Chinese walker

In northern China it is now the middle of the autumn planting season, and once again the farmers are burning off the crop stubble left after the harvest. The highways that run through the fields are covered in smoke, which seeps in through closed windows and can reduce visibility to half a kilometre. It gets worse at night; crop fires are illegal, so the farmers wait till it gets dark to avoid getting caught. However, you were unlikely to see this a decade ago.

When Qufu held its International Confucius Culture Festival the local government cracked down on the stubble burning to avoid the embarrassment of smoke veiling the proceedings. The authorities threatened fines of 4,000 yuan (US$532) and 15 days detention for farmers caught flouting the ban. But even that failed to stop the practice. Local farmers ended up playing a 24-hour game of cat and mouse with the authorities, waiting until the police had ceased their patrols to start burning the crop stubble.

So why are the farmers so determined to burn off their leftover straw? Because there is nothing else to do with it. In the past the straw was used as fuel, but now farmers are more affluent and burn coal or natural gas. At one time it could also have been used to feed draught animals, but now they have been replaced with tractors. The government has promoted the use of straw in methane production, but to date only 0.5% of China`s total 600 to 700 tonnes of straw produced annually is used to make the gas. Ideally it could feed livestock, but the cost of storing straw and the livestock itself makes this unfeasible. Even if you fed the entire nation`s herds with straw, there would still be a lot left over. One could increase the number of ruminants, but China`s straw is scattered around the country and the cost of collecting and transporting it is high. If farmers cannot make a decent profit from it (and they no longer care about earning a few yuan here and there) it will be burnt off to prevent it getting in the way of other work.

According to Science Times, 100 million tonnes of straw were burnt off in the provinces of Shandong, Henan and Hebei alone this year. But what exactly is China burning?

First of all, China is burning its beef. The country produces 480 million tonnes of grain every year; 180 million tonnes of this is eaten directly by humans; 120 million tonnes is used to feed cattle; the remainder is used as pig fodder. China no longer needs to worry about its grain supply – it is the supply of meat and milk that is under pressure. The country`s straw production could support between 180 and 210 million tonnes of livestock; assuming that 40% of that is meat and one kilogram of meat is equivalent to five of grain, that represents 360 to 420 million tonnes of grain. China currently uses huge quantities of fertiliser, pesticide, herbicide, insecticide, water, agricultural membrane and genetically-modified organisms to ensure its food security. But there is little scope to increase production. Making use of all the country`s wasted straw would be a significant step towards making its food supply secure.

China is also burning manure for fertiliser. A crop of wheat requires 200 tonnes of fertiliser per mu of land (667 square metres).However, if that straw can be converted into manure by feeding it to livestock and using it as fertiliser, we can cut down on the quantities of chemical fertiliser and water used, thus reducing costs. Cows and sheep can produce massive quantities of organic fertiliser; half of national straw production could therefore produce organic fertiliser equivalent to the total national demand for chemical fertiliser (33.9 million tonnes).

Thirdly, China is burning an energy source. Technologies have been fully developed to produce electricity from methane gas. Using straw to feed livestock, and the manure to produce power and fertiliser, would massively reduce the reliance of agriculture on traditional sources of energy and reduce the impact of global warming. Methane energy generation only releases carbon dioxide that was recently fixed from the atmosphere by the straw used in its production; it is thus effectively carbon neutral. Technical developments would allow methane to replace natural gas and power China`s rural industrialisation: our farms are natural gas factories waiting to be realised.

Crucially then, the scientific use of straw can increase rural incomes and do away with the problems caused by straw burning. Farmers in India do not burn straw – and have not for thousands of years – as the cows, which Hindus see as sacred, need it as a source of food. It is clearly a resource with huge potential, and a major issue in rural development. Society needs to take a strategic and realistic view of the situation; the authorities should establish an office to determine the use of straw and organise research on environmentally friendly agriculture. Trials should be established, and successful practice must be popularised. Perhaps then we can see some improvement. For now, we are still waiting for the smoke to clear.

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.

When it comes to reducing emissions and energy consumption from fuel burning, most people think of switching to alternative fuel sources or end-of-pipe cleanup solutions. But there is also room for improvement at another stage: the combustion process itself, when fuel is burned. Two companies in Beijing are now focusing on improving this process, with impressive results.

Last year Hancunhe village, in Beijing`s Fangshan district, invested almost 20 million yuan (US$2.8 million) in three new heating boilers, which have completely changed the way heat is provided in the area. There is barely a stovepipe in sight and no soot is produced. The villagers can dry clothes or store cabbages in their courtyards without fearing they will collect dirt.

The technology was developed by Beijing Xiongcai Group. In the village boiler room, its chairman, Wang Yongjiang, opens up a small hatch on the boiler and shows me the flame inside. “Normally coal is burned from underneath,” he explains, “but our boilers burn the coal from above, which allows us to collect the soot and burn it again. When the harmful components in the soot are exposed to temperatures over 800 degrees, they are burnt away, massively reducing emissions. The flame inside burns pure blue and translucent, which means the fuel is being burned completely. Yet the coal we use only contains 3,500 kilocalories per kilogram – about half the energy content of fine coal.”

Xiongcai aims to solve some very real problems: how can China make use of its current stock of 4.8 million coal-burning boilers? How can the country cleanly and efficiently burn coal and biomass fuels like chaff, sawdust, leaves and household waste? How can the country utilise commonly discarded low-grade coal such as lignite, coal slurry and gangue, and coal that has not been fully burnt the first time round? These have long been important questions for China`s energy and environmental sectors.

