China is proving that a society is free to set its own goals. Even the Soviets had excellent schools, robust support for the arts and athletics, universal housing and health care. China has taken a mature, dispassionate look at climate volatility and concluded pollution at high levels isn't sustainable. Buying into their sobriety on the subject does not necessitate generalized admiration or emulation.
It is remarkable what can be accomplished by fiat. Yes, an authoritarian regime can be more efficient in achieving certain national goals, but at what expense in human values. If one were a Beijing resident forced to go without heat, enthusiasm might be lacking.
Having a dictatorial leader who is arbitrary and corrupt and does not respect and support the rule of law is a terrible burden in any society.
4
After 6 visits to western and southern, as well as the Tibetan Plateau and beyond I have seen much progress since 2010. Many wind farms, solar farms, high speed rail, and LPG in place of diesel. Additionally the government paper has made a point of arguing that pollution is unacceptable and that is coming from the leadership.
The Chinese recognize this and climate change must be dealt with, and being a socialist country they can move faster than we do.
6
I think that these changes will help the people of China in a great way. However, what about those who have jobs as coal miners? What about their jobs?
Dear Mr. Greenstone: I sincerely suggest you to do more research on this topic. China is not winning at all. They are just pushing away all those plants in Beijing towards the Shandong province b/c they only care about the pollution level in Beijing. If you track down the pollution level in Shandong and Korean peninsula esp., you will gen an answer. This is exactly "burying one's head in the sand" situation. The Chinese gov. is basically killing Koreans for the sake of cleaning up Beijing's dirty sky. Shame on you, China!
1
China IS socialist, and it is socialism which has enabled them to experience such rapid growth and which has enabled them to do such things as outlined in this article. China has a socialist market economy where both planning and market forces are used. However, save a few foreign capitalist companies and enterprises within SEZs, this is not a capitalist market, but a socialist one.
I think given China's manufacturing capability, and their pollution problem, they're uniquely positioned to single-handedly make the clean energy industry in the world boom. For example, they could replace the coal boilers with active solar heating systems, or fireplaces that run on bio-ethanol.
4
Growing up in Salt Lake City, Utah, I dealt with my fair share of cough-inducing air pollution. Caused both by natural factors and human factors, our air has always been bad. Many winters we would have stretches of days where we could barely see the sun and the air quality rating was consistently red. This is an increasingly threatening problem for Salt Lake and other cities around the world. But China's success in battling pollution is very promising. I hope other cities and countries follow their example and work hard to combat unhealthy air. I am hopeful.
3
This is a very interesting article and what the word "war" means in the title. I think they saw this massive issue as a threat and responded accordingly. I like the takeaway in the sense that when a nation or people buckle down on one thing tremendous success can be accomplished. Some cases so extreme must be met with extreme counter measures and this was facilitated by making it a "war" on pollution. China has done just that, they have seen a massive reduction in pollution in the four years prior to addressing the threat. I always find it amazing what can be done when you set aside distraction and do whats in front of you. We don't have to do it exactly how China is but we do need to respect their progress and start to make our own in order to meet them at the finish line.
1
It is interesting how a mix of government, cultural and econmic factors created this change. In the US, it seems like there is a big debate between "shorter showers" and paradigm shifts to fix climate change. This article shows how both are nesiciary, and people and governments both need to take acitons.
2
I find this news is great, especially because of the lack of leadersship by more powerful countries to do something about this issue that greatly affects the entire globe. Especially in a country like China where exports make up the vast majority of their economy, it's a great step in the right direction for the government to sacrifice short term benefits for the good of the future, which is extremely uncommon for governments that want to stay in power as it fuels the opposition when the status quo changes. I believe that more countries should follow in the footsteps of China and invest in cleaner energy, not just for the health of the globe (which is undoubtably important) but also provides significant economic benefits that are often avoided by political leaders because of the significant short term impacts on economic growth. I also believe this role reversal is indicative of years to come in which the United States is influenced so greatly by special interests that politicians will never make drastic changes that may be good in the long term but bad in the short term due to the polarization between parties and the desire for re-election.
3
From friend's who have visited Beijing, I have only heard of the thick smog that blankets the city. It is great to hear that the country is determined to fix the problem.
There are several equipments used to filter and retain PM - Particulate Material and/or Gases generated by industries that use iron ore, coal, oil, gas, waste and others feedstock in their industrial processes.
