Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development in China

Hong Kong in Global Context

Harris, Paul G., Paul G. Harris

• Publisher: Policy Press
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9781447305088
• eBook ISBN: 9781447308348
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Environment & Energy Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Drawing on practices and theories of sustainability, Environmental policy and sustainable development in China explores the prospects for achieving environmentally benign economic and social development in China and beyond. Using the Chinese 'world city' of Hong Kong as a backdrop and case study, it introduces major conceptions of sustainability, describes historical and political contexts for environmental policymaking, and analyses key challenges related to sustainable development, including air pollution, water quality, waste, transport and climate change. The book will be a valuable and unique resource for students, teachers and readers interested in environmental policy, sustainable development and ecological governance, especially in China and Hong Kong.

All of the author's royalties from sales of this book will be donated by Policy Press to Friends of the Earth (Hong Kong) and WWF (Hong Kong).

Part One

Conceptions of sustainable development

TWO

Conceptualising sustainable development

Introduction

As noted in the previous chapter, sustainable development is often understood in terms of the Brundtland Commission’s definition of “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987, 43). A sceptic might respond to Brundtland’s argument for sustainable development by observing that human welfare in Hong Kong and China has improved rapidly in recent decades despite environmentally unsustainable practices. One widely accepted idea, articulated by the eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher Adam Smith, attributes this apparent progress to market forces that act as an ‘invisible hand’ to allocate resources efficiently (Smith 2000). According to this liberal economic idea, a community will achieve ideal collective outcomes if people pursue their individual economic interests, even if they do so without thinking about the greater good. Armed with the theory that self-interest benefits everyone, the sceptic might ask why we need to become ‘sustainable’ if old-fashioned (unsustainable) development appears to be working.

In contrast, advocates of sustainable development point out that the most threatened resources are those that are not connected to markets. Natural services provided by the atmosphere, oceans, forests and biological diversity are prominent examples (Pearce 1993, 5). According to this view, the natural environment needs better protection than an unregulated market can provide, and adopting sustainable development as a goal will help us to achieve a society that is more secure, healthy and just. The advocates of sustainable development point to environmental hazards—such as the health impacts of Hong Kong’s polluted air and the greater long-term threat posed by climate change—and argue that economic development should be guided by principles other than short-term economic self-interest. Indeed, human history has witnessed societies that have collapsed as a result of overexploitation of natural resources. The community that built the giant stone statues on Easter Island is a possible example (Diamond 2005). In the past, ecological crises occurred on local rather than global scales. However, many scientists predict that existing patterns of resource use may threaten human society with a global ecological crisis (Hansen 2009; Rockström et al 2009). While such a crisis is unlikely to involve the complete collapse of human society, it is likely that many millions of people will face famine as a result of even modest changes in global food supplies. Sustainable development has thus become important because present-day consumption is outstripping the earth’s capacity to support us.

Sustainable development and the global ecological crisis

A major study described in the scientific journal Nature identified the boundaries for nine indicators of environmental change: climate, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, aerosol loading and chemical pollution, freshwater use, biodiversity, the global cycles of nitrogen and phosphorus and land-use change (Rockström et al 2009). If the planetary boundaries on any of these indicators are exceeded, there is a high risk of an ecological crisis with profound implications for human welfare (Rockström et al 2009). Human activity has already exceeded safe levels in three areas: the nitrogen cycle, the rate of species loss and anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change. We are fast approaching the maximum safe levels of freshwater use, utilisation of forests and other natural ecosystems and ocean acidification (which results from the oceans absorbing atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide that come from the burning of coal and other fossil fuels) (Rockström et al 2009). While this analysis is alarming, the study also showed that humanity does have the capacity to identify environmental problems and to correct them. A case in point is the stratospheric ozone layer. Until quite recently human activity was threatening to destroy the thin layer of ozone that protects people and other species from harmful ultraviolet radiation. However, this destruction has started to reverse following the implementation of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which was negotiated by the world’s diplomats and signed in 1987 (Speth and Haas 2006, 88–94).