Since 2000 the firm has approached these questions by treating fuel and combustion technology as a single, integrated subject. The company`s patented biomass boiler and “biomass coal” fuel together make up a system for burning biomass combined with lower grade coal, which burns with a heat energy efficiency of more than 80%. Its emissions are on a par with the cleanest of boilers, and the system reduces energy consumption and waste. The “biomass coal” is made up of compressed chaff, tree leaves and branches, household waste, gangue, coal powder and other low-grade coals. The resulting fuel is dense, burns completely, does not produce black smoke and fixes sulphur. When burned in the boiler, it can produce the same heating effect as fine coal. The waste from the boiler also has a number of applications: it can be used in water purification, in building insulation and as fertiliser. Both the biomass fuel and waste from the boilers is transported in sealed packages to prevent any secondary pollution.

Beijing Yanshan Petrochemical installed a Xiongcai biomass boiler system in September 2004. They found they not only reduced their heating costs, but also reduced their pollution emissions. The city then set up several pilot schemes for biomass coal heating systems, which were installed over the winter of 2006 and 2007 in the outlying regions of Fangshan, Yanqing and Shunyi. Satisfaction rates among users were reported to be around 100%. Even in Yanqing, which is colder than most other areas, users said that heating was much improved. The new boilers provided warmth for the farmers, while solving problems with soot, noise and pollution – and its negative health impacts.

Between 2002 and 2007, biomass boilers with a total production capacity of 300 megawatts have been installed in Beijing municipality, resulting in savings of 86,400 tonnes of standard coal. Emissions have been cut by a total of around 223,800 tonnes of CO2, 887 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 1,729 tonnes of nitrogen oxides and 4,470 tonnes of dust particles. In 2008 the city government will promote clean biomass fuels in Daxing, Pinggu, Miyun, Mentougou, and Yanqing. Heating provision should be expanded by several million square metres.

The regenerative burner

Smog is becoming an ever more frequent feature of Guangzhou`s weather, and levels of particulate matter in the air are increasing too. As a result, more people are suffering the symptoms of respiratory diseases, which include shortness of breath, coughs, dizziness, weakness, nausea and even the loss of temper. But since the situation seemingly presents no immediate threat to life, it is easy to ignore.

But as the situation worsens, that may change. In early April the Southern Weekend newspaper carried a report about China`s worsening air pollution, which warned that London`s Great Smog may be repeated in Guangzhou. The Great Smog of December 1952 is famous as the world`s worst case of air pollution. In only five days more than 4,000 people in the British capital died from respiratory illnesses, many of them elderly people. In the following months a further 8,000 died. As early as the end of 2004, Tang Xiaoyan, a professor at the Peking University College of Environmental Science, made similar predictions based on his research: that a severe photochemical smog could arise in Guangzhou – or even across the entire Pearl River delta.

In fact, the air in the Pearl River delta has already been severely polluted by the manufacturing industry: air quality levels already fall to levels seen in London in 1952. The city of Shenzhen saw a record-breaking 226 days of smog in 2007. Smog is spreading across whole regions: in the urban areas around the Pearl River delta and around the whole Beijing and Tianjin metropolitan area. These cities are the main source of pollution and they also suffer from it the most. In 2006 only 4.3% of China`s 559 cities reached Class I air quality (the cleanest level), 58.1% averaged in Class II, 28.5% at Class III and the remaining 9.1% at even lower levels.

Almost every city in the Pearl River delta suffers from smog all year round. And as the provincial government attempts to shift the worst polluters out of the area, the problem only moves to the provinces of Jiangxi, Hunan and the northern part of Guangdong. I recently visited Qingxin, a county in central Guangzhou, which used to be renowned for its clean air, but now faces pollution from industries relocated from the Pearl River delta. Industrial output has been increasing every year, with many factories sprouting up in its still-expanding industrial zones. Economically, it has been a great success, but the damage to air quality is easy to see on your windscreen as the rain dries and leaves dirty grey marks.

Urban air pollution is a major threat to public health in China. Smog is made up of the soot and dust in the polluted air above our cities; it is a complex mix of hundreds of different types of particulate matter. Those most harmful to human health are tiny aerosol particles: minerals, salt, sulphates and nitrates that lodge in the lungs and breathing passages, giving rise to rhinitis and bronchitis – and cancer in the long term. Outdoor air pollution kills around 300,000 people in China every year, according to research in 2003 by Wang Jinnan, of the China Environmental Planning Institute. The country`s city dwellers have become like vacuum cleaners, each one of us filtering out the particulates from 15 cubic metres of air a day. The difference in air quality is striking to anyone who travels overseas.

Many are unaware of the risks and fail to connect their health problems with air pollution. But the public do not only suffer from the pollution, they also produce it. Surveys indicate that sources of urban air pollution are changing in the Pearl River delta; vehicle emissions are becoming the main culprit and may even exceed emissions from industry. In 2007 there were 1.8 million cars on Guangzhou`s roads and this number is growing by 150,000 every year. We are facing a gradual, yet potentially fatal, process that is reaching a tipping point: the conditions for air pollution to become very acute are already in place. Guangzhou`s unique climate has so far protected the city, but if things continue, a disaster is almost inevitable.

An environmental crisis is not like other emergencies. An isolated pollution accident or an explosion, for instance, occurs suddenly and can be dealt with quickly. An environmental crisis gathers form gradually on a large scale; once formed, it is hard to solve quickly. It is not a temporary problem, but something we have to live with every day. Therefore, we do not only need emergency measures, but also changes in our everyday life. We need laws that require local governments to control polluting industries, and measures to prevent air pollution in cities. Most importantly, we must find a way to alleviate a long-term crisis.