With the combined use of 3 of the equipments mentioned below, now there is solution to eliminate much of this pollution.
A) ESP: Electrostatic Precipitator.
B) ESP-SS: Electrostatic Precipitator with Selective Switching.
C) ACI: Activated Carbon Injection or DSI: Dry Sorbent Injection.
D) ESP-SS/ACI/DSI: which is the combination of equipments A, B and C.
The new technology SS, mentioned in item B) was developed inside the Federal University of ES - UFES in Vitória/Brasil, and is capable of retaining 60% of the Pollution released into atmosphere through the chimneys by thousands of industries worldwide.
There are equipments used to filter and retain PM - Particulate Material and/or Gases generated by industries that use iron ore, coal, oil, gas, waste and others feedstock in their industrial processes.
With the combined use of 3 equipments below, now there is solution to eliminate this pollution.
A) ESP: Electrostatic Precipitator.
B) ESP-SS: Electrostatic Precipitator with Selective Switching.
C) ACI: Activated Carbon Injection or DSI: Dry Sorbent Injection.
D) ESP-SS/ACI/DSI: which is the combination of equipments A, B and C.
E) Various post-treatment equipment.
The new technology SS, mentioned in item B) was developed inside the Federal University of ES - UFES in Vitória/Brasil, and is capable of retaining 60% of the Pollution released into atmosphere through the chimneys by thousands of industries worldwide.Now, with ESP-SS/ACI/DSI this capture will be done, because the activated carbon ou sorbents to be injected into the ESP-SS/ACI/DSI will aggregate these gases in their surface area, allowing the capture and retention.
• Injection of activated carbon and/or sorbents is already done in some Thermoelectric in the USA that use ESP without SS technology, and thus only manage to aggregate and retain small amounts of Gases.
• Studies show that when granulation of the activated carbon ir sorbent currently used in the present ESP, of 19 μm in diameter, could be substituted for others with super fine diameter, a very large increase in the retention of these gases will occur.
1
I visited my grandparent in Shijiazhuang this past winter. For half of the two weeks I was there, thick smog blanketed the city. Visibility during the day was no more than two or three yards. This leaves me skeptical about the "greatest declines" cited in the article, not just for Shijiazhuang, but the other cities as well.
2
Is Michael Greenstone's data accurate? Given that so much of the economic data from China is fabricated, one has to wonder whether this is also true of the environmental data. The political pressure to submit positive environmental data is undoubtedly very strong.
5
Yes, China has declared a "successful war" on pollution (just don't try to breathe) just as it did on "poverty" (please don't look down that alleyway or in that hot bunk bedroom) just as it has on "democracy" (which is utterly compatible with one party dictatorship, "Xi Jing Ping thought" and similar contradictions).
6
Greenstone's over simplification of the data may present a wrong picture as to the true state of China's war on air pollution, and more importantly the health impact.
It only concentrates on PM2.5 and doesn't even mention the existence of other harmful pollutants such as NOX, SO2, ozone, ….
Also, his first technical appendix states "air quality is typically better in summer months". Really! What about ozone levels from June through August in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou?
As for the 200 monitors being representative of all of China, without knowing where they are located, just doing averages on a prefecture level is too simplistic. He states the selected monitors are all at ground level but they only measure within a certain limited area. For Beijing or other concentrated urban areas, how many were within the urban core? Averaging in low readings in parks or at the Ming Tombs doesn't fairly represent the air quality that Beijing people are being exposed to. Why didn't he just exclude monitors that might distort the reality of typical daily exposures?
Because of the reputation of Greenstone and the University of Chicago, I hope that there are not unintended consequences as to how the Chinese Government can use these results going forward.
Also, there doesn't seem to be any recognition as to the long-term health impact even at lower levels of pollution which results in a life time of chronic conditions with attendant individual and societal costs.
4
Injection of activated carbon and/or sorbents is already done in some Thermoelectric in the USA that use ESP without SS technology, and thus only manage to aggregate and retain small amounts of Gases.
• Studies show that when granulation of the activated carbon ir sorbent currently used in the present ESP, of 19 μm in diameter, could be substituted for others with super fine diameter, a very large increase in the retention of these gases will occur.
Currently activated carbon or sorbent of 19 μm is used because current ESP does not have technical capacity to retain PMs with smaller diameter.
