The Real U.S.-China Struggle Is Environmental

When Americans think of China, we think of the headlines: human-rights violations that appall us, trade deals that threaten our jobs, secret campaign contributions that buy our politicians. But, so far, we have overlooked what may be the biggest danger of all. An environmental catastrophe is unfolding in China, and it menaces not only the Chinese people, who are dying by the hundreds of thousands from air and water pollution, but all mankind.

With its huge population and booming economy, China, like the United States, can all but singlehandedly guarantee that global warming, ozone depletion and numerous other environmental hazards become a reality for people all over the world. Earlier this year, I spent six weeks traveling, unmonitored, through China, interviewing everyone from senior government officials to unemployed factory workers and newly prosperous peasants. Everywhere, it seemed, the land had been scalped, the water poisoned, the air made toxic.

Remember how much smoke the rain-forest fires put into the skies of Southeast Asia recently? That is what much of China looks like daily. In Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing and other cities, levels of soot and dust are often four to nine times as high as World Health Organization guidelines, especially in winter, when extra coal is burned.

Coal delivers three-quarters of China’s energy, and coal consumption is expected to triple over the next 25 years, as more and more Chinese strive to join the global middle class. Who can blame them? Yet, increased coal use will not only condemn millions more Chinese to premature deaths from air pollution--the current toll is at least 289,000 people a year--it will catapult China past the United States as the world’s leading greenhouse-gas producer. In that case, we can forget about reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by the 60%-80% U.N. scientists say is needed to avoid severe climate change.

Virtually every environmental trend in China is heading in the wrong direction, often rapidly so. For example, China claims it has reduced its birthrate to two children per woman and that its population is “only” 1.22 billion people, still nearly one of every four humans on Earth. But government demographers privately admit what my interviews with scores of Chinese families confirm: The true figures are significantly higher and growing. China’s population is expanding by 15 million a year, which puts enormous pressure on already limited and degraded supplies of forests, fresh water and arable land, not to mention on China’s ability to house, educate and employ its people.

“You cannot stop a billion people,” says one Chinese expert who regrets the environmental damages China’s rapid growth will cause. But the scope of those damages can be influenced, if swift, decisive action is taken. Beginning with the Oct. 28 summit meeting in Washington between President Jiang Zemin of China and President Bill Clinton, and continuing through and beyond the December conference in Kyoto, where a global-warming treaty will be negotiated, steps must be taken to ameliorate China’s environmental problems and reduce its future coal consumption.

What is needed is not sacrifice or finger-pointing but fair play and, on the part of the Clinton administration and Congress, the wit to grasp an immensely profitable business opportunity. When Clinton announced on Oct. 6 that he would not support any treaty in Kyoto that exempted developing countries, he was, whether he knew it or not, referring to China. He was also embracing the core demand of the oil industry’s campaign against any climate-change treaty. The president’s embrace, however, need not doom the Kyoto meeting to failure.

Of course, China and other large developing nations must be included in any effort to contain global warming; otherwise, the world has no hope of success. But first the industrial nations, whose previous emissions have caused the problem, must pledge to limit their own greenhouse emissions. Contrary to industry scare tactics, this can be accomplished at a profit, as analyst Amory Lovins has shown, by upgrading energy efficiency.

The same goes for China. Installing efficient equipment and processes throughout China’s energy system could reduce energy consumption by 50%.

Who will pay for it? China can cover some of the costs, but overseas financing is essential. In fact, plenty of overseas money is already being spent--if poorly. The World Bank is investing billions of dollars in new coal mines and power plants in China instead of emphasizing efficiency. The U.S., too, should revise its investment and export programs. Instead of wasting colossal sums promoting nuclear-power reactors that will do almost nothing to cut China’s coal use, Washington should focus on upgrading China’s energy efficiency, which promises to deliver the most bang for the buck.

It so happens the United States is the world’s leader in energy efficient technology. We should help China buy lots of it. Thus we could make money, make friends in China and make the planet more hospitable for everyone’s children.*