China`s government, businesses and people are not paying enough attention to the risks of a large-scale environmental disaster. When it is clear that polluters are not going to change their ways, the government should intervene. However, the gravity of the situation we face today can partly be blamed on government failures. For example, the very scale used to measure atmospheric pollution fails to reflect actual conditions. China`s environment authorities recognise a yearly average of 100 milligrams of particulate matter per cubic metre of air as a safe standard, five times the World Health Organization`s standard. They also do not measure particles over 2.5 nanometres in diameter, despite the fact they are the most toxic. There are huge differences between what the official data shows and what the public experiences. The law does not enforce environmental rulings and solve disputes as it should. Where in other countries the courts would handle environmental issues, in China the government takes control, which is far less efficient. The power of the public and civil society is weak; the right to be informed on environmental issues is not secure.

Of course, the system has also seen progress. For example, Guangzhou has been the first city to implement a smog forecasting system and many other cities are following suit. But scientists and the government must change China`s monitoring standards and make the results public. There are historical reasons for urban pollution in China`s cities, but we still have time to make a change and prevent chronic problems becoming an acute crisis. The clock is ticking.

Tang Hao is a newspaper columnist, deputy editor of Shimin (Citizen) magazine, and assistant professor of politics at Huanan Normal University. His essays and opinion pieces have appeared in Contemporary International Relations, International Studies, Nanfang Daily, Yangcheng Evening News, Southern Window and many other publications.

Homepage photo by 23hours

New research conducted in Hong Kong, Macao and the Pearl River Delta (PRD) region of Guangdong province has for the first time identified and quantified the direct risks to public health caused by air pollution. According to the Civic Exchange report, A Price Too High: The Health Impacts of Air Pollution in Southern China, annual deaths attributable to the 2006 air pollution levels are estimated at 10,000 in southern China, with the majority (94%) occurring in the PRD. In addition, air pollution is also responsible for 440,000 annual hospital bed-days and 11 million annual outpatient visits throughout the region.

In financial terms, the hospital bed-days, lost productivity and doctor visits associated with this health impact amount to 1.8 billion yuan (US$262 million) a year in the PRD, HK$1.1 billion (US$140 million) in Hong Kong, and HK$18 million (US$2.3 million) in Macao. Adjusted for differences in gross domestic product across the region, the health-related monetary costs of air pollution in the PRD amount to 6.7 billion yuan (US$976 million) yuan. However, it should be noted that these figures do not take into account pain or suffering, or put a value on life, nor do they account for undiagnosed harm to people suffering from more minor ailments which were not consciously connected with air pollution.

These figures were made possible because for the first time direct comparisons could be drawn between emission levels of key toxins (sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, respirable suspended particles and ozone) across the whole airshed that covers Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Macao. For the first time, this data could be correlated with similarly robust statistics on public health impacts. It should be noted that all these costs, both human and financial, are considered to be lower-end estimates.

There is a growing public awareness and concern about the harmful effects of air pollution. Hazy days have increased dramatically throughout the PRD over the last two decades. And in the last few years there has been growing concern that not only are pollution levels consistently higher than World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines (which are based on preventing negative impacts to human health), but local air quality also often fails to meet less stringent local standards. This is particularly true in PRD industrial areas such as Foshan, where at one station annual particulate matter (of 10 micrometres or less, PM10) levels were recently 600% above WHO guidelines. Satellite images from 2007 also indicate that conditions have worsened considerably since the last joint regional review in 2003.

The report also highlights the consequences of deeply inadequate research into regional air pollution, noting that it is difficult for governments to make policy and implement strategies to tackle air pollution and related declines in public health without sufficient information. It is equally difficult for the public to take steps to protect itself from the harmful effects of air pollution, in particular by expressing concern to government. Previously just 37 studies have been published on the public health effects of air pollution in the last 25 years.

While such a comprehensive study has never previously been prepared, many stakeholders in the region have been frustrated with the slow pace of government action in controlling air pollution over the years, and point to successful steps that have been taken elsewhere in the world. Moreover, recent data has highlighted the health-related costs of pollution and the possible threat of air quality to economic competitiveness appears to be substantial. A June 2006 report provided an initial assessment of the public health costs of air pollution in Hong Kong, conservatively concluding that, “the reduction of pollution to the levels in other world cities, such as London, Paris and New York, would avoid over 1,600 deaths” annually.

Looking forward

It is very much hoped that the fast-approaching East Asian Games, planned for Hong Kong in 2009, and the much larger Asian Games, which are due to take place in Guangzhou in 2010 will provide the stimulus to address air pollution more seriously, especially after noting the great difficulties Beijing has faced in trying to improve air quality ahead of the Olympic Games in August 2008.

There have been recent signs of increased government commitment, including the 2003 establishment of the cross-border Pearl River Delta Regional Air Quality Management Plan and the current review by the Hong Kong Government, to its 20-year-old Air Quality Objectives. However, other signs point to business-as-usual, such as the “best-effort basis” rather than a stronger policy commitment to targets set by the Hong Kong and Guangdong governments.

Some of the pieces for finding the answers are in place. The ongoing provision of real-time data to the public across the PRD from the existing regional monitoring network could increase awareness and understanding of daily conditions, facilitate greater research and allow for immediate feedback on the success of government policy. It is also vitally important that the same dataset for 2007 be provided so that direct assessment can be made and year-on year trends identified.

Hong Kong`s current Air Pollution Index is not only insufficient but also misleading, as it is not directly linked with health protection. Revising its Air Quality Objectives to be in line with WHO guidelines, thereby honestly revealing the scale of the problem would provide the Hong Kong Government with a powerful driver to improve air quality and public health.

Most importantly the report lays down a complete strategy that would enable the authorities in the PRD Hong Kong and Macau to exercise leadership by taking immediate efforts to deal comprehensively with the air quality problem. Abandoning the existing piecemeal approach ad adopting a total air quality management framework is the necessary first step, as it has proven most successful in controlling air pollution in other urban regions around the world.