• The ESP-SS, already is the solution to capture 60% of all the particulate material currently emitted into the atmosphere, and when become a ESP-SS/ACI/DSI using activated carbon and / or sorbent of PM size 0.1 up to 1.0 μm, will capture a very large percentage of the gases.
This is possible because ESP-SS has the technical capacity to retain all the PMs greater than PM 0.1 μm.
• Finally, the ESP-SS/ACI/DSI, in these 1º step, that will be available in 3 years, will be able to retain over 95% of PMs and Gases today released into the atmosphere, and then the use of any post -treatment equipment, mentioned in item E, will no longer be necessary.
Yes, pollution's been marginally better this past year than previous ones. But not this week!! And it's the all-important week of the big meetings and keeping up a stellar appearance for the leaders and cadres, which means that all nearby polluting elements have been closed weeks in advance to insure blue skies. But alas, it's not to be....
2
This article is quite misleading. China is still by far the world's largest polluter and the implications for public health are still horrendous.
Moreover, while the air in Beijing may be getting better, much of that improvement has been accomplished simply by moving factors. Indeed, many of those moves have been to eastern China which means that China is simply shipping its pollution to Korea. Of course, this is very unpopular in Korea.
8
China's data has zero credibility. Bureaucrats will manufacture whatever numbers they need to make their superiors happy. China's air quality is still a disaster. You can believe your eyes or the "data".
5
I don't know where Mr. Greenstone gets his evidence for this pollyannaish view of China's pollution but I just read the Air Quality Indexes regularly. Yesterday at 4PM EST the aggregate reading was 381 "Hazardous" in Beijing and 431 in Shijiazhuang an industrial city south of Beijing, by 5PM it was 504. Areas to the east of Shijiazhuang showed numerous meters at 999 meaning pollution was off the charts, over 1000.This morning (9AM EST) the reading there is 427. Pollution levels are also high at many other cities south and west of Beijing where the government has pushed some of its dirtiest industries from Beijing. It is entirely possible that over time China's government can reduce coal emissions by substituting natural gas, though it will take years to build the infrastructure for this. But while switching to another gas let the air appear cleaner, this will not solve the problem of fossil fuel's contribution to global warming. While climate scientists tell us that China's emissions need to go down by 10% per year to save the planet, its emissions went up by 3.5%. At the end of the day, the only solution to China's ecological crisis is to shut down most of the wasteful polluting industries the country has built up since the 1980s and provide new low-to-no-carbon jobs for all those affected. Perpetual growth on a finite planet is a recipe for global ecological collapse. Interested readers might look at this: http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue82/Smith82.pdf
10
If the Governments are interested in reducing 60%, or more, the emission of PM that the industrial process generates when using all kind of fossil fues, like coal and iron ore, it should contact who has the technology *Selective Switching* that allows this reduction.
The technology SS is already being implemented in an Brazilian company in Vitoria / ES / Brasil.
This technology allows the ESP to be operated at a much higher voltage, allowing the capture of 100% of all particular material with equivalent diameter between PM 0.1 and PM 10 microns and, of course, larger.
5
The 999 reading you are seeing in Shandong provincenottrue reading. Those stations seen on the aqicn site have all been reporting 999 for over a month. I am not sure why w all tohave that error code. Other sites such as air visual or air matters are reporting accurate data. I live in the province and check the the air quality using a portable aqi device.
1
Nice to hear that China is making progress on decreasing air pollution. I've come across several articles that claim as much as 40% of China's agricultural is terribly polluted. Also, that the water in many Chinese communities isn't safe to drink. Have they made any progress in these areas?
3
Good for China and bravo to the NY Times for a great piece of reporting. I am disappointed that, rather than appreciate these achievements, many of the comments here are political criticisms of the Trump administration based on ignorant presumptions. The Chinese are in fact following a game plan developed by the first "Smoke Commissioner" of St. Louis in the 1940's. There are no longer comparable pollution problems in the US. We can have a debate on the place of coal in energy policy, but the Chinese situation is not relevant.
1
The air quality index for Beijing broke 500 last night.
2
If the Governments are interested in reducing 60%, or more, the emission of PM that the industrial process generates when using all kind of fossil fues, like coal and iron ore, it should contact who has the technology *Selective Switching* that allows this reduction.
The technology SS is already being implemented in an Brazilian company in Vitoria / ES / Brasil.
This technology allows the ESP to be operated at a much higher voltage, allowing the capture of 100% of all particulate material with equivalent diameter between PM 0.1 and PM 10 microns and, of course, larger.
