Chinese walker

Addressing the challenge of stabilising greenhouse gas (GHG) stocks in the earth`s atmosphere, the Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change argues that such stablisation cannot be achieved without global emissions-reduction action – and the earlier the action is taken, the easier it will be. However, undertaking stabilisation is a delicate and complicated process. The report notes that it is “difficult to secure emission cuts faster than about 1% per year, except in instances of [economic] recession. Even when countries have adopted significant emission-saving measures, national emissions often rose over the same period.”

“China embarked on a series of measures to reduce deforestation and increase reforestation from the 1980s, with the aim of restoring forests and the environmental benefits they entail,” Stern says. “Between 1990 and 2000, forested land increased by 18 million hectares, from 16% to 18% of total land area. Despite cuts in land use emissions of 29% per year between 1990 and 2000, total GHG emissions rose by 2.2% over the same period.”

Noting that “no single technology or process will deliver the emission reductions needed to keep climate change within the targeted limits,” the review acknowledges the attention being paid to the potential of carbon capture and storage (CCS). The CCS process involves removing and storing carbon emissions from the exhaust gases of power stations and other large emitters. CCS technologies are expected to play a crucial role in the future, and could reconcile the continued use of fossil fuels with the need for drastic reductions in emissions.

CCS could, if shown to be effective, help cut emissions from the numerous new coal-fired power stations that China plans for the coming decades — and in which power companies have been investing rapidly. Stern also noted that some countries can reduce emissions more cheaply than others – for example, where big capital investments are being made. “Countries such as India and China are expected to increase their capital infrastructure substantially over coming decades,” the report said, “with China along accounting for around 15% of total global energy investment. If they use low-emission technologies, emission savings can be %26lsquo;locked in` for the lifetime of the asset. It is much cheaper to build a new piece of capital equipment using low-emission technology than to retro-fit dirty capital stock.”

On structural change and competitiveness, Stern also found that “countries most reliant on energy-intensive goods and services may be hardest hit” by costs. “Primary energy consumption as a percent of GDP is generally three or four times higher in the developing world %26hellip; though in rapidly growing sectors and countries such as China and India, primary energy consumption per unit [of] output has fallen sharply as new efficient infrastructure is installed.”

Referring to the economics of emissions stabilisation, Stern noted the link between climate-change policies and energy policy. While the expansion of renewable-power sources can reduce the exposure of economies to fossil-fuel price fluctuations, as well as reducing import dependence, the report said, coal was a different matter.

Says Stern: “Coal is much more carbon intensive than other fossil fuels: coal combustion emits almost twice as much carbon dioxide per unit of energy as does the combustion of natural gas (the amount from crude oil combustion falls between coal and natural gas). Many major energy-using countries have abundant domestic coal supplies, and hence see coal as having an important role in enhancing energy security. China, in particular, is already the world`s largest coal producer; its consumption of coal is likely to double over the 20 years between 2000 and 2020.”

As well as using coal directly, China and other producing countries are investing in “coal-to-liquids technology, which would allow them to reduce their dependence on imported oil” and use domestic coal to meet some transport-fuel demands. However, the full lifecycle emissions of such road transport use have been estimated as almost double those from using crude oil. Extensive CCS deployment, the report emphasises, “can reconcile the use of coal with the emissions reductions necessary for stabilising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

Stern also notes that climate-change policies can reduce local air pollution, with important health and quality-of-life benefits for developing countries. “[O]nly malnutrition, unsafe sex and lack of clean water and adequate sanitation are greater health threats than indoor air pollution” in such countries. In China, says Stern, a recent study showed that “for CO2 reductions up to 10-20%, air pollution and other benefits more than offset the costs of action.”

Reducing agricultural GHG emissions also could have health and local environmental benefits. “For example, in China, nitrous oxide emissions associated with overuse of fertiliser contributes to acid rain, severe eutrophication of the China Sea and damage to health through contamination of drinking water.”

In recommending the acceleration of low-carbon, high-efficiency technological innovation to tackle climate change, the report cited hydrogen for transport as an example. “Hydrogen could potentially offer complete diversification away from oil and provide very low-carbon transport,” it said, adding that “hydrogen would be best suited to road vehicles”. Indeed, Stern noted, China plans to use hydrogen buses at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.

On the topic of innovation, the report also noted a down-side: Some markets, such as the highly energy-intensive cement industry in China and other developing countries, are made up of small, local businesses “which are less likely to undertake research [in energy efficiency] since their resources and potential rewards are smaller”. Still, the report makes clear, “Policies to support deployment [of new technologies] exist throughout the world %26hellip; China and India have both encouraged large-scale renewable deployment in recent years and now have respectively the largest and fifth-largest renewable energy capacity worldwide.”

Moving beyond carbon markets and technology, Stern notes that the planned eco-city of Dongtan, on Chongming island near Shanghai, “provides an important example of the potential for sustainable urban development across the rapidly urbanising transition and developing economies of the world”. The 86-square-kilometre community will feature highly energy-efficient buildings employing renewable energy sources as well as passive energy systems; recycling and composting of waste also are a factor.

Says the report: “Chinese policy-makers and planners have been impressive in scaling up best practice to help achieve their objective to reduce the ratio of energy demand to output by 20% over 5 years. In the case of Dongtan, a high-speed rail link to Shanghai is planned, while the city itself is being designed in a compact, inter-linked way, supported by mixed patterns of land use, and a network of pedestrian and cycle routes, in order to reduce the demand for private motorised transport (and associated infrastructure costs).”

