Environment is a Major Political Issue Which Bears …
473
socioeconomic development and environmental protection—while people’s material life is significantly improved and urban and rural construction progresses by
leaps and bounds, the ecological environment is getting increasingly overburdened.
Such a governance system is unsound, which results in unbalanced and unsustainable development that obviously deviates from the Chinese dream of great national
rejuvenation.
Such a development state brings many adverse effects on our economic, livelihood and political development (eg. undermine the “Four Confidences”). For a long
time in the past, there has been a sore spot in the heart of the Chinese—although
China’s overall national strength is among the top in the world and our remarkable
achievements in economic growth and urban and rural construction have been widely
acclaimed, we are still labeled as a country with poor environmental performance.
There was a time when ecological environment in China was associated with foul air
and sprawling sewage. Foreign media called Beijing one of the capital cities with the
worst air quality, and even asked “will China be suffocated in its self-imposed pollution?” Chinese people loathed remarks like that but couldn’t utter a word of objection.
The severe environmental pollution and ecological damage have dampened our sense
of pride on our development achievements. When speaking of our development path
and pattern on the international stage, we were not completely confident and assured
because “our economic growth came at a great price of resources and environment.”
Confidence has to be rooted somewhere. If our own ecological environment are not
protected, if clean water and air are not secured everywhere, how can our development pattern be convincing and compelling in the world? It’s safe to say that the
environmental issue is a major short link that undercuts people’s confidence in the
Chinese development path.
(2) Why do we lag behind?
Why was environmental protection lacking in the governance system of the past? It
had something to do with the principal social contradiction at the time, which was
the contradiction between people’s ever-growing material and cultural needs and
the backward social productivity, so the focus of state governance was naturally on
economic and social development. At one time there were extensive discussions about
depriving China of its “global membership” for its backward economy. Given such
a strong sense of crisis, economic development became the overriding priority, and
“only development counts” actually meant “only economic development counts.”
Under such circumstances, the institutional setup of state governance and resource
allocation were disproportionately tilted toward economic development, while environmental protection was marginalized. The result is that economic development has
seen all-round expansion in scale, structure, distribution and speed, putting tremendous pressure on the ecological environment, while environmental protection always
stands at disadvantage to economic development even though more attention has
been paid to it, greater efforts made and impressive progress achieved. The system
and capability of environmental governance falls seriously behind the actual needs
for environmental protection and improvement; the laws, regulations, standards and
473
socioeconomic development and environmental protection—while people’s material life is significantly improved and urban and rural construction progresses by
leaps and bounds, the ecological environment is getting increasingly overburdened.
Such a governance system is unsound, which results in unbalanced and unsustainable development that obviously deviates from the Chinese dream of great national
rejuvenation.
Such a development state brings many adverse effects on our economic, livelihood and political development (eg. undermine the “Four Confidences”). For a long
time in the past, there has been a sore spot in the heart of the Chinese—although
China’s overall national strength is among the top in the world and our remarkable
achievements in economic growth and urban and rural construction have been widely
acclaimed, we are still labeled as a country with poor environmental performance.
There was a time when ecological environment in China was associated with foul air
and sprawling sewage. Foreign media called Beijing one of the capital cities with the
worst air quality, and even asked “will China be suffocated in its self-imposed pollution?” Chinese people loathed remarks like that but couldn’t utter a word of objection.
The severe environmental pollution and ecological damage have dampened our sense
of pride on our development achievements. When speaking of our development path
and pattern on the international stage, we were not completely confident and assured
because “our economic growth came at a great price of resources and environment.”
Confidence has to be rooted somewhere. If our own ecological environment are not
protected, if clean water and air are not secured everywhere, how can our development pattern be convincing and compelling in the world? It’s safe to say that the
environmental issue is a major short link that undercuts people’s confidence in the
Chinese development path.
(2) Why do we lag behind?
Why was environmental protection lacking in the governance system of the past? It
had something to do with the principal social contradiction at the time, which was
the contradiction between people’s ever-growing material and cultural needs and
the backward social productivity, so the focus of state governance was naturally on
economic and social development. At one time there were extensive discussions about
depriving China of its “global membership” for its backward economy. Given such
a strong sense of crisis, economic development became the overriding priority, and
“only development counts” actually meant “only economic development counts.”
Under such circumstances, the institutional setup of state governance and resource
allocation were disproportionately tilted toward economic development, while environmental protection was marginalized. The result is that economic development has
seen all-round expansion in scale, structure, distribution and speed, putting tremendous pressure on the ecological environment, while environmental protection always
stands at disadvantage to economic development even though more attention has
been paid to it, greater efforts made and impressive progress achieved. The system
and capability of environmental governance falls seriously behind the actual needs
for environmental protection and improvement; the laws, regulations, standards and