2
Meanwhile, the USA will be going backwards, as Trump insists that coal mining wastes are dumped in rivers, air pollution standards are relaxed and mining
and drilling start in pristine wilderness. How anyone can support those policies is beyond my understanding.
3
Yep, we're living in the Upside Down now!
2
1. This is great news and a priceless demonstration on how awful coal is, that there is no future in using coal, and that it's possible to do away with it.
2. It proves, once again, that Trump is a fool.
3. While it's great that China will be cleaner, the Chinese government has started to operate a dozen coal mines in Africa instead. A bit cynical, isn't it. And why doesn't the article breathe a word about it? (It's something that has been known for some time, not brand new information.)
2
The Paris Accord was not intended to shut off development in poor areas but to encourage environmental standards to aim at; China has taken on the role of infrastructure development in the ‘third world,’ World Bank falling back.
2
The question ultimately being raised is what form of government is adequate to the task of ameliorating the nasty effects of modern industrial development? The superficial answer is that an authoritarian government is more efficient and effective. If there are those (like me) who believe a more democratic government would be more efficient and effective, then they have the burden of explaining why the US has lagged behind, and more, why the US has not more effectively paved the way. If that argument cannot be made, than authoritarianism wins.
1
The U.S. has lagged behind because politicians can be bought and greed is good.. Exhibit A: the Koch brothers.
4
The question is: Is Trump Still winning?
1
NYT should investigate shipment of China's old, heavily- polluting coal plants to Africa, where they are reassembled to build out the electric grid. China's air may be getting a bit better, but moving some of the biggest sources of pollution elsewhere doesn't help either the health of Africans, or the health of our warming world.
6
Where is the evidence?
Another baseless charge from the mouthpiece of US government.
1
https://qz.com/1087050/china-moved-coal-production-to-kenya-with-risky-e...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/26/world/europe/greece-china-piraeus-ale...
http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/chinas-belt-and-roa...
1
Would be useful to know where China stands now in relation to the US.
1
With Trump's help, China is even better positioned to make this the China Century. While America invested trillions in an undeclared war on Iraq and by proxy--Afghanistan--the Chinese went around the world inking deals for strategic resources; oil and gas, rare and precious minerals, water, agriculture, and invested in other other countries; building infrastructure and goodwill. China will invest at least $361 billion into renewables and holds 3.5 million of the 8.1 million renewable energy jobs globally, compared to less than 800,000 in the US while Trump brings back filthy coal and guts environmental protections. China produces more students in STEM disciplines than the U.S. and graduates more masters' level students who speak English. Then there's the $1 trillion One Belt, One Road investment. And while the U.S. further fattens its military while we as a nation fall behind and apart; China’s is making cybersecurity advances that can take down grids, etc. Trump’s bullying of North Korea make make headlines, but the real action is behind the scenes and in front of us. China is playing the long game.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/chinas-belt-and-roa...
4
America likely still No. 1 in per capita emissions, in 2012 each U.S. citizen was responsible for between two and three times the per capita carbon emissions of their PRC counterparts.
See also: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-chinas-co2-emissions-grew-less-ex...
If the government monitors referred to are not rigged, this is wonderful news for the Chinese people, IF. On another point; call China communist or not (argue it out as you like), to call it "benevolent" one party rule is either delusional or the poster has not lived there.
2
There may be some benefits to single party authoritarian rule. This would never work in the US, between the lobbying, politics, State rights and law suits.
It was authoritarian rule that made China the world's biggest polluter.
By comparison, the democratic pressure from the people in the US has made US air quality among the best in the industrialized world.
3
Amy an alternative explanation would be it was Bill Clinton pushing China into the WTO in 2000 and rushing corporate investment that made China the factory of the world and by 2007 passing the US as major polluter. The US still leads on per capita carbon emissions, even after the Clean Air act passage and then Trump.
PFffff. Simply NOT winning enough.
2
Just as the US saw an improvement in air quality as most of our manufacturing and factory jobs moved to China (and other Asian countries), China's eastern provinces will undoubtedly see an improvement in air quality as the same jobs move out to Western China. I'd be interested to hear how those provinces that have just set up manufacturing and factory jobs are doing in terms of air pollution.
