Switchboard, from NRDC › Alex Wang's Blog

Will China Put Carbon Dioxide Levels in Its 12th Five-Year National Development Plan?

2009-06-10T19:44:55Z

Last week, the China Daily led an article on climate change with this potential good news:

China will put in place carbon dioxide emissions targets for its economic and social development programs, the central government has promised...

It also signals that China may be considering national goals for carbon dioxide levels when it maps its 12th five-year national development plan (2011-15).

Though the China Daily article only mentions "carbon dioxide emissions targets" and "national goals for carbon dioxide levels" the Chinese-language press announcement from the State Council was explicit in setting forth carbon dioxide intensity as the approach being considered:

我们要把应对气候变化、降低二氧化碳排放强度纳入国民经济和社会发展规划，采取法律、经济、科技的综合措施，全面推进应对气候变化的各项工作，为国际社会合作解决气候变化问题做出积极贡献。

We will incorporate the addressing of climate change and the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions intensity (paifang qiangdu) into the national economic and social development plans, adopt comprehensive legal, economic and technological measures, comprehensively promote various components of work for the handling of climate change, and make an urgent contribution to international collaboration on dealing with the problem of climate change. [author's unofficial translation]

As my colleague Alvin Lin notes: "Carbon intensity targets (tons of CO2 emitted per GDP) are similar to energy intensity targets (energy consumed per GDP) except that they would also take into account improvements in reducing the carbon emissions from the energy supply and expanding carbon sinks-that is, both would account for improvements in energy efficiency or restructuring towards a less energy-intensive economy, but carbon intensity also takes into account increases in renewables/hydro/nuclear as well as forestry sinks, while energy intensity targets do not. However, both are measured relative to GDP, so they would not amount to an actual limit on emissions given continued rapid economic growth in China (thought they are a start)."

These targets (even if only based on "intensity") will be very important if set at appropriately aggressive levels.

My colleague Jake Schmidt (NRDC's International Climate Policy Director) has already blogged on this at Switchboard, pointing out the significance of a carbon goal ending up in the 12th five-year plan. Those who are familiar with the way Chinese governance works know that the five-year plan is a critical tool for making things happen in China. The plan sets government priorities and serves as the basis for an often complex system of implementation measures, including performance metrics that can have direct impact on the career prospects of government officials (see this article from Dan Guttman). As anyone who follows China knows, the current 11th 5-year plan has both 20% energy intensity and 10% pollution (SO2 and COD) reduction targets. These targets have driven an intense amount of research, policy making and other actions over the past few years.

The potential carbon dioxide plan target is no guarantee of implementation, but it would be a very strong signal from above to use one of the strongest approaches to implementation the Chinese system currently has to offer.

The announcement came (surely not accidentally) at an opportune time, coinciding with the visit last week to China of a high-level US delegation led by Special Climate Envoy Todd Stern. In this incredibly complex negotiation on climate, each move changes the dynamic for better or worse. This potential development in China could shift the dynamic in a very positive direction. Though no big developments came out of last week's discussions in Beijing, let's hope this announcement helps shift the debate forward.

Visit Greenlaw! See NRDC's bilingual blog dedicated to discussion of China's environmental law, policy and the power of the people at http://www.greenlaw.org.cn (Chinese) and http://www.greenlaw.org.cn/enblog (English).

What do Chinese high school sophomores know about NRDC?

2009-05-27T15:07:58Z

More than we think as it turns out. We noted last week that NRDC's naval sonar litigation in the US found its way into the "Annual Selected Readings for China's High School Students" and ultimately onto a final exam question for high school sophomores in Zhangzhou Municipality, Fujian Province (at the Fifth Middle School in Zhangzhou漳州五中). This just happens to be the city where the controversial Xiamen paraxylene (PX) Plant was moved. Let's hope the kids of Zhangzhou learn their environmental lessons well and work hard to keep Zhangzhou green!

Here is a translation of the NRDC final exam question. Take the exam and let us know how you do.

Chinese Final Exam for High School Sophomore Students

Read the text below and finish question 1 and 2 (6 points, 3 points for each question).

Underwater noise pollution harms marine life

According to the latest report released by NRDC, exploitation of oceanic resources, use of military sonar, cargo shipping, as well as oil and gas surveys increases the noise pollution in the ocean. As a result, dolphin and whales are in great jeopardy, because these animals rely on sound signals for mating, to find food, and avoid predators.

The report concludes that higher underwater noise will lead to long-term behavioral changes in marine creatures and even loss of their hearing. Consequently, some strange phenomena have emerged, such as mass whales strandings on the shore. In 1999, scientists studied the beached whales and presumed that their death may be caused by naval sonar which damages their hearing. In March, 2000, such tragedy also occurred in Bahamas. Scientists studied 19 of all the dead whales and identified the mid-frequency sonar exercises as the chief murderer. Mid-frequency sonar is broadly used in naval exercises to detect enemy's submarines.

In September 2002, Canary Islands (Spain) saw another incident of this kind. Upon examination on more than ten whales among the dead, scientists found that they were bleeding internally around their brains and ears, and their liver and kidney were also injured. Michael Jasny, the report's principal author, said that the symptoms of these marine animals are unseen before, yet this helps provide new evidence: sonar systems can not only trigger mass standings off the coasts but also damage the internal organs. Researchers believe that whales, like human beings, also suffer decompression sickness. Sonar systems either cause them to panic and surface too fast or compel them to dive deeper, discharging nitrogen in the blood. NRDC once filed a suit in the court to limit naval sonar exercise.

NRDC suggests that intense noise-making be curbed in areas where endangered marine species live and have seasonal control on the route where fish move. For example, oil and gas companies should try not to carry out earthquake investigation along Africa's west coast during winter because baleen whales propagate near the coast in this season.

In this latest report, NRDC asks National Marine Fisheries Service to better enforce the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and requires the navy to promise to limit sonar use in their exercises. However, a spokesperson from the Service said that they have yet to read this report and thus declined to make any comment on it.

The specific impact of underwater noise on marine mammals remains unclear, Jasny added, because only a minority of them has so far been stranded by the intense noise.

1、Among the four explanations on "underwater noise", which one is incorrect（）

A、As mankind exploits marine resources, and underwater noise ever increases, some marine creatures are severely threatened.

B、underwater noise will lead to marine mammal's loss of hearing and some strange phenomena

C、The underwater noise generated by naval sonar system will cause the whale to bleed in their internal organs, to migrate seasonally and be stranded on the beach.

D、When oil and gas companies carry out earthquake investigation along Africa's west coast, the underwater noise caused by this activity will affect the propagation of the baleen whales in this region.

2、According to the information in the text, which one of the inferences is wrong（）

A、If generation of underwater noise is uncurbed in marine resources exploitation, more marine creatures will be killed by it.

B、The worsening underwater noise causes whales to be affected by decompression sickness-the same disease suffered by human-so the whales' survival is endangered.

C、NRDC and National Marine Fishery Service have not reached consensus so far.

D、The specific impact of underwater noise on marine life remains unclear, but it is indisputable that some marine creatures have indeed been killed by the excessive noise.

Visit Greenlaw! See NRDC's bilingual blog dedicated to discussion of China's environmental law, policy and the power of the people at http://www.greenlaw.org.cn (Chinese) and http://www.greenlaw.org.cn/enblog (English).

The View from China: Taking a Look Back at the Year in Environmental Disclosure

2009-05-11T18:30:00Z

We have been devoting a great deal of space lately to discussion of open information and government transparency in China. As we know in the States, the right-to-know is something that you need to go to the mat for sometimes (remember the Cheney Energy Task Force?). Well, people are starting to go to the mats for their right-to-know in China too. What makes this so interesting is that China, as Professer Wang Jin from Peking University (the Harvard of China), has always taken secrecy as the rule, and disclosure as the exception.

But last year, China layered a Freedom of Information Act-like regulation on top of an enormous bureaucratic structure used to keeping things to itself.

What happens when you do that?

