I’ve now read the full prepared text of Secretary Paulson’s April 3 remarks at the Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. I’m sure he is sincere in his efforts to both help China and improve market access for US products. I am also sure he did not write this speech. It is not quite as preachy in tone as the initial reports suggested, but its style is familiar to anyone who has heard a US dignitary-comes-to-China speech. It is meant to convey a sense of “I’m only here to help,” but comes across, at least to my ear, as condescending.
Ecce:
China today faces similar [to the US in 1960's and 1970's] and daunting environmental challenges. According to the World Bank, 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities are in China. Water quality also has deteriorated. Ninety percent of all rivers show signs of significant pollution, and 62 percent of water is unsuitable for fish. We have followed with great interest the ways you have sought to address the pollution issues surrounding Lake Tai in Jiangsu Province.
It’s nice to know that with all Secretary Paulson must have on his plate right now, he still finds time to read the latest news on increased fees for COD discharges into Taihu.
In the United States, we address our problems by combining strict laws and regulations with the will and capacity to enforce them. The hazards created by the Cuyahoga River led to the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Subsequent efforts to clean the Cuyahoga have been so successful that Lake Erie now has a thriving $600 million dollar annual fishing industry.
A 2% truth at best. Certainly, the Cuyahoga River has gotten cleaner; however, the Cuyahoga is only one of many rivers that flow into Lake Erie, and it was by no means the only polluted one. Cleaning up the Cuyahoga alone would not have brought commercial fishing back to Lake Erie. The assumption here apparently was that the Chinese would be as ignorant of US watersheds as the speechwriter.
China has moved towards meeting some of these goals in 2007. China reduced energy consumption over 3 percent per unit of GDP output, and has made progress in reducing water pollution and sulfur dioxide emissions. While I applaud this continued focus and am encouraged by China’s progress to date, further results cannot come fast enough.
Well, you get my point.
The Chinese press appears to have largely ignored the speech. There was a short piece in the English version of Xinhua , which essentially mirrors the Chinese version. The closest the article comes to reporting on Paulson’s specific recommendations is found in these paragraphs:
He said technology must be developed and adopted at a faster pace in the energy and environmental sectors. Policies and regulations must be developed and refined to create the proper incentives and price signals. U.S. and Chinese institutions need to manage the new demands of energy and environmental issues in innovative ways.
He urged both governments and industries of both countries to play a role in reducing greenhouse gases and pollution, increasing energy security and natural resource conservation, and increase public awareness of the environmental impacts of energy choices.
A for intentions, C- for execution; but let me conclude with “more power to the SED, best wishes for success to all US - China environmental and energy projects, and lower tariffs on environmental control and energy efficiency products now!”
5 responses so far ↓
1 nanheyangrouchuan // Apr 5, 2008 at 1:59 am
“Cleaning up the Cuyahoga alone would not have brought commercial fishing back to Lake Erie.”
The Cuyhoga is the most infamous example of US water pollution, that is why it was used as an example. But there is no denying that Lake Erie water is so clean now that you can go waste deep from the shore and still see the bottom, and drink directly from the lake as well.
Note in your quotes from Chinese officials the constant shying away from law enforcement and focus on technology (especially free technology that the US should be giving China as it deserves free things from developed countries).
2 cmcelwee // Apr 5, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Lamb kebab: Thanks for you comments. As someone who lived in Cleveland for many years I’m well aware of the Cuyahoga’s symbolic value. I wrote about it here: http://www.chinaenvironmentallaw.com/?p=42. The symbolic nature of the river, however, doesn’t give it magical powers to clean up an entire Great Lake as Paulson’s speech suggests.
As to the technology issue, I think Paulson made a strategic error in some of his comments. He’s quoted in a Bloomberg article as saying: “There’s something that doesn’t seem economically sensible and morally right about charging a tariff on clean technology.” I think it is a mistake to suggest that you are willing to engage in a debate on the “morality” of this specific trade issue. China’s whole point is that it is not morally right for developed countries to tell developing countries that they should clean up their pollution problems because they are killing their own citizens (and everybody else for that matter) and then refuse to hand over the technology that can stop the killing. Believe me, I’m not saying China is right on this issue; they can and should pay for and use available pollution control technology, but the US shouldn’t suggest a stroll down morality lane to resolve this dispute.
3 nanheyangrouchuan // Apr 8, 2008 at 3:33 am
The difference between pollution prevention then and now is that the US and Europe had to learn the hard and expensive way. China (and to a lesser extent India, ASEAN, etc) but all with China’s diplomatic support are in essence saying “because the West made a mess in the past on the way to development, we have the right to make a mess now AND the West should subsidize our clean up efforts, but don’t preach to us about educating our population or enforcing our laws (even though law enforcement had a much bigger impact than technology ever had in the West’s environmental progress).
Additionally, many of these countries are embarking on massive “shiny” projects, including big military expenditures and commercial space launches, and yet still demand that the EU and US foot the bill for their basic humanitarian expenses (like environmental clean up).
4 cmcelwee // Apr 8, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I think its important to make a distinction here between cross-border pollution and domestic pollution.
China’s cross-border pollutants of concern are primarily green house gases (sure the Songhua river also flows through Russia and some Chinese particulates show up on the US west coast, but there aren’t international protocols addressing those issues). China’s contribution to the current “climate-imperiling” stock of GHG is relatively small. The vast majority of GHGs have been produced by developed nations. If someone has to clean those up, it seems fair to ask the developed countries to foot the bill (by taking on the lion’s share of the cost of current GHG reductions). Most developed countries (and China) chose to play by these rules, the US did not. On the GHG issue, its hard to contend that the US has learned anything the “expensive way” yet. I personally don’t see anything wrong with China saying “look one way to pay for cleaning up your mess is to give me your technology which I can make and use at a cost lower than yours. Then I can reduce GHG emissions at a cost lower than you can, so for the same amount of your money, we can have greater emission reductions.” Actually, I’m not even sure that China is being this brazen in its next-Kyoto-round bargaining position, but it would not offend me from a fairness perspective if it was. As to preaching from the US on law enforcement, neither China nor the US have laws which limit carbon emissions so I don’t think the US has been or would be hypocritical enough to offer sermons on this score.
As to domestic pollution (that pollution which only acutely effects the Chinese), it is much harder to contend that fairness dictates any technology handouts. Some people seek to pass the blame for China’s pollution woes to US consumers’ demands for ever-lower priced goods from China’s factories, but I don’t buy that (see “Who’s Cleaning Up This Mess?” in the right sidebar). China has the obligation to put its own house in order, and it should pay to do so. I don’t think there is much push back on this point from China, and any attempts for free or low priced-technology to address these problems (and I’m not aware that these attempts are being seriously pursued) are simply part of a bargaining gambit, not a principled, fairness-based argument. Turning to preaching on this issue, I suppose the 55 year-old former two-pack a day smoker has as much right as anyone (even the current smoker) to inform the 16 year old that smoking is bad for his health and he should quit now, but it’s hard to be very persuasive on the point when the 16-year old says, fine I’ll stop smoking when I’m 49 just like you.
As to the “shiny” projects, the US put a man on the moon before it passed a Clean Water Act, and it is hardly in a position to complain about military buildups in a country which is reliant on foreign oil, but doesn’t yet have the ability to project power to protect its sources of and supply lines for that oil. I’m not defending space projects or big military buildups, but succumbing to the charms of these shiny bits is not a uniquely Chinese foible.
5 nanheyangrouchuan // Apr 10, 2008 at 1:34 am
“China’s cross-border pollutants of concern are primarily green house gases”
Says who? Airborne mercury and lead from coal plants in China has been tracked by satellite and samples of marine life across the Pacific.
“Most developed countries (and China) chose to play by these rules, the US did not.”.
I hope you are not referring to Kyoto. Japan is the only country that has met any of its targets. Kyoto is nothing but some kind of environmental affirmative action plan.
“The vast majority of GHGs have been produced by developed nations. If someone has to clean those up, it seems fair to ask the developed countries to foot the bill (by taking on the lion’s share of the cost of current GHG reductions)”
The world has also benefitted greatly by the developed nation’s emissions. So things balance out.
“look one way to pay for cleaning up your mess is to give me your technology which I can make and use at a cost lower than yours.”
So far the only thing China has done consistently with this technology is to reverse engineer it for sale to less developed countries. Factory managers bypass equipment they are forced to install because of maintenance costs (materials and skilled maintenance people).
“As to the “shiny” projects, the US put a man on the moon before it passed a Clean Water Act”
But not NEPA or the Air Quality Act (predecessor to the CAA). And don’t forget the sanitation laws regarding water quality that started with the cholera outbreaks in London about 120 years ago.
“and it is hardly in a position to complain about military buildups in a country which is reliant on foreign oil, but doesn’t yet have the ability to project power to protect its sources of and supply lines for that oil.”
China is to blame for China’s reliance on foreign oil, as are we for our reliance. And our navy protects China’s oil as well as ours, which contributes to our CO2 output.
“I’m not defending space projects or big military buildups, but succumbing to the charms of these shiny bits is not a uniquely Chinese foible.”
The difference is that the US and EU spent 120 years learning, researching and making mistakes to get the tech that the world has now.
A country like China might have a more legitimate argument for free “green” tech if it wasn’t so fixated on ripping off the IP for profit or spending its available money on military projects to conquer Taiwan, punish Japan and “solve” numerous other border disputes with all of its neighbors while working on a blue water navy to confront the US AND building a manned space program, something that neither the EU or Japan has (despite much, much cleaner environments).
Likewise, many other developing countries want the same sort of welfare while they also build up their militaries and build shiny buildings.
If these countries can afford new Russian fighters and French submarines, they can afford
to pay for new emissions technology.
Leave a Comment