Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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.

China's Environmental Problem Is a Political One

By Christina Larson, Washington Monthly. Posted January 22, 2008.


Can China clean up its environment without cleaning up its politics?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Christina Larson

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In January 2007, a geologist named Yong Yang set out from his home in China's western Sichuan Province with five researchers, two sport utility vehicles, one set of clothes, and several trunks of equipment for measuring rainfall and water volume; a camping stove, a rice cooker, canned meat, and more than sixty bottles of Sichuan hot sauce; a digital camera, a deck of cards, and several CDs of Tibetan music; and as many canisters of fuel as his team could strap to the roofs of their SUVs.

No roads cross the part of China to which Yong was traveling, so he also brought topographical charts and satellite photos of the region. His final destination, deep in China's wild western frontier, was the unmarked place on the Tibetan plateau from which the Yangtze River springs.

For several weeks the two vehicles followed the Yangtze west, as the river turned from running water to ice. The thermometer became useless when the temperature dipped below the lowest reading on its scale. Occasionally they spotted an antelope, and once wolves devoured their fresh yak meat. As they climbed in elevation, tracing the course the Yangtze had cut through the Dangla Mountains many millennia ago, the air grew thinner and the wind fiercer.

When the ground rose too steeply into the surrounding peaks for the SUVs to maneuver along the riverbanks, they drove on the frozen river itself, though this approach was not without its perils. About a month into their trip, on the auspicious first day of the Lunar New Year, Yong heard a great crunching sound as his front and then back tires slid through the ice, trapping his vehicle midstream. Fortunately, the vehicle wasn't too far submerged, and the backseat passengers managed to clamber out and signal to the second SUV. With a rope tied to the rear bumper, they dragged the vehicle from the frozen river, with Yong still in the driver's seat, transmission in reverse.

Yong and his companions made it safely out of the river. But since then he's continued to travel, in many senses, on thin ice. A vital question had propelled his journey up the Yangtze: the Chinese government is embarking on the most colossal water diversion project ever attempted, and Yong had taken it upon himself to discover whether it would work.

Water is an unevenly distributed resource in China. Traditionally, the south has been lush while the north has been a land of dry tundra and frozen desert. In 1952, Mao Zedong conjured a solution to this inequity: "Southern water is plentiful, northern water scarce," he said. "Borrowing some water would be good."

Ever since, China's leaders have dreamed of diverting water from one of the country's great rivers to the other -- from the southern Yangtze River into the northern Yellow River. (To fathom the scale of this undertaking, imagine watering the American Southwest by diverting the Mississippi River into the Colorado.)

In recent years, this eccentric scheme has become increasingly appealing to Chinese authorities, as water shortages in northern cities have become more and more dire. In 2002, China's highest executive body, the State Council, converted Mao's grandiose notion into a plan known as the South-to-North Water Transfer Project. Construction on two sections of the project have already begun, but the most ambitious stage is scheduled to begin by 2010.

This phase will divert water from the Yangtze in southwestern China to the north, across mountains that rise to 15,000 feet above sea level. The entire project will cost at least an estimated $60.4 billion, and has aroused intense opposition because it is expected to displace hundreds of thousands of people and devastate fragile ecosystems.

Between January and March, Yong's team traveled more than 16,000 miles in the Yangtze River basin, threading every bend in the western reaches of the river. The previous summer they had driven roughly the same route, so they could compare water levels in different seasons. On both trips they collected data on rainfall, geology, receding glaciers, and other trends that affect the volume of water in the river. Yong had learned from firsthand experience that for about four months each year the upper Yangtze is a ribbon of ice; only an engineering miracle could transport the frozen water north.

After he spent the summer and fall compiling data and circulating it among several dozen peer-researchers for feedback, he found more reasons to be skeptical of the ability of the project to live up to the government's vision. The bounteous stream of Beijing's imagination became, in Yong's careful calculations, a trickle.

The fact that Yong is free to conduct such inquiries at all says much about the recent political evolution of China. Fifteen years ago, the government wouldn't have tolerated public questioning of large-scale infrastructure projects. But in recent years, criticism from independent scientists and environmental organizations has prompted the government to postpone two planned western dam projects.

In September, officials even acknowledged (after the fact) that unsound planning for the controversial Three Gorges Dam project had created a potential "environmental catastrophe." This isn't a sign that China's Communist Party is throwing the country's political system open to full democratic participation. But China's leaders know that a rapidly deteriorating environment could stall the country's economic miracle and ignite political unrest, and so they're experimenting with limited openness to help avert these hazards. It remains an open question, however, just how much scrutiny the government will tolerate, and how much impact Yong will be permitted to have. His midwinter expedition was only the first stage of his odyssey into uncharted terrain.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: environment, china, water, water pollution

Christina Larson is an editor of the Washington Monthly. She traveled to China in the spring and fall of 2007, visiting Beijing, Shenyang, Lanzhou, Chengdu, Kunming, Changsha City, and villages in Gansu, Sichuan, and Hunan provinces.

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


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:
What didn't happen at Chernobyl
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 23, 2008 12:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
on Chernobyl: A friend of mine from Oak Ridge National Lab wrote to me: "The
reactor that had the accident at Chernobyl was very out-of-date (1st generation)
design that has to be precisely controlled to prevent cooling water from boiling.
Water carries away heat and moderates far better than bubbles, and as bubbles
form in water, the reactor goes increasingly unstable. What caused Chernobyl to
blow its top was residual water in the core suddenly going to high pressure steam
and erupting into a steam explosion. Since the building top was simply resting by
its weight on the walls, not a containment vessel at all, the steam explosion
burped the top off its position allowing outside air in, subsequently igniting a
carbon fire." The United States and other Western countries DO NOT now build
and do not now posses or operate ANY reactors of such primitive design. Nor do
we allow containment buildings to have easily removable tops. Containment
buildings in the Western hemisphere are required to be pressure vessels.
The Chernobyl accident released only 200 tons of radioactive material, as
much as a coal-fired power plant would release in 7 years and 5 months. The
Chernobyl accident had a shorter "stack" than coal-fired power plants. The
radioactive material was released in a short time at ground level. That is why the
Chernobyl accident had impact. Only 52 people died at Chernobyl , mostly fire
fighters, a hazardous job in any case. The Three Mile Island incident did NOT
release a noticeable amount of radiation into its neighborhood, it was just
expensive to clean up the inside of the reactor. Nobody died and nobody was
injured at Three Mile Island.

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

Arsenic and Uranium in the air in China.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 23, 2008 12:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by
peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family
dies of arsenic poisoning because Chinese industrial grade
coal contains large amounts of arsenic.

All natural rocks contain most natural elements, but
mostly in amounts too small to be worth separating. Coal
is a rock. Ore is a rock that contains a higher percentage
of an element of interest. By burning coal, the major
element, carbon, is removed. Coal, minus the carbon, is an
ore because other things have been concentrated.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2
parts per million. Illinois coal contains up to 103 parts per
million uranium. A 1 billion watt coal fired power plant
burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of
uranium. Most of that is U238. About .7% is U235. 4
tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% = 56 pounds
of U235. An average 1 billion watt coal fired power plant
puts out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are
only 2 places the uranium can go: Up the stack or into the
cinders.
At least 73 elements found in coal-fired plant emissions are
distributed in millions of pounds of stack emissions each
year. They include:
Aluminum Chromium Molybdenum
Antimony Cobalt Nickel
Arsenic Copper Selenium
Barium Fluorine Silver
Beryllium Iron Sulfur
Boron Lead Titanium
Cadmium Magnesium Uranium
Calcium Manganese Vanadium
Chlorine Mercury Zinc

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

Unrest caused by famine caused by global warming.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 23, 2008 12:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded FROM: Environmental Defense
http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/
climate411/2008/01/14/global_winds/

This post is by James Wang, Ph.D., a climate scientist at Environmental Defense.

You may have heard about the persistent droughts in the western U.S., Australia,
and other regions. The Upper Colorado River Basin is experiencing a protracted,
multi-year drought that started in 1999. Australia's record drought is threatening
the livelihood of traditional farmers and ranchers.

At what point does a passing drought become a permanent shift to desert
conditions, and why would such a thing happen?

It can happen because of global warming. Climate change can alter global winds,
the strength and location of high and low pressure systems, and other climate
factors.

.........shortened.........Graphics and URLs omitted.

Global winds shape the Earth's climate, determining - in broad strokes - which
areas are tropical, desert, or temperate. Here's a simplified overview of how it
works.