As you might expect, those asked to disclose tend still to keep things to themselves. And that's what we've seen for the most part. But the public and the media are pressing the issue. Last week, one of CCTV's (China Central TV) main half-hour news talk shows devoted two nights in a row - a full hour - to discussion of open information, highlighting case after case of local governments failing to disclose information as required by law. It was fascinating to watch.

I'll be posting a few more items about open information in China. My colleague, Joan Hu, here in Beijing wrote a nice article (translated below from Chinese) taking a look at some of the highlights in Chinese environmental open information this past year. I post it here for your review. Let us know what you think.

Greenlaw and The First Anniversary of China's Open Information Regulations

NRDC's revamped Greenlaw (www.greenlaw.org.cn) site officially debuted on October 5th, 2008. The overall positive response to the "Open Environmental Information Regulations (Trial)" since May 1st, 2008 has played an important role in the creation of the site. The update rate of the old Greenlaw site was not up to the task of quickly dealing with new environmental law and open information developments, so revisions to the site were made in addition to continuing the original news service. Since February, the amount of writing on the site has rapidly increased, and the site has switched from its original schedule of 2-3 weekly updates to daily updates. There have already been 118 news pieces about open environmental information and 108 environmental law-related blog posts, among which 21 are posts about open environmental information. Over 1000 foreign and Chinese now visit the site each week.

In addition to laying the foundations for information disclosure in the State Council's "Regulations on Open Government Information," which sets legal obligations on the Chinese government for open government information, the Ministry of Environmental Protection's "Measures on Open Environmental Information (for Trial Implementation)" is not just the first time the State Council has issued an implementation regulation concerning a government bureau. By specifying further responsibilities for the enterprises, these regulations could closely integrate with other environmental regulations, such as clean production promotion laws. This regulation promises to be the proverbial hammer that will smash the wall between polluting enterprises and the public, turning China from a bureaucracy-oriented country to a science- and democracy-oriented one, from a country that singled-mindedly emphasizes economic growth to one that focuses on sustainable development. In addition to these optimistic feelings, there are still some unavoidable, unfavorable challenges to be confronted. Looking back at the developments of the past year reveals a developing legal regime where the circumstances remain quite complicated.

The Government and the People Grow Up Together

If one views the Yuanmingyuan Fangshenmo incident (one of China's first environmental public participation cases/incidents) four years ago to be a positive start in generating meaningful legal dialogue between the public and then-State Environmental Protection Agency, then the Xiamen PX episode (in which several thousand locals took to the streets to protest a proposal for a polluting factory) two years later marked an even greater high point in the advancement towards effective dialogue. These two events acquainted the public and the government as public forces, and in 2008, following the official implementation of the Open Environmental Information Regulations, the public set out to understand and utilize the laws. By the end of 2008, various environmental protection NGOs had issued local citizen guides on open environmental information and public participation, in addition to conducting round-table conferences, training activities, and publicizing information on the new open information regulations.

At the same time, these environmental NGOs also began to carry out their own work with the new open environmental information laws. On October 30th and 31st, 2008, when the All-China Environment Federation hosted its annual meeting on sustainable development for environmental NGOs, many of the attending organizations, lawyers, and legal experts shared their experiences with the new open environmental information laws. Whether these attempts succeeded or failed, such actions had exposed many legal and practical problems with the law in its current state. For example, Greenpeace discovered in its "Investigation on Enterprise Pollutant Information Disclosure" that the BASF Corporation was not as transparent with its environmental record in China as it was in other countries, and that the chemical engineering powerhouse continued to keep silent about its emissions data in China. Greenpeace then submitted an application to the MEP seeking disclosure of BASF's emissions figures. Their failed attempt, though, raised a series of questions for the public and legal world that still require answers: First, is the current system for publicizing an enterprise's environmental record enough to satisfy the public's right to that information? Second, is the government fulfilling its duty to achieve greater openness with its supervision of emissions and gathering of information? Third, what should be done about these enterprises' environmental information business secrets? Will disclosing an enterprise's emissions information have to involve making public its trade secrets?

The efforts of the public have also generated positive results. Last August, Friends of Nature joined together domestic environmental NGOs to investigate the Gold East Paper Company-a highly polluting enterprise seeking an Initial Public Offering (IPO)-about its environmental protection record. In March 2009, the Ministry of Environmental Protection fulfilled its obligation to disclose such data when it informed the public about its own investigation of the Gold East Paper's attempts to join the market and gave clear and open answers to the questions raised by the environmental NGOs. Although the emissions of Gold East Paper still remain a concern, this move by the MEP is worthy of praise.

The actions of legal professionals have aided the advancement of environmental information disclosure. On May 5th, mere days after the enactment of the open information regulations, Shanghai lawyer Yan Yiming filed an environmental information disclosure request, thus initiating the legal world's push for more transparency in environmental information. Months later, he once again captured headlines when he submitted an open information application asking for full financial disclosure of the central government's four trillion RMB economic stimulus plan. In a similar move, Friends of Nature made an appeal for strengthening the stimulus plan's commitment to the environmental protection at their annual environmental protection conference.

In the past year, it didn't matter if the change was suitable or not, if the change was ready to happen or not, or if it the forces of change were governmental or non-governmental-what mattered is that the public focused on gaining greater transparency with environmental information. For NGOs, there is no longer the excuse of not having legal support, as more and more issues can now be resolved in the legal realm. For legislators, the dialogue process between the government and NGOs provides additional assistance towards implementing legislative goals effectively and quickly, including fixing legal loopholes and clarifying ambiguities vulnerable to exploitation. For the government, there is no longer time to slowly nudge the notion of change, because the new openness has become a legitimate legal obligation. This comment from from The Prosecutor's Daily about statistics from the yearly report on government openness exemplifies the new sentiment: "Up to 24:00 on March 31st, 2009, 9 of the State Council's 27 departments, 13 of its 16 directly subordinate organizations, 5 of the 6 work agencies, 11 of their 14 directly subordinate enterprises, and 15 of the 19 national administrations have not yet made their information public as scheduled, with 29 agencies that deal with the State Council, and 9 of the 31 provincial governments also not yet disclosing information to the public." While not fulfilling obligations on time is quite common, the people are no longer complacent. While such problems may stem from the beginning of the law's growth process, the comment also noted more change was needed. Ultimately, the "lack of punishment for not opening up on time will naturally keep these administrations from worrying or rushing."

The Slow Development of the Courts

After May 1st, five citizens of Rucheng, Hunan Province, initiated China's first open information suit, demonstrating civic awareness that would truly test the government's new system of justice. But one month later, the people regrettably realized that the Chenzhou court still had not taken up the case. The public worried that if the justice system, as the last line of defense for social justice, stayed silent, then these new open information laws would serve nothing more than a decorative function. But perhaps this was only a reflection of transition difficulties, because on October 10th, the China Youth Daily and Beijing Daily both successive reports of a citizen victories in seeking information disclosure from the Hubei and Zhejiang provincial governments. Before the deadline, Hebei's Baoding City also ruled in favor of some of its citizens seeking open information from the government, undoubtedly making many people happy.

Although we cannot view the actual environmental information case reports, we can still learn from the experiences of others. These above-mentioned cases will undoubtedly provide an opening for those who have been seeking to shine light on open environmental information. At a minimum, people now know that any administrative organs not dealing with open information applications are acting illegally, and that they can bring a lawsuit against such bodies. The significance of neutral judicial intervention is that when two parties are debating a piece of legislation, a judgment can bring justice while achieving the actual intent of the law. Although the open information judicial decisions to date have only addressed a small fraction of the problems that effective implementation of the law faces, it is worth waiting for the courts to become an even more powerful force in pushing for the legal development of open environmental information.

A Conservative Response from Enterprises

Last year, 250,000 people in Guangzhou submitted applications to the government for open information. The data in the annual open government information work report show that the public is serious as they demand more public information. Despite the shifting public sentiment, however, a few of the major enterprises who fall under the new transparency rules are simply turning a cold shoulder towards information disclosure requirements.

