Chinese walker

Food safety is a basic need for any population, yet we hear warnings of hidden dangers on the dining-room table – of unsafe rice and poisoned vegetables. With the launch of the China Soil Survey, pollution of our soil is now receiving the kind of attention once accorded to air and water, solid waste and noise.

Soil pollution has been called the “invisible pollution.” While other forms of pollution have obvious warning signs – visible contamination of a river, for example, or an airborne stench – soil pollution is easier to miss. And so this grave threat has been growing unnoticed in our fields.

In some areas of China, soil already suffers from varying degrees of pollution. According to the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), the situation is worsening and already represents a threat to the environment, to food safety and to sustainable agriculture. According to a scientific sampling, 150 million mu (100,000 square kilometres) of China`s cultivated land have been polluted, with contaminated water being used to irrigate a further 32.5 million mu (21,670 square kilometres) and another 2 million mu (1,300 square kilometres) covered or destroyed by solid waste. In total, the area accounts for one-tenth of China`s cultivatable land, and is mostly in economically developed areas.

Soil pollution presents a genuine danger. An estimated 12 million tonnes of grain are contaminated by heavy metals every year, causing direct losses of 20 billion yuan (US$2.57 billion). Harmful substances accumulate in crops and, via the food chain, find their way into our bodies, where they can cause a variety of illnesses. Soil pollution also damages ecosystems and ultimately threatens their safety.

Measures to prevent soil pollution are weak in China. Currently, given the amount of land in question, the degree of the pollution in specific locations is unclear, making both prevention and remedy difficult. There are no laws or environmental standards regarding soil. Funding is limited, too, so there is little advanced scientific study of China`s soil taking place. The severity of the pollution is not understood by either the public or business, and the situation is worsening.

More worryingly, treating soil pollution – especially that caused by heavy metals – is costly, and such contamination is difficult to eliminate completely. According to Liu Xiaoduan, a specialist at China`s National Research Centre for Geoanalysis (NRCGA), heavy metals are naturally widespread in the soil and cannot be removed. But they can form organic compounds or build in some organisms, and thus end up in the human body, where they accumulate.

“Some time ago, the focus of our work shifted from prospecting for ore, and we now have a number of different aims,” says an official with the China Geological Survey`s department of geological investigation. The aim of agricultural security grew from ensuring quantity to ensuring safety; soil management has become about quality rather than quantity, and environmental awareness is ever increasing. Geochemistry is playing a greater role in both the economy and society.

The science and technology behind prospecting for ore is now the basis for environmental geochemistry, which includes the earth`s atmosphere and hydrosphere, ecosystems and geology – allowing China to carry out detailed and precise soil surveys. It allows geochemistry to play a role in studies of the environment, agriculture, soil quality, oceans and prospecting, and also helps scientists to develop geochemical theory and new technology.

Lu Anhuai, of Peking University`s school of earth and space sciences, says that surveys have found regional geochemical abnormalities which impact upon the environment of cities and villages, and even upon China as a whole. The survey group proposed a number of economic measures to help protect the environment, which were given serious consideration by the government. Surveys of 21 provinces found localised geochemical issues, such as areas of high disease incidence, and various environmental problems in areas which produce particular crops or which surround mines.

China previously carried out two national soil surveys, in the late 1950s and in the `70s. Both studies focused on soil fertility and agricultural productivity, rather than soil pollution. However, the aim of the latest government-funded appraisal — costing 1 billion yuan (US$128.6 million) — is to study the overall state of China`s soil in a comprehensive, systematic and accurate manner. It is intended to: identify the type, degree and cause of soil-pollution hotspots; evaluate associated risks; set environmental classifications for soil; select and trial soil-recovery technology; put together a system of laws and standards regarding soil pollution; and improve environmental management of soil.

Due to conclude in 2008, the survey will focus on protected farmland and grain production areas. The soil-pollution survey will focus on the Yangtze and Pearl River basins, the area surrounding the Bohai Gulf, the former heavy-industrial areas of the north-east, the plains of Sichuan and Shanxi, and major mining cities. The formation of a system to oversee soil environmental quality will focus on improving testing ability and drafting soil pollution laws.