Climate change poses what is probably the most profound global environmental threat (see Chapter Eleven). The consensus among climate scientists is that during this century (and beyond) the world will witness rising sea levels, increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, substantial loss of biodiversity, net reduction in crop yields, expanding distributions of diseases and a general increase in climate-related human suffering (IPCC 2007b). Although Hong Kong is geographically vulnerable to many of these changes—for example, malaria and dengue fever will probably become a greater threat (Fung 2004)—it seems likely that it will have the resources and wealth to adapt to incremental environmental changes. In addition to these predicted changes there is a small possibility of catastrophic change that would threaten most human life on the planet. One study has predicted that there is a 5% probability of changes occurring during this century that would have catastrophic impacts on human society (Weitzman 2009).

Recent reports have documented the impressive advances that China has made toward poverty reduction, food security and meeting the basic food needs of its people (Xiao and Nie 2009). For example, whereas before 2005 China was a recipient of World Food Programme aid, it is now a donor to that programme (Xiao and Nie 2009). These impressive achievements are threatened by likely reductions in agricultural productivity that will result from climate change (Lin 2008). Even if the threat of climate change were somehow resolved, deteriorating environmental conditions, such as the depletion of fishing grounds, water shortages and desertification, will threaten the wellbeing of hundreds of millions of people in China and other parts of the developing world. Without careful stewardship of the environment, food security is far from assured. Someone walking among the abundant fresh vegetables and fish in Hong Kong’s markets might find such predictions to be fanciful; Hong Kong might appear capable of escaping local environmental conditions by importing food from all around the world. That is what it does today. However, human communities have overshot and crashed on many occasions in the past (Diamond 2005); there is no reason to assume that this will never happen again. New technologies might enable affluent communities to survive ecological crises relatively unscathed, but the capacity to innovate fast enough to avoid ecological limits is not guaranteed. For this reason, a move toward sustainable development might be viewed as insurance against the risk of potentially extreme ecological hardship or even collapse.

Justifications for sustainable development

Self-interest is one justification for promoting sustainable development. As in many other places, particularly in the rapidly developing countries, problems of severe air, sound and light pollution confront people in Hong Kong on a daily basis, diminishing the quality of life. Sustainable urban planning would help to address these problems and improve urban life, for example by limiting sources of air pollution and allowing better airflow between buildings so that pollutants can move away more easily. This same pattern, whereby efforts to achieve sustainability help the environment and simultaneously improve people’s lives, also applies at the personal level. For example, if a typical Hong Kong person wanted to adopt a truly sustainable diet, he or she would need to consumer fewer meat and animal products because production of these foods is more resource intensive and environmentally harmful than is production of plant-based food. Nutritionists tell us that substituting most meats with vegetables, fruits and grains would also make us healthier, and would provide protection against many serious diseases, including some cancers and heart disease (Pollan 2008). Other sustainable personal choices—such as using public transport and walking—also tend to bring health benefits. Widespread use of public transport in Hong Kong is not only environmentally positive, but also makes travel more efficient and healthy than in car-dependent cities. Sustainable development will also allow the conservation of resources that would otherwise be lost. For example, anybody who hopes to enjoy the pleasure of eating wild ocean fish in the future has good reasons to advocate the sustainable use of ocean fish stocks (Pauly et al 2002). The upshot is that living sustainably has benefits for both the environment and human wellbeing.