During Greenpeace's campaign, BASF was arrogantly silent the whole time and has still not yet taken the initiative to voluntarily disclose its environmental information. The enforcement of clean production of enterprises on the government's audit list is another issue, too. From last June, the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE) led more than ten environmental NGOs in publishing the "Enterprise Environmental Information Disclosure Alert Letter," directed at over 30 manufacturers in China. According to the open environmental information regulations, these enterprises are obligated to publicize detailed information about their pollutant emissions. Otherwise, the penalties include fines and forced disclosure by the Ministry of Environmental Protection. But only a few enterprises actually followed the regulations, with most choosing to simply stay silent, and the conduct was not punished. Because enforcement of the new environmental open information regulations is at such an early stage, it remains highly challenging to penalize enterprises for such violations.

Within these grey areas, the attitude of enterprises towards open environmental information remains vague and conservative. Last year, whether deliberately or not, the WalMart-hosted supplier summit demonstrated the growing influence of the open information regulations. While the company announced initiatives on environmental information disclosure and greening its supply chain, there has been little news of concrete achievements in implementing those plans to this day.

The Media Hard at Work

On March 31st, 2009, for the first time since the official enactment of the "Regulations on Open Government Information" and "Measures on Open Environmental Information (for Trial Implementation)," government bureaus began releasing their legally-mandated annual open information work reports. The Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Ministry of Commerce, State Archives, and all provincial and municipal governments have now uploaded their reports online. In the beginning of April,Caijing, the Investigative Daily, and some other media outlets published commentaries on the annual reports. The public learned that many ministries and bureaus under the State Council had not fulfilled their obligations to release their annual reports on time. In the same month, using the information from the work reports, the media exposed the continuing challenges open government information continues to face. For example, while 250,000 applications for open information were submitted in Guangzhou in 2008, one nearby city received only one application in all of 2008. In analyzing the data from the reports and conveying the important points to the public, the media has taken on its role as an overseer in this first test of the new information disclosure regime.

There were many factors that made 2008 an extraordinary year, and the media played an irreplaceable role in following the implementation of government transparency. The prompt follow-up reports to some legal cases, as well as commentaries on the cases by experts and newspapers, were key in spreading awareness and usage of the new regulations. Discussions of the range and validity of open information, analyses of the practical legal problems related to open information, and dialogues on how to improve the existing system all shed light on the main issues in the first year of the open information regulations. But even still, most newspaper reports seemed half-hearted and shallow. This does not meet the enormous public demand for open information. As the law continues to develop, the media must get involved even more deeply.

See the original post at our Greenlaw China Blog for a timeline of events from the past year.

View from China: Supreme People's Court to Clarify China's Right-to-Know Regulations

2009-05-04T02:46:03Z

The first anniversaries of the State Council Open Government Information Regulations (OGI Regulations) and the State Environmental Protection Administration Measures on Environmental Open Information were last week. We will be posting a Year in Review article by my colleague Joan Hu (Chinese version already available) that tells the tale of open information in China over the past 12 months, so stay tuned.

As we look back on this first year, not surprisingly, there have already been quite a few cases in which lack of clarity, strained readings or outright disregard for the regulations have led to members of the public having difficulty in obtaining environmental information. Heilongjiang's refusal to release information about polluting enterprises (here and here) last week is a fitting coda to a first year fraught with open information ups and downs. So, it was welcome news to see a Caijing (Chinese only) report on the Supreme People's Court (SPC) plan to release a judicial interpretation on the adjudication of open government information cases this year (a public comment draft may be available on or about May 1). As Tsinghua University constitutional law professor Cheng Jie notes: "In practice, some courts have been unwilling to accept these [open information] cases, and, if cases are accepted, the rate of favorable decisions for the plaintiff is very low... This state of affairs will lead to the accumulation of contradictions." (不过实践中，一些法院不愿意受理这类案件，即使受理了胜诉率也很低，程洁认为，这会导致矛盾的积累。)

The Caijing article highlights three particular areas that need clarification. There are certainly other areas in need of clarification, but these are worth highlighting.

1. Clarification of Exceptions. This is the big one and an area where the SPC can do a great deal of good. The regulations allow the government to withhold disclosure where information requested concerns state secrets, commercial secrets and individual privacy (Art. 14). However, there has always been confusion about four other factors mentioned in the regulations that the article lumps in as grounds for non-disclosure: state security, public security, economic security and social stability (drawn from Art. 8).

The first three exceptions are commonly found in open government information laws around the world and there is well-established practice as to how to interpret those terms.

The last four 'exceptions,' if indeed construed as separate exceptions, are worrisome. On top of the traditionally accepted exceptions, they seem to layer broad, ill-defined grounds for refusing to disclose information. It is easy to see how these additional elements could be interpreted in a way that swallows up wide swathes of information normally disclosed to the public in other countries. Can information about the poor environmental performance of a factory be withheld on 'social stability' grounds if local government officials fear that disclosure will lead to local citizens to organize and seek redress or file complaints? Can 'economic security' be justification for non-disclosure of such information if local officials believe that disclosure would make it difficult for them to attract additional industrial investment (a sort of pro-"race to the bottom' argument)? Indeed, one commentator noted with approval exactly these justifications for non-disclosure in an op-ed piece (Chinese only) supporting the Heilongjiang government's decision to keep polluter information secret (one of my colleagues points out that this piece is intended as satire; even so, the article points out typical underlying motives behind the impulse to maintain secrecy).

2. Who Must Disclose? The Caijing article also raises the question of who must disclose information. Do entities that are authorized by the government to perform certain duties required to disclose information? Do enterprises or state-run institutions (shiye danwei) have disclosure obligations? This issue has come up in the environmental arena over the past year because of the unusual structure of the SEPA Environmental Open Information Measures, which place certain disclosure obligations on the enterprises (namely, disclosure of emissions data by significantly polluting enterprises). Public requesters of information have found themselves in a twilight zone of non-disclosure in certain cases, with the EPB claiming that the duty of disclosure rests with the enterprises and the enterprises claiming the duty rests with the EPB (see, e.g., the Greenpeace BASF case). In the rest of the world, factory environmental data reported to the government is considered "government data" and the duty to disclose typically falls upon the government. The SPC can help to clarify the ambiguity in the Chinese disclosure requirement here.

3. Why Do You Need the Information? The OGI Regulations seem to suggest a sort of needs test, requiring a showing by the citizen, legal person or other organization that its request for information is "based on the special needs of such matters as their own production, livelihood and scientific and technological research" (Art. 13). International practice (see, e.g., the Aarhus Convention, Art. 4) does not generally require the public to demonstrate a reason for its information request. Government information is public property and a member of the public can obtain it for any reason (subject to the narrowly prescribed exceptions). But the OGI Regulations are vague at best on this point, and the SPC can make certain here that the regulations do not require the public to explain why it needs the information. A requirement for the public to justify its need for government information would go against the grain of international practice, create an unreasonable, extra barrier to the public's ability to obtain government information, and establish a tool for arbitrary refusal of disclosure to the public.

Disputes over government information disclosure will be unavoidable. The key is establishing a robust, transparent mechanism for resolving these disputes when they arise. The SPC has a critically important task on its hands right now. A bad judicial interpretation could stop China's nascent move toward open government information in its tracks. An interpretation that lives up to the purposes of open government information, and clarifies the principle of "disclosure as the rule, non-disclosure as the exception," would do a tremendous service to good governance in China.

Visit Greenlaw! See NRDC's bilingual blog dedicated to discussion of China's environmental law, policy and the power of the people at http://www.greenlaw.org.cn (Chinese) and http://www.greenlaw.org.cn/enblog (English).

China’s Open Information Regulations Turn One!

2009-05-01T05:04:37Z

Today is the first anniversary of the State Council Open Government Information Regulations (OGI Regulations) and the State Environmental Protection Administration Measures on Environmental Open Information going into effect. It has without a doubt been an important year for greater transparency in China. There is still a long way to go for sure, but we've seen progress as well.

It's the May 1st holiday weekend in China and people are in the mood to relax, so for now we will just say 'happy birthday.'

