Maybe China can improve its environment in 2016

Comments on Kerry Brown "China’s challenges in 2016", 4/02/2016

On the foreign policy front, the formal launch of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank should also qualify to be a very significant achievement.

The bilateral summit meeting between China and Taiwan, while highly symbolic, is questionable in terms of foreign policy achievement, particularly in the context of the anticipated change in the governing party from the Nationalist Kuomintang Party (KMT) to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in Taiwan and the subsequent confirmation in the January election. It was and still is unclear what purpose and effect of a meeting with a losing party.

While China, in 2016, faces the same very challenging task in term of rest its slowing economic growth in this year as in the last two years did, given the not so promising world economy and domestic rebalancing, maybe it is having a reasonably good opportunity to do something in improving the environment, particularly air quality when it forces the closure of some inefficient and high energy consuming plants in the steel and other industries. But the deficit in environment is so large, it would be difficult for people to feel it probably.

China probably needs a bit more active fiscal policy to arrest the slowing economic growth rate, although any fiscal stimulus must be well targeted.

While it has been a big thing inside China when it set up the Shanghai Free Trade Zone, it is unclear to me what that can really achieve, particularly in the context of economic rebalancing. It may improve the efficiency of importing, but that could also be a drag to domestic growth, as imports are subtracted from growth.

Thinking big for large population in Beijing

Comments on Mark Beeson "Thinking big in Beijing", 21/07/2015

Well, it seems very scary to think about it, particularly given the environmental problems such as air, water, soil and food pollutions so serious that cause many to die of pollutions, or as the consequences of pollutions.

However, the future may be much brighter in China, because the Chinese have realised the prices they have paid and are taking measures to rectify their mistakes including pollutions. Yes, it will take time to achieve and complete their goals, but nevertheless they have embarked on that road and are doing things in that direction.

Once pollutions are no longer a problem in China, who knows the so called megalopolis may or may not work.

Certainly, when the skyscrapers first appeared in large cities in America, its population was probably less than or about one tenth of China's current population. American large cities may have tens of million of population.

Now let's move to China with, let's say, ten times of Then America's population, maybe China will create proportionately greater cities, as long as it does not encounter serious dis-economy of scale when it scales up.

Of course, we are not used to that yet and in many countries it won't happen and won't have to happen. But some countries are different and so large, like China and India. Even in some countries, although their population may not as that large, the population density can be equally high. They, the Chinese or the Indians, may create a new way of living for human beings.

If the Americans created the currently prevailing large cities landscape in the past, China may pioneer a new horizon for the future of megalopolis cities.

PS: I went back to see what comments Mark Beeson's post had got on the day, 22/07/2015, following my initial comments and found the comments by Tony Xiao very interesting. What Xiao argued implies that Mark Beeson may have got the fact wrong based on incorrect understanding what is meant by the Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei project. Here is what Xiao had to say:

"The main thusts of the project is first to cap the populaion of Beijing at 23 million by 2020, second to raise the economic development of Hebei, third to move government non-core business and industry out of the Capital and fourth to coordinate the development of Northern ChinaAll the the major centres of Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei will be linked by rail, air and road transport hubs and two major express ring roads (7th ring road) one 1250 kms and one 940 kms long encompassing Beijing,Tianjin and Hebei cities are already under construction.Some of the 130 million urban population of Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei will need to relocate but most will wake up in their own beds once the project is realised. The price tag is estimated at 42 Trillion RMB.No-one is packing more people into a smaller space. The space is the same and so too the 130 million already there.A similar smaller scale proposal is being considerd for the Pearl River Delta."

I subsequently made further comments as follows:

Tony, what you are saying is that Mark Beeson got the fact wrong, based on a incorrect understanding of what it is meant by linking the few major cities together? In another word as you said, people will wake up after the completion of the proposed project in virtually the same beds and in the same locations, perhaps with relatively minor or few changes to where they live?

That would have been a huge oversight by Mark Beeson. I would rather suggest that is the result of misunderstanding due to a loss in translation/interpretation of Chinese to English.

China can no longer ignore its serious and worsening pollution problems

Comments on Yanshuang Zhang "China can’t smother growing public demands to clear the air", 4/03/2014, https://theconversation.com/china-cant-smother-growing-public-demands-to-clear-the-air-23811

I have heard of that London used to be the mist capital but don’t really know how bad it was back then. For example, how did it compare with the current situation in Beijing? Are there any data available for some meaningful comparison?
The current pollution in Beijing is likely to be much worse than that in LA, if the differences in the scale of industrial production, as well as urban construction between China now and the US back then are concerned.
While the emissions from cars in China particularly big cities like Beijing are obviously an important source of air pollution, I suspect that it is industrial production and possibly construction that are likely to outweigh the effects of car emissions. That may be particularly the case in comparative sense. Further, car making technology in terms of emissions control probably does not differ much for cars driven in China and those driven in industrialised countries (and I would suspect for that purpose petrol).
It is important to understand the major sources of pollution and the contribution of each major source, so policies are developed based on correct information and most effective in achieving the best outcomes. Unfortunately it appears that even China’s Ministry of the Environment does not yet have a satisfactory answer for that.
It is good that you mentioned an article entitled “China may continue to fog for 50 more years”. There is also a report on the Xinhuanet that the Ministry of Science and Technology states that it does not need 30 years to remedy the pollutions in China that was the time needed to do it from international experience, though no details was given why it would need less time to do so for China. That may be a reply to the argument/claim of fog to last for 50 more years.

I should attach a link to the particular post on the Xinhuanet, even though it is in Chinese: http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2014-03/04/c_126216229.htm
PS: While China has achieved remarkable economic growth since the early 1980s, it has also paid huge prices along the way with intolerable pollutions and increasing income inequality. Pollutions are a national disgrace. Air, water and soil pollutions, unfortunately, will plague China for a long time to come and people’s health will continue to be affected.

What should be the priority of environmental policy in China?

Comments on Adele C. Morris, Warwick J. McKibbin and Peter J. Wilcoxen "China’s carbon tax highlights the need for a new track of climate talks", 19/03/2013, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/03/19/chinas-carbon-tax-highlights-the-need-for-a-new-track-of-climate-talks/

While China’s announcement of a carbon tax should be welcomed and the authors’ suggestion of establishing a carbon price consultation mechanism is undoubtedly very useful, from an economics point of view, whether unilaterally imposing a carbon tax is the most optimal environmental policy for China or not is a question.
I would suspect that the marginal benefits of reducing its tangible air pollution and water pollution are likely to be higher than the marginal benefits of a general reduction in emissions, particularly when measured against the costs and measured in local rather than global terms and the fact that a reduction in air pollution also has an effect in reducing emissions.
But economics is economics and politics is politics. Should China adopt a carbon tax, it will be good for the world.

Rio+20 can it achieve anything?

Comments on Ruben Zondervan "

Rio+20: Take science seriously and change the process", 21/06/2012, https://theconversation.edu.au/rio-20-take-science-seriously-and-change-the-process-7804

While Rio+20 may have a much wider agenda in terms of sustainable development, the inability of the international community to reach an agreement of actions and policy framework on emissions, arguably the most pressing and important environment issue facing all human beings, suggests the large gathering is unlikely to achieve meaningful outcomes for the environment.
For emission and climate change issues, it is the rich and powerful countries that have been the obstacles to progress, out of their self interests because they have far greater per capita emissions than most other countries.
Until the international community can achieve a fair and workable agreement on emissions control there is no reason and justice for rich countries to press poorer countries to be responsible to the environment in their development and make sacrifices in getting a better world environment.

Do we really need a new climate change paradigm?

Comments on Mutsuyoshi Nishimura "In search of a new climate change paradigm" June 15th, 2012, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/06/15/in-search-of-a-new-climate-change-paradigm-2/

Nishimura asks the following question: “what kind of carbon market is needed?”
The answer is quite simple, yet the world at large seems unable to get it.
If it is true that “there is a strong consensus that imposing a price on CO2 emissions is the most cost-effective way to motivate all players to use less fossil fuels and move to low-carbon or non-carbon economic systems”, as Nishimura states, then isn’t a global price for carbon emissions and an equal per capita distribution of the revenue from pricing revenue simply enough to do the job?
Isn’t what is taught in economics to deal with pollution issues?
Most economists in the developed world including many of its national leaders and politicians should understand this, but few of them advocate this simple, efficient and effective method/policy. Why?
The answer is also simple, but I leave that to the readers.

Realistic and optimistic on Asia

Comments on Koh "

Three challenges to Asia’s global ascent", 9/03/2012, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/03/08/three-challenges-to-asia-s-global-ascent/

The three areas Koh listed are all very important issues that many Asian countries face, and should and must be dealt with sooner or later.

I somehow am confident and optimistic that those issues will be able to be dealt with and resolved in the due course.

Although I have been aware that Gini is high and has been on the rise in China and many people have used that as a big problem in the rapid growing Chinese economy, I didn't realise that Gini is 0.48 in Singapore. I think that China will pay more attention to inclusive growth and achieve better equity in terms of income distribution as its income level rises and as its labour force turns from surplus to relatively scarce especially in the context of rapid growth of the economy and of physical capital investment.

In terms of environment sustainability, it is likely that we will see gradual and significant improvement in some fast growing economies, especially China, as it's economy enters into a stage of extensive physical quantity growth to intensive quality and value growth phase. I think China, leaving aside urbanisation that will still be dominated by extensive physical growth, is very close to this critical transition. Besides, as income level rises, the relative value people place on environmental goods will rise so naturally from now on we are likely to see more "demand" for environmental goods relative to other goods.

Corruptions in many Asian countries are reported to be serious. However, I do believe that it is likely to decline and possibly significantly so in major large fast growing Asian countries, especially in China.

If China is one of the best representatives of Asian fast growing countries, especially when its size and share in those fast growing economies are concerned, my confidence and optimism in them to resolve those three issues seems to be justifiable.

Think outside the Murray-Darling Basin!

Comments on Graham Lloyd “Plans must stay true to use of scarce resource”, 9/10/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/plans-must-stay-true-to-use-of-scarce-resource/story-e6frg6xf-1225936209319
Given the reported costs to both farmers due to water cuts and the government due to water buy back, why don't the nation and indeed the Commission think outside the square to be creative and more cost effective and efficient in dealing with the environment?

The thinking should be outside the basin, not just within it!

For example, with those costs in mind, why can't the nation (the government) spend some money in getting water from the northern part of the country into the river system?

Australia is a dry continent. It pays to build water infrastructure to utilise natural rain water from the north. That will last forever and will be a true nation building project.


PS: The article starts with:
"IT is tempting to let the focus stray from the parlous state into which the river system was allowed to slip.

WITH the Murray-Darling Basin charged, birds returning to the wetlands and the rivermouth open to the sea for the first time in half a decade, it is tempting to let the focus stray from the parlous state into which the river system was allowed to slip.
Environmentally, the starting point of yesterday's report by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority that the river mouth remain open at least 90 per cent of the time is a good one.
Consistent flows are needed to preserve the health of the internationally important wetlands such as the Coorong and Lower Murray Lakes and ensure the continued overall health of the system."

Lessons from fox attacks on babies in London

ABC report by Europe correspondent Philip Williams says that "Twin baby girls are being treated in hospital for serious injuries thought to have been caused by a fox in London."

See "Sleeping babies 'attacked by fox'", 7/06/2010, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/07/2919773.htm?section=justin

The report also says:
"A police spokesman says they are not treating the incident as suspicious.

Reports of fox attacks on babies are not unknown, with the last one occurring in Britain in 2002.
Foxes are common in the British capital, where they live in parks and disused land."

If foxes attack human babies in people's homes, it means their natural environment is severely threatened; otherwise they would not dare to do such dangerous things at such high risk to their lives.

We human beings need to consider this issue and ensure a peaceful environment for animals as well as for ourselves.

An incredible piece of rubish for the environment

Comments on Rupert Darwall “A Marxist climate of denial”, 7/12/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/a-marxist-climate-of-denial/story-e6frg6so-1225807504997

It is so hard to get what message Rupert Darwall is trying to put out to the public.

What is the relevance of this piece today?

Are we dreaming to the past days of the Marx era? What is for?

Shouldn’t people focus on how to reduce emissions and do something about climate changes now, as opposed to what and where Darwall is attempting to lead us to?

It is an unnecessary waste of resources to have this piece.

It is a shame that at this particular time before the glocal climate change conference at Copenhagen, we have such a piece to distract people's attention.

Middle ground on the environment is needed

Comments on Brendan O'Neill “Beware the greenies who think people are parasites”, 22/06/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25667725-7583,00.html

Human beings are not parasites on the earth. People who have the views to the contrary have their own big logic and mental problems.

Humans can, however, change the earth and have done so in a very significant scale following the industrial revolution, especially since the middle of the last century as world production was ever conituously increasing to an unprecedented and unrestrained scale.

As a result, human beings collectively have a responsibility to make sure that human beings can live on earth and with the nature harmoniously and sustainably, not just for the current generations, but also for future generations to come, and forever.

There are extremes among people in terms of the environment. Some are environmental alarmists who put the environment above human beings. There are also people who don’t care about the sustainability of human activities on earth and its impact on the environment. Both are wrong and should be recognised as such.

There are huge uncertainties about the impact of human activities on the environment. Normal logic, however, suggests that human production, in the form of its past century and its current state, is unlikely to be sustainable. Natural resources are limited. There are not too many unexploited regions on earth. And human activities are affecting the environment, not so much in terms of the environment itself, but in terms of sustaining human beings, their activities and the current species on the earth as we know.

So we don’t need to be environmental alarmists. We don’t need to sacrifice human beings quest for better lives and comfort. But we do need to take actions to make sure human activities don’t jeopardise its own future, broadly defined to including the pleasures human beings derive from the environment and its diversity.

We need a middle ground.