Comments on: Back in the U.S.S.A!

By: Ståle

Ståle — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:53:32 +0000

Your descriptions from Shanghai echo my own thoughts (although much more eloquently!) as I was wandering around that incredible place last weekend. While my daily dose of RSS keeps me fairly informed of goings-on around the world, including the mind-boggling pace of development in China, seeing it with my own eyes is something else entirely. Gazing open-mouthed at that Pudong skyline, I found it hard to truly grasp how it could all have materialized over only the last decade and a half or so. What’s going to give?

Thanks also for your thoughtful, insightful offerings at the conference.

By: Clay Burell

Clay Burell — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:37:05 +0000

That “noble cheer” you mention is one of my favorite things about the Chinese, and I swear it has its roots in two things: the strange way hardship has of making us more able to laugh (think of Soviet humor in the face of breadlines and worse), and ancient Chinese Taoism (any creation myth that claims humans were originally the maggots that infested and bred in the corpse of a dead god ((PanGu)) could teach the West and Middle East a thing or two about a Divine Sense of Humor, since laughter in Western religion is taboo).

Enjoying your posts about Shanghai. Sarah’s comment is right on: I seem to remember reading that China used the US’s rejection of Kyoto as an “If they’re not going to cut back, we can’t” excuse for rejecting it too. And China did, notably, at the APEC conference in Australia last month (which our buffoon of a president called OPEC in his opening address), declare that the empty declarations and global warming pledges (non-binding) they made should be more properly negotiated in the U.N., where they would have (a little) more teeth.

You planning any return trips any time soon?

By: Laura

Laura — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:02:01 +0000

Thanks for posting that picture. what makes it for me is the expression of absolute joy on her face.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:46:01 +0000

Yes–I’d say we most probably will all be worse off for the development of new “shanghais”

This, of course is an issue brought to the table every time there’s a major international environmental accord (you know, those essentially non-binding commitments that the US won’t commit to, like Kyoto). The post-industrial western nations try to pressure the industrializing nations (like China) to adopt cleaner technologies as the energy demands of their populations explode. In turn, nations like China argue that they must rapidly industrialize to improve standards of living ASAP, and will worry about environmental and associated issues once they’ve developed a satisfactorily stable economic base. They rightly point out that the US and all the other western nations followed this very model, and that they are therefore entitled to do the same.
Of course, while there were signs of environmental degradation as least early as the 1800s (think of the great conservationists: Muir, Roosevelt, etc.), we did not have near the extent of scientific evidence that we have now. This is the defense of the post-industrial nations.

It’s an interesting dilemma: Do we have the right to ask developing nations to ‘develop’ judiciously, less rapidly, and dare I suggest, sustainably (of course we could hardly make such a request, as most post-industrial nations are so very far from achieving this themselves)? If so, is it the responsibility of the post-industrial nations to provide aid for this specific purpose? And why do we always see economic growth and environmental & social well-being as fundamentally at odds?

It seems to me that it’s incumbent upon us, the western nations who were once leaders in industrialization, to now become world leaders in the movement toward environmental sustainability, social justice, and improved quality of life for all. But I’m not going to hold my breath.