Christine Loh is the CEO of Civic Exchange

Anthony Hedley is chair professor in the department of community medicine, School of Public Health, Hong Kong University

Wong Tze Wai is professor in the department of community and family medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong

Alexis Lau is associate professor in the civic engineering department and director of the environmental central facility, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

EDITOR’S NOTE: These pictures were all taken by Sean Gallagher, a British photographer based in China, between June 26 and July 2, 2008. All of the photographs were taken in Beijing, and most of them depict vehicles that have been left or abandoned under the raised ring roads in the city centre. In this series, the photographer has not set out to show ordinary cars in the Chinese capital; he uses abandoned vehicles as static objects, which illustrate the quantity of dust and sand that accumulates in the city’s air. Some of this dust is from naturally occurring sandstorms, but – as the photographer points out in his comment – much of it also comes from the booming construction industry.

Backgrounder: air pollution in China

Sixteen of the world`s 20 most polluted cities are in China. More than 500 million people live in Chinese urban areas including the capital, Beijing, where air pollution is damaging to human health.

“Extensive use of coal, the city`s location and the growing number of cars means the improvement in Beijing`s air quality is slow,” the Associated Press quoted Eric Falt, an official at the United Nations Environment Program, as saying last October. “Particularly worrying are the levels of small particulate matter%26hellip; in the atmosphere which is severely harmful to public health.”

The World Health Organisation`s (WHO) Air Pollution Index (API) is a measurement of concentrations of chemicals and dust particles in the air. The WHO recommends an API measurement of 50 as its maximum safe daily level. May 2008 saw a daily API average of 131 in Beijing. May 27, 2008, saw the capital`s API peak at 463, over nine times the safe level.

As the Beijing Olympics approach, concerns are being raised about the quality of the air in the capital, particularly by athletes, some of whom have proposed wearing masks during the competition, training in other countries, or even pulling out of events.

Whatever happens at the Olympics, Beijing residents will continue to live with smoggy skies after the Games. According to the Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, the country`s air pollution caused over 400,000 premature deaths in 2003.

The Olympics have finally drawn to a close, but debate over the “Olympic legacy” continues.

In an article for chinadialogue last year, I suggested that air quality during the Olympics would not be an issue because the Chinese government had both the desire and the means to implement any necessary measures at any price.

In accordance with my predictions, during the Olympics air pollution reached a 10-year low. The International Olympic Committee lavished great praise on Beijing’s green efforts. But all we want to know is if it will last.

People are also asking whether or not the Beijing Olympics were “carbon neutral”.

In terms of this point, it is useful to note that it is hard even to find an accepted definition of carbon neutrality. Nevertheless, for the Beijing Olympics we could say that it means taking a range of measures to cancel out the extra greenhouse-gas emissions created during the event.

The 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin and the 2006 World Cup in Germany already provided models of climate protection for large sporting events.

According to an environmental assessment issued by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in November 2006, the Turin Winter Olympics caused the equivalent of 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) to be released, of which 70% were offset through investment in power-saving and renewable energy projects in Italy and tree-planting in Kenya.

The organisers of the World Cup said the event emitted 92,000 tonnes of CO2, with 100,000 tonnes offset through clean energy projects in India and South Africa. This made it the first ever carbon-neutral World Cup.

As a developing nation, China does not have the same obligation to reduce emissions as developed nations such as Italy or Germany. But the international community still hopes to see some action taken on climate protection from the Beijing Olympics.

In October 2007 a UNEP report called for the Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games (BOCOG) “to openly declare a commitment on climate change and offsetting.”

According to a report in Caijing magazine, BOCOG did not respond directly to this request. However, government authorities did subsequently calculate the carbon balance sheet for the games.

The initial results of these carbon calculations were revealed by China’s science and technology minister at a press conference of the State Council in May 2008. During the Games, he said, the equivalent of an extra 1.18 million tonnes of CO2 would be released. However, a range of “green Olympics” measures, including technological fixes, tree-planting and restrictions on vehicles, would reduce emissions by between 1 million and 1.29 million tonnes in order to make the Games more-or-less carbon neutral.

Those calculations also showed that the single most effective emissions-reduction measure was the two-month long restriction on private vehicles on Beijing`s roads. This measure alone would cut carbon emissions by 850,000 tonnes. Technological solutions, such as the installation of solar panels at Olympic venues, were of relatively limited impact.

It is still hard to say if the Games will actually be carbon-neutral. After all, large quantities of data cannot be confirmed until after the Paralympics have concluded. It will be several months before we have final environmental impact reports from the Chinese government and UNEP.

There is also considerable disagreement over just how to calculate emissions, as well as which measures can be classified as offsetting carbon production.

Interestingly, just after the Olympic Games, the British Embassy in Beijing issued a press release saying that the 2012 London Olympics would aim to be the first “sustainable” Olympics, setting new standards for reducing the impact on the the climate.

This statement could be understood as saying that London does not consider the Beijing Olympics to have been “sustainable” and is not yet convinced that emissions have been offset.

But carbon neutral or not, the 2008 Games will leave a valuable legacy, the benefits of which are not just limited to Beijing.

As Greenpeace said in its report on the Games, After the Olympics: lessons from Beijing: “Many of Beijing`s environmental initiatives have set a good example for other Chinese cities to follow.”

For instance, in a report in Energy Policy, Wu Lisong and colleagues at the Circular Economy Institute at Beijing Aeronautics and Astronautics University described the Olympics as having accelerated Beijing`s efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Indeed, between 2001 and 2006 the capital reduced emissions by a total of 80 million tonnes of CO2.

The Olympics also have been accompanied by an increased awareness of climate change among both Chinese government officials and the public.

Beijing`s neighbouring province of Hebei has shut down a number of energy-hungry and polluting factories and is pushing forward with the development of clean energy sources such as wind power. Ji Zhenhai, head of the provincial environmental protection agency, wrote in the Hebei Daily that these measures will both improve the air in Beijing and promote the reduction of carbon emissions, laying the foundation for a shift to a low-carbon economy.