The Geological Survey bureau says three million square kilometres of soil in the Yangtze and Yellow River basins, the plains of the northeast, developed coastal areas and the west of China. One million square kilometres have been surveyed already; and a further one million will be examined in the time of the 11th Five Year Plan, which runs to 2010. Completion is due in the period of the 12th Five Year Plan. Regional situations will be summarised and a “National Geochemical Map” produced, which will finally allow us to fully grasp the truth of soil pollution in China.

This article was adapted from China Environmental Times, December 28, 2006.

Qi Xu is a journalist for China Environmental Times.

Homepage photo by Ari Moore

Sky TV recently reported that the world’s largest container ship, the Emma Maersk, had arrived in south China`s Lianjiao, laden with 170,000 tonnes of rubbish. The local economy has relied on waste recycling for years. As a result, fumes can be seen pouring out of Lianjiao`s chimneys, its rivers are blackened, its soil is contaminated, its water is polluted and trash can be seen piled up like mountains. The story has ignited controversy in both the UK and China.

But this is not a new phenomenon. Western nations started exporting waste to developing countries as early as the 1960s and %26lsquo;70s, with disastrous consequences. In August 2006, a boat chartered by a Netherlands-based firm dumped hundreds of tonnes of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, killing seven and hospitalising 24, with almost 40,000 people suffering to some degree.

The overwhelming opinion of online commentators is that this demonstrated how western countries adhere to double standards with regard to the environment. But waste dumping is not carried out by nations: it is carried out by corporations.

Exporting trash has allowed firms to earn money from governments in the developed world, cutting government costs and avoiding local regulations, while the exporters earn an additional income from selling the rubbish. At the same time, developing countries get a source of raw materials. China is the world’s second largest consumer of plastic; one tonne of synthetic resin costs 11,000 yuan (around US$1,420), but a tonne of imported plastic, discarded in the west, can be bought for as little as 4,000 yuan (around US$515). The work of sorting the waste is hard and dirty, but for many it is more lucrative than the alternative. “We`re poor, so we still have to,” explained one interviewee. “If we plant crops, we can only earn around 2,000 yuan (around US$260) every year. But this work pays much more quickly: as much as 800 yuan (around US$100) every month.”

When there is this kind of profit to be made, there will always be someone willing to risk others` health by importing trash, and many more who will endanger their own to sort it: it is simple economics.

Or is it? If the UK had weaker environmental laws, money could be made processing waste there, and nobody would export rubbish to China. Trash ends up in China because developed countries have more robust green laws, greater social supervision and more effective governments; high fees associated with waste processing and pollution emissions have made it uneconomical to process the trash locally.

But the low cost of waste processing and the large profits to be made in China make it a lucrative industry. Meanwhile, government oversight is weak and punishment is mainly in the form of fines that go directly to government rather than compensating the victims of pollution. As a result, companies and individuals involved can keep on polluting.

Globalisation benefits both developed and developing nations, but environmental laws and their enforcement are weaker in poorer countries. This gives richer nations a chance to export their waste and pollution. The economic and environmental differences are, in essence, the result of underdeveloped systems.

Globalisation increases the interaction between different systems, and exposes the gaps between them. In the same way that less-developed systems attract unregulated and risky investments, they also attract waste.

Governments, businesses and the international community should make a sustained effort to prevent the continuation and expansion of this serious problem.

International agreements that invoke the authority of a third party should be implemented. Sponsored by the United Nations or global environmental groups, such agreements would reduce the potential for harm to developing countries. The third party should also be able to help with the costs of environmental protection.

It is also important to control those factors that allow this unregulated trade. In this particular case, the UK government should bear responsibility for not implementing international agreements, take its rubbish back and discuss more effective systems for managing the international flow of solid waste with the Chinese government. Similarly, China should increase the cost of waste production and waste imports to reduce the price differentials: only this can get to the root of the problem. Otherwise, this issue will become intractable, and more problems will arise.

The Chinese government recognises the harm caused, and a law on solid waste is being rushed through the legislative process. Laws and regulations should be enough to improve the management of imported waste and reduce its environmental harm. But many have concerns about their effectiveness; waste processing and plastics are still highly lucrative industries, and the companies at the heart of the industry may just relocate.

