Latest Articles by Li Taige

What happens after the Olympics?

Taige Li — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:57:00 +0000

The environment has been a serious worry for the organisers of Beijing’s 2008 Olympics. China’s government may have this under control, writes Li Taige, but what about when the visitors leave?

With the 2008 Olympics less than a year away, Beijing’s environment has become the organisers’ biggest worry. Speaking to CNN, Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, said that poor air quality in the capital could mean endurance events like long-distance cycle races would have to be postponed. Guangzhou newspaper the Southern Daily went as far as to say that if improvements are not made, the Beijing Olympics may be the most polluted ever.

However, the Chinese government is now doing everything within its power to ensure environmental quality for the Games, and the worries may be unnecessary. Starting on August 17, Beijing implemented a four-day restriction on car use. Vehicles with a license plate ending in either an odd or even number were forbidden to enter the city on any one day; the measure was estimated to have kept 1.3 million cars off the road each day. Beijing’s Environmental Protection Monitoring Centre tested the air to see what effect the changes had, and the lessons from this experiment will be applied during the Olympics. Measures on this scale are rare and demonstrate the determination and power of the government.

Moreover, this is only one of the temporary measures planned for the Olympics. Beijing’s Legal Daily reported that in the two months before the Games some factories will be forced to stop production, building sites will cease work and even Beijing’s surrounding provinces of Shanxi, Tianjin, Hebei and Inner Mongolia will have to bring air pollution under control.

After the Games

It seems Beijing is revising its plans for improving air quality during the Games. Du Shaozhong, deputy director of Beijing’s Environmental Protection Agency, did not reveal specific details when he was interviewed on August 13, but he did say that during the Olympics, “strict measures will be implemented to reduce vehicle emissions, building site dust and other sources of air pollution.”

However, while it is quite plausible that these temporary measures will ensure good air quality for the 2008 Olympics, what about when the Games finish?

Beijing Shougang – the steel company that was at one time the city’s major polluter – has moved out of the capital, and now vehicle emissions are the main source of air pollution. But the government has encouraged the car industry and the public’s desire to own a car. The number of private vehicles is expanding at an astonishing pace, as it is in every Chinese city. In May this year there were 3 million vehicles in the capital, the majority of them privately owned.

Water crisis

However, it is Beijing’s chronic water shortages that present the city with its greatest challenge. The capital has 300 cubic metres of water per head annually, far below 1,000 cubic metres – the internationally recognised standard for water scarcity. To ensure that the capital has enough to drink, provinces such as Shanxi and Hebei – which already face shortages – have been forced to pipe in their water. And water consumption and pollution will only increase with the construction of the Olympic venues, the Games themselves, the building of an accompanying infrastructure and the construction that arises from an expected increase in GDP.

The office responsible for the South-to-north Water Transfer has said the stretch from Shijiazhuang to Beijing will be ready in time for the Olympics, and that water will be moved from four reservoirs in Hebei province to Beijing in the case of emergency. The central section of the project starts in Mujiangkou Reservoir, in Hubei province, and ends in Beijing.

But even this is not enough to quench Beijing’s thirst. Shi Qianyi, professor at Tsinghua University and a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, wrote in China Environmental News in 2000 that this will only provide 1 billion cubic metres of water annually – and at a cost that consumers will find hard to accept. She warned: “if the problems of water scarcity and pollution are not solved, we may end up worrying about moving the capital.” Niu Youcheng, the capital’s deputy mayor, admitted in September last year that with the Beijing’s ever-growing population, water scarcity was the main factor limiting urban development.

Challenges for the capital

It is astounding that a city with such extreme water shortages is expanding at the speed it is; Beijing’s population stood at 15.81 million at the end of 2006. It also attracts a large number of migrant workers from around China, with the population increasing 430,000 between 2005 and 2006 – the equivalent of a medium-sized city every year. This worsens congestion and air pollution, as well as increasing the pressure on water resources. In this sense at least, Beijing is not developing in a sustainable manner.

And the Olympics have only added fuel to Beijing’s fire. Holding the Games in Beijing is a good thing for China – and for the entire world. But sometimes I wonder why Beijing bid for the games, rather than another city with a smaller population and greater water resources. The capital is confident it will ensure adequate water and air quality for the Olympics, but does it feel the same about dealing with the city’s environmental burdens when the spectators and athletes leave?

Du Shaozhong said that improving air quality is not only about the Olympics, but it should also benefit the city’s 15 million residents. However, maintaining air quality after the Olympics will be a Herculean task. Car owners can take the bus for a few days, but they will not leave their beloved vehicles at home forever. Temporary measures – such as taking over a million cars off the road, closing down factories and building sites – can hardly become permanent.

Whatever happens, policy-makers can draw on the Olympic experience. For instance, if taking cars off the road has a real impact on air quality and congestion, more parking places in city outskirts and increased parking costs in the centre will encourage drivers to use public transport to reach the city centre.

China could also consider decentralisation. This would see the government use administrative orders and market mechanisms to move organisations and companies out of Beijing to the city’s satellite towns like Tongzhou and Shunyi. Employees could afford to live locally and would not need to commute to central Beijing, reducing the pressure on the capital’s environment. Or they could be moved out of the city environs altogether. Beijing is not only the capital; it is a political, economic and cultural centre. However, it has failed to spur the economic and cultural development of its surrounding areas. And with the city suffering from water scarcity, why not encourage organisations and people to move elsewhere?

There are many other measures that could be taken. Nobody wants clear water and blue skies to be short-lived benefits of the Olympics. Perhaps our decision-makers need to start thinking now about how these improvements can be maintained.

Li Taige is a Beijing-based journalist. He obtained a masters degree in engineering from Sichuan University in 1997, and studied as a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 2003-2004.

Investing in a better environment

Taige Li — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:58:00 +0000

Fighting climate change and making China energy efficient will require billions of yuan in investment. Why then, asks Li Taige, are the country’s investors still caught up in the property market?

“Three days ago, the Chinese government published plans for developing renewable sources of energy,” Li Xiaoqiang, vice-chair of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, said on September 7 at Dalian’s “summer Davos” meeting. “By 2020, China will increase the portion of renewable resources in its total energy consumption to 15%, up from the current 7.5%. This means we need to invest at least 200 billion euros [around US$285 billion] in renewable energy.”

But China needs to invest far more than 200 billion euros – perhaps even 10 times that figure – in energy-saving technology and environmental protection. According to estimates by the International Energy Agency in its World Energy Outlook 2006, China will need to invest US$3.7 trillion (around 2.6 trillion euros) in new energy sources between now and 2030. Investment on this scale will clearly involve long-term planning.

