the good stuff they want. Is this really worth it? Another instance is aluminum electrolysis. This is an industry that consumes a lot of electricity. In some parts of our country, there are places where there are power shortages, but because there are inequalities in the distribution of electricity, there are places were electricity consumption is relatively high. These are places where aluminum electrolysis plants are, the product of which is then later exported. And where does the electricity come from? The majority of the power here in China is dependent on burning coal, so all of the sulfur dioxide emitted is left here in our country, and that aluminum we produce is given to someone else. It is causing more harm than good. The central government is already aware of these problems and has begun to limit the exports of some industries. Were we to always keep this major trade balance in our favor, it actually would not do us any good. Right now, our foreign currency reserves are over US$1 trillion. Such a large currency reserve is also a burden. Moreover, we are using this money we earned to buy up US debt so that Americans can use that money to consume. This plan cannot last long. Finally, economic construction must be coordinated with politics, culture, and society. IV. We Must Research a Self-Repairing Capacity That Recognizes Nature, Works with Nature, and Utilizes Nature in Our Construction of an Ecology, but We Must Also Supplement It with Necessary Man-Made Works We must research a self-repairing capacity that recognizes nature, works with nature, and utilizes nature in our construction of an ecology, but we must also supplement it with necessary man-made works. This idea is currently being debated. That is to say, should we allow nature to follow its course and repair itself or should we use man-made solutions? What are man-made solutions? This is something I am relatively familiar with. Today, we have the Green Wall project, which is the country’s first

154

shen guofang

example of a major ecological project, but there is a lot of debate surrounding it. Here, I will discuss my own opinion. (a) Construction and Planning Construction of the Green Wall was approved by the Central Committee of the State Council in November 1978. The three sections of the shelterbelt are located in the northwest, the north, and the northeast, which cover thirteen provinces and 551 counties with an area of over 1.6 million square miles—so big that it covers 42.4 percent of China’s territory. It crosses even the parts of the country that are most threatened by sandstorms, and the Loess Plateau, which is threatened by massive soil erosion. Everything above the black line in Figure 9.17 is naturally very arid, semi-arid, and semi-arid with seasonal precipitation; this is almost the entire northwest, a large part of northern China, and the western part of the northeast, including the western parts of Jilin, Liaoning, and Heilongjiang Provinces. The primary goal of the Green Wall is to plant forests and grasslands on a massive scale along this line, particularly to connect strips and networks of forests and grasslands together into a larger shelterbelt system. The planned area of these man-made forests is eightyeight million acres. The goal of the plan is to increase the forest coverage of the three northern areas from 5.05 percent (what it was in 1977) to 14.95 percent when it is complete in order to effectively manage the harmful sandstorms and soil erosion, provide a general improvement in the local ecology, and broadly improve the living conditions of the people there. The Green Wall is planned to take seventy-three years (from 1978 to 2050). Very rarely has our country had such a long-term plan. The project is organized over three stages and eight phases; today, we are entering the fourth stage. Do you think this is a long time? In reality, reversing this kind of natural devastation and improving it might even take a century. It may turn out that seventy-three years is not long enough. (b) Completion Nearly thirty years have passed since the Green Wall was approved in 1978, and with over twenty-eight years of continuous work, it has afforested an area of nearly ten million square miles. From the northwest to the northeast, over this 10,000 li line of sandstorm-prone areas, the Green Wall have combined sand fencing, grass cultivation, aerial seeding of trees or grasses, and man-made forestation to form a massive web of trees, bushes, and grasses that prevents the wind from dislodging sand over nearly two million square miles. Their focus has primarily been on two areas where

the harmonious development of humans and nature

155

Figure 9.17. Map of the Green Wall System Plan.



156

shen guofang

the sand is relatively easy to manage: one is the Mu Us Desert area along the northern border of Shaanxi Province and Inner Mongolia; the other is the Horqin Desert located along the borders of Inner Mongolia and Liaoning and Jilin Provinces. These two places are relatively easy to manage because they have an average annual rainfall of 13.5 oz. Currently, these areas have a forest and grassland coverage of 29 percent, which is significantly better than it was and leading the way to reversing desertification. Moreover, from the oases of Xinjiang and the Hexi Corridor to the western portion of northeast China, they have already created a windbreak network over agricultural land that covers nearly one hundred thousand square miles, making 57 percent of the farmlands a part of the shelterbelt network and protecting over forty-two million acres of agricultural lands. Since I was just recently in the western part of Jilin Province, I brought these pictures to share with everyone. The picture in Figure 9.18 is the Horqin Desert, where they have managed to do a good job on the sand dunes. The photograph in Figure 9.19 is of a section of grassland where the soil has become alkaline, causing the area to go through a process of desertification. Later they built this alfalfa seed base. The photograph in Figure 9.20 is a section of grassland that has been restored over three years by naturally enclosing it and prohibiting grazing. It is doing quite well now. The picture in Figure 9.21 is a network of windbreaks around farm plots. The picture in Figure 9.22 is a double-layered structure of windbreaks around a farm plot. The management of the Green Wall is integrally linked with water and soil conservation projects on the Loess Plateau. Over an area of over 69,000 square miles, a host of various types of water and soil conservation buffers have been built, controlling initially over 30 percent of the water and soil loss. Currently, the sediment in the Yellow River watershed has certainly decreased, though there are two reasons for this decrease: one is that there has been much less rain over the last few years, meaning the river has a much lower flow; the other reason is due to the soil and water conservation projects. The annual deposit of silt in the Yellow River has dropped from 1.6 billion tons to 800 or 900 million tons. Figure 9.23 is a photograph of the Loess Plateau in the western part of Shanxi Province, which shows the current situation of the planted forest and grass on the Loess Plateau. Figure 9.24 is another photograph of severe water and soil erosion in the chernozem belt of Heilongjiang Province. Soil erosion in the chernozem belt is really devastating for us, because the chernozem belt is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the country. It is extremely fertile, but now the amount of this soil that has eroded has been



the harmonious development of humans and nature

157

Figure 9.18. Stabilized sand and planted trees in Da’an County, Jilin Province.

Figure 9.19. An alfalfa seed base in Baicheng City, Jilin Province.

158

shen guofang

Figure 9.20. A section of grassland in the Horqin Desert that was able to grow due to natural enclosing.

Figure 9.21. A network of windbreaks around farm plots.



the harmonious development of humans and nature

159

Figure 9.22. A double-layered shelterbelt forest around farm plots.

Figure 9.23. A soil-and-water-conservation forest in Fangshan County, Shanxi Province.

160

shen guofang

Figure 9.24. Water-and-soil-conservation forest along the Chernozem Belt of Heilongjiang Province.

great. In some places, the erosion has been so severe that it has begun to form gullies. In the middle of Figure 9.24, you can see where soil erosion has created a gully—right there where the trees are. They have already begun to manage the soil erosion here. This shows us that the Green Wall has played an important role in water and soil conservation. The Green Wall project provides a path for both ecological and economic solutions. In benefiting the local ecology, it also has many benefits for the economy and society. It provides basic fuels for rural communities, horticulture, and various desert produce to ensure growth and a better environment for local communities. (c) Evaluation and Problems The Green Wall project has had its successes, so how can we evaluate it? And what problems still exist? First, this is a massive project that has had a major impact. In the past, it was referred to as the “Green Wall of China.” At the 1985 World Forestry Conference, I, along with the head of the Green Wall administration, introduced the project. It received praise from every country, who then called it the “Green Wall.” Nowadays, however, there



the harmonious development of humans and nature

161

are some who understand the Green Wall to simply be a line of trees. This couldn’t be further from the truth. It is actually a web of many lines of trees, scrubs, and grasses—there are lines, strips, and webs—making it “the leading ecological project in the world.” In 1987, the administrators of this project—the Green Wall Shelterbelt Administration—were called by the United Nations Environment Programme an advanced environmental protection institution. The Green Wall project has also received awards from the United Nations for environmental protection. The main problems dogging this project are a severe lack of funding. Under very difficult circumstances, it only receives three to five yuan per acre in subsidies. How could that possibly be enough? In the beginning, the project relied on local farmers investing in the project. Back then, it was feasible with orders from the administration. Now it is no longer feasible since compulsory labor has since been abolished. Under the Tenth Five-Year Plan, the state invested 2.3 billion yuan. This seems like a pretty big number, but for such an ambitious project, it is hardly enough. Even a simple normal project may take a few billion, but this project is a massive undertaking and it only receives a few billion, so progress is very slow. Under the Tenth Five-Year Plan, they were only able to manage an area of nearly 791,000 acres every year out of the nearly 100 million acres for the total project. You can see that there is a great difference between the two. If we continue at this pace, it will take over a century to complete the project, and it is difficult to say if there will be any regression over such a span of time. Another major problem, particularly when the project had just begun, was a lack of knowledge of the regional terrain and resource constraints, and on top of this, because the forestry department took the lead on this project, they overemphasized planting trees over grasses and planting bushes over scrubs, which had a negative impact on some of the regional ecology—it stunted the growth of trees and lowered the water table because trees consume considerably more water. Over time, people began to recognize this problem and changed their methods by expanding the quantity of not only scrubs but grasses, too. Later, this also led to projects limiting pasturelands in order to allow the grasslands to return. Here are two typical examples. One involves Qingtu Lake in Minqin County, Gansu Province (Figure 9.25). The lake has long since dried up and turned into desert. Why? On the one hand, the water upstream had been used up completely, so there was no water to restore water levels; and on the other hand, planting trees lowered the water table, which caused the water level of the lake to fall even faster, causing a catastrophe. Another example

162

shen guofang

Figure 9.25. Dried-up Qingtu Lake in Minqin County, Gansu Province.

involves Huan County, Gansu Province. This region only gets about 10.1 oz. of precipitation a year and is unsuitable for the growth of large quantities of even small trees, but they planted forests with large trees anyway. The result was stunted trees (Figure 9.26), which, decades later, still have not grown. Of course, there are some people who will argue that a stunted tree is still a tree. It is better than nothing, right? Well, that is, of course, one way of looking at it, but we always have better ways to avoid creating these stunted trees. A final point is that the Green Wall project and other related projects are insufficiently coordinated with overlapping projects. Since the beginning of the Green Wall project, many other projects have also emerged, such as projects to abandon cultivation in order to allow reforestation or abandon pastureland to allow grasslands to regrow, projects that build pastureland, water and soil conservation projects, and other such projects. A major problem in this country is bureaucratic departmentalism. Every government bureau and department has its own agenda that says, “We have our own thing to handle so we are not going to work with you, because our money is our own.” And a lot of these departments and



the harmonious development of humans and nature

163

Figure 9.26. Trees planted in Huan County, Gansu Province, in the 1950s are still stunted today.

bureaus are striving for the same goal. If they were to unite, they could do things much better, but alas—this kind of unity will not happen. We have been saying this for many years, but most places have not changed their tone. (d) How Do We Regard the Green Wall Project from a Perspective That Seeks the Harmonious Development of Humans and Nature? So how can we look at the Green Wall project from a perspective that seeks the harmonious development of man and nature? First, because of the aforementioned problems, there is a lot of debate among scholars over the project, and government bureaus also have their doubts about whether or not they should continue it. Second, in recent years the progress of water and soil management has not been fast enough. Although there has been some success, there has been no fundamental reversal; moreover, in some places it has gotten much worse. In some places and during certain peculiar years, sandstorms have been quite large. In some places, agricultural windbreaks have aged

