Active conflict or passive coherence? The political economy of climate change in China

• Published in: Environmental politics Vol. 19; no. 6; pp. 1012 - 1017
• Main Author: Lo, Alex Y.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Abingdon Routledge 01.11.2010; Taylor & Francis Ltd
• Subjects: Autonomy; Business law; China; Citizens; Climate Change; Climate effects; Coherence; Conflict; Defense programs; Ecology; Economics; Emissions; Emissions control; Energy consumption; Environment; Environmental changes; Human influences; International relations; Kyoto Protocol; Mitigation; Nationalism; NGOs; Nongovernmental organizations; Peoples Republic of China; Political change; Political conditions; Political Economy; Politics; Traditions; China; China, People's Rep
• ISSN: 0964-4016; 1743-8934
• DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2010.518689

Human-induced climate change has been a trigger of domestic conflict in many parts of the world, prompting prolonged periods of contention between environmental activists and climate change sceptics. But, what about countries without legal oppositional politics, such as China? China ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol in 1992 and 2002, respectively. As a non-Annex I developing county it has not been subject to emission limits. Although it does not lack aggressive mitigation efforts, there is strong reluctance to curb skyrocketing emission levels by adhering to mandatory limits. Substantial climate commitment from China is contingent on fulfilment of its own economic and social goals. This is accepted not only by the government and business leaders but also by the general public and many non-governmental organisations (NGOs). These actors converge in their views about the relative priority of responsibility for climate change and for the majority’s material wellbeing. Moreover, Chinese citizens and civil society do not, or cannot, confront the state. The issue of climate change, then, does not involve a great deal of conflict, and Chinese nationalism may keep it that way for the foreseeable future. Many Chinese strongly disapprove of Western criticisms of China’s political traditions. Following the Copenhagen conference and in view of China’s rapidly growing energy consumption, the government is confronted with mounting international pressure demanding further concessions. The dynamics of global climate politics, however, may effectively create a political arena where the Chinese public remains firmly behind the state’s defence of national autonomy in formulating responses to climate change. This widely shared support for autonomy may then indicate a passive form of political coherence, where official policies and public preferences are not in conflict.