Stern also cited China`s rapid expansion of appliance standards in the 1990s to include refrigerators, lamps, air conditioners and other items. “By 2010,” the report said, “energy savings are estimated to reach 33.5 TWh [terawatt hours, or one trillion watts], or about 9% of China`s residential electricity. This is equivalent to a CO2 emission reduction of 11.3 Mt [metric tons] CO2. A more recent study highlighted the potential for significant energy savings in the longer term from more stringent performance standards on three major residential end-uses: household refrigeration, air-conditioning and water heating.” China is also considering adoption of the International Energy Agency`s “1 Watt Initiative,” to reduce energy waste from appliances on standby power.

Much of what governments do in adapting to climate change “is what they should be doing anyway – that is, implementing good development practice,” the report says. Such adaptation is key to reducing developing countries` vulnerability and increasing their capacity to adapt. Rapid growth, as in China and India, Stern asserts, “will equip these countries with the economic resources to invest in appropriate policies and tools to better manage the effects of climate change.”

To that, Stern added a significant point: “In some circumstances, there may be additional costs, which the international community will have a role in helping to finance, bearing in mind the differences in income and historical responsibility for the bulk of past emissions.”

Improving disaster preparedness and management not only save lives, the report said, but also “promotes early and cost-effective adaptation to climate-change risks”. For example, China`s $3.15 billion spending on flood control from 1960 to 2000 is estimated to have averted some $12 billion in losses.

China is among the nations and regions that have adopted strong mandatory initiatives to reduce GHG emissions. Additionally, the country is involved in dialogue with other large energy consumers on international collective action through a number of forums, including the Gleneagles Dialogue and the Asia-Pacific Partnership. At home, Stern notes, China has adopted goals on climate change and clean energy. The country`s 11th Five Year Plan contains such objectives as a 20% reduction in energy intensity of GDP from 2005 to 2010; a 10% reduction in emission of air pollutants; and sourcing 15% of its energy from renewables within the next decade. At the same time, China plans to double its economic growth. A wide range of incentives support these policies, including using sales taxes to encourage purchase of cars with smaller engines. China also applies a lower rate of value-added tax to renewable energy technologies, and has adopted EU standards for vehicle exhaust emissions.

Stern also cited China`s growing role in promoting international technology cooperation, which “enables the sharing of risks, rewards and progress %26hellip; and enables co-ordination of priorities”. A number of Chinese companies, for example, export solar water heaters to other developing countries. Other international cooperation is reflected in agreements such as the Near-Zero Emissions Coal initiative, announced as part of the EU-China Partnership on Climate Change in 2005. That joint initiative — to develop a near-zero emissions coal plant in China — is expected to lead to the construction of a carbon capture and storage project.

Other collective international actions, the report says, can centre on land use, particularly regarding forests. “Rigorous enforcement of forest protection in one country without action to reduce demand for timber can displace logging to neighbouring countries,” Stern says. “Following floods associated with deforestation in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River, China banned the logging of natural forest in 1998 and has greatly increased its own forest cover. However, timber imports from the Russian Far East, southeast Asia and Africa have risen strongly since the ban has been enforced.”

China led the world in the largest annual net gain in forest area in 2000-2005, according to UN Food and Agriculture Organisation statistics. The country added forests, in area terms, at a rate equal to nearly half of global deforestation over the past five years.

Maryann Bird is a London-based journalist with a special interest in environmental and human-rights issues. A writer and editor, she was previously a staff member at Time magazine (Europe), The Independent, the International Herald Tribune and The New York Times.

Homepage photo by Ari Bronstein

chinadialogue: In China, coal is the dominant energy source and the majority of this coal is used directly for burning. What serious environmental problems are caused by burning coal?

Weidou Ni: The distinguishing characteristics of China`s natural energy resources are abundant coal, scarce oil and a little gas, so in terms of primary energy production and consumption, coal has always held a dominant position. In 2005, China`s standard coal consumption reached 2.22 billion tonnes, standing at almost 70% of total energy consumption. In the use of this coal, 80% is directly for burning. Coal burned by coal-fired power plants accounts for over 50% of this. Over 70% of power plants on China`s electricity grid are coal-fired, while hydro, nuclear and other sources of power for electricity production account for no more than 30% of the total.

When coal burns, apart from producing a large amount of smoke and dust, it can also release the harmful substances carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulphur oxide, nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbon organic matter and so forth. If there are no controls on these pollutants, they will have significant damaging effects on humans` health and environment.

In the past, air pollution in China was simply regarded as a question of controlling “industrial smoke and dust”. But this has changed, and now sulphur dioxide is firmly at the top of China`s pollution-control agenda. In May 2006, China`s State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) ordered the country`s five main electricity producers to produce detailed plans for reducing their sulphur dioxide emissions, with the aim of reducing their emissions in 2010 to 10% below the 2005 level.

To China`s embarrassment, it is the world’s largest emitter of sulphur dioxide and the world`s second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide. In October 2006, an international conference, Strategic Approaches to Regional Air Quality Management in China, was held in Beijing, and the local environmental-protection directors who spoke all focused on sulphur dioxide. But some experts have suggested it is now more important to look for ways to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.

Zhou Guoyi and colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Southern China Botanical Garden recently published a report in China’s Science magazine. After 25 years of research on old-growth forests in south China`s Dinghushan, in Guangdong province, the scientists concluded that the soil in old-growth forests has considerable capacity for carbon storage. They found that the top 20 centimetres of soil in every square kilometre of mature forest can store 0.61 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This provides even greater impetus for the protection of China`s natural forests, and disputes traditional ideas that regard old-growth forests as nothing more than “carbon neutral,” with carbon uptake balanced by respiration.

