文章 Articles

"We can achieve green growth"

Ian Pearson is minister of state for climate change and the environment in the British government. On the eve of his first ministerial visit to China under the UK-China Sustainable Development Dialogue, he spoke to chinadialogue’s editor Isabel Hilton.
Article image

Isabel Hilton: This is the first ministerial meeting in the UK China Sustainable Development Dialogue. What do you hope to get out of it?

Ian Pearson: We hope to get an agreement on the strategy for the UK-China Sustainable Development Dialogue for the next couple of years. This will include joint work in sustainable consumption and production. When you look at the embedded carbon in the products that we buy and the fact that China manufactures most of them these days, it’s clear that we have a common agenda here. It will also include, amongst other areas, natural resource management. Under this theme, some work has also been done on forestry policy and we hope to take that forward as well – global deforestation is a huge issue that we need to tackle. The Chinese have been particularly keen to talk about urban development and of course the biggest issue today is climate change – the science and some of the daily reports we are now seeing are very worrying.

IH: Your department has given some support to www.chinadialogue.net. Is the UK China Sustainable Development Dialogue between governments and experts or do you envisage a wider dialogue?

IP: I would like it to be all of those. I think government to government dialogue is important but there is another element to the Dialogue – it includes the engagement of a range of stakeholders – we’ve been pleased how much of the latter we’ve seen so far under the dialogue. China’s 11th Five Year Plan has sustainability written into it and I think it’s a remarkably impressive document.

IH: Although China’s last Five Year Plan missed several of its environmental targets. Is it your impression that the 11th Plan will hit them?   

IP: I get the sense that they are taking it more seriously this time. There’s nothing like talking to people to really get an assessment of how important it is to them. I know the priority has been growth – and trying to ensure balanced growth, but sustainability has risen up the agenda in China.

IH: After twenty years of growth in China, there has certainly been a change of tone and a shift in official statements from the top. How much of a priority is it now for China to balance the economy and the environment?

IP: I think the environment is being given a higher priority under the 11th Five Year Plan and in the way that it will be implemented. I don’t think there’s any doubting that. The Chinese government has recognised the severe pollution problems that have been created as a result of its rapid industrial development and is taking practical measures to deal with that.

IH: How far do you think it goes?

IP: China is such vast country this can’t just be driven from the centre. It requires people in towns and cities to develop policies and to work on environmental issues. In such a vast country, performance is bound to be patchy. But I think a lot has happened in Shanghai. Shanghai wants to set higher standards environmentally and in terms of its economy and skills base. And if you talk to the mayors of Shenzhen or Guangzhou, they want to do something about it too. They still want to grow, but they are committed to doing something about the environment as well.

IH:  What do you think Britain can learn from China in this process?

IP: I’d be interested to hear more about the green GDP report that China has produced. I also think we can learn from the Chinese commitment to building the world’s first carbon neutral city in Dongtan. I’m pleased that ARUP, a British-based international company, have provided a lot of expertise in this. In terms of the scale of their ambition to tackle the environment in creating a city like that, there’s something we can learn. We need to be looking at our proposals for developing new homes in the Thames Gateway with the same degree of ambition that the Chinese are adopting in Dongtan.

IH: You are minister for climate change and this dialogue is about sustainable development – can you explain the connection between climate change and sustainable development?

IP: Sustainable development, as I see it, is about one planet living. If everybody consumed resources at the same level as the UK, we would need three planets to live on – and we’ve only got one. It’s about living within our environmental means as well as our economic means. In the past we’ve just put the word “sustainable” in front of everything and devalued what sustainable development means. But one planet living can give us all a moral purpose.

IH: But this is not something the UK has achieved, so why should China listen to the UK on this question?

IP: We certainly haven’t achieved one planet living, but we believe that’s the direction we need to go in – and go in quickly. Our economy has grown by over 40% since 1990. At the same time, greenhouse gas emissions went down by 15%; it’s estimated that if we hadn’t taken action our greenhouse gas emissions would actually be 15% higher today, rather than 15% lower. We have put in place a range of different policy initiatives – we were the first country in the world to introduce a climate change levy and the first country to introduce an emissions trading scheme. We were the architects of the European Trading Scheme. We were the first country in the world  to introduce an energy efficiency commitment on energy supplies, which has already produced around £3 billion of benefits in terms of energy efficiency measures, whether it be loft insulation or energy-efficient light bulbs in people’s houses.

