ASCF REPORT 11.10.21
BY ALAN W. DOWD
A wise old saying counsels, “Better to fix
the problem than fix the blame.” But sometimes the former depends on the
latter. America’s government, military and closest allies have all identified climate change as a major international problem,
with the White House describing it as a “crisis at home and abroad,” the
Pentagon labeling it an “existential threat” and NATO calling it “one
of the defining challenges of our times.” The consensus among those
groups is that climate change is caused by humans. Even though there’s
actually quite a bit of debate among scientists about the causes of climate change and even the science surrounding climate change, for the purposes of this essay, let’s
stipulate that climate change is a problem caused by humans. If that’s
the case, the main source of this problem and the main impediment to
solving it are increasingly apparent.
PRC Pollution
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) annually generates about 12 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases—byproducts
such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide. (By way of comparison,
the United States generates less than half as much.) China is
responsible for 28 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions,
though it accounts for less than 19 percent of the world’s population.
Twenty-three of the 25 worst greenhouse-gas polluting cities on earth
are located in China. Thus, it’s no surprise that air pollution causes 1.1 million premature deaths per year in China. (Even the mayor of Beijing has called China’s
capital city “unlivable” due to smog and pollution.) Coal-burning
electricity plants are a chief source of greenhouse-gas emissions, and
China is not only reliant on such plants, but continues to build new
ones: 24 in the first half of this year alone.
U.S. government reports detail how China’s greenhouse gas-emissions increase by 3 percent annually,
while America’s are decreasing, sometimes by as much as 2 percent
annually. China continues to belch out CFC-11, an ozone-depleting
substance that most the world has stopped using. Xi’s China is the
world’s largest emitter of mercury—a neurotoxin—and leads the world in
mercury air pollution. China is the “world’s largest consumer of illegal
timber products,” harvesting trees from impoverished countries that
have entered into terribly one-sided deals with Beijing that make
18th-century European colonialism look positively enlightened by
comparison.
China, which generates more plastic waste than any country, is dumping hundreds of
cubic-meters of plastic waste into the ocean each year. In 2018 alone,
it vomited 27-percent more plastic junk into the ocean than in 2017—a
year which saw the PRC pour a million tons of plastic waste into the
ocean. The PRC Ministry of Ecology and Environment reports that there are 24 kilograms of floating trash per 1,000 square-meters
of PRC coastal surface water. More than 88 percent of that waste is
plastic.
All those numbers tell part of
the story, but a picture paints a thousand words. For a visual
representation of how Xi’s China treats the environment, consider the
industrial city of Baotou,
where a toxic mix of mineral-processing byproducts continually pours
into manmade lakes of poisonous, irradiated sludge; or glance at the orangey-brown midday air of Beijing,
which is laced with as much as 8,000 micrograms of polluted particulate
(the World Health Organization recommends no more than 25 micrograms);
or glimpse China’s rapidly expanding deserts—a
thousand square-miles of Chinese land is lost to desertification every
year due to water mismanagement, negligent farming and overgrazing; or
peruse satellite images of the South China Sea, where Xi’s illegal island-building operations are destroying coral reefs and where hundreds of Chinese fishing
vessels loiter and dump thousands of tons of raw sewage; or look at
South America’s Pacific coastline, where armadas of Chinese ships are plundering local fishing stocks and decimating already-endangered species.
Footsteps
None
of this should come as a surprise. With its contempt for the
environment and those who live in it, the PRC is simply following in the
footsteps of the USSR. Simply put, communist regimes lay waste to the
earth.
Most of us know about the nuclear
disaster and consequent environmental devastation of Chernobyl, but we
hear little about how, decades after throwing off its Soviet occupiers,
post-Soviet Europe still deals with the effects of communism.
As
The Economist has reported, parts of the Czech Republic suffer from
“the toxic legacy of communism” due to the Soviet military’s destruction
of large swaths of the Czech environment. Among the presents left
behind by the Red Army: 7,000 metric tons of kerosene dumped in the soil
around the Hradcany airbase (some of which has leached into rivers),
along with 4.3 million metric tons of sulfuric acid in the soil around
the town of Straz pod Ralskem. Experts say the area will never be
completely clean, but it will be “stabilized by 2035.” The European
Union spent about $9 billion between 2007 and 2013 on environmental
cleanup in the Czech Republic.
In the 1990s, researchers discovered that children in parts of Poland had five times more lead in their
blood than children from Western Europe, that drinking water in Hungary
was contaminated with arsenic, that Bulgaria’s farmland was poisoned
with heavy metals, that 60 percent of East Germany’s population suffered from respiratory ailments.
One author called post-Soviet Eastern Europe in the 1990s “the dirtiest, most degraded region on earth.”
The
communists treated the Soviet heartland no better. Seventy-five percent
of Russia's surface water was considered polluted in the 1990s.
Hundreds of thousands of tons of pesticides were dumped or leached into Russia’s soil due to improper storage. Half
of all children in St. Petersburg had intestinal disorders during the
communist era due to contaminated water.
The USSR diverted the rivers that fed the Aral Sea, then poisoned it and then killed it. Once the world’s fourth largest lake, the Aral Sea has nearly disappeared.
By the early 1990s, 23 miles of Lake Baikal’s shoreline was polluted by
industrial waste. “Islands of alkaline sewage have been observed
floating on the lake, including one that was 18 miles long and three
miles wide,” one economist wrote soon after the collapse of the USSR.
In the 1990s, 40 percent of Russia was considered in high or moderately high ecological stress. One study found that “Each of Russia's natural zones has suffered degradation.”
In the tundra, reckless extraction and transportation of mineral
resources, unattended oil spills, unresolved pipeline leaks and
ruptures, and the uncontrolled flaring of natural gas destroyed
marshland ecosystems and grazing lands. The overcutting of trees
devastated forestlands. The steppe regions were denuded of topsoil,
scarred by soil-compacting and succumbed to erosion.
Freedom’s Solution
To
be sure, environmental accidents and misuse are not confined to
communist countries. However, countries that embrace free government and
the free market are far more effective at addressing such challenges.
Indeed,
real-world examples and academic research alike reveal that higher
levels of political freedom and economic freedom (a broad term for
property rights, free markets, free enterprise, rule of law and free
exchange) correlate with better environmental outcomes.
For example, the 20 highest-ranked countries on the Fraser Institute’s
economic freedom index—all but three of them are strong liberal
democracies, and none of them are communist—enjoy air-pollution levels almost 40-percent lower than the 20 lowest-ranked countries.
Without
the self-corrective forces of free government (which aims to serve the
people rather than those in power and responds to the needs of the
people rather than the diktats of central planners) and the free market
(which is continually sending and receiving signals that encourage the
rational use and development of resources), the environment is at the
mercy of ends-justify-the-means regimes like the PRC and USSR.
The
free market isn’t perfect. But 100 years of history and data confirm
that it’s far better at meeting society’s needs, while developing and
stewarding the environment, than communist central planning. Indeed,
comparing what the communist PRC and communist USSR have done to the
environment with what the Free World has done for the environment
underscores that the environment has no greater friend than free
government and free enterprise—and no greater enemy than communist
regimes like the PRC.
What we have learned in global health and international trade, in the South China Sea and the South Pacific, in space and cyberspace holds true with regard to the environment: The PRC’s internal political
system is an international problem. Fixing the blame where it belongs
will go a long way to addressing this climate challenge.