The most basic and important measure is to build the public into the new systems. In the west, it is social pressure that blocks interest groups, keeps the government in line and pushes for strict environmental policies. Public movements inspired by environmental disasters in the 1960s and %26lsquo;70s led to a solid environmental protection system and a tradition of public oversight of the environment.

NGOs such as Greenpeace, the media, strict laws and responsible local governments must all play a part in helping China’s environment to ensure that situations like this do not continue to arise.

Tang Hao is a Guangzhou-based academic and commentator

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

As bitterly cold air pours down from Siberia each winter, one of the charms of this ancient capital has been the sight of bundled-up people heading to Beijing’s picturesque frozen canals and lakes for ice skating.

This year, however, a 161-year-old temperature record was broken, causing the ice to melt in early February. As young women walked Beijing’s streets in short skirts instead of heavy winter clothes, Chinese were confronted in the starkest way with the phenomenon of global warming.

Indeed, almost everywhere one turns today in China, the environmental consequences of the country’s economic juggernaut are evident. A recent trip northwest from Beijing through the coal-rich province of Shanxi revealed an almost endless landscape in black and white where the sun rarely shines because of uncontrolled air pollution from coal-fired plants that produce electrical power, cement and fertilizer. Meanwhile, glaciologists now report that high up on the Tibetan Plateau, where glaciers have for millennia fed most of the major river systems of Asia — Yangtze, Yellow, Mekong and Brahmaputra — there is an annual melt rate of 7%, giving these life-sustaining waterways estimated actuarial tables of less than two decades. In 2000, the U.N. Development Program reported that air pollution was already causing about 400,000 premature deaths a year. It is hardly surprising, as China is home to 16 of the 30 cities with the worst air pollution in the world.

In today’s China, nature is on the run, and at the heart of this environmental crisis sits coal, from which the country derives 69% of its primary energy and 52% of its electricity. China uses well over 2.2 billion metric tonnes of the stuff per year — more than the United States, India and Russia combined — and produces more conventional harmful emissions than the United States.

Sometime next year, China could surpass the United States in greenhouse-gas emissions, but the average person in China still consumes less than one-fifth the energy the average American does. For China to achieve the same living standard as the United States, it would have to triple its use of coal, creating an enormous increase in both conventional pollutants and greenhouse gases. And make no mistake about it, China is angling to catch up. In fact, to keep up with this voracious demand for energy, a new conventional coal-fired power plant comes on-line in China every week.

China is not alone. The United States has 100 to 160 conventional coal-fired plants on the drawing boards, all with life spans of about 40 years, and none equipped to capture and sequester CO2. Indeed, as oil and gas have become increasingly expensive, countries rich in coal have found themselves relying on it ever more. The global consequences of continuing this trend without first adopting new “clean coal” technologies will be dire.

And for those unimpressed by the more distant threat of climate change, there is always the immediate problem of conventional pollutants. China’s State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) estimates that sulphur-dioxide (SO2) emissions alone are causing China’s GNP an annual loss of 12%, which is about equal to its impressive growth rate.

Meanwhile, the United States has opted out of the Kyoto Protocol, while China has signed on only as a developing country, which means it is obliged to meet no binding commitments to reduce its emissions. Last November, China did commit itself to deriving 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 and to cutting the energy consumed per unit of GDP by 20% over five years. But during the first half of last year, Beijing not only failed to meet these targets but had an increase of 8% in energy consumption per unit of GDP. Initial reports from China’s massive hydropower facility at the Three Gorges are also underwhelming; it appears that the Yangtze River isn’t yet flowing fast enough to keep the turbines turning.

Concerned about keeping economic growth rates high enough to maintain social order, Chinese officials recently lobbied to tone down the alarming conclusions of the just-released report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and reaffirmed their unwillingness to commit China to any limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

“China is still a country with a huge developing population,” said Qin Dahe, a ranking Chinese climate change negotiator, justifying his country’s inaction.

There is a certain degree of justice in China’s official view. After all, for more than a century, the United States has been a profligate emitter of CO2, and it continues to refuse to face the fact that it is the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases.

But justice or no, the world is left to confront a situation in which the two largest polluters have opted out of the solution. If the United States will not lead, China will not follow, and the results will be tragic: both countries will suffer grievously, and so will the rest of the world.

