An Autocratic Solution
By: World Ocean Observatory
Tags: Nature, Oceans, China, Ecosystem Services, Climate

An Autocratic Solution

An examination of some statistics that show steps China is taking to confront the climate crisis. World Ocean Observatory May 17·4 min read

Nanshan Cultural Tourist Zone in Sanya, China. Credit: Denny Ryanto @runninghead

We are in an odd place in time, betwixt and befuddled by politics and pandemic, wherein we realize that we must change, but are stifled by the inertia of past actions that won’t give over lightly to the future. The United Nations and coalitions of governments agree in principle, but not in practice; set goals that they cannot, or will not meet; and move forward into the tide of change with best intent and eccentric advance, wishful thinking and hopeful determination that might still not be equal to the urgency and force of the challenge to change.

I have talked ad nauseum about ecosystem service perspective and accounting as an organizational focus for the future. I can point to a growing number of local or limited examples, but can I point to one place, one nation where government has faced up to the reality of climate change and all its manifestations and realities as measured by environmental degradation, the corruption of land and water, and the inevitable decline in economy and community if such action is not taken? The best I can come up with is China.

Really, you exclaim. What about the coal-fired energy plants, the massive relocation of people and villages by mega-dams and water management schemes, the unregulated, indiscriminate taking of seafood, the economic imperialism, the sabre rattling in the Taiwan Strait? All true, and not to be celebrated at all. And then there is the fact of autocracy, the ability of a leader and collaborative legislature, military, administration, and social participation to declare, design, and finance change by a phrase, a direction of capital, or an instruction to a workforce that sets to without question to get the job done. Not a democracy, not really a pure socialist state, but rather a patriarchracy, a leader who can mobilize 1.4 billion people, the largest national population on earth, and move it in one direction, or another. Surely, that is not right, not democratic, not free. How can it be?

But here are some statistics, taken from an article published by the National Academy of Science, research supported by the US National Science Foundation, and written by scientists from Michigan State University, the Chinese Academy of Science, and the Natural Capital Project, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University:

In the past decade, China has:

Conducted a national ecosystem survey and assessment;

Mapped ecosystem services, identifying critical areas for change;

Evaluated plans and proposed outcomes of specific ecosystem service provision;

Translated this effort into practical and effective policies, such as ecological functional zoning, ecological compensation, ecological restoration, and Ecosystem Product Accounting to monetize cost and social outcome;

Designed and applied financial instruments and policy mechanisms to incentivize and implement desired outcomes;

Established through this process a national political framework to facilitate transformational change as necessary social response to the environmental crisis faced at scale, without which the nation is at risk; and

Enlisted its population to participate in this collective effort, decreased land degradation, erosion and desertification, water scarcity, and pollution, increased education and training for new skills and employment, built a global manufacturing enterprise, fueled, housed and fed itself, become the largest economy in the world, exporting its technology, leveraging its wealth, and magnifying its geopolitical influence and strength worldwide.

I can hear the protests from here, that I would glorify such behavior and form of government, thus demeaning our democratic principles, and our (self-proclaimed) place as the greatest nation in the world. I am not arguing here against our form of government, but I am pointing out the results of a reaction to the real, debilitating conditions faced by us all, wherever we live and under whatever governance, and our palpable failure to respond politically, thus practically, thus unsuccessfully to questions with answers, to problems with solutions, to challenges that must be met. What should we do about it?

Do we ignore the obvious and accept the consequent decline through indifference and ignorance? Do we accelerate decline by lack of action? Do we fail as a government, as a democratic experiment, because we are immobilized by differences that ultimately don’t matter when there is no clean air to breathe, no clean water to drink, no food to eat, no health in us, no security, no peace, no future? If we cannot resolve collectively to do these things, how can we call ourselves a nation united by commonality and prospect, a community that deserves to be free?

Does this have anything to do with the ocean? It has everything to do with the ocean — until we fail there too.