164

shen guofang

and are in dire need of replacement. This tells us that the Green Wall project still needs to continue. Third, from the perspective of developing a harmonious relationship between humans and nature, we need to find some means by which to identify regions that have issues that particularly need to be managed. For example, in managing desertification, not all deserts are in dire need of management. Some deserts are naturally deserts and are not in need of any particular management unless there are plans to build a road in the desert for oil drilling. When it comes to determining which areas should be a focus of management and which ones should be left alone, we must consider the natural landscape. In addition, we really should make prevention our biggest step and focus on adjusting the structure of land usage. In the image you saw of that beautifully restored section of grassland in Jilin Province, it took only two or three years of enclosing the land for the grassland to come back. Why? Because there were no sheep destroying it. Grazing was not a problem; in fact, by feeding sheep with cultivated grass, there is no change in the number of sheep. Now, I would like to especially emphasize that we need to strictly control environmental destruction from construction. Recently, I went to inspect a water-and-soil-conservation project, and I found construction sites to be one of the main causes of water and soil erosion. Urban development, road construction, and mining operations have been extremely destructive, and currently there are no national measures to demand that they restore the original ecology after construction. On top of that, we need to use our abilities to restore nature and improve and broaden the strength of enclosing land. In places where nature can be restored, it should be allowed to restore, but to be clear, it is not possible to restore the natural environment everywhere. There are some places that are so severely devastated and where soil erosion is so severe that it is possible that not even a man-made solution would work. Even if places like these could one day be restored, it may take a few decades or hundreds of years to get to a level we would hope for. In this case, there is not really any way to achieve these goals. Finally, we must also use both scrubs and trees according to the natural terrain. Originally, I said trees and scrubs, but just here I turned it around and said scrubs and trees. Why is that? When it comes to the Green Wall project area, as everyone knows, it is a mostly arid or semi-arid region. In this kind of region, the focus should be on grasses. We need to coordinate the use of enclosures, aerial seeding, and manual planting. We should manage this according to the appropriate terrain, flora, and methodology. As I just said, since the Green Wall shelterbelt is a very important project for



the harmonious development of humans and nature

165

China and is famous worldwide. Recently, there have been some problems that have sparked debate and diverging opinions, but we should still look at this project from a perspective that seeks harmonious development among humans and nature and continue with it, improve upon it, do it much quicker, and restore the natural environment. Fourth, we also need to look at investing in ecological construction projects as part of environmental development planning and ecological compensation. With the national economy growing, we must also increase our investment in eco-environmental construction for projects including the Green Wall project. Currently, China’s investment in ecological construction and environmental management projects is not very large. Although China is in the middle of a major transition, currently the national income and the government’s income grows by 20 or 30 percent every year. Correspondingly, we should also increase our investment in public needs, which includes the environment. At current levels, it is just too low. My last point is that we need to continue improving our management of eco-environmental projects, use market mechanisms to bring in corporations and encourage them to participate, and encourage the participation of the public. Only in this way can we do well. I will end today’s class here. Thank you, everyone.

chapter ten

A Discussion on the Problems of Ecological Culture and Sustainable Development Liu Sihua The New Concept of Ecological Culture and a Historical Survey of the Three Great Cultures Theory In the foreword by Mai Yining in Su Zequan’s Chinese publication The Sustainable Development of Rural Urbanization, he wrote,1 “In this author’s opinion, the new model of rural urbanization should be along the lines of sustainable development, because it brings together material culture, spiritual culture, and ecological culture. This author would like to propose here a new concept, and that is that we must build an ecological culture. By ecological culture I mean that while exploiting natural resources we also need to protect nature and protect the environment, and where possible improve the environmental quality, allowing development to be built on a positive foundation of the cycles of the eco-system. I believe that this concept is highly valuable.” Mai is a very influential Chinese economist in contemporary China, and his affirmation that ecological culture is “highly valuable” reflects the fact that Chinese economic theorists are willing to stand on the front lines of a new era. Their pursuit of the cutting edge of a new global modern civilization is something that all can appreciate. At the same time, however, I feel it is very necessary to review this theory of ecological culture and provide a brief history of it. Here, I would like to point out that some young people who do not understand the intellectual history of China’s eco-economy believe that I was the one who came up with the idea of eco-culture. This, however, is not the truth of the matter. In looking through scholarship since the 1980s, I found that before me the famous ecologist, Ye Qianji, came up with the idea of ecological culture, and I have been spreading the word since.

1 Taken from the Guangming Daily, January 11, 2001.

168

liu sihua

At the 1987 National Conference on Ecological and Agricultural Problems, Ye called for the need to “pioneer the construction of an ecological culture”—a sentiment that resonated with many of the participants. After the conference, the writers of the Chinese Environmental Report (Zhongguo Huanjing Bao) approached this revered professor, and on April 23 of that year, placed an exclusive, entitled “The Truly Civilized Age Has Only Just Begun: Professor Ye Qianji Appeals for the Development of an Ecological Culture,” in the first edition of the Chinese Environmental Report. “What is ‘ecological culture’?” asked Professor Ye Qianji: “This socalled ecological culture is a relationship where humanity benefits from nature and gives back to nature and, while changing nature, also protects nature. It is a harmonious relationship where humans and nature are mutually supportive.” He continued: I believe the start of an ecological culture is as socially distinctive as the age of ignorance, barbarity, and culture. By age of ignorance, I mean the age when humans were entirely unaware of the relationship between them and nature as a period not produced by society. By age of barbarity, I mean the age when the relationship between humans and nature was predicated on the basis of conqueror and conquered. Humanity places itself as the master of nature and sees itself as the conqueror of nature. And the age of culture refers to a relationship between humans and nature that is unified and harmonious, where humans exploit nature but protect it as well. It is an age for the cautious manager of nature. Hence, looking at this from the perspective of an ecological culture, a truly civilized era has only just begun.

Later, he would go on to publish Ecological Agriculture: The Future of Farming (Shengtai nongye: Nongye de weilai)2 in which he further explained issues of building an ecological culture. I am extremely supportive of Ye’s concept of an ecological culture. Between 1988 and 1991, I incorporated this new idea as part of the model of the new modern culture in several of my articles, creating a theoretical developmental framework that unified and adjusted materialistic culture, spiritual culture, and ecological culture. In terms of this new theory, I have prepared the following arguments: First, since ecological degradation has already become a severe and universal problem faced by modern socioeconomic development, the ecological need to improve the development of people’s health and knowledge 2 Ye Qianji, Shengtai nongye: Nongye de weilai [Ecological agriculture: The future of farming] (Chongqing: Chongqing Press, 1988).



a discussion on the problems of ecological culture

169

has already become the most fundamental demand of consumption for humanity’s existence and development. This objectively demands that we include the fulfillment of people’s ecological needs as a part of fulfilling people’s consumption needs. Hence, “from the perspective of an ecological economy, people’s consumption needs should be expanded to include ecological, material, and spiritual needs. The former is the demand of humans, as natural beings, for an ecosystem—thus, ecological needs. The latter two are the demands of humans, as members of society, for an economic system—thus, economic needs.”3 Second, for a long time, conventional economics have looked at consumption needs purely as economic needs because, as part of the goals produced by socialism, consumption needs include material and cultural issues. What I generally refer to as material and spiritual needs. When we combine the basic principles of Marxist ecological economics with the modern practice of economic and social development within the social bounds of socialism, we must come to the conclusion that “the objectives produced by socialism are to ensure the ecological, material, and cultural fulfillment of all people. This, as an objective law of the development of the socialism economic movement’s organic ecological economy, is the theoretical development of socialism’s goals, which expands and enhances Marxist principles on the objective produced by socialism.”4 Third, among the three things that must be achieved in a socialist system—that is, the process of constructing the three types of culture— this is the primary process of constructing a modern socialist society. “The material needs of the people as well as the degree to which available materials satisfy this need and the means used to achieve this constitute the basis of the material culture of socialism; the spiritual needs of the people as well as the degree to which it satisfies this need and the means used to achieve this constitute the basis of the spiritual culture of socialism; the ecological needs of the people as well as the degree to which it satisfies this need and the means used to achieve this constitute the basis of the ecological culture of socialism. It is also the most important manifestation of the material and spiritual culture of socialism. Hence, in a socialist system, all the needs of the people and the degree to which it satisfies this need and the means used to achieve this are the most 3 Liu Sihua, “Lun shengtai jingji xuqiu” [On the needs of eco-economics], Jingji yanjiu [Economic research] 4 (1998). 4 Liu Sihua, Lilun shengtai jingjixue ruogan wenti yanjiu [A study of several problems in theoretical eco-economics] (Liuning: Guangxi Renmin Press, 1989).

170

liu sihua

fundamental issues in constructing the material, spiritual, and ecological culture of socialism.”5 Fourth, the purpose of building a modernized socialist system and realizing the production goals of socialism is to “satisfy all the needs of the people in order to achieve a highly unified material, spiritual, and ecological culture for socialism. This is an important marker of modern socialist culture as well as an important marker of national empowerment and prosperity, the revitalization of the race, and the happiness of the people.”6 Around April 1990, the Chinese Ecological Economics Society and Agricultural Development Research Center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences jointly held a conference in Beijing to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of International Earth Day. At the conference, I stated that “among the most important documents of our party and government, we should change the previous formulation of building two cultures to the three cultures I proposed. By this can we only hope to improve the environmental awareness of the people, particularly a large swath of government cadres, and only by this can we provide a strategic direction on a scientific basis for the basic national policies to protect the environment.” At the time, the vice director of the National Urban Ecological Economic Research Society, Zhu Tiezhen, published an article that approved this, pointing out that “recently, there was a comrade that brought up that modern civilization should be a highly unified material, spiritual, and ecological culture. The construction of a modernized socialist system should be based on the organic unity and well-coordinated development of material, spiritual, and ecological culture for socialism. I think this has certain rationality to it.”7 As a result, while researching microecological economic problems, I was able to move forward the emphasis that in building a modern socialist civilization, it is impossible to even consider straying from building an ecological culture. Thus, “we must build an ecological culture that creates a good environment and improves the environmental consciousness of the race, and make this a basic obligation of modernization.” Also, “in building a modern socialist civilization, we must bring material, spiritual, and ecological culture together. This is a path that China must 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Wang Keying et al., eds., Shengtai shidai de chengshi jueze [Urban choices in an ecological age] (Beijing: Jingji Guanli Press, 1991).



a discussion on the problems of ecological culture

171

adhere to in its industrialization and modernization, and it is the path that must be adhered to in modernizing the socialist enterprise.”8 In the early 1990s, many influential national publications continually brought up the proposition of an ecological culture and the three cultures, particularly in the mid and late 1990s. China released and published a large quantity of articles and books on ecological culture, as well as works related to this concept. In many ways, they expounded a unified and coordinated development of the internal workings of the three cultures. Among these works were the writings of the famous ecological economist, Shi Shan, who published many volumes and gave many talks from 1993 to 2000 on this issue. He repeatedly invoked and emphasized the new concept of a highly unified three cultures that I had previously brought up. The editors of Xinhua wenzhai selected and republished many articles on this idea, playing an important role in forming a coordinated developmental theory on ecological culture and the creation of the three cultures. Presently, the number of those that support the coordinated development of the ecological culture and three cultures theory is increasing. What pleases many people is that the party and the country have made improving the ecological infrastructure an essential part of their sustainable development strategy, showing the importance of this theory in practice. Thus, as pointed out in Shi Shan’s Collected Works of Liu Sihua, “This collected work introduces and explains the theory of coordinating the development of ecological culture as well as the three cultures, which shows the organic unity of this creative, scientific, and practical approach.”9 The development and initial practice of the theory at the turn of the century show us that the theory of the coordinated development of building an ecological culture and the three cultures has already become an important part of the sustainable development framework in ecological economics. It allows the sustainable development theory and practice to take on new properties, which are primarily shown in the following ways: Chiefly, this theory rectifies and standardizes the development of modern civilization by giving modern civilization a new direction for development.