What, then, is to be done?

The April 22 attack on a Chinese-run oil field in Ethiopia has brought to the fore a rising threat that confronts China in its hunt for oil and other natural resources in Africa: rebel insurgency.

There are militant groups pursuing a number of different agendas in virtually every oil-producing region of the continent, and the barbaric attack by the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) is not the first that Chinese oil workers in Africa have experienced in recent times. In Nigeria`s Niger Delta, where China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) last April procured a major oil bloc, attacks on oil workers have become an increasingly regular occurrence.

For China, the attacks represent not only a threat to the lives of its citizens working in these troubled areas, but also a big challenge to its economic projections. China may know what it wants in terms of economic development, but it does appear to be at loss over how to handle the threat militant groups pose to its operations in Africa.

Tough choices

China`s State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) has launched three major crackdowns known as “environmental storms” in the past three years. The first one, in the early part of 2005 halted 30 unapproved construction projects, and 56 projects were not approved in 2006. Regional permit restrictions were used to block four major energy projects this year; 82 other projects have also been criticised for falling foul of the rules on environmental impact assessments. But despite the continued crackdowns, China has faced more and more environmental problems. Over the same period, the number of environmental disasters has increased, with one pollution incident occurring every two days on average. Public complaints about environmental concerns have increased 30% and central leadership statements on the subject have increased 52%. Moreover, pollution emissions continued to rise in 2006. SEPA’s high hopes for the success of the environmental storms have not been realised.

How can this be the case, with rising concerns from the public and the media, not to mention SEPA`s repeated statements? Why is it so hard to put effective measures in place – and make local governments and businesses fall into line? Understanding the answers to these questions requires taking a broader view, which reveals the rise of an anti-environmental interest group – of which local governments are only one part – who want to take an active role in environmental decision-making. And at the same time, this wider view exposes a void at the heart of China’s environmental movement.

A clash of interests

The Dao De Jing, which I have had the honour of translating into English, paints a fascinating and challenging picture of how Daoists see the world. For example, chapter four tells us that the Dao is the source of all life: generous, free flowing, timeless, indeed coming from a time before time itself. Yet today we see that human activity is bringing to an end many forms of life: it is poisoning the waters; polluting the air; changing the climate, destroying forests and killing thousands of species. The Dao is under attack as never before and it is we, human beings, who are attacking it.

And what does the Dao De Jing say about this?

Chapter 29 tells us that if a ruler behaves as if he invented the world, he will do no good at all. It goes on to say the earth is a sacred vessel and it cannot be owned or improved. Yet we behave as if we do own the world, as if nature was there just for us. Chapter 46 tells us that with greed running wild, and without the guidance of the Dao, the world is in danger.

And with this great threat of climate change, the world is in danger today.

Daoism holds the key to finding the way out of these crises because it understands where humanity should be within the Great Order of the Dao. Chapter 42 tells us exactly where we come in this Great Order – as part of the “three” that hold the world together – and it emphasises how we humans are absolutely essential in maintaining the balance of qi in the world.

Daoists` special role in protecting nature

The role of Daoists was recognised by the Declaration on the Environment created by the China Daoist Association in 1995.

“Daoism has a unique sense of value in that it judges affluence by the number of different species,” the report stated. “If all things in the universe grow well, then a society is a community of affluence. If not, this kingdom is on the decline.”

Daoists are inspired by the Dao De Jing 2,500 years ago, by the Daoist Declaration on the Environment 12 years ago and by the many centuries in between, during which Daoist believers have quietly cared for nature. But what can Daoists actually do?

The True Way

First, Daoists have a very strong teaching about how the way of Power is not the True Way. And today we might also echo chapter one by adding that the way of exploiting this fragile world and thinking that this will costs us nothing, is not the True Way. The way of Material Prosperity as the only worthwhile goal is not the True Way. And the way of human communities existing without regard to the communities of animals, plants, rocks, rivers and mountains that live beside them is not the True Way. By recognising that these are illusions, and living out your belief about the True Way, Daoists can restore a holistic vision of our world and our responsibilities.