But what do these results really mean? Will people come to realise the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions? And when a British economist issued a stark warning on climate change, how many Chinese people took notice of the impending disaster?

Liu Dongsheng, a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, points out that the planet`s periodic ice ages mean that some cycles of warming and cooling are normal. But natural cycles of warming would result in increased vegetation in the northern hemisphere, rather than the drought and desertification that are so serious in places such as northern China today.

Paleoclimatologists have gathered considerable evidence from the ice caps, the seabed, deep soil, caves and fossilised trees to show that increases in carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution correlate with rising global temperatures, and that current temperatures are the highest in 420,000 years. This has lead some to propose that we have entered the “Anthropocene” era, in which human activity has a significant effect on the life of the planet. However, some put the dawn of this era as early as 10,000 years ago, when humans first started to plant grain and raise animals, resulting in emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas with 20 times the global-warming potential of carbon dioxide.

Industry has released huge amounts of carbon dioxide contained in the soil, in wood and in ice into the atmosphere. On top of this, we have felled large numbers of trees, turned forests and grasslands into fields, built cities on coastal shallows and drained swamps in order to plant crops. Even those fields have now become “industrial development parks”; single-storey buildings have become skyscrapers; and our once-clear streams are completely polluted. Humans have committed two major environmental faults: as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased through our activity, we have also slashed the earth`s vegetation coverage – and its capacity to absorb the carbon dioxide we are producing.

Many place the burden of environmental responsibility on the shoulders of government and business, but this leaves out our own role in the situation. China became the “workshop of the world” because of cheap raw materials and a lack of environmental responsibility. Companies did not need to pay the true price of materials, for environmental recovery or compensation, and so that cost was not passed onto the consumer. Both government and business act on behalf of society; carbon dioxide emissions are a result of our lifestyles and consumption habits. The duty of environmental protection lies not only with the manufacturers; it is time to look at the responsibility of the consumer. Consumption creates carbon-dioxide emissions, and therefore consumers should feel a responsibility to reduce them. Only when people realise this will they be willing to pay “environmental taxes” to compensate resource depletion and pay for environmental improvement. After all, both government funding and corporate profits come foremost from consumers.

The more progressive among us are already taking up the cause. For example, the Costa Rican football team at the 2006 World Cup offset all the carbon dioxide emissions incurred in their participation in the competition. Very simple formulas can be used to calculate the carbon dioxide emissions that an individual is responsible for. All you need to do is visit a website, press a few keys to answer questions about what you consume, and you will get the results in seconds. And by calculating the cost of your consumption according to international carbon trading prices, you can work out your debt to the global environment.

But what should the money be used for? The answer is simple: improving the environment. It could be by planting trees or protecting permanent vegetation, restructuring industry or researching technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Only when we make up our minds to really do something about our carbon responsibility, will China`s carbon emissions get the attention they deserve and will practical solutions be found.

Now is the time to discuss our personal carbon responsibility and cut down our carbon emissions, to simply focus on sulphur dioxide is not enough.

Feng Yongfeng is technology correspondent for the Guangming Daily.

Homepage photo by Patrick Rioux

At one time, China`s economists proudly proclaimed the country to be the “factory of the world.” But unfortunately, this manufacturing has been characterised by a high consumption of energy and resources, large emissions of pollutants and low added value. And while China has exported many goods to foreign – and mostly developed – countries, we have kept the pollution for ourselves.

China needs to produce 100 million pairs of trousers in order to purchase one Boeing aeroplane. The country manufactures seven billion pairs of shoes a year, more than the world can wear at one time. And the price China pays for this manufacturing, in terms of increased pollution, is an extortionate one.

Among the environmental costs of our economic growth, the most serious and apparent are those caused by pollution. The release of pollutants with inadequate or no treatment, combined with a weak environmental protection framework means that the nation`s emissions continue to increase. A survey of 10 cities and provinces, including Beijing, Shanghai and Hebei, found that between 1986 and 2000, 5.5 billion tonnes of untreated sewage was discharged – a net growth of 2.27 billion tonnes. At the same time, the dumping of urban domestic waste grew by 28.96 million tonnes.

In rural areas the use of tractors means that farmers no longer raise draft animals, and the loss of an important source of organic fertiliser. As a result, the use of chemical fertilisers has risen. Moreover, the improper use of fertilisers means that efficiency is low. China uses an average of 434.3 kilograms of fertiliser per hectare, almost twice the international safety standard of 225 kilograms. But only about 40% of that is actually used by crops, the rest remains in the soil or groundwater. In 2000, an average of 13.4 kilograms of pesticide was used per hectare. Of this land, 70% was treated with organic phosphorus, 70% with highly toxic pesticide and 70% with insecticide. Sixty to 70% of this is left as residue in the soil. Pollution in the form of plastics used to package fertilisers and pesticides is also a serious problem. Half a million tonnes of these plastics lie in China`s fields: almost 40% of the total packaging.

On top of this, 100 million tonnes of straw – 17% of China`s total – is burnt off annually; the resulting smoke presents a danger to road and air traffic. The pollution caused by the production of livestock and poultry is equal to twice the solid waste output of the nation`s industry; in some areas such as Henan, Hunan and Jiangxi, it even reaches four times that level.