8 Liu Sihua, Qiye shengtai huanjing youhua jiqiao [Techniques for commercial ecoenvironmental optimization] (Beijing: Kexue Press, 1991). 9 Shi Shan, “Gaodu zhongshi shengtai shidai yu san da wenming jianshe lilun” [Attaching greater importance to an ecological era and the theory of building three cultures], Zhongnan caijing daxue xuebao [Zhongnan University of Economics research journal] 2 (2001).

172

liu sihua That is to say, the three cultures theory assists and develops the required economic, social, and ecological development while also assisting and coordinating development. Among these is the idea that the development of the eco-environment marks a balance of the quality, level, and degree of development in modern civilization. Thus, sustainable development as a part of the modernization of Chinese socialism not only requires substantial development in material culture, but also requires the significant development of spiritual culture and, similarly, ecological culture. We must shift sustainable development away from merely pursuing the development of material culture toward a coordinated development of material, spiritual, and ecological culture. In other words, we must direct development away from a blind pursuit of economic development toward developing the economy, society, and ecology simultaneously. Only in this direction can we ensure the sustainability of modern civilization.

In addition, this theory creates new strategic goals for modern civilization, or we could say that it provides new strategic obligations for sustainable development. In our country, where we are trying to build a powerful, wealthy, and democratic civilization based on a modernized socialism, in order to achieve the glorious revitalization of the Chinese race, not only must we develop material culture, but we also need to advance our spiritual culture and create a good ecological culture. Hence, whether we are building a material culture, spiritual culture, or ecological culture, they are each an important goal of building a modernized socialist China. Developing a modernized productivity, advancing China’s culture and ideology, and creating an optimal environment in China are all strategic targets of sustainable development. If we can create these three cultures, then we can realize the general advancement and sustainable development of a modernized socialism with Chinese characteristics. This theory, moreover, establishes a new perspective on civilization for sustainable development. The characteristics of industrial civilization are purely materialistic; more precisely put, past models of industrialization are solely based on models that build a material culture. Ecological culture surpasses the models of modern industrial civilization. It is based on a combined system of “humans, society, and nature.” It takes as its guiding values the advancement and coordinated development of humanity and the environment, upon which it relies for its existence. Only this kind of development can promote a healthy and sustainable system that brings together “the ecology, the economy, and society.” As we can see, the core of a developmentally stable civilization is a highly unified and coordinated development of material, spiritual, and ecological culture. This new idea of civilization’s properties is not anthropocentric.



a discussion on the problems of ecological culture

173

The Implications and Values of Sustainable Development Presently, the idea of sustainable development has nearly two hundred alternative definitions. It is an idea that many people love, but none can clearly define the scientific connotations of this concept. Looking at the various definitions of sustainable development given by scholars around the world, it appears that correctly pegging down the implications has become a global question. At this point, it must be noted that, after the theory and idea of sustainable development emerged, debate over this idea spread around the world, yet among Western mainstream economists—namely, orthodox economists—this idea lagged considerably. This is primarily seen in the way in which orthodox economists incorporated sustainable development into the framework of neoliberal economics theories. For example, the explanation of sustainable development given by the World Bank and other mainstream institutions is that the consumption of market material transactions and services should be taken as a measure. This essentially does not differ with the idea of unlimited economic growth held by many. Hence, as the American environmental economist Robert Ayres put it, “The assumption that we can ensure that future generations can enjoy the same opportunities has been based on capital accumulation and, at times, exchanging natural capital for artificial capital. Simply put, when talking about issues of sustainable development, mainstream economics relies upon standard methods and the presupposition of neoliberal theories of growth.”10 Since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development made sustainable development a common development strategy for all humanity in 1992, two very powerful pieces of literature that have generally been used to define sustainable development have been published. The first is Our Common Future, which defined sustainable development as “meet[ing] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The other definition comes from the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the World Wildlife Fund in their 1991 publication Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. They define sustainable development as “improving people’s quality of life without surpassing the carrying capacity of the eco-system to

10 Robert Ayres, The Turning Point: End of the Growth Paradigm [Chinese translation] (Shanghai: Shanghai Yiwen Press, 2001).

174

liu sihua

support humanity,” which we will simply refer to as the “three organizations’ definition.” When it comes to these two definitions, most scholars around the world generally believe that they are both anthropocentric. This is because they are based on fulfilling some kind of material need for humans—not the material needs of anything else. These definitions do not solve the issue of providing for the material needs of anything besides people, particularly in that they do not look to the welfare of other living beings. In other words, even if, according to these definitions, sustainable development is concerned for other living organisms and nature, this concern comes from its desire to benefit humanity, thereby making it still deferential to humanity’s welfare. The Our Common Future and three organizations’ definitions have grudgingly placed sustainable development in an anthropocentric framework. This has led some Chinese scholars to call it a trap of “humanism” in that sustainable development refers to the sustainable development of humanity while there is no sustainable development to speak of for the natural ecology, and from this, the entire sustainability of the ecology is denied. This is a fundamental problem with sustainable development. Since the most powerful definitions of sustainable development center on humans, sustainable development is just draped in a traditionally anthropocentric concept of development. Nonetheless, we should consider that regardless of whether it is the Our Common Future or the three organizations’ definition, they are both the body of it; at the core of its heart, however, it is not anthropocentric, but leans toward eco-centrism. The definition of sustainable development in Our Common Future has two important ideas: one is the needs of humanity, especially the most basic needs of the poorest people in the world; second is the limits of the environment in that development must be based on the ecological carrying limits. Human activities cannot surpass the carrying capacity of the environment. In other words, the former refers to fulfilling the needs and interests of humanity; the latter refers to fulfilling the needs and interests of living organisms besides human beings. The three organizations’ definition clearly brings up the need to improve the quality of life of human beings and the necessity of not “surpassing the carrying capacity of the eco-system to support humanity.” That said, sustainable development first and foremost must ensure the fulfillment of the needs of the natural ecology, looking after the interests of living beings other than people, and all human activities must be limited to what the ecology will allow. This is where the sustainability of human development lies. The development of human and industrial civilization up to the present shows us that if



a discussion on the problems of ecological culture

175

human development stands on the premise of anthropocentrism, then there is no sustainability of which to speak. From the previous discussion, we can see that the Our Common Future and three organizations’ definitions clearly contain contradictions between their superficial forms and internal qualities in defining sustainable development. This is the main reason many people believe that this term is very imprecise and is a concept with no basic boundaries. Hence, we need to go beyond the theoretical framework of anthropocentrism and integrate an anthropocentric and nonanthropocentric approach. Only by doing this can we scientifically interpret sustainable development. This author believes that sustainable development is a dialectical concept. At its surface, it appears to be cloaked in anthropocentricism, but its qualities are more nuanced. As the famous American environmental economist Herman E. Daly termed it: “the most important ideas are at the margins very unclear. I believe that sustainable development is at least an economic principle that is as clear as gold.”11 So, what exactly are the properties of sustainable development? We can make a few basic provisions: First is the normalization of the internal properties of sustainable development. In this regard, we must clarify a basic premise, which is one of the greatest principles discovered by humanity in the twentieth century: there are limits to the planet’s resources and environment, and the world system is at its limits. The book we published last year, The Theory of Green Economics, expressed it this way: “1) The quantity of resources on the earth is limited, the capacity of the earth’s environment has its limits, and the carrying capacity of the world’s ecosystem has limits. That is also to say that the carrying capacity of the planet is also limited; 2) the need for the survival of humanity, presently, and modern socioeconomic development have pushed the ecological pressure caused by the burden on the earth’s resources to its absolute limits. Humanity should pay more attention to the severe global ecological trends, and humanity’s socioeconomic activities must maintain themselves within the limits of the earth’s carrying capacity.”12 This is humanity’s understanding of global limits, as 11 Herman E. Daly, Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development [Chinese translation] (Shanghai: Shanghai Yiwen Press, 2001). 12 Liu Sihua, ed., Lüse jingjilun: Jingji fazhan lilun biange yu zhongguo jingji zaizao [The theory of green economics: Changes in the theory of economic development and the reconstruction of the Chinese economy] (Beijing: Zhongguo Caizhang Jingji Press, 2001).

176

liu sihua

well as the kinds of limits constraining modern humanity’s existence and social economic development and the effects on humanity’s progress. Only with this greatest of discoveries in the twentieth century could the theory of sustainable development and its practical demands be realized. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development turned sustainable development from an idea into a practice. Many are all guided by the idea that there are limits to the earth’s resources and the environment. It has already become the scientific basis of the world’s acceptance of sustainable development strategies. Thus, the internal properties of sustainable development are that the actions of modern humanity’s survival and modern socioeconomic development cannot go beyond the carrying capacity of the planet. It is in this sense that Daly gave sustainable development a simple definition: “Development that does not grow beyond the carrying capacity of the environment. Here, development implies qualitative improvement, and growth implies quantitative growth.” He went on to emphasize that “the entire idea of sustainable development is a growth model that is a sub-system of the economy that certainly cannot go beyond the continual sustainability of the ecosystem or the bounds of its ability to support life.”13 Daly’s point correctly reveals the internal qualities of sustainable development as well as the essential practice of sustainable development. So, if we wish to correctly pin down the idea of sustainable development, we must understand two fundamental points: first, the premise of sustainable development is development; two, the most crucial point of sustainable development is in development’s sustainability. The activities of humanity and socioeconomic development must be within the limits of the ecology—they cannot go beyond the carrying capacity of the resources and environment. Only in this way can we ensure the sustainability of development and achieve an internal unity of development and sustainability. In addition, there is the normalization of the unique characteristics of sustainable development. Intrinsically, sustainable development should be described as a global holistic environmentalism. This is a more holistic conception of a system that is developmentally sustainable. Therefore, there are two apparent aspects to the unique qualities of sustainable development: one is a holistic complex system between humans, society, and nature that is an organically unified whole of humankind, society, 13 Daly, Beyond Growth.



a discussion on the problems of ecological culture

177

and nature in the real world. Humankind, society, and nature, as an objectively global unified whole, are inseparable. Just as Warwick Fox described it, “In the existing field, there are no strict ontological distinctions. In other words, the world cannot be fundamentally divided into independent subjects and objects. Distinctions between the world of humans and non-humans, in fact, do not exist at all. And any integrity is created by the relationship among them.”14 In fact, as early as 1973, the famous American ecologist Barry Commoner, in his book The Closing Circle, described thoroughly the mutual relationship between the world of humans and the world of nature. He wrote, The environment is built up by a massive yet complex living mechanism, which has created a thin layer of life on the surface of the earth. Every action of human beings relies upon the integrity and capacity of this machine. Without the photosynthesis of green plants, there would be no engine for the oxygen supplied to us, nor smelting of metals, nor even the ability to support the lives of humans and animals. If there were no plants, animals, and microbes in this living machine, then there would be no fresh water in our lakes and streams. If there were no millennia-long biological process in our soil, then there would be no grains, oils, or even coal. This machine is the provider of capital for biology. It is the most basic infrastructure of all of our production needs. If we destroy it, our most advanced technology will be rendered useless, and any strict reliance on economic and political systems will also collapse.15

Thus, as I see it, the complex system of humans, society, and nature is also a system that is developmentally sustainable. Its integrity is the most objective property of a system—that it is sustainable. This is the most basic concept of sustainable development’s essential uniqueness. Second is the integrity of a complex system between the ecology, economy, and society. The conceptual model of real-world operations is a complex system between the ecology, economy, and society. It sees the survival and development of human beings among earth’s living organisms as a complex system that involves a mutual connection and reliance and that comprises ecological, economic, and social aspects. Just as was pointed out in Our Common Future, “we divide our ecological sphere by nations and regions, but they are always part of a greater whole.” The integrated complex system of the ecology, economy, and society is rapidly 14 Warwick Fox, “Deep Ecology: A New Philosophy for Our Time?,” The Ecologist 14, nos. 5–6 (1984): 194–200. 15 Barry Commoner, The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology [Chinese translation] (Changchun: Jilin Renmin Press, 1997).

178

liu sihua

increasing and continually strengthening in modern times due to the mutual reliance of the economy and ecology of the world. The unfolding relationship between the ecology, economy, and society becomes quite interwoven into a complex network of cause and effect. As I see it, therefore, the integrated complex system of the ecology, economy, and society (i.e., the integrity of a sustainably developing system) is the basic point of the unique properties of sustainable development in practice. The significance of the theory and practice of sustainable development in global ecological circles is in their highlighting of the integrity of the global environmental and human socioeconomics, particularly in their emphasis on the close reliance of human economic activities on the ecology. Furthermore, there has been a normalization of sustainable development’s practical goals—chiefly, the normalization of the final goals that the practices of sustainable development aim to achieve. As a concept of development that integrates the ecology, economy, and society, sustainable development closely connects economic, social, and ecological development into a unified whole for consideration that should be viewed as a practical and organically unified idea of development in which the economy, society, and ecology are sustainable. From this the most fundamental goals of sustainable development emerge: The first is the harmonious reconciliation of man and nature and the idea of inclusive progress—that is, the equal consideration and fulfillment of the needs of not just human beings but all living organisms. This represents a major shift in humanity’s measure of values when it comes to socioeconomic options in practice. Thus, what sustainable development seeks to resolve is the oppositional relationship between humans and nature, as well as the oppositional relationship among different groups of people regarding development. This doubly harmonious reconciliation brings together the development of humans and nature much in the way described in Our Common Future: “Broadly speaking, strategies for sustainable development aim at harmonizing humanity as well as the relationship between humanity and nature.” And as Xu Chun eloquently put it, “Neither social development that neglects nature nor a natural environment devoid of people should be the deeper meaning of sustainable development. Since sustainable development is development for people as well as nature, it is the development of man in nature and nature in man.”16 If one only focuses

16 Xu Chun, Kechixu fazhang yu shengtai wenming [Sustainable development and ecological culture] (Beijing: Beijing Press, 2001).



a discussion on the problems of ecological culture

179

on human development by putting the interests of humanity above all else, then the ultimate goal of sustainable development in practice when taken to its logical conclusion would certainly entrap the global system of the new century within the cage of traditional concepts of development, and that would not be true sustainable development. The second fundamental goal of sustainable development is the organic reconciliation of the ecology and economy—that is, the creation of a harmonious system of socioeconomic development and natural ecological development. Only in this way can we equally improve the well-being of all living things. Hence, sustainable development must simultaneously look to the welfare of both humanity and the ecology as part of its two ultimately important goals. Socioeconomic development without ecological development will endanger not only nonhuman living organisms but humans as well. In short, we arrive at a quintessentially logical conclusion: the idea of sustainable development goes beyond the anthropocentric and the nonanthropocentric. It reconciles the dialectic of anthropocentrism and nonanthropocentrism, and to a large degree, it is more akin to ecocentrism. It is a global ideological view that is inclusive of humans, society, and nature, or that is to say, it is a practical and conceptual view of inclusive eco-socio-economic development. Building an Ecological Culture, Implementing Sustainable Development Strategies, and the Orientation of Values in Human Practice Based on this theoretical humans-society-nature complex, sustainable development, whether it is a theoretical choice or a practical choice, must conform to the orientations of modern human beings in everyday activities. For a long time now, the main focus of everyday human activities has been humanity’s needs and self-interests—a highly anthropocentric view. This is seen as the only practical choice for people and the ultimate measure of value. Currently, realizing sustainable development strategies demands that people break out of the narrow-minded view that human needs and interests are the sole and ultimate measure of value and push for a major shift in the orientation of values in everyday practices according to the tenants and real goals of sustainable development: a transition from a measure of value that sees the needs and interests of humanity’s existence and development as the only and ultimate practical solution for human beings to a measure of value that simultaneously sees the needs

180

liu sihua

and interests of all living organisms as the ultimate practical solution for humans, forming a basis of the two most important ultimate goals of sustainable development in practice. These important and ultimate measures of value are a practical socioeconomic choice for humanity. For the following reasons, this is the required and necessary process for an age with an ecological culture. First, what kind of era will the twenty-first century usher in? In modern civilization today, people are transitioning from an industrial era that seeks to conquer and loot nature and sacrifice the environment for survival and development toward an era of ecological civilization that seeks to protect and renew nature and reconstruct the common interests and prosperity of humans and nature. The modern economy has already begun to shift from a materialistic economic era that primarily relies upon material resources—especially limited natural resources—to a knowledge economic era that relies primarily on information, knowledge, and intellectual resources. Economic development has begun to walk away from an economically unsustainable era in which there is little coordination between the ecology and the economy toward an economically sustainable era in which the ecology and the economy are coordinated and mutually supportive. The twenty-first century, therefore, must begin a new era that brings ecological culture, the knowledge economy, and sustainable economic development together as one. Standing at the forefront of this new era, the twenty-first century should be the century where an ecological culture is built by reconstructing people, society, and nature on a higher level—one that is harmoniously reconciled. Putting the environment, economy, and society on this new level of development is the most fundamental mark of this era of ecological civilization. It is in this sense that sustainable development strategies require people to pursue and achieve a holistic ecological-economic-social complex based on the idea of developing the ecology, economy, and society as a whole. This is the core of an ecological culture. At the core of its essence is a practical choice for humanity that is not anthropocentric: a choice to push for a new era in which global development enters the environment, economy, and society in the twenty-first century, equally seeing to the well-being of not just humans but all living organisms as the two most important and ultimate measures of value. Second, the mutual progression and harmonious development of humanity and the environment are the true meaning of ecological culture. That is to say, humans and nature should and must have reciprocal interests, development, and prosperity. Starting from the holistic



a discussion on the problems of ecological culture

181

humans-society-nature complex, the everyday practices of people should and must be oriented toward the mutual survival and prosperity of human and natural spheres, particularly when there are conflicts between the needs and interests of humans and nature; while the ecology should be the priority in the coexistence and development of humans and nature, reasonable assurances and satisfaction regarding the needs and interests of people should also be emphasized, thereby ensuring the healthy and sustainable development of the ecology-economy-society complex. This is the pinnacle value of coexistence and mutual prosperity. It conforms to the nature of modern humans and their practices and also embodies the shift in the measure of value and pursuits of modern humans in this new era. Third, the core value of anthropocentrism is that humans are the only beings whose existence, needs, and interests matter, while the value of all other living organisms is determined only by their capacity to fulfill the needs of humans—essentially, they have no intrinsic value (the capacity to enjoy their existence) in and of themselves. This inevitably predetermines the means by which people fulfill their needs—even the ecological balance is “judged based on human values.” This makes human measurements of value the highest and ultimate measurement of the world system’s worth. Sustainable development accepts not only that human existence has its intrinsic value, but also that living organisms have intrinsic value outside of their usefulness; moreover, it organically reconciles the two. The values that determine the matters of all world systems, therefore, cannot just rely on an orientation based on the needs and interests of humans. They must simultaneously rely on an orientation that is based on the needs and interests of all living organisms. This stipulates that human actions must respect both the value of people and the value of nature—two objective measurement requirements. Karl Marx, in fact, once clearly pointed out that “animals are only created according to the measures and needs under which they are placed, and man understands production according to a certain measure, and furthermore, understands how to impose intrinsic values upon its objects; therefore, man also understands construction according to a beautiful pattern.”17 This tells us that in humans’ understanding and practices, it is never one kind of measure of value that is at work, but both humans’

17 Makesi engesi quanji [The complete works of Marx and Engels], vol. 42 (Beijing: Renmin Press, 1979).

182

liu sihua

measures of value and nature’s measures of value. The values of sustainable development and its historical lessons also tell us that forcing the relationship between humans and nature to conform strictly to human measures of value certainly has major limitations and can have tragic consequences; moreover, human measures of value are inapplicable outside the human world. Modern human socioeconomic practices must stop considering human measures of value as the only means by which to gauge the worth of human activities. We must effect a shift in our measures of value: protecting the environment, maintaining the integrity of all living organisms, diversification, and stabilization are the foremost standards and ultimate values for human practices. These theoretical values of ecological culture and sustainable development lead to an even more crucial conclusion—that considering the needs and interests of human existence and development as the only and ultimate practical ways of measuring value for humans does not fit the objective needs of an era based on ecological culture and sustainable development. Fourth, building an ecological culture and putting into effect sustainable development strategies are the most essential practical actions for twenty-first-century humankind. They are also the greatest practices for achieving the two most important values in humankind’s actions. Here, I must emphasize the following: First, whether building an ecological culture or implementing sustainable development strategies, both should permit human practices that allow both socioeconomic mechanisms and ecological mechanisms to be sustainable through an orientation of values that seek both harmonious development among people and the harmonious development of nature and humans, forming a doubly integrated mechanism for sustainable development. Only with this kind of harmonious development can we succeed in the complete development of humans and the abundant development of nature as well as sustainable development. Only then can we truly realize these two crucial and ultimate goals as practical options for modern humankind. Second, sustainable development is a kind of modern development model for ecological culture that is based on the harmonious development of humans and nature and the integrated development of the environment and the economy. This entirely new development model is largely guided by the idea of sustainable development for humans but is based on a foundation of sustainable development for nature (or, you could say, it is largely guided by sustainable development for the economy, but is



a discussion on the problems of ecological culture

183

based on a foundation of sustainable development for the environment). In other words, we should see to the complete and sustainable development of humankind as one of our guiding principles and ultimate goals. This is a basic rule for the development of modern human practices. It is also the highest principle of sustainable development. However, while we strive for sustainable development for humankind, we must also equally strive toward sustainable development for the environment. This is also a fundamental guiding principle and ultimate goal for the practices of modern humankind, and moreover, it should become the most basic rule for the development of modern human practices as well as the highest principle of sustainable development. Third, by using this new development model to limit human actions within the limits the ecology can bear, we can cultivate socioeconomic development without surpassing the carrying capacity of the global ecosystem. If human socioeconomic activities are not responsive to the holistic and stable properties of the global eco-system, then it could become quite dangerous. This is one point. The other is that this new theory of the two important practical choices in enacting human socioeconomic activities must adhere to the two basic rules mentioned previously to fulfill the needs of people and realize their interests according to the measure of value among people. At the same time, however, we must also fulfill the needs of nature and realize its interests according to the measure of value in nature. This will allow humanity to more fully develop in a much more sustainable way, increasing its own value of development in a broader sense; furthermore, it will allow for more abundant development in nature in a much more sustainable way. This is the gracefulness of the relationship between human, social, and natural development. This is the framework necessary for the mutual benefit of the economy and the environment in the global system of the twenty-first century.

chapter eleven

The Evolution of Civilization and Prospects of an Ecological Culture Liu Xiaoying The Relationship between Humans and Nature in Various Civilizations In the Paleolithic era, humanity was very weak in the face of nature. Humans, just as all other animals, were subjected to the inescapable laws of nature. They gathered, hunted, and fished to obtain the resources they needed for survival. During this period, humans were essentially still a part of the food chain in the natural ecology, and by no means was it clear that humanity would triumph over nature. Nature clearly was extremely important in directing the relationship between primitive humans and nature. The goal that early people pursued was to find ways to conform to nature. The historical roles of humans and nature were based on the natural rhythms of the environment. The ways in which humans and nature lived and progressed together show us a naturally harmonious relationship between human beings and nature; thus, these primitive times operated on the idea that humans and nature are one. As human society’s capacity to produce developed, particularly with the use of domesticated animals and metal tools, humans went from a primitive state to the beginnings of an agrarian civilization. Human beings were liberated from the naturally determined food chain. In agrarian civilizations, people expanded their use of natural energies with a number of certain renewable energy sources. Generally speaking, however, agrarian civilization was very limited in its exploitation of natural resources, and their extraction from nature was generally still within the limits of nature’s ability to regulate and reproduce; nature, therefore, was only slightly affected by this. For agrarian civilization, the relationship between humans and nature was still largely harmonious; the natural order had not yet experienced disorder, nor had the environment lost its balance. The relationship between humans and nature was still a simplistic one in which humans and nature were one.

