A few months ago, I read a fascinating (and troubling) report from a panel of American transportation professionals who visited China in September 2007.   While there, they met with Chinese national, regional, and local officials and business leaders, and toured a number of ports and other facilities to see how goods are being transported (and exported) in the Chinese economy.  The report is available from the Transportation Research Board. 

Some of the American panel’s conclusions include: that China expects to continue growing rapidly; that China has a national strategy for the transportation, including freight; and that China’s highly centralized state power has made it easier for the nation to build projects rapidly, without getting derailed by such concerns as environmental impacts. 

Travel can broaden the mind; it can also reinforce what one was predisposed to believe.  In that regard, one of the panel’s most telling comments is this statement:

"There was a strong perception that the United States lacks the political will to invest in infrastructure and could not deliver needed investments in infrastructure in a timely manner even if desired. China is viewed as being very proactive with respect to infrastructure provision by building for the future and clearly stating in their strategic plans what will be built and when; the United States is perceived as being very reactive."

The panel report also offers some practical insights – the US has a strong advantage in our rail network; US port capacity, rather than foreign port capacity, is the key drag on volume of imports into the US; widening of the Panama Canal is likely to increase pressure on already strained East Coast ports. 

Largely overlooked by the panel is the enormous price China is paying – in ecological and human health and social instability – for prioritizing engagement in global markets above sustainability.  The report omits any discussion of the likely impacts of climate change regulation.  That’s a striking gap, since the massive increases in truck, rail, and shipping imagined by the panel aren’t reconcilable with the reality of massive carbon reductions.  It seems to us that there’s a strong argument for United States to adopt a coherent national freight transportation strategy – it will take a proactive strategy to keep the current level of goods moving at much lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions – but the vision of rapidly ever-expanding volumes of freight, with bigger cargo ships, busier ports, more diesel trucks, and many more roads, is nuts.