What do the CCP and the Green Party have in common? (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

As my plane approached Beijing, it descended into what looked like a layer of cloud. Within seconds, however, it became clear that this was something entirely different: we had just entered the capital’s thick, ubiquitous smog. It was 2012, and Beijing was cloaked in it. The following day, it grew even worse. From my hotel, it was impossible to see the other skyscrapers across the street; normally, the view extends as far as the Fragrant Hills at the outskirts of the city.
Since then, things have improved. But smogs are still a feature of everyday life, serving as a potent reminder of the toll that four decades of rapid industrialisation have taken on the Chinese environment. This is far from a modern problem. Historian Mark Elvin, in The Retreat of the Elephants, plots an almost continuous process of environmental instability in the People’s Republic of China. He traces today’s crisis back almost 2,000 years: to deforestation during the Han dynasty, which accounts for the lack of trees in large parts of central China today.
Certainly my own experience of how this looks in China extends beyond 2012. Seventeen years earlier, while living in Hohhot, inner Mongolia, I remember smogs every bit as dramatic, caused by the high use of coal and fossil fuels. A few years later, one April in Beijing, the skies grew dark in the middle of the day; a severe sandstorm had arrived, and people were forced to flee indoors. Desertification, over-building, lack of water, poor soil quality, destruction of species, appalling air quality — all have been the cause of deep concern to the Chinese Communist Party for decades.
Faced with this weight of evidence, it would be strange if the Chinese government adopted the kind of sceptical attitude that, for instance, some Australian leaders have about any links between human activity and climate. Indeed, much has been written in recent weeks about President Xi’s expected absence from COP26 next week, but it would be reductive to take that as a sign of climate change apathy. China, after all, is situated in a region that has been historically affected by earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters. And in recent decades, let alone months, these have grown more severe.
But China’s politicians find themselves in a quandary: how should they balance these concerns with the country’s imperative to grow at whatever cost, just as the West did during the high phase of industrialisation? Most Chinese citizens seem, even today, to know about the smogs that blighted London in the late Forties and early Fifties. The tactic seemed to be that this sort of occurrence was inevitable, and could be cleaned up once industrialisation had been achieved.
That’s partly why, at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, the Chinese delegation, along with 76 other developing countries, largely insisted that the greatest number of carbon emission cuts needed to come from the US and Europe. Most of these places had outsourced much of their most polluting industries to China; per capita emissions comparing an American with a Chinese made the latter pale into insignificance. Looming over all of this was a suspicion among some in China that the whole climate change negotiation was just another attempt by Washington and its allies to put a break on Beijing’s economic development.
By 2015, and the next major conference in Paris, things had changed. Smogs such as those in Beijing in 2012, along with a rising sense of frustration and concern among Chinese citizens, meant a more proactive stance had become necessary. But the most important development had been the appointment in late 2012 of a new national leader, Xi Jinping.
Xi’s politics were focused on appealing to the new middle class — those who lived in cities, worked in services, and were concerned about the cost of living and their quality of life. For them, water, food security and clean air that didn’t kill them were priorities. Yet Xi was by no means an environmentalist for convenience’s sake; earlier in his career, as party leader of the huge, eastern coastal province of Zhejiang, he had been unusual in often talking about the importance of care for the environment.
And so, “Greening” China has become a major policy preoccupation, with Xi’s announcements becoming increasingly bold. After supporting, and then signing up to, the commitments to cut emissions made in Paris in 2015, China’s stance was enhanced by the withdrawal from the deal of America under Trump in 2017. Biden may have later rejoined the Paris agreement, but the damage to America’s image had already been done: Xi was able to claim he was doing more to save the environment than the US. Indeed, this is one of the few issues where China has managed to improve its reputation in the last few years.
A series of pledges to be carbon neutral by 2060, and to aim for peak emissions by 2030, culminated in Xi’s surprise announcement at the UN General Assembly last month that China would no longer build coal-fired power stations abroad. Despite all their perpetual arguments in other areas, in this one, Europe, China and the US at least have some common ground.
