文章 Articles

Clearing the air with China

This year, China broke a 161-year-old temperature record. The environmental consequences of the country’s breakneck growth are evident, says Orville Schell, and coal is at the heart of the crisis.
Article image

As bitterly cold air pours down from Siberia each winter, one of the charms of this ancient capital has been the sight of bundled-up people heading to Beijing's picturesque frozen canals and lakes for ice skating.

This year, however, a 161-year-old temperature record was broken, causing the ice to melt in early February. As young women walked Beijing's streets in short skirts instead of heavy winter clothes, Chinese were confronted in the starkest way with the phenomenon of global warming.

Indeed, almost everywhere one turns today in China, the environmental consequences of the country's economic juggernaut are evident. A recent trip northwest from Beijing through the coal-rich province of Shanxi revealed an almost endless landscape in black and white where the sun rarely shines because of uncontrolled air pollution from coal-fired plants that produce electrical power, cement and fertilizer. Meanwhile, glaciologists now report that high up on the Tibetan Plateau, where glaciers have for millennia fed most of the major river systems of Asia -- Yangtze, Yellow, Mekong and Brahmaputra -- there is an annual melt rate of 7%, giving these life-sustaining waterways estimated actuarial tables of less than two decades. In 2000, the U.N. Development Program reported that air pollution was already causing about 400,000 premature deaths a year. It is hardly surprising, as China is home to 16 of the 30 cities with the worst air pollution in the world.

In today's China, nature is on the run, and at the heart of this environmental crisis sits coal, from which the country derives 69% of its primary energy and 52% of its electricity. China uses well over 2.2 billion metric tonnes of the stuff per year -- more than the United States, India and Russia combined -- and produces more conventional harmful emissions than the United States.

Sometime next year, China could surpass the United States in greenhouse-gas emissions, but the average person in China still consumes less than one-fifth the energy the average American does. For China to achieve the same living standard as the United States, it would have to triple its use of coal, creating an enormous increase in both conventional pollutants and greenhouse gases. And make no mistake about it, China is angling to catch up. In fact, to keep up with this voracious demand for energy, a new conventional coal-fired power plant comes on-line in China every week.

China is not alone. The United States has 100 to 160 conventional coal-fired plants on the drawing boards, all with life spans of about 40 years, and none equipped to capture and sequester CO2. Indeed, as oil and gas have become increasingly expensive, countries rich in coal have found themselves relying on it ever more. The global consequences of continuing this trend without first adopting new "clean coal" technologies will be dire.

And for those unimpressed by the more distant threat of climate change, there is always the immediate problem of conventional pollutants. China's State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) estimates that sulphur-dioxide (SO2) emissions alone are causing China's GNP an annual loss of 12%, which is about equal to its impressive growth rate.

Meanwhile, the United States has opted out of the Kyoto Protocol, while China has signed on only as a developing country, which means it is obliged to meet no binding commitments to reduce its emissions. Last November, China did commit itself to deriving 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 and to cutting the energy consumed per unit of GDP by 20% over five years. But during the first half of last year, Beijing not only failed to meet these targets but had an increase of 8% in energy consumption per unit of GDP. Initial reports from China's massive hydropower facility at the Three Gorges are also underwhelming; it appears that the Yangtze River isn't yet flowing fast enough to keep the turbines turning.

Concerned about keeping economic growth rates high enough to maintain social order, Chinese officials recently lobbied to tone down the alarming conclusions of the just-released report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and reaffirmed their unwillingness to commit China to any limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

"China is still a country with a huge developing population," said Qin Dahe, a ranking Chinese climate change negotiator, justifying his country's inaction.

There is a certain degree of justice in China's official view. After all, for more than a century, the United States has been a profligate emitter of CO2, and it continues to refuse to face the fact that it is the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases.

But justice or no, the world is left to confront a situation in which the two largest polluters have opted out of the solution. If the United States will not lead, China will not follow, and the results will be tragic: both countries will suffer grievously, and so will the rest of the world.

What, then, is to be done?

The next US presidential election will present a fleeting moment of opportunity, if only the candidates can be persuaded to commit themselves to pursuing a major new cooperative effort to tackle our common problem.

What could be more promising than our leaders jointly seizing the reins of lapsed global leadership and guiding our two countries, and the world, out of this impasse?

How should we proceed? By forming a coalition of respected scientists, business leaders and policy experts, calling a high-level emergency summit with their counterparts in China and then enlisting the US presidential candidates to pledge to make the coal/climate change issue a priority. The ultimate goal should be to undertake a US$25 billion collaborative effort, with the United States providing capital, technological know-how and entrepreneurial and managerial skills and China providing some resources of its own, research, critical leadership among developing countries, its low-cost manufacturing base and its prodigious market energy.

Not only would such a plan be an encouraging first step toward solving the world's most urgent long-term problem, it would also bring the United States and China together in a new common endeavour. Indeed, if any initiative could begin to ease US fears that China may become an economic or military threat, and at the same time allay Chinese suspicions that this country seeks to deny China its rightful place in the world, global warming is the place to start.

Finally, for those realists who understand that costly projects are rarely a matter of pure altruism, it is worth remembering that an initiative of this kind presents candidates with exactly the kind of win-win proposition that worried voters are now eager to support. Moreover, should the United States and China find a way to undertake such a collaborative effort, it would not only be a historic expression of global political leadership, but could turn both nations into constructive partners at the centre of what may well become a dynamic and lucrative new sector of the global economy.

Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, the United States and China have been irrevocably brought together by this common problem. Like it or not, the two countries have become each other's keeper, and unless our leaders can find new ways to cooperate on this epic challenge, the world will pay a bitter price.

