There can be no doubt that China is a polluted place and something must be done. But can we turn to Al Gore to save China's environment?
While George Bush and the Neocons were trying to make the world better by showing the way to more responsible local democratic governments and dissing self-serving world bodies, Al Gore was becoming the darling of now realist-non-democratic left and of other world governing bodies like the U.N.
China's environmental problems are the result of authoritarian government. Something the Democrats are willing to live with if it means they can get at George Bush.
1 comment:
Mr. Kaulins,
Greetings from Shanghai! I just came across your blog/vlog and I wanted to send you my regards.
I think you and I have opposing political perspectives, but I appreciate your efforts to chronicle your experiences in China none the less. Actually, I bet we have a lot in common. Your writings about "China Angst" struck a chord with me. Lord knows, I've been there a few times!
Anyway, in response to your post about Al Gore (recent Nobel Peace Prize recipient) and any supposed relationship or influence he might have on the Chinese, I can only say that I don't think it will matter much in the long-run. The Chinese are already keenly aware of their environmental problems. They are also aware of their relative impoverishment. Striking a balance between economic development and environmental health is extremely difficult, to say the least, but the Chinese seem to be up to the challenge. The government (surprisingly) has made strides in recent years to address such issues (the Kyoto agreement, state-sponsored green industries, public transportation initiatives, eco-friendly urban planning, etc.-- all things in which the U.S. seems reluctant to engage, by the way).
Therefore, I will venture to suggest that Al Gore's primary audience is really the apathetic western world (i.e., the United States). A place, my home, where consciousness about these global matters abounds but action clearly does not. I honestly wish I could say otherwise, but one only need look at national budget expenditures to see where our priorities really lie--corporate welfare via the military-industrial complex (to put it bluntly). It's a shame.
I must also respectfully disagree with your statement that "China's environmental problems are the result of authoritarian government..." This is, well, not a complete analysis. Quite frankly, it's a little cliche to beat the old Communism-as-pariah drum in this way. It's not only utterly meaningless in this situation, but it also denies the real-world causes of environmental devastation. How, Mr. Kaulins, can we begin to address our global problems if we can't even be honest about their root causes?
I mean, I would say (just for starters) that China's rapid industrialization, along with it's sparse and unreliable infrastructure, overpopulation, diminishing natural resources, and the insatiable hunger for material goods from foreign interests (among many, many other issues) are far more directly responsible for China's environmental concerns than state authoritarianism. I mean, since when does global warming have a political agenda? If I remember correctly from my elementary biology class, we all breathe the same air.
That being said, I thank your for your commentary. It's always great to see how other expats are understanding China and its relationship to the rest of us. It helps to get some fresh perspectives from a fellow blogger.
Much respect to your and yours.
Post a Comment