Shi Zhengrong, however, is an example of how to seize this opportunity. Shi studied in Australia under Martin Green, a solar energy scientist and professor at New South Wales University, and returned to China in 2001 to found the company Suntech. Despite the lack of a domestic market, it has become the world’s fourth-largest manufacturer of solar energy products, 98% of them for export.

It has made Shi very rich. Suntech went public on the New York Stock Exchange in December 2005; in May the following year Shi topped New Fortune’s list of the 500 richest people in China, having amassed a 15 billion yuan (almost US$2 billion) fortune.

But the wealthy of China have not rushed to invest in renewable energy. In April, when New Fortune published its 2007 list, Shi had fallen to fifth place, despite his wealth increasing by 2.66 billion yuan (US$354 million). Of the eight richest people in China, he is the only one not to have made his fortune in real estate. China’s richest person is now Yang Huiyan, worth 45.5 billion yuan (around US$6 billion) and the majority shareholder in Bilin Holdings.

Real estate tycoons owe their fortunes to the fever in China’s property and stock markets, not to technological innovation or environmental protection.

In the rest of the world, the environment is a hot new area for venture capital investors. But not in China. It is a high-tech – and high-risk – undertaking, unlike the real estate sector, where low risks and high profits are the order of the day. As one property developer admitted to Southern Weekend, “the profits we make are embarrassing.”

“[China’s] investment environment is getting worse,” said Lang Xianping, an economist at Hong Kong Chinese University, in August. Investment from private entrepreneurs is less than 20% of that in developed countries. Lang explains: “houses bought two years ago are worth 10 or 20 million yuan extra today, while working hard on a business will only bring you a 5% return on investment.”

“Without a transparent and open market,” an expert on science and technology from the Chinese Academy of Sciences told me, “companies can make money by relying on relationships, insider trading and exchanging building plots. Why would they bother with new technology?”

The Chinese government, at all levels, has a duty to create an environment that will reward investment in energy efficiency, environmental protection and innovation. The central government is already aware how urgently China needs to reduce power consumption, cut pollution and combat climate change. But local officials are still busy selling off land and assisting power-hungry, polluting enterprises for the sake of local GDP growth – or a chance to pocket the proceeds.

“Some of our colleagues continue to view GDP as crucial,” said Wan Gang, the minister for science and technology, speaking on September 10 at the China Scientists Association conference in Wuhan. “Reducing power consumption and pollution are viewed as optional extras. Policy support, working mechanisms and supervision are still completely lacking.”

We should not target anyone who legally invests in real estate. But China needs investment in energy efficiency, the environment and the low-carbon economy. Wan put it well. “Our natural resources are threatened, the environment is under too much pressure and the people are unhappy.”

Fortunately, the investment environment may be starting to change, with sustainable investment gradually becoming more popular.

A company named PowerU has developed a new energy-saving technology for central air-conditioning systems. It supplies its chilled water storage technology at no cost to the user – taking only half of the energy costs saved as a service fee. PowerU has received investment from Tsing Capital’s China Environment Fund and Siemens Investment.

PowerU’s technology is in use in airports, hotels, shopping malls and factories in China. The technology helped bring annual electricity costs down by 2 million yuan at one shopping mall in Wuhan, CCTV reported in October 2006. Miao Wei, the party secretary for Wuhan, indicated the city may start charging heavy energy users more, and use the extra money to fund the new power-saving technology.

Of course, not all energy-saving technology is mature enough to provide benefits for both company and client. If environmental costs such as carbon emissions are not considered, new technology often appears uncompetitive during its early stages. In these cases, besides government support, we need business to have a strong sense of social responsibility, the ability to develop new technology – and patience.

Hopefully one day, rather than property tycoons, there will be more people like Shi Zhengrong on China’s rich lists.

In reality, the real estate sector and energy-saving are closely linked. Ninety-nine percent of all China’s buildings are classed as large energy consumers, and buildings account for 27% of all of the country’s energy consumption. Power consumption by building area is three times that of developed countries. While property developers are busy making their money, they should also give some thought to the environment.

China & India: hard choices in a divided world

Taige Li — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:46:00 +0000

Climate change will have a disastrous impact on the world's poor, says a UN report. As key climate talks in Bali draw near, how should India and China approach an increasingly divided world? Li Taige reports.

“The World Toilet Summit was held in New Delhi on October 31,” read a text message sent to me by a colleague in Beijing. “According to the World Health Organisation, 2.6 billion people do not have access to ‘improved sanitation’ – more than half of them in China and India.” My friend thought it was a joke, but in fact three years ago Beijing played host to the World Toilet Summit.

The World Toilet Organization (known as the WTO, but not to be confused with the World Trade Organization) chose the right location when it opted to hold its summit in India. India is the world’s most toilet-poor nation, even more so than China. It is hard to find a public toilet on the streets of New Delhi, but you see plenty of men standing against walls relieving themselves. In a sense, the state of a nation’s toilets reflects the state of its economy and society.

Hundreds of millions of Indians continue to live in poverty, with no access to adequate sanitation or domestic conveniences. An Indian government report, India: Addressing Energy Security and Climate Change, says 600 million Indians have no electricity – a figure equal to the combined populations of the EU and the US.

And China finds itself in similar circumstances. Speaking at an NGO workshop on climate change negotiations held in Beijing on November 18, Lu Xuedu, deputy director general at the Ministry of Science and Technology’s Office of Global Environmental Affairs, said that according to the UN standard of US$1 a day, China still has at least 200 million people living in poverty. “There’s a village by the Miyun Reservoir which I have visited three times,” said Lu. “The poverty there is appaling. Wangfujing [a major shopping street] in Beijing and the Bund in Shanghai do not give you the whole picture.” The Miyun Reservoir is less than 100 kilometres from central Beijing.

It is facts like these that have led India and China’s governments to refuse to commit to reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. Professor Zou Ji, deputy dean at Remin University’s School of Environment and Natural Resources, is a member of China’s delegation to UN climate change talks. At one heated point at the COP11 climate-change negotiations in Montreal in 2005, he told delegates: “It cost tens of thousands of yuan for me to get here – enough to support a rural Chinese family for years. Why am I here? To represent the Chinese people. Come and see how many Chinese people do not have air-conditioning in summer or heating in winter . . . We need to improve the conditions they live in, and of course that will mean more emissions. These are essentials, not luxuries!”