On a tangent topic, while the Chinese people are very keen to seen an improvement in air quality, they're less concerned with the ecological improvements that the country sorely needs. Most people have the view (not just in China) that nature should be protected because it's here to serve humans--to give us fresh air, to provide us with food, etc. and not so much in terms of nature should be protected because of the intrinsic qualities that biodiversity has and to safeguard nature even if it doesn't seem to provide direct benefits. Until China (and the rest of the world) has more of an ecological understanding of why healthy ecosystems are important, we will continue to be in a losing battle.
2
PM2.5 is measured in ug/m cubed. 0-12 corresponds to a good Air Quality Index, 12.1-35 is moderate, 36-55 is unhealthy for sensitive groups, 56-150 is unhealthy, 151-250 is very unhealthy, and over 250 is hazardous. https://blissair.com/what-is-pm-2-5.htm
Over the past 24 hrs, PM2.5 levels have been as follows: NYC 1-162, Houston 9-80, Miami 3-86, Denver 13-63, and little Tallahassee, where I live, 11-66. http://aqicn.org/city/newyork/
China's readings are materially worse and unhealthy. Beijing 154-336, Shanghai 63-824, Shenzhen 76-182.
An engineering-style fiat or market-based reg likely achieves relatively quickly China's early reductions in PM2.5 pollution, just as I can become 50% proficient in tennis in a few weeks, but the next 25% may take yrs to achieve. (I suspect direct reg would have left fewer Chinese shivering, but that's a different point.)
Can an engineering-style fiat continue to drive PM2.5 down to good levels? Maybe not. For a possible parallel in economic devpt, see a 2015 article by Brookings David Dollar on per capita income levels in Taiwan and S Korea exceeding $8000/yr only when political liberalization is achieved. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/05/31/what-institutions-do-asian-count... (Hint: Chinese per capita income/yr is now at $7000.)
There is a huge train wreck that will occur in China as the govt attempts to preserve power at all costs AND achieve more than modest gains in quality of life for its citizens.
4
Maybe China has learned the propaganda skills from the western world to become really good at it. However, the last time I travelled to China visiting the western part of the country was on September two years ago. The air was good and fresh, and the scenery pretty. After reading this article, I can hardly wait to visit the coastal area including Shanghai, Hanzhou & Xiamen with new expectation.
These cause-effect relationships on the effects of pollution on health are questionable. While it is clear that pollution can trigger health issues in a small subgroups such as frail elderly or asthmatics, it does not have much effect on most people. The pollution does look bad, and it does make people nervous, but one has to put things into context: what are the chances the pollution will kill me? The increased disease rates in epidemiological studies do not make much difference on such a personal level -
they can translate to something like an increased probability of 1.2% of lung cancer annually, for which a 50-year old man who has never smoked has about 1/2000 chance - therefore the pollution could increase this up to 1/1976.
With these statistics some excess deaths are unavoidable when looking at, for example, the 1.3 billion people in China.
The simplest way to put things into perspective is to compare cigarettes and pollution - they are surprisingly similar in what they contain, and we know a lot about the epidemiology of smoking and, importantly, those studies have been much, much easier to control. One cigarette contains 12 mg of microparticles PM2.5, while inhaling 24 hours of average Beijing air (75 ug/m3) will lead to a PM 2.5 exposure of about 1.5 mg. So, one would have to inhale Beijing air continuously for 8 days in order to be exposed to the same pollution level as from one cigarette! Is it going to kill me? Probably not.
1
Have not seen a finding on the percentage of Chinese males who do smoke but to be greeted by another male is to be offered a cigarette, the Chinese equivalent of ‘nice to meet you.’ Every table at a banquette will receive a package of cigarettes and not uncommon to see a man with a cigarette behind each ear holding recently received offerings. The government has launched a no smoking campaign with CCTV ads indicating the offensive nature of the smoke but not a major campaign; whereas reducing pollution levels certainly is. Public building and vehicles do carry Not Smoking signs but long distant drivers will puff away. Wonder if Michael Greenstone’s studies reflect male/female differences or do women typically always live longer.
2
I think the increased lung cancer in China over the last 30 years or so is caused almost completely by the increased smoking.
You should see studies on the potential cancer threats of particulates. Most of all, everybody inhales that polluted air all the time and not only when smoking a cigarette! Thus, the risk is real and the chances to have a respiratory disease much greater. And I am not talking about life quality...