Yet paradoxically, China still needs to grow and remains fundamentally reliant on fossil fuels, which constitute the source of two thirds of its energy. The aim to focus on quality of growth rather than quantity is clearly stated by the Xi government. But just how far they can go in squeezing people’s material development by demanding higher costs for energy, and use of more expensive alternatives, is another question. On top of this, it remains unclear whether the targets referred to above — particularly having emissions peak in 2030 — will be sufficient, let alone achievable.
That isn’t to say there aren’t any positives. However critical we might be of the Chinese government, and the political system it operates under, and however sceptical we might be about its real commitment to combat climate, it is surely better that we start from the position we are currently in: one of broad alignment. China led by climate change deniers would be a disaster.
And even if it is self-interest that motivates Beijing, it is also reassuring that, in this area, that self-interest works in the rest of the world’s benefit. It is also hugely important that Xi has committed, through the 14th Five Year Plan passed earlier this year, staggering amounts on research and development. With approximately 7% of GDP — more than 500 billion US dollars — being spent on different forms of research, much of it dealing with environmental sciences, China has placed its formidable financial resources in an area where, once more, the benefits will flow to the rest of the world, particularly if it succeeds in finding carbon capture technologies, or other forms of energy that can quickly and safely replace coal.
Xi’s expected absence from COP26, then, is far from the end of the world. He still styles himself as an environmentalist. Witness his attendance at a biodiversity summit in Kunming earlier this month: “We shall take the development of an ecological civilisation as our guide to coordinate the relationship between man and nature,” he said in his keynote speech.
Yes, recent power shortages in the northeast of the country have underlined the need for China to produce more energy. But the underlying imperative to protect the environment still holds for Xi. Achieving that while continuing to industrialise is unlikely to be easy — but that doesn’t mean cautious optimism is misplaced.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeKeep America Weird.
“They should reclaim their historic role as the vanguard of entrepreneurial capitalism by cobbling together a coalition of economic self-interest between the two classes who are least vulnerable to ideological capture by college-educated elites: small-business elites (who tend to be very wealthy but uncultured) and the working class.”
From the perspective of this article the Republicans do seem to have lost their way, and for some time now. I was never a fan of the Republicans, though I always enjoyed Buckley in my later years. They seemed to be a dirty, scurrilous lot. It’s the craziness of the left that pushed me to the right, and it’s the left I want to see defeated.
What Cuenco says makes sense. But it seems to me that the Republicans, and similar parties around the world, feel that there’s no time to build policies and coalitions, that they must stop the left now. Consequently they represent nothing except an opposition. Of course if they began to think seriously years ago there wouldn’t be a problem now. Instead what we have are hacks who are good for nothing but badmouthing the opposition in the hope that some of the mud sticks. Consequently the fight will always be the same and always end up the same way.
Great comment. Well said..
“Consequently they represent nothing except an opposition. Of course if they began to think seriously years ago there wouldn’t be a problem now.”
They did think seriously years ago and it gave us the 2008 financial crash, China’s entry into the WTO and the Iraq war. Free trade and open markets (when in fact only the American market is actually ‘open’), financial deregulation and spreading democracy to the Middle East were fundamental ideas of the right, including the think tank types coming out of the Cold War. I think someone like Jonah Goldberg is a good exemplar of this as well as the people at National Review. The problem is, the results of these ideas has been a disaster in many ways as I listed. So, I see it more as the republicans thought seriously of the world they wanted to shape and they acted on those ideas (along with Clinton and Obama who were definitely pulled ‘right’ when it came to financialization of the economy and economic globalism) and the results are in.
To me, they’re a party who, as you said, mostly represent opposition now. Their ideas were ascendant for about three decades, they were embraced by the center left (Clinton/Obama) and here we are. What do you do when your ‘big ideas’ fail so miserably?
