CHANGES IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS

I wish to comment on two different but closely related news items that appeared on the China Digital Times on Sunday, March 2, 2008... CAPTION: "China Agency Gets More Power" The report, closely paraphrased... AP reports this week that the Chinese government plans on the creation of a cabinet ministry to hold SEPA. Officials believe this would give SEPA more authority. The plans are expected to be formerlly approved in March. The agency would becomethe "Ministry of Environment" said Hongjun Zhang, who said staff could be increased from 200 to 300-400. Over time the body would be given more authority over local environental bureaus which tend to be beholden to local industries and politicians that flout the rules. Critics say this change will have little impact and regulations will continue to be ignored. Up front, I applaud this action of the Chinese government. It is certainly a move in the right direction. The most critical and beneficial part seems to me to be the increase of authority over local bureaus. While the power-mongering of the central government of China makes me cringe, yet the corruption on the local level, especially in regards to the environment makes me cringe much worse. I trust the central government to be more sincere on matters of the environment than the local officials. This concern was made crystal clear by two of our main readings, those of Judith Shapiro and of Elizabeth C. Economy. But why "over time"? Why not right away? Already we sense a good thing falling short. Economy writes, "Even when Beijing sets ambitious targets to protect the environment, local officials generally ignore them, preferring to concentrate on further advancing economic growth. Really improving the environment in China will require revolutionary bottom-up political and economic reforms." Curiously, she gives the figure of 300 for already-existing full-time members of SEPA, the State Environmental Protection Administration, whereas the news posts speaks encouragingly of increasing staff numbers up to 300 or more from the current 200 - a discrepancy. Economy asks why is China unable to get its environmental house in order. She says, "they are unwilling to pay the political and economic price to get there" She says Beijing's message is that economic growth cannot be sacrificed to environmental protection. No wonder critics are cynical about the reform making much difference. I believe it will make some difference, but it will be too little too late. It falls short of "revolutionary bottom-up political and economic reforms" that Economy so compellingly argued for. She and Shapiro run parallel in their concerns and appeals. Economy writes, "Effective environmental protection requires transparent information, official accountability, and an independent legal system. There is little indication that China's leaders will risk the authority of the Communist Party on charting a new environmental course." Compare this with Shapiro's last paragraph on page 65. The current leaders of China do not suffer from environmental myopia as severely as Mao Zedong did, but they are not immune to it. China is not just living on borrowed time, they are living on triple-mortgaged borrowed time. The officials seem terrified of losing control of their authoritarian regime. They should be much more scared of NOT losing it! CAPTION: "China to Log its Worst Polluters" The post, condensed and paraphrased... China has announced a new survey in which it will require factories, farms and other major polluters to declare how much and what kind of pollution they release. As an incentive, the government has promised immunity from prosecution for all willing participants. "We need reliable data..." said Ma Jun of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs. Wang Yuqing, the man in charge of the project, said the main aim was to get a clear picture of China's pollution problem. The government will then use the information to develop new policies. Mr. Wang said the government will not use the information against the polluting firms. This news elicits very mixed feelings in me. As a scientist, I applaud the effort to get good empirical data upon which to formulate policy. The anti-scientific Bush regime over here could take some pointers. But this strategy is fraught with problems. An incintive is needed for sure, but so is accountability. People will deliberately take this as a license to behave however they please environmentally and get out of it at the price of a data report. Besides, it smells much too heavily of insider corruption, with the government and the corporations in cahoots. Even if that is unfounded, the policy is vulnerable to this, and certainly vulnerable to the suspicion of it, leading to even more public mistrust. I'm not sure how to approach giving incentive and accountability simultaneously - obviously a tricky path. Perhaps the immunity could be put on a time limit such as one year. After all, China can't twiddle its thumbs too long just gathering data - they need to do something. Maybe one impure motive for this whole thing is just to buy time anyway without committment to reform. At best this policy should be a quick sneak peak - then shut the policy down.