Choking on Growth
March 8th, 2008
Submitted By: Steve Munio
We’ve all seen the figures verifying China’s economic growth time and time again, they are staggering. These always seem to be accompanied by forecasts of continued growth for decades to come, which are equally spectacular. This is where I have my doubts. I believe there are other significant factors that are not adequately considered in these forecasts, factors that one cannot even begin to estimate or predict.
An interesting article was published in the New York Times which discusses some of the underestimated downfalls of this rapid rise. This is a country where nearly 500 million lack access to safe drinking water. However, despite what China’s own experts and senior officials describe as “intolerable,” Beijing has shown that it is unwilling and/or unable to make significant changes at this time.
Only 1 percent of China’s urban population of 560 million now breathes air considered safe by the European Union. Yet still, the government insists that it will accept no mandatory limits on its carbon dioxide emissions.
“Indeed, Britain, the United States and Japan polluted their way to prosperity and worried about environmental damage only after their economies matured and their urban middle classes demanded blue skies and safe drinking water. But China is more like a teenage smoker with emphysema. The costs of pollution have mounted well before it is ready to curtail economic development.”
The toll this pollution has taken on human health remains a delicate topic in China. Along with media regulation and free speech silenced by persecution, the leadership has banned publication of data on the subject for fear of inciting social unrest, said scholars involved in the research. But the results of some research provide alarming evidence that the environment has become one of the biggest causes of death.
How confident can we be in these projections of future growth, when we cannot even begin to guess at the devastation to be caused by China’s disregard for sustainability?
Entry Filed under: Pre-Departure, Beijing, China
10 Comments Add your own
1. Simone Michel | March 8th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
The main future challenges for India and China will the increasing energy demand as well as greenhouse gas emission be. China needs stricter laws that regulate the handling of industrial waste and pollution. One solution would be to offer the local government incentives so they would increase their environmental commitment.
As we all know, China has grown incredibly fast over the past years. Still, there are many reforms needed to strengthen the economy against external and internal shocks. The main goal should be to make China sustainable. What can we do? Well one first step would be to choose our suppliers wisely. As we heard in our accounting class, Wal-Mart has a special supplier rating system that also emphasizes sustainability issues such as transportation method, recycling and so on. Chinese manufacturers rely on us and such a rating system would force them to meet certain goals.
2. Simone Michel | March 9th, 2008 at 8:29 am
This is actually a really good NPR discussion on China and pollution. They talk about the problems they have and especially how they want to clean up the air in Beijing before the Olympic Games.
3. Simeon Trieu | March 9th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
If you look at both European and American societies in the past industrial revolutions, then we can see similar pollution trends. China’s development shouldn’t shock us. One of the major factors in this debate, however, is that China has what European and American nations didn’t have in their industrial development: alternatives for green processes. While I’m sure the Western governments were not unaware of the pollution problems, I’m sure they lacked the technology to overcome the issues, chalking pollution up as a necessary evil. China has the alternatives. In fact, green processes are on the forefront of China’s research. You may be aware that Cal Poly is leading the green movement with projects aimed at making green cities in China. A relevant post on the blog about the First Eco-City Planned for China shows that China isn’t just aware of the issues, but they are taking steps to overcome the daunting pollution issues. They may be criticized for not doing enough, but they cannot be criticized for ignoring the issue.
4. Simeon Trieu | March 9th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
If you are really interested in more sustainable design, E2 Design, a PBS podcast, shows that China is working towards sustainable design in the episode entitled, “e2 design — China: From Red to Green?.” It shows, very surprisingly, that China is more open than most think. China has become innovative by taking ideas from everywhere, including the West, to integrate into sustainable design. If it works, and it solves the problem, integrate it.
5. Mark Fairman | March 9th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Certainly, environmental factors will continue to be an issue for debate in China. And as this country’s population continues to grow, there will an increased public support for governmental intervention. Although the current hot topic for China’s development is environmental impact, I think discussing the topic of Chinese rapid growth covers more than just environmental matters. China’s political structure is something that I can’t help but think will be redefined in the upcoming decades. Their “on-the-fence” form of capitalism/communism is confusing–and it’s only a matter of time until the masses demand increases in their personal liberties and social assistance.
6. Chris Carr | March 9th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Here is another factoid to echo one of Simeon’s points ….
A few days ago I visited Tsinghua Univesity in Beijing, China’s MIT. This is not some outback university in western China. I walked through one of their dorms. I saw 4 and even 6 students to a room; not the two to a room you see in a US college dorm. Think of what their energy consumption would be if they lived like us. In the US, we think we are somehow victims or that “space is tight” if our homes are less than 2,000 square feet in size. And a 2,000 square foot “green” and “sustainable” home? Folks, that is an oxymoron.
