Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Why a New Water Project in China May Be a Catastrophe in Waiting

By Christina Larson, Yale Environment 360. Posted January 12, 2009.


A geologist has serious concerns about plans for a massive Yangtze River diversion project. But will the government heed his advice?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

More stories by Christina Larson

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In January 2007, an independent geologist named Yong Yang set out from his home in China's western Sichuan Province with a small team of researchers packed into two SUVs to find the unmarked place on the Tibetan plateau from which the Yangtze River springs. They drove over 16,000 miles through China's still-wild western frontier -- vast hinterlands where no roads cross, with mountainous terrain known only to local herders, antelope and wolves.

Yong is a bit of an outdoors adventure junkie (he was previously among the first kayakers to navigate the treacherous upper reaches of the Yangtze), but on this trip his mission was more profound: to investigate the geological and hydrological conditions of the Yangtze River basin -- and to evaluate whether a colossal three-part water-diversion project planned by the government, called the "South-to-North Water Transfer Project," could live up to its incredible billing.

The aim is to alleviate water shortages in parched northern China. But critics, both inside and outside the government, worry that it will be a giant boondoggle -- wasting billions of dollars, forcing the relocation of thousands of people, and causing irreparable damage to unique and fragile ecosystems.

China is facing severe water shortages. Both Chinese and Western experts predict that in the next 15 years, China's shortage of clean water will create up to 30 million "environmental refugees."

This problem is particularly acute in northern China, where climate and geology have always made water a limited resource. No one seriously disputes that bold steps must be taken to forestall a crisis. But the question is whether Beijing's ambition -- to build a $62 billion series of canals to divert water from the Yangtze River in the south to the Yellow River in the north -- will actually work.

Yong's research has focused on the western leg, which is perhaps the most controversial. When I first met him in his offices in Sichuan in the spring of 2007, he had just returned from his midwinter expedition. The 49-year-old geologist, wearing a dark sweater and black jacket, looked thin and worn, as you might expect from someone who had just survived for two months on canned foods, occasional fresh-killed meat, and cigarettes. When I saw him again that October, for an update on his research, his cheeks were rosier and rounder. In a Beijing hotel room we huddled over his laptop to examine spreadsheets of data compiled from his trip.

Based on his research, he believes the government's blueprints for the western leg of the water-diversion project are based on inaccurate estimates of the volume of water in the upper Yangtze. If the diversion plan fails, the consequences of faulty engineering could be disastrous for downstream communities, including Shanghai, that depend on the Yangtze for agriculture, industry, and hydropower. Reduced river flow could shutter downstream hydropower stations, inflicting blackouts on millions.

The Chinese government has in the past unleashed disastrous plans with the best of intentions. Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward, for instance, set targets for enhanced steel and grain production based on fantasy, rather than science. Unable to meet unrealistic goals, local cadres felt compelled to fudge performance numbers, ensuring that inaccurate data and corruption would doom the effort. More recently, the government's Three Gorges Dam hydropower project -- an attempt to address the country's rapidly growing energy needs that was completed this fall – has run into trouble. Even government officials acknowledged, after the fact, that faulty geological planning along the dam's route had caused massive landslides and created the potential for an "environmental catastrophe."

In recent years, a small but growing number of Chinese scientists, including former government scientists such as Yong, have joined the country's fledgling environmental movement -- not for ideological reasons, but because they worry about how decisions regarding environmental challenges, such as water shortages, are being made.

Another concerned scientist is Dr. Yu Xiaogang, a prominent Chinese environmentalist and winner of the prestigious international "Goldman Environmental Prize" in 2006. He began his career in a government ministry in Yunnan province, but became frustrated with the way science was conducted within his bureau. "I find that inside the system, you can do only so-called ‘decision-making supporting research,'" he told me. "That means the government has already made the decision. You do research to support the decision. You never do something that changes the decision."

For his part, Yong told me his goal now is better public policy. "I am not against the government," he says. "What I want is to get the facts."

Research versus policy

Yong learned his rugged respect for the outdoors -- a mix of awe and trepidation -- from his father, a Red Army officer who had been posted in western China. Yong studied geology at the China Mining Industry University, then went to work for the Ministry of Coal's mining bureau, where he did research to assess geological and environmental risks. At one point, Yong tried to caution that a plan to ship coal down a river on barges was untenable because massive erosion had made the surrounding hillsides prone to landslides. But his superiors didn't want to hear the bad news.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: china, water, yangtze, dam, three gorges

Christina Larson is a journalist focusing on international environmental issues. Her reporting has brought her to seven provinces across China, as well as cities and villages in Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Greece. Her writing has appeared in The New York Times, The New Republic, Christian Science Monitor, China Environment Series, and The Washington Monthly, where she is a contributing editor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Lysenkoism-Michurinism aka Bushism-Republicanism
Posted by: bobtr900 on Jan 14, 2009 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's called Lysenkoism-Michurinism, the gathering and fitting of science to support the ideology of Communism, there, and Bushie Republicanism, here in America.

This is the same thing we see here in America under GOP governance, where their science is gathered to support the GOP ideology of Big Business, which was so often done in the past. And which now supports the GOP dual ideologies of Big Religion AND Big Business.

What we now see is, among other things, the complete denial of Global Warming by the Bush-Cheney Republicans due to their obeisance to their corporate handlers, especially from the oil industry. And their denial of scientific truths, as the Bushie Rethugs are obeisant to Big Religion.

IOW they, who are bereft of any internal personal morals, must substitute egregious and extreme religion for their lack of personal morals. GWB and the entire Bush family fit this paradigm, as do much of the Republican party.

IOW, they are all image, bereft of any real scientific substance.

As for example, in the case of the once held religious belief that the earth is the center of our heliocentric system, our solar system. This was firmly held to, despite the fact that Galileo was able to prove otherwise, but his proofs were denied as being heretical.

And one of the current false beliefs is that the earth is only 6,000yrs old, because the bible says so. And yet, science can prove, beyond a doubt, that the earth is 4.5 billion yrs old, and in fact that man has been on the earth for approx. 15,000years. The age of our planet is based not on some numerical extrapolation, but upon direct observations due to various imaging techniques, iow, by seeing, by direct observations.

But the Bushie Rethugs will never believe that kind of evidence because their associated religions(Catholic and the fundie evangelicals, but not all evangelicals) tell them otherwise. Just as the oil companies tell them Global Warming is not occurring. And the dummies in the Repub party actually believe this stuff, this image with no substance. That's Republicanism, thats Lysenkoism-Michurinism, as put forth by Russia, China and right here in America by the Republican party.

This is the true tyranny under which we, the disenfranchised 240+ million Americans have lived since Reagan and will live, seemingly long into the future unless Obama-Biden can change all the huge damage that has been done to what is left of our democracy.

I do not expect much from Obama-Biden because the damage done is wide and deep; and because the Repubs and their associated religions will oppose nearly everything, every step of the way. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Thus Passes the Glory of the World, God's handy work. Thus goes the lizard brain thinking of the Repubs and their Big Businesses and their Big Religions, which includes my own religion, not just the religion of the other guys.

Ohhh Welll!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

leftbank
Posted by: markw4786 on Jan 15, 2009 7:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr Yong is a brave man. Truth tellers like this in fascist China (only fools call this a communist country) usually don't last long. I fear for his life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement