Of all the constraints facing China, environmental constraints to growth may end up looming even larger than the absence of rule of law. But that may be cold comfort, given the damage being done. Neal Asbury in "China's Environmental Meltdown: On it's Way to America" [sic, subscription only]:
"Recently I stood on the 23rd floor of a downtown Seoul office building. In the middle of the day I could barely see the silhouettes of buildings nearby. The sun was blotted from the sky. The people outside scurried about with white masks covering their faces as if attacked by biological weapons. A thick grimy dust coated everything. No matter how hard and often you scrub you can never make it go away."
Remember Cicero's picture from China in "Wish You Happy"? This phenomenon is called "Yellow Dust" - and it comes from China. On average, the Chinese are bringing 1 coal-fired power plant on line per week, each with a 75 year lifespan, generally using 1950s technology rather than anything like new clean coal tech, and often burning high-sulfur coal. Neal adds that China's emissions rise over the next 10 years will surpass by 5x the decreases that the Kyoto Protocol seeks from the rest of industrialized world (and will not get). Nor is that all:
"Indonesian Borneo and Sumatra are undoubtedly one of the most important habitats of wildlife in the world. There is believed to be thousands of plant and animal species still undiscovered. It is unthinkable but many of these species will become extinct before we ever knew they existed. Since the mid 90's when China's economy kicked into high-gear, nearly five million acres per year of Indonesian tropical rainforests have been destroyed for their timber. This is an area about half the size of the Netherlands..."
And of course, massive fires are now an annual feature there, sending smoke clouds over Indonesia's neighbours. Neal suggests a remedy - though that remedy will not alleviate China's biggest environmental issue, which is neither of these things:
It's water, of course. Get used to hearing that word a lot this century.
"The deforestation of China's north and northeast provinces has created a large, desert wasteland. Decades of timber exploitation, slash and burn farming techniques and population growth has resulted in desiccation or the elimination of water resources as plant life disappears, rainfall shrinks and lakes disappear. More than fifty percent of China's land is either arid or semi-arid, mostly the result of man-made activities."
I'm not sure I'd say "mostly"... but they have certainly been a big contributor. Industrialization exacerbates this problem, because it requires more water than farming.
If supplies are limited, and clean supplies are even more so, but an influx of migrants from the country to the cities is the biggest political risk factor for a socialist dictatorship... who gets priority? Right. And so the environment goes to hell, and people are beaten and tortured for complaining, until the problem is so bad that it gets in the way of other state goals. That has certainly been the usual pattern in Marxist economies. Eventually, it comes to a crunch, of course. Though tactics like food imports (which can be a less bulky way to import water) can and will be used along the way.
Before we feel too smug, it's worth noting that we aren't entirely blameless in these little dramas. Where does the appetite for Chinese furniture come from, that has driven deforestation in China and beyond? For industrialized goods?
Now, we could say that managing these things is China's problem, but there are a couple of issues with that.
One issue is that China will export these problems. Actively, vid. the bribes to Indonesian officials that doom a rainforest environment whose importance matches the Amazon's. Passively, via the "yellow dust" that chokes South Korea and Japan; some scientists believe it will eventually reach to Hawaii and the West Coast of the USA. So it becomes a problem for others.
Now add the fact that China is also right up top of the "world's most corrupt" list, and current trade relationships ensure that even a mythical Chinese government with good intentions will be powerless to do much about this sort of thing.
American influence can't solve every problem. It's not that powerful in a world of real constraints, and just because a problem exists does not necessarily mean that America is positioned by geography, resources, or human capability to solve it. Having said that, it is China's biggest trading partner. And if China begins importing food, North America is its most likely source.
As such, Neal Asbury suggests a free trade agreement with China - but one with environmental conditions and requirements, and external monitoring, in order to deal with the corruption issue:
"The answer must be enshrined in a comprehensive U.S.-China Free Trade Agreement. Trade with the United States must be conditioned on environmental protections that are strictly enforced and monitored by American scientists. Our most recent Free Trade Agreements negotiated with Colombia, Korea and Peru include strong language on the environment. We must go much further with China."
The trillion-dollar question is whether China would ever accept that sort of monitoring, even for the carrot of a Free Trade agreement with America. I tend to think not - and without that, any agreement with China isn't worth the paper they print it on. It's also worth noting that the US State Department and/or Commerce Department would be very quick to try and negotiate that verification away, unless faced by very strong pressure over that exact issue. It's part of their basic natures, and of course we can see the effects of their "deal for deal's sake" mentality in security-related situations as well.
Meanwhile, the Democrats would have to choose between the global environment/ carbon emissions and cries for protectionism from US workers. The GOP would also have some choices to make, though they'd be less acute because its Hamiltonian/realist wing would sell out the environmental angle in a heartbeat, in return for the lure (real or imagined) of a business deal. Meanwhile, other parts of the GOP coalition would see security risks, leading to a fracture in that party as well.
Those are very high hurdles to cross. If they can be crossed - which is not at all certain - Neal's suggestion would have strong merit, as the approach that would be most likely to make enough of a dent in these trade/environmental issues to matter.
I'm not holding my breath, personally. Not unless I find myself in China...
Additional Readings
- Winds' China future scenarios post, which looks at the challenges China faces - and poses - in several dimensions.