The consequences of pollution can also be seen in China`s rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Half the length of China`s seven major river systems, including the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River and the middle reaches of the Pearl River, is severely polluted. Eighty-six percent of urban waterways fail to meet minimum standards for water pollution. Environmental analysis of a 2,000 kilometre stretch of the Huai River found that 78.7% of the water failed to meet minimum standards for drinking water; 79.7% was unsuitable for use in fish farming; and 32% did not even meet standards for use in irrigation. In 2001, China`s coastal waters experienced 77 red tides over 15,000 square kilometres, 49 more occurrences than in 2000 and covering an extra 5,000 square kilometres. This was directly responsible for economic losses of one billion yuan (US$128 million).

Red tide photo by thesix

The economic losses caused by pollution are rising, and if they are not controlled they will hold back China`s growth. Direct economic losses due to pollution between 1990 and 1998 amounted to 100 billion yuan (US$12.8 billion) annually – 1.4% of total GDP and 29.4% of government income. And this does not even account for the social and political risks that pollution causes.

What can be done?

China’s central government is greatly concerned by these problems. Premier Wen Jiabao has stressed the importance of the “Three Changes”. Firstly, to move from a mode of growth that stresses the economy to one which balances the economy and the environment. Secondly, to move from a situation in which environmental protection holds the economy back, to one where they develop in tandem; from a passive and remedial model of environmental protection to a proactive, protective method. Thirdly, to move from the use of policy and administrative methods to protect the environment to the combined use of legal, economic and technical methods, alongside political intervention when necessary, to adapt to new circumstances and accelerate innovation. Specifically, to resolve China`s environmental problems we should proceed as follows:

First, China must adopt the concept of %26lsquo;Green GDP` in evaluating the performance of government officials. We should develop environmental planning, model projects and a circular economy, and include green GDP in performance evaluations of government officials. And maintain these in the long term. Many of China`s problems are questions of interests, and for officials this means their record of achievements. In the past, this meant only economic successes, and the environment took a back seat. But now, solving environmental problems must start with the evaluation of officials. In some environmentally sensitive regions the environment should be put first, and supported by state compensation.

Second, the country must increase funding for nature reserves and establish compensation systems in river basins. We should be funding national-level nature reserves from the national budget and protecting nature reserves rather than developing them, thereby spurring local economies. Provincial-level nature reserves can be funded in a similar manner, with operating expenses covered by local governments, in order properly realise the nation`s 2,194 nature reserves, which now only exist on paper. Economic losses suffered due to environmental protection should be compensated for by the state – a responsibility which richer areas should shoulder.

Third, we must improve environmental protection law and management systems. China should establish environmental protection legislation and effective protection mechanisms that will robustly intervene in those economic activities that cause pollution or harm the environment. We must strengthen the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)`s ability to enforce the law and increase its strategic position within the development of the private economy. It is recommended that SEPA be renamed the Ministry of the Environment.

Fourth, we should carry out environmental education and encourage the public to participate in protecting the environment. Improving the environment and harmony between man and nature means fostering an environmental culture, building an ecological civilisation and raising awareness of environmental protection. China`s citizens must move from passive to active participation, using the legal instruments the state provides to protect their environmental interests and uniting against behaviour that damages the environment. The role of environmental NGOs should be strengthened. The media should also increase their coverage of environmental incidents.

Fifth, environmental protection should be developed as an industry. Developed countries realised this when they curtailed the strategy of “pollute first, clean up later”. Market mechanisms can promote private involvement in environmental management, meaning profits can be made from both creating and preventing pollution, and polluters will opt for the latter. The state needs to set clear targets for environmental protection and management, and assign funding. Lastly, these finances should be linked to actual results, not distributed to various authorities to spend on their own environmental protection projects.

Jiang Gaoming is a chief researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences` Institute of Botany and a doctoral candidate tutor, vice secretary-general of UNESCO`s China-MAB Committee and director of the China Environmental Culture Promotion Association. He is recognized for his introduction of the concepts of “urban vegetation” and “using natural forces to restore China`s ecosystems.”

Jixi Gao is chief specialist and head of the Institute of Ecology at the China Academy of Environmental Sciences. He has long been involved in the evaluation of functional ecologies, environmental assessments of regional development strategies and research into environmental pollution testing.

Hong Kong`s worsening air quality has become an increasingly hot topic in the global press. Photographs of thick, grey smog have appeared on the front of news magazines, and Hong Kong`s desirability as a home for international executives has been thrown into question – news which came as a nasty shock to the city authorities. Recent polls show that air quality is a top concern among city residents; and last year Merill Lynch, the investment bank, warned that air quality in Hong Kong is now so poor that the city’s long-term competitiveness is under threat. Skilled professionals were already departing Hong Kong because of the heavy pollution, the bank said, and more will surely follow.

So, just how bad is Hong Kong`s air?

Street-level air quality regularly falls short of the government`s Air Quality Objectives (AQOs), and even further short of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Air Quality Guidelines. For example, on 19 and 20 November 2006, roadside levels of respirable suspended particulates (RSPs – equivalent to PM10) exceeded the WHO guidelines by at least 300%. Since millions of people in Hong Kong live and work in close proximity to busy roads, this presents a major health risk to city residents. Studies by local public health experts have found that these roadside pollution levels are responsible for 90,000 hospital admissions and 2,800 premature deaths every year.

Declining regional air quality means visibility has also decreased dramatically. In 2004, low visibility occurred 18% of the time – the highest on record, according to the Hong Kong observatory.

