The global environment in 2050: a realist and liberal democratic perspective

In China, after US officials from 2008 started releasing air quality measurements taken at the American Embassy, embarrassed Chinese authorities have since adopted measures to address air pollution with one report finding that average concentrations of pollutants fell in Chinese cities by 12% from 2017 to 2018.

In contrast, India still had 22 of the top 30 most polluted cities in 2018, including 7 of the top 10.

But solutions are difficult. After all, while China increased its per capita annual carbon dioxide emissions from 2.04 tons to 7.95 tons between 1990 and 2018, making China the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter as its share of global manufacturing output increased from 3% in 1990 to 28% by 2018, its per capita levels remain much lower than a number of liberal democracies, including Australia (16.77), Canada (16.08), USA (16.14), the Netherlands (9.50) and (Norway 9.43).

Good luck with asking China to reduce its per capita emissions.   

In any case, authoritarian China can hardly be trusted with any stated environmental aims. While China signed the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which committed countries to abolish the production and use of ozone depleting halocarbon gasses to zero by 2010, the Environmental Investigation Agency concluded that at least 18 Chemical Companies in 10 Chinese Provinces were still actively engaged in the production of CFC-11 to use as a blowing agent for insulating foam products used in the building and other industries. 

And, although China now invests heavily in renewable energy to reduce its use of coal at the domestic level, albeit still building large numbers of coal fired power stations at the domestic level, Chinese companies are involved in the design and construction of around 1,600 new coal power stations in 62 countries with 11 of the 20 largest companies either owned or financed by the Chinese Government.

Such an approach is hardly consistent with China being committed to any transition to a decarbonised economy.

With regard to deforestation, while much of the blame has been given to global agribusiness, often backed by American and European interests, China since 2000 has been responsible for the majority of growth for forest-clearing products including soy, palm oil and beef as the largest trading partner (by revenue) with Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil.

In contrast to the US and Europe, where pressure from non-profits and consumers led companies to adopt sustainable sourcing initiatives, Chinese importers are rarely members of sustainable sourcing initiatives.  

However, even from a realist perspective that recognises the growing importance of developing nations to the global economy, it would be mindless for any liberal democracy to put environment goals in the too hard basket.

Liberal democracies, although also committed to economic growth to maintain their high standard of living, can lead by example with regard to encouraging national examples and international solutions that help address/temper environmental degradation. This includes policies that address rising greenhouse gas emissions, plastic pollution, freshwater problems which are leading to greater desalination that can damage ecosystems, and the loss of forests and habitats needed to protect the biodiversity of plants and animal species.

We already see this through many liberal democracies (including the UK, France and Germany) indicating an intention to reduce net carbon emissions to zero by 2050, primarily through a market price to address carbon emissions, a strategy that will become much more effective if the three biggest emitters (China, the US and India) get involved.