Introduction
China and Australia are two examples of countries that have been able to develop rather rapidly while also creating enough room for further economic expansion. Even though they are not exactly similar, numerous discussion topics could bring China and Australia down to a common denominator and enable their collaborative development. The advent of failures and benefits will be unavoidable, but the idea for the two governments should be to remain a textbook example for other countries. Their environmental practices could be developed in the most sustainable ways possible, but the key challenge, in this case, revolves around the fact that the rest of the developing world might not have enough resources to follow the Chinese and Australian agendas on international disputes (Bo et al., 2019; Thuy & Welfield, 2019). This is why the case of Chinese-Australian sustainable practices should be addressed in rich detail, providing enough room for advancements in economic performance and higher standards of living.
On a long-term scale, the relationship between Australia and China can be seen as affected by industrialization and all the patterns deriving from their collaborative efforts. Despite China being a much more technology-fixated nation than Australia, the latter also attempts to spark its economic growth through the interface of available resources and energy (Itiki et al., 2020). Therefore, international disputes between these two countries could be hypothesized to remain contingent on renewable energy and reduced exploitation of natural resources. The current paper aims to review the relationship between a variety of variables affecting the Chinese-Australian dispute on the sustainable environment in an attempt to cover the possible development patterns and outline the biggest barriers. Both countries can be considered examples of global influencers in terms of attitudes toward the environment and sustainability challenges. This is why plenty of sustainable developmental patterns are yet to be discovered with the aid of international disputes and long-term collaborations.
Essential Elements of the Chinese-Australian Dispute on Sustainable Environment
The Context of Energy, Economy, and Environment (E3)
Energy
The first element to consider is the domination of non-renewable energy sources that stand behind more than half of consumption trends across China and Australia. The key difference between the countries is that Chinese coal production, for example, is much stronger than its Australian counterpart (Bekun et al., 2020). This means that China could be questioning some of the initiatives related to sustainable environmental solutions due to the improved access to conventional sources of energy. Since China’s global output grows annually, there is no doubt about the fact that the local approach to energy production and consumption could be different from other countries. While both countries possess domestic reserves of non-renewable sources, their future is going to remain clear because no specific obstacles are averting them from a hybrid energy system where conventional and renewable sources of energy are used together (He, 2018; Thuy & Welfield, 2019). With oil being a not-so-popular domestic energy source between China and Australia, its consumption should be debated as well.
Economy
Speaking of the economy, the growth of China and Australia could be linked to the increasing energy requirements that forced both countries to invest in energy sources and make sure fossil energy no longer remains the primary option. The changes introduced to the economic structures across the Chinese and Australian agendas reinforce a higher demand for energy sources of all kinds (Itiki et al., 2020; Thuy & Welfield, 2019). The biggest reason the economy must be considered when discussing international disputes regarding environmental sustainability is the high chance of exposure to anthropogenic climate change over time. The increasing costs of renewable energy impact the development of new energy mixes and make it harder for China and Australia to reach an agreement on technological developments and structural adjustments intended for the energy industry (Yin, 2018). Even so, energy and economy are interconnected due to the rapid expansion of the two economies and subsequent transformations occurring to the living standards and a higher demand for personal means of transportation.
Environment
The ultimate element that could affect joint sustainability initiatives is the environment itself because energy production and consumption require a backup plan that could be helpful in terms of predicting and mitigating the effects of climate change and other calamities. From various pollution to emissions, China and Australia should carefully address the existing environmental deterioration sources and seek enhancement opportunities (Itiki et al., 2020). One of the probable strategies to attain sustainability could be to develop strategies that would go beyond the governments and appeal to the public needs and wants. Conventional energy sources represent an essential foundation of emissions and pollution. These tend to strengthen the anthropogenic effect on the environment and drive humanity farther away from sustainable solutions (Schmid, 2019). Accordingly, disputes on the quality of the environment should revolve around healthier production systems that do not take non-renewable sources of energy for granted. Despite China dominating the coal market, the challenge is to foresee some of the future trends in the area of sustainable environmental development and pursue policies that would facilitate the relationship between the Chinese and the Australian governments by means of short- and long-term solutions.
Critical Opportunities
Speaking of the critical opportunities possessed by China and Australia in terms of sustainable environmental developments, the key prospect is the growth of services that are in high demand among stakeholders. The deployment of strong international standards became one of the first steps for China when laying the foundation for its long-term sustainable environmental initiatives (Itiki et al., 2020; Schmid, 2019). In order to attain positive negotiation results, Australia and China could focus on sharing technologies and identifying sub-sectors where mutual assistance could be the most beneficial. For example, Thuy and Welfield (2019) suggest that polluted soil and water could be remediated over time, providing the Chinese-Australian alliance with access to monitoring and testing technologies that could bring lots of advantages to the table for both countries. Integrated environmental plans are also essential for the Chinese government and its Australian counterpart because they would provide them with strategic upsides and intensify the industrial capacity.
Increasing Competition and Market Entry Capabilities
In the case of internal and external competition and market entry options, both China and Australia could fixate on state-owned enterprises and private companies. This step would be required to ensure that opaque procurement methods are removed and the local environmental sustainability market is increasingly diversified (He, 2018; Thuy & Welfield, 2019). Some of the core areas of dispute could revolve around the possibility of protecting intellectual property and respecting the difference between the two unique business environments. When speaking of Australia and its objectives for a sustainable environment, it should be noted that it is less affected by the need to work with foreign entities to achieve its objectives (Bo et al., 2019; Yin, 2018). Thus, international disputes between China and Australia would presumably revolve around the strength of mutual market presence and participation in tenders. In order to mediate the challenges, the two governments could build additional connections via trade shows and other venues of industrial communication in order to create more room for engagement.
Direct Sustainability Considerations
With the concept of E3 at hand, both China and Australia could face a dilemma revolving around the inability to maintain a viable balance between the environmental implications of developed economies and political barriers interfering with the industry’s growth. In other words, most disputes tend to revolve around the short-term implications of environment-related decisions that often face internal and external constraints (e.g., budgetary, legislative, socioeconomic) (Bekun et al., 2020; Bo et al., 2019; Thuy & Welfield, 2019). Even though the domestic supply of energy in China and Australia seems to be reasonably managed to meet the demand, there is an evident shortage of fossil fuels and other natural resources. On the road to finding appropriate replacements, the two countries should focus on the most viable ways of utilizing unconventional resources and partnering with other developing and developed states to study the market (He et al., 2018; Schmid, 2019). From this perspective, Australia could approach the dispute from an angle where China’s environmental returns on investments keep decreasing, forcing the Chinese government to seek options outside the country.
As a self-sufficient state, Australia will be able to maintain sustainability by peaking resource production across the domestic environment. In the meantime, the Australian government would develop a joint strategy for sustainable use of renewable resources and ensure that consumer demand can be met with ease (Yin, 2018). Imported fossil fuels will no longer be a sufficient energy source for either country because competition for resources has already reached an international level and is not going to halt. Even though both countries tend to alleviate some of the environmental concerns, the question of sustainability is going to haunt the Chinese and the Australian governments due to the constant price upsurge and limited political vision. As per Bekun et al. (2020), the increasing rivalry will stumble upon the limited capacity expansion related to renewable technologies. Further sustainability considerations could be aligned against the E3 paradigm to agree on whether conventional resource utilization makes sense.
The ultimate benefits of sustainability could be achieved throughout international disputes between China and Australia in the case where both countries pick renewable energy as their new environmental focus. Irrespective of whether it relates to wind or solar energy, the Chinese-Australian partnership could be developed over time if both parties engaged in actions intended to facilitate resource affordability and close the gap related to the economic component of the E3 paradigm (Bekun et al., 2020; Thuy & Welfield, 2019). The rapid expansion is rather unlikely to stop, so the Australian government could be considering the production of new manufacturing amenities intended to respond to China’s recent expansions in a non-rivaling manner. This is necessary to promote the domestic use of renewable resources and ensure that the country’s sustainable agenda would reach further statures in the government (He, 2018). The Chinese government, it could argue for ultimate resource depletion to swap conventional energy with renewable alternatives and protect the environment. This is probably the best approach for both countries to maintain a healthy balance between reducing the usage of non-renewable alternatives and maintaining a decent level of affordability simultaneously.
Conclusion
China and Australia will recurrently stumble upon issues related to prolonged economic growth and proper resource utilization. These are the real-life consequences of rapid economic and technological development and anthropological climate change. National policies of both countries suggest that the costs of approaching the environment and energy sectors are going to increase over the next few years due to the focus on sustainability and renewable sources of energy. The dilemma of the three “E’s,” for example, cannot be ignored in the case of disputes due to China’s inability to find easy solutions that could be helpful on a short-term scale.
In order to set common objectives and pursue sustainability, both the Chinese and the Australian governments should become vigilant in terms of environmental security and international consequences of racing for non-renewable resources. The socioeconomic and geographic limitations of the Australia-China assembly are in place merely because of the trade-offs that transpired due to the industrialization process and increased dependence on energy. Both countries could focus on their rates of energy self-sufficiency to gain a better understanding of how joint efforts might pave the way for future global development that is both sustainable and environment-friendly.
References
Bekun, F. V., Yalçiner, K., Etokakpan, M. U., & Alola, A. A. (2020). Renewed evidence of environmental sustainability from globalization and energy consumption over economic growth in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 29644-29658. Web.
Bo, L., Böhm, S., & Reynolds, N. S. (2019). Organizing the environmental governance of the rare-earth industry: China’s passive revolution.Organization Studies, 40(7), 1045-1071. Web.
He, X. (2018). Legal and policy pathways of climate change adaptation: Comparative analysis of the adaptation practices in the United States, Australia and China. Transnational Environmental Law, 7(2), 347-373. Web.
Itiki, R., Manjrekar, M., Di Santo, S. G., & Machado, L. F. M. (2020). Technical feasibility of Japan-Taiwan-Philippines HVdc interconnector to the Asia Pacific Super Grid. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 133, 110161. Web.
Schmid, M. (2019). Rare earth in the trade dispute between the US and China: A déjà vu. Intereconomics, 54(6), 378-384. Web.
Thuy, T. T., & Welfield, J. B. (2019). Building a normative order in the South China Sea: Evolving disputes, expanding options. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Yin, W. (2018). Challenges, issues in China-EU investment agreement and the implication on China’s domestic reform. Asia Pacific Law Review, 26(2), 170-202. Web.