Can an Unfree China Be Green?
Originally appeared in The American, December 9, 2009
President Obama has chosen to downplay the lack of freedom in China. By doing so, he gives up on a vital prerequisite for an effective, credible emission-control regime.
If the UN climate conference in Copenhagen produces a deal, China, not the United States, will largely shape its terms. China is the biggest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and it is the fastest-growing source. To be successful, a global GHG control regime simply has to curb Chinese emissions.
Going into the talks, China has offered to lower the average volume of greenhouse gas that it emits to produce each dollar of economic output. However, China’s economy is still growing rapidly; hence, its emissions will continue to rise even as its GHG intensity falls. Further, as Chinese industry modernizes, it will burn less fuel (and emit less) per dollar of output. Predictably, then, International Energy Agency figures show that China’s promised decline in GHG intensity would happen were the Copenhagen conference never to take place.
China’s inaction fits a larger pattern. Controls have taken hold in Western Europe and in the parts of the United States that most resemble Western Europe. Other countries such as Japan, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia continue to flirt with the concept. All these countries have two things in common.
First, they have been affluent for several generations. Partly as a result of this, they have woven elaborate social safety nets. Over time, these factors have fostered a sense of economic security. This sense of security, notes sociologist Ronald Inglehart, leads to the rise of “post-materialist” values. In these societies, many people prefer environmental values over economic growth. Strong green movements flourish in such settings, and, in fact, all of the states that appear to be moving toward GHG controls have such movements.
Second, states receptive to GHG controls are structured so that their citizens can organize for political action and their governments must heed grassroots pressure. For the most part, only democracies achieve the wealth needed for the rise of post-materialist values. Further, without democracy, green values, even should they somehow emerge, could find no political voice.
China does not meet either of these conditions. Its wealth is growing, but is very new, and much of the population remains poor. Its social safety net is sieve-like. Access to political organization is strictly circumscribed, as are speech and press rights. Courts are subject to political manipulation.
Click here for the full version of this aritlce
Lee Lane is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
FURTHER READING: Lane recently testified before Congress on energy independence and climate change. In “If Only It Were a Tax,” he explained the main problem with greenhouse gas legislation. Last week, he and David Montgomery published “Organized Hypocrisy as a Tool of Climate Diplomacy,” examining the past 20 years of greenhouse-gas discussions worldwide.
A JOINT PROGRAM OF
