According to a tiny sample (11) of visitors to Nanjing (http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/city_result.jsp?country=China&city=Nanjing), drinking water accessibility and quality is “moderate” but general levels of water pollution are “high”. An even tinier sample (me) walking in the sticky dusk to the metro over the bridge, the smell is that of an open sewer, and the view is of sheets of slime, floats of ‘algal blooms’ as nature consumes the nitrogenous organic matter and oxygen then converts it to green matter on the water surface.
Environmentally speaking, China is poised at a fork in the road. “We should treat the environment like our own lives, like our eyes” – the sentiment is there, and the laws are increasingly in place – but can they be enforced? There is no such thing as a free lunch as they say, and feasts are common in China. As are free clean water both to drink and rivers for waste disposal, trees, fuel, soil, even spectacular views. All these are nature’s services, and if they are in balance, they keep the environment stable. Push nature too hard, however, and her generosity may flicker with uncertainty, then end, tipping us all into oblivion. For years, we have taken water quality for granted, and costed it as priceless in the sense that it was believed such “ecosystem services” as the jargon goes, were impossible to value. Recently, however, the argument has been made that giving an actual monetary value to these will make humans appreciate them more. Of course that is difficult, some would say impossible, but the sums have to add up, or future generations will pay that price. Take a look through China’s recent history: water quality stayed stable until the economic boom of the late eighties, then started falling slowly through the nineties, finally plummeting off the scale by the mid 2000s. For example, Erhai Lake in Yunnan has seen its water quality drop severely in the last couple of decades, especially with the rapid development of Xiaguan (New Dali) and its accompanying water pollution from sewage, industrial waste, and excess fertilizer use on fields and in fish farms. You may ask if this is necessarily a bad thing. Urbanisation and increased food productivity has been one of the factors responsible for lifting millions or rural Chinese out of poverty. Does it really matter if the natural environment takes a bit of a hit? The answer may be yes if the damage reaches a tipping point – if water quality changes prove to be irreversible. The extent to which China can repair its environment and how long it will take are very relevant questions. For air pollution, the robust implementation of new and existing regulations and technology would go a long way to reversing the damaging trends. But for water pollution in lakes and rivers, the situation is more complex. In Taihu Lake, en route to Shanghai, for example, more than the equivalent of US$ 16 billion has been spent on preventing the entry of nutrients into the lake and on algal bloom controls since 2007, but such blooms still reoccur almost every year. China’s recent efforts to tackle these issues are immense and ambitious. The new environmental protection law that took effect in January 2015 is the strictest to date; the dragon fangs are showing. Severe punishments include ccriminal charges being brought against 740 polluting businesses, and 782 were punished with police administrative detention. Some 292 cases incurred an accumulating daily fine within the first 6 months, totaling 236 million yuan (US$37 million). Perhaps most importantly, local governments are cooperating with the new law; impotent officialdom may be a thing of the past. Ecological considerations must come before GDP growth says the new law. You would not find the UK’s David Cameron saying this – and certainly not Jeb Bush. As Xi stated in 2013: "We have to understand that to protect the environment is to preserve our productivity and to improve the environment is to develop our productivity. Such concepts should be deeply rooted" First published in the Nanjinge 2015 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v525/n7569/full/525321a.html What has China ever done for us? Historically, paper, gunpowder, fireworks, the compass, printing….. and now, more pertinently, what will China do for us? By the time you read this, Papa Xi and consort Peng will have enjoyed their trip to the UK, following on from their USA visit earlier in the year. Cultural activities featured a pint in David Cameron’s local pub, a horse drawn carriage ride to a State Banquet hosted by the Queen, and a meeting at the Prince’s School of Traditional Arts with later announcements of new collaborations in film, TV and entertainment. A veritable heritage fest of Ye Olde England.
The main focus for the UK though is the hoped for three “eyes”: investment, infrastructure and innovation, with the specific aim of making London the global centre for offshore Chinese finance. The UK’s shopping list includes investment in a modern rail network (High Speed 2, passing through the fields close to my own home) and the building of a new generation nuclear power plant at Bradwell on the Thames Estuary using Chinese expertise. Xi’s trip continued with a peek at the new Graphene manufacturing plant in Manchester, centrally located in the much touted Northern Powerhouse, an area in dire need of serious investment to balance runaway economic growth in the London corridor. The day was rounded off by another cultural highlight, a visit to Manchester City’s Football Ground. To prime the pump came the news, just prior to the visit, of China’s growth rate, down to 6.7% of GDP, still way above any other country in the West. Judging by the tone of comment in the UK/USA media however, scepticism reigns. There are contradictory reports on the validity of the Chinese figures. Some argue Beijing is stuck in a rut, with industrial businesses less likely to soak up investment funds, and domestically, observers note a potential rebalancing away from smoke stack industries to the employment of millions more people in an expanded health service and transport systems. Independent analysts LSR (Lombard Street Research) support China’s move to a more balanced economy, but are strong critics of the accuracy of official data. Earlier this year, when the official Chinese growth rate was 7% (the government target) LSR was arguing it was in reality below 4%. Analysts at Fathom Consulting are even gloomier: they describe a long decline in the Chinese economy with little upturn in sight and suggest a growth rate closer to 3% per annum. Then comes the nervous questioning of Chinese motivations. According to the Pew Centre report on global opinion, the Chinese economic rise is the stuff of nightmares and a looming threat. It will “eventually replace or already has replaced the US as the leading superpower”. The study doesn’t give evidence, nor say whether this is good or bad, or when it may be expected to happen, but the doom mongering tone is unmistakeable. GDP is not the whole story by far. And will China eventually own all the UK financial and power infrastructure, including (gulp) its nuclear capabilities? So where does the UK stand? Despite the many problems China does seem to be on the right track after decades of wars, revolutions and disasters, either inflicted from outside or from within and there is something to be learned from this. China's rise may be feared simply because the West does not understand the country. Foreign media paint a picture of a government crushing political dissidents, of a government being aggressive towards its neighbouring countries. These things are true to an extent, yet they are far from describing the whole picture. If only other countries would be so lucky as to be stuck in a rut like China. Growth rate down to 6.9%? Shocking. What's the number for Britain again? |
|