The Sun heats the Earth most intensely in the tropical zone around the equator. The
heated air rises, cools, and then dumps its moisture as rain. That's why there are
rain forests in the tropics.

The now drier air is forced by the continuously rising equatorial air to move
towards the temperate latitudes on either side of the equator. At roughly 30° N and
S - called the "horse latitudes" - it can move no further due to the Earth’s rotation,
and settles to the surface. As the air sinks, it compresses and warms, creating hot,
rain-free conditions. This circulation pattern, called a Hadley cell, is why the
deserts of the world are located just poleward of the tropics, to the north and south.

Poleward of the desert belt, strong, high-altitude winds known as the jet streams
flow from west to east, carrying large storms with them. These mid-latitude,
temperate-region storms are an important source of rain and snow, especially
during the winter season. Much of the world's population lives in the temperate
region. It includes most of the U.S. and southern Canada, most of Europe, East
Asia, southern South America, southern Africa, and southern Australia and New
Zealand.

But climate regions aren't fixed. Several independent studies have found that
global winds are shifting due to global warming, and the shifts are faster than
predicted by climate models. Most recently is this new study in Nature
Geoscience. The tropical belt has widened by several degrees latitude since 1979.
This is consistent with other observations suggesting that the jet streams and storm
tracks have moved poleward.

The drought-stricken Upper Colorado River Basin, which includes Lake Powell, is
located just poleward of the horse latitudes at around 37° N. This has historically
been in the temperate zone, but the desert zone may be gradually encroaching upon
it. (Since nothing is simple, there are other factors contributing to this particular
drought, as well.) Similarly, water-starved Sydney, Australia at 34° S is just
poleward of the southern horse latitude.

What we may be seeing here is not so much drought as desertification - a shift in
global climate patterns due to global warming. Areas that used to be in temperate
zones may be shifting into desert, while areas that had been arid receive more
precipitation.

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

China is 1 of 3 top emitters of CO2
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 23, 2008 12:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India.

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

China, air pollution and the collapse of civilization.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 23, 2008 1:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See "The Long Summer" by Brian Fagan. Climate change has caused the collapse
of dozens of civilizations, and is well on the way to causing the collapse of our
civilization. See: "Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" by Jared
Diamond. "Collapse" extends and amplifies what was said in "The Long
Summer." The Chinese government will not be able to prevent the collapse of
Chinese society, nor will any government be able to prevent the collapse of world
civilization, if global warming continues. The air may be dirtier in China, but we
are all on the same small planet. The US government seems to be in just as bad of
a fix as the Chinese government. In the US, the problem is that the population has
been thoroughly propagandized by the coal industry and is now paranoid of all
things nuclear. The building of coal fired power plants continues in both
countries.

Great damage has been done, but we still have 8 years before natural positive
feedbacks lead to our extinction. Sea level will continue to rise even if we
disappear right now, but that is "minor" compared to poison gas bubbling out of
the ocean and killing almost everything including all of the people.
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years.

If we don't follow the schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive
feedbacks which will take the control of the climate out of our hands.
Civilization may fall anyway well before 2050, but we can avoid going extinct by
2100. We have to hold the CO2 level to 400 parts per million to have a 75%
chance of avoiding the positive feedbacks. The natural positive feedbacks are
explained in Six Degrees.

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

China's Water Woes
Posted by: All Roads on Jan 25, 2008 12:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is another fantastic article on China's water problem.

Over at

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

China's Water Woes
Posted by: All Roads on Jan 25, 2008 12:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is another fantastic article on China's water problem.

Over at Crossroads (www.China-Crossroads.com) we are covering a lot on water right now because it really has become one of the most pressing issues.

To the credit of the government, there is a real awareness going on, and this awareness has allowed for public debates to occur on a fairly regular basis.

With regard to this project, I think that you will see it killed shortly after the passing of the Energy Bill. The reason is that SEPA will gain ministry status, will have a budget, and will have the teeth to stop projects that are clearly not in the best interests of China and its people.

Wuxi was a real turning point in many ways, and with real public criticism of 3 gorges now acceptable, I think one of the major results will be slowing down this project to the point where real research can be done in an unbiased way. there are a lot of frustrated people inside the government who are really looking to improve the environmental conditions, and with SEPA at a ministerial level they will have their champion.

r
www.china-crossroads.com

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