1
It seems to me that China mostly move their most polluting factories to the east of the country, so that it will flow to the countries east of it. I wouldn't call that 'winning'. 'Cheating' maybe.
In essence, with the America First policy, US has give up on leading the world and China has taken on that role.
2
Hopefully the war on pollution will go beyond its most visible manifestation in the air.
Next target: heavy industrial pollution in areas like the Pearl River Delta.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is cumulative in nature, so it only makes sense to look not only at current emission levels but historical ones. China’s historical emissions were estimated in 2002 to stand at 7.6 percent of the global total since 1850 in one study, while the United States stood at number one in the world at a staggering 29.3 percent (more than all twenty-five EU countries combined), or nearly four times China’s total.
In 2007 China surpassed the United States as the world’s major polluter but in 2012 each U.S. citizen was responsible for between two and three times the per capita carbon emissions of their PRC counterparts. Now we see China moving toward solutions, but America doing otherwise. This is not a story to be proud of in the age of Trump and the realization of global warming.
9
Actually, CO2 is removed from the atmosphere over time, so the oldest historical emissions should be weighted less than more recent ones. In addition, there is reason to think that a greater proportion of emissions were rapidly removed from the atmosphere 100 or 150 years ago, when global atmospheric levels were much lower. Thus, China and the US are probably now close to each other in adjusted historical emissions totals, with China rapidly pulling ahead because of its continued rapid increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
2
Much of China's increased greenhouse emissions come from factories that moved from developed world to China to produce goods that will be consumed in the developed world.
Not what the scietific studies indicate, but heavy CO2 emissions follow industrial development starting in the US by the 1880's and China in the late 1970's with Deng Xiaping's reforms, and the rush following the entry into the WTO in 2000.
The roughly 20 million residents in Beijing would live an estimated 3.3 years longer, while those in Shijiazhuang would add 5.3 years, and those in Baoding 4.5 years. Notably, my research suggests that these improvements in life expectancy would be experienced by people of all ages, not just the young and old....
-- Michael Greenstone
[ Remarkably striking; so pleasing an accomplishment. ]
2
I'm looking at the Air Quality Index right now for Beijing: 261. I was there in mid-October when it was 289. That was really bad; we just wanted to flee the city. We had to wear masks and they hardly helped. Then came an arctic wind that cleared out the smog. Beijing's "improvement" has been attributed to a) extraordinarily windy conditions, b) shutting off people's coal-fired heaters, and c) temporarily shutting down hundreds of steel mills, factories, and power plants, this causing a drop in output. None of these are permanent "solutions."
16
Having recently returned to Australia after 3 years in Shanghai with my young family, I can say that the war is far from won. From the point of view of those living in the smog, life consists of an endless checking of the AQI (air quality index) on an app, before leaving home, before opening a window, before advising children if they can play outside. As expats, the pollution in winter was so dreadful we would return to Australia for a month or more to avoid the worst of it. An option closed to most mainland Chinese.
The reality of pollution is that it has a substantial impact both on your health and your psychological state. Months of the "grim greys" - and the constant concern about the impact of it longer term - affect one's emotional state.
Shanghai is a beautiful city - especially the older parts. It has a vibrant sense of community and a unique charm we witnessed in many places in China. The summer and autumn months, with their clearer skies and warmer weather, are magical. But the minor reduction in pollution is merely a skirmish in the war. For those on the ground, it feels like there is a long way to go.
21
Hmmm ... so China is winning the war??? Perhaps to some degree in the three major cities mentioned: Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou.
However China is a massively large country, and there are other major cities that have demonstrated no improvement, and in fact show further deterioration.
For example Chengdu, and other areas in Sichuan Province, one of several locations I have followed and travelled to over the past four years.
Before you toss around generalized accolades, may I suggest more expansive and detailed research is called for?
13
Breathing particle saturated air is like smoking a couple cigarettes a day, maybe even a pack. China sounds like a great place to do research on the effects of smoking on your lungs. Li Keqiang’s war on pollution and poverty has saved and extended many peoples lives.
2
While America has pulled out of the Paris Accords Climate Change initiative and focused on more fossil fuel production and use, China is going the other way out of economic, political and medical necessity. China leads on renewable energy technology around solar, wind, batteries, geothermal and hydroelectric.
23
And it leads on greenhouse gas emissions, which it continues to increase year after year. Given that, "leading" in minor generating techniques like solar or wind has little impact.
