

Environmental groups in China

Budding greens

A new generation of climate-change activists

See article

Readers' comments



"Untill the day dawns on us that Chinese people start to get serious about, and demand for, their own personal physical health (what they eat, what they drink, what they breath, and what their ears have to endure), the world can collectively forget about China's readiness and seriouness over such honourable and expensive subjects as global warming."


I fail to see your point. Are you saying that Chinese people should take care of themselves better by not smoking/eating more healthily/etc or are you talking about the fact that there are many companies that are willing to cut corners in their products just to make a quick profit? Because it makes no sense that Chinese people wouldn't care about their health. Just because consumers demand better products with no poisonous chemicals does not mean that those who manufacture them will stop.

At times, I think people forget that China is still a developing country. Incomes per capita are no where near as high as the West. But very generally, with money, comes education, and with education comes development - both in the physical sense such as the country's infrastructure and also in a social and moral sense. Yes, it is frustrating that Chinese men smoke everywhere, in hospitals, on public transport, in restaurants...but if you look at Beijing (a relatively affluent case), smoking is banned on the underground and also in many other places