April 20, 2007 1:27 PM

China Vs. Earth

Clouds of smoke billow from a metal alloy factory in Gaolan county in northwest China's Gansu province in this Nov. 7, 2006 file photo.

Clouds of smoke billow from a metal alloy factory in Gaolan county in northwest China's Gansu province in this Nov. 7, 2006 file photo. (AP)

(The Nation)  This column was written by Elizabeth Economy.


The message is clear: Shanghai under water, Tibetan glaciers disappearing, crop yields in precipitous decline, epidemics flaring. These are just some of the dire consequences that Chinese scientists predict for their country this century if current climate change is not addressed. Yet China's leaders pay about as much attention to the issue as does George W. Bush.

In fact, a report issued last year by the Climate Action Network-Europe ranks China fifty-fourth out of fifty-six countries for its climate change response, just behind the United States and ahead only of Malaysia and Saudi Arabia.

Beijing knows the costs of inaction: A recent major official study on climate change predicts up to a 37 percent decline in China's wheat, rice and corn yields in the second half of the century. Precipitation may decline by as much as 30 percent in three of China's seven major river regions: the Huai, Liao and Hai. The Yellow and Yangtze rivers, which support the richest agricultural regions of the country and derive much of their water from Tibetan glaciers, will initially experience floods and then drought as the glaciers melt.

Moreover, a one-meter rise in sea level will submerge an area the size of Portugal along China's eastern seaboard — home to more than half the country's population and 60 percent of its economic output. Already climate change-related extreme weather is taking its toll: In 2006 such disasters cost China more than $25 billion in damage. Finally, a study by Shanghai-based researcher Wen Jiahong suggests that the lethal H5N1 virus will spread as climate change shifts the habitats and migratory patterns of birds.

Yet China's leaders show little inclination to move aggressively to forestall such calamities. As a result of China's reliance on coal to fuel its economy, its emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have tripled over the past thirty years and are now second only to those of the United States. In late 2006 the International Energy Agency predicted that China would surpass the United States as the largest contributor of CO2 by 2009, a full decade earlier than anticipated. China already uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined and is the world's second-largest consumer of oil after the United States. (India, which lags well behind China in its overall consumption of coal, is nonetheless on track to become a major CO2 contributor over the next ten years and is already the fifth-largest contributor of greenhouse gases globally.)

China's development strategy suggests that little will change in the foreseeable future. With plans on the books to urbanize half the Chinese population by 2020, energy consumption will soar. City residents in China use 250 percent more power than their rural counterparts. And China's love affair with the private car is set to rival that of the United States. A conservative estimate by the Asian Development Bank predicts that the number of cars in China could increase by fifteen times present levels over the next thirty years, more than tripling CO2 emissions.

If China's development trajectory continues as planned, its increase in greenhouse gas emissions will likely exceed that of all industrialized countries combined over the next twenty-five years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol sought. In short, it's a nightmarishly bad picture.

It would be unfair, however, to characterize China as doing nothing to address climate change. The leadership's worries about both energy security and domestic air pollution — five of the world's ten most polluted cities are in China — are propelling them to set bold targets for reshaping their energy mix and enhancing energy efficiency.

The Chinese government has called for renewable energy to provide 10 percent of the nation's power by 2010 and 15 percent by 2020. Key state-owned enterprises and provincial governors must make 20 percent reductions in their energy intensity (that is, energy consumed per unit of GDP) over the next three years. On that front there is a lot of room for improvement: China's buildings consume 250 percent more energy than buildings in other countries with comparable climates. Beijing has responded with a raft of tough new building codes for energy efficiency. Much like the United States, cities and provinces are now taking matters into their own hands. Shenzhen, for example, has passed a regulation that solar power be used to supply hot water in all new residential buildings under twelve stories.

Already there is some success. With the assistance of the U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), China built its first LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified building. Fittingly, the building houses the Ministry of Science and Technology, in Beijing. Ten stories tall, it uses 70 percent less energy than similar buildings and saves 10,000 tons of water annually through rainwater collection. NRDC energy expert Robert Watson, one of the chief architects of the project, claims that if every new nonresidential building in China matched this one, the electricity savings would equal the amount of energy provided by the Three Gorges Dam.

But China is littered with well-intended demonstration projects that go nowhere. If these new regulations are to have an impact, Beijing's tough rhetoric must be matched by real enforcement, a task that has proved elusive in the past. In 2002 the Chinese government pledged to cut sulfur dioxide 10 percent by 2005. (SO2 is not a greenhouse gas but is a noxious byproduct of coal power that causes acid rain and urban smog; getting rid of it is a good idea.) But SO2 emissions have increased 27 percent. From all accounts, few if any of the coal-fired power plants that China is bringing online almost every week embrace state-of-the-art clean technology. Moreover, Beijing has already missed its first-year target for the 2006-10 plan to increase the energy efficiency of industry.

Why can't this supposed command economy impose solutions if its leadership sees a problem? There are several reasons behind China's consistent failure to meet environmental goals.

