China is committing suicide..

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
I didn’t read that they were fixing the problem. I read Švejk using that example to show that an authoritarian system can demand change quickly.
[/QUOTE]

In theory it could…but in practice it won’t, simply because of how the Chinese government and business is structured. People here say that government is in the pocket of Big Business, and to some extent this is true. Big Business pay a lot of money to special interests and PACS to get politicians who are favorable to whatever it is they are wanting to do. However, ultimately those politicians are still responsible to the people who vote for them…and if they fuck up to much or cater to much to Big Business to the detriment of the public, then those politicians will be out of a job.

In China the government not only controls business but has a vested interest in it. Party leaders directly or indirectly control factories and businesses…personally control them I mean. And derive direct economic benefit from those factories and businesses. Oh, to be sure, the state doesn’t ‘own’ all the businesses in China anymore…but the party leaders still exert a real and direct control of business in China.

And these are the same folks who would, in theory, be imposing draconian environmental changes to help fix the country. See the problem?

[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
Let’s say that, in the interest of national fuel consumption, the U.S. government decided that SUVs would no longer be permitted on roads. (Silly example and I’m not proposing it). How fast would that happen? Could it even happen?
[/QUOTE]

Go to a used car lot somewhere in your home town. Look around. What do you see? If it’s like my own town what you will see is…a lot of SUV’s, sitting around and drawing dust. Now…turn on the TV and look for truck ads. What do you see? If you are watching the channels I am what you will see is…a hell of a lot of truck manufacturers becoming increasingly desperate to sell you a truck, no matter what it takes.

Assuming you buy any of that, the question is…why? What happened?

So…how long would it take to get big vehicles off the road? Depends…but to START taking them off in large numbers it really doesn’t take all that long at all. The market is much more effective at doing so than government fiat.

[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
In China, it would be quick, and if they wanted it to happen, it would.
[/QUOTE]

How? How would they do it? Would they simply say, by fiat, that no one can drive an SUV anymore? Then what? What would be the ramifications to that, both socially and economically? Would their government provide new cars to all the workers and peasants who had to turn in SUV’s? Would this draconian law also effect the party elite?

I don’t believe that China could institute such a directive any quicker than the simple increase in the price of gas at the pump has done here in the US…or the price of gas has done in Europe for the past few decades. In fact, while I think they could ISSUE such a directive no problem, I don’t think they could (or would) enforce it…certainly not as easily as you seem to think.

[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
So, when China decides it is a problem, they can use measures to fix the problem unavailable to the U.S. Totalitarian governments may not be the most responsive to the individual, but they can move very quickly.
[/QUOTE]

In theory you are correct…they COULD move quickly, depending on what the problem is, because they don’t have to worry about pissing off the people. The can dictate by fiat. In practice though…well, it depends on the problem that needs fixing and what the interests are of the individuals in power related to the problem.

-XT

22

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Historical comparisons may not apply. It’s true that the United States and Western Europe were able to clean up their countries after earlier periods of rampant pollution. But China is polluting at a 21st century level - they’re going to create a lot more pollution during their development period than past countries did during theirs.
[/QUOTE]

Hmmm. Different kinds of pollution, certainly. Total quantity produced by China, massively bigger than that produced by the US, UK, Germany etc back in the 1900s, yes. But I’m not sure the absolute levels are any worse in any given town in china than they were in places like the Ruhr, the Black Country, Pittsburgh etc. Japan apparently used to be a “polluters paradise” during the fifties and sixties when it was making it’s dash for growth, and produced some horrific disasters like Minamata. All these countries have had areas as dirty as the dirtiest parts of china are now (or even worse) and managed to clean them up. However it’s likely that modern pollution may be a lot worse because of all the complex chemicals that are being used nowadays.

Every time I’ve seen pictures or accounts of how bad pollution used to be in the west, I’m astounded anyone survived at all.
Check out incidents like Donora and the noon-time photo.

23

[QUOTE=Švejk]
Well, I’m not saying that the authoritarian system is doing much to help alleviate the situation now, or that issuing a decree to the effect that several 100.000 cars stay off the road for a couple of months is a solution. I’m just saying that the fact that China has a command economy (that is, xtisme, they are indeed intertwined, and there is no real separation - big business = the state) may play a helpful role when the time comes that really drastic measures need to be implemented. Please note that western democracies, and the US especially if you don’t mind me saying so, have not been particularly quick on the uptake when it comes to environmental problems, and that democracies are generally slow when it comes to implementing drastic changes.
[/QUOTE]

Two more reasons why the central government wouldn’t be able to change things very quickly. First, in such a large country, the local officials, with their culture of corruption, are not going to shut down their major source of income very quickly. Second, consider how much of our progress on the environment came via pressure from the press. The Chinese press is self-censured. They will break something too big for the government to cover up (like the shoddy construction processes which led to so many deaths in the earthquake) but local papers are less likely to antagonize the local party.