The most problematic air pollutants in the region, besides RSPs, are ozone and nitrogen dioxide. But what are the sources of this pollution?

Most of Hong Kong`s power is generated by burning coal. In fact, electricity generation produces half of Hong Kong`s total emissions of nitrogen oxide and particulates, and 92% of its total sulphur dioxide emissions. Most local power stations do not yet have flue gas desulphurisation, although equipment is being installed and the government has required that all new generation capacity should come from natural gas.

Hong Kong`s roads are also the most crowded in the world, with almost 280 vehicles for every kilometre of road. The city`s vehicle fleet is dominated by heavily polluting, ageing goods vehicles, most of which run between the city and the Pearl River Delta. Diesel commercial vehicles are responsible 90% of RSPs and 80% of nitrogen dioxide emissions from the entire road transport sector, despite making up only 23% of the vehicle fleet. Double-decker diesel buses and a steadily growing fleet of private cars have also added to congestion and pollution.

Recent studies have shown that although emissions from marine vessels make up a relatively small proportion of total emissions, they affect dense population centres on the Kowloon peninsula, where container terminals are located, and so have a significant public health impact. Bunker fuel is highly polluting, and these terminals function 24 hours a day.

But Hong Kong`s air quality not only suffers from severe local air pollution generated by the city itself, but also regional smog – pollution that arises from the industry of the Pearl River Delta area.

The city`s air has been greatly affected by the rapid industrialisation and urbanisation of south China`s Pearl River Delta region. The delta area is about the size of the San Francisco Bay Area, and while it is not a geographically large area, it is where Hong Kong`s light industrial manufacturing relocated to in the 1980s, as Hong Kong capital fed China`s mighty export production capabilities. Even though China now has other export production hubs, Guangdong Province still generates about 30% of China`s total annual export earnings.

Electricity generation, energy-intensive industry and a rapidly growing fleet of vehicles are all major sources of emissions in the Pearl River Delta region. The power-generating capacity of Guangdong province is still made up in large part by highly polluting and inefficient small capacity units, although some of these are being phased out. Shortages in the power supply to industry also mean that many factories often run their own generators, which burn low quality fuels. While the authorities have issued warnings and fines, as well as pushing more polluting businesses to upgrade or relocate, the air quality in the Pearl River Delta is still very poor.

A regional emissions inventory conducted around 10 years ago showed that about 80% of air pollutants have their source across the border in the Pearl River Delta region, while 20% are emitted by Hong Kong. This has led many people in Hong Kong to feel that its pollution is outside their jurisdiction, and that local efforts would not be enough to turn things round – an impression that has had a debilitating effect on pollution control efforts.

But the most recent research (to be published in March 2007 by Civic Exchange) shows that by examining data from regional and local monitoring stations and combining it with meteorological information, an interesting picture emerges. Controlling emissions from marine and transportation sources in Hong Kong more stringently could in fact have a substantial impact on the city`s public health. Hopefully this new research will push the Hong Kong government to take much more aggressive action in local pollution control. But what should this involve?

One crucial step would be to replace Hong Kong`s outdated AQOs. These air quality standards were set in 1987, and have not since been revised. There is now growing pressure for Hong Kong to adopt the WHO global standards, which better reflect current knowledge of pollution`s effects on health. But the government has shown reluctance to adopt the WHO standards for fear that Hong Kong`s air quality will be shown to fall short of the guidelines, since the city`s pollution levels already exceed the weaker AQOs. Experts have criticised the government for misapplying air quality standards by regarding them as nothing more than administrative guidelines, when they are in fact set to protect public health.

Pollution is a major cause of illness in Hong Kong. Every year, pollution is the cause of around 1,600 deaths (four per day), 64,200 hospital admissions (176 per day) and 6,811,960 doctor visits (18,600 per day). These serious health effects result in annual community losses of over HK$2 billion (around US$255 million) in direct health care costs and productivity losses, and HK$19 billion (around US$2.5 billion) in further costs arising from pain, suffering and personal loss.

Apart from tightening the AQOs, other measures Hong Kong needs to take include:

- Improving energy efficiency: Hong Kong`s energy-efficiency policy lags behind most developed countries. It should make energy-efficiency standards mandatory for buildings and appliances. Research shows that 30% of Hong Kong`s total electricity could be saved if all commercial buildings adopted the standards set out in the Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method (HKBEAM) – a local building standard which is now voluntary.

- Getting highly-polluting pre-Euro and Euro I commercial vehicles off the road: the government is providing a grant to owners in order to encourage them to replace these cars with Euro IV vehicles. But this should be combined with road usage measures, such as banning certain types of vehicles from urban areas during the daytime.

- Implementing a “green ports” policy: Hong Kong should aggressively reduce emissions arising from port operations, as well as the transportation logistics sector involved in export manufacturing.

- Working with Guangdong province: Hong Kong must address regional air quality issues and build capacity for a regional air monitoring framework for the future.

Christine Loh is the CEO of Civic Exchange

Homepage photo by Tony Oxborrow

Massive industrial production, heavy dependency on coal, and cities shrouded in thick clouds of smoke%26mdash;these things characterise not only contemporary China, but also Britain during much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Because of this similar history, the lengthy British struggle against air pollution from coal has special relevance for China.

For years, people in Britain disagreed about the effects of their country`s unchecked consumption of vast quantities of coal; in a similar way to people in China today. Many welcomed coal smoke as a sign of economic prosperity and employment, while others argued that smoke imposed heavy economic costs.

