Articles by David Roberts

I’ve got my eye on Yue

As longtime readers know, we here at Grist are fascinated/horrified/baffled/whatevered by the environmental implications of China's explosive economic growth. On that score, two reading recommendations.

First, Lester Brown at the Earth Policy Institute writes that China simply can't develop the same way the U.S. did. Not a moral can't, but a brute physical can't -- there just aren't enough resources. On oil, coal, steel, and paper, the story is the same: If China consumed at U.S. per capita levels, it would consume more than the world currently produces. That takes a while to sink in, but it's pretty incredible to contemplate. If, when China's median wage reaches U.S. levels (projected to happen between 2030-2040), China's per capita consumption of oil also reaches U.S. levels, China alone will be consuming more oil than the entire world produces today. With oil, that's probably just not possible -- oil production has either already peaked or will soon. With something like paper, it might be physically possible, but it would be ugly indeed. No more forests. Same with meat, or cars, or whatever. It's just brute math.

And this is just putting it in terms of raw resources. If China actually travels down that road, they'll hit an environmental wall before the resources themselves run out.

The good news is, apparently some folks in China realize this. Or at least one folk. Read this Spiegel interview with Pan Yue, Deputy Director of China's State Environmental Protection Agency. It is, as Jamais notes, remarkably candid for an official of any country, but particularly China. Yue makes no bones about the fact that something has got to change in China's development, and he's not afraid to go to bat against powerful people in business and government to make it happen. He's also startlingly frank about the fact that political reform is necessary to prevent eco-catastrophe. Seriously, it's pretty short, so just go read it. But here's one tasty excerpt:

This [economic] miracle will end soon because the environment can no longer keep pace. Acid rain is falling on one third of the Chinese territory, half of the water in our seven largest rivers is completely useless, while one fourth of our citizens does not have access to clean drinking water. One third of the urban population is breathing polluted air, and less than 20 percent of the trash in cities is treated and processed in an environmentally sustainable manner. Finally, five of the ten most polluted cities worldwide are in China.

As Jamais also says, it's worth tracking Yue's political fortunes. If he is successful in government, it's a good sign. If not, well ...

Finally, please see this disclaimer.

Disclaimer for all future China posts

When we write about China's massive growth and the apocalyptic environmental consequences thereof, we are:

1. not saying that China should refrain from developing, or that the Chinese should stay poor;
2. not excusing the extravagant per capita level of consumption and waste in the U.S.

Instead, we are advocating that China move quickly and decisively to develop sustainable technologies, industries, and sources of power, and that the U.S. green movement support China in that quest however it can.

Thanks for listening.

Conservatives and Clear Skies

Conservatives say that environmentalists only oppose Clear Skies because they hate Bush. My impression is that they only support Clear Skies because they hate environmentalists.

But of course I would think that.

If you want to hear what conservative bloggers have to say about Clear Skies -- much of which draws on a recent Washington Monthly article -- you can start here and then try here, here (good discussion in comments), and here. Feel free to leave additional links in comments, if you have them.

The fact is that Clear Skies is classic Bush. There's plenty of perfectly sensible stuff in it that is long overdue. It's also poisoned with several measures -- among them the loathsome mercury cap-and-trade program -- that no environmentalist or Democrat with a conscience could support. It's designed, like all Bush's initiatives, to gain just enough support to pass, while being as divisive as possible in the process. Rove doesn't want big majorities. He doesn't want bipartisan consensus. He wants open partisan warfare and narrow victories.

Marburger

Presidential science advisor John Marburger has been making some unusually strong and unambiguous statements lately about global warming. Here are my three theories about what could be going on:

1. He's off the reservation, sick of being bashed by the scientific community, and we're soon going to see the phrase "more time with his family" near his name.
2. It's pure greenwashing, an attempt to demonstrate that, despite appearances, the Bush administration takes global warming seriously.
3. Bush has decided that intransigence on warming is becoming a political liability, he's going to make some splashy policy moves soon, and this is an attempt to soften the ground and prepare his supporters.

Which do you think it is?