186

liu xiaoying

Human agrarian civilization developed slowly over several thousand years with relative stability. After a series of difficultly learned historical lessons, internal transformations, and external discoveries, a new industrial civilization emerged in northwestern Europe, which swiftly expanded to the old agrarian civilizations of the world. The seventeenth century was truly a watershed for human history,1 as after this point, mechanized industries began to replace handicraft industries, announcing the arrival of the Industrial Age. After the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth century, the production methods of capitalism were unshakably entrenched, which rapidly expanded production and further pushed scientific progress. In industrialized civilizations, humans began to see themselves as “conquerors” of nature, shifting from an intense fear and awe of nature toward dominating and conquering nature in any way they saw fit. Humans seemed to have emerged as the leaders of nature’s pantheon.2 Human thinking was also liberated from the religious beliefs of the medieval era by the accumulation of knowledge and the development of scientific technology. Humans’ understanding gradually came to see people and nature as diametrically opposed—subjects and objects in their worldview. This worldview that sees a “divergence between man and nature” or “opposition between man and nature” greatly awakened humankind to the subjectivity of knowledge and subjective dynamics. This expanded humans’ self-consciousness and understanding of nature; on the other hand, this carried with it the potential to study the absoluteness of this oppositional relationship between subjects and objects—humans and nature.3 This worldview believes that the relationship between humans

1 The famous twentieth-century historian, Arnold Toynbee, once considered the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries to be a major watershed in human history, but in retrospect, the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in Western Europe were merely a prelude to the Industrial Revolution with its overseas adventures and cultural efflorescence (such as the Renaissance and the Reformation). The real change did not occur until the seventeenth century. Only beginning in the seventeenth century did modern idealism and capitalist methods truly begin to replace the theocratic and natural economy of the Middle Ages. 2 In fact, as early as the beginning of the seventeenth century, capitalist relationships in production were established in England. Francis Bacon and William Shakespeare both expressed ideas like “knowledge is power” and “man is the soul of the universe.” These ideas represent a major break with the contemporary faith-based beliefs of the Middle Ages, but these were only the sprouts of the anthropocentric idea of using knowledge to conquer nature and to place humans above all other creatures. 3 This point had been clearly sealed by the founder of rationalist philosophy, René Descartes. Descartes established self-awareness as the foundational principle of philosophy; but he also still maintained a Cartesian dualistic approach, which placed the subject and object, or the mind and body, in opposition.



the evolution of civilization

187

and nature is a one-way street. There is only the satisfaction of the needs of the human (the subject) by nature (the object), yet there is no respect or protection provided by the subject to the object. It places humans in a position where they are only subjects with rights, but no obligations and where they are masters over the rhythms of nature. This worldview offers little understanding of the complete relationship between humankind and nature. Humans are seen as the center of this relationship—as though they are an absolutist regime. The slogan of humans in the Industrial Age was, “March against nature!” According to Bacon’s idea that knowledge is power, if humans could only understand and master the objective rules of nature, then we would have endless power to mold nature. Not only can we understand the laws of nature but, according to Kant, we can also create the laws of nature; nature, therefore, has been subjected to things scientific and technological such as the genie held captive in Solomon’s lamp. In this worldview, where there is an oppositional relationship, there was a fundamental shift in the relationship between humans and nature. The relationship of harmonious coexistence transformed into an unequal master-and-slave relationship. Humanity arranged for itself to neatly sit as the master of nature and forced nature to be entirely subjugated to its will and interests. Humans were no longer respectful of or awestricken by nature and instead of adapters to nature became transformers and conquerors of nature. In the contest with nature, humans emerged victorious due to the growth in knowledge, science, and technology. Science and technology, as hallmarks of and factors in adjusting the crucial relationship between humans and nature, are the most important manifestations of humankind’s capacity to conquer and transform nature. With the power of science and technology, humanity has subjugated the unrestrained natural world to a part of the human world, leading human actions to deeply pummel the natural body. The rapid development of science and technology gave humanity the ability to transform nature, which greatly deepened and broadened the intensity of people’s impact upon nature. Every new milestone in the scientific revolution that changed the relationship between humans and nature further demonstrated the danger of humanity’s conquest and transformation of nature. As people sang the praises of conquering nature, however, they also began to gradually discover that they were entering an unprecedented existential crisis—global climate change, soil erosion, desertification, deforestation, and the intensification of the loss of bioresources. When people, in their inebriation with the material success of the modern industrial civilization, suddenly looked

188

liu xiaoying

back at nature, they realized they had beaten it black and blue. Whether or not humanity’s excessive demands of nature would be met with Mother Nature’s revenge is something that Engels speculated on: “Let us not, however, flatter ourselves over much on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. . . . Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature— but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst.”4 This horror caused by unrestrained development and abusive science and technology, especially if it continues, will present a major threat to the human environment and even human survival. As the American humanist physicist Fritjof Capra wrote, “There is one thing we can be certain of: this has been seriously upset by science and technology to the point that we can say it is destroying the very ecosystem upon which we rely for existence.”5 Although this statement may be a little extreme, it certainly reveals the negative impact science and technology have on the environment we rely upon for survival. In fact, since science and technology are human discoveries used by humans, it goes without saying that humans should also bear the responsibility of using them appropriately. Science is an understanding of the truth. It merely reveals the laws of science and then provides rational tools, but it does not provide rational values. Just as Einstein said, “Science is a powerful instrument. How it is used, whether it is a blessing or a curse to humankind, depends on humankind and not on the instrument. A knife is useful, but it can also kill.”6 As we can see, the rational tools of science and technology must be restrained by rational human values. The road from humanity’s primitive state through to an agrarian civilization and then an industrial civilization was a long one. Throughout this process of development, humanity constantly changed its understanding of nature and its understanding of itself. In the face of such increasingly severe environmental problems, the ecological and aesthetic value of

4 Makesi Engesi xuanji [The selected works of Marx and Engels], vol. 4 (Beijing: Renmin Press, 1995), 383–384. 5 Fritjof Capra, The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture [Chinese translation] (Beijing: Zhongguo Renmin Daxue Press, 1989), 16. 6 Albert Einstein, Works of Einstein [Chinese translation], vol. 3 (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1979), 56.



the evolution of civilization

189

nature became increasingly important to people. Presently, people are no longer staunchly committed to conquering and controlling nature in the name of human progress and have begun to pursue a harmonious coexistence with nature. This kind of harmonious coexistence is not a revival of the simplistic “humans and nature are one” formulation of primitive people but is a logical option for the sustainable development of human society. Industrialization denied the harmonious relationship of humans and nature in agrarian societies. This kind of denial inherently buried the blooming of self-denial, which in turn established the material basis of the emerging ecological culture. As a denial or transcendence of industrialization, ecological culture restores the ideal of “humans and nature as one” by denying the denial of industrialization. After enduring such a series of resistance and conflict, this relationship between humans and nature has now been elevated to a higher level of harmonious coexistence. The Historical Inevitabilities Produced by an Ecological Culture In the face of exacerbating environmental issues and a diminishing global environmental carrying capacity, as well as the merciless revenge of natural disasters provoked by humans (such as flooding caused by massive soil erosion or infectious diseases brought on by trapping animals), people have begun to reconsider their relationship with nature and the road to development. The idea of an ecological culture and sustainable development models emerged largely from this consideration. People have traced an outline that has connected human actions with environmental problems, because in the relationship between humans and nature, humans are the primary actors and subjects and have played an important role as instigators. Superficially, these environmental problems seem to be purely natural ecological problems, but in reality, they reflect a conflicting relationship between humans and nature. It is, in fact, the revenge of nature on humanity. The reality of a worsening ecological crisis reveals that the relationship between humans and nature has become diametrically opposed. Industrialization has proven to be hopelessly unable to reconcile humans and nature. People can continue to pursue industrialization, but it is in their own interest to limit this pursuit so that the degradation of the environment is curtailed; otherwise, there will be nothing left in the environment for humanity to take advantage of. Anthropocentric values clearly mark nature as the object that provides resources for human existence as part of a simply material world. It denies recognition

190

liu xiaoying

of the independent significance of the natural world. It looks at the natural world as a businessman looks at a product. After several centuries of development, the ecological crisis shaped by the kinds of values present in an industrial civilization has placed human civilization on a path of no return with limited resources. In order to ensure the continuation of the human species and the civilization it has built, people need a new form of civilization that reconciles development with nature—namely, a civilization based on an ecological culture. This new age and new consciousness herald a new civilization. Ecological culture is built on the cultural foundation of knowledge, education, and technological advancements. It is the rational choice for human sustainable development in these environmental challenges. It sees nature as the basis for human existence and development while emphasizing that human society must seek mutual development with nature on an environmental basis. Humanity is only one part of nature and one member of the animal kingdom; it is not the conqueror or enslaver of other creatures. It emphasizes that while humans have the right to utilize nature and its resources, they must bear the responsibility of cherishing and protecting the environment. We can see that an ecological culture has at its core the idea that development must be reconciled with nature. Its essence is in properly handling the relationship between development and the environment. An ecological culture is no longer a simple system for economic development but a more holistic and harmonious system for economic, social, and natural development. In ecological culture, the ideas of governing for the people and respecting nature must be reconciled; and the ideas of humanizing nature and naturalizing humanity should be combined into an organically dialectical process. The ecological value of “humans and nature as one” should replace anthropocentric values. Harmonious development for both humans and nature should replace the narrowly utilitarian value humanity has placed on natural resources. These kinds of ecological values and scientific developments are the primary assurances that an ecological culture needs to be established and progress. It sublimates the positive characters of inherited and integrated parts of civilizations past. An ecological culture reflects upon and critiques the actions of industrial civilization that sacrifice the environment for economic gain, and it builds a new model based on what will benefit the economy, society, and the environment. The foothold for ecological culture has gone from a simplistic understanding of truth vis-à-vis things to more connected values that bring the value of truth together with



the evolution of civilization

191

ecological and social values; ecological culture looks at things less from a purely human-interest perspective and more from a perspective of universal harmony with nature. Only in this way can we ensure that development will be reconciled with human society and the environment. The chief requirement for the values of an ecological culture is that there be a harmonious relationship between humanity and nature. This relationship should break from conventional ideas that see humans as the center and emphasize that humanity’s production is derived from nature and that humanity’s development is in nature. If humanity wishes to develop sustainably, then it must rely upon nature to form a harmoniously organic system. In humanity’s more primitive state, human production was not definitively separated from nature. Our primitive ancestors always saw themselves as part of the natural world in which they resided. The environment and the humans that lived in it could not be distinguished from the greater whole. This simple idea of “humans and nature as one” can be seen clearly in the common shamanism and totemic beliefs practiced by many primitive tribes around the world. By the era of agrarian civilization, the ability of humans to act on their subjective will drastically improved. People began to peel themselves away from nature, placing themselves above all other creatures. The Confucians of old believed that humans are the gods of all creatures, and medieval European Christian theology taught that God created humans to rule over all of his creation. In Genesis 1:26, it says, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” This division between humans and nature in agrarian civilizations, however, did not lead to a diametric opposition between humanity and nature. People were still another rung in the ladder of nature, but they saw themselves as the highest rung. Since they were limited by the natural economy and production tools, people could not feasibly follow through with any intentions to unscrupulously loot the environment. Hence, although they theoretically saw themselves as the gods of all creatures or the masters of God’s creation, in reality, people were still in a relatively harmonious relationship with nature. A clear break in the relationship between humans and nature had yet to emerge. As humanity began to industrialize, its confidence greatly inflated with the rapid advancement of science and technology. “The power of science made mankind all the stronger in the face of nature, which in turn strengthened its sense of superiority. People’s confidence in religion waned

