Reply to Pan: China’s Response to Climate Change Pan’s reply to my Viewpoint article “China’s Response to Climate Change” (Environ.Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 5689-5690) begins with an argument that I did not make. Hardly any rational scholar would make such a claim as “only one country should only focus on environmental protection without considering its economic development and people’s welfare”. There is no moral ground to attribute all responsibilities to China, nor to preclude it from pursuing economic welfare. Some developed economies have not done enough. Countries such as the United States and Australia have been blamed for being reluctant to make more substantial commitments. Scientists and social scientists are paid to identify problems rather than to give praise to piecemeal success. With an ever-growing emission level China has a long way to go. Pan is prematurely satisfied with its current efforts. China is trying to implement some aggressive emission mitigation measures. But being aggressive has no bearing on being effective. Reduction in carbon intensity may go with an expanding emission profile. Global temperature would
rise regardless of a decreasing intensity level. China hosts a large number of CDM projects which are largely supported by foreign funds. Under the CDM the country is a beneficiary. As the logic goes, the more severe global warming is, the more active it is as a paid party. Such achievement is not a genuinely positive contribution. Chinese people’s environmental awareness is growing. However, their attitudes remain pragmatic and utilitarian (1). Pan’s claim that “China pursues the harmonious development of society and nature consistently” is unwarranted. During Mao’s era, the Maoist politics had a devastating impact on China’s environment (2). Perhaps the nature-economy relationship has become more harmonious, but it is far from balanced. Environmental concerns at all levels of the country are growing with the desire for luxurious consumption. We are creating more plugs as well as more holes. The greater emphasis on environmental problems other than climate change is clearly not limited to China. This is a global problem and should be raised and questioned in context of global collective action. At a social level, the key problem is that China lacks an active civil society. Oppositional civil society could confront the state
7982 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / November 1, 2010
when bureaucrats fail to deliver required or desired policy commitments. The state would otherwise be subject to little internal pressure to augment its efforts on climate protection. Substantial changes are then unlikely as state leaders are normally highly risk averse. Such institutions are ill-equipped to handle ecological surprises and value conflicts in relation to resource allocation (3). Climate responsibilities do not only fall onto China. Yet the country is one of those who should do more, along with the United States. Compromising the economic fortunes of the poor is immoral. Equally immoral is declining further responsibilities to pursue a more luxurious economy across its wealthier cities. ALEX LO* Australian National University
[email protected] (1) Harris, P. G. ‘Getting rich is glorious’: Environmental values in the People’s Republic of China. Environ. Values 2004, 13, 145–165. (2) Shapiro, J. Mao’s War against Nature: Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China; Cambridge University Press: New York, 2001. (3) Dryzek, J. S. Rational Ecology: Environment and Political Economy; Basil Blackwell: New York, 1987.
ES103136N
10.1021/es103136n
2010 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 09/24/2010