Protecting species

Secondly, Daoists can set an example in protecting species. Traditional Chinese Medicine is so important in looking after sick people in China, and it has also become popular around the world. However, some unscrupulous people use the body parts of endangered species such as tigers and rhinoceroses to make their so-called medicine. Or they use the gall of bears kept in terrible conditions in tiny cages. This creates a problem, because a medicine designed to harmonise the vital forces in the body, but which itself destroys the harmonious balance of nature, cannot by definition be good medicine. It is not flowing with the Dao. It is destroying the flow of the Dao. As chapter 39 points out, the Dao has to be in unity with all for the power of the Dao to keep the world, the universe whole.

In 2000, the China Daoist Association set a wonderful example by officially publishing a document which outlawed any use of Traditional Chinese Medicine which used endangered species. This now needs to become more than just good words. It needs to become action. Let`s find ways of curbing this by introducing other prescriptions which do not use endangered animals, and do not destroy virgin forest areas or habitats either.

Caring for resources

Thirdly, you can look at your own resources. Many monasteries and temples own land. But is this managed ecologically and organically? If not, maybe it can be changed.

Many monasteries and temples are on sacred mountains. But do they help protect these mountains – for example by creating tree nurseries or by clearing rubbish from the hillsides? If not, then perhaps this can be changed.

As temples and monasteries are given back to the Daoists, do you restore them in sustainable ways? If not, perhaps this can be changed.

All monasteries and temples use paper, energy, transport and food: but is the paper eco-friendly? Is the energy renewable? Is the transport kept to a minimum and are the foodstuffs free of chemical sprays? And is the monastery itself a model of ecology so that local people can learn from it? Is it built from renewable resources? Is it ecological in its use of gardens and water, and does it have an eco-friendly car park? If not, then perhaps these things can be changed as well.

Training

Finally, Daoists are teachers. Could your monasteries and temples become training centres for traditional and sustainable methods of building, painting, carving and landscaping? We believe you could and we will help you to do this. Can we together, for example, make leaflets for pilgrims to take home from all the great Daoist pilgrimage sites, to teach them how to look after nature? The new Taibaishan ecology temple is doing just this. Let`s make this happen right across China.

Can we together train young people, the poorest of the poor, those who will otherwise have no skills, to become the builders of a new and beautiful China?

Or can we together run special day courses for local farmers or business-people, on how to live as good Daoists for the environment? Using the Taibaishan centre, let`s bring as many workshops there as possible to help train monks and nuns and lay people in how to live a Daoist life which respects and restores our relationship with nature.

Last year a new body called the Temple Alliance on Ecology Education, was set up at the first ecology workshop at Taibaishan. A declaration was made called the Qinling Declaration in which all the participants promised to:

- bring ecological education into temples;

- reduce pollution caused by incense burners etc;

- use farmed land sustainably;

- protect species and forests;

- save energy;

- protect water resources.

The Alliance of Religions and Conservation is willing to help on all these levels. We have been working as partners with China`s Daoists since 1995. We have helped Louguantai create the first ever Daoist ecology temple. We are helping produce Daoist educational materials for use in temples. But we are small and you are great, and we know that you can do so much more.

So let us bring the world back to an understanding of true Dao. As Zhuang Zi says in chapter 12, “Heaven and Earth”:

The Dao, how deep and quiet it lies;

How pure is its clarity!

Without it neither gold not stone would resonate.

The gold and stones have sounds within them

But if they are not struck, then no sound comes forth%26hellip;

But now I would like to remind you of the last line of this verse%26hellip;

“All the creatures in this world have dimensions that cannot be calculated.”

Martin Palmer is secretary general of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation.

Can rock concerts change the world? It is a question that was asked repeatedly last summer when “Live 8″ asked for a mass movement to fight global poverty. This time around the question being asked is “can rock concerts save the world?”

On July 7 this year (07/07/07) concerts on all seven continents will be held to promote global awareness of climate change, and kick off “a multimedia mass persuasion campaign.” Pop stars from Madonna to Shakira, from The Police to Snoop Dogg will perform at concerts held from Shanghai to Rio de Janeiro.

I spoke to Live Earth`s official spokesperson Yusef Robb about reducing the event`s carbon footprint, educating rock stars – and changing the day-to-day behaviour of the entire world%26hellip;

chinadialogue: How do you see the Live Earth concerts pushing the green agenda forward in the music industry?