7. Steve Munio | March 9th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
If you read the article, you would see that the pollution trends of European and American industrial development are no where near comparable to the unprecedented looming environmental disaster in China.
I have to disagree also with the effectiveness of Wal-Mart’s “efforts ” as well. They can claim to emphasize sustainability as much as they want, but the bottom line stands; the majority of their products are produced in a country that has been manufacturing
(and continues to manufacture) using the most unsustainable practices in the World.
8. Simeon Trieu | March 10th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Sorry, I should’ve made this more clear. I don’t dispute that China’s pollution levels and projected levels are going from bad to worse. However, the pollution levels are overtaking the US by leaps and bounds, not because of bad management entirely, but because of the emissions “per-capita”. Recognize that there are two factors influencing China’s development:
1. Most countries, such as Europe, Japan, and the US polluted their way into the modern age.
From the article,
What China is doing is pioneering the way for other underdeveloped nations to follow to maintain sustainable, rapid growth that is typical of a country going through industrial advances.
2. China’s population strains every resource and exacerbates all problems, which make it very difficult to develop as a country.
With the US at a mere 303,514,000 people as estimated for 2008 compared to 1,321,851,888 people in the PRC, it is clear that any per-capita contributions to anything will have a substantial impact. Water, gas, electricity, carbon emissions, food supply, political stability, government efficiency… everything is affected.
If America, the global leader, is not curbing emissions by a significant margin, how can a less developed nation with even more exacerbated problems be expected to shrug off dependency on coal? The article points out a great flaw that exposes several options to China:
The way I see it, China has a few options: (1) Improve the efficiency of existing coal furnaces, (2) reduce usage of resources per capita, and (3) develop plans to integrate more green energies from renewable sources. China is making plans to integrate green energies. I’m not sure if we want China to reduce factory production, as from the Wal-Mart case, we know that it would significantly impact the prices we buy our products at. But, I’m sure that people can be taught to use less. I remember that the last time I was in Beijing, China’s government slogans included a poster that said “Take public transportation before buying a car.” I’m unsure of the progress China is making in improving coal burning efficiency. Maybe they are focusing all of their resources in energy research towards renewables.
9. David Dougherty | March 21st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Dr. Carr, in response to the 2000 square foot “green” and sustainable home being an oxymoron, I would have to disagree to a certain extent. While the vast majority of current homes are not sustainable, there is a new push that allows homes, commercial buildings, and manufacturing facilities to be certified as sustainable and green. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating system is being incorporated into more and more projects daily. If you are able to achieve a platinum certification, it means that your building actually produces more energy than it consumes. While there currently are few structures that have achieved this certification, there are many others who have received the gold, silver and standard certifications.
If the Chinese manufactures were forced by their government to follow the requirements of the LEED council and obtain the various levels of certification, it would have a profound positive impact on the environment. There could really be 10,000 square foot factories that could help the environment and prove to be “green” and “sustainable” if done right.
10. Chris Carr | March 21st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
David,
You raise a good point.
I was typing tongue in cheek, a bit, and was getting more at the fact that a 2,000 square foot home kills a lot more trees and uses a lot more steel, glass, etc., than would a 1,200 sq. foot home. And when I see the super-rich claim their 10,000 foot square home is environmentally sensitive, it’s all I can do to not jump out of my chair and choke them.
A fair bit of this is a sub-culture difference within these United States of America. Part of where I was coming from is that in the part of the world I grew up in (the Midwest), the concept of what is enough or sufficient is vastly different than what I have been exposed to in Cali the last two decades.
Example:
Statement I hear over and over again in Cali: “I am middle class” — I have found what that tends to mean is that one’s home is worth “only” $600,000 and is “only” 2,000 plus square feet (and the feeling that one has not “made it” big). These poor victims.
Comparable statement in the part of the world that I and “I am as honest as the day in long” Matt Fencl grew up in: “I am middle class” — there, means your home is probably 1,200 sq. feet, and is worth $80,000, and, you feel like you are living like a king and don’t even think about the need to “move up” or build another home.
It’s the part of Cali that even after two decades I can’t seem to get used to or accept. But yes, the sunny weather and nice beaches, Dodgers, Niners, Yosemite, etc., is all good and that part of Cali I relish.
The above is also part of what drove me to make my “quality of life” post. The concept of “what is enough”, in my humble view, really is different in places like the Midwest (or China) than Cali. One is not right or wrong, they are just different.
Your thoughts?
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed