International Law

Prioritizing the Environment

By Stan

Saw the following post title a few days ago on Crossroads:

Environment to suffer for sake of short-term economic growth?

I wondered why Crossroads was doing a post on U.S. economic and environmental policy. Silly me, it was about China all along.

Funny how so many countries around the world right now are experiencing the exact same economic pressures and policy constraints. If someone figures out a nifty solution and writes a book, a whole lot of copies will be sold. (No, I am not referring to Thomas "we will turn the corner in Iraq in the next six months" Friedman).

The growth vs. the environment issue is a perennial favorite topic of many. For me, I do see a real trade-off. I never bought into the notion that the green economy would allow for a seamless transition from existing technologies without (at least) a short-term hit to growth, jobs, etc. Call me a pessimist.

Obama said something the other day that is very cool from a political economy standpoint. It is certainly an accurate description of the history of this issue from a U.S. policy standpoint. Here’s an excerpt from the transcript (’Kroft’ is the interviewer):

Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there were a lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were held on energy independence. Now you’ve got the price of oil under $60.

Mr. Obama: Right.

Kroft: Does doing something about energy is it less important now than…

Mr. Obama: It’s more important. It may be a little harder politically, but it’s more important.

Kroft: Why?

Mr. Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from shock to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up, everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back down and suddenly we act like it’s not important, and we start, you know filling up our SUVs again.

And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It’s part of the addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break it.

This doesn’t say anything about how he intends to motivate Congress to act when fuel prices have come down and there is no discretionary cash left to spend, but I appreciate the thought behind his statement, not to mention the forthrightness.

With the state of the economy, I expect the Democrats to give up on an aggressive energy policy. They usually do. In China, I expect the government here to also step back from aggressive environmental policy enforcement. I read the papers, and anything that might slow growth even more and throw people out of work (people who then become very pissed off), well, that’s a powerful motivator for policy folks in Beijing.

Full post as published by China Hearsay on November 23, 2008 (boomark / email).