Conservation or Decarbonization? Small Hydropower and State Logics of Green Development in China

Abstract

Through an analysis of small hydropower (SHP) in China, I argue that logics of green development offer a framework for analyzing why, how, and to what intended effect the state pursues different green agendas over time and space. For decades, China’s central and provincial governments framed SHP as a model of green development, but in 2016 they instituted SHP restrictions due to ecological impacts and electricity waste, a situation blamed on local officials haphazardly approving too many plants. This interpretation, however, ignores a major shift in state logic for promoting SHP, first for conservation-based development in rural areas and then for low-carbon development in urban areas. These logics—which I abbreviate as conservation and decarbonization—are based on different political–economic problems that green development is meant to solve for the state, different places targeted for intervention, and different distributions of benefits and costs. Using this framework, I argue that a shift to decarbonization in the mid-2000s incentivized cash-strapped local governments in rural western China to build as many SHP plants as possible to export electricity and build local industries, leading to a subsequent “bust.” I illustrate this trajectory using case studies of three prefectures in Yunnan province. This article thus enriches scholarship on state–nature relations by theorizing the role of the state in shaping dominant discourses and practices of green development across space and their uneven outcomes. Key Words: China, conservation, decarbonization, green development, renewable energy.

通过对中国小型水电站（SHP）的分析, 笔者认为, 国家在不同时间和空间会追求的不同绿色议程, 为分析其原因、方式和预期效果, 绿色发展这一逻辑思路为其提供了框架依据。几十年来, 中国中央和省级政府一直将小型水电站（SHP）建设作为绿色发展的典范, 但在 2016 年, 由于地方官员随意批准了过多的电厂建设申请, 造成生态影响和电力浪费, 中国制定了小型水电厂限制方案。但这种解读方式忽视了国家在推动小型水电站发展逻辑上的重大转变, 构架开始将农村地区的保护性发展排在首位, 其次才是城市地区的低碳发展。这种思维逻辑（笔者将其简称为保护和脱碳）基于不同的政治经济问题。面对国家和地方的干预以及不同利益—成本分配导致的问题, 绿色发展正是解决之道。笔者认为, 在这种思维逻辑下, 在 21 世纪中期将重点转为脱碳, 会激励中国西部农村地区资金短缺的地方政府尽可能多地建设小水电厂, 用于电力输出和当地的工业建设, 结果导致随后的“破产”。笔者使用云南省三个县的案例研究来说明这一思路, 讨论了绿色发展主流思想和实践及其不平衡的结果, 从理论上讨论了国家在这方面的角色, 进一步补充在国家-自然关系方面的研究。 关键词: 中国、节能、脱碳、绿色发展、可再生能源。

Con base en un análisis de hidroenergía pequeña (SHP) en China, sostengo que la lógica del desarrollo verde presenta un marco para analizar porqué, cómo y con qué efecto previsto persigue el estado diferentes agendas verdes a través del tiempo y el espacio. Durante décadas, los gobiernos central y provincial de China enmarcaron la SHP como un modelo de desarrollo verde, pero en 2016 ellos instituyeron restricciones a las SHP debido a impactos ecológicos y al desperdicio de electricidad, situación de la que se hizo responsables a funcionarios locales por aprobar a la topa tolondra demasiadas plantas. Sin embargo, esta interpretación ignora un cambio importante en la lógica del estado para promover las SHP, primero por el desarrollo basado en conservación en áreas rurales, y luego por desarrollo bajo en carbón en las áreas urbanas. Estas lógicas––que yo abrevio como conservación y descarbonización––se basan en diferentes problemas político-económicos que se supone han de ser solucionados por el desarrollo verde para el estado, diferentes lugares seleccionados para intervención y diferentes distribuciones de beneficios y costos. Usando este marco, sostengo que un cambio hacia la descarbonización a mediados de los años 2000 incentivó a los gobiernos locales de la parte rural de China occidental, cortos de dinero, a construir tantas plantas como fuese posible para exportar electricidad y construir industrias locales, lo cual terminó en un subsiguiente “fiasco”. Ilustro estas trayectorias usando estudios de caso de tres prefecturas en la provincia de Yunnan. De ese modo este artículo enriquece la erudición en las relaciones estado–naturaleza, teorizando el papel del estado en la configuración de los discursos y prácticas dominantes de desarrollo verde a través del espacio, y sus inequitativos resultados. Palabras clave: China, conservación, descarbonización, desarrollo verde, energía removable.

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to the many government officials, investors, plant managers, and farmers in China who took time to speak with me. I am also thankful to Jack Zinda and four anonymous reviewers for their comments that improved the article. The usual disclaimers apply.

Notes

1 The terms conservation and decarbonization are not necessarily ideal, because they might be perceived to ignore the centrality of development in both logics, but I hope that the reader will sympathize with their use in the context of this article and framework.

2 There are, of course, many cases in which conservation-based development is paired with low-carbon development, such as through carbon offsets. I argue, however, that these logics are distinct and often conflict with each other.

3 Following Adams (2009), I use green development and sustainable development interchangeably in this article.

4 For a nuanced review of different versions of and challenges to this metanarrative—and reviews of market environmentalism and ecological modernization in particular—see Adams (2009), Bina (2013), and P. Ferguson (2015).

5 Carbon forestry schemes like Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) also have links to both emissions trading and voluntary offset programs and share the CDM’s stated goal of reducing emissions and alleviating poverty (Ghazoul et al. 2010).

6 Two of the three Yunnan prefectures (Yuxi and Wenshan) have the administrative rank of prefecture-level city (shi) rather than prefecture (zhou). I refer to all three simply as prefectures for ease of discussion.

7 SHP comprised 53 GW of China’s total renewable energy installed capacity of 57 GW (not including large hydropower) at the end of 2006 (Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century 2006; EPS China Data 2018).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the U.S. State Department (Fulbright-IIE Program), the American Council of Learned Societies, the UCLA Asia Institute, and the UCLA Center for Chinese Studies.

Notes on contributors

Tyler Harlan

TYLER HARLAN is Assistant Professor in the Department of Urban and Environmental Studies at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA 90045. E-mail: [email protected]. His research interests include the political economy and socioenvironmental impacts of China’s energy transition and the implications of this transition for other industrializing countries.