Orville Schell is director of the Center on US-China Relations at the Asia Society and a longtime writer on China.

Homepage photo by LHOON

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





Sino-American Relations

America should make some changes to the longlasting belief that China is a threat instead of someone to collaborate. On the issue of global warming, China and America, the two large nations, have responsibility and obligation to work together for a solution. It would be the beginning of a global tragedy if we insist on a conflicting attitude, stick to ideology problems and resist an open mind for problem solving. When we are facing climate change, global interest should be placed above national as well as regional interests.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

保护环境 彰显国力


Protect the environment, enpowering the nation.

An article from China Daily for recommendation. see

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous


"明年的某一天,中国的温室气体排放将超过美国,但中国的人均能源消费仍然不到美国的五分之一。" 个人认为笔者在上句中总量与人均的比较是不够科学的,会在某种程度上夸大真实问题。在同一个比较的语句中,要么都用总量,要么都用人均,才可以看到真正的差距,据我所知,中国的人均温室气体排放量要比美国低得多,好像是1/3还是 1/5?

About the carbon-emission comparison between China and America in the article

"Sometime next year, China could surpass the United States in greenhouse-gas emissions, but the average person in China still consumes less than one-fifth the energy the average American does." I personally think it would be more logical not to compare a total with an average, which will to some extend exaggerate the truth. The truth difference can only be revealed if, in the clause making comparison, we use two totals, or two averaged. As far as I know, the per capita greenhouse gas emission of China is much lower than that of the America, maybe 1/3 or 1/5?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Anthony Barnett

Why must the US lead?

Thanks for clear overview, but must the following claim be the case: "If the United States will not lead, China will not follow, and the results will be tragic: both countries will suffer grievously, and so will the rest of the world"? Does the US have to lead? Why can't China do so? If China did lead, would not the US have to follow?

Anthony Barnett

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous






what I feel really sad about is that people who live outside of china seem care so much more about China's environment than those people who live in the country.

Why is that???

isn't that more important for people who live in the country to realize the importance of protecting the environment????

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



answer to why

a really quick answer to the comment 5 is, will you start worrying about blue sky and future climate change when you cannot have enough money to feed your children and yourself today? try to stand at their position and look at their immediate concerns rather than assuming they should think the same as you.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous


“The Gramsci-Schwarzenegger dialectic: China, the U.S. and climate change politics. ”所指出的那样。

Caspar Henderson

who leads?

This article by Schell first appeared in the Washington Post on 15 April, so was largely intended for US readers. In response to comment 4 notes, there are some ways in which China already leads the US - for example vehicle engine efficiency; but it is likely that China will continue to need and benefit from technological input from other nations. In terms of political initiatives, why should they not come from people in both countries, and others, working together. A task force of the kind Schell suggests could be broadened out - perhaps as I have suggested in The Gramsci-Schwarzenegger dialectic: China, the U.S. and climate change politics.

Caspar Henderson

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Re Comment 6

Do we have to wait till adequate food and shelter are being provided before we start caring about climate change? Actually, if the environment worsens like this, it will be an issue of survival for many people. When our survival is endangered, wouldn't food and shelter be luxuries? Another reality is that the poorer are the more vulnerable to polution. And for those people who have achieved moderate prosperity, they are less vulnerable. Furthermore, they are contributing more to the pollution of the environment, even without recognising that a deteriorating environment could actually threaten their own lives. Therefore, it is extremely important to improve public awareness of environmental issues. Juliet

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous







Re Comment 8

Juliet, I think you pointed out a reality, that the poorer are the more vulnerable to pollution, and the richer are less vulnerable and contribute more to the pollution. This is true to the climate change. The CO2 emission that have taken the world to today's dangerous situation was by majority produced by developed countries during their industrialisation rather than the developing countries today, because CO2 stays in atmosphere for 100-200 years for its warming effects.

But unlike early industrialisation countries, today's developing countries are more constrained by natural resources and international environment issues. Similar to other pollution in China, a large proportion of the pollution generated in China is from manufacturing export products; therefore people in developed countries can enjoy cheap goods without suffering from pollution they cause. This kind of "pollution export" has been part of the reasons for the improved environment in developed counties.

I am not saying that Chinese people should not care about their own environment. Rather, nothing can be more important for us to realize the serious situation and to react to save our own environment, because as you say, it will be an issue of survival for many people soon. But on the other hand, shall people in developed just urge Chinese people and Chinese government to be more responsible, while themselves only remain as a "morally superior" international environment watchdog, pointing out this and that wrong with their clean hand? There are many ways for the developed countries to be more responsible for what they have caused and there is large scope to collaborate with the developing countries to avoid repeating the same mistakes again, for our own common environment, but scolding without considering their situation certainly isn't one of them.

I wouldn't feel really sad if there are people caring more about China's (but in fact it is the whole world's) environment than Chinese people themselves. In fact, how much Chinese people care about their living environment cannot be simply judged by what they are doing. Most of us, wherever, are unfortunately short-eyesight animal, not just in China or developing countries. Compromise is always made in our decision, and immediate demand always comes with high priority. 饮鸩止渴 is not a right thing to do, but is now a real thing done in many places. The more you know, the more urgent you will feel to help them out of the dilemma situation. But that need real actions from the more wealthy, more developed and hopefully more civilized countries.

Tao Wang

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Good comment!!!

I strongly support the opinions elaborated in Comment nine!! Well done, Tao Wang. Environmental problems face all human beings, thus coordinated efforts are needed to find solutions.