192

liu xiaoying

as scientific realities increasingly showed that mankind was not favored in the way described in the Bible and church; but people’s confidence in their rationality correspondingly skyrocketed. The power of science made them feel that they were becoming the masters of nature and themselves. God had forsaken them, but they themselves gradually became gods.”7 Under these circumstances, humans began to establish themselves as the masters of the natural world and made the conquest and control of nature their justified and proper holy crusade. The coexistence of humans and nature became a master-slave relationship with humans as the “masters” because of their ability and right to pillage nature of its resources with no limitations to bind them. People believed not only that they were the only subjects with any intrinsic value, but also that they were the center and entirety of the natural world. The natural world and its various living organisms were merely a means by which humanity realized its value; nature could be humanity’s “slave” or “molded” at its will. Although these values emphasize a fundamental distinction between humans and nature, they overestimate the position of humankind in the universe and neglect the fact that humans are the children of nature as well as the harmonious coexistence that once subsisted between humans and nature. It is this kind of fanatical anthropocentrism that has led us to the severe environmental catastrophe and the ruthless retribution of nature we face today. In contrast to the values of industrialization, an ecological culture implores people to disregard values that see humans as the center of the world. They must respect the natural world for its own sake and recognize the equality of other creatures on this planet. At the same time, the relationship between humans and nature should be mutually beneficial. Humankind is the greatest thing ever produced by nature. People have the capacity to understand, transform, and exploit the natural world. The constructiveness of humans can change nature, and in turn, the natural world can affect the survival and development of humans. Therefore, in an ecological culture, humankind must manage and control nature, live harmoniously with it, and grow with it while respecting its laws and rhythms. The path to realizing an ecological culture is transitioning from an industrial era model of production to an ecological model of production.

7 Zhao Lin, Xifang wenhua gailun [An introduction to Western culture] (Beijing: Gaodeng Jiaoyu Press, 2004), 243.



the evolution of civilization

193

The conventional idea of production pursues greater economic benefit while not considering the limitations or renewability of natural resources or the potential harm or effects on the environment. Conventional production models are characterized by large investments, high consumption, high pollution levels, low output levels, and high inefficiency. Economic growth primarily relies upon the expansion of investments. This has led human production to run astray on a road with growth but no development. Many countries in their pursuit of economic development have considered the concept “pollute first and treat it later; destroy first and restore it later” to be an inevitable rule of economic development—one that neither respects objective rules nor considers the capacity of the environment. It solely pursues economic growth while ignoring the development of society and the environment as a whole. In contrast to this idea of development at all costs, an ecological culture compels people to respect the principles of nature in their productive practices and protect the balance and positive cycles of the ecosystem—to use nature rationally while also transforming nature positively. Building an ecological culture requires a change in the way we grow our economy—particularly a shift from a model of economic growth denoted by high levels of consumption and high costs to a more content-based qualitative and efficient model of economic development. It also requires a shift from an idea of economic growth that does not take into account the cost and consequences of its actions to an idea of sustainable economic development that considers the benefits to the economy, society, and the environment. An ecological culture seeks to improve the efficiency of resource utilization in the productive cycle and to mitigate and eliminate pollution to the greatest extent possible; it seeks to satisfy humanity’s own needs by protecting the environment. By pursuing the general harmony of the universe and not the narrow interests of humanity, it considers the significance of all of humankind’s economic and social activities and is fully aware of the close relationship between humans and the pulse of Mother Nature. From this we can see that the essence of an ecological culture opens a new road to sustainable development with the environment. This road reflects the concerns of the historical lessons of science and humanity. It reveals a unity between its historic inevitability and practical rationality in this dialectic.

194

liu xiaoying Ecological Culture and Sustainable Development

When Western society became deeply frustrated by the environmental consequences brought on by the modern scientific revolution as it entered the postindustrial era, the theory of sustainable development emerged and quickly became a focus of intellectuals around the world. In June 1972, the United Nations held its first Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm. With the Declaration on the Human Environment, the slogan “One world” arose. In the 1987 report called Our Common Future by the World Commission on Environment and Development, the idea of sustainable development strategies was proposed. They believed that the basic goal of social development should be to fulfill the needs of humanity—but not just contemporary humanity. It must also consider the needs of future generations. People today should not sacrifice the happiness and prosperity of later generations by narrowly focusing on their own needs. The essence of sustainable development strategies is that they reconcile the population, resources, the environment, and development. For the survival and progress of generations to come, these strategies establish a basis for sustainable development. Although people hold very different ideas of the theory of sustainable development, it is committed to maintaining a harmonious relationship between humanity and nature; it emphasizes the protection of environmental resources, scientific progress, a growth in material wealth, and a cleansing of moral values. This constitutes the most fundamental idea of this theory. Just like the historical experience of modernity in the West was based on imperialism in the non-Western world, Western theories of sustainable development in its initial practice also appear as the result of the by-products of Western technological development, and with it the current ecological and resource crisis today. As many know, the most severe environmental problems have been caused by the over two-hundred-year process of industrialization in developed countries as they consumed natural resources and emitted pollution in excess. Some Western countries have been able to provide for their own production needs, while many highly polluting industries have moved to developing countries, bringing with them their environmental problems. Many developing countries, due to frustratingly slow economic growth and an obsession with catching up, see economic growth as their ultimate goal because they look only at short-term development and direct economic interest. They blindly pursue economic development, wasting natural resources and intensifying environmental degradation.



the evolution of civilization

195

From this we can see that the theory of sustainable development at its initial inception, just like global industrialization, smacked heavily of “Eurocentrism.” For a relatively long period of time, the Western world’s theory of sustainable development was based on sacrificing the resource interests of developing countries and environmental interests. Hence, for developing countries, the theory of sustainable development must include more diverse approaches to modernization. Every country and region must be treated seriously. No country can remain isolated from this. Issues of sustainable development, furthermore, just as issues of modernization, will present themselves differently in different countries, and solutions for each will be different for different countries. Theoretically speaking, humanity must protect its own home because we have but one world. We must keep a clear head about exploiting the environment and natural resources, and we must try to conserve; but in practice, different countries will have different understandings and opinions of how to protect resources and the environment. As developing countries seek to solve domestic problems with sustainable development as a result of the external environmental crisis and according to the international system of the division of labor, we find that it is precisely this that destroys their path to sustainable development. However, because developing countries are motivated by short-term economic interests, they do not consider the effect on the environment or natural resources and continue to pillage nature for production—the consequences of which are not just regional and isolated but global. The final solution to these problems of sustainable development must, therefore, rely on the common effort of all humanity if it is to come to fruition. If we say that the latter half of the twentieth century was a time for planning and formulating sustainable development strategies, then the twenty-first century is the time to make those strategies happen—to build an ecological culture—as our present problems have become increasingly worse? It is directly relevant to whether there will be future development or whether we will face our demise. The Industrial Revolution of two hundred years ago reveals a transition from an agrarian civilization to an industrial society, but traditional industrialization is based on the looting of natural resources and the unrestrained destruction of the environment. It inevitably led to a shortage of resources and the devastating ecological crisis. Industrialization is, thus, unsustainable. If we continue on this traditional path of industrialization, development will continue to be unsustainable. Sustainable development implies that society will go beyond the old method of industrialization that pollutes and pillages the

196

liu xiaoying

environment’s natural resources toward a new form of civilization—an ecological culture. Sustainable development must be based on the basic idea and spirit of an ecological culture by actively protecting resources and rationally and effectively utilizing them. Natural resources are the basis of human survival. Before the Industrial Revolution, humanity only consumed resources that were renewable, but since the Industrial Revolution, human consumption has focused on nonrenewable resources. The unrestrained demands humans have placed on the environment see nature as a storehouse of resources free to use without limitation. The result has been that the consumption of renewable resources has gone beyond the capacity of nature to renew, and the consumption of nonrenewable resources has grown at such a rapid pace that it is beyond our ability to find viable replacements fast enough. This has led to a serious disruption and devastation of the world’s natural life support system. As environmental problems have become more apparent and humanity has increasingly fallen under the threat of environmental crisis, the conflict between human existence and development has shifted toward a conflict between the environment and sustainable development. This implies that the previous means of productive development that considered economic growth rates as the only measure of success are not viable. They must be replaced with a greener path based on goals of sustainable development. A green economy is one based on a circular economy. It respects the rhythm and rules of both the environment and the economy by utilizing the latest innovations in information technology, biotechnology, and other scientific advancements to develop production while protecting the environment, cultivating renewable resources, and providing for the material and environmental needs of society. It reconciles economic development with the path of ecological cycles, realizing a uniquely organic unity that benefits the economy, the ecology, and society. Traditional modes of economic growth move linearly from resources to products to waste, which has greatly devastated the environment. In contrast, a green economy involves closed-loop circular economics, which implies a fundamental revolution in our economic development model where resources become products and these become a new resource for the circular economy. This will make economic development a circular economic model that is positive for the environment. Presently, there is worldwide agreement that sustainable development is necessary, but how exactly we should get on this road to sustainable development still requires further discussion as people try to put this new model of development in practice. Sustainable development strategies are



the evolution of civilization

197

crucial for an ecological culture, and the basis of sustainable development is the ecosystem. Any break in the ecological balance could potentially threaten this living system. Therefore, improving our understanding of an ecological culture calls for greener thinking, protecting natural resources, and taking a course toward sustainable development, which will undoubtedly be the theme of the twenty-first century.