5
The Paris Accord allows for the stages of development in major countries with India and China allowed increasing emissions as needed development to overcome massive poverty. China is now running ahead of the suggested reversal eventually needed and one of many reasons is the development of power requirements by turbo, and hydro sources including the Three Gorges Dam supplying enough power to service all needs of Pakistan for example. That’s a lot of coal un-burnt. Meanwhile in West Virginia mines are being reactivated.
1
China is becoming a modern country from the starvation of the 60s, to the Cultural Revolution of the 70s, and now to the great capitalist leap. Though they still live outside of the law, many parts of China are semi-civilized. Political and economic rights are making their way across the globe, slowly but surely. Who knows, maybe China will recognize that their rights lawyers were leading them I the right direction.
4
There is a recent publication by Carl Minzner, End of an Era: How China’s Authoritarian Revival is Undermining Its Rise, that deals with the issue you raise, the rise of political reform and its failure in recent years. The persecution of Rights Lawyers a showing item, and now the lifting of the constitutional term limitation for Xi Jinping.
4
https://epic.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/UCH-EPIC-AQLI_Update_8page...
March, 2018
Is China Winning its War on Pollution?
By Michael Greenstone and Patrick Schwarz
Summary
Four years after Chinese Premier Li Keqiang declared a “war against pollution,” has the government delivered on its promises to improve air quality? Using daily data from more than 200 monitors across the country from 2013 to 2017, we find that China’s most populated areas have experienced remarkable improvements in air quality, ranging from 21 to 42 percent, with most meeting or exceeding the goals outlined in their National Air Quality Action Plan. If these reductions in pollution are sustained, the average Chinese citizen would see their life expectancy increase by 2.4 years relative to 2013. Although China faces a long road ahead to reach national and international air quality standards, these results suggest the country is winning its war on pollution.
7
I'm amused by Figure 2 and Table 1, and note the source of this so-called "Data": China National Environmental Monitoring Center.
No doubt this "propaganda entity", as are all government agencies, including universities, provides "data" as equally accurate as the government's fictitious GDP reporting.
7
It seems you missed the part of the article that described how data from the US embassy and consulates agree with the Chinese figures.
1
Engaged Observe; have you been observing AQI monitors in China where real time data is posted for all the world to see?
2
Wonder if this is true re comparison with US Clean Air Act: Chinese growth has been more fiat-oriented, or rather less market-oriented, than the US growth was, possibly meaning more low-hanging fruit when the emphasis changed from growth to environment.
The end of the article makes a strange about-face in order to make the facts match the author's clear bias in favor of free-market economics (Milton Friedman prof at Chicago?!).
His article clearly shows that China has achieved all these gains not through markets but through top-down regulation. And yet in the future, even though the Chinese have not even hinted this, they will start using markets? And their shift to markets will show that market-based regulations are the only thing that work? Sounds like wishful thinking.
9
Why should the village idiot next door have as much say in a liberal democracy as Aristotle ? Why should democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge? That was the attack on democracy that has not been answered and resolved since the ancient times.
Benevolent dictatorship can do miracles for the public goods, from Greek King Peisistratos, Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, half of the Chinese Emperors, Frederick the Great, Simon Bolivar to Singapore Premier Lee Kuang Yew... The list goes on and on. The problem is how do you get rid of an incompetent or malicious one?
17
Nobody said democracy is perfect. It is thought to be the best compromise. The problem you mention at the end is the crux of the issue. Power corrupts.
8
Very well spoken!
@Niu Chang... you can't, except by murder and that successor would hardly be benevolent! by the way I humbly volunteer for the job should the vacany open- free soda for all the people!
In the last few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion about “Xi Jinping Thought” and the removal of the term limit for PRC Presidency. Despite all the ideological mumbo-jumbo, this is what current Chinese political legitimacy is all about: the ability to pursue policy outcomes and then deliver in measurable ways. From renewable energy production to reducing air pollution, the Xi Jinping has delivered in impressive ways. What will do him in is not the waning zeal for the Chines Communist Revolution, but if he stumbles on policy promises. This will depend primarily on the productivity of the economy that allows CCP to pay for cleaner energy, infrastructure, social services, and direct employment in the public sector in a sustainable way. In this way, China is a lot like Japan, South Korea, and Singapore: developmental states whose political legitimacy stems from delivering quarterly and annual economic results.