The UK needs to do more, both domestically and internationally, but I don’t think people should forget some of the things we actually have done – and in a fairly painless way. I don’t think that our economy has suffered. So my message is that we can achieve green growth – and China can as well. It’s going to be vitally important that China does exactly that, because in the next 10 or 15 years it is set to be the world’s biggest economy. And the US has got to do it as well.

IH: At the launch of chinadialogue about ten days ago, a Chinese journalist came up to me and said: “What China needs is money and technology, not dialogue.” As you embark on this dialogue, what do you feel about that?

IP: I don’t think China needs money, but I do think it needs technology. I think we have a historical responsibility as a result of our past CO2 emissions. The message should be: the UK has discovered that there are better ways of industrialising, we think it’s worth your looking at them. There are opportunities for growth in ways that we weren’t aware of when we were growing strongly back in the 19th century.

IH: But the British government comes under a lot of criticism at home for the rather stately pace of all this. Missing your own emissions targets for a government which is quite keen on targets is rather embarrassing, isn’t it? You could have been more vigorous more early, surely?

IP: I do agree we should do more. We must do more, though I certainly wouldn’t use the phrase “stately pace”. We certainly haven’t given up hope of achieving a 20% reduction in CO2 by 2010. Measures in the energy white paper next year will also help set us on the path to a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. We will continue to look at what more we can do as a government. It’s an increasingly urgent task, and although we’re only 2% of the world’s problem, I believe we have a moral responsibility because we were the first nation to industrialise. You can only credibly give international leadership if you’ve got credible domestic policies. You’ve got to walk the walk.

IH: People are now thinking beyond 2012 to the regime that will follow Kyoto. What would you like to see China do for that regime?

IP: Firstly I’d like to see China fully participate in the debate. It’s good that China has been involved in the Gleaneagles dialogue process, which provides a unique space in which we can collectively discuss what needs to be done, rather than getting into negotiating mode where lines are drawn between different parties. China has got some of the best scientists, the most thorough analyses to be found anywhere in the world. China knows that as it grows it’s going to be a world-leading force. It knows that climate change and climate security is going to be an issue for China. I’m very optimistic that China will come to the conclusion it’s in their own interest to do something about tackling their CO2 emissions. 

If you look at the figures for world population growth, we will grow to 9 billion by 2015. If you look at the carbon costs of feeding 9 billion people – you can’t avoid carbon when you’re producing food -- that amount of carbon equates to the amount you can safely emit into the atmosphere if you’re going to avoid dangerous climate change.

In other words, everything that’s non-food related will have to be zero carbon: we will need zero-carbon power generation and zero carbon transport by 2015.

It shows the scale of the challenge. Zero-carbon power generation is possible. I’m keen that in the UK and Europe we lead the way. We need to say that all power generation in Europe will be zero carbon by 2020.


(During his visit to China, Ian Pearson will be meeting Du Ying, his counterpart at the National Development and Reform Commission. He will also be taking part in a roundtable event on Sustainable Development Governance and will attend the Asia Carbon Expo.)


Ian Pearson is the minister of state for climate change and the environment in the British government.

Isabel Hilton is the editor of chinadialogue

Homepage photo by Lance Webel

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

不建立在利益基础上的承诺并不可信

“中国最终会为了自身的利益而治理其二氧化碳排放。”我同意这句话。不建立在利益基础上的承诺并不可信。

Reliable promises are based on self-interest

I agree with the idea that "China will come to the conclusion it's in their own interest to do something about tackling their CO2 emissions". I do not think promises will be fulfilled if they are not based on interests.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

中国面临的可持续发展关键问题是什么?