Some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) saw the Beijing Games as the ideal opportunity to promote issues of climate protection. The Environmental Defense Fund`s China office, the China Association for NGO Cooperation and BOCOG worked together on a “green travel” project encouraging the use of public transport and car-sharing. Using an online calculator, participants are able to calculate the CO2 they would save.

In my opinion, all these changes are more important than the supposed carbon neutrality of the Games themselves.

Li Taige is a Beijing-based journalist. He obtained a master`s degree in engineering from Sichuan University in 1997 and was a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 2003-04.

Homepage photo by guidofoc

Wallace Broecker`s office looks, at first glance, like what you might expect from the inner sanctum of one of the world`s leading geoscientists and oceanographers. There is a giant map of the ocean floor strewn across a desk. A picture of a 19th-century gentleman with a magnificent beard hangs above the mantelpiece; I mistake him for Charles Darwin, but am told he is the American geologist and explorer John Strong Newberry.

Closer inspection of the room reveals that it is anything but typical. There`s no computer to be seen, while in one corner of the room there is a life-sized photograph of the actor Bob Hoskins in the 1988 film Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Another corner houses a six-metre-long fluffy snake, aqua blue with pink spots and a flashing red tongue. A sign around its head reads: “I am the climate beast and I am hungry.”

Broecker — universally known as Wally — has done as much as anyone to bring the perils of climate change to the world`s attention. He sees climate as an animal capable of acting in unpredictable and violent ways. “If you`re living with an angry beast, you shouldn`t poke it with a sharp stick,” he says.

He was among the first, in 1975, to sound the alarm on global warming even as many of his colleagues believed the earth was cooling down. He can claim credit for the discovery of the conveyor-belt flow of the oceans. He showed how the earth`s climate can change abruptly with brutal consequences. And he made seminal discoveries about the crucial links between climate cycles and the fluctuating concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

It`s an impressive resum%26eacute;, all the more so as he accomplished it at the same time as raising six children with his wife, Grace, who died last year. And, as the strange absence in his office attests, he did it all without the use of a computer. He writes in pencil, and relies on assistants at New York City`s Columbia University, his base for 55 years, to type up his manuscripts and print out his emails.

“I suppose I`m lazy and I`m spoiled,” Broecker says. “But it gives me the luxury of thinking. I still maintain that when scientists with all their computers can do better than I can, I`ll step aside; but so far I can hold my own.”

As the title of Broecker`s recent book Fixing Climate suggests, he has moved beyond explaining climate change in order to search for a solution. Broecker believes humanity is incapable of weaning itself from fossil fuels. CO2 concentrations are already at 380 parts per million (ppm) — up from 280ppm before the industrial revolution, and are rising by more than 2ppm a year. “Some people say we can stop at 450ppm, but that`s ludicrous,” he says. “It will be hard, very hard, for us to stop at even 600ppm. And if we carry on doing what we are doing now — very little — we are going to get up to 800 or 900ppm. That`s really a trip.”

Alternative forms of energy will fall short, Broecker argues. Nuclear power brings with it problems of disposal and the fear of weapons. Wind energy is simply too weak. Hydrogen fuel would require a whole new infrastructure to deliver it. Solar is probably the long-term answer but is unlikely to become cheap enough quickly enough to prevent disaster.

That leaves, he argues, a massive gap between the dramatic surge in energy use that will be seen over the next 30 years and the need to lower CO2 levels within the same timeframe. “A lot of people have unrealistic attitudes,” he says. “If we put all these alternatives together, they say, we will have a solution. Maybe they are right. But what you see now is China and India adding a whole new element. Suddenly they are using energy like gangbusters, and a lot of it is coal. Too many people look at the rich nations and think we have to cut down, and of course we do; but boy, that`s not going to solve the problem.”

So we are all doomed? Broecker`s book, co-authored with journalist Robert Kunzig, concedes that pessimism is a rational response. But it ends on a high note, for Broecker has lent his name to — and to some degree staked his reputation on — a highly controversial new technology that claims to offer a way out of man-made disaster. “We`ve got to figure out a way to keep the world from being overheated,” he says. “If you can`t stop more and more CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, then we need a safety net capable of solving the whole problem.”

Together with a team he helped to assemble, Broecker believes he has done just that. Their new machine, prosaically called a “scrubber”, is intended to suck CO2 out of the open air and capture it, ready to be neutralised or stored where it can no longer cause damage.

Broecker introduced a fellow scientist at Columbia, Klaus Lackner — whom he describes as the “best brain I have ever met” — to an engineer called Allen Wright. Together they drew up a prototype scrubbing machine that they say can draw CO2 out of the air. The technique had been mastered in enclosed spaces such as submarines but never before achieved in the open atmosphere — and is generally regarded by scientists and policymakers as impossible.

Broecker then introduced the pair to his great friend, the late mail-order clothing tycoon Gary Comer. Comer was a keen sailor who had become aware of the melting ice sheets after he sailed his 151-foot yacht straight through the Northwest Passage, virtually unencumbered by ice. Alarmed, he tracked down Broecker and flew in his private jet to see him in 2002. The result was a US$5 million donation that helped pay for the scrubber.

The unlikely arrival of Comer — an energetic, can-do businessman — had a profound impact on Broecker. The scientist had been contemplating retirement, having survived cancer and heart disease. I asked him whether his illness had any bearing on his approach to global warming. “I`m not very philosophical about things like that,” he says. “I had a bone tumour, I was walking on crutches, having night sweats. They gave me chemo[therapy] and within two weeks it just blew the tumour off. My attitude was: if I survive, I survive; if I die, I die. I was fatalistic.”