* * * * *

To commemorate the anniversary, NRDC teamed up with Sohu.com (one of China's largest web portals) and China Dialogue to hold a forum with some of the leading experts in China on open environmental information, entitled "Environmental Open Information, Secrets That Can't Be Disclosed?" (Chinese only). The panel included:

Ma Jun, one of China's leading environmentalists and creator of the well-known Water Pollution Map and Air Pollution Map.
Professor Wang Jin, one of China's foremost environmental law scholars from Peking University Law School;
Yan Yimin, the Shanghai lawyer who gained public renown for his open information requests regarding China's economic stimulus; and
Hu Yuanqiong, NRDC staff attorney and open information specialist，NRDC

Qie Jianrong, the well-respected environmental journalist from The Legal Daily, moderated. I joined by video to talk about international experience in open information.

The transcript is on-line at Sohu.com here (http://green.sohu.com/): 4 月论坛：环境信息公开元年企业几乎无所作为.

NRDC has written a Year in Review article looking back at the ups and downs of this first year of (national) open information implementation.

Some of China's leading environmentalists (Yang Dongping of Friends of Nature, Sherry Liao of Global Village of Beijing and others) comment on the significance of greater government transparency in China.

These links are all to Chinese content, but we'll have more analysis and commentary on this in English next week. For now have a terrific May 1st holiday.

View from China: the Yunnan arsenic spill criminal trial

2009-04-24T06:20:10Z

It is not often one gets the chance to see a criminal trial in China, particularly one with national attention. We had that chance last week. Here is a bit about what we saw.

A little background first: Last June, Yangzonghai Lake, a drinking water source for about 26,000 people about an hour southeast of Kunming, was found to be heavily contaminated with arsenic. After investigation, the local government determined that the source of the contamination was Chengjiang Jinye Industry and Trade Co. ("Jinye"), a manufacturer of fertilizer. The company was ordered closed on September 17th. In October 2008, twelve local government officials - the most senior being the vice mayor of Yuxi Municipality (within which Chengjiang County, home of the accused enterprise, is situated) - were "removed from their posts due to dereliction of duty." The government commenced clean-up efforts, lowering the arsenic levels in the lake from 0.128 mg per liter to 0.111 mg per liter. This is more than 10 times China's drinking water standards (0.01 mg/L; see GB5749-2006) and more than twice China's Class I - III surface water standards (0.05 mg/L; see GB3838-2002). Qin Guangrong, Yunnan's provincial governor, estimated that it would take three years and 4 billion yuan (US$600 million) to bring arsenic levels in the lake down to 0.05 mg per liter.

Just last week, three executives from Chengjiang Jinye Industry and Trade Co. were brought to trial on criminal charges in the Chengjiang County Basic Level Court.

* * * * *
I happened to be in Yunnan last week with a colleague when we learned about the trial. On Thursday, other business finished, we drove down to see the trial. An hour or so later we arrived at the courthouse, with only a short delay when the road was blocked by this old blue truck, crumpled and spent, after losing the battle with its payload of large rocks.

Chengjiang County for the most part looked like any other Chinese city, except for (or because of) an inexplicably luxurious sports stadium. The court itself was on the outskirts of town and looked out upon open fields just planted for the new season.

The case had drawn a crowd. The courtroom's 30-some observer seats were already full, so the nearly 200 other observers packed into a side courtroom to watch the trial on a large screen TV. People sat on the floor on newspapers. Many had come with small plastic stools and snacks.

For a sense of the scene at the courthouse, see this Xinhua video report.

A word on the law behind this case: The three company executives are being tried for what is known as a major environmental pollution accident crime. This is set forth in the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, under Part II, Chapter 6 ("Crimes of Disrupting the Order of Social Administration"), Section 6 ("Crimes of Undermining Protection of Environmental Resources"), Article 338:

Article 338. Whoever releases, dumps, or disposes of radioactive wastes, wastes containing pathogen of contagious diseases, and toxic materials or other dangerous wastes into land, water, and the atmosphere in violation of state stipulations, causing major environment pollution accidents, heavy losses to public and private property, or grave consequences of personal deaths and injuries shall be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment or criminal detention, and may in addition or exclusively be sentenced to a fine; and in exceptionally serious consequences, not less than three years and not more than seven years of fixed-term imprisonment, and a fine.

It is a good thing that there will likely be consequences for the serious pollution caused by Jinye in this case. However, the focus primarily on heavy punishment for major accidents/incidents after-the-fact reflects a problematic, but typical, approach to environmental management. Meanwhile, the basic tools and resources for environmental enforcement and management that could prevent accidents in the first place are woefully weak. Here are just a few examples:

Illegal Emissions. Penalties for exceeding emissions standards are well below the cost of compliance. This is such a well-known phenomenon in China that there is a catch phrase for it: weifachengben di, shoufachengben gao ("the cost of violations is low, the cost of compliance is high"). Charles McElwee has some nice commentary on how this played out in this Yangzonghai case.
Falsifying Data. Accurate data about how much enterprises pollute is fundamental to a well-functioning environmental management system. Yet, the environmental laws have virtually invited lying to the government about environmental data by setting fines for such falsification at woefully insignificant levels. The penalty under China's water pollution law for falsifying data is capped at RMB100000 with no criminal penalties. Match these weak penalties for cheating with heavy criminal penalties at the back-end and the incentive to cover-up pollution and lie about environmental data becomes even stronger.
EPB Resources and Authority. Even if more forceful penalty powers were granted by the law, the enforcement authorities would still face insufficient resources, and unclear authorities. We spoke with one local enforcement official in an understaffed county department who was required to inspect every factory in their jurisdiction once a quarter, but did not have regular access to a car to get to the factories. Even when EPBs issue fines it is often difficult to get payment. More serious enforcement actions such as shut-downs that could drive a response from enterprises must be referred to the government/mayor's office, rather than to an independent body such as a court. Other bureaus also have the ability to catch problems, but lack the authority to enforce any change in the companies causing the problem. For example, the health bureau has authority to monitor drinking water sources and monitored Yangzonghai. But if a problem is discovered only has the power to refer the issue to the local health bureau and government, which apparently happened in this case.

The accident focused system in place now is one that only responds forcefully once it is literally impossible to wait any longer. Only then do heavy penalties become available. But this approach to killing the chickens to scare the monkey is too weak and the consequences are too distant to really change enterprise behavior. The natural result has been a continuing cascade of environmental accidents around the country, like the recent Yancheng City accident. Not surprisingly, this sort of behavior is rampant throughout the country. We work with many in the environmental protection bureaus and are continually amazed at their diligence and creativity in the face of insufficient resources and power, but to really improve environmental protection the environmental authorities will need to be strengthened much, much more.

The other problem with relying on after-the-fact prosecutions is that they are not easy to bring. The afternoon we watched the Yangzonghai case, we watched the very capable lawyers for the company (8 of them, including a well-known criminal defense lawyer named Ma Jun) pick at the central piece of evidence in the prosecution's case: an appraisal report from local academics assessing whether arsenic discharges from Jinye caused the Yangzonghai Lake pollution. The defense lawyers were skilled and managed to agitate the scientists/engineers who had drafted the appraisal report. The crowd in our viewing room must have included many of the 387 workers who had now lost their jobs as a result of Jinye's shutdown, as they hooted and hollered in appreciation each time the defense lawyers scored a point or drew an awkward response from the scientists. But in the end it was not clear that the defense lawyers had really done any damage to the case.

We will very likely see a conviction in this case. But the Yunnan government will still be on the hook for US$600 million in clean-up costs, and the locals around Yangzonghai Lake and former workers at Jinye are still facing serious health risks from the dangerous levels of arsenic in the water. For those who still think it is a good idea to allow companies to pollute because it is too risky for the economy to make them clean up, this case is a good example of just how wrong that line of thought is. And it illustrates just how important it is to begin giving environmental authorities the authority, resources and independence they need to truly prevent the further destruction of China's environment.

Links:

English
Greenlaw news on the Yangzonghai accident (October 10, 2008)
Bids invited to counter water pollution (October 15, 2008) [N.B.: To our knowledge, no bid has yet been accepted.]
Officials claim ignorance of arsenic pollution in Yangzonghai Lake (September 22, 2008)
Yangzonghai Lake suffering from heavy arsenic pollution (September 18, 2008)

Chinese
Yunnan Net: Special Section on the Yangzonghai Lake Arsenic Pollution Accident 《阳宗海砷污染事件》专题
Xinhua Investigation: "Yangzonghai Lake Arsenic Pollution Accident" Follow-Up Investigation 新华调查："阳宗海砷污染事件"追踪调查 (October 27, 2008).

Visit Greenlaw! See NRDC's bilingual blog dedicated to discussion of China's environmental law, policy and the power of the people at http://www.greenlaw.org.cn (Chinese) and http://www.greenlaw.org.cn/enblog (English).

Pandas and Lawyers

2009-04-09T03:30:07Z

We were in Chengdu recently holding a training on resolution of environmental disputes in China through negotiations approaches. Our trainers and collaborators on the program came from the Harvard Negotiation & Mediation Clinical Program. Many thanks to Stephan, Maggie and Brian.

It was a few days well spent with a group of fantastic Chinese environmental lawyers and some experts on negotiations of the highest caliber. For several years, NRDC has been working with lawyers and judges in China to promote better ways to handle environmental disputes. We believe that Chinese lawyers have a role to play as problem-solvers, and actors who can help to create more value for all sides involved. We found a very receptive audience for this approach in Chengdu, and will be working to do more in this area down the road.

Many thanks as well to our local partners on the project: the All-China Lawyers Association, the Sichuan Provincial Lawyers Association, their respective Environment & Resources Law Committees and the Environment & Resources Law Institute at Peking University.

NRDC's own Michael Zhang left the lawyers for a morning to visit with some of Chengdu's more charismatic residents. See his video below:

China meets 2008 interim targets for chemical oxygen demand and sulfur dioxide emissions

2009-03-17T11:56:15Z

Michael Zhang in our Beijing office put together the following analysis of recent announcements in China:

At a presentation of the Government Work Report to the NPC and the CPPCC, Premier Wen Jiabao mentioned two figures that environmental analysts in China have been keenly awaiting. Data for the first half of 2008 on chemical oxygen demand (COD), a measure of water pollution, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) was released several months ago. Many experts predicted that the year-end data would arrive in early March.

According to the Premier, COD levels and sulfur dioxide levels were down 4.42 percent and 5.95 percent respectively for 2008. And yesterday the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) announced 2008 year-end reductions for COD of 6.61% and for sulfur dioxide of 8.95% (both of off 2005 levels). [Editor's Note: By our calculations these two announcements are not consistent with each other. We're running the numbers now and will have more to come.]

So how does this stack up against China's own goals? The 11th Five-Year plan sets a target of 10% reduction in both COD and SO2 levels from 2005 figures by 2010. Last February, Zhou Shengxian, the head of the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), also announced interim targets for 2008: a 5 percent decrease for COD and a 6 percent decrease for SO2 from 2005 baseline figures by the end of 2008. So, if the numbers are correct, it looks as if China has hit its 2008 interim targets for COD and SO2.

The dramatic reductions in energy use and in production generally in 4th quarter 2008 would have contributed significantly to the 2008 reductions in both of these metrics.

See our bilingual (English and Chinese) blog dedicated to discussion of China's environmental law, policy and the power of the people at http://www.greenlaw.org.cn.

Comparing Green Stimulus - China and US

2009-03-14T01:58:17Z

It is disappointing to see a reduction of nearly 40% to "energy conservation and environment" in China's stimulus package (from RMB350 billion (US$50 billion) to RMB210 billion (US$30 billion)). As we have noted before, there is still the opportunity to increase the environmental aspects of the stimulus if "infrastructure" and "technology" spending (which has seen a more than two-fold increase) are directed at energy-saving, low-polluting projects and technologies. The following is a table comparing the Chinese stimulus package announced in November 2008 compared to the revised package just announced.

Source: Wall Street Journal

Source: Caijing Magazine

The massive amounts of stimulus spending in China and the U.S. are an opportunity to transform the economies in both countries, to increase jobs while decreasing pollution and energy use. Prior to the reductions in the Chinese stimulus, the amounts of proposed spending devoted to energy and the environment in the U.S. and China compared favorably:

China: US$50 billion for energy conservation and environment (now reduced to about US$30 billion)
United States: US$47.7 billion for clean energy and energy efficient transportation in the U.S. stimulus (plus about US$20 billion in clean energy tax incentives).

NRDC estimates that the U.S. clean energy stimulus will create some 1.5 million jobs (see this NRDC report for a detailed description of the "green" elements of the U.S. stimulus package). The potential for "green" jobs in China should be even larger. If the Chinese stimulus goes mostly to old-line heavy industry and non-environmental uses, a tremendous opportunity for China will be lost. These spending decisions today could come back to haunt China in the years to come if the U.S. and other countries are able to leap ahead and gain a competitive advantage in the clean energy industries.

It's not too late for the various aspects of the Chinese stimulus to be aimed to a larger extent at environmental and energy-saving projects, but right now the trend has been in the opposite direction.

The Ministry of Environmental Protection responded to some of these concerns in a press conference last week, noting that since the announcement of China's economic stimulus "the Environment Ministry has approved 970 billion-yuan worth of projects, but has also turned down schemes worth 104 billion yuan...These included projects which may threaten drinking water sources, would consume too much energy, damage nature reserves or were in sectors in which the government was trying to control overcapacity."

Links:

Gady Epstein, "Cars or Bicycles," Forbes, March 13, 2009

See our bilingual (English and Chinese) blog dedicated to discussion of China's environmental law, policy and the power of the people at http://www.greenlaw.org.cn.

China-US Collaboration - Environmental Enforcement Ideas from Sunny California

2009-02-24T02:24:10Z

As Hillary Clinton prepared to visit China for high-level discussions on climate change and energy last week, we landed in California with a group of Chinese experts from government, academia, legal circles and media to talk about approaches to battling air pollution and ways to strengthen China's air pollution law. The big questions on our minds are these:

What enabled the U.S. to turn the co rner on air pollution? And how can these ideas contribute to stronger air pollution protection in China?

These sorts of questions about environmental governance were not at the top of the list as Secretary Clinton met with President Hu Jintao to talk about climate change and energy, but they should have been. Without strong environmental governance and implementation of air pollution legislation, any climate commitments made in either the US or China will be meaningless. Moreover, environmental governance is a fertile area for China-US collaboration that can bring cleaner air and dramatic savings in public health costs in both countries. In advance of Secretary Clinton's visit to China this past weekend, NRDC put out a report - entitled Strengthening US-China Climate Change and Energy Engagement: Recommendations for Leaders and Policymakers in the US and China - setting forth nine key recommendations, including a recommendation that the two countries collaborate to strengthen environmental governance. [UPDATE 2/24/09: James Fallows of The Atlantic blogged about the NRDC report yesterday.]

At NRDC, we are already facilitating this sort of China-US collaboration and have been working with government and experts on both sides of the Pacific to develop answers to the question of how to strengthen environmental governance. This past week we met with different players in the US air pollution system to talk about critical issues in air pollution regulation and enforcement. Our discussions revolved around ways that China might use some of the "lessons learned" by the US to better deal with its own air pollution challenges and avoid the mistakes the US has made in the past.

Though the US has not solved its air pollution problems, there has been tremendous progress over the past few decades. From a regulatory perspective, what were the drivers of these improvements? We spoke with experts from, among other places, the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, California EPA's Air Resources Board, legal experts at University of California, Berkeley and NRDC's own staff in San Francisco earlier this week.

As one US EPA expert mentioned, no one remembers the clean air laws prior to the 1970 Act in the US because those laws, while well-intentioned, were largely toothless and ineffective (sound familiar?). Changes in the 1970 Clean Air Act and subsequent amendments were critical in bringing about real change to tackle air pollution (though the job is not done by any means).

One of the key measures in the US involved:

creating a federal-level authority with adequate powers to regulate and enforce against air pollution nationwide.

In the US, this involved, among other things, the creation of a relatively powerful federal-level environmental authority with significant manpower (EPA and its network of regional offices, labs and research institutes), authority to drive civil and criminal prosecutions and take over failed state-level regulatory programs, and control over local access to funding. A more flexible, comprehensive system was created when these new powers were matched with:

the right for citizens to bring enforcement actions,
greater transparency, and
the right for states to take more stringent environmental actions than the federal government.