In addition to self-interested reasons for supporting sustainable development, we might embrace sustainability out of concern for the fair and just treatment of the world’s poor. There is much debate over the meaning of the term ‘justice’, but in general it refers to the idea that people should receive treatment that is proper for them (Sachs and Santarius 2007, 129). Three principles can be identified as central to justice: “everyone is to be taken into account in accordance with their rights, their needs, or their performance. The conflict among these principles . . . is in large part the substance of struggles over justice” (Sachs and Santarius 2007, 129). The widespread hardship faced by many millions of poor people in China, and many in Hong Kong itself, suggests that not everyone’s needs are being met. Despite the recent economic successes of Hong Kong and China, income inequality is among the highest in the world (UNDP 2009, 195; see Chapter Seven). If we are concerned about the wellbeing of disadvantaged people, we should seek ways of living that create opportunities for marginalised people and avoid harming our shared environment. After all, it is poor people that are often most directly reliant on a healthy and stable environment. If we have concern for the wellbeing of future generations, we will also want to ensure that we leave them a healthy planet.

In addition to the emergence of new and threatening environmental problems, there is another reason for contemporary interest in the idea of sustainable development. In recent decades we have witnessed a fundamental change in the way that people think about the environment. The environment only emerged as a prominent concept in modern politics and policy making in the 1960s (Dryzek 2005, 4). Unquestioned dominance and exploitation of nature may still lie at the heart of both Confucian and Western cultures, but these drives have been tempered by new voices advocating concepts of sustainable development, wilderness preservation and ecological justice. ‘Anthropocentricism’—the idea that human life has primary moral importance—has been challenged by ideas suggesting that animals, plants and the natural world have intrinsic value apart from their utility to people. These ideas may have a longer and deeper history in Asia, for example through the Taoist concern for the natural environment and Buddhism’s consideration for the suffering of animals, than they do in the West. However, the long history of ecological destruction in Asia, going back millennia, suggests that Asian traditions do not necessarily offer clear solutions to environmental problems today (see Harris 2004).

The environmental consciousness that emerged in the West in the 1960s and 1970s was a response to growing environmental problems and a product of increased affluence and political activism (Speth 2002). As communities have become more affluent and educated, people have begun to see greater value in protecting and preserving the natural world, adopting what are sometimes described as ‘post-materialist’ values (Inglehart 1997; see Chapter Eight). Environmental degradation has therefore become an important issue for governments and the international community because environmental problems have become more serious and because more people now see managing environmental problems as an important function of government.

Defining sustainable development

Many definitions of sustainable development have been proposed. The Brundtland Commission’s definition was something of a compromise that can be interpreted in multiple ways. This is a common response to efforts to define the concept. Tammy Lewis and Craig Humphrey capture much of the ambiguity in the idea of sustainable development when they ask the following questions:

What should be sustained in [sustainable development]: the economy, the environment, human welfare? Whose needs and whose development should be promoted? What should be developed? Is development the same as growth? Does development refer to production growth, as is typically indicated by growth of gross national product; does it refer to environmental growth, such as an improvement of environmental resources; or does development refer to growth in human welfare, including health, working conditions and income distribution? (Lewis and Humphrey 2005, 1)

Some common themes dominate almost all definitions of sustainable development: (1) increased emphasis on the value of natural, built and cultural environments because the contribution of the environment to quality of life has been given insufficient attention in the past; (2) extending the time horizon of policy making so that future generations are taken into account; and (3) equity, in the sense that greater provision should be made for the needs of the least advantaged, both now and in the future (Pearce, Markandya and Barbier 1989, 3–4). Sustainable development is not synonymous with ‘sustained economic growth’. Although economic growth may be required to lift poor countries out of poverty, what sustainable development fundamentally refers to is a society that is continually improving and allowing greater human flourishing. This may be possible without economic growth; it will not be possible if the environment is destroyed and people are suffering (see Pearce, Markandya and Barbier 1989, 29–30).

It is also important to consider what is innovative about the idea of sustainable development. Whereas in earlier times developing-world governments commonly thought of ‘development’ as referring to industrial capacity, by the 1980s it was widely accepted that national development needed to encompass human development as well (Finnemore 1996). What ‘sustainability’ adds to previous understan...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Tables, figures and boxes
• Acknowledgements
• Preface
• one Introduction
• Part One: Conceptions of sustainable development
• Part Two: Contexts for sustainable development in China’s world city
• Part Three: Challenges of sustainable development
• Bibliography