X Close

How President Xi can save the planet China's leader is a closet environmentalist

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

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


October 27, 2021   5 mins

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.


Kerry Brown is Director of the Lau China Institute and Professor of Chinese Studies at King’s College, London. His latest book is The Taiwan Story.

Bkerrychina

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.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

27 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David Bell
David Bell
3 years ago

How does one “combat climate” (in this author’s words)? Such obsequiousness is to be expected, I suppose, from a writer with his pro-China credentials.

Dennis Boylon
Dennis Boylon
3 years ago
Reply to  David Bell

According to the “world is ending tomorrow” humanity is evil and must be destroyed crowd…. you depopulate, force people not to use fossil fuels, subsist on bugs and worms.

Matt B
Matt B
3 years ago
Reply to  David Bell

Should be Xi’s speechwriter. Certainly few caveats. On a wider level, don’t China institutes have a history of silencing students abroad? Covid lab concerns aside, are we now to trust China as the go-to for climate action – from Red to Green Book? And do please educate us on the gulags. COP26 needs better than prez-for-life Hidden Dragon and blame game.

Last edited 3 years ago by Matt B
Trevor Law
Trevor Law
3 years ago

Anyone who presses into service the phrase “climate change deniers” is either dishonest or intellectually impoverished. Judging by the rest of the piece, I suspect it is the latter.

Terence Fitch
Terence Fitch
3 years ago
Reply to  Trevor Law

Forget ‘climate change’ heating, though very many scientists are clear it’s a problem. Just think environmental destruction. It’s surely undeniable that air quality or plastics pollution are major problems and species destruction and desertification are major environmental problems. It’s easy to be smug in the UK since we outsourced our dirty industries to China, although they’ve obviously ‘agreed’ to this. Out of sight out of mind? Population is always the key. As the oil guy said- it’s true carbon is an issue but in his grandfather’s time the world’s population was 2bn. Now it’s 8bn. How much better it would be in the UK if we’d had strict immigration control and managed our population down to 45m over time from 55m in the 1960s. Instead we’re heading for 75m in the next decades. Disaster.

Anna Jacka-Thomas
Anna Jacka-Thomas
3 years ago
Reply to  Terence Fitch

I think you need to go and look up the statistics for population growth and then you will see that the only country where population growth is occurring is Nigeria , every other country in the world is in 50 years time going to have a major problem with population being predominantly the elderly

Dennis Boylon
Dennis Boylon
3 years ago

I guess we’ll have to nuke Nigeria. We can’t have these evil filthy humans reproducing.

Terence Fitch
Terence Fitch
3 years ago
Reply to  Dennis Boylon

No one is guilty for existing but the numbers worldwide are unsustainable- the last Northern Rhino is about to disapear. The UK is having appalling species loss. We have a pathetically low 8% for all woodland including commercial. The UK would be far better off, including GDP per head with 20m less people.

Matt B
Matt B
3 years ago
Reply to  Dennis Boylon

Not sure which corner of Twitter you inhabit but such comments add nothing here.

Terence Fitch
Terence Fitch
3 years ago

8bn who will want more affluence. Unsustainable.

Dennis Boylon
Dennis Boylon
3 years ago
Reply to  Terence Fitch

We just need less people and the world will be a perfect place. Why 45m? Why not 10m? or 1m? 100k? The less the better?

Gordon Welford
Gordon Welford
3 years ago
Reply to  Dennis Boylon

Surely you mean’fewer’people !!

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Trevor Law

Yes, indeed. Unfortunately, today you have to side with the multitude or be persona non grata. What this means of course is that our progress through history will yaw from one extreme to another, with nary a mid-point. The worrying thing to me is the possibility that many accepters (non-deniers) don’t really believe either but they’re making a shed full of money so why bother.
I am a scientist/engineer of the old school, trying to do everything by the book. I have designed experiments and been ecstatic when the ‘right’ results came along and depressed when the ‘wrong’ appeared. I have never knowingly cheated but I am only human and I’m sure I must have given precedence to those results which suited my viewpoint.
The whole crux of the system is that another researcher can come along and try to prove me wrong. Obviously, he has to have the same funding as me. If his funding is withdrawn he has no way of getting his counter-arguments into the public eye. Therefore, my findings are absorbed into the ‘right and correct’ – even if they’re totally wrong.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago

This will be unpopular on UnHerd but the President of China will be a lot more important than BJ, who will have no significant effect.

