Under The Dome
After watching Chai Jing’s documentary, Under the Dome, I was really taken aback by the extent of the issues with environmental protection in China. The lack of implementation of environmental regulations already set in place on all ends of the spectrum, whether it be filters on diesel trucks or washing coal, was unbelievable. Chai Jing presented an emotional appeal to the Chinese population for taking environmental protection into their own hands, emphasizing the corruption within the regulatory authorities and the lack of consequences for fossil fuel companies, truck drives, and factory owners who continually violate the laws and regulations and always get away with their malpractices.
What I found to be interesting was the juxtaposition between Chai Jing’s illustration of the environmental situation and its progress in China and Mark Beeson’s view in his article, The Coming of Environmental Authoritarianism. Beeson attempted to draw a link between different governing styles and the success or failure of environmental regulation and reform. There seemed to be a blatant difference in opinion on the changing environmental landscape between Chai Jing and Mark Beeson. One of Chai Jing’s strongest arguments to me was where she explained how China can successfully deal with its pollution problem just like Los Angeles was able to and how Great Britain was able to during the “Great Smog” in the 1800s. Chai Jing provided convincing quantitative evidence that both locations were similar geographically to some of China’s most hard-hit cities in terms of how the smog can settle and become trapped between mountains and that lessons learned in Los Angeles and Great Britain can be applied to China. She explained particularly well how Los Angeles was able to drop their pollution rates by 80% in only just a decade. This shows that if China implemented their regulatory rules and standards and applied meaningful consequences and fines to rule breakers, China definitely has the opportunity to turn around their environment.
On the other hand, Beeson presented a completely different viewpoint. While Chai Jing described how China was hardly doing anything meaningful in terms of environmental reform and regulation, Mark Beeson stated that China has arguably done the most out of any country in addressing environmental concerns, citing the one-child policy that was implemented. While I agree that attempting to regulate Chinese population growth is vital and that getting it to a sustainable level will help natural resource consumption stay at sustainable levels, it is not a solution to the entire problem. The environmental crisis is multifaceted and can take the form of population growth, fossil fuel consumption, pollutants and more.
Furthermore, Beeson argued that authoritarian regimes have more success in implementing environmental regulations than democratic countries. He explained how in an authoritarian government like China, one could simply outlaw or ban certain behaviors leading to high levels of pollution. While theoretically this would work, it is not actually done in practice as we saw in Under the Dome. In Chai Jing’s documentary we saw countless cases of factories or truck drivers not complying to these environmental laws. With no real consequences that are being implemented, these companies will continue to operate as usual, making zero chages. In saying that democratic countries, like the United States, are less likely to be successful in implementing environmental regulation is completely wrong in my opinion. As we saw in Chai Jing’s data for Los Angeles, when you enforce regulations, create consequences, and fine those who break the law, real changes can be made and the pollution problem can be solved.
Help Received: Under the Dome and Beeson’s article and GoogleImages