Two views of our fragile planet

The British scientist James Lovelock—who 30 years ago put forward the view that a balance of global systems, which he called Gaia, keeps the Earth fit for life—now says that global warming has already passed the point of no return. Changes in these interlocking systems, says Lovelock, will accelerate to destroy much of the existing biosphere, and human civilization is therefore doomed along with most of our species.

It is the most pessimistic view of climate change to emanate from the scientific establishment so far.

Contrasted to this is a recent report by the Worldwatch Institute called “State of the World 2006—Special Focus: China and India.” The authors look at these two giants of the developing world and find hope that they are already studying and implementing technologies that can avoid the ecological disasters created by the growth of so-called Western civilization.

Christopher Flavin, president of the environmental research group, predicted at a news conference announcing the Worldwatch report that “China and India are positioned to leapfrog today’s industrial powers and become world leaders in sustainable energy and agriculture within a decade.”

More than a third of the world’s people live in these two countries. As consumers of the earth’s bounty, however, most have been peasants forced by poverty to live very austerely. Even today, after several decades of rapid economic growth, their per capita consumption of the world’s resources trails far behind that in the developed capitalist countries—particularly the United States.

According to the report, while the average person in China has an “ecological footprint” of 1.6 global hectares, and in India 0.8 global hectares, the average person in the United States has an ecological footprint of 9.7 hectares. And that grew by 21 percent between 1992 and 2002.

An ecological footprint is defined as the biologically productive area required to produce the natural resources an individual consumes. A hectare is approximately 2.5 acres.

Even though the Western diet is based much more on meat and dairy products, the U.S. still consumes three times as much grain per person as China and five times as much as India, notes the report.

U.S. per-capita carbon dioxide emissions are six times the Chinese level and 20 times the Indian level.

Nevertheless, xenophobic politicians and commentators in the U.S.—and there are plenty of them—have treated the development of China, especially, as a major threat to the world. They make dire predictions of future conflicts, perhaps even wars, over shrinking world energy resources. This view is not shared by commentators in the rest of the world, who see the U.S. as by far the biggest problem when it comes to global warming and depletion of the earth’s resources.

Efforts to build sustainable economies

The Worldwatch document points out that China and India, respectively, are already the world’s third and fourth largest producers of ethanol—a renewable energy source.

China now has equipped 35 million buil d ings with solar panels to produce hot water.

It is the world’s leading developer and producer of low-energy fluorescent light bulbs.

It is refining the development of nuclear power, focusing on new technologies like the “pebble-bed” reactor first developed in South Africa. This small-size reactor is considered “meltdown proof” and safe for the environment because it does not use water as a coolant.

Several Chinese cities are investing in Bus Rapid Transit systems, which move people as quickly as subways but with greater flexibility, thus reducing traffic jams and air pollution. It is also mass-producing electric bicycles.

And China can plan for the future—really plan. That is a legacy of its socialist revolution. While China’s leaders since the 1970s have introduced what they call “market socialism,” trying to pull the country out of poverty and underdevelopment by opening up the market and allowing foreign capitalist investment, there is still a formidable state sector and the political ability to organize the allocation of resources and people for the long-term benefit of the country.

China is working on a 50-year plan for economic development that puts a strong focus on building the infrastructure to lift up its poorer regions in the west. Having input into this kind of long-term planning are many official and unofficial scientists and specialists in the environment.

According to the Worldwatch report, China’s tenth Five-Year Plan, just com plet ed, was the “greenest” ever, with investments to meet environmental objectives set at $85 billion. These targets were nearly met. There are now at least 2,000 registered independent environmental NGOs in China, and more than 200 university green groups are found throughout the provinces.

All this shows that there is strong sentiment in China at all levels of the political structure to use the wealth it has accumulated in recent decades for sustainable, environment-friendly development while trying to raise up the standard of living of the workers and the rural population, in particular.

Class struggle is crucial

However, none of this can be seen in a social vacuum. The very forces unleashed in China that have caused its economy to expand rapidly have also created great inequality. Private investment does not just create wealth for society as a whole. It also concentrates much of that wealth in the hands of a new class of capitalist owners, who, like the sorcerer’s apprentice, are then driven to increase it in a process that has no limits and no end. They seek political power to enhance their class position while corrupting officials with their abundant wealth.

China has been in the news recently because of a string of terrible coal mine disasters and a toxic chemical spill that polluted the river flowing past the major city of Harbin in northeast China. In both mining and petrochemicals, investment by imperialist corporations is introducing profit pressures that increase the risk to the workers and the environment.

This alone does not change the class character of People’s China, which should be defended against imperialist threats, pressure and intrigues. But, as we wrote in Workers World (Dec. 29, 2005), “it is important that progressives understand the debilitating side of these market reforms and the deep problems they are presenting for the workers and farmers of China, who have been the backbone of the revolution.”

The extreme pessimism of a James Lovelock flows from the world imperialist system, which is incapable of putting the long-term needs of humanity ahead of its short-term appetite for profits. To the extent that China is not fully part of that system, it offers hope that is recognized even by environmentalists here.

But the actions of the U.S. and the other imperialist powers are still what are decisive when it comes to global warming. Their system is what is driving the whole world toward ever bigger “natural” disasters.

Hope for the future depends on the struggles of the working class, the oppres sed nations and all progressive people to break up these concentrations of corporate power, assume ownership and control over production and natural resources, and establish planned economies dictated by human needs, not private greed.