Capitalism, communism, and environmental protection: Lessons from the German experience

Environmental History, Jul 1998 by Dominick, Raymond

The same could not be said of East Germany. But contrary to the one-dimensional reporting in much of the western press, the East did enjoy some successes in the environmental realm. Although flawed by a horrendous gap in implementation, new laws and international agreements adopted by the communist government promised robust protection for the environment.39 Furthermore, the government ordered water-saving or water-free production processes in industry, achieving a reduction in consumption of more than lo percent between 1970 and 1988. Treatment for municipal sewage gradually improved in quantity and quality, and East German engineers invented a water purification process that was among the most sophisticated in the world (even the U.S. Coast Guard adopted this technology). While per capita energy use remained high by western standards, consumption per unit of production was cut by more than 25 percent during the last fifteen years of the communist regime. Recycling of basic raw materials continued to be a strong point, with about 75 percent of all aluminum and steel and 95 percent of all lead coming from reclaimed materials. Some kinds of air pollution also declined. Electrostatic filtration cut dust emissions by about 15 percent during the 198os, and throughout its history the East emitted less aromatic hydrocarbon pollution per capita than the West. East Germany had slightly more than half as many autos in proportion to its population as West Germany. These cars operated at relatively low temperature and compression, in part because the communist regime imposed a speed limit, something the politicians in the West never mustered the courage to do. Largely for these reasons, the East produced far less nitric oxide pollution than its western neighbor. Traffic jams remained a relative rarity in the East, new road construction was minimal, and the rate of accident fatalities was lower than in the West. Despite an 8o percent increase in industrial production from 1970 to 1985, emissions of sulfur dioxide remained almost level.40 Perhaps most contrary to the image created by western news reports, life expectancy in the East was exactly the same as in the West: 74.5 years. Although infant mortality was slightly higher-lo out of 1000 live births, compared to 9 out of 1000 in the West-the incidence of cancer in the East was actually lower, not exactly an expected outcome in a land of environmental nightmares.4'

These positive indicators are offered only to qualify, not to repudiate, the image of environmental disaster in the East. Real and serious problems persisted throughout the country. For example, while the communists operated fewer nuclear reactors than their counterparts in the West, the type of reactor they used was condemned by western experts as one of the most dangerous in the world.42 All four were shut down after unification in 199o, and it was the new capitalist government, not the old communist regime, that closed these reactors. In the priorities of the communist leadership, environmental protection always ranked far below increased production, and the regime did score impressive gains in production. In the 198os, industrial production apparently grew at a faster rate in the East than in the West. By the end of that decade, the communists outproduced the capitalists on a per capita basis in such basic areas as electricity, cement, synthetic rubber, and nitrogen fertilizer. Production of various consumer goods also increased dramatically, and East Germany became the richest country in the Soviet bloc. But to the great frustration of communist bosses, rising rates of production in consumer goods perpetually lagged behind the ever-advancing levels of the West. On the eve of unification, East Germany had approximately onehalf as many cars and color televisions and one-tenth as many telephones per capita as West Germany, and its gross domestic product per capita was only 38.7 percent as large. This persistently unfavorable balance spurred greater efforts to increase production, with little regard for the environmental consequences.43