Not sure this is right. I think the underlying funding means they protect some pretty big vested interests who may be fairly happy with the status quo. Some sort of narrative about defending against a woke-ist Left useful camouflage.
But it has always been about stopping the Left (cf. Buckley’s famous “Stand athwart history shouting, ‘Stop!'”). The Republicans and similar parties world-wide are the parties of those who want the state to leave them alone to live their lives, or make gobs of money, or simply do anything other than politics. The whole point is to not be subject to grand programs, hence no grand programs are forthcoming.
That’s true what you say about those who want the state to leave them alone. But it misses the point, and maybe this is the problem, about building a broader or more effective base or coalition. Conservatives parties seem to have lost their way all over the world. Finding that they represent the working class in values and big business at the same time may be a bit confusing. The very idea of staying out of peoples lives could be the very thing that marginalises them,
I like this man’s writing, but Plato made his point in a better way. Politics tends not toward ascent, but toward decay. Speaking very generally, and therefore crudely, the “left” stands for decay, for decadence, the right for ascent, for virtue, and as a consequence, the left has a distinct advantage. It’s easier to go to Hell than to get heaven.
Democrats calling others weird is like a morbidly obese person calling someone “a bit fat”
The last 8 years, since Trump was elected, has been full on clown freak melt down show from the ‘woke’ left.
Ah but the question is will it ‘stick’? Thus far it is.
Stick with who? Leftists who already hate Republicans?
Stick with enough swing voters to tilt the election toward Harris. This election is all about a relatively tiny number of voters in key states.
And the Dems do seem to be relying heavily on a gaslighting strategy: the Dems are obviously the party of weird but somehow they’ve managed to attach that label to Republicans; Harris was undoubtedly the border czar, but now the Dems are flatly denying that fact.
Trump is Hitler was the leftist platform in 2016 – these are leftist talking points. Swing voters are swing for a reason, they aren’t exclusively reading leftist news sources.
But they HAVE quite effectively managed it, and JD Vance’s ill thought through assault on millions of childless Americans rather backs them up, as well as being politically idiotic.
If dragging yourself up from a very poor, dysfunctional background, getting a college degree, serving in the Marines, getting a Law degree from Yale, writing a bestselling autobiography, succeeding in business, getting elected to the US Senate, and being chosen to run for VP is weird, then I say:
we need millions more weird people.
Good essay. Yes Republican thinking does indeed need an economic makeover. It is not that any economically literate thinker should be questioning Adam Smith’s fundamental truth that the wealth of Western nations could not have happened without free-market competition as its driving force. But certain aspects of the global economy in the early 21st century have led some to question whether a tipping point has now been reached where downsides are starting to outweigh upsides. I myself am one of many old-school conservatives who have had to rethink some long held assumptions about the economic facts of life. The biggest shocker, for me, has been the emergence of Woke Capitalism – something I never saw coming…..https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/globalism-vs-national-conservatism
But “woke capitalism” is not a species of capitalism. We now live under managerialism, in which the professional managerial class (PMC), not the capitalists (those whose claim on profits derives from their material or financial resources being at risk in the enterprise) are in control of “the means of production” to use Marx’s terminology. James Burnham was a bit too early in thinking it had arrived in 1949, but by the time the professional managers in government saved the professional managers in finance from the consequences of their dishonesty in the 2008 financial crisis, managerialism had clearly arrived. The PMC floats between government, the corporate and the non-profit sector and really prefers fascism (the union of corporate and state power, as defined by its founder, Mussolini) to free-market economics. Wokery is simply a handy excuse for imposing fascism without objection from what passes for a Left these days.
The PMC is the Western version of Djilas’s “New Class”, the commissars (also professional managers in the old Communist bloc), whom he saw as the next stage in Marx’s material dialectic (the idea that a “proletarian revolution” would short-circuit the dialect was always a delusion if one really believed in the material dialectic).
