Since it was first endorsed by President Hu Jintao in 2007, ecological civilisation (EC) has developed into a central element of the green rhetoric of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The political promotion of EC by the Chinese leadership has been supported by a theoretical argument, according to which EC could provide an alternative development theory capable of revolutionising the ecocidal global economic order and bring about a global ecological transition. Does EC present a new theory of development enabling Chinese scholars to contribute meaningfully to the global discussion on sustainable development? What does the circulation of EC between the political and academic spheres tell us about the ability of "social sciences with Chinese characteristics" to produce innovative concepts and theories of sustainability? This article analyses what ecological civilisation brings to the study of sustainability in China as well as globally, through an analysis of the relationship between knowledge and power that has underpinned its development. Based on a qualitative analysis of political documents and a comprehensive review of Chinese academic publications on EC, it unpacks the different layers of political and theoretical meanings that have been invested in the concept of EC over time by CCP ideologues and by scholars; and then analyses the influence that EC has had on China's sustainability research. It argues that the political discourse of EC has increasingly limited the way in which scholars engage critically with capitalism, democracy, and other elements of green political theory. However, it also shows that many Chinese scholars, while subscribing to the EC discourse, have continued to press for the development of their disciplinary contribution to the global scientific discussion on sustainability.
Domestic regulatory institutions are essential components of emissions trading systems (ETS). Not only do they shape the ways that markets operate, they also condition the environmental value of the carbon credits they produce. However, the literature on global carbon politics has paid little attention to local ETS regulators. In a decentralized system increasingly based on a noodle bowl of diversified environmental markets, the study of carbon markets must integrate the institutions in which they operate. This article focuses on China, which, due to its size, is both keen to and expected to have a significant impact on the global system of market-based instruments. We examine how China’s regulatory institutions have worked to implement the seven ETS pilots launched since 2012, and tease out some implications regarding how China’s national ETS may contribute to global climate change governance. In this study, we analyze both formal and informal regulatory institutions, through the practice of local actors. The main finding is that the tension between the state and markets in China’s ETS implementation has resulted in a reinforcement of state domination rather than the emergence of robust regulatory institutions. The contribution that the ETS makes to China’s emissions reduction is also limited by more pressing environmental and industrial policies that local regulators must prioritize. Local nonregulatory implementation practices could undermine the long-term objective to integrate China’s ETS with others under article 6 of the UNFCCC.
Since 2011, Chinese environmental authorities have undertaken a project of "occupying" online spaces, with a particular focus on social media like Weibo. These activities have been analysed alternatively as a promising attempt to improve environmental governance by increasing citizen engagement and transparency, or as a new tool of control over online environmental discourses. However, empirical research into the practices of state microblogs is rare, and the implications of their emergence for local environmental governance remain poorly understood. Using a combination of online and offline investigation methods, this paper analyses the use of microblogs by 172 local environmental authorities in Shandong Province, whose multi-level EPB microblogging system is seen as a model for other provinces, testing whether this system improves environmental governance, and whether this objective is impeded by practices aimed at controlling online environmental discourse. We find limited evidence of improved environmental governance that would be attested by enhanced information disclosure and active citizen engagement. Instead, EPB communication appears mostly insular, and obstructed by floods of diversionary content and propaganda. We suggest that while these behaviours are likely driven by misaligned state incentive structures and fears of triggering social unrest, they also support the goal of discursive control by occupation.
The dispute between the EU and China regarding the trade in solar panels has been commonly explained in terms of power politics, whereby a mercantile China exploited European internal divisions to its advantage. But the trade defence case was also criticized for running against European climate policy goals. To which extent does this case illustrate a normative conflict between trade and the environment? The article replaces the dispute in the context of the trade defence procedures, according to which the EU had to decide, first, whether China's subsidization of its PV industry was illegal, and second, whether Europe's climate policies warranted against imposing trade defence duties. It finds that, in this case, the familiar competition between divergent European industrial interests was made worse by an important normative cleavage amongst European decision-makers, regarding the appropriate way to achieve global climate change policy goals. Simply applying the law did not settle the dispute. Instead, it plastered a political compromise emerged from a shift in the political narrative of the dispute, from emphasizing competition to emphasizing interdependence, pushing the Commission into a political compromise with China.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.