Hi chjy002tw, we've checked with the author and this was indeed a typo. It should have read salinisation or desiccation instead of desalinisation. There is less water inflow but the same evapotranspiration means the salt level increases. This has now been corrected. Thanks for pointing out the mistake.

In fact, ecological migration has caused considerable controversy in the United States, too, where migration problems have left a legacy which is still felt even today. China is so vast, with its numerous regions each boasting their own unique cultural heritage; solving ecological problems requires searching for answers relevant to each unique situation - not indiscriminately copying other countries' approaches. Cultural heritage and ecological legacy are both important treasures. We should not be so concerned with one that we neglect the other.

Ever since reading Liu Jianqiang's book "Heavenly Pearl", I have had a deeper understanding of the Tibetan regions and the Tibetan people, as well as their traditional way of life and history. According to this article, their reason for responding to the government's "Three Rivers Source Ecological Protection" policy is to protect the region's environment; this is most understandable. However, Tibetan herders have lived on those grasslands for generations, and have done so in harmony with the local environment. So, how can they be compared to the pika as a threat to the region's environment? In "Heavenly Pearl", it described how a lot of Tibetans are preserving their traditional way of life and unique customs; these traditions are exactly the reason why Tibetans have been able to live in harmony with nature.

To reiterate the issue the article raises at the end, the ecological migration policy forces these herders to change their way of life. Originally self-sufficient, these herders have become property-less, trying to eke out a living. Whilst some have the skills to scrape by, there are those worse off like Sonka in the article. The reason for their migration, he says, is to protect their environment, but how does this compare with the issue of maintaining a livelihood? If they were able to find adequate work after migrating, then this wouldn’t be an issue. However, this is not the case. Moreover, whether or not herders are the main reason for why the environment is suffering is still in doubt. Whether they are happy or not depends on how they themselves feel about it, however the article reveals that they don’t seem to be. Culture and values are at the mercy of our material world; to be more specific, at the mercy of the very grass, trees and rocks in our everyday surroundings. Whether Tibetans will have any descendants depends on their environment, however their culture and values will disappear or be eroded sooner or later.

Among sources of electric power, hydropower still holds a proportionally large percentage to the extent that a few years ago some places in southwest of China would definitely experience electricity cuts in the winter. Around the Beijing area the lack of water definitely presents a real problem.
But while we are trying to find a solution to solve the problem of total capacity, have we thought about the effectiveness of the utilization ratio? The seriousness of the waste of hydropower at the moment appears to be perfectly obvious. It's alarming that interest groups seem to forego larger benefits for small profits.

I think you make good points, Marusemi, but it is pretty clear that pro-dam government supported entities have a great advantage in terms of overall resources and especially in terms of controlling information relevant to decision making processes. With regard to the case I have discussed, the Chinese government has been quite unwilling to cooperate with independent entities seeking investigate the role of dam induced seismicity, for obvious reasons. Certainly your statement that renewables are "far less efficient" is debatable, especially when considering land use and risk elements. The 2008 Sichuan earthquake is far from the worst case. Had the Zipingpu dam collapsed, the losses of property would have been measured in the trillions of dollars and losses of life could have been in the millions. Such risks, even if remote, are not acceptable and are not a consideration with renewables. Nuclear power suffers from similar risk considerations.