ChinaDialogue: Latest responses to China's green province

[TRANSLATED] Can Jiangsu's pollution rights trade be applied province-wide?

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:32:09 +0000

In August 2005, the Chinese Resource website published an article stating that Jiangsu province's pollution rights trade was experiencing difficulties. The opening passage read: "The pollution rights trade is a complex global dilemma. Although Nantong already ran a successful experiment in 2001, it was only able to carry out five trade transactions in the ensuing four years. What stood in the way of implementing the pollution rights trade?" You can access this article here I harbor serious doubts about Jiangsu province's ability to turn around this difficult situation within the short space of a year. Although I welcome public debate that focuses on environmental conservation, the above article serves no purpose unless it comprehensively relates all the facts.

This article is disappointing

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 08:05:45 +0000

Looks like this article is written by staff of China Dialog. However, I have to admit that it is very disappointing. It is like any article you can find in the typical state-owned newspapers - cherry picking facts and figures. I personally have no slightest confidence in this article. Yin

[TRANSLATED] persanal opinion

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:24:47 +0000

Is there no pollution in Jiangsu?the answer is no,you can search the "Shengze Pollution Event" which has drawed high attention from the goverment leaders.so Jiangsu did learn the motto "a fall into the pit, a gain in your wit". on the other hand,Jiangsu's water quality exert a direct influence on Shanghai's,and Shanghai is a economic center,metropolis the pressure from Shanghai and Zhejiang forces Jiangsu to take effort to reduce pollution. I studied environmental science,the reason why the pollution and treatment cost account for hazard cost 20% but only occupy treatment cost 10% is that we failed to build a perfect pollution hazard assessment system,it is not easy to quantify the long term impact on ecology and also it is impossible to restore the original entironment level. from certain aspects,it is unevaluable for the pollution-caused hazard to the ecology,because that is the impact on species for generations,which can not be seen right now. I am from a beautiful city-Yangzhou,as a consuming and tour oriented city,most revenues are from tour industry and house rent less heavy industry,more service industry, so that's the reason why there are less pollution.

Re: Jiangsu's achievement at cost of other poor areas

Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:40:50 +0000

Commenter number 4 has an interesting point - in order to be sure that Jiangsu's success is really the result of good practices by government and business, we would need to compare Jiangsu's industrial composition to that of other provinces. Does it benefit from a cleaner mix of less-polluting industries? Or does it have a similar mix of industries but a more successful approach to ensuring they pollute less? Andrew Stevenson

[TRANSLATED] Re:re:wrong statistics?

Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:10:27 +0000

I understand what you say. I think the sentence is misleading, that is why I pointed it out. How to achieve accurate environmental damage cost has been a hot international topic, and a thorny issue as well. So far, there are no satisfactory calculating methods yet. But under the current situation with poor technology support and impact of market factors, we should make it clear that it is difficult to calculate environmental damage cost. And obviously, actual cost of environmental damage is higher than figure issued. In most cases, especially in China, which is highly polluted, its marginal cost in pollution control is lower than that in developed countries with less pollution, and also much lower than the marginal environmental damage cost. This is because marginal cost in pollution control will rise along with decreasing pollution situation in a country, meanwhile marginal cost of environmental damage will rise along with the rising pollution situation. Otherwise, to the public it means pollution control costs more than environmental damage. Then polluters will choose to pollute instead of taking costly actions to control pollution, and then they could just compensate for the environmental loss. Of course, what I mention above is based on that the environmental cost is not underestimated. Environmental protection does not aim to ban pollution, but to control it within the capacity that the nature is able to accommodate, and to minimize its impact upon ecosystem. Zero pollution is impossible. What really makes sense is to identify the pollution extent (limit) which is moderate and tolerable. Then the pollution within the limit would not cause devastating impact upon ecosystem and natural resources. Meanwhile, we could avoid too high social cost to cut the pollution which the nature is capable of coping with. China is facing tasks to help people out of poverty and meanwhile to deal with its serious pollution. The market system is introduced to deal with pollution control. Under these circumstances, it is of great importance to identify the pollution limit. In conclusion, we should not compare the pollution control cost with that of environmental damage. Otherwise, readers will be misled. Tao

[TRANSLATED] Gap between the rich and poor

Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:27:07 +0000

To solve the environmental problems in China, the country needs first to narrow the disparities between the rich and poor provinces.

[TRANSLATED] Jiangsu's achievement at cost of other poor areas

Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:24:58 +0000

Though I haven't investigated, I still think that Jiangsu's success in envivronmental protection is achieved at cost of underdeveloped provinces in China. Pollution is usually transferred from rich to poverty-stricken areas, from developed countries to developing nations. This phenomenon is a commonplace. Jiangsu is one of the affluent provinces in China, so the province could be a case of the phenomenon.

[TRANSLATED] Re: Wrong statistics?

Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:40:30 +0000

Your understanding is right, that is pollution control cost could be higher than that of environmental damage. Part of the reasons is pollution's environmental impact (cost) is usually underestimated. Meanwhile, the author compared the three costs to show the weakness of China's environmental laws. It is not as simple as you understand regarding the comparison between pollution control cost and environmental damage cost. So far, it is still an unsolved issue regarding the methods of calculating the cost of enviromental damage. This is also the issue facing Green GDP accounting. Even if pollution control costs more than damaging the environment, this should be the reason for us not to take measures to protect our environment. by Dongying Wang

[TRANSLATED] Wrong statistics?

Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:52:09 +0000

In the article it is reported that currently in China the cost of breaking laws (penalty) is less than 10% pollution control cost and less than 20% of environmental damage cost. So this implies that pollution control could be twice that of the environmental damage cost. Are the statistics wrong? Tao