Though the experts are still figuring out the economic benefits of China’s global infrastructure development project, the Belt and Road initiative, the environmental impacts of the same have begun to become apparent over the last few years.

Chinese-led massive rail and road construction projects manifesting the skewed notions of development are often passing through ecologically sensitive regions, causing wildlife and vegetation loss and excessive pollution, ultimately burdening the indigenous communities.

In its quest to acquire minerals, agricultural commodities, and investment avenues for its companies, China is leaving an unsurmountable impact on global environmental conditions through the construction of roads, railways, and hydroelectricity projects.

In Southeast Asia, the presence of BRI has led to alarming concerns regarding conservation, livelihood, and sustainability.

Chinese companies have often readily shown their expertise in green-washing their projects whenever the voice of the host nation or any international organization has been raised.

Back in 2018, a hydropower project by China’s SOEs in Sumatra, Indonesia, had put orangutans in the region under serious threat, as the project involved flooding of the region and construction of roads and power-lines.

However, not all projects are brought under severe scrutiny as the developing country governments often find the potential economic benefits of the projects lucrative enough to overlook the cost to the environment, as happened in the case of Myanmar.

Another China-backed dam project on the Mekong River in Cambodia projects is creating a negative externality for its people as the construction would hamper fish migration and their population, further damaging the livelihoods of the fisher folks of the region.

Virtually, China is reaching all those corners of the world where even the regional governments can’t reach.

Chinese companies can be found undertaking extraction or construction in the most sensitive of ecosystems or the most interior of the regions, whether it is a remote area of the Congo River basin, the savannas of South America, or deltas of Southeast Asia.

Though the construction might be limited to a few nations, the environmental impacts indeed spill over without bounds.

Experts express their concern over the very basics of Chinese business operations overseas that are marked by excessive corruption and lack of transparency, leading to low media scrutiny.

Thus, the realities of the BRI projects are not well known publicly, owing to their poor press freedom and the extinguishing of any form of public discourse.

Countries like Ghana, among others, have been on the verge of losing their natural resources like cocoa, bauxite, and oil if they default and the debt is not restructured.

Chinese companies have often readily shown their expertise in green-washing their projects whenever the voice of the host nation or any international organization has been raised.

Furthermore, there exists evidence that suggests that Chinese investment is not leading to job creation in the host country’s labor markets, following poor labor practices, and its extractive practices have led to the degradation of water and soil and boost to illegal activities.

As per a report assessing the Chinese projects in Ethiopia, it was found that the project execution standards were abysmally low.

The project lacked environmental and social impact assessments, leading to issues of habitat destruction and waste management because of issues related to pollution, deforestation, and harm to Indigenous lands in Ethiopia.

As per a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report, BRI expansion is associated with harming 265 threatened species, 1,739 Important Bird Areas and Key Biodiversity Areas, and rising cases of poaching and deforestation in the impacted regions.

There is a possibility that China’s presence in these biodiversity hotspots is related to the fact that China is one of the largest markets of trade in wildlife and illegal timber.

Strikingly, much of the international community is also not being very vocal about the current and potential environmental impacts of the BRI. The problem is as follows.

First, those who voice against it are often called out as the stooge of the West, promoting anti-China sentiments.

On the other hand, China itself is proficient enough in curbing down the domestic and international media voices (from the developing nations).

Thirdly, China has given its neo-imperialistic motives of extraction and expansion under BRI a “pro-growth/ development” wash. Hence, under the pretext of infrastructure growth and development of the Global South, China is majorly responsible for its environmental degradation and externalities.

Moreover, nations, particularly from Africa, are bound in Chinese debt traps with unfavorable terms of debt.

With the “sheer scale of environmental degradation that its policies and corporations are causing worldwide” through BRI and its “development wash”, there is no time to remain agnostic about it.

Countries like Ghana, among others, have been on the verge of losing their natural resources like cocoa, bauxite, and oil if they default and the debt is not restructured.

Thus, these nations, with unstable governments and weaker institutions, have little to no voice against the “seemingly good-doer” Beijing.

Though there has been a rising discourse on greening the BRI, making their energy projects greener, and a series of green declarations by ministries in Beijing, it exists mainly to shut the critics.

In reality, the compliance by SOEs or private companies from China is far from perfect.

Proponents of BRI claim that China has indeed taken steps to curb pollution domestically and internationally, as exhibited by its massive tree plantation projects and reduction of fossil fuel engagement, among others.

However, these acts are not enough as well as appropriate to cover for the sheer damage caused to the environment and local livelihood through massive construction projects.

In the end, the strongest argument that China puts forth is “whataboutery”: What happens when the West pursues its economic interests?

A very compelling answer to this is given by a conservationist, Prof. William Laurance, who argues that the sheer size and scale in which China operates and the opaque institutional culture and decision-making process of Beijing make it an even more difficult global force to deal with.

The citizens in the West have the power to backlash against the government, electorally punish them, and openly criticize in the media for domestic or international environmental damage, which is virtually nonexistent in China.

The international community has a lot to contemplate and act on. While the debate on the economic benefits of BRI is still ongoing, and only time may tell who the net losers and winners were in the process, the status quo reveals that the environment is the net loser.

With the “sheer scale of environmental degradation that its policies and corporations are causing worldwide” through BRI and its “development wash”, there is no time to remain agnostic about it.