I like the interpretation op Joel Kotkin for this. The capitalist class still exists, they are the oligarchs who still own most of the capital and therefore the means of production. In fact they have grown much stronger in the past decades. Although means of production is abstract in a postindusrial society. However, between oligarchs and the middle class you have the managerial class. They are not real elites but identify with them and their ideology and morals. They do their bidding and vice versa. They are like the clergy of the ancien regime between the aristocracy and the peasants.
The Republicans must return to their traditional role…… as election-losers?
kamala and Co are enjoying a brief honeymoon. If the GOP sticks to its guns, the Dems will shoot themselves in both feet come November.
Looking at the discrepancy between rhetoric and policies one should wonder if the republican intentions were ever genuine. Did it just not work out or were they fully aware they had to sell the neoliberal project to the very people it was going to hurt the most?
Whether it was discontent with the “New Class” or the current culture war, it feels like a distraction from the only thing that was achieved beyond any doubt the past 40 years: restoring the relative wealth of the upper echelons and big capital – who had lost quite a bit during the postwar period. The center-left essentially started doing the same thing around the 90s: endless progressive discussions while leaving the neoliberal consensus untouched under the guise of third way policies. In fact, as the author correctly observes, many progressive issues can be readily commodified in our hyper-financialized world. And now we can do the same with conservative issues. The end result is that very little ever really changes, just a lot of debates.
If I understand correctly the author suggests to go back to the ‘common sense’ rhetoric under the banner of “this time it will be different”. So this time the free market and deregulation does not mean more restrictions for small business and more cronyism for big business? And this time the wealth will finally trickle down after 40 years?
The author is taking a lot of words to try and avoid an obvious truth. The fact is we are undergoing an electoral realignment across both parties and things are going to change in the meantime everything is muddy and unclear on what each party stands for as the old parts of the party find themselves in conflict with the new, and no one knows precisely what they want.
Further I’m going to point out that the conservatives are not responsible for the destruction of the family and I hate the historical rewriting that’s happened here. Which side advocated for the welfare expansion that allowed fathers to abandon families without guilt, which side pushed for the second wave feminism where a woman could find fulfillment in the workplace and find a new them through divorce, which side pushed the idea that family was outdated and outmoded and that your personal self fulfillment was the most important thing? Not the conservatives that’s for sure, who meanwhile is trying to fight to defend traditional institutions and push the ideas of duty responsibility hard work and commitment?
Author misses entirely the impact of PAC growth and unlimited funding on US politics. The 2010 Supreme Ct ruling has much to answer for and pulls US politics increasingly away from the common man and woman. Remarkable really the Article never mentions this.
But much like in the UK he hits the nail on the head in identifying the inherent clash between free market enterprise and social conservatism that the Right struggles to square both sides of the Atlantic.
When Blair let free market enterprise lose, without the social conservatism, it confused the Left and the Right, especially those in Parliament.
You mean the ‘Third Way’? Slight difference is public services were much better. That’s what the Right has melted down and then blamed immigrants.
Well the article is just meta-intellectualizing the intellectuallizing elites then.
Judging by Vance’s interviews, he is not locked into the pure realm of Platonic forms, but is interested in reindustrializing the economy and already proposing to serve the contingents the article suggests.
Granted, there is a RW donor fuelled ecosystem with its own blind spots & competing interests, but the real symbol obsessed brahims might just be the mainstream progressive ones that even contrive to see Man and Woman as purely symbolic.
Haha! You idiots think that Donald Trump is suitable to be president of the United States. Ain’t nothing weirder than that!!!!
Not weird, just the natural workings of democracy as predicted by the inimitable H.L. Menken:
Which should make us wonder at all the agita about “threats to our democracy”.
Weird is a complement for Trump, I suspect his sociopathy runs much deeper than weird
Brilliant analysis. It sums up much of my somewhat inchoate ideas about the very self conscious reactionary (and incoherent!) anti woke Right.