Bibliography Anglin, Douglas. “The Greening of International Relations.” International Journal 45 (Winter 1989–1990). Asian Development Bank, 2001 Forecast of the Asian Environment and Japan’s 2001 Environmental White Book, quoted in Cankao xiaoxi [Data for consideration], June 20 and June 4, 2001 (7th edition). Ayres, Robert. The Turning Point: End of the Growth Paradigm [Chinese translation]. Shanghai: Shanghai Yiwen Press, 2001. Beck, Ulrich. Risk Society. London: Sage, 1991. Brock, Lothar. “Peace through Parks: The Environment on the Peace Research Agenda.” Journal of Peace Research 28, no. 4 (November 1991). Brown, Lester R. Eco-economy: Building an Economy for the Earth. New York: W. W. Norton, 2001. ——. Redefining National Security. Washington, DC: World Watch Institute, 1977. ——. “Who Will Feed China?” World Watch 7 (Sept/Oct 1994). Brown, S., et al. A Clean Energy Future for the US. US Department of Energy, 2000. Capra, Fritjof. The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture [Chinese translation]. Beijing: Zhongguo Renmin Daxue Press, 1989. Commoner, Barry. The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology [Chinese translation]. Changchun: Jilin Renmin Press, 1997. Costanza, R., et al. “The Value of the World’s Eco-system Services and Natural Capital.” Nature 386 (1997): 253–260. Daly, Herman E. Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Beacon Press, 1997. ——. Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development [Chinese translation]. Shanghai: Shanghai Yiwen Press, 2001. Economy, Elizabeth C. The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004. Einstein, Albert. Works of Einstein [Chinese translation], vol. 3. Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1979. Fox, Warwick. “Deep Ecology: A New Philosophy for Our Time?” The Ecologist 14, nos. 5–6 (1984): 194–200. Gao Feng. “Qihou waijiao yu dafosi liu da tiaozhan” [The six major challenges of climate diplomacy and Davos]. Qihou bianhua yanjiu jinzhan [Climate change research progress] 1 (2005). Goldsmith, Edward, et al. A Blueprint for Survival. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972. Guangming Daily, January 11, 2001. Hoffmann, Stanley. “A New World and Its Troubles.” Foreign Affairs 69, no. 4 (Fall 1990). Hu Angang and Wang Shaoguang. Congxin renshi guojia de zuoyong: Zhengfu yu shichang [A new recognition of the role of the nation: Government and market]. Beijing: Zhongguo Jihua Press, 2000. Hurrell, Andrew. “International Political Theory and the Global Environment.” In International Relations Theory Today, edited by Ken Booth and Steve Smith. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995. ——. And Benedict Kingsbury, eds. The International Politics of the Environment New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Japanese Environmental Conference. Yazhou huanjing qingkuang baogao [Report on the environment in Asia], vol. 1. Beijing: Zhongguo Huanjing Press, 2005.

200

bibliography

Jiang Yupeng and Jiang Xuemin. “Qianxi guoji maoyi zhong de huangjing lüduo” [An analysis of environmental pilfering in international trade]. Qilu xuekan [Qilu journal] 1 (2006). Kasper, Wolfgang and Manfred E. Streit. Institutional Economics: Social Order and Public Policy [Chinese translation]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshu Guan, 2000. Kiss, Alexandre. Droit international de l’environnement. Paris: Editions A. Pedone, 2004. Lipschutz, Ronnie and Judith Mayer. Global Civil Society and Global Environmental Governance: The Politics of Nature from Place to Planet. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996. Liu Dongguo. “Guoji anquan de xin lingyu: Huanjing anquan” [The new field of international security: Environmental security]. Jiaoxue yu yanjiu 5 (2002). Liu Sihua. Lilun shengtai jingjixue ruogan wenti yanjiu [A study of several problems in theoretical eco-economics]. Liuning: Guangxi Renmin Press, 1989. ——. “Lun shengtai jingji xuqiu” [On the needs of eco-economics]. Jingji yanjiu [Economic research] 4 (1998). ——., ed. Lüse jingjilun: Jingji fazhan lilun biange yu zhongguo jingji zaizao [The theory of green economics: Changes in the theory of economic development and the reconstruction of the Chinese economy]. Beijing: Zhongguo Caizhang Jingji Press, 2001. ——. Qiye shengtai huanjing youhua jiqiao [Techniques for commercial eco-­environmental optimization]. Beijing: Kexue Press, 1991. Loulou, R., et al. Integration of GHG Abatement Options for Canada, report prepared for the Canadian Government (2002). Lü Zhongmei. Huanjing fa xin shiye [New perspectives on environmental law]. Beijing: Zhongguo Zhengfa Daxue Press, 2000. Luo Yong and Zeng Xiaofei. Huanjing baohu de jingji shouduan [Economic means to protect environment]. Beijing: Beijing University Press, 2002. Makesi engesi quanji [The complete works of Marx and Engels], vol. 42. Beijing: Renmin Press, 1979. Marx, Karl. “Private Property and Communism.” In Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Translated by Martin Mulligan. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1959. ——. “Section IV: The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secrets Thereof.” In Capital, vol. 1. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1959. Metz, Bert, O. Davidson, R. Swart, and J. Pan, eds. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. National Statistics Bureau and National Environmental Protection Bureau. Zhongguo huanjing tongji nianjian 2006. Beijing: Zhongguo Tongji Press, 2006. North, Douglass C. Institution, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. OECD. Ancillary Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, proceedings of IPCC Expert Meeting. Paris: OECD, 2001. ——. Huanjing guanli zhong de jingji shouduan [Economic methods in the environmental regulations]. Beijing: Zhongguo Huanjing Kexue Press, 1996. Pan Jiahua. “Guanzhu meiguo wenshi qiti jianpai xin fangan.” [Attention to the U.S. new program on greenhouse gas emission reduction]. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan yuanbao 16 (March 5, 2002). Qu Geping. “Dui zhongguo huanjing yu ziyuan baohu qianjing de guji” [Estimates on the future of China’s environmental and resource preservation]. In Lüse zhanlüe: 21 shiji zhongguo huanjing yu kechixu fazhan [Green strategies: Chinese environmental and sustainable development in the 21st century], edited by Niu Wenyuan. Qingdao: Qingdao Press, 1997. ——. “Jianzheng Zhongguo huanjing yu fazhan de juda bianhua.” In Zhongguo Huanjing yu FazhanGguoji Hezuo Weiyuanhui diwuci huiyi wenjian huibian. Beijing: Huawen Press, 2002. Ramphal, Shridath S. Our Country, the Planet: Forging a Partnership for Survival [Chinese translation]. Beijing: Zhongguo Huanjing Kexue Press, 1993.



bibliography

201

Reed, David, ed. Structural Adjustment, the Environment, and Sustainable Development [Chinese translation]. Zhongguo Huanjing Kexue Press, 1998. Rees, Judith Anne. Natural Resources: Allocation, Economics, and Policy [Chinese translation]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshu Guan, 2002. Reilly, J., et al. “Multi-gas Assessment of the Kyoto Protocol.” Nature 401 (1999): 549–555. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. New York: United Nations Publications, 1993. Richardson, Dick. “The Green Challenge: Philosophical, Programmatic and Electoral Considerations.” In The Green Challenge: The Development of Green Parties in Europe, edited by Dick Richardson and Chris Rootes. London: Routledge, 1995. Rienow, Robert. “International Relations and the Environment.” In Environmental Politics, edited by Stuart Nagel. London: Praeger, 1974. Samuelson, Paul A. and William D. Nordhaus. Economics [Chinese translation]. Zhongguo Fazhan Press, 1992. SEI/UNDP. China Human Development Report 2002: Making Green Development a Choice. Beijing: China Finance and Economy Publishing, 2002. Shi Shan. “Gaodu zhongshi shengtai shidai yu san da wenming jianshe lilun” [Attaching greater importance to an ecological era and the theory of building three cultures]. Zhongnan caijing daxue xuebao [Zhongnan University of Economics research journal] 2 (2001). Song Shichang and Li Ronghai. “Quanqiu hua: Liyi maodun de zhanshi guocheng” [Globalization: The process of unfolding conflicts of interest]. Zhexue Yanjiu 1 (2001): 10–15. Taketoshi, Kazuki. China’s Environment Policies: Regulations and Solutions (Chugoku no kankyō seisaku: Seido atae taisaku). Tokyo: Koyo Shobo, 2005. Tao Xiliang, “Lüelun dangdai guoji guanxi de huanjing zhimin zhuyi” [On environmental imperialism in contemporary international relations]. In Guoji guanxi xueyuan xuebao 3 (1996). Tickell, Crispin. “The Inevitability of Environmental Security.” In Threats without Enemies, edited by Gwyn Prins. London: Earthscan, 1993. Tietenberg, Tom. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. Prentice Hall, 2011. UN Country Team China. Common Country Assessment 2004: Balancing Development to Achieve an All-Round Xiaokang and Harmonious Society in China (2004). UNFCCC Secretariat. “Kyoto Protocol.” 1997. United Nations Development Program. Global Resources Report 2000–2001. Beijing: Zhongguo Huanjing Kexue Press, 2002. ——. Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Wackernagel, Mathis, et al. Ecological Footprints of Nations: How Much Nature Do They Use? How Much Nature Do They Have? Costa Rica: The Earth Council, 1997. ——. And William Rees. “Perceptual and Structural Barriers to Investing in Natural Capital: Economics from an Ecological Footprint Perspective.” Ecological Economics 20 (1997): 3–24. Wan Yicheng et al. Xin wenming de lubiao: Renlei lüse yundong shi shang de jingdian wenxian [The landmark of new civilization: classic literature in the history of the green movement]. Changchun: Jilin Renmin Press, 2000. Wang Keying, et al., eds. Shengtai shidai de chengshi jueze [Urban choices in an ecological age]. Beijing: Jingji Guanli Press, 1991. Wang Maotao and Wu Yun. “Huanjing anquan yu juedui zhuquan guan de dangdai kunjing” [The modern paradox of environmental security and absolute sovereignty]. Wuhan daxue xuebao 6 (2002). Wang Weizhong, ed. Zhongguo kechixu fazhan taishi fenxi [Analyses on China’s sustainable development]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshu Guan, 1999. Wang Yi. “Gongtong liyi yu shenke fenqi: Guoji huanjing waijiao de xianshi tujing” [Communal interest and profound disputes: International environmental diplomacy and the realistic picture].” Dongfang 2 (1996).

202

bibliography

Wang Yidan. “Shengtai huanjing zhengzhi yu dangdai guoji guanxi” [Eco-environmental politics and contemporary international relations]. Zhejiang shehui kexue [Zhejiang sociology] 3 (1998). World Bank. 1997 Report on World Development [Chinese translation]. Beijing: Zhongguo Caizheng Jingji Press, 1997. ——. Clear Water, Blue Skies: China’s Environment in the New Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future [Chinese translation]. Beijing: Shijie Zhishi Press, 1989. Worldwatch Institute, “The Dangerous Crossroads of the Global Environment,” State of the World (April 30, 2001). World Wide Fund for Nature. Living Planet Report 2004 (2004). ——. Living Planet Report 2006. Gland, Switzerland: WWF, 2006. http://assets.panda.org/ downloads/living_planet_report.pdf. Xu Chun. Kechixu fazhan yu Shengtai Wenming [Sustainable development and ecological civilization]. Beijing: Beijing Press, 2001. Xun Qingzhi. Ouzhou lüdang yanjiu [Study on Green Parties in Europe]. Jinan: Shandong Renmin Press, 2000. Ye Qianji. Shengtai nongye: Nongye de weilai [Ecological agriculture: The future of farming]. Chongqing: Chongqing Press, 1988. Zhao Lin. Xifang wenhua gailun [An introduction to Western culture]. Beijing: Gaodeng Jiaoyu Press, 2004. Zhang Haibin. “Guowai huanjing yu anquan wenti yanjiu shuping” [A review of the research on foreign environmental and security issues]. Ouzhou 3 (1997). Zhang Kunming. Guanyu Zhongguo kechixu fazhan de zhengce yu xingdong [Policies and action on the sustainable development in China]. Beijing: Zhongguo Huangjing Kexue Press, 2004. Zhang Shitong. Annotated Xunzi. Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Press, 1974. Zhang Xiaojing and Jing Yuejin. Bijiao zhengzhi xue daolun [A comparative study on politics]. Beijing: Zhongguo Renmin Daxue Press, 2001. Zhongguo huanjing baohu “Jiu Wu” jihua he 2010 nian yuanjing mubiao [The ninth five-year plan and the long-term 2010 goals on the environmental protection in China]. Zhongguo Huanjing Kexue Press, 2004. Zhou Fengqi and Wang Qingyi. Zhongguo nengyuan 50 nian [50 years of China’s energy]. Beijing: Zhongguo Dianli Press, 2002.