Smoke, according to the latter view, represented waste, not wealth. One of the leading proponents of this position was Dr. Neil Arnott, physician extraordinary to Queen Victoria. In 1855 he declared that “in London alone, on account of its smoke-loaded atmosphere, the cost of washing the clothes of the inhabitants is greater by two millions and a half sterling a-year %26hellip; than for the same number of families residing in the country.”

Although Arnott`s estimate covered only laundry expenses, others attempted a more comprehensive accounting of the economic costs of air pollution. The scientist Rollo Russell (uncle to the philosopher Bertrand Russell) identified 24 types of damage caused by coal smoke, including degradation of painted surfaces, destruction of metal and stonework, damage to vegetation, and human illness. Using many of the same categories several decades later, a British government committee in the 1950s calculated that air pollution was costing 250 million pounds each year. Although experts at that time emphasised that the detrimental effects of coal combustion were more than merely a local problem, hardly anyone saw them as global in scope.

One of the largest costs of smoke, according to many commentators, was the wasteful use of coal that led to its creation. Optimists hoped that as coal users realised that smoke prevention would save them money, the air would become clear. But while more efficient use of coal would indeed cut fuel costs and reduce smoke emissions, the technologies needed to do so were expensive to purchase and operate. Even if manufacturers could be convinced that buying more efficient (and less polluting) equipment would save money in the long run, many of them lacked the capital or long-range commitment necessary to make this investment.

When it became evident that polluters would not take the initiative to reduce smoke, the government began to intervene. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the British Parliament passed a series of laws that required local authorities to take action against industries that emitted large quantities of smoke.

The impact of this legislation was limited by many of the same factors that continue to hinder effective environmental regulation around the world, including low fines, legal loopholes, and the fact that many of the local officials responsible for enforcing anti-smoke laws were themselves the owners of polluting factories. Even when regulators had no personal financial stake in skirting the law, they often feared that strict enforcement would cause industries to relocate, with a consequent loss of jobs and tax revenue.

So things might have remained, had not disaster struck. In December 1952 an unusual combination of weather conditions visited London, which prevented the combustion products from its millions of fireplaces from rising into the atmosphere or blowing away. Visibility shrank to virtually zero, hospitals overflowed with people struggling for breath, and several thousand people died.

As the government was considering how to reduce air pollution after the smog disaster, it faced heavy pressure from coal, manufacturing, and electricity interests. Just as has happened more recently in China and the US, advocates for these industries argued that pollution-control devices and alternative sources of energy were too expensive to be adopted.

After much negotiation, Parliament eventually passed the Clean Air Act of 1956. In addition to expanding government research into pollution prevention, this law placed new restrictions on industrial smoke. It also began to control smoke from household heating and cooking%26mdash;responsible for much of Britain`s air pollution. To help defray the costs of purchasing less polluting appliances, both national and local units of government provided financial assistance.

Although this legislation did much to reduce the production of visible smoke, it did nothing to regulate invisible pollutants like sulphur dioxide and mercury%26mdash;to say nothing of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Rather than prohibiting the environmental release of these substances, regulators encouraged industry to build extremely tall smokestacks that would propel them high into the air, where they would presumably be diluted to “harmless” levels.

Unfortunately, raising the height of a smokestack simply transfers pollution from one place to another. Sulphur dioxide produces acid rain hundreds of kilometres downwind from the factories and power plants where it originates, fine particles can drift even further, and carbon dioxide rapidly diffuses into the world`s atmosphere, which may contain twice as much CO2 by the end of this century as it did when Britain began to industrialize.

China now consumes over two thousand million tonnes of coal each year, and coal is certain to remain China`s main source of energy for decades to come. Technology exists that can drastically reduce the amount of particulate pollution and sulphur dioxide that enters the air when coal is burned. The greatest beneficiaries of such a change will be the Chinese people, who are currently paying a high price in terms of coal-related damage to health, property, and the environment. But cleaner air in China will also benefit many who live far from China. Researchers recently found, for example, that smoke particles from China are reaching the United States.

In addition to pollution-control devices, greater energy efficiency is just as important. State-of-the-art electricity generating plants burn less coal and release less particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, and carbon dioxide than traditional power stations. Energy conservation and more efficient appliances bring similar benefits%26mdash;and cost less than new generating capacity. If China invests in these technologies, both it and the rest of the world will reap enormous benefits.

It is now clear that dilution is not the answer%26mdash;the best way to deal with pollution is to prevent its creation in the first place. All of us on this planet are neighbours; and we have only one atmosphere to share among us. Just as people in earlier generations cooperated at the local and national levels to reduce pollution, we must work together globally to ensure healthy air now and in the future.

Peter Thorsheim is an associate professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and is the author of Inventing Pollution: Coal, Smoke, and Culture in Britain since 1800.

Homepage photo by Robert Croma

In Beijing, the weather forecast says that more sandstorms are on the way. The capital was hit by four sandstorms in March, and even Shanghai was recently smothered by dust clouds from the north. Television reports now describe these events as “sandy weather”, rather than “sandstorms”. But whatever you call them, they are becoming ever more frequent visitors to Beijing in springtime.

While everyone is cursing the weather, I find myself worrying: how many tonnes of soil are being lost? And how long will it be before there is nowhere in China for plants to take root? Academics argue to what extent these sandstorms are “imports” from Mongolia and the former Soviet Republics, or whether they are the “domestic” products of the arid deserts and damaged grasslands of China’s west. But either way, there is no denying the degree of environmental degradation in western China over the last three decades. Regardless of whether the capital`s weather comes from beyond its borders, China needs to put measures in place to restore the grasslands and reduce the risk of sandstorms.

Sixty billion yuan has been invested in projects to control the sandstorms that are hitting northeastern China. Tree-planting projects have also been running for 30 years across north China. But why haven’t they worked? And more importantly – what will?

To answer this question, let`s first consider the difference between trees and grass. Ecologists look at vegetation in terms of its quantity and the area it covers. In China`s deserts and grasslands, grass is by far the most common form of vegetation, followed by scrub and then trees. On the Xilinguole grasslands, for example, trees account for only 0.87% of the total vegetation. The current strategy – to plant trees to help with problems caused by a lack of grass – contradicts principles of ecological management. In fact, our repeated calls for change have now resulted in more attention being placed on scrub. Scientists agree that millions of years ago these areas were once covered with trees, but this is the distant past – no amount of spending will bring ancient forests back. In fact, grass is much more effective than trees at stopping sandstorms, and it does not need to be planted. Simply protect it, and it will grow. Trees use up groundwater, while grass uses only rainwater. Grass is denser and fixes the soil in place; it also keeps the ground moist by retaining precipitation, meaning there is no dust to blow away – something trees cannot do.

Secondly, we need to consider where we are focusing our sandstorm-control efforts. Currently, our work ends up being concentrated in areas that are easy to reach and monitor: regions that are accessible by road. Lots of money has been spent, with some good results. But nobody asks questions about the very remote, ecologically-degraded areas that are less accessible, but have more responsibility for sandstorms. I once asked a local forestry official why they were not using aerial sowing techniques to rehabilitate these areas. His answer was simple: “Who would notice?” Current schemes are designed to be seen by the officials who approve their funding. Do not get too excited by those recovered grasslands and forests you see alongside the highways; they only cover 10% of the total affected area. The other 90% causes the continuing sandstorms.

Thirdly, we need to look at the relationship between man and nature. Arid and semi-arid areas can only support one or two people per square kilometre. In China, population density in these areas is over 10 people per square kilometre. The original inhabitants were nomadic, and would move in search of grass and water, giving the grasslands a chance to recover. But now they have settled, increasing the pressure on the environment – and inevitably damaging it. Measures are needed to move this scattered population into towns and cities; funds for ecological management should be used to this end.

Fourthly, we must reconsider the relationship between ecological management and poverty relief. Sandstorms are caused by the consumption of grass by livestock, by the clearing of grasslands for crops and by deforestation. At present, sandstorm-control programmes have little regard for the lives of local people. The money that is being spent brings them scant benefit, and only helps the people that receive the funding directly. My rough calculations show that spending on major sandstorm control projects amounts to around 326 yuan (US$42) per mu (666.67 square metres). In the south of Inner Mongolia that works out to almost 500,000 yuan (around US$64,705) per household. If as little as one-tenth of that figure was actually spent on getting the locals to give up their livestock and plant trees, there would be no danger of sandstorms. And the locals would still end up better off – at present, none of this funding reaches them, and most struggle to earn 10,000 yuan (US$1,294) per year. In one part of Inner Mongolia, a fortune has been spent on restoring the grasslands, but no one can come up with the 10,000 yuan needed to retain it.

Finally, we need to ask questions about the relationship between China`s east and west. At present, much of China’s livestock is in the west, in ecologically-vulnerable areas such as Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and Tibet. Ideally, these animals would eat straw, which is a by-product of agriculture. But all of the straw is in the east, in provinces such as Shandong, Henan and Hebei, which have a far greater production capacity for animal fodder than the grasslands – 50 to 100 times greater, in fact. This holds back the development of livestock farming. Straw in the east is simply burnt off, while degraded ecosystems in the west struggle to support livestock. The largest source of income for the west is funding for reforestation and environmental protection projects, with highly marked-up animal products coming second. These products cost five to 10 times as much to produce than they would in agricultural areas with better conditions. China`s west should not develop its animal farming further, or sooner or later the grasslands will be grazed bare, leaving the rest of the country to pick up the bill for its recovery.

Can China stop the sandstorms? If we do not take heed, maybe not. Of course, it may not be too long before all the soil is blown away. That would put an end to the capital`s sandstorms, but it might also put an end to Beijing.

Jiang Gaoming is a professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences` Institute of Botany. He is also vice secretary-general of the UNESCO China-MAB (Man and the Biosphere) Committee and a member of the UNESCO MAB Urban Group.

Homepage photo by Ben

XUZHOU June 13, 2007 – Today was an unusual day. When I woke up this morning my eyes were watering. My throat was dry and sore, and I smelt heavy smoke in the air. “They are doing it again,” I murmured. I drew the curtains and was shocked at what I saw: the city looked as if it were up in smoke. The whole city was enveloped in heavy shroud and the air had a strong smell of burning.

I live in Xuzhou, in east China`s Jiangsu province. This time each year the farmers burn wheat stubble in the fields. Today is the fifth day of burning and the most serious day so far. Out in the street, cars are moving slowly with their headlights on because the visibility is only about 10 metres. Some people are wearing masks and you can hear people complaining about it almost everywhere. Doctors were saying on the local news that they are receiving increased numbers of respiratory complaints, and suggested that residents keep their windows shut.

This photograph was taken inside a room in a house in Jiangsu province, and posted on a local internet bulletin board.