Surgery to remove a tumour from his jaw in the 1980s left Broecker`s face slightly lopsided, adding to an impression of eccentricity. With his wispy hair, twinkly eyes, and 1970s-style clothes, he comes across as an archetypal mad professor – and proudly so. Recently he moved into a new, state-of-the-art building at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia`s verdant outpost overlooking the Hudson River, north of New York City. He left behind the rusty old laboratory he affectionately calls “the pigsty”.

The new lab was paid for by Comer`s foundation. Broecker`s office sits directly over the main entrance, allowing him to pounce on anyone he wants to talk to as they come in — his preferred form of communication. But the product of his collaboration with Comer that Broecker is most excited about these days is their new machine, stored in a laboratory in Tucson, Arizona. This is the scrubber that Comer paid for, Lackner conceived and Wright built. It deploys a secret new form of plastic that the team says attracts CO2 in a way that allows the gas to be captured, compressed and then safely deposited underground.

Critics regard the very suggestion that there is a way to take CO2 out of the air, reversing fossil-fuel pollution, as sacrilege. Greenpeace has criticised carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) schemes as gross irresponsibility, on the ground that they mean more combustion of oil and coal. Broecker is indignant at that suggestion.

“When Greenpeace says we shouldn`t capture and bury CO2 because it encourages the use of coal, I say it`s not that we are encouraging it,” he says. “Desperate people who want energy are going to use the coal they have and there`s no way in hell that we are going to stop them.” But he stresses that he doesn`t see CO2 capture as a substitute for the search for an alternative source of energy. “If we found the magic bullet to make energy another way, we would put this new technology on the shelf. But I happen to think it would take a miracle to find an alternative form of energy in time.”

Broecker concedes that a meaningful attack on CO2 levels through scrubbing the air would be a gigantic task involving the whole planet. He points out that if all the CO2 that is likely to be pumped into the air over the next 20 years were captured and liquefied, it would fill Lake Michigan. “Every mile you drive an ordinary American car, like the beat-up Toyota I drive, produces one pound of CO2. That`s 20,000 pounds [over 9,000 kilogrammes] a year, just from my car.”

In any case, whatever solution to the problem of global warming is preferred by the public and its leaders, it will require extraordinary political will to push it through, and at present that is wholly lacking. I asked him how big he thinks the gulf is between the challenge ahead and the political determination to face it. “Huge, huge,” is his reply.

The candidates for the White House have all campaigned around the issue of global warming, but Broecker is sceptical that the next president of the United States will move fast enough. “It`s easy to talk about tackling this in a campaign, because they don`t have to face the financial pain. But when they get into office they will feel the reality — if they make it too painful they will be kicked out.”

The climate is a beast — don`t poke it. A superstitious person would swear that, as we finish our conversation, the snake at Broecker`s feet slithered a little and shook its tongue. But this is science. That never happened.

www.guardian.co.uk/

Public faith in scientists seems to be in decline in China, as evidenced by the huge controversy arising from a recent speech by a Beijing ecologist.

Jiang Youxu is a scientist with the Research Institute of Forest Ecology, Environment and Protection at the Chinese Academy of Forestry, as well as a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Speaking at the China Forest and City Forum in Guangzhou on November 18, he described the significance of forests for the urban ecosystem.

After the forum, the Chinese public was presented with a new concept: a “breathing tax”. Jiang – branded a villain for wanting to inflict such a tax on average city-dwellers – immediately became the target of criticism and abuse on the Internet.

One online songwriter even came up with the “The Breathing Tax Song”, to the tune of a classic hit by the late pop star Teresa Tang (Deng Lijun):

Academician Jiang, named Youxu,

proposes a carbon tax on you,

for we are all a pollution source

and living makes you a criminal force.

Guangzhou`s New Bulletin was one of the first media outlets to report on Jiang`s speech. In an article that was soon to be widely republished, it said: “Yesterday, at the China Forest and City Forum held in Guangzhou, member of the Chinese Academy of Science Jiang Youxu called for the government to consider imposing an environmental tax on businesses or even CO2-emitting citizens %26hellip; Jiang believes that since all citizens are emitters of CO2 [carbon dioxide], they should pay the costs of reducing energy use and cutting emissions”. Jiang was then quoted as saying: “Making citizens contribute 20 yuan [US$3] to an environmental fund every month could be considered.”

The Guangzhou reporter seems to have confused environmental taxes and environmental funds. In my experience as a science reporter, Chinese media reports sometimes misinterpret what scientists say.

According to the original audio transcription of Jiang`s speech, his actual words were: “As urban forests have so many obvious beneficial functions, shouldn`t we further consider the idea of an environmental tax? %26hellip; [Since] every city-dweller is putting out carbon, we could give 10 or 20 yuan to a fund [and] this money could be used for reforestation, or businesses could use the money from the taxes to plant urban forests.”

Contrary to assertions, then, it seems that Jiang did not mention a “breathing tax”. Unfortunately for him, however, online media outlets republished the report with an embellished headline designed to attract readership and attention: “Academic calls for %26lsquo;breathing tax`, 20 yuan per person per month to protect the environment”.

I have to admire the editor who came up with this idea of a “breathing tax”. As clever as it may be, however, the contribution of our respiration to total CO2 emissions is minute compared to other sources of greenhouse-gas emissions, such as cars, industry and power generation. The phrase “breathing tax” has only misled and angered the public, as there would be no way to escape such a tax. Clearly, this is not what Jiang intended.

What he actually proposed was a fund to which citizens could contribute voluntarily, with the proceeds used to plant forests and offset carbon emissions. In fact, China already has something similar – the China Green Carbon Fund, launched by the State Forestry Administration and the China Green Foundation.

Founded in July 2007, the China Green Carbon Fund is a national public investment scheme which does not, and cannot, force the public to donate on a monthly basis. It aims to provide a platform for businesses, groups and individuals to participate in climate-change mitigation measures such as tree-planting, forest creation and forest management. The China National Petroleum Corporation made the first donation of 300 million yuan (US$44 million).