4
Another UC Grad:
Except that in each of those nations there was an alternative to the current ruling elite vying for political control. Such is not the case in the P.R.C. where the CCP is the only show in town and Xi’s overwhelming support in destroying the term limit for president shows surging authoritarianism. Carl Minzer’s recent book deals with just that question of where PRC is likely headed and inter-party conflict would be the only open door to change.
1
As opposed to the current Republican party and administration in the US that seem bound and determined to roll back regulations to the 1960's and lead America back to polluted air and water.
6
It's not hard to look on the CCP with a bit of admiration when the result of their policies align with what we who are not Chinese think they ought to do for their own people. But that admiration never lingers, because, all too often, the method that brought the result has had a human cost. Like the schoolchildren in Hebei who suffered frostbite because they had to study outside in the cold because some overzealous local chief thought his performance report was more important than being pragmatic and human.
2
Michael Greenstone demonstrated great improvement in NYT's editorial policy when he wrote "so-called Communist China" in the concluding sentence. The sooner Americans accept the fact that China is really NOT a communist society, the less chance of manipulation by idiotic politicians which fall back on cold-war era fear-mongering to stir up international conflicts, like the ill-considered tariff on steel and aluminum. The whole industrial world is mad.
This story has so many illuminating aspects, for example:
One-Party Rule is the most efficient option to solve really difficult social problems like abject poverty, pollution, and outmoded infrastructures. It is a trade-off. A more honest assessment of the merit and deficiency between benevolent One-Party government versus "so-called Check & Balance" is needed.
It's ironic that Roy Cohn, Donald Trump's mentor who was Joseph McCarthy's assistant, exemplified potential blackmail threats in government officials who has too many skeletons in their closet. Like teacher, like student. Trump is 71, an old man of the past.
USA: this is 2018. Getting out of the Paris Agreement is a huge mistake.
22
I have always refused to call that corporate-authoritarian (with Xi, increasingly just plain authoritarian) government-party "communist". I'm glad that others are doing so, and it's a shame that the GOP use that government-party and other tyrants as an instruction manual.
Sponsored by Beijing.
1
Before drawing lessons from the progress on air pollution in China and uncorking the champagne to toast "leadership in Beijing" we should consider a few facts. More analysis is needed to apportion the improvements to specific measures, but facts available so far suggest that better air quality for the "higher end" Beijing residents is likely due in no small measure by a household coal burning ban that reduced regional pollution from millions of smoking household boilers. This was predicted by a 2016 modeling study http://tinyurl.com/yc7a4puv, which may have motivated the aggressive action. Unfortunately, adequate natural gas supplies where not assured to heat homes of poor residents of towns around Beijing. http://tinyurl.com/y99kqgbc . It should also be noted that a relatively clean and lower carbon fossil fuel - natural gas - not renewable energy is being used to replace coal. China also plans to import natural gas from Africa (e.g. http://tinyurl.com/y99kqgbc) and build coal-fired power plants in Africa and elsewhere. Finally, we should remember that recent crackdowns on free speech and transparency threaten to undercut the very civil society advocacy that motivated clean air action in China and decades before in the US. It remains to be seen whether China's style of "leadership" is going to be a net good for the health of world's people -- especially the most vulnerable -- and the planet.
6
Quote --- It remains to be seen whether China's style of "leadership" is going to be a net good for the health of world's people"
The answer is simple --- No. A more profound question would be why to expect China's way should (or not) work in other places? just as why to expect western's way should work in China?
1
In pollution as in several other areas, China has an enormous advantage over India, which has a population and economy of similar size. India is in most part democratic, so reforms get pushed back against by entrenched interests and simply by poor people whose lives would be badly affected (and who can vote). China is simply a top down dictatorship. When the Communist Party decides to do something, those in the way get swept away. History has shown that this works better than democracy... until it doesn't work.
2
India has a similar size in population with China, but no way in economy ... unless 4~5 times difference can be called as "similar"
6
Thank you for the correction, DM. I had not checked and was in error.
Much like global success in poverty reduction in the last few decades was dependent on the growth in the Chinese economy, global pollution reduction also rests on the leadership in Beijing. The future is, increasingly, looking ever more Chinese.
11
It is difficult to think of a promise made by China's government that they haven't kept. The elimination of urban poverty in 2017 comes to mind, but there are many more–all preserved in their famous Five Year Plans, and all readily verifiable. At least in this regard, our politicians could learn much from them.
21