Everyone knows that local protectionism is a major barrier to better environmental protection in China. If China is serious about air pollution, it should give the Ministry of Environmental Protection greater powers, granting it the authority and resources to take over environmental protection work from intransigent provinces. MEP will not have to get deeply involved in the environmental protection work of all provinces, provincial-level municipalities and autonomous regions, nor should it. However, when a province fails to carry out its environmental protection duties, MEP should have the authority to step in and take over the program. And MEP should be given sufficient manpower and financing to do this effectively.

The way that MEP exerts this authority over lower level governments could be quite different from the way it is done in the US, but the need for greater central level supervision and enforcement is just as important in China as it is in the US. China might, for example, rely more on central-level control over the careers of lower level government officials and rely on improvements to its government official evaluation system, but the overall goal of these actions is similar in both countries.

As mentioned above, it's also important to keep in mind the other elements of the system that allow central-level supervision to be effective. First, it will be critical to build in transparency and greater citizen authority to enforce, which is an indispensible supplement and complement to government enforcement authority in the US. The US case Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw was an example of how federal government and citizen enforcement combined to deal with a case of "local protectionism" in the US. NRDC had an article on this in the Chinese magazine World Environment, which includes a summary of the Laidlaw case (Chinese | English). Second, the US system also has numerous examples of the states (such as California) taking the lead on environmental protection. China also has more forward thinking provinces and their "best practices" should be allowed to help drive environmental protection in China as well.

There have been many proponents in China of stronger central authority over environmental protection and the other elements of a strong environmental governance system, such as transparency and citizen right to enforce. Given the critical need to act on climate change and the harm that air pollution causes to public health in both China and the US, the time to implement these solutions is upon us.

See our bilingual (English and Chinese) blog dedicated to discussion of China's environmental law, policy and the power of the people at http://www.greenlaw.org.cn.

The Latest on China's Economic Stimulus

2009-02-05T11:01:54Z

The past few days have brought a flurry of news about the second portion of the 4 trillion yuan Chinese economic stimulus to be released. This amount (130 billion yuan or US$19 billion) is to include 11 billion yuan for environmental protection projects. We previously posted about green stimulus in China and the US here.

Reuters noted that:

The 21st Century Business Herald... gave the following breakdown of how the 130 billion yuan would be spent:

28 billion yuan on affordable housing;

31.5 billion yuan on public infrastructure, such as electricity, water and roads;

17 billion yuan on health and education;

11 billion yuan on environmental protection;

15 billion yuan on economic restructuring (which often refers to upgrading technology and promoting consolidation in industrial sectors);

the remaining 27.5 billion yuan on unspecified major infrastructure projects.

The National Development and Reform Commission [NDRC], China's top economic planner, will publish the spending details when it announces the second tranche, but confirmed that it would amount to 130 billion yuan, the official Xinhua news agency said.

The commitment of an explicit portion of the stimulus to environmental is very good news, and it's an important signal that China continues to give this priority. However, we still don't have details on the green aspects of the stimulus, and are looking forward to seeing the NDRC's announcement on spending details. We do note that the stock market reaction, though, has been favorable in the energy intensive, high-pollution industries, such as steel, cement, petroleum and chemicals. Bloomberg News reported that:

Angang Steel Co., China's second- largest steelmaker, and Anhui Conch Cement Co., the biggest cement producer, rose after economic data suggested a government stimulus package is taking effect.

Angang Steel jumped 13 percent, the most in 10 weeks, to close at HK$8.22 in Hong Kong. Anhui Conch climbed 7.3 percent, the most in more than six weeks, to close at HK$38.75.

And Bloomberg notes also:

Liuzhou Iron & Steel Co. jumped by the 10 percent daily limit to 3.87 yuan. Tangshan Iron & Steel Co., the country's fifth-biggest steelmaker, gained 9.3 percent to 4.70 yuan...

A stimulus plan for the textile and machinery industries will be submitted to the Cabinet today, Shanghai Securities News said yesterday. The government said Jan. 14 it would cut taxes and offer subsidies for the auto and steel industries...

Maanshan Iron & Steel Co., China's fourth-largest listed steelmaker, added 0.09 yuan, or 2.5 percent, to 3.72. The company was raised to "buy" from "sell" at UBS AG after the broker said it changed the way it valued the stock.

China Daily also noted that China may enact stimulus in the refining and chemicals industry. As a result:

China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., the nation's biggest oil refiner, gained 1.5 percent to close at HK$4.17 in Hong Kong trading today.

We're looking for signs that the stimulus will have similar impact on green industries. The reaction from the heavy industries has certainly been positive. Bill Brekke, "the U.S. Commercial Service's top representative in China" is optimistic about the business opportunities created by China's green stimulus though, he tells the Shipping Digest Online:

"Since March 2007, it's been the official policy of Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao that China will move to a circular economy," he said.... The Chinese use the term "circular economy" as one which balances economic development with environmental and resources protection.

"Every official in the country is being judged on their ability - on their green work. So it isn't 'build the power plant anymore; it's build an energy-efficient power plant, it's build a clean power plant.' So U.S. sales in the environmental area and the remediation areas and energy efficiency areas are way up," Brekke said. The U.S. does well in ... green technology to China...

He said the Chinese are prepared to buy American green buildings, wastewater management, integrated gas, combined cycle, healthcare and other expertise.

So it is good to see this optimism about the market for green technologies in China. However, the U.S. Commercial Service's interest largely stops at the point of sale. Much work still needs to be done to make sure that those purchasing green technologies (like pollution control technology) actually operate those technologies, as this MIT study makes clear.

It is going to take hard work in both the US and China to make sure that green stimulus stays on track.

See our bilingual (English and Chinese) blog dedicated to discussion of China's environmental law, policy and public participation at http://www.greenlaw.org.cn.

China's Environmental Data Disclosure and the Top 10 Least and Most Polluted Cities

2009-02-03T06:43:13Z

See our bilingual (English and Chinese) blog dedicated to discussion of China's environmental law, policy and public participation at http://www.greenlaw.org.cn/enblog.

Last week was Spring Festival in China. Despite the economic downturn, well-reported recent drops in energy use (see here and here) and the hush and general lack of activity that falls across Beijing during Spring Festival, the air quality in the capital city recently has seemed worse than it's been in a long time. Checking the Ministry of Environmental Protection's website for environmental quality data, we found that the air quality scores over the last week showed four days in the 130 range, which is decidedly polluted ("Sufferers of heart disease or respiratory system illness should reduce physical exertion and outdoor activity" MEP's website advises for API scores of 101-200). Could the war zone of Beijing New Year's fireworks be responsible for this? Evidence suggests "yes." (see here, here and here).

Note that MEP has revamped its environmental data center (Chinese only). It's worth taking some time to look around the newly designed site.

Of note, among other things, are:

Water Quality Reporting: a section describing water quality in China's major rivers and lakes (Songhua, Liao, Hai, Huai, Yellow, Yangtze, Zhu, Qiantang, Min and Xinanzhu Rivers; Tai, Chao andDian Lakes) and a weekly narrative report;
Air and Water Data Analysis: two special sections containing analysis of water and air quality data, including rankings of the best and worst cities on a rolling 30-day and annual basis; and
86 Key Cities Air Quality Reporting: traditional features, such as daily air quality index data and forecasts for 86 "key" cities (重点城市).

The data analysis is particularly interesting and kudos to MEP for putting this analysis out in the public domain. What can we learn from all of this data?

Top 10 Least Polluted Cities in China (according to MEP)
We learn, for example, that over the last year the top 10 least polluted cities by number of Class I days (the cleanest days, API < 50) are:

Zhanjiang, Guangdong
Haikou, Hainan
Lhasa, Tibet
Guilin, Guangxi
Beihai, Guangxi
Zhuhai, Guangdong
Nanning, Guangxi
Rizhao, Shandong
Shenzhen, Guangdong
Mudanjiang, Heilongjiang

For the most part, no surprises here as most are coastal cities or ones with low levels of industry. The Special Economic Zone of Shenzhen is a surprise though. Top 10 despite its level of economic hyper-development.