The smoke comes from the farmland around the city. In the evenings, the farmers begin to burn the stubble – the stalks of wheat that are left after the harvest — and the fires last for several hours. But why have they been doing this for so many years? Mainly because it means the farmers don`t have to spend time and labour removing the stub from the fields, and the ashes as an organic fertiliser for the soil. The Chinese central government has issued a prohibition on stubble-burning, but unfortunately both the local government and the farmers have turned a blind eye to it. One farmer, in another city in Jiangsu Province, died after he tried to contain an uncontrolled fire in a field.

Xuzhou is not the only city afflicted by the smoke. China`s capital Beijing has been reported as covered in smoke from neighbouring provinces such as Hebei. Much of northern and central China, including the provinces of Jiangsu, Anhui, Henan, Hebei, Shangdong, Shanxi, are polluted with the same smoke. This smoke pollution problem has been a hot topic on some internet bulletin boards (BBS), with many netizens expressing their complaints, suggestions and disappointments. But my concern is simple: I just want to wake up tomorrow morning without watery eyes and a sore throat.

Tell us about the world where you are. What`s the environment like where you live? Send us your stories: ideas@chinadialogue.net

Hong Kong`s environmental policy over the past decade has seen some advancement, but there has also been limited progress on some issues – and even stagnation in many areas. So why have policies succeeded or failed?

Successes included the completion of stage one of the Harbour Area Treatment Scheme (HATS). This has improved marine water quality and reduced polluting emissions from diesel vehicles; the relocation of the airport from Kai Tak to Chek Lap Kok has significantly reduced the number of people affected by noise pollution; and there has also been a large increase in the quantities of solid waste recycled. New Sites of Special Scientific Interest, which include a new country park and a new marine park, have all been designated.

In addition, progress has been made on a number of policy fronts: the implementation and refinement of the EIA Ordinance, the imposition of a construction and demolition waste-charging scheme. There were also successes in cross-border cooperation on a number of issues, particularly air pollution. Water conservation and recycling are being promoted.

Generally though, it has been a decade of broken promises, lost opportunities, missed targets and stalled programmes. These include:

* The large proportion of the population (in a city of such wealth) who remain without sewers, or receive only primary water treatment;

* The lack of a comprehensive conservation policy and effective mechanisms for biodiversity protection;

* The lack of a sustainable energy policy, targets for greenhouse-gas emissions and climate-change related issues;

* Failure to fully implement the “polluter pays principle”, meaning transportation, energy, water, waste and sewage services are all under-priced.

The result is that, on a per capita basis, Hong Kong residents use more resources and create more pollution in 2007 than they did in 1997. Hong Kong still suffers from dangerously high levels of air pollution; there is poor water quality in several areas, particularly Deep Bay and in a number of rivers; there are high levels of exposure to severe traffic noise; and rapidly diminishing landfill space. Areas rich in biodiversity are being squandered for housing, roads, and other infrastructure.

There are a number of reasons for this predicament:

Leadership: From Hong Kong`s chief executive down, decision-makers are (and long have been) reliant on large physical infrastructure as a primary tool to promote economic growth. A lack of leadership on environmental protection from the two chief executives has had knock-on effects on the civil service. The policy bureau responsible for environmental protection had been restructured twice since the handover, disrupting momentum for policy development, while energy supply is handled by a separate bureau. In a third round of restructuring from 1 July 2007, environmental and energy responsibilities have finally been put in one bureau, which will hopefully lead to better coordination of policies in the future. In some areas, such as climate change and the “polluter pays principle”, there is uncertainty over who is in charge or what the policy is. The environment has not been a sufficiently high priority issue for the Legislative Council (LegCo), which has not offered much resistance to the administration`s often poorly justified proposals for infrastructure.

Sustainable development: Government decision-makers use the rhetoric of sustainable development freely, but have yet to truly put it into practice. They have failed to identify sustainable development as a policy objective or to align government organisational structures and practices to meet this goal. As a whole, the decisions and behaviour of ministers and officials do not reflect the attempt to find sustainable solutions. Indeed, most senior political leaders have yet to internalise sustainable development, and how it can be both a development strategy and an operational guide in policy implementation. They continue to promote economic development in terms of bricks-and-mortar investments. Those in high office seem not to know the two are intertwined. After all, the natural environment is the overarching sphere within which all human activities take place. It is not a matter of “balancing” growth and environment: the two should go together. Indeed, environmental clean-up is a way to spur quality development and create jobs.

Planning: In 2007, the planning process, particularly strategic and transport planning, continues to display a lack of integration on environmental issues. This partly stems from the government`s development-led ethos, which conflicts with stated sustainable development objectives in the planning system. Hong Kong`s inherited legacy of pollution problems stems largely from poor planning. Strategic planning still takes a top-down approach that does not effectively involve the community in decision-making. Public engagement processes seldom provide for the fundamental questioning of government plans. There is a tendency for large infrastructure projects to bypass the strategic planning process and be pushed through without robust analysis.

Public consultation and participation: Despite a more systematic approach to public consultation on issues since the 1997 handover, general public participation is still lacking in environmental policy-making. There is still a tendency for the government to rely on its statutory and advisory bodies rather than genuine community participation; often the fundamental decisions on issues have been made beforehand. This not only results in sub-optimal decision-making, but it also reduces the buy-in on issues from the public, reduces opportunities for educating the public on environmental issues and can backfire in terms of the additional time and resources it takes to implement key policies.