Editor's note: As protection of the planet's flora, fauna and resources becomes increasingly important, China Daily is publishing a series of stories to illustrate the country's commitment to safeguarding the natural world.

In her search to discover sustainable practices and how young people can be at the heart of tackling climate change, Linda de Boer, a student at Philips Academy Andover, one of the oldest and most prestigious boarding schools in the United States, recently interviewed Zhang Yongsheng, director-general of the Research Institute for Eco-civilization of China. The institute is affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and is one of the most influential research institutes on the environment and development in China.

The following is a transcript of the interview.

Linda de Boer: What are the consequences of the traditional view of development? How has China's model shifted?

Zhang Yongsheng: Traditional development, established since the industrial revolution, sees environmental protection and development as conflicting factors, a trade-off; the new view of ecological civilization recognizes them to be mutually reinforcing. Thanks to the reform and opening-up initiated in 1978, China has achieved four decades of rapid economic growth.

Nonetheless, the environmental cost of this development has been high, rendering the growth unsustainable. Since 2012, under the leadership of Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, there has been a fundamental shift in the understanding of the relationship between environment and development, leading to a transformation in China's developmental concept to "green is gold".

So, what are the consequences of the traditional view of development worldwide? One is the unsustainable environmental consequences. The second is the social consequences, including inequality. The third is the issue of well-being. The purpose of economic development is to improve human well-being and provide a better life, but it doesn't always succeed. The Easterlin paradox shows that while GDP increased significantly worldwide, people's happiness levels did not rise accordingly. This proved that economic development doesn't always lead to increased happiness and well-being. While we cannot therefore deny the tremendous progress that industrial civilization has brought to human civilization, we must discuss today's problems and find solutions to them.

Solving these problems requires understanding why they arise in the first place. It is the developmental model that inherently creates a trade-off between the environment and development. Environmental, social and well-being issues are all different facets of this same problem. The purpose of development is to improve well-being; even if material wealth and productivity are high, without a focus on well-being, problems will arise.

With the traditional view of development, China has gone through a very torturous process, paying a heavy price in terms of environmental damage and other costs. However, it was this struggle that drove a paradigm shift — from superficial environmental measures to a fundamental ecological civilization.

What's the definition of ecological civilization? Ecological civilization is a new form of civilization built upon industrial civilization. It achieves modernization through green development, realizing harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature.

The essential differences between ecological civilization and traditional industrial civilization are twofold. First, the relationship between humanity and nature differs. Ecological civilization shifts from a past model where humanity placed itself above nature, referred to as anthropocentrism, to one where economic activity is integrated within the safe boundaries of nature. Second, the purpose and content of development differ. Ecological civilization redefines the concept of a "good life", transforming the content of development and transcending the traditional development model centered on materialism and consumerism.

These two essential differences enable ecological civilization to achieve both economic prosperity and environmental sustainability. It requires rethinking and reconstructing the underlying logic of development, including the fundamental questions of why, what and how to develop, and its philosophical foundations. Therefore, we no longer worry that environmental protection will hinder economic development; instead, we believe that environmental protection will open up new opportunities, bringing about a vibrant and promising new era of green prosperity, rather than being a burden for development.

Take the car industry as an example. It would be difficult for China to catch up with the developed countries in the fuel-powered car industry; they are further down the road, and it would require a long period of development to reach that point. However, electric vehicles that are required for addressing the global climate crisis provide a new lane for China to catch up, in which everyone is at the same starting point.

The rise of China's electric vehicle and new energy industries is due to effective reform measures that created conditions for industrial development. Environmental problems could essentially be attributed to market failure, although some mainstream economists have consistently rejected this concept. In fact, environmental crises could hardly be automatically solved by the invisible hand of the market. We must redefine both the functions of government and the market. Environmental protection and climate change mitigation are the largest-scale self-correction actions in human history.

Regarding China's green development, the overall direction is a different development path, composed of four aspects. The first is strict environmental protection, the second is green development through reforms and changing lanes, the third is opening up to the outside world through global free trade and free investment, and the fourth regards the developing countries of the Global South. China can help them through establishing a win-win relationship — we have the green technology and capital to help them achieve modernization through new green development. China is discussing free trade agreements and offers zero tariffs to African countries and very low tariffs to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations countries.

De Boer: Over the past few decades, the Chinese economy has grown rapidly. What has driven China to pursue its ambitious climate goals?

Zhang: In fact, China started its cause of environmental protection as early as the industrialized countries did in 1972. China's development level was very low at that time, so there were naturally fewer environmental problems. As a socialist country with a planned economy, it was thought in China that environmental problems were only found in capitalist countries that pursue profit maximization and engage in exploitative production, and it was believed that socialist countries like China would not experience environmental problems. However, many environmental problems did appear at that time; these were scattered and relatively isolated environmental problems, but when viewed collectively, they were quite serious. But still, China thought it could address the problems, without realizing that the crises were rooted in the universal economic development model established since the industrial revolution.

In the 1980s, an ambitious economic modernization and environmental protection plan was proposed. At that time, it was believed that China could both develop the economy and protect the environment. Since the economic level was still relatively low, the conflict between the environment and development had not yet intensified.

Later, in 2000, China joined the World Trade Organization, and the economy developed rapidly, integrating into the global economy. From the reform and opening-up to around 2010, the average annual growth rate was about 10 percent, which means that roughly its economy doubled every seven years. During this period, environmental problems worsened across the board.

Although China had never explicitly adopted a "pollute first, clean up later" strategy and had always emphasized environmental protection, it had followed the model of industrialization in the industrialized countries, where environmental protection and economic development are inherently in conflict. Therefore, it was implicitly accepted that economic growth can only be achieved at the cost of environmental sacrifice.

The reason why environmental problems have not been solved is not that the government didn't care, but because the past development model was based on traditional industrialization, which was built on the mass production and mass consumption of material wealth. This model inevitably leads to massive resource consumption, resulting in pollution and carbon emissions. If the development model doesn't change, it's difficult to solve environmental problems through environmental protection alone. In this case, the only options are either impacting economic growth or spending a high cost on new technologies.

However, in 2005, when Xi Jinping was the Party secretary of Zhejiang province, he proposed a concept which is the core of ecological civilization: "Lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets", or "green is gold". This means that environmental protection is not a burden on economic development, but can be a source of economic development; they are mutually reinforcing.

This represents a journey in our understanding. We used to think that environmental protection was simply an environmental issue, but later we realized that behind environmental problems lies the issue of the development paradigm. If the development model doesn't change — that is, why we produce, what we produce, how we produce it — neither will the conflict between the environment and economic development be addressed. Without a paradigm shift in development, protecting the environment either means sacrificing development or incurring higher costs.

Therefore, China has completed a major transformation from "environmental protection" to "ecological civilization", returning to the underlying logic of development and rethinking the fundamental problems of development.

In summary, China has set such ambitious climate targets for two reasons. One is that past development was unsustainable, and the other is that new development opportunities have emerged. I just talked about how China's past development was unsustainable, and how we addressed this, so we shifted to new methods, ultimately leading to ecological civilization.

The same is true for new opportunities; seeing them requires a shift in understanding and perspective. For example, with gasoline-powered cars, if the government increases emission reduction requirements, the cost of gasoline cars increases, but this creates conditions for electric vehicles to grow, and the price of EVs gets cheaper and cheaper, leading to a shift from gasoline cars to electric cars. However, a traditional understanding of this issue fails to foresee the emergence of electric vehicles, only considering it within the framework of gasoline-powered vehicles, creating the impression that increasing emission reduction efforts increases the cost of using cars. It doesn't consider that stricter emission reduction efforts can drive gasoline stations to become more competitive electric vehicle charging stations — a new structure accommodating a new framework.

This is why China now has this new opportunity to promote its ambitious climate goals. Previously, we all viewed emission reduction as a burden. However, it brings about new opportunities equivalent to a leap from zero to one. To make this leap, the key is having a vision, like knowing that the transition from gasoline cars to electric cars is possible, for example. Only with foresight and theoretical innovation can we grasp the existence of this opportunity and take action to realize it — a self-fulfilling process.

This process is reflected in today's global carbon neutrality commitments. At COP15 in 2009, almost all countries viewed emission reduction as a significant burden. Therefore, countries blamed each other, hoping others would reduce emissions more while they reduced less, all wanting to be free riders. But now, most countries have committed to carbon neutrality by 2050 or 2060, and 70 percent of these countries are developing countries.

Why has such a dramatic change occurred? I don't think it's because these countries suddenly woke up and developed a greater sense of social or global responsibility, although that's certainly a contributing factor. More importantly, the cost of renewable energy has dropped dramatically, by about 90 percent, making emission reduction a self-fulfilling process.

Now, the cost of renewable energy is even lower than traditional fossil fuels; it's cost-effective, even in terms of the entire life cycle, including the manufacturing and construction of power plants. And then there are electric vehicles, which are now cheaper and better than traditional cars in China. These things triggered by carbon neutrality action were unimaginable under the traditional development model.

So, once you have a vision and put significant effort into reducing emissions, many unexpected things will emerge. This is an important way for us to understand development opportunities; it requires new thinking. As Einstein said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."

We are rethinking the fundamental questions of development, including why we develop — for a good life — and what kind of development we should pursue. Different conceptions of a "good life" correspond to different development approaches, which require different methods of production.

Given China's rapid economic development over the past few decades, people naturally ask why, after such miraculous economic growth, is China not continuing on the same path, but instead undergoing a green transformation? The answer lies in two reasons: the traditional high-carbon model, which we learned from developed countries, is no longer sustainable; and we have found a new path, a promising road — green development.

De Boer: What are the similarities between China's experience and the experiences of other countries?

Zhang: China's ecological civilization is a result of solving the unsustainable problems, which is not just a dilemma in China, but in all countries. China and the industrialized countries are all dealing with the common issue of the environmental crisis, but China has explored a different direction.

China's development over the past 40 years can be described as a development miracle, starting with reform and opening-up in 1978, almost 45 years ago. However, as some developing countries learn from China's experience, it's important to not only understand what we are doing, but why. Following China's early coastal export-oriented processing model without focusing on green development is no longer sustainable. China developed ecological civilization after an arduous process of exploration, and we would like to share our experiences and lessons with other countries for developing their own new green development models.

The development philosophy and models that China has developed through this exploration are not only applicable to China; they address global challenges. China has many successful cases to demonstrate what the new development model can look like for developing countries.

The goal is to pave a path different from the past "develop first, clean up later" model. It means protecting the environment from the very beginning of development, while simultaneously developing the economy. This way, development no longer needs to come with the cost of environmental pollution.

houliqiang@chinadaily.com.cn