Glaciers in the Himalayas, which provide water to one-sixth of humanity, are thawing rapidly due to climate change. Dubbed the “Third Pole,” with the largest concentration of glaciers outside the polar caps, the Himalayas boast 11 peaks over 8,000 metres and around 100 over 7,000 metres high. Scientists predict that if current rates of warming continue, 80% of Himalayan glaciers will disappear within 30 years.

I was part of a Greenpeace team that left Beijing in late April to document glacial retreat on the world’s highest peak, Mount Everest (Qomolangma). The plan was to gather visual evidence of the retreat of the Rongbuk Glacier, Everest`s main glacier, 5,800 metres above sea level, in order to build awareness in China of the mounting threat of climate change.

After a four hour flight, we reached Lhasa, “place of the gods” in Tibetan. Our Tibetan guide, Bianba Dunzhu, greeted us. Bianba, an instructor with the Tibet Mountaineer Training School, has made it to Everest`s summit twice, and has also scaled the world’s second highest peak, K2 (Mount Qogir).

“Although I am a mountain guide, I dare not conquer Mount Everest too many times, human beings must respect the holy mountains,” Bianba told us, recalling the fate of a Nepalese guide who had reached the summit over a dozen times, but died at the prime of his life – with no obvious cause of death. With this reminder ringing in our ears, we set off from Lhasa, via Shigatse, Tingri and Zaxizong, towards Mount Everest.

We also hoped to collect evidence of climate-change impacts on the region`s rivers. The Himalayas and Qinghai-Tibet plateau are the source of some of the world’s major river systems: the Indus, the Ganga-Brahmaputra, Mekong, Yangtze and the Yellow River. Almost one billion people live in the watershed areas of these great rivers in China, India, Nepal and Bangladesh.

Thirsty rivers

We saw our first river, the Lhasa River, as we drove from the airport to downtown Lhasa, and were immediately struck by the large deposits of sand on both banks of the river, an indication of the desertification now spreading throughout the region. A similar phenomenon was seen the following day, when we crossed the Brahmaputra River. Once famous for its abundant runoff, the flow of the Brahmaputra is now much reduced, with many shallow sections visible.

Finally, as we neared Everest, we saw the Rongbuk River. The river is formed by melt water from the Rongbuk Glacier, the region`s largest. Forty years ago, the annual runoff of the Rongbuk was around 100 million cubic metres. Now the flow is a relative trickle due to rapid glacial retreat.

The Qinghai-Tibet Plateau has a staggering 46,298 glaciers. However, recent surveys, conducted by remote sensing and fieldwork, have recorded a reduction of 10% in the past three decades, from 48,860 square kilometres in the 1970s, to 44,438 square kilometres today. This alarming acceleration of glacial retreat has been attributed to increased global warming.

At an altitude of 5,200 metres, the tiny village of Zaxizong stands at the entrance of the Mount Everest Nature Reserve. A small trickle of a river runs past the village. Renzeng, a 48-year-old farmer, told us that generations of villagers have relied on the river to drink and to irrigate their crops. But things are starting to change. “Now, due to lack of irrigation, the yield of highland barley in our village is less than half what it used to be,” said Renzeng.

Onwards – and upwards – towards Mount Everest, we stopped at the Rongbuk Temple. At 5,030 metres, it is the highest temple in the world and the best place to view the majestic peak. The head lama at the temple had been at the temple for 20 years, and witnessed the impacts of climate change first-hand. “I have noticed a reduction in the flow of the Rongbuk River every year, and each year is hotter than the last,” said the lama. “I am worried about the harsh future our children will suffer.” Other lamas told us that they used to have to force their way through chest-high snow, but now the winter snows only reach their shins.

After leaving the temple, we headed towards base camp. April is the most popular month for mountain climbing and we saw dozens of tents dotted around the camp, temporary homes for mountaineers from around the world. On our first night, a heavy snow fell, and we set off at 6 the next morning through the fresh, boot-high snowfall towards the Rongbuk Glacier, aiming to complete a whole day of shooting and return to the base camp before nightfall.

Retreating glaciers

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.