We might see some progress if the Olympics are such a disaster as to shame the government. We’ll see.

24

[QUOTE=xtisme]

Go to a used car lot somewhere in your home town. Look around. What do you see? If it’s like my own town what you will see is…a lot of SUV’s, sitting around and drawing dust. Now…turn on the TV and look for truck ads. What do you see? If you are watching the channels I am what you will see is…a hell of a lot of truck manufacturers becoming increasingly desperate to sell you a truck, no matter what it takes.

Assuming you buy any of that, the question is…why? What happened?
[/quote]

What happened was a great lot of individual decisions to get rid of SUVs because they were too expensive collectively leading to lots of SUVs in used car lots. But it was not one enforced decision taken by the US government , or even something that was came in part as a result of the US government. It was the market working, and the important variable here is supply of oil, not damage to the environment. So while the rising gas prices (as I’ve argued elsewhere) might be a blessing in disguise for the US, the fact that people are starting to drive cars with better mileage is not the result of the capacity of the democratic system to solve pressing problems.

Of course, xtisme, your point about Chinese party leaders not being the group most likely to want to solve this situation is very well taken, but all the same, if they wanted to, they’d be in a much better position than democratic leaders to do so. China being an autocracy and not a democracy does not put them at a disadvantage per se when it comes to solving these problems, and it might even put them at an advantage. As you said, in the West we sometimes say the government is owned by big business, in China, big business (and elsewhere) is “owned” by the government.

25

Well, it might just solve the problem of the “Emerging Economic Superpower That Is China” now, won’t it? That will lessen the Chinese demand on oil supplies as well.

Not much of a silver lining, is it?

26

[QUOTE=xtisme]
In theory it could…
[/QUOTE]

I do understand your point. But China managed to pretty successfully impliment a one child policy (perhaps not the best thought out policy, but one that gets at the root of the ideas of family, culture, and what individuals can control - hard things to change) - and they did so very quickly. I guess I wouldn’t choose to underestimate the efficiency with which they can CHOOSE to create change, should they choose to create it.

27

[QUOTE=Quartz]
Is this not a necessary part of China’s development? After all, the West went through this stage. They’ll deal with it when they can afford to do so. Sure it may be 50 or 100 years, but the Chinese do take the longer view.
[/QUOTE]

That’s exactly how to look at it. Except, I think China (and most of the later-developing world) can move through the stages the West went through more rapidly. (And China does seem to be producing wealth at a high pace) So maybe they won’t need 100 years.

28

[QUOTE=Voyager]
The Chinese press is self-censured. They will break something too big for the government to cover up (like the shoddy construction processes which led to so many deaths in the earthquake) but local papers are less likely to antagonize the local party.

[/QUOTE]

Since this thread got bumped, I’ll note here that the man who was instrumental in spreading information about shoddy construction processes and government corruption leading to the worsening of the earthquake disaster just got arrested for “possessing state secrets.” :rolleyes:

29

If they stay true to form, they will probably make the mans family pay for the bullets…

-XT

30

In response to the posts comparing China’s indrustrial grwoth with the early history of western industrial development, I got to thinking that a few big differences exist between then and now.

Back then, although it was dirty, unhealthy and even toxic, the pollutants that were commonly emitted were not just as nasty as the Chinese are producing.

The nastiest stuff that the early industrial revolution produced was probably mercury based compounds. Also in the running were other heavy metals like lead, and elements like strynine, arsenic, asbestos. The list obviously continues, but what is missing is the many nasty products of modern chemical engineering.

China produces a huge volume of plastics, with lax environmental controls. The by products of these processes can be very toxic, insideous and long lasting. The same things can be said of their rubber, textiles and paint/dye manufacturing.

Many of these processes did not exist or were done differently in the western industrial revolution.

The problem of scale and geographic spread is also a contributing factor in this issue.

Regards
FML

31

[QUOTE=Flipshod]
That’s exactly how to look at it. Except, I think China (and most of the later-developing world) can move through the stages the West went through more rapidly. (And China does seem to be producing wealth at a high pace) So maybe they won’t need 100 years.
[/QUOTE]
It seems to me that if China is committing “suicide”, then they’re most likely also going to be committing “murder”. That is, unless I missed it, so far in this thread China’s pollution has been treated as if it were purely a local issue.

If we assume that AGW is credible (note that I’m purposely avoiding any position, as I don’t want to start a global warming debate), we’ve likely come very close to an environmental tipping point. And we’ve gotten to that point without the additional pollution generated by China (and other developing nations). Unless the newly generated pollution is more than offset by reductions of other, post-industrial countries, the trend will not only continue, but will accelerate. And everyone will end up paying the price.

Again, I’m not taking a position here; just pointing out the local vs. global point.

32

Sounds like what one could call “an inconvenient truth”.