Of course, some say that Jiang`s “20 yuan per person per month” is no different from an environmental tax and argue that he has not considered the varying responsibilities for emissions between China`s rich and poor. However, Jiang is one of the 12 members of the National Climate Change Expert Committee — a climate change think tank – and undoubtedly is aware of the divide between rich and poor in China. How could he suggest collecting the same level of emissions tax from all?

If he had suggested such a thing, then perhaps the abuse he has received was not undeserved. However, the question remains: did the media accurately and objectively report his actual speech?

To an extent, the fuss over the “breathing tax” reflects both sloppy reporting and a lack of in-depth knowledge regarding climate change among Chinese media workers.

But more importantly, the whole story demonstrates the chasm that separates scientists, the news media and the public. China`s press has a lot of work to do on reporting accurately about climate change.

“A great city; except for the pollution.” It`s an increasingly common summary of Hong Kong. A financial hub known for its modern infrastructure, towering buildings and fast-paced lifestyle, the city is now attracting a less desirable label. A forecast by the Economist recently highlighted air pollution as a key cause for concern in Hong Kong`s future development. Last year alone, air pollution caused 1,155 premature deaths and an extra 7 million doctor visits, costing the city over HK$2.3 billion (US$297 million).

Cleaning up air pollution is not only an environmental problem, but also an economic and public health issue. Globalisation continues to draw countries closer together and integrates our financial markets. The world`s best minds have greater choice on where to take their talents, and while Hong Kong remains one of the world`s top destinations in this regard, its status is built on increasingly shaky ground.

In a recent survey, one in every five people in Hong Kong said they were considering leaving the city because of the air pollution. One in 10 was either seriously considering leaving or already in the process of leaving. Most worrisome is that the people in this group are the most educated and highest income earners. As Hong Kong`s environmental health affects its economic health, similar financial centres, such as Singapore, are capitalising on the brain drain by emphasising their cleaner environments as a comparative advantage.

Having established that cleaning up the air will benefit the economy, how do we achieve this? In Hong Kong, it is easy to point a finger toward the Pearl River Delta (PRD) on the Chinese mainland. Emissions from manufacturing in the PRD leaves a significant footprint on the city`s air quality, but only focusing on this point misses the full picture. Of the total number of polluted days in Hong Kong, local pollutants were the dominant source over half of the time. Furthermore, the pollutants that do the most damage to people`s health are those from roadside and marine sources, which are both locally generated. This means Hong Kong`s own pollutants are the main culprit and that addressing pollution and reforming local regulations and Air Quality Objectives will make a significant difference.

However, a gap exists between the dangers of Hong Kong`s pollution and public awareness of the problem. The public policy think-tank Civic Exchange has worked with the University of Hong Kong to bridge this divide with the development of the Hedley Environmental Index, the world`s first website to quantify the monetary and public health costs of air pollution in real-time. Named after professor Anthony Hedley of the Hong Kong University School of Public Health, the site uses a peer-reviewed, internationally accepted model to calculate the concrete costs of unsafe air. One goal of the Index is to show the public that air pollution`s effects extend beyond just environmental health and that these costs are tangible.

In just the first two months of 2009, the Hedley Environmental Index shows that air pollution lost Hong Kong HK$350 million and produced an extra one million visits to the doctor. Moreover, these are conservative figures, which count only lost productivity and short-term health costs. The Index does not yet account for the impact of air pollution on factors as lost tourism or long-term health burdens.

Missing in this picture is a hard and enforceable standard to curb pollution. As the unsafe air continues to bear down on Hong Kong, the city needs to search for more challenging markers to lower pollutant levels. Hong Kong`s current Air Quality Objectives are up to four times weaker than the World Health Organisation (WHO) standards; however, even with softer objectives, actual levels of pollution often exceed safe levels.

The 2005 WHO Air Quality Guidelines can provide the starting point for this discussion, but unfortunately, their only mention by Hong Kong`s leaders has been in the context of implementing WHO`s Interim Target 1 (IT1). While IT1 bears the WHO brand, it was designed for developing cities to get them on the path to lowering pollutants. Hong Kong is clearly not a developing city.

The path forward may present different options for solutions, but it is clear that now is the time to act. The Hong Kong AQOs are heavily outdated, but they are currently under review for the first time since their inception over 20 years ago. The development of the Hedley Environmental Index allows government, civic groups and citizens to track improvements in air quality and see the monetary and public health benefits that reform can bring. The government has begun to reduce emissions from the largest source of air pollution by ordering the installation of flue-gas desulphurisation equipment on all coal-fired power stations by 2011. This is a step in the right direction, but it remains to be seen how it will address critical issues in the future, such as promoting green transport.

Hong Kong has traditionally been China`s most dynamic city, at the cutting edge of economic development and a leader in introducing international best practice to China. Yet, in air quality management the city lags far behind other world cities. As one of Asia`s premier financial centres, we need to ask what air pollution is really costing us.

Eric Cheng is a recent graduate from the University of California, Berkeley. He now works with Civic Exchange.

Luo Rui, a postgraduate student at Peking University’s Institute of Environmental Science and Engineering, who has previously worked at Civic Exchange, contributed to this article.

Visit the Hedley Environmental Index here

Homepage photo by Ljubisa Bojic

Transportation is responsible for nearly a quarter of all greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide. But compared with the electricity sector, little effort has been put into mitigation. Worse still, transport emissions are growing at a faster pace than emissions in any other sector. Emblematic of this calamitous development has been the motorisation of Chinese mobility. Thirty years ago, Beijing had fewer than 100,000 motor vehicles on the road; now there are more than 3.6 million.

