Two Leaders, Two Nations, Two Agendas, Two Policies
How the disparate political and social situations in the United States and China have lead the two global leaders in carbon emissions in diverging directions.
The common explanation of the hostile resistance towards Obamacare repeal revolves around the thought that “taking something away from the citizenry is much more difficult than giving it to them in the first place”. While a GOP controlled Congress and White House spent the better half of 2017 trying to liberate 23 million Americans from the burdens of affordable health insurance, citizens and pundits alike were amazed by the groundswell of activism fighting such measures. The repeal debate went beyond the left-right divide so often felt in our body politic, with liberals and conservatives both speaking out at the dangers of doubling the number of uninsured adults in this country, leading to key defections by major Republican Senators delivering the ultimate death blow to Obamacare repeal.
A couple of blocks down the street, the Environmental Protection Agency, lead by former Oklahoma Attorney General and fossil fuel industry ottoman Scott Pruitt, have slowly been robbing the American people of another right provided by the government since the late 60’s; clean water and air. Since the inception the Agency, founded by Nixon and equipped by the recently signed Clean Air and Water Act, the United States has taken federal measures to insure the water and air consumed by the American people pose no serious health risks, or at the very least are non-lethal. The Government giveth, and now Scott Pruitt intends to taketh away.
Perhaps it is obligatory to say that the plan to protect our nation’s citizens from the runoff, acid rain, and toxic compounds follows a game plan which smacks of everything conservatives oppose: an empowered federal government, with all the corporate accountability and regulation which ensue. Never mind the original architect of such a protection agency was Nixon, and while we can’t ask seminal Federalists like Adams and Hamilton about clean air and water, our nation’s founding conservatives certainly could see the argument that pollution particles transcend state boundaries and thus is an issue sitting under the purview of the limited but energetic federal government they sought to create. Methane doesn’t care who you voted for in the last election, or whether you are actually a resident of Illinois downriver from a state with less stringent pollution regulations. Conservatives and liberals united together to create a better environment for their citizenry, because clean waterways and healthy children is not a political issue. How these actions have become misconstrued throughout the years has not become fully apparent to me, yet the result is becoming clearer every day; Environmental Protection is a partisan issue, and the Trump administration is seeking to undo decades of bipartisan efforts, without most citizens batting an eye.
As a twenty-two year old, I did not experience the Wild West of environmental regulation, pre-EPA, when Lake Erie caught on fire and crop-dusters filled the air with DDT. I, like many Americans, but not all Americans my age, grew up in an environment of clean air and water, reaping the benefits of improvements made decades ago and mostly taking them for granted. Now we stand silent and allow our government to endanger our own health and the health of our children because the only thing which appears to break through Pruitt’s $50,000 cone of silence in his EPA office are the corporate pressures to deregulate. So far the Trump administration’s thesis is proving true: there is no consequence for removing the bipartisan federal structure which grants millions of citizens the clean air and drinking water it deserves. At least, there are no electoral consequences.
Meanwhile, back in China, the situation could not be more dichotomous. In a nation heckled and harassed for its abysmal air quality, progress could not be more visible. So much of its citizenry yearn to breathe the air we breath in America, swim in the water from the Mississippi instead of the Yangtze. It is no wonder that Xi Jinping has taken on the opposite mantle of Climate Change, embracing the positive effects of limiting industry pollution instead of shying away from the corporate pushback. President Xi can market his stance on Climate Change and subsequent industry restrictions as a method to deliver to the Chinese people clear skies, something most Chinese can only dream of.
Beyond America’s “have” versus China’s “have not” with regards to clean air and water, there are still more ways the situation of the two nations differ. The Chinese have a one party, Communist government, allowing for a more ideologically cohesive stance toward any issue, in addition to the lack of squeamishness communists have toward corporate regulation, whereas the democratic and capitalist ideals of America limit any solution to a political ping-pong ball which changes from administration to administration and is always wary of interfering with American industry. The efficiency of a one-party government sails past the sluggish pace of our democratic-republic legislature, which always appears to be more combative than collaborative, however, efficient government always looks great until it begins acting in a way with which you do not agree. While liberals might secretly marvel in the expedient way a one-party state like China is addressing Climate Change, they merely have to turn to the efficient branch of our own government, the Executive, to see the drawbacks. Scott Pruitt is moving in the opposite direction of China, but with comparable speed.
Importantly, state run media allows the Chinese government to act boldly and shape public opinion around issues, whereas the American government rightly is not afforded such a luxury. Fox can constantly slam any of Obama’s efforts to regulate industry and move our nation onto a more sustainable path as “anti-industry”, whereas the Chinese press will only applaud the efforts of their leader. In an era of bifurcated media in America, two narratives are constantly introduced to political movements, whether it be Obama’s “war on coal” and “sustainable initiatives”, or Trump’s “pro-business actions” or “childish stance against Climate Change informed mostly by discredited science and oil executives which is currently endangering the continued existence of the human race.” Both sides get play in America and propagate out to the masses, forming two seemingly legitimate storylines to interject itself in our political discourse and lead to the introduction of “alternative facts”. China, on the other hand, only has one message, allowing for President Xi to move forward without opposition.
Finally, half of our nation constantly viewed progress in sustainable energy and regulations limiting industry pollution as unnecessary shackles to the heart of our country, it’s great corporations. China’s government has instead embraced the challenges brought about from Climate Change reforms as a way to grow their economy and become world leaders in the blooming sustainable market. When economic principals leave the paper and enter the real world, unforeseen variables and challenges allow the true outcomes to deviate from the the predictions, but the simple idea of reverting to an old energy economy instead of jumping into the twenty-first century doesn’t seem to be the best. China has been unapologetic in their commitment to the new green economy, from remaining in the Paris Climate Accords after the withdrawal of the U.S., to committing $360 billion towards renewable energy over the next four years. What one nation is treating as an economic burden, the other nation is treating as an economic opportunity.
When the historical record reaches a consensus on how China and the United States reached such disparate stances on Climate Change, I do believe these factors and many others will be at the focus. Simply put, the political and social mechanisms which make it easy for China to move toward a more sustainable future are simultaneously making it difficult for America to do the same thing. The opening paragraphs demonstrate the lack of outpouring of bipartisan outrage towards the Trump administration and Scott Pruitt in particular for endangering the future of all Americans, the same outrage we experienced during the debate to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. We had the Science-Climate March, but we have not had the rapid response (present during the healthcare debate) every time the administration commits a transgression against Environmental Protection. The current political atmosphere is allowing the Trump Administration to put America on the wrong side of Climate Change history, and it is time to use the most powerful instrument of our American Democracy, our voices and votes, to insure the message is clear that there will be electoral consequences for endangering the sanctity of our environment and safety of future generations.
-Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish
Seamus