Top 10 Most Polluted Cities in China (according to MEP)
The top 10 most polluted cities by number of non-blue sky days over the last year are:

Hefei, Anhui
Urumqi, Xinjiang
Lanzhou, Gansu
Beijing
Jinan, Shandong
Xian, Shaanxi
Wuhan, Hubei
Chongqing
Shijiazhuang, Hebei
Xining, Qinghai

Again, no real surprises. However, Beijing's appearance at number 4 on the list is troubling given the Olympics push. Regional pollution issues and transportation (including poor fuel quality) are probably two of the most intractable issues for Beijing. The city has made some moves on transportation, but the regional issues will require serious regulatory innovation and devotion of more resources in the next amendment to China's clean air law. This will include shoring up some of the basics of air regulation including more scientific, health-based air quality standards, a robust permitting system, greater central (MEP) authority over regional air issues and planning, stronger penalties, more enforcers, pricing and market measures to improve efficiency, more stringent fuel standards, regulation of non-road engines and a host of other measures. Greater transparency is critical as well, and MEP's revamping of this data center heads us in the right direction at least.

Serious Water Pollution in Over 1/3 of Water Bodies Measured
From the water quality report released on January 19, 2009, we learn that 38% of the segments measured were Class IV or worse.

We'll be tracking this data center over the coming weeks and months and blogging about interesting findings. If you see something of note, please let us know. Thanks again to MEP for expanding this information service. We hope you'll continue to add more to this service.

China and the US: Sticking to a truly "green" stimulus

2009-01-29T02:53:29Z

Barbara Finamore and I had an article in the China Daily last week concerning pledges of “green stimulus” in China and the U.S. It has been a bad air week in Beijing with the API hitting a smoggy 131 (Grade 3A) yesterday. It's a strong reminder that the temporary measures during the Beijing Olympics are not enough. Swift action (including green economic stimulus; a fundamental shift to a focus on enforcement and deterrence; greater transparency; expanded avenues for public enforcemen and supervisiont; and enhanced central government authority on environmental protection) is needed.

This article also appeared in China Dialogue. Please also see our Greenlaw blog devoted to discussion of China's environmental law, policy and the power of the public.

China, US New Year green vows need action

(China Daily)

Updated: 2009-01-19 07:45

January 1 in many parts of the world is a time for new-year resolutions. We reflect on our bad habits and vow to change for the better -- to lose weight, quit smoking or be a better person. With the global economy collapsing around us, both China and the United States recently offered up an early resolution for the coming year: to “go green”.

The proposed economic stimulus packages of both countries include potentially promising “green” components. China disclosed a 4-trillion-yuan (US$585 billion) package that designates at least 350 billion yuan (US$51 billion) for biological conservation and environmental protection. Moreover, China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) has announced that the stimulus will "not be spent in the energy and resource-intensive industries or high-pollution industries" and will benefit the renewable energy and pollution-control industries.

In the United States, new president Barack Obama also has proposed a package that, in part, creates “green jobs” through business incentives for energy alternatives and environmentally friendly technologies.

These eco-focused stimulus packages may seem counter-intuitive to some, but they mark an important shift in thinking from two of the world’s leading superpowers. In addition, they validate what many of us have known for a long time: that environmental protection and economic growth are not incompatible, as some naysayers have argued.

Given the accelerating trends towards a low-carbon economy, green innovation may well be the key to economic competitiveness in the 21st century. Just compare the fortunes of Toyota and the US automakers. Toyota and its enormously successful hybrid Prius epitomise the potential in green innovation. The nearly bankrupt US automakers – which, time and again, scuttled more efficient cars in favour of petrol-hungry vehicles -- represent what happens when the opportunities for green innovation are ignored in favour of the old ways of doing business.

Green innovation not only strengthens economic competitiveness but also creates green jobs. The US Conference of Mayors estimates that some 750,000 people currently hold green jobs in the United States. An analysis by the United Nations Environmental Programme projects that a major shift to clean-energy investments could create up to 20 million new jobs worldwide by 2030. The potential for green jobs in both countries is tremendous and relatively untapped.

The foundations of an economic model based on green innovation require a robust investment in energy efficiency, green buildings, public transit, advanced pollution-control technologies and renewable energy. Studies, like a 2007 McKinsey study on energy productivity, show that these kinds of investment make good economic sense. In both nations, but in China in particular, this new paradigm also will require heavy investment in effective environmental enforcement.

These investments will include accurate environmental monitoring and reporting, well-trained environmental regulators and enforcement officials, public supervision and greater transparency. China has made a good start in this regard by proposing to enhance public participation and transparency in the process of spending the stimulus funds, and such efforts need to be sustained over the long-term.

In fact, the potential for green innovation in China’s economic stimulus package far exceeds what has explicitly been announced, but only if China sets criteria to improve environmental performance for all the investments in the package. For example, China could develop criteria to ensure that the 280 billion yuan (US$41 billion) proposed for housing projects is spent only on green buildings that save water and energy and are located using smart growth principles.

The 1.8 trillion yuan (US$263 billion) proposed for transportation and the power grid should focus on public transit rather than highways, and should ensure that transmission lines are located in areas that will enable China to tap its abundant renewable energy resources. And research-and-development and innovation projects should focus on clean energy, advanced transportation and technologies to improve energy and water efficiency. The stimulus package also could include funding for a comprehensive program of skills development and worker placement to train unemployed people for green jobs, such as industrial-energy auditors and building-energy code inspectors.

Details of the US package still have not been announced, but similar efforts should be made to incorporate green innovation into all aspects of that package. For example, our organisation, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and others have proposed a more than US$30 billion energy savings plan that includes energy efficiency retrofits; construction of an improved electricity grid; strengthened energy efficiency standards; policy reforms; training; and more efficient power plants.

New-year resolutions are notoriously hard to keep, though. Like a resolution to quit smoking that does not last past the first month of the year, there are some worrisome signs that the pledges for a green stimulus will not make it into 2009. With tough economic times ahead, there will be pressure on many fronts to cast aside environmental innovation. Some have reported that environmental-impact assessments in China are being hurried through for investments such as coal-fired power plants, in response to the global economic slowdown.

Despite the Ministry of Environmental Protection’s announcement to avoid investment in energy and resource-intensive industries, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) recently announced that the stimulus for nine industries includes support for energy and resource-intensive industries such as steel, automobiles and petrochemicals (though some reports suggest that investment dollars here will be channelled towards clean production and renewable technologies).

In the United States, there already is concern that various interest groups are lobbying hard to divert funds away from green projects. In the face of calls for increased environmental protection, powerful interest groups have always lined up in opposition, claiming that these policies would lead to bankruptcy and economic devastation. The urge to buy into these arguments tends to grow stronger in times of economic difficulty. However, to do so would be a terrible mistake.

Time and again industry has responded with innovation, and the economy and the environment have benefited. Some examples of this include the invention of the catalytic converter in response to stricter car-emissions regulations, and ever-more-efficient home appliances in response to stronger energy efficiency standards.

In the end, blatant self-interest is perhaps the biggest reason that the pledges for a green stimulus could be more durable than your typical new-year resolution. Many government, business and labour group leaders have come to recognise that “going green” also can be good for the economy, employment and the bottom line. If leaders of both China and the United States can stand up to the inevitable opposition from some entrenched interest groups to invest in a green economy, history indicates that both the economy and the environment will be the better for it.

So this year, as we slowly forget our pledges to lose weight, exercise more and be better people, let us hope that China and the United States, for their own sakes and ours, keep to their pledges to “go green”.

Post-Olympics Environmental Legacy

2008-09-02T15:22:56Z

My first post to this blog a little over a year ago was about whether Beijing would clear the air for the Olympics. The media frenzy over this topic began in earnest back then in August 2007 at the one year pre-anniversary to the Beijing Olympics. My position then (and now) was that the focus on the two weeks of the Olympics was misplaced. Even as the air turned thick on certain days, we felt pretty confident that dramatic one-time measures like massive factory stoppages and pulling a million or two cars off the roads would clear the air. This sort of thing (albeit never at this scale) had worked in the past in China.

