Latest comments posted about The countryside is being forgotten on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/2094-The-countryside-is-being-forgotten http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/2094-The-countryside-is-being-forgotten It is impossible to clearly express the extent of the environmental impact of Zhoubian on Beijing. Reports must be supported by conclusive statistics. It seems fair to judge the majority of Beijing's pollution as self-inflicted. Take for example air pollution, dust source analyses and the city's endless streams of traffic, and consider how these factors contribute to the situation. Without accurate research results, our discussion has no base. During the Olympic games, traffic is to be restricted in Beijing. As I see it, large quantities of polluting missions in the capital lead to a large decline in its air quality. I suggest taking a look at the satellite pictures and the publicly available information on Beijing's traffic pollution. I empathise with you in your efforts towards China's environmental problems and apologise if I'm misinformed or misunderstand your meaning. As regards your comments on waste, I also have a different viewpoint. My email is wxaiwxai@126.com. I look forward to having a relaxed discussion with you on the subject of how to protect the environment. Translated by Kim Fergus Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:29:40 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7568 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7568 As an environmental science technologist, I’m familiar with your academic reputation and admire you. People like me engaged in micro-technical work can not compare with you, and not even intend to shut you up. Readers may feel the two articles have the intention of taking away Beijing’s responsibility to improve the quality of the air and environment though maybe you don’t mean it, this is my main objection. Please check out your own articles to see if they can leads to that impression. The most terrible thing is when environmental protection problems are discussed from a macro aspect, no feasible solution is proposed, making the environmental protection problem appear to be incorrigible. As professional or semiprofessional workers, we’d better keep silent to issues we can’t offer a solution. Take pesticide for example, the ability of green pesticides to support our two years high-yield farming and the amount of varieties of pesticides to be actually used in the existing market economy should be the topics of our discussions. Problems without solution will easily bring out alarming consequence. You should know that your viewpoint on internet represents the view of a public trustful scientist. Of course, I am not putting a label on your rough discussion about macro environmental protection issues, after all, data sources and viewpoints vary from person to person, I am more willing to see you propose your wise solutions even immature and will applaud you for doing that. Translated by TinaZhou Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:28:24 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7567 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7567 Yeah…, oppose the point of view not the person. I agree with wxaixai’s opinion. Professor Jiang of course has a right to speak but as a scientist he ought to use his right to speak prudently. You work in ecology, wxaixai is in micro technology and I work with plants. From a professional training point of view we all have equal right to speak. When on Chinadialogue which is not as strict as a scientific publication but compared to science publications can have a larger ability to influence. Then anyone, especially a scientist whose words are more likely to be trusted by people, should pay careful attention to what they say and should not use the identity of a scientist to make similar kind of mistakes to "every mu producing 50,000 kg of rice". When doing popular science you should only popularise the results of scientific research and not take debatable items and place them in front of non-experts. I agree with wxaixai’s attitude: state the facts clearly; talk reason; have debate and only then can you have progress. -Aturen Translated by Mike Thomson Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:19:22 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7565 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7565 This user: I benefited from respectfully reading your several points of contention. Because there are too many issues, I can't debate them with you on an item-by-item basis, although I am sure there is a lot we want to say to each other. I hope you prepare your views and put them out in an inquiring, constructive tone and not in an attacking, vituperative manner. If there is something that I seriously need to make clear, I will collect some specialized evidence, write an article, and then debate with you again. In fact, what I pointed out is an objective phenomenon, and the deep layer of reasoning behind it can definitely not be made clear in one or two articles. I hope that through a combined effort to improve our living conditions, and not by shutting me up, can China's environment get better. I work with ecology, and botany was my major in university. Whether I am qualified to speak on the environment is not up to me; everyone can make their own statements. I hope this is my reply to your 5 comments. I wish you well. Jiang Gaoming The comment was translated by Anton Lee Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:46:24 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7561 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7561 Thirdly, this article also takes away responsibility from Beijing for its ability to improve the quality of the air and environment. Mr Jiang in his last article and in this article has a distinguishing feature in that he clearly amplifies the effect surrounding areas have on Beijing’s environment. He only considers external factors and not internal ones. For example, to improve Beijing’s air quality you first need to rely on the efforts of Beijing and all the districts that fall under its jurisdiction and not abdicate responsibility by complaining about surrounding provinces. Though Beijing has adopted very big initiatives by moving a large number of polluting enterprises however Beijing’s non-point source pollution and vehicle pollution administration has not improved in any substantial way. Let’s speak about a real source like those complicated construction projects inside Beijing. Are they all meeting high environmental and pollution control standards? Are they all ISO14001 certificated construction enterprises? They have a great impact on Beijing’s air quality and nobody has researched to reveal sufficient evidence. Beijing is probably the city in China with the highest vehicle density. Even if every vehicle met Euro 4 emission standards they would still make a very large contribution to Beijing’s air pollution. Moreover, Beijing’s planning is not that good: everywhere there are traffic jams and the impact of slow moving vehicles cannot be underestimated. Somebody should investigate Beijing’s vehicle population and the relationship between air pollution and the number of vehicles on the road and actually work out what air pollution these vehicles cause before deciding what Beijing should do and not go by what a botanist says, taking several days air quality inspection, and concluding that surrounding provinces are burning straw. This comment was translated by Mike Thomson Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:16:24 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7548 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7548 I have several comments on different parts of this article. First, the cause of the destruction of eco environment in the countryside? I think this article is biased on this point, the cause shouldn't be attributed to rural life or production, but industrialization and urbanization. The harm of fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural membranes is actually caused by the fact that our industry cannot catch up with agricultural needs. Why we use so much and pollute so much? It's because industry doesn't provide a solution for economy. Everyone knows green pesticides are good, but it's Mr. Industry who on one hand suggested green pesticides as a solution, and on the other hand allowed the utilization of the materials with high toxicity and high residues! It's right to attribute others to urbanization. The ultimate cause is that the strong depredation and expansion of urbanization lead to discordance between regions, cities and rural areas. The emergence of various ecological degradations is the best talking example. Comment translated by Michelle Deeter Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:12:15 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7546 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7546 Recently, I have just read the column articles written by Mr. Gaoming Jiang for chinadialogue.net and Financial Times, which focus on countryside ecological issues. I have posted some comments to criticize Mr Jiang’s unfounded or far-fetched viewpoints in his articles. I also think it is inappropriate for him as a botanist to offer such articles for foreign media, because his pieces will mislead foreign readers. As such, I found it is necessary to point out these misleading information in his articles. Please read the following comments. Comment translated by Meiyou Ye Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:10:11 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7545 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7545 Fourthly, Mr. Jiang has argued that rural ecosystem must be saved. This is a good argument, yet it dropped out the critical subject: by whom? Generally speaking, it should be the rich regions of China, namely the cities, to assume this responsibility. As for Beijing, it is not justified to blame other cities until Beijing has solved its own problems. In order to improve the air quality in Beijing, the number of automobiles should be under tight control. Public transport system should be promoted through the combination of economic incentives as well as government policies. Civil servants and other residents in Beijing should be encouraged to take public transportation. Only by combining all of these measures can air quality be effectively improved. Besides, the municipal government of Beijing should use its fiscal revenue derived from high growth of GDP to help neighboring cities and provinces, as they have a great impact upon Beijing's environment. Only doing so is the beginning of real actions to save the rural ecosystem. (Comment translated by Zhou Chen) Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:17:35 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7549 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7549 Secondly, some judgemental sentences are not well thought out. Several tens of thousands of university students and when only 30 register at a swimming club, its leads him to determine that most people are non swimmers. I don’t know where he gets this kind of logic from. Students don’t register probably because that club's conditions lack enough to attract people and students' interest is not there. There is no accurate analysis leading to erroneous conclusions. Translated by Mike Thomson Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:13:54 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7547 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7547 I have found the same problem in my hometown. There used to be various kinds of beautiful trees. Now it seems that only poplars are being grown. It is so boring. (comment translated by Zhou Chen) Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:29:01 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7515 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2094#comment-7515