Response to Dr. Economy's Speech at the International Roundtable

Before I begin, I would like to thank everyone for joining us today, especially Dr. Elizabeth Economy and Prof. Mark Davis for their contributions, and Prof. Suzuki for chairing our panel.

I. Introduction

The International Roundtable at Macalester College is an opportunity for our community to ask the big questions. These questions capture the riddles that we face in today’s globalized world. Many of us will devote our lives trying to explore and then answer them. The major concerns of the 2009 Roundtable include discerning the condition of environment in the 21st century, investigating the forces involved in these issues, and imagining possibilities of alternatives to the current trends, as well as drivers for these alternatives. Dr. Elizabeth Economy engages in this conversation by focusing on the intersection of China’s galloping development and its environment. Dr. Economy’s insights compel us to concentrate on at once an admiration for China’s monumental material transformation and its worrisome ecological side effects. She describes the friction felt between the leadership in the Communist Party, industrial interests, and environmental activists as environmental exploitation for economic interests harms public health.

In response to Dr. Economy, I would like to engage her in three ways. First, I will identify what I deem to be the strengths of her essay. This will prove to be my easiest task, I believe, as her work is both illuminating and well crafted. Next, I will delve into what I see as some of the shortcomings of her paper. Finally, I will offer my own perspective on the themes of this Roundtable.

II. Strengths

First, the essay brings to our attention the important of China’s on-going industrialization. Second, this massive change is observed through the lens of environmental sensibilities. As Dr. Economy correctly points out, not only does China rank as the world’s largest contributor to many environmental problems worldwide, it has the potential to become even more overwhelming to the global environment. With rapid urbanization, China’s energy consumption is expected to increase steadily. Energy consumption is generally associated with negative environmental effects, so the prediction that China could be consuming 90.8 quadrillion Btu in 2025 (as opposed to 39.1 quadrillion Btu in 2001, the second greatest in the world at that time) is indicative of future environmental problems.1 Dr. Economy has devoted her academic career to the investigation of China’s environmental challenges, and we are fortunate to have her join our discussion.

The primary strengths of Dr. Economy’s work are twofold. First, she has identified the drivers behind the environmental challenges that China faces. Second, she has effectively articulated the bind in which China’s leadership has been placed by the competing discourses of economic development and environmental stewardship. Through her work, she has engaged 2 out of 3 of our conversation topics for this Roundtable: She assesses the environmental condition in China, and she explores the actors involved in the state of the environment.

According the paper, the ultimate cause of the environmental degradation in China is the “unfettered economic growth”2 that has swept over China in the last 25 years. She expands upon this point in her splendid book, The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future. She explains that the decentralization of China’s economy in the last quarter century has vastly transformed their financial system, but has also spurred environmental pressures and exploitation. Dr. Economy writes, quote, “The burgeoning economy has dramatically increased the demand for resources such as water, land, and energy.”3 She identifies two main proximate causes of this environmental dilemma: urbanization and inefficiencies. Rapid urbanization has accentuated these environmental challenges in many ways. First of all, it has increased the demand for electricity, as China’s urban population uses 3.5 times the energy as the rural population. Secondly, it has been a driver of deforestation as the country strives to sustain its population, and thirdly it has increased the demand for clean water.4 The issue of efficiency complicates the problems associated with urbanization. As Dr. Economy points out, industrial inefficiencies as well as infrastructural breakdowns in cities magnify the impact of already unsustainable practices. The environmental problems that China faces are not unique, in fact many other developing countries face similar problems as urbanization expands. However, the scale of the problem in China is overwhelmingly larger than that in other countries,5 and thus it can be seen as a case study under a magnifying glass. In this way, Dr. Economy has addressed the first part of our conversation: she identifies the main global environmental concern in the 21st century to be the seeming oxymoron of sustainable development.

The second strength that I see in Dr. Economy’s work is her articulation of the uncomfortable situation that China’s leadership is confronted with as environmental challenges and public health are more starkly in opposition to growth. Pressure is put on the Communist Party through the potential cost of environmental damage to China’s GDP, public health problems caused by pollution, and social unrest caused by unaddressed hazards. The issue of social unrest is the most salient for the Communist Party, and, as Dr. Economy identifies, is amplified by the use of the Internet to bring people together over environmental issues.6 The legitimacy of the Party rests on their ability to balance public well-being with national advancement. The government has responded to this challenge by establishing the environmental protection apparatus described by Dr. Economy, and by allowing environmental NGOs to aid in enforcement of environmental regulations.7 However, the rule of law is weak in China, and she writes in her book that, quote, “it seems plausible that the small central environmental protection apparatus and its relatively weak reach are at least partly by design”.8 This is to say that the government lacks not only the capacity, but the will to enact strong environmental standards. The current design of protection is clearly inadequate, and environmental regulations are rarely enforced.

In her discussion of the leadership’s predicament and the weak environmental protection regime, Dr. Economy has engaged in the second large theme of our Roundtable: the crucial forces responsible for the environmental breakdown are weak regulations and rule of law in the face of pressures for economic development.

II. Weaknesses

While Dr. Economy does an excellent job of using China as an example in order to delve into the first two queries that drive our conversation, she does not, however, adequately treat the third question we are posing today. That is: Is there any alternative to the current trend? How can these alternatives be brought forward and acted upon? She does not attempt to address these issues in her paper, instead simply saying that whatever solution is to be brought forward must be brought by the Chinese leadership. Given Dr. Economy’s deep knowledge China’s environmental situation and the drivers thereof, providing alternatives would have added to the value of her paper.

While not addressed in the text that she has prepared for us, Dr. Economy does offer three visions of the future of the Chinese environmental situation in her book, The River Runs Black. Two of the visions are bleak, one in which China’s current environmental situation continues as the country grows economically, and the other in which China’s financial situation takes a turn for the worse, and the environment suffers as a result.9 The third scenario, however, offers some hope for China’s environment. Dr. Economy describes a China in which, quote, “Not only the economy and the environment benefit but China’s political system is also enhanced through more effective application of the rule of law, greater citizen participation in the political process, and the strengthening of civil society”.10 She describes a process in which China’s vibrant costal cities serve as models for inland cities that are interested in attracting foreign direct investment and creating livable spaces for a newly urbanized population. China’s political leaders begin to advocate for effective environmental protection as means to increase their prominence, as Premier Wen Jiabao pushes for environmental change.11 Entry into the World Trade Organization proves to be an important driver in reinforcing the quality of goods produced and strengthening the rule of law. She describes how diversification into renewable resources improves China’s energy mix, and air quality is ameliorated. The NGO community continues to flourish, and the environment becomes a source of strength for Chinese leadership.12 The international community strengthens its ties with China, and the Chinese environmental advocates become important actors in the international environmental movement.13 She goes on from painting this picture of ecological hope to suggest that environmental transformation will lead to greater political reform in China, and, quote, “By the 2013 presidential elections, the Chinese Communist Party is recast as the Chinese Socialist Democratic Union and is one of two or three parties competing for political power.”14

Dr. Economy not only depicts a hopeful picture of China’s future, she offers a path through which the international community, particularly the United States, can help China to arrive at this alternative. She acknowledges the international community’s continuing influence in China’s environmental practices and the development of the current regime. The lack of a strong legal and enforcement apparatus is the limiting factor in the transfer of technology and adoption of international environmental norms in China. Dr. Economy suggests that the United States could play a large role in encouraging the development of the rule of law in China. The United States has a history of strong environmental enforcement mechanisms driven by civil participation, a quality dearly needed by China. If the U.S. were to remove some of the barriers to interaction with China that date to the Tiananmen era, it would be able to advance both its own interests and influence the shape of China’s future environmental, political, and economic development. Dr. Economy specifically points to the US Agency for International Development, and asserts that, quote, “with its broad emphasis on governance, public health, rule of law, and poverty alleviation, [USAID] could be especially valuable in addressing China’s most pressing needs and the United States’ most direct interests. For USAID to become actively and directly involved in such activities, however, would require the United States to remove ether the prohibition on USAID funding of communist states or the label of communist state from China”.15 However, no matter how much help China receives from abroad, change cannot happen until there is a fundamental shift in values within China’s leadership. She reminds us that the current system has developed over thousands of years in which the greatness of leaders has been achieved through environmental exploitation, and Dr. Economy is correct when she says that “no amount of international cooperation can wholly substitute for China’s leaders and the Chinese people making the often tough choices that will be necessary for the country to change course”.16

I found the discussion of the future in her book to be fascinating, and I believe that adding these scenarios and possibilities for change within China would have added to the depth of Dr. Economy’s paper for today. This discussion would have also addressed our third field of inquiry: China can follow an environmentally friendly alternative, and the international community can play a role in giving China’s leaders the incentives they need to make fundamental changes and follow this alternative course.

III. My Perspective

My perspective on the themes of this Roundtable is that, without overlooking other large issues, the greatest challenge to the environment in the 21st century is that of fresh water. Dr. Economy touches upon this subject with respect to China’s water pollution and shortages, but the availability and accessibility of fresh water is a significant preoccupation in many parts of the world beyond China, and will only become more salient as rainfall patterns change and demand increases with economic development and urbanization. Ismail Serageldin, the former vice-president for environmental affairs at the World Bank and former chairman of the World Water Commission stated that, “the wars of the twenty-first century will be fought over water”.17 With the combinations of increasing demand for water, urbanization of the kind we see in China happening the world over, and inefficient distribution systems stemming from political incapacity and privatization, fresh water shortages will become more severe in the near future.

Dr. Economy’s ideas concerning strengthening the rule of law and enforcement apparatus in China to protect the environment can be translated to the realm of international water resources. I believe that the strength that international environmental law needs can be gained from a natural intersection with international human rights law. This intersection becomes clear when we look at the implications of nations sharing water resources. The Nile, the Danube, the Indus, Amazon, and Orange River are just a few examples of major watercourses in the world that are shared by multiple nations. Appropriate stewardship of shared water resources ideally not only protects the source itself, but also the rights of people in all nations to access that source. The right to water is not explicit in international human rights law. It can be in inferred from portions of the International Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, including the rights to an adequate standard of living and the right to the highest attainment of mental and physical health. The construction and enforcement of the right to water is necessary for human welfare in the 21st century, and will come from cooperation between environmental law and human rights law. This link is a difficult one, as there are inherent differences between human rights law and environmental law as they stand. Human rights law has the benefit of relatively strong enforcement techniques and methods for redress; where as International environmental law has taken a softer approach. Environmental law also has the potential to delve into the arena of good governance, offering guidance on how governments should be run and how they should regulate their resources.18 However, the combined efforts of international human rights advocates and environmental advocates could lead to an important discursive link between a healthy environment and human rights. This interconnection will serve to strengthen environmental law, and effective enforcement will follow.

V. Conclusion

I would like to thank Dr. Economy for joining us in this conversation and investigation of the major concerns for the future of our planet and society. Her expertise on the Chinese situation has added greatly to our understanding of the tension between environment and development, and the difficult situation in which leaders can find themselves when facing such pressures. The lesson that we can take away from Dr. Economy’s work is that the link between values, priorities, and the rule of law is paramount. If there is no way to enforce environmental legislation then the values and priorities will wane, and people will suffer the consequences. The legitimacy of the Communist Party rests on their ability to weather this environmental storm. Let us hope that Dr. Economy is correct in her hopeful vision of a green China, and that global environmental protection acquires an effective enforcement apparatus so that people can use resources for generations to come.