我认为中国面临的可持续发展关键问题是:中央如何把宏观的可持续发展治理(governance)目标落实到地方政府的政治实践中去.善政是善治的关键问题.
而西方国家,包括英国在与中国进行对话时,总是忘记了中国的政治,社会和文化环境与其存在根本的差别.把在西方的价值体系和社会背景之下的制度成果直接嫁接在中国根上.这也是西方国家和中国进行比较政治学研究时面临的基本问题之一.为什么不能首先关注一下互相的政治社会文化环境的差异呢?
换句话说,中国若想要实现本土化的可持续发展,当然需要学习西方的技术和经验,然而更重要的是政府学会自己去如发现适合中国自身的方式.即学会渔,而不是得到鱼.这样,我认为,英国和西方国家的政府是可持续发展的政治和政策发展过程是应该首先和重点得到交流和学习的,其重要性甚至超过单纯的技术.

(本人在一家环境ngo主持政府官员可持续发展能力建设项目, [email protected])

What crucial problems of sustainable development does China face?

I believe that the crucial problems of sustainable development that China faces are: how can the central government bring its goal of large-scale sustainable development governance down to the level of local government enforcement? Good politics is key to good governance. In addition, Western countries, including the UK, when they are in dialogue with China, always forget Chinese politics, society, and the cultural environment, and fundamental differences that exist. They directly apply a Western value system and social background to China. This is one of the fundamental problems in political science researches comparing Western nations and China. Why can we not first concern ourselves somewhat with mutual differences in politics, society, and cultural environment? To put it another way, if China wishes to implement a native form of sustainable development, of course it must study Western technology and experience, and it is even more important that the government learns well itself how to discover a method of sustainable development that suits China. This means to study fishing skills is more useful than just to get the fish. So I think the fact that the governments of the UK and other Western countries engage in sustainable development politics and policies in the process of development should first and emphatically receive dialogue and study, the importance of which exceeds simple technology.
(This author helps government officials' sustainable development efforts at an environmental NGO, organizing projects, [email protected])

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

我们需要知道英国的经验

文章很好!
我刚到加拿大,在一家环境NGO访问。令我惊奇的是,这里的朋友总是提到英国的经验。那么,在可持续发展方面处于领先地位的英国,在过去的几十年里,做了些什么?向中国朋友介绍这样的背景,是中外对话的责任。希望Isabel能多组织这样的文章。
刘鉴强
南方周末

We want to know more about UK's sustainable development experience

This is a good article. I just arrived in Canada and am visiting an environment NGO here. It surprises me that my friends here already talk about UK's experience in sustainable development. As the UK is a world's leader in sustainable development, what has the country actually done and achieved in this regard? It is part of chinadialogue's job to introduce the UK's experience to Chinese people. I hope Isable Hilton will have more similar articles published. Liu Jianqiang from Southern Weekly

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

这个网站是不是英国政府的代言人?

因为它看起来很象是这样!

Is this site a proxy of the UK government?

Because it certainly seems like it!

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

精辟

“中国需要的是金钱和技术,而不是对话。”太经典了。
对中国人来讲,气候变暖太模糊了,这是英国这样占尽全球资源便宜的国家坐在舒服的沙发上要讨论的问题。中国人最关心的是我们还有没有可饮用的水源?我们的空气会让癌症发病率再增加多少?天然林破坏之后我们怎样面对越来越多的洪水和干旱?

Incisive

"What China needs is money and technology, not dialogue." This is absolutely right. To Chinese people, climate change is too vague, and this is a problem that the UK, the kind of country sitting comfortably on its sofa using up cheap global resources, wants to discuss. What Chinese people care most about is whether or not we have drinkable water. How much will our air make the lung cancer rate keep increasing? After the destruction of natural forests, how will we face more flooding and droughts?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

非常精彩的采访

这些问题都问得太好了!这样有头脑的记者太少了。一篇对官员的采访能做到如此精彩,非常棒!

A very brilliant interview

These questions are all very well asked! This kind of clear-headed and perceptive journalist is all too rare. An interview of an official should be done this brilliantly--great job!

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

精辟吗?

回应上一篇题为“精辟”的评论——在一篇精辟的评论中,我会提出这样的疑问:“我们怎样才能改变人们只关心眼前利益呢?”。认为人们把更多关注放在饮用水和干旱问题上是可以理解的,这种想法明智吗?可持续发展的真正问题在于如何结合短期和长期目标。中国人,正如英国和美国人一样,他们需要看到比眼前利益更远的地方,除非是发生紧急状况。(Ross,伦敦)

Incisive enough?