Dennis Boylon
Dennis Boylon
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Asia fossil fuel use is increasing exponentially. It has actually been going down in the West since about 2008. Asia is what matters and where all the energy is. Both human and fuel. lol. The West is literally committing suicide.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
3 years ago

The author again confuses smog and polluting particles in the air with CO2, which is invisible and odourless. So many Western newspapers and TV stations show us black smoke coming from chimneys, trying to tell us the horrible pollution of the tracing gas CO2. CO2 is not “dirty” or a “pollutant”, but it is essential for plant growth, which in turn is essential for us as plants produce Oxygen and food. You can make coal plants cleaner with filters and same goes for cars. The judgement is still out, if the increase of CO2 causes Global Warming. For the last 30years the IPCC mostly relies on models which didn’t conform to reality and were much exaggerated.
Xi and the Chinese Party will probably solve the smog problems and the pollution of rivers. Don’t know if the Chinese Government accepts the near hysterical faith in Doom and Gloom of the Western World. Why did the Middle Ages and Roman times have similar or higher temperature than today, without an increase of CO2?

Last edited 3 years ago by Stephanie Surface
Stephan Harrison
Stephan Harrison
3 years ago

Yes, you are right about how the media use chimneys smoke….but it’s only an attempt to show that we are producing enromous amounts of CO2….which is a GHG.
The rest of your post is the usual denier nonsense. You said:”The judgement is still out, if the increase of CO2 causes Global Warming”. No…it’s been known about for around 180 years. It’s called physics.
You said: “For the last 30years the IPCC mostly relies on models which didn’t conform to reality and were much exaggerated”. No they don’t…and no they haven’t.
You said: “Why did the Middle Ages and Roman times have similar or higher temperature than today, without an increase of CO2?”. They didn’t.
If you are going to be a denier, at least be an original one.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
3 years ago

Can’t show the links on comment section of UnHerd. But climate models, which were first published in 1977 showed a projection of temperature increases of 1.3C by 2020, but the reality is that temperatures during that time only rose by0.3C, which is very moderate. Also the recent Climate chart published by IPCC shows the hockey stick, leaving out the warming period of the Middle Ages, which was still published by the IPCC in the report before. Guess it wasn’t convenient and not scary enough. Also why is it so important to publish temperatures of the last 2000 years and not of the last million years? The planet after all is 4 billion years old. Million of years ago dinosaurs grazed in N Canada and Greenland was green. No icecaps on the poles. So if I am a denier, what are you? Working for the IPCC and scaring the world with coming Gloom and Doom?

David Bell
David Bell
3 years ago

What’s GHG?

Jon Hawksley
Jon Hawksley
3 years ago

The planet will survive and there will be life of some sort on it. For humans the key issue is not average temperatures but the rate of change compared with the rate at which we can adapt to that change. We have more time to adapt if we anticipate but if we anticipate there are risks we will do somethings that prove to be unnecessary. We need to balance risks. Waiting for certainty increases the risk that there is then not enough time to adapt without great suffering.

Antony Hirst
Antony Hirst
3 years ago

Yup. CO2 has the toxicity of clean water. Also, I think the public has been utterly befuddled by the phrases “absorbs heat” and “greenhouse effect” leading to this belief that CO2 is bad, polluting, and the less the better.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
3 years ago

It’s very simple – the CCP has already inadvertently poisoned it’s population once in the persuit of uber-rapid growth. They are not stupid, they are unlikely to make the same mistakes again. However, they will sacrifice ‘green’ if it impacts the Chinese growth model beyond a certain point. The power of the CCP is predicated on continuing to deliver high growth, they would quickly come under challenge if that falters and living standards start to fall. Once expectations start to rise, it is pretty impossible to put that back – the appetite grows in the eating.

Last edited 3 years ago by Prashant Kotak
Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
3 years ago

Forget this, Joanna Lumley has turned into another crazy celebrity and has decided that the way to save the earth is a return to post war rationing. That should sort us out.

Anna Jacka-Thomas
Anna Jacka-Thomas
3 years ago
Reply to  Alan Thorpe

Isn’t it great when ‘celebrities‘become experts on anything they take up as their fad for the month .

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
3 years ago

China recently declared for more coal production to feed the increasing number of coal fired plants known to create pollution. Why so few nuclear plants? They are heavily investing in R&D to extend technology and it remains to be seen if the culture can innovate. But nuclear technologies can achieve several of their goals, yet little effort. They seem to be doubling down on known technologies. While demonstrating some military technology development to ward off potential imaginary aggression they seem to be not capable of advancing power technology.

Dennis Boylon
Dennis Boylon
3 years ago

Earthly God Xi is going to save the planet! What would we do without him? LOL. I remember LA having major smog problems when I was young. They managed to (mostly) clean it up and still use fossil fuels. Beijing has become wealthier and can afford to clean up its air a bit but I didn’t know the Earth was about to perish from Beijing smog. Good for them though. This is of course is still not enough for the humanity haters. They will not be happy until nobody can use fossil fuels, everybody is penniless, and we are forced to eat bugs and worms to survive.

Red Sanders
Red Sanders
3 years ago

Oh God, still ANOTHER long winded save the planet and let’s bash President Trump…on to something else!