Index Agenda 21 2, 7–8, 26, 49, 84, 86, 112 n. 13, 135 Agrarian civilization 123–124, 185–186, 188, 191, 195 Air Pollution 3, 31, 52, 67, 77, 106, 114, 116, 125, 127, 143 Anthropocentric 172, 174–175, 179–180, 186 n. 2, 189–190 Aquifers 35 Asian Development Bank 11, 56, 107 Biodiversity 14–15, 18, 49, 62, 86, 111, 114, 125, 143 Bohai 11 Brazil 2, 56–57, 72, 132, 144 bureaucracies 117 Carbon sequestering 59 Carrying Capacity 43, 67, 96–97, 101, 128, 143, 145, 173–176, 183, 189 Central Committee of the Communist Party (CCCP) 2 Central government 2, 12, 28 n. 10, 32, 34, 140, 142–143, 148, 153 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 10, 16, 148, 150 chernozem 156, 160 China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED) 7, 133, 135, 147–148 China: Country Assistance Assessment 14 China Human Development Report (2002) 15 Chinese National Assessment Report (2004) 15 Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) 121–122 Clean Production Promotion Law 7 Clear Water, Blue Skies: China’s Environment in the New Century 3 n. 3, 14 Climate change 19, 25, 52, 65, 83, 86, 114, 125 Closed-loop economies 95–96, 112 n. 13 Closed-loop societies 109 n. 7 Club of Rome 24 Conservation 7, 23, 34–35, 112 n. 13, 129, 141, 156, 160, 162, 164

Consumption 14, 16, 20–21, 23–24, 29, 36, 41, 43, 46, 49, 52, 55, 63, 72, 81, 87–88, 99, 107–108, 110, 112, 114, 128, 141–142, 145, 147–148, 151–153, 169, 173, 193, 196 Cross Century Green Project Plan 11 crowded goods 23 cultivated land 135, 141 Decision Concerning the Improvement of Environmental Protection through the Implementation of Scientific Development (2005) 19 Desertification 32, 77, 86, 114, 124–125, 129, 143, 156, 164, 187 developed countries 3, 16, 30, 43, 53, 55, 60–62, 64–65, 70, 77, 85, 87–92, 106–108, 112 Development Research Center Computable General Equilibrium (DRCCGE) 147 Diplomacy 85–86 Eco-environmental 39–43, 45–46, 49, 83, 106–107, 109, 165, 172 Ecological culture/civilization 167–172, 180, 182, 189–197 Ecological economy 169 ecological footprint 88, 145, 147–148 ecological infrastructural projects 135 Ecological threat 107 Economy 3, 10, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 42–43, 61, 63, 67, 72–73, 75, 79, 92, 102, 172, 176–183, 186, 190–191, 193, 196 Ecosystem 73, 88–89, 96, 125, 143, 188, 197 Eleventh Five-Year Plan 21, 139, 141–142, 148 Emmanuel Kant 187 Endangered species 25 Energy crisis 125 Environmental consciousness/ awareness 14, 43, 132, 134, 170 Environmental hazards 106 Environmental impact study 3, 32 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 18 Environmental Protection Law 2, 5–6, 12 Environmental regulations 12, 28, 32, 36–37, 108, 111–113, 117, 150

204

index

Environmental resources 21, 24, 27–28, 30, 33, 39–41, 48–49, 69, 74, 82, 194 Environmental security 15, 105–109, 111, 113–117, 119, 143 Environmentalism 3, 45, 47, 113, 119–120, 176 European Union 54–55, 62–63, 119 Externalities 28, 74 Five New Articles policy 6 Forest coverage 10, 124, 142, 154 Fossil fuels 58, 102, 125 Francis Bacon 186 n. 2 Free Market 62, 74, 92, 95, 99, 101 Free-riders 29, 41, 49 Globalization 1, 67–68, 70–73, 76–79, 81–82, 92 good governance 26, 91 Government failure 16, 34, 36, 50, 74, 76 Government intervention 33, 39, 42 grassroots organization 27, 117 Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature 129 Green GDP 6–7 Green Party 84 Green Wall 134, 153–154, 156, 160–165 Greenhouse gases 14, 25, 51–53, 56–61, 63–65 greenification 117, 119, 134 Greenification projects 134 Greenpeace 24, 86 Group of Eight + Five 83 harmonious society 18, 121–122 Hei River 31 Homo-economicus 74 Hu Jintao 139 Huai River 2, 14, 16 Humanity and nature 73, 121, 178, 191, 194 Hydroelectric energy 54, 60 Imperialism 110–111, 194 India 14, 56–57, 87, 99, 143–144 Industrial Age 186–187 Industrial civilization 124, 172, 174, 186–188, 190 Institutional efficiency 48 Institutional incentives 45 Institutions 5, 24, 27, 29, 44–50, 79, 82–84, 90, 98, 106–107, 112, 117, 119, 173 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Work Group III:

Mitigation of Climate Change (WG III) 51 Interim Policy for Structural Adjustment to Promote Industry (2005) 3 international organizations 8, 56, 79, 90, 103, 107, 108, 112, 119 International standards 103 International system 5, 90, 113, 195 International Union for Conservation of Nature 7, 173 Invisible hand 39–40, 42 Japanese Bank for International Cooperation 11 Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development 83 Karakum Desert 129 Karl Marx 40, 50, 181 Kongque River 34 Kyoto Protocol 25, 51–53, 55, 57–59, 61–65, 90, 106, 133–134 laissez-faire 38, 74, 92 Lake Bosten 31 law 5–6, 12, 20, 27, 29–30, 37, 46–47, 51, 98, 103, 111, 151, 185, 187–188, 192 Liberalization 7, 16, 75, 92, 98, 101, 104, 121 Local government 5, 8, 28 n. 10, 31–32, 34, 36–37, 118, 142 Loess Plateau 14, 126, 135–136, 154, 156 macroeconomy 96, 101 Man and nature 50, 163, 178, 186 Market competition 73 Market failure 24, 27, 33, 42, 74, 79 Market mechanisms 19, 28 n. 10, 40, 42, 74, 81, 165 Market pricing 36, 73 marketable pollution permits 27 Markets 24, 33, 40, 49, 65, 78, 92, 95, 97, 101, 142, 153 Material security 109 Ministry of Water Resources 28 n. 10, 31 Most-Sustainable-National-Tariff Status 102 multidimensional global environmental security community 116, 119–120 National Conference on Ecological and Agricultural Problems 168 National Environmental Protection Ministry 132 National People’s Congress (NPC) 122, 141



index

National Project Outline of China (2006–2010) 15 National sovereignty 82, 85–86, 92, 112 National Village Enterprises Pollution Survey (1995) 10 Nation-state 75, 78, 84, 106, 109, 113–114, 116–117, 119 Nation-state security 109 Neoliberalism 75, 173 Ninth Five Year Planning Period Main National Plan for Controlling the Quantity of Pollutants (1996) 10 Ninth Five-Year Plan 2, 8–10 “No regrets measures” 51–53, 62 Nonanthropocentric 175, 179 Nuclear energy 54 Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet 7 Opportunity cost 41 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 18, 53 Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) 64–66 Our Common Future 95, 115 n. 18, 132, 173–175, 177–178, 194 Our Shared Future 2 Ozone 14, 25, 59, 100 layer 19, 77, 86, 111, 114, 116, 125, 133 Pearl River Delta 125 “polluters pay” 5 Pollution Control Special Fund 5 pollution permit 7, 27 Prairie States Forestry Program, or the Great Plains Shelterbelt 128 Production 1, 2, 14, 24–25, 29, 41, 43–46, 48–49, 67, 70–72, 75, 78, 82, 92, 95–96, 99, 101, 102–103, 108, 110, 112, 123–124, 148, 152, 170, 177, 181, 186, 191–196 property rights 28, 40, 49 Protectionism 91 Public good 23–24, 27, 29–30, 41–42, 74–75 quasi-public goods 23–24 regional organizations 103 Regulations 2, 5–6, 8, 12, 20, 25, 27–29, 32, 36–37, 41, 46, 65, 74, 76, 79, 81–82, 89–90, 101, 103, 108, 111–113, 117, 140, 150–151 Renewable Resource Law 7 Resource Conservation Law 7

205

Responsibility of developed/Western countries 107, 109–112, 115, 119, 153, 194 Rio Declaration 83, 135 Safe Management of Hazardous Chemicals Act 12 scientific development 18, 20, 106, 121–122, 139–140, 151, 190 Shelterbelt 128–129, 134, 154–156, 159, 161, 164 Silent Spring 24, 132 Sixth Plenary Session of the Tenth National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) 121 socialism 122, 152, 169–170, 172 South-North Water Transfer Project 11, 28 n. 10 Soviet Union 55, 63, 85, 129 State Council 2–3, 7–8, 12, 19–20, 135, 139, 147, 154 subsidies 29, 32, 42, 65, 150, 160 sulfur dioxide (SO2) 11, 16, 59, 125, 141, 143, 153 Sustainable development 1–3, 8, 14, 16, 21, 26, 28–30, 33–34, 40, 45–46, 49–50, 64, 67–74, 77, 79–85, 89–93, 95–98, 100–101, 103–104, 109 n. 7, 111, 112 n. 13, 115, 117–118, 121, 132, 135, 148, 150–151, 167, 171–183, 189–190, 193–197 Tarim River 34 taxes 12, 19, 27, 29, 63 Ten Major Countermeasures for the Environment and Development (1992) 2, 6–8, 19, 135 Tenth Five-Year Plan 14, 147, 161 The Closing Circle 177 The Environmental Protection Goals Responsibility System 6 The National Environmental Policy Act 24 The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future 16 Third generation of human rights 26 Thirteenth Five-Year Plan 147 Thousand-Mile Clear Waterways Project 32 Three Gorges Dam 11–12 Three Great Cultures Theory 167 Three Simultaneous Reports 5, 7, 12–13 “three wastes” 2, 8, 43 Three-Year Action Plan 32 Transaction cost 29, 41

206

index

Transfer Subsidy System 101 Twelfth Five-Year Plan 147 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) 2, 7, 26, 84–86, 132, 173, 176 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (1972) 1–2, 7, 132 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 7, 56, 161, 173 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 53, 61 n. 14, 133–134 United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development 132 Urban Environment Comprehensive Improvement Assessment 6

Water pollution 1, 35, 77, 86, 114, 125, 139 Water Pollution Prevention and Management Law 12 water rights 28 Wen Jiabao 139–140, 142 World Bank 3, 10–11, 14, 19, 90, 147, 173 World Commission on Environment and Development 7, 115 n. 18, 194 Xunzi 46–47 Yangtze River 9, 125, 134–135, 137 Yellow River 9, 14, 31, 156