Accumulated responsibility for emissions lies to a greater extent with industrialised OECD countries than with China, and no one wants to deny Chinese citizens the dream of private mobility. Yet there are good reasons for China to act against climate change. The consequences of climate change pose a serious threat; consider, for example, that China`s water supply is crucially dependent upon rapidly shrinking glaciers in the Himalayas. The problems also extend beyond climate change: rapid economic development and motorisation pose other imminent hazards to citizens.

The roads of the Chinese capital carry one-tenth of the country`s cars, but the city is home to only one-hundredth of its population. As a result, Beijing`s arteries are clogged well beyond the morning and evening rush hours. Cars delay not only other cars but also overcrowded buses; it takes hours for commuters to arrive at work. Air pollution causes asthma and lung cancer. More than 1,000 people are killed every year after being hit by cars, further discouraging cycling – the most environmentally sustainable transit mode in Chinese cities, and until recently the most popular one. Pedestrians and cyclists are now encircled by broad arteries, physical barriers that impede their mobility. In short, Beijing is living a transport nightmare.

Many Chinese aspire to car ownership, and mobility is a desirable goal. But how do the economic benefits trade off against the disadvantages? This question can be answered by attempting to monetise congestion and other hazards. Using established methodologies, Dongquan He from the Energy Foundation China and I estimated the time lost in congestion, health costs due to air pollution, stress costs of traffic noise and even the value of lives lost by accidents. Climate-change damage costs can be evaluated by the total carbon dioxide emissions produced by vehicles driven in Beijing.

The damage costs are dramatic. Even using a very conservative estimate, congestion and air pollution each account for around 20 billion yuan (US$2.9 billion) each year. The time lost for bus passengers caught in congestion adds another 6 billion yuan (US$877 million), even though bus patrons usually value time less than do car drivers. Accidents and noise pollution are relatively small costs, each around 1 billion yuan (US$146 million). Surprisingly, climate-change damage costs are dwarfed by congestion and air pollution costs for Beijing citizens, and amount to 1.4 billion yuan (US$205 million). Altogether these values, computed for the year 2005, constitute 7.5% of GDP in Beijing. Since 2005, the situation has only deteriorated, with more than a million cars added to the streets of the capital.

However, climate change is certainly not irrelevant when we consider Beijing`s traffic nightmare. Uncertainty about the value of social costs is much higher for climate change than for the other environmental hazards. In the high estimate of motorisation`s social costs (15% of Beijing`s GDP), climate-change costs are as high as those of air pollution and congestion.

So how can Beijing tackle the crisis? As Alex Pasternack has written on chinadialogue, smart growth is the way forward: new satellite towns have to be planned around public transit; land use, work and living need to be reorganised around travelling shorter distances. However, the existing infrastructure of broad arteries, superblocks and commuter towns far away from Beijing`s Central Business District can not simply be undone.

Beijing successfully limited car transportation around the Olympic Games with periodic driving bans, which were extended in a milder version beyond the Games. However, such measures do not help in the long run: new cars fill up the road and car drivers even buy second vehicles to circumvent the driving ban. Air pollution is also improved, in relative terms, by prohibiting the use of older, more polluting vehicles. However, here symptoms are treated while the underlying situation degrades due to increasing motorisation.

To get at the underlying problem in this case, economic theory calls for cost internalisation measures. Traditionally, this means congestion charging. However, I prefer “city toll” as both a name and a concept, since the goal is not only to tackle congestion, but also to mitigate the worst impact of environmental damage and address other concerns. The central idea is that polluters pay a fee that matches mobility demand with the social costs of car transportation.

In Beijing, a city toll would reduce car traffic by one quarter, providing major congestion relief, increasing average speed from 21 to 28 kilometres per hour and reducing air pollution and climate-change impact. Car drivers benefit the most from congestion relief as speed and reliability is increased dramatically. But it is also car drivers who must pay the fee. To realise the benefits, a daily city toll would need to equal or exceed 50 yuan (US$7.30), a considerable amount for most car drivers and hence seen as unattractive to policymakers in the Beijing municipality.

It helps to delve a little deeper into economic theory. “Demand elasticity” describes how people react to price signals. For a city toll, it is beneficial when people are relatively sensitive to price signals and reduce driving accordingly. Higher demand elasticity means that a lower city toll — one that costs car drivers less — can achieve higher benefits, a very attractive outcome. The next question is: how can demand elasticity be increased?

The most decisive measure is probably the speed and availability of buses and subways. When these modes of transportation are conveniently available, car drivers can switch easily to public transit. In fact, the ready availability of public transit may reduce the “optimal” city toll by 10 yuan (US$1.50) a day while even further reducing car transportation and its harmful impact.

City planners in the capital understand that Beijing needs more than ring roads and broad arteries, and significant investment is going into an impressive subway network. According to the construction schedule, the subway system will be extended from the current 200 kilometres, to more than 560 kilometres by 2015. This extension will help to avoid pushing additional commuters into cars. But it is insufficient to tackle the current traffic gridlock. To this end, bus rapid transit should be designed with high capacity and implemented at comparatively small costs, re-assigning the road for more efficient mobility. Exclusive lanes for bicycles and electronic bicycles could counter the downward trend in popularity of this individualised but environmentally friendly mode of transport. A city toll, bus rapid transit, subways and an infrastructure friendly to pedestrians and cyclists could together provide a formidable way forward to a sustainable and energy resilient city.

The surprising insight is that mitigating climate change through transport demand management is highly beneficial for car drivers, who can enjoy relatively free roads – and for citizens who will love more “blue sky days”. Of course, political courage is required to take the automobile lobby out of the proverbial driver`s seat, and discourage, if not ownership, at least car usage.

Felix Creutzig is postdoctoral fellow at the Berkeley Institute of the Environment, UC Berkeley and has worked for the Energy Foundation China in Beijing. The complete study was recently published in Transportation Research D.

Homepage photo by Shazari