But international calls for China and India to undertake emissions reductions are becoming stronger. On December 3, UN climate change talks will open in Bali. It is expected that the US and other developed countries will continue to put pressure on the world’s most populous developing nations. Even the ever-cautious UN has called for more action from China and India. On November 27, the UN Development Programme published its 2007/2008 Human Development Report, Fighting climate change: human solidarity in a divided world. The report recommends that developed countries reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions by between 20% and 30% by 2020, and 80% by 2050. Major emitters among developing countries should aim for their emissions to peak by 2020, and to fall 20% by 2050.

This report was edited by Kevin Watkins, director of the UN's Human Development Report Office, who reportedly said at a reporters’ workshop held a month prior to publication: “We suggest rich countries take deep cuts of 80% from their present level of emissions and other countries (including India and China) take on targets as well. Rich countries should provide the finances for these countries to achieve their targets”

Sunita Narain, from India’s Centre for Science and Environment expressed surprise: “If the UN is saying this, it is a regressive stand.” Narain believes that developing countries should not be required to reduce emissions, but that developed countries should provide the funding framework for them to leapfrog to clean technologies.

As a Chinese journalist, I do not believe China and India should undertake to cut emissions at this stage. But the two nations should do their best to play a more constructive role.

In fact, the Chinese government has already taken a number of measures to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions. As Lu Xuedu pointed out, the Chinese government has set a target of a 20% reduction in energy consumption per unit of GDP between 2006 and 2010 – equivalent to saving of 600 million tonnes of coal. “That would be unthinkable in some western countries, and it is not easy to achieve,” said Lu.

China was also the first developing country to publish a national plan of action on climate change – in June this year. For this reason, Ban Ki-Moon, the UN secretary general, singled out China for praise at a press conference in November to mark the release of the fourth report from the International Panel on Climate Change.

The Chinese government in September launched a nationwide campaign to persuade citizens to reduce their emissions and energy usage. This is no doubt praiseworthy, but could China also ask some of its citizens – the rich, for instance – to make a greater contribution than just voluntary behavioural changes?

Both China and India have massive gaps between rich and poor, though the situation in India is even worse than in China. In New Delhi and Mumbai, skyscrapers contrast with slums, many cannot afford even to take a bus. Yet as a friend from Mumbai told me, the tycoon Mukesh Ambani is in the process of building a 27-storey mansion – with its first six storeys alone allocated for parking.

China has 345,000 residents with assets over US$1 million, according to October's Merrill Lynch and Capgemini "Asia-Pacific Wealth Report", second only to Japan -- and up 7.8% on last year. India has 100,000 millionaires, up 20.5% on last year.

As the Human Development Report says, we live in a divided world. According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, rich and poor nations have common but differentiated responsibilities. Is the same also true for the rich and poor citizens of developing nations?

Homepage photo by Saad.

Did China win at Bali?

Taige Li — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:14:00 +0000

In taking the lead at recent climate-change negotiations, China puts itself at the forefront of the fight against warming, but also opens itself to greater international scrutiny. Li Taige reports.

Developing countries, including China, were the winners of recent UN-led climate change talks in Indonesia, said a recent commentary in the influential Chinese newspaper Southern Weekend. But can China really claim victory in December’s complex negotiations?

Unlike earlier meetings of the signatories to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), China went on the attack at Bali. In a speech [pdf] on the first day, Su Wei, deputy head of the Chinese delegation, proposed replacing the current dialogue with a working group that would discuss emissions reductions by developed nations. It was a suggestion clearly aimed at the US, which has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but remains bound by the UNFCCC.

“For developing countries,” Su Wei said, “they should contribute more to undertake policies and measures to address climate change, and the developed countries must provide financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building in this regard.”

Meanwhile, Xie Zhenhua, the head of the Chinese delegation, said in an interview that developing nations, including China, should use finance from developed countries and technology transfer to “slow the rate of growth of greenhouse-gas emissions, in accordance with their national circumstances.”

Observers noted that this was the first time China had proposed substantive undertakings for developing nations and laid out a formal solution to the problems posed by America’s stance on Kyoto. The delegation had prepared its proposals in advance, Su Wei told Chinese reporters, to push negotiations forward and increase the likelihood of genuine progress.

This change in China’s attitude won praise from many quarters. “Many developing countries, united in the G77 plus China, have come to Bali with considerable ambition and are showing flexibility,” said Hans Verolme, director of WWF’s Global Climate Change Programme.

China’s proactive stance at Bali was rooted in the country’s domestic effort to reduce emissions and energy consumption. China has “pledged to reduce energy consumption (per unit of gross domestic product) by 20% over five years” noted UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon in the Washington Post, “not far removed, in spirit, from Europe's commitment to a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.”

The Chinese delegation displayed unprecedented levels of activity at Bali. The delegation held meetings with staff from NGOs including WWF, Greenpeace, the Climate Group and the Heinrich Böll Foundation. Two small meetings were also held with the Chinese press.

China’s public-relations strategy left room for improvement, however. Many people in other countries are unaware of the country’s work in dealing with climate change and cutting emissions and energy consumption. China has “done a lot, but talked little,” admits Su Wei. The foreign press was very keen to interview Chinese representatives at Bali, but the delegation had no-one appointed to deal with the mea and did not hold any open press conferences.

On the last day of the talks, DPA, the German news agency, reported that China and India were obstructing negotiations. This aggrieved members of the Chinese delegation, who were prompted to discuss better communication with the foreign media and the importance of providing accurate information.

In fact, it was Nobel-prize winner and former US vice-president, Al Gore, who identified the US as the main obstacle to climate-change negotiations when he spoke at Bali. But at the last moment, the US delegation approved the “Bali road map”. Over the next two years, talks will take place that aim to reach a concrete agreement by 2009 on the international community’s response to climate change after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

The Bali road map is the result of a compromise. Opposition from the US, Japan and Canada meant China and the EU’s call for developed countries to reduce emissions by 25% to 40% on 1990 levels by 2020 were not explicitly included. However, the US is now on board – and future negotiations can continue to take on the issue of its obligations.

According to the road map, developing countries will receive technology, finance and capacity building from developed nations in exchange for measurable, reportable and verifiable actions to reduce emissions. And thanks to efforts by representatives from developing nations, the finance, technology transfer and capacity building provided by the developed world must also be “measurable, reportable and verifiable.”

China needs finance to fight climate change, but it needs technology more. The developed world has an obligation to transfer clean technology to developing countries under the UNFCCC, and a duty to assist developing countries in their own technology research. Talks on this process have made little headway, but Bali saw some progress. There are, of course, still major differences between the developed and developing world, and negotiations will not be easy.

The EU and developing nations like China and India were the eventual winners at Bali, said Time magazine, while the US lost – managing to concede its position on the road map, while still appearing “selfish and churlish”. From the “selfish” point of view, the US may not have lost: its delegation fought for the country's national interests. But the Bush administration’s stance is also coming in for increasing criticism at home, from citizens who want to see the US playing a bigger role in international negotiations on climate.

China’s commitment, along with other developing countries, to discuss adopting “measurable, reportable and verifiable” measures to slow its emissions is not equivalent to developed nations’ undertakings on emissions cuts, but it will undoubtedly bring huge pressure to bear on their economies and societies.

China is already taking action to slow its growth in emissions, but however the climate-change negotiations shape up, the Chinese economy will need to change. Whether or not the US ratifies the Kyoto Protocol and commits to emissions cuts, says Xie Zhenhua, “China will continue to take active measures in reducing emissions and power consumption and dealing with climate change.”

However, say analysts, the road map's call for “verifiable” action on climate change by developing nations means that China’s statistics will be tested for their credibility. Therefore, China needs the foresight to put in place internationally recognised standards for appraisal.

Acting on climate change means joint action from the international community: no country can act alone. For China to be a winner in the end, it needs to uphold its own interests, make the switch to a greener economy and make a larger – and more open - contribution to the global fight against climate change.

Homepage photo by iyers

Crisis at Poyang Lake

Taige Li — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:32:00 +0000

Dam projects, pollution and climate change threaten the future of China’s largest freshwater lake. Li Taige reports from Jiangxi province.

China’s last remaining expanse of clean water, Poyang Lake, faces a crisis. Not only is the lake drying up, but the little water left behind is polluted.

Once known as Pengli, Poyang Lake is in the northern part of east China’s Jiangxi province. During the wet season, the lake covers over 4,000 square kilometres.Water feeds in to the lake from the Gan, Fu, Xin, Rao and Xiushui rivers and flows out again into the Yangtze River. The river basins of these waterways cover 97% of the province’s land area.

Jiangxi is one of the poorer provinces in eastern China, and this may explain why the lake has escaped major industrial pollution so far. Of China’s four major freshwater lakes – the others are Dongting Lake, Taihu Lake and Hongze Lake – it is the only one not to suffer eutrophication.

Every year Poyang Lake sees extreme variation – of 10 metres or more – in its water levels. It is known for its wide expanse of clear water in times of flood, but it shrinks dramatically in the dry season, becoming little more than a river.

Varying water levels are nothing new, but recent years have seen a succession of new lows. The dry season is also getting longer. The water level used to reach its lowest point in January or February; now this happens in December or even earlier.

Jiangxi is a water-rich province. However, the areas around Poyang Lake are starting to suffer from water shortages. In October 2006, the drinking water inlet for Duchang county was left dry by the retreating lake.

The province’s drying rivers and lakes are like an illness, said Tan Huiru, a researcher at the Mountain-River-Lake Development Office for Jiangxi province. “Floods are rapid and violent like an acute sickness,” he said, “but the shortage of water in an ecosystem is more like a chronic disease. The damage it causes to wetlands will take a long time to repair.”

Experts point to a number of factors that are driving the increased water shortages, including climate change and decreased flows from upstream rivers.

The Three Gorges Dam (see “The Three Gorges: a wiser approach”) is also a major factor affecting Poyang Lake and the ecology of its water basin. Speaking at the Second Yangtze Forum in April 2007, deputy governor of Jiangxi, Xiong Shengwen, said that the dam had caused a “historical change in the relationship between the Yangtze and Poyang Lake.”

Some experts also say that as the Three Gorges Dam reduces water levels along the Yangtze River, the volume of water flowing out of Poyang Lake and into the river will increase. In September last year, the Three Gorges Dam started storing water at the end of the flood season. Several days later the Jiangxi Water Bureau found that 6,000 cubic metres of water per second were flowing out of the lake and into the Yangtze. At the same time, only 1,000 cubic meters per second were feeding into the lake from its tributaries.

Caijing magazine reported a retired senior water engineer from Jiangxi, Xiong Dakan, saying the erosion of upstream riverbeds and siltation at the lake’s mouth due to the Three Gorges Dam could have disastrous consequences for flood prevention efforts in the next 30 years.

The impact of the Three Gorges Dam on water shortages and flood prevention needs further research. The Jiangxi Water Sciences Institute took the lead in December last year by launching an assessment of the impact of the Three Gorges Dam on Poyang Lake and its tributaries. The conclusions of that report are eagerly awaited.

But it is not just the quantity of water that is a problem; quality is also an issue.

Seven years ago Poyang Lake had clear waters. In 2001, the water was classed as Category I or II on 80% of tests; it was Category III in the remaining 20%. These are the top three classes in China’s scale of water quality. This meant the water in Poyang Lake was suitable to drink all year round.

By September 2007, however, a provincial monitoring centre found no Category I or II water in 10 locations in the lake. (The water was at its normal level for the time of year and covered 3,000 square kilometres). The water was Category III in 60% of tests. The remaining 40% was Category IV: lightly polluted water. In December 2007 and January 2008 – when the water level was at a record low and the lake covered only 40 square kilometres – monitors found the water flowing from the lake in to the Yangtze was Category V: heavily polluted water.

In the last few years county towns in Jiangxi have stepped up efforts to attract investment. Many new industrial zones have been established and heavy polluters from richer provinces, such as Jiangsu and Zhejiang, have also started to relocate to Jiangxi. Rules on pollution are often breached. In many locations, the construction of water treatment plants is only just beginning. Poyang Lake has become the cesspit of the entire province.

Additionally, sand-dredging and the over-planting of trees are damaging the ecology of the region. Since 2003, many towns in the area have started large-scale planting of poplar trees. This fast-growing wood creates an income for both planters and the local government.

However, the poplars suck water out of the soil and leave other plants thirsty, threatening the survival of the lake’s wetlands. Large single-species forests are more susceptible to pests and disease. Experts are worried about the rash of poplar planting on the shores of the lake.

For years people have exploited the lake; it has been left wounded and exhausted. Tang dynasty poet Wang Bo reflected on the songs of returning fisherman, which drifted along the banks of the lake in the evening. But you won’t hear them today: there are few fish and the fishing industry has suffered.

Thankfully, awareness of the situation is improving. Chinese premier Wen Jiabao ordered improvements in the water quality of the lake in April last year. The provincial government held a telephone conference later that month to launch the cleanup operation and help end destructive practices such as over-planting trees. Poplars planted in the Poyang Nature Reserve have been removed.

But uprooting trees isn’t enough. Now is the time to save the country’s last remaining expanse of clean water. Jiangxi’s problem is the same the whole of China faces: how to encourage economic growth, without damaging the environment.

Li Taige is a Beijing-based journalist. He obtained a master’s degree in engineering from Sichuan University in 1997, and studied as a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 2003-2004.

Is GM the answer to the food crisis?

Taige Li — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:36:00 +0000

As the price of food soars, countries are looking to the biotechnology industry to help increase harvests. But can genetic modification really increase yields? Li Taige investigates and finds further research is needed.

As global food prices continue to soar, biotechnology firms and advocates are lining up to argue that gene technology can solve the world’s food shortages.

China, too, has ambitions in the research and application of genetically modified (GM) crops. Government plans for the industry include the development of pest- and disease-resistant GM rice, rapeseed, maize and soy. Development of new GM crops is one of the 16 major projects listed in the country’s plan for mid- to long-term scientific and technological development (from 2006 to 2020). It will be China’s most expensive agricultural science undertaking of all time, with research focussing on yields, quality, nutritional value and drought-resistance.

So, can GM crops actually increase food production?

GM technology transplants novel genes into an organism in order to improve it in some way. In GM crops that are already being tested or commercially farmed, genes have been added to increase resistance to pests, disease and herbicides – but never to directly increase harvests.

However, these changes can – at least in theory – increase yields. This is the viewpoint taken by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications’ (ISAAA) 2007 report, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops, which says GM technology can increase production.

In India and China, fields of pest-resistant GM cotton need 50% less pesticide than non-GM strains. The technology has been responsible for harvest increases of 50% in India and 10% in China. The GM strain has an additional gene – known as Bt, for the Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria from which it originates – which produces a poison that kills off certain pests that attack cotton plants.

Cotton is not a food crop, but some argue that the same technology could also be used to increase maize production. In South Africa, Richard Sithole, chair of the Hlabisa District Farmers’ Union, reported that 250 poor, small-scale farmers planted GM maize with the Bt gene on their plots, which averaged at 2.5 hectares per household. His own harvests rose by 25%, worth an extra US$300, and some farmers reportedly saw increases of 40%.

Among all modified food crops, it is GM rice that is drawing the most attention. In China alone there are 110 million rice farmers, with an average 0.27 hectares of land per capita. The impact of increased harvests would be massive.

Iran is the only country to have approved the commercial growing of GM rice. But China has spent significant amounts on researching this area. Four pest-resistant strains have passed intermediary testing and environmental release trials, and are now undergoing large-scale planting trials – the forerunner of commercial use.

A research team led by Huang Jikun, head of the Centre for Agricultural Policy at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, carried out a survey of pre-production trials on two strains of pest-resistant rice. The ISAAA quoted this study as saying the strains could increase yields by between 2% and 6%, and reduce the use of pesticides by almost 80%.

However, a paper by Huang’s research group, published earlier this year in the journal Economic Development and Cultural Change, revised this claim. The villages where GM rice was planted did see an increase in harvests, they said, but households where both GM and non-GM rice were planted did not see any improvement. They say there is no evidence from randomised and controlled trials that GM rice does increase harvests.

One reason may be that the trials were not actually randomised; village officials may have chosen better farmers to participate in the tests. Whatever the reason, more research is needed before to ascertain whether pest-resistant rice increases yields or not. Even if it does not increase yields, but does reduce pesticide use and labour input – while presenting no health or environmental risks – then it will help to slow the rising cost of food.

There also may be a new hope for the use of GM rice to raise yields, as reported in a paper by Zhang Qifa and his research group at Huazhong Agricultural University, published in May 2008 issue of Nature Genetics. The research group discovered for the first time a single gene that controls stalk height, flowering time and the number and size of grains. Theoretically, this gene can be used to increase productivity. For now, however, this possibility only exists on paper.

Debate rages over the use of GM technology in other food crops besides rice. Some research has found that GM technology actually can result in smaller harvests. A recent study by Barney Gordon of Kansas University, published in Better Crops, found that yields from a Monsanto-produced strain of herbicide-resistant soy were 10% lower than from conventional varieties.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), which was produced by 400 experts from around the world over a period of three years, reflects this controversy. Limited research data on some GM crops in certain years show increased yields of 10% to 33%, while others see lower harvests. The report, therefore, makes a cautious assessment on whether GM crops can meet the increased demand for food. With GM technology developing rapidly, it says, long-term evaluations of the risks and benefits for health, the environment and the economy are lagging behind.

The IAASTD report has been accepted by 57 nations, including China. The Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper, interpreted the report as saying that GM technology did not offer a solution to food shortages. However, the IAASTD did not entirely reject the idea that GM has a role to play, but warned against over-simplifying the problem or relying too heavily on GM crops. A multi-pronged approach is needed, the report said, including further agricultural research and the continuation of local agricultural practices. It also warned that patents on GM technology can have negative effects, such as obstructing independent scientific research and the freedom of small farmers to make their own choices.

In truth, it is wise neither to simply advocate GM technology nor to oppose it entirely.

The technology is already becoming one of the major characteristics of modern agriculture. As it develops, we need independent and objective research, the prompt and full release of information and the participation of all stakeholders.

To discover whether GM crops really can increase yields, we may need to copy the randomised controlled trials that are used in medical research and carry out analysis of actual case studies. Only then will we have a convincing answer.

Homepage photo by CaptPiper

In China, the death of a mountain town

Taige Li — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:37:00 +0000

Landslides and mudslides in the Beichuan region added to the high death toll in May’s earthquake. Now, writes Li Taige, familiar warnings are being heard. Will historic errors be repeated?

The most shocking of the many tragedies of the Sichuan earthquake on May 12, 2008, was that of the town of Qushan, the county seat of Beichuan.

The quake left the town virtually flattened. Official statistics put the dead and missing at 13,000 – out of a population of only 40,000. The town is no longer habitable, and a memorial is to be built on its ruins.

Beichuan, the only Qiang-nationality autonomous county in China -- and under the jurisdiction of Mianyang municipality -- suffered not just from the tremors themselves but also from the landslides and mudslides triggered by the quake. If these geological-disaster risks had been considered when the county seat was located here or as it expanded, the destruction may not have been so total.

Beichuan before the earthquake

Beichuan lies in the north-west of the Sichuan basin, and has a history stretching back 14 centuries. However, the county’s administrative centre was moved to Qushan just over 50 years ago, in 1952. Why this was done is unclear, but one theory is that Qushan’s better outside links meant quicker reinforcements could arrive when bandits were at large.

The move, as the future would prove, was a mistake. Qushan lies in a narrow valley between steep mountains, and landslides are common in the area. Even without earthquakes, it is a dangerous place to live.

In an article published in 1992, Zhang Defan of Mianyang’s water management authorities pointed out that Qushan’s steep mountainsides, location on a fault line and complex geological conditions caused repeated landslides and mudslides. When the county seat was relocated, Qushan was home to only 500 people. Of course, the problems continued after the relocation.

In the 1980s, experts pointed out the risks of the location -- on the Longmenshan fault and between mountains. The locals started to worry that one day those mountains would bury them.

According to Caijing magazine, in the late 1980s the county authorities once suggested moving the administrative centre again – to the town of Leigu, which lies on flatter ground and indeed saw fewer deaths and less damage in the May earthquake. But funding for the relocation was not forthcoming and the experts could not decide if the move was necessary or not. The plans did not go ahead.

In his report, based on results of a survey of the area, Zhang Defan said that “the surrounding mountains are stable, and there is no chance of a collapse destroying the town.”

So the idea of moving the county seat was gradually forgotten, and the town continued to grow. But land was scarce. Qushan is surrounded by mountains and water, and there was only about a square kilometre of land available for building. A new part of the town was founded across the Jian River at Maoba. But Maoba itself lies at the bottom of a mountainside and is, again, a dangerous location. Despite this, plans for rapid expansion of the town were approved. By the end of 2005, it covered 1.6 square kilometres and had provincial approval for plans to expand to 4.1 square kilometres by 2020.

But the risks were not entirely forgotten. Materials from Beichuan’s Land Bureau show concerns about potential landslides and a number of reports were made to the provincial government. In 2004, work was carried out on the mountainside at Wangjiayan in the old town. In 2005, Wangjiayan was listed as a provincial-level project, winning funding of 1.52 million yuan (more than US$220,000). And in July 2006, work on columns to stabilise the slope, retaining walls and drainage was completed.

But when hit by such a huge earthquake, the value of these works was limited. Beichuan was buried.

As one survivor, who lost more than ten relatives in the quake, said: “If the mountainside hadn’t collapsed, not so many would have died.” Wang Zifa, head of the China Earthquake Administration’s Institute of Engineering Mechanics (IEM), said in an interview with Science and Technology Daily that half of the losses in Beichuan were due to the landslides.

Two thirds of China’s land is mountains and hills. Add in rain that tends to fall heavily over a small area, and landslides become a more frequent problem than earthquakes.

The mistakes made in Beichuan should not be repeated – but the existing situation is worrying. The locations of many towns and villages have not been well chosen.

In recent years the Chinese government has spent several billions of yuan on preventing landslides in and around the Three Gorges Dam, the world’s largest. But in many areas, funding is inadequate, if not severely lacking.

And to add to these existing dangers, new risks still are being taken. In some mountain areas, the geological conditions are ignored and towns are built on already unstable hillsides – raising the risk of disaster.

The tragedies that occurred in Wulong and Tengchong in recent years are cases in point.

On May 1, 2001, a landslide destroyed a residential building in Wulong county in Chongqing municipality, killing 79 people. Part of the hillside had been removed to build a road, and private developers had excavated further in order to make room for the building.

On July 19, 2007, a mudslide near a hydroelectric plant in Tengchong county in Yunnan province buried barracks housing construction workers, killing 29 people. The China Institute of Geo-Environment Monitoring (CIGEM) blamed “engineering work”.

The destruction of Beichuan has sounded another warning. As Xu Qiang, deputy head of Chengdu University of Technology’s geohazard prevention laboratory, said in an interview with Caijing, landslide risk management and control must be made an integral part of urban planning and construction in mountainous areas.

Li Taige is a Beijing-based journalist. He obtained a master’s degree in engineering from Sichuan University in 1997 and was a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 2003-04.

“Energy-efficient” buildings? Not always

Taige Li — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:12:00 +0000

New climate-controlled edifices in China are promoted as eco-friendly and desirable. But, writes Li Taige, researchers in Beijing have found that high-tech can mean high energy use – and no fresh air.

A friend of mine lives in Beijing Tiptop International Apartments, one of the city’s high-end residential complexes. One of the building’s features is a climate-control system that maintains a constant temperature and humidity.

But such comfort does not come cheap. He pays 8,000 yuan (about US$1,170) a month for his two-bedroom apartment -- no small price.

The apartments are five years old and known for their use of energy-saving technology. According to the property developers, the building was China’s first “high-comfort, low-energy” project. Temperatures are kept at between 20° and 26° Celsius (68° and 78.8° Fahrenheit) without the need for individual air-conditioning units or radiators, and the ventilation system is said to provide health benefits. The project also claims to be “the first building in China to reach European energy-saving standards” -- and to have “caused a sensation, with 1,300 media reports”.

The Tiptop is not the only Beijing building to use climate control as a selling point. Other examples include the Modern Group’s Moma buildings. The Grand Moma (Linked Hybrid) residences, Shangdi Moma and even the villa community of Forest Forever Moma all boast constantly controlled temperature and humidity.

For a long time I’d been a supporter of these buildings. After all, they save energy and still ensure a pleasant environment. However, after reading the 2008 Annual Report on Chinese Energy Efficiency, my opinion started to change.

Produced by Tsinghua University’s Building Energy Research Centre in Beijing, this report points out that if “energy-saving technology” is simply put in place without careful selection and management, energy use may not fall. In fact, it may increase substantially.

A residential building in Beijing is given as an example. A high-efficiency central air-conditioning system was installed to provide 24-hour climate control throughout the building. This was hailed as a fine example of energy saving. But in summer it uses eight times as much energy as traditional air-conditioning methods.

The report goes on to say that not only do these controlled environments fail to save energy, they also fail to be healthier, more comfortable or more convenient. A temperature of 26° is not the upper limit of comfort in the summer; it is the lower limit. A temperature of over 26° benefits health and reduces the illnesses that air-conditioning can cause. With natural ventilation, a temperature of 29° (84.2°) is most comfortable.

It seems there may be no benefit to the pursuit of constantly controlled environments.

Because the phenomenon of “energy-saving” buildings is not restricted to the residential sector, office complexes suffer the same problem. One office development in Beijing installed a number of solar water heaters. This is all very well, but the system used requires the water to circulate constantly. And the cost of running those pumps was almost as much as the cost of heating the water in the first place. This is hardly power saving.

A central government organisation refurbished its offices in 2003, replacing single-glazed windows with double-glazing for better insulation -- but the majority of the new windows could not be opened. The individual air-conditioning units in each room also were replaced with multi-room units, or “quasi-central air-conditioning”. The result was that the building’s energy consumption rose by 50%, with energy used for air-conditioning increasing fourfold. Even so, this is less consumption than that of many high-end government offices. Imagine how much energy is being wasted in all of Beijing’s other government offices.

The report also points out that the numerous large-scale and energy-hungry public buildings – government offices, concert halls, museums, transportation hubs and so on – have become a way of demonstrating economic prowess. The refitting of existing public buildings, too, is causing large increases in energy use.

The new China Central Television (CCTV) headquarters in Beijing in Beijing could be called bizarre in design, and their appearance has earned them the nickname of “the giant pants”, but every time I walk past them I find myself wondering how much energy the building will use when it is fully operational.

Simply installing energy-saving technology without thinking about how it will actually be used is not a practice unique to Beijing. At a discussion with the news media organised by the Climate Change Journalists Club, Jiang Yi – a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE) and professor at the Building Energy Research Centre – provided a number of examples from around China.

A solar energy firm in Wuxi in Jiangsu province employed a Dutch architect to design a 20,000-square-metre office building, using energy-efficient glass. However, the windows could not be opened, turning the building into a glass box that relies on a mechanised ventilation system. The building is equipped with solar panels, but the energy they supply is inadequate to power the ventilation system – hence a perfectly sound energy-saving mechanism has been wasted. The building is due to be completed this year, and may yet appear in the news media as another energy-efficient success.

At the end of last year, Yalong Bay in Hainan province started work on a huge central-cooling system. A modern refrigeration plant will deliver cold air to hotels in the area via a network of pipes – much as heating is delivered in the north of China. The project will cost 100 million yuan (US$14.5 million) and is Hainan’s first national-level energy-saving project. It is also said to be China’s largest central-cooling system. But Jiang has his doubts, suspecting that the project actually will increase energy consumption.

As the report makes clear, we can now create and maintain any environment we choose; we can do so in one of two ways: relying primarily on machinery or primarily on nature.

The “machinery-first” model uses artificial ventilation, air-conditioning and lighting to create the desired indoor environment. To do so on a global scale would require 30% more energy than is available – and it is not necessarily good for our health. For example, many “modern” buildings have few, if any, windows that can be opened, resulting in poor air quality and other problems.

A “nature-first” approach allows for ventilation via open windows and the use of natural light and shade, and when this is not adequate, supplementation with artificial means, such as heating. Climate control is adjusted in tandem with the environment.

So the researchers at Tsinghua hold that we should use that natural approach, improving living conditions without increasing power use. And this is the only option for real energy-saving buildings when we are faced with both scarce resources and huge environmental pressures.

I hope that my friend, and the rest of China, can realise the truth about China’s “energy-efficient” buildings.

Homepage photo by mediko83

Are “carbon-neutral” Olympics possible?

Taige Li — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:39:00 +0000

How can countries break new environmental records at sporting events? Li Taige considers the lessons learned during the Beijing Games and sees progress emerging from the Olympics.

The Olympics have finally drawn to a close, but debate over the “Olympic legacy” continues.

In an article for chinadialogue last year, I suggested that air quality during the Olympics would not be an issue because the Chinese government had both the desire and the means to implement any necessary measures at any price.

In accordance with my predictions, during the Olympics air pollution reached a 10-year low. The International Olympic Committee lavished great praise on Beijing's green efforts. But all we want to know is if it will last.

People are also asking whether or not the Beijing Olympics were “carbon neutral”.

In terms of this point, it is useful to note that it is hard even to find an accepted definition of carbon neutrality. Nevertheless, for the Beijing Olympics we could say that it means taking a range of measures to cancel out the extra greenhouse-gas emissions created during the event.

The 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin and the 2006 World Cup in Germany already provided models of climate protection for large sporting events.

According to an environmental assessment issued by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in November 2006, the Turin Winter Olympics caused the equivalent of 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) to be released, of which 70% were offset through investment in power-saving and renewable energy projects in Italy and tree-planting in Kenya.

The organisers of the World Cup said the event emitted 92,000 tonnes of CO2, with 100,000 tonnes offset through clean energy projects in India and South Africa. This made it the first ever carbon-neutral World Cup.

As a developing nation, China does not have the same obligation to reduce emissions as developed nations such as Italy or Germany. But the international community still hopes to see some action taken on climate protection from the Beijing Olympics.

In October 2007 a UNEP report called for the Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games (BOCOG) “to openly declare a commitment on climate change and offsetting.”

According to a report in Caijing magazine, BOCOG did not respond directly to this request. However, government authorities did subsequently calculate the carbon balance sheet for the games.

The initial results of these carbon calculations were revealed by China's science and technology minister at a press conference of the State Council in May 2008. During the Games, he said, the equivalent of an extra 1.18 million tonnes of CO2 would be released. However, a range of “green Olympics” measures, including technological fixes, tree-planting and restrictions on vehicles, would reduce emissions by between 1 million and 1.29 million tonnes in order to make the Games more-or-less carbon neutral.

Those calculations also showed that the single most effective emissions-reduction measure was the two-month long restriction on private vehicles on Beijing’s roads. This measure alone would cut carbon emissions by 850,000 tonnes. Technological solutions, such as the installation of solar panels at Olympic venues, were of relatively limited impact.

It is still hard to say if the Games will actually be carbon-neutral. After all, large quantities of data cannot be confirmed until after the Paralympics have concluded. It will be several months before we have final environmental impact reports from the Chinese government and UNEP.

There is also considerable disagreement over just how to calculate emissions, as well as which measures can be classified as offsetting carbon production.

Interestingly, just after the Olympic Games, the British Embassy in Beijing issued a press release saying that the 2012 London Olympics would aim to be the first “sustainable” Olympics, setting new standards for reducing the impact on the the climate.

This statement could be understood as saying that London does not consider the Beijing Olympics to have been “sustainable” and is not yet convinced that emissions have been offset.

But carbon neutral or not, the 2008 Games will leave a valuable legacy, the benefits of which are not just limited to Beijing.

As Greenpeace said in its report on the Games, After the Olympics: lessons from Beijing: “Many of Beijing’s environmental initiatives have set a good example for other Chinese cities to follow.”

For instance, in a report in Energy Policy, Wu Lisong and colleagues at the Circular Economy Institute at Beijing Aeronautics and Astronautics University described the Olympics as having accelerated Beijing’s efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Indeed, between 2001 and 2006 the capital reduced emissions by a total of 80 million tonnes of CO2.

The Olympics also have been accompanied by an increased awareness of climate change among both Chinese government officials and the public.

Beijing’s neighbouring province of Hebei has shut down a number of energy-hungry and polluting factories and is pushing forward with the development of clean energy sources such as wind power. Ji Zhenhai, head of the provincial environmental protection agency, wrote in the Hebei Daily that these measures will both improve the air in Beijing and promote the reduction of carbon emissions, laying the foundation for a shift to a low-carbon economy.

Some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) saw the Beijing Games as the ideal opportunity to promote issues of climate protection. The Environmental Defense Fund’s China office, the China Association for NGO Cooperation and BOCOG worked together on a “green travel” project encouraging the use of public transport and car-sharing. Using an online calculator, participants are able to calculate the CO2 they would save.

In my opinion, all these changes are more important than the supposed carbon neutrality of the Games themselves.

Homepage photo by guidofoc

Water, sun and dung

Taige Li — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:43:00 +0000

Environmental challenges make supplying the ever-growing population of Tibet with sufficient and sustainable electricity a logistical conundrum. Li Taige reports.

Puntso’s yard is piled high with dung – specifically, wind-dried dung.

The 68-year old is a herder in the village of Niangqu, in the Nagqu area of Tibet. The household uses dung for fuel for cooking and winter heating.

Dung is an essential part of Tibetan life and is Tibet’s most common form of biofuel. The 420,000 residents of the Nagqu area burn an estimated two million tonnes of dung per year.

The dung would make good fertilizer to help the grass in the pastures grow. Its use as a primitive fuel source causes pollution and breaks the link between grass and grass-eating animals.

Research by the Academy of Agricultural Science’s Institute of Agricultural Environment and Sustainable Development and the Nagqu Agriculture and Livestock Bureau has shown that about one half of the pastures in the area are damaged – 300 million mu (20 million hectares) of land. The burning of dung is believed to be one cause of this.

Yet there is no way that dung can meet Tibet’s ever-growing demand for energy.

The Tibetan economy has grown rapidly in recent years. Infrastructure such as the Qinghai-Tibet railway and Nyingchi Airport are now up and running; the population has grown from 1.51 million in 1970 to 2.68 million in 2005 and energy shortages are worsening.

There are fossil fuels under the Tibetan soil – reserves of tens of millions of tonnes of coal have been identified in the Nagqu, Chamdo and Kailash areas. But there are no plans to mine these reserves, due to environmental and other considerations.

Currently Tibet imports hundreds of thousands of tonnes of coal and oil every year to ensure fuel is available for vehicles and other needs. Some of Punsto’s neighbours have bought cars now.

But unlike other areas of China, Tibet does not have coal-fired power stations, and there is a shortage of electricity throughout the region – from Nagqu in the north, Nyingchi in the south-east and even the capital Lhasa.

Tibet University’s Agricultural College, located in Nyingchi, often suffers blackouts in winter, with the teachers saying that the last two years have seen the school resort to diesel-powered generators.

There is no doubt that obtaining adequate energy sources is a major issue for Tibet.

Several years back a 10,000 yuan (US$6,000) subsidy from the government allowed Punsto to install a solar panel. It provides enough power for illumination and several hours of television every evening.

Tibet has rich solar resources. In some areas government projects are attempting to replace traditional fuels such as dung and firewood with solar cookers and methane. So what role can solar power play in the provision of electricity?

Three years ago the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Electrical Engineering and Beijing Corona Co. built a 100 Kilowatt solar power station in Yangpachen. According to Corona engineer Lin Wei, this is the first solar power station to be hooked up to the electricity network – providing power for 150 households in Lhasa.

The project area is now the centre for renewable energy efforts in Tibet, and the government plans to build an even larger solar power station here.

Meanwhile in Nagqu, the government has funded solar panels in villages not connected to the power grid – Puntso’s family was one of the beneficiaries.

But solar power generating still has fatal flaws, including extremely high costs. The station in Yangbajing was not a commercial project; it was a trial supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology and the National Development and Reform Commission. All the funding came from government.

There are more solar power generators in Tibet than anywhere else in China, with hundreds at county or village level. But total generating capacity is no more than 9 megawatts. For the moment at least, the generation of electricity from solar power is unlikely to become widespread.

Solar power must also face the challenges from hydroelectric power.

A year ago, Punsto’s home was connected to an electricity network powered by hydropower. And the solar panel on his roof only supplies a few hundred watts of power – nowhere near enough to power appliances such as a refrigerator.

As herders’ homes have been connected to the electricity network, some solar panels are even falling into disuse – an awkward fact for a developing new source of energy.

Currently hydroelectricity is the rising star of Tibet’s energy sector. A 25-megawatt geothermal plant in Yangpachen once supplied 40% of Lhasa’s power. But with the construction of projects such as the pumped storage hydropower station at Yang Lake, that figure has dropped to only 10%.

And the construction of those hydroelectric plants is only getting started.

On the road between Lhasa and Nyingchi, I saw hydroelectric stations being constructed in Zhokha and Tiger Mouth, with the river having been dammed between precipitous cliffs.

These two plants are key parts of Tibet’s 11^th Five Year Plan electricity capacity project. Work on the 700 million yuan (US$ 102 million), 40-megawatt Zhokha plant started in June 2006. On September 26of the same year the first generator started operation. The Tiger Mouth project features Tibet’s largest single hydroelectric generator, and on completion the 1.3 billion yuan (US$185 million) plant will produce 100 Mw of power.

Alongside these large and expensive projects, there are also several smaller hydroelectric plants in Tibet. Along the road through Nyingchi’s valley, I even came across a 3-Kilowatt plant providing power for a forestry station with only one occupant.

The construction of these facilities is always controversial. But at the least, these stations can provide the people of Tibet with power. After all, it is only in the last two years that Punsto’s family have had electricity, and there are still hundreds of thousands who do not.

But in the rush to build these plants, Tibet must not overlook environmental impact assessments and protection, and the door should be left open to new energy sources such as solar power.