In response to the author of "Incisive"--an incisive comment itself--I would pose this question: "How do we turn people from short-term interests?" While it is understandable to care most of all about immediate concerns like drinking water and drought, is it wise? The real promise of sustainable development lies in uniting short- and long-term thinking. Chinese citizens, no less than British or American citizens, need to be convinced to see beyond immediate interests, except in extreme cases.
(Ross, London)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

精辟吗?

事实上,中国的很多环境危机都比您所说的紧急情况更紧急。铅中毒,铬中毒,汞中毒,重大污染事件频繁发生,很多癌症以每年50%的速度递增,甚至出现了癌症村。我在这里无法一一说明。只是想让大家知道,环境保护也需要实事求是,谁也不能要求一个连干净水都喝不到的人去关心和讨论什么全球气候变暖,即使它非常重要。
中国环境的恶化诚然在很大程度上是经济高速发展造成的,但英国等发达国家在这个过程中又向中国转移了多少重污染?《跨国公司在华污染调查》显示,很多著名国际大企业在中国公然违反中国最基本的环保法规,给中国环境造成重大伤害。这些生态补偿你们想过吗?这一切只靠对话是无法解决的,中国的确是需要金钱和技术来解决很多迫在眉睫的环境危机。

Incisive enough?

In fact, many of China's environmental crises are in an even more urgent state than you described. Lead poisoning, chromium poisoning, mercury poisoning- incidents of massive pollution are occurring very frequently. Many cancerous diseases are increasing at an annual rate of 50%, to the extent that "cancer villages" have appeared. I am unable to cite them case-by-case here. I only wish to let everyone know that environmental conservation also requires seeking out the facts. No one can expect a person who does not even have access to clean drinking water to engage in and debate global warming issues, even if these are very important. China's environmental depletion is to a large degree truly the product of rapid economic growth, yet how much heavy pollution have the UK and other industrialised countries transferred to China in this process? As "A survey of pollution caused by transnational corporations in China" illustrates, many prominent international businesses in China have publicly breached the most fundamental statutes of Chinese environmental law, and caused grievous harm to China's environment. Have you considered how to compensate for such ecological harm? Relying only on dialogue will not solve it. China really requires capital and expertise to resolve the many pressing environmental crises before its eyes.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

广泛对话

正象访谈中提到的,对话(包括“英中可持续发展对话”)应该从政府和专家间的对话发展到有更多利益相关部门之间的广泛对话。对话活动的部分责任应该是找到这些利益相关部门,使他们参加对话,并让他们在对话过程中起到积极作用。
Dapeng
[email protected]

A Wider Dialogue

As mentioned in the interview, Dialog, which includes ‘UK China Sustainable Development Dialogue’ should go beyond the contact between governments and experts and develop into a wider dialogue which includes the engagement and a range of stakeholders. Work should be carried out to identify stakeholders and get them actively evolved in the dialogue and go beyond. Dapeng [email protected]

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

精辟和精辟吗?

‘对话’指的是广义的通讯,交流,谈判等等。正象以前的‘通过对话实现和平’。现在的挑战是‘通过对话实现大家对环保的认识‘,‘通过对话来制定环保管理的措施’等等。 只有通过申请及管理措施到位才能争取到资金及技术,才能保证真正有用的技术得到发展,及确保发展资金不会落到国外的私人银行户头中。这里说道的申请,交流及管理措施就是我们谈到的‘对话’中的一部分。 (田,哈尔宾)

Incisive and Incisive enough?

The word ‘dialogue’ goes beyond the notion of chatting and has a broad meaning of communication, exchange, negotiation etc. Like the old notion of ‘peace through dialogue’, the challenge now is ‘environment awareness though dialogue’, ‘environment regulation though dialogue’,etc.

Before funding capital is made available, technology is developed / transferred, application has to be made and regulation has to be in place to safeguard the right technology is developed and funding earmarked is spent on intended targets instead finding its way to personal Swiss or overseas bank accounts. All of these application, regulation, commutation and safeguard are part of the dialogue.

(Tian, Harbin)