The real question deserving of serious focus, we argued, was whether China would do what it takes to sustain its clean air long after the Olympics were done and gone. And now that the Olympics have finally come and gone, the moment of truth has arrived. China can squeeze out the last drops of environmental benefit from its temporary Olympic measures and return to its pre-Olympic ways, or China can take advantage of the good will and raised public expectations generated by its Olympic environmental achievement and make this the point in history when China really turns the corner on the environment.

On the first few days (opening ceremony included), it looked as though the measures were not working. The air was hazy and press conferences were held to state that what people were seeing was not necessarily pollution and possibly ‘fog.’ The New York Times ran some fantastic interactive features on air quality and the Olympics. This feature shows how much regional air pollution impacts Beijing and has an audio bit from an NYU medical professor on the impact of pollutants on athletic performance. Andy Revkin from the dot earth blog had an interesting piece comparing China sulfur dioxide pollution with the SE United States and Europe.

But in the end, the air cleared and we had some incredible, crisp days. Richard Spencer at the Telegraph set out a good summary of how things went in yesterday’s paper:

[T]he air cleared quickly as the effects of a massive shut-down of industry and "alternate day" restrictions on private car usage began to be seen.
About 150 factories in the city had production shut down, while others closed as a result of tighter security during the Games. The ban on cars on alternate days, depending on whether they had odd or even licence plates, reduced the number of cars on the roads by about a million a day.
On several days, the sky really was blue, and on Monday the mountains that surround the city to the north and west were visible from the city centre, an unusual event for the usually humid, overcast summer months.
Figures from the city's bureau for environmental protection showed there were 14 days in which air pollution met its "level one" criteria - matching the level the World Heath Organisation declares safe when achieved over the long term.
The rest of the month was level two, which meets China's own standard for a so-called "blue sky day", except for one day which failed.
Average pollution was down 45 per cent, bringing it down to levels not seen since ten years ago, the ministry said in a statement on its website.
"Temporary measures to reduce pollution that were put in place in Beijing and surrounding provinces to guarantee clean air for the Olympics played a fundamental role in improving the air during the Olympic period," the bureau said.

This is a great bit from NYTimes.com on how air quality along the Beijing marathon route changed in just a month. The route saw a 40% decrease in carbon monoxide from Olympic car restrictions, enough to make conditions (for CO anyway) comparable to those along the NYC Marathon route.

These Beijing skies were the cleanest Beijing had seen in ten years (according to China’s environmental ministry) and if you were here (and knew what things were like in days and years past) you would have seen the way this visibly lifted spirits. Beijing, a city that Beijingers commonly say is ‘a good place for work, but not suitable for people to live in,’ was on these days downright livable. Now, it seems, expectations are way up. People here in Beijing like what they’ve seen and want it to stay that way. In one survey (see also here), “56 percent of the more than 10,000 people surveyed online said they were in favor of continuing the restrictions” on cars instituted during the Olympics. In another survey (click here for a rough Google Translate version of this Chinese article), nearly 70% said they wanted the restrictions to continue.

The pledges to sustain all of this are already coming from a number of quarters. Deputy chief Tan Zhimin of the Beijing City Building Headquarter Office for 2008 said in a Xinhua news piece that: “ It is impossible and will not be allowed should the city go backward in livability because citizen expectations are already driven up by the Olympics and the demand for further social and economic development." Wen Jiabao has also vowed to keep Beijing clean after the Olympics.

So it may be that cleaner days are here to stay in Beijing. The potential is there to leave a real environmental legacy. Like the government leaders, environmentalists and the public at large in the U.S. and Japan of the early 1970s, today’s leaders in China could, if they are willing, put their names down in the history books as the ones who turned around the environment, not just in Beijing, but in all of China.

We at NRDC have been working with forward thinking government officials and environmental experts and NGOs in China for over twelve years to develop the critical solutions to China’s environmental problems. And the solutions are known. They include energy efficiency, transforming fundamental misalignments of incentives in the environmental governance system, greater public involvement, harnessing the power of markets to drive quicker environmental improvement, green buildings and 'smart growth,' and a host of other concrete, realizeable solutions. Now what is needed is the will and the vision to make these solutions a reality.

China ended up doing a good job with air pollution control during the Beijing Olympics, but its performance for the long-term isn’t up to the gold standard yet. And China knows better than anyone else that you don’t make history unless you get the gold.

The Earthquake in China

2008-05-16T12:57:59Z

This past Monday sometime around three in the afternoon our staff in Beijing felt a strange swaying sensation, a few of them said they felt dizzy and saw the glass partition walls of our offices buckle and wave for a few moments. After they had evacuated to the ground floor, several of them were surprised to find (as phone calls were made and instant messages sent) that the cause of this had been a massive earthquake fully on the other side of the country, nearly a thousand miles away in the southwestern province of Sichuan. That the impact could be felt so far away from the epicenter was the first clue of the magnitude of the disaster, but it has been a shock for all of us to see the nearly complete devastation in Sichuan and to watch the death toll climb beyond 20,000 with the end not even remotely in site. My colleague Zhang Jingjing is from Sichuan, and though her family thankfully is safe, she has friends and acquaintances in the region who have not yet surfaced.

It has been remarkable for me to see how the earthquake has brought the country together (and China together with the world). In a year that has brought seemingly one divisive issue after another, the earthquake has created a sort of unity within China and an outpouring of sympathy from outside (our inboxes have filled with messages of sympathy from colleagues and friends in the States and elsewhere).

And it has brought about a series of seeming firsts that have been notable, even amidst the breakneck pace of change that is the norm in today’s China.

Though China has not had a strong tradition of organized philanthropy, the disaster has brought a flood of donations to come from all corners of the country.

Though Chinese NGOs have been weak and lacking in resources, the earthquake has nonetheless ignited a flurry of activity among them (in a way that, say, the Songhua River benzene explosion in 2005 did not). The groups have organized collection drives and have sought out medical experts to send to the disaster area. The environmental groups, like Green Earth Volunteers, Friends of Nature and Xiamen Green Cross, have been particularly good at this, mobilizing the extensive networks they’ve built over the years in the service of environmental education and protection to bring resources to the disaster relief effort.

The media coverage and rapid government response to the disaster have been another surprise. A system where the main official news organs have tended to stiffly read pre-vetted and approved statements was transformed seemingly overnight into an active, modern news channel, taking live reports from reporters on the ground and (most notably) giving frequent updates on the rapidly rising death toll (this sort of information has not traditionally been readily forthcoming). On Monday, I saw Premier Wen Jiabao on TV shouting out orders to rescue workers at a disaster area. This (though still a bit of stagecraft) was nonetheless a far cry from the delayed and muted responses of past emergencies. The degree of openness has been amazing and hopefully marks some quantum leap in a trend towards greater openness and transparency that has been slowly taking shape here in China. The popular opinion of the government rescue response has been on the whole very positive so far.

It has been a strange week here in China and all of us in the Beijing office are a little shaken up by this overwhelming tragedy. But if there can be said to be a silver lining to any of this, it is that this devastating situation has brought out the best in people in China and abroad in myriad ways. And in this place where a blistering pace of change is the norm, circumstances have forced things to change even faster, and everyone involved has stepped up and risen to the occasion.

* * * * *

Here’s the statement NRDC issued yesterday re: the Sichuan earthquake.

NRDC Statement on the Earthquake in China
May 15, 2008
The massive earthquake in China's Sichuan Province on May 12, 2008 devastated one of the country's most populated areas, killing tens of thousands of people and leaving hundreds of thousands in desperate need of help. NRDC China urges all concerned individuals to contribute to Sichuan earthquake relief efforts being organized by the Red Cross Society of China and other relief organizations.
NRDC China sends its deepest condolences and sympathies to those affected by this most terrible of natural disasters, and expresses the strongest support for ongoing rescue efforts by government and civil society organizations. These difficult times require that we all come together to help in any way possible. NRDC and its staff in China and the rest of the world are ready and more than willing to provide assistance as China begins the difficult work of recovery and rebuilding.