First, the central government in Beijing actually has little on-the-ground enforcement capability in the provinces. Local environmental protection officials report to and are beholden to local government officials, not to the State Environmental Protection Administration in Beijing. One of the West's great misconceptions is that what Beijing says goes. In fact, local officials are often in cahoots with factory managers and allow industry to pollute well above legal limits — either because the officials have a financial stake in the enterprise or because they are afraid that closing a factory, or making it more expensive to operate, will diminish local employment and lead to social unrest, which is now a very serious problem all across China.



The Nation
Add a Comment See all 13 Comments
by sjc_1 April 23, 2007 2:36 PM EDT
The article mentions "the attraction of getting paid to do the right thing."

I am not sure that this is the right thing to do. China is interested in technology transfer, but it should not be technology that they can use for weapons systems.

They are interested in getting hard currency, but being a central government, that money could go into the Red Army or rocket programs. There is more to the equation than the environment.
Reply to this comment
by clestes-2009 April 23, 2007 1:28 PM EDT
They will wait until a couple of the coastal cities are underwater and they are losing money, then the light bulb will go on.
Reply to this comment
by dobermanmacleod April 23, 2007 9:11 AM EDT
To understand how serious the current situation is, you need to understand the concepts of "runaway global warming," abrupt climate change," and "positive feedbacks."

Runaway global warming: a warming earth will mean carbon sinks will become carbon emitters, leading to a self-sustaining global warming cycle. This has happened before (multiple times) in history, but mankind's emissions are about 30 times as much as past natural triggers.

Abrupt climate change: when a complex system (like the earth's climate) is forced, it resists change, then abruptly changes to another stable state. As is proven by paleoclimatological data, as more CO2 is dumped into the air, our climate will change from the Holocene (the sweetspot that saw the rise of human civilization), to a hotter dryer climate that has been the cause of mass extinctions in the past.

Positive feedbacks: like a microphone placed near a speaker, the sound escalates to a roar. For instance, the snow melts, the brown surface of the frozen ground is uncovered, which soaks up more heat from the sun. As the permafrost melts a little, it emits carbon dioxide and methane, which heats up the permafrost more, emitting more CO2 and CH4, in a vicious circle that greatly amplifies global warming.
Reply to this comment
by sjc_1 April 22, 2007 3:54 PM EDT
As long as some people equate energy usage and pollution with economic growth, you will have the wrong conclusions on this subject. We can have a health economy AND a clean environment. I would suggest that going forward, a clean environment is the only way you can have a truly healthy economy in the long run.
Reply to this comment
by hangbush April 22, 2007 8:24 AM EDT
Why all the speculation of the future and accusation of another nation (which might or might not be true in the future) when US is currently outputting more than anyone else?
Reply to this comment
by hangbush April 22, 2007 8:21 AM EDT
Now, isn't this a nice little article?

LOL!

The author obviously forgot to mention, USA is CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW THE WORLD CHAMPION IN ALL AREAS OF POLLUTION. US carbon gas emission is more than TWICE that of China. So, isn't USA a threat to world more so than China? I did't see any fellow american do anything "green" besides lips service.
Reply to this comment
by erasmus6 April 21, 2007 11:39 PM EDT
hypnotoad72

Where I live the local news did a thing for a week, telling people what they could be doing now. Like not sitting and letting your car idol and getting power bars to plug in your electronics and appliances. These things still use power even when they are turned off. Also if you go to Oprah.com and click on Fridays show, it was about what we could be doing now.
I think that gradually we will start hearing more once everybody gets their act together and figures it all out.
Reply to this comment
by erasmus6 April 21, 2007 11:30 PM EDT
ainttaken-have you read any of the tainted pet food articles? No, pollution isn't the only thing you can expect from China.
Reply to this comment
by hypnotoad72 April 21, 2007 11:20 PM EDT
sero5 - from Apple being behind in "greening up"* to his little hummer to his "carbon credits" nonsense when justifying his outrageous fuel bills -- too right he's a hypocrite.

* Even Dell's done far more and given the cheap garbage they sell, I have to give some SOME praise... also note, Gore was put on Apple's board in 2003. Now check out http://www.badapple.biz and WINCE. He's a phony.

Reply to this comment
by hypnotoad72 April 21, 2007 11:17 PM EDT
China is said to be communist, said to have backed N. Vietnam and the Viet Cong during that war, said to have a really great economy right now... they've got the means to clean up their act.

We all do. And we all need to, to varying degrees.

So why isn't anybody doing more than telling us to replace incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent ones? I live close to work; I see no sin in that... There's more I can do; I'll happily do it.

People of China will NOT revolt. Life's kinda good for them right now. The Chinese government had also admitted as much when saying they pulled 400 million people out of poverty (than US offshoring for a fair chunk of that). That's 1/3rd their entire population; a terrific feat to say the least. And people in such a place wouldn't raise a finger to change a thing.
Reply to this comment
See all 13 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook