文章 Articles

The (impossible) American dream

For many in the developing world, it seems as if western countries have combined high-income lifestyles with a clean environment. But the truth is not so simple, writes Dale Wen, and it’s time for Chinese people to rethink their model of development.

Article image

The algae outbreak in Taihu Lake last year set off alarm bells in China once again. Looking closely at the root causes of the country’s ever-increasing ecological problems, two things become clear. First, such disasters are the result of a conventional model of economic development. Second, if China continues with this model it will not find any real solutions. 

China’s economic development has become trapped by what globalisation theorists call “latecomer disadvantage”. Late-developing countries need to expend a huge effort attracting industry to their shores. Consequently, highly polluting western companies receive special treatment as they move in to development zones across China. In order to maintain comparative advantage, many regions have overlooked the environmental cost of introducing these companies. In fact, many local governments have acknowledged – tacitly or otherwise – that the environment is the price to be paid for maintaining cost advantage. This situation has directly led to the environmental crisis that we now see in China. It also enables developed counties to plunder these late-developers. Most worryingly of all, this model of development is totally unsustainable.

Sustainability in the west

On the surface, it appears as though the people of the US, Europe and Japan have high incomes and highly consumptive lifestyles, yet enjoy a clean environment. It often looks as though we Chinese could enjoy a similar lifestyle if our technology were as advanced, our legal system as strict, our officials as clean and our people as educated as in those countries. But have these nations really achieved sustainable development? And is it actually possible for us to emulate their model?

Let’s start by considering these questions in terms of the Earth’s capacity to support life. The Living Planet Report, published by WWF in 2006, shows us how the planet is already overburdened. The demand for resources from the current human population is already 125% of what the Earth can provide. We are no longer living on nature’s interest: we have started eating into the initial investment. If we carry on consuming ecological resources at our current rate, total environmental collapse is inevitable. But the countries that consume the most are not the low- and middle-income countries where most of the Earth’s population resides. They are technologically-advanced, high-income countries with low population densities, such as the US. With only 5% of the world’s population, the US consumes around 25% of its resources. Developing countries with high populations such as China and India cannot hope to copy the US model of development. Even if we had the same advanced technology as the US, for every Chinese citizen to enjoy an American lifestyle we would need 1.12 planets. Clearly, this is an impossibility.

The countries of the west, therefore, are the real bad guys. They will find it hard enough to maintain their current lifestyles. Yet China has the world’s largest population, per capita consumption at less-than-half the world average and scarce resources. For the country to successfully follow the western model of development is impossible. We need to change our thinking, figure out how to make our resources work for us and distribute them efficiently.

An end to looting

High-income countries are home to around 15% of the world’s population. Their biological capacity represents 28% of the earth’s total, but they currently use up around 55%. How did this happen? Although developing countries largely achieved their political independence in the past several decades, economic independence is still a long way off. The naked looting of resources that took place during the colonial era may have passed, but in the globalised economy developing countries are still at the bottom of the ladder, where they provide cheap labour and resources to satisfy the excessive consumption of developed countries. If it were not for the painfully cheap labour involved in Chinese manufacturing and the similarly low costs of developing-world agricultural produce, the people of the US and Europe would be unable to enjoy their high consumption levels or cleaner environment.

China’s export-oriented economy – the so-called “workshop of the world” – has achieved great things, but it is now time to reflect on our situation. Take the textile industry, for instance. Clothes produced in China are exported all over the world, but Chinese companies only see 10% of the profits: the rest ends up in the pockets of western brands. Textile manufacture and dyeing is water-intensive and highly polluting, as is cotton production. To produce one kilogram of cotton requires roughly four kilograms of insecticide and fertiliser – and 11 cubic metres of water. If environmental costs are taken into account, the already tiny profit margins of the Chinese textile industry could even slide into negative figures. Besides textiles, many other resource-intensive, highly-polluting manufacturing industries have been transferred to China by developed countries. China is not just the workshop of the world – it has become its kitchen, sewer and rubbish tip. This is more than the already fragile Chinese environment can take. We have given our labour, resources and environment in exchange for a tiny proportion of the profits – and the rest of the world’s scorn. Cheap Chinese goods even inspire trade embargoes. The gains cannot compensate for these losses.

Exporting pollution

In the past few decades the environmental movement has achieved a number of local successes in western countries. Air and water pollution have been brought under control, and green areas are conserved, but this is still largely in middle-class areas of these countries. Most problems are not solved, but transferred to other areas. For example, polluting industries are often moved to poor areas of the country, and waste from electrical appliances is (sometimes illegally) exported to countries like China and India.

We have to ask if problems can really be solved by externalising pollution. Greenhouse-gas emissions are a global phenomenon and cannot be exported: we all live on the same planet. In the first half of 2007, for example, Beijing moved 200 factories to the outskirts of the city or other cities entirely. Many cities, rather than controlling water pollution, are bringing in water from further and further away, and extending channels so that polluted water is deposited further away. As one rural resident put it to me: “If it’s pollution in the city, it’s still pollution in the countryside.”

Living simply

A friend from the US once told me: “Our single planet cannot afford the rich any more”. If Chinese people see the lifestyle of an average American as the benchmark for prosperity, and US citizens see the lifestyle of wealthy businessmen like Bill Gates as the benchmark for prosperity, then the earth will never be able to satisfy our consumerist desires. With this in mind, the US conservation movement has as its motto: “Live simply, so others can simply live.”

The problem is reducing our personal impact on the environment can only make up for a tiny proportion of the damage done to the environment by the pursuit of wealth by large corporations and governments. Individual actions are important, but they are tiny when considered on a system-wide level. The problem, therefore, has to be tackled at the level of government.

China does not have the resources to support US levels of consumption, even if rural residents turned over all their land to make into roads. And is our model of urban life, where people drive to the gym to use an exercise bike, really that wonderful? Is it really what we want? Or what our consumerism tells us we want? The Chinese government is promoting the “scientific view of development” and the concept of “putting people first”; both of these ideas reflect on our current model of development. Is it now time for Chinese people to rethink the American dream?

Dale Wen is a scholar living in the US. She works for the International Forum on Globalization, a North-South non-profit organisation based in San Francisco with members including well-known social activists, economists, authors, scholars and researchers from 25 different countries.

Homepage photo by crizk

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous




It is everyone's responsibility to protect the environment

By Dansun 2001
In China, there are a lot of things I do not quite understand. For example, on one hand, many official governors drive or take their personal cars assigned by the government but never take a bus; on the other hand, they cry out and educate people: we must protect our environment, otherwise, the extremely changing climates will bring us disaster!
Who will believe their appeals for environmental protection will be effective?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Good article!

The reason why climate change has got so much global attention and why so many developed countries “concerned about” China’s carbon emission is, to some extent, that it is a non-transferable pollution. No matter emission from Asia or Europe, as a global pollution, the affect on climate change is the same. Although developed countries cannot deny the truth that their lifestyle causes pollution, they can avoid their responsibility on reduction of greenhouse gas emission by shifting of duty. The globalized international trade regime runs counter the idea of sustainable development. Only that consumers in developed countries and regions take on their own responsibility and offset the pollution caused by their consumption can let developing countries obtain their fair share of the benefits in international trade. Otherwise, developing countries will be one after another caught up in the vicious price competition and, as a result, pay high cost in terms of environment, health, and society for the paltry revenue at the bottom of global industry chain with low profit.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



by Morrie

The destruction will go on

China takes up its role as a world factory in the process of globalization, from which we gain slender profit but sacrifice our blue sky, greenery, rivers and soil. Although we are well aware of the environmental harms it brings, very little can be done to change the internal economic impulse. Simply because of the fact that in order to earn the maximum profit, factories that want to get orders will do their utmost to lower their costs, which include the necessary treatment for pollutant discharge. Therefore, it is important for the government to issue guidelines, make preferential policies (encourage low energy production, restrict highly polluting industry, etc), and at the same time encourage innovation on pollutant abatement technology, making the entrepreneurs feel that it will not add a huge burden upon their shoulders even though they have to take charge of the pollutants.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Excellent Article

This is an excellent article that really deals with the root of the environmental problems China and the world faces. As an American living in China, I constantly get told by Chinese people how much they love America and want to live like Americans. It's a terrible irony that the overconsumptive nature of American culture which I want no part of is the very aspect of American culture which they are striving to emulate!

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



if high-polluting is closed, what will happen?

As a chinese citizen, I think chinese govenment should found out a new way of creating more job opportunities for rural residents in case that in their hometown the high-polluted industury is closed by local govenment. For the present economy is supported by large number of town and township enterprises which created large profits and pushing china's morden development. If all those factory are closed, who will gurantee the local residents' right to earn money and how to guarantee? if there are few opportunity offered, what will they live through? This is another plainly truth.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



won't success

I'm not optimistic on the envioment issue. There won't be a common sense, not to say action.

My hometown is in central china and it's poor and clean. it looks like both of this will disappear. How can you stop people, especially govenors, from getting rich?

Mengfei, student in Beijing.
if there was no problem with my computer, i'd rather comment in Chninese.....

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



China may find out a new way

The way is using as little natural resource as possible while developing.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



The Obvious

Notwithstanding that Mr. Wen's article states the obvious; it shows that common sense (especially in the USA) is not very common after all. It is the air, soil, and water that provides life, not iPods...

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Not seeing does not mean not existing

Dale Wen's article is very classic and it analyzes the idealism of sustainable development. High energy-consuming, emission and highly polluting companies want to export pollution from developed countries or regions to developing countries or regions. They may think no one can sense the pollution transfer. But doesn't it exist any more? Isn't it polluting the air on the Earth? (Chu Qiao)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous


我来自中国大陆,现住在欧洲。不得不说,和中国人相比,欧洲人随意消耗更多的食品,各种资源及能源。例如,我们看一下欧洲的纺织工业。Primax(一服装商店)销售的纺织品价格比中国国内销售价格还便宜。所以,消费者即使不需要这些商品也会疯狂购买。而大多数纺织品都是从中国进口的,即使它们贴有产自东欧或其它亚洲国家的标签。最后,所有看不到的环境消耗都由中国来承担。而欧洲消费者不会三思而后“买”。那些便宜的服装商店对市场有不良影响。没有人可以从中受益。Syssy Liu

consume less, live longer

I am a Mainland Chinese living in Europe,I have to say comparing with most Chinese, Europeans are consuming much more regardless of food, everyday living or energy, for example,let's look at the textile industry. In a store called Primax, some pieces are even cheaper than what Chinese can buy at in China. It is so cheap that the consumers will buy madly without exactly thinking,and most of the products are from China,even they might have been put together in Eastern Europe or other Asian countries,but in the end all the invisible environmental cost will be left in China. European consumers will consume without second thought,I think cheap stores are bad for the market, in the end nobody is benefiting...... Syssy Liu