Germany and China: Importing Environmental Benefits from Developing Nations
On Day One of our yearly Christmas trip back to Kansas, I found myself sitting in J&S Coffee in Lawrence, KS without a computer in sight, reading a copy of the New York Times. I actually didn’t realize how long their articles are…three pages allow for a refreshingly in-depth discussion of the chosen topic.
Anyway, one article that really caught my eye was all about the transfer of the dirtiest of industries - steel mills, coke plants, etc. - from Western nations like the US and Germany to China, entitled China Grabs West’s Smoke-Spewing Factories. This triggered some memory of a book I’ve been reading lately, called How to Live a Low-Carbon Life (by Chris Goodall). In it, Mr. Goodall talks about how Germany is currently the only EU nation making any progress toward their Kyoto-Protocol targets. His discussion provides an interesting juxtaposition with the Times article, since it just so happens that China’s insatiable appetite for additional steel-production capacity has, in recent years, led them to purchase most of the existing equipment in Germany. Predictably, this means that all the nasty particulates and other emissions (including carcinogens and other debilitating by products) has migrated along with the production equipment to China, leaving Germany all the greener and more energy efficient as a result. It made me wonder whether Germany’s humble progress toward its Kyoto targets were a direct product of this move.
As if this weren’t enough food for thought, the Times article went on to say that fully 10% of China’s electricity production - the methods of which are a constant source of much grumbling here in the US when any discussion of carbon emissions or climate change comes up - is dedicated to their steel industry. One good tidbit from this section is that China has added 60GW of new generation capacity each year over the past three or so, which is the equivalent of adding the entire generating capacity for the UK to their grid each year. The environmental impact of this scale of steel production has even led the Chinese government to add surcharges to the export of certain kinds of steel. However, the sheer production capacity of China means that this surcharge is likely to result in higher worldwide prices for steel, which will negate any dampening effect the surcharge might have had on the demand for Chinese steel. In short, it seems that the worldwide free market for steel is locked into a pattern that means premature death for many and increasing environmental degredation for all.
Another thing to think about in all of this: experts estimate that 33% of the carbon emissions produced by China are a result of the production of goods that are exported to Western countries like the US. Even if we were serious about taking action to decrease our own emissions in a meaningful way - and if you watch the screencast of the Bali summit, it will become apparent that we’re not - we can’t escape the effect of pushing our own manufacturing industries overseas. We really do live in a global economy, and if we’re going to have any sort of effect on carbon emissions in the context of a free market where businesses can simply relocate to countries with lax environmental and health restrictions, we need to work together with our supplier countries like China. If conservatives want a good example why we need to lead the efforts here, they don’t even need to look at carbon emissions; they can look at the paint on their kids’ toys, or at the food in Fluffy’s dog bowl. Health effects are health effects, regardless of whether they’re in paint, food ingredients, or the air. Importing dirty goods is likewise the same, especially if you consider that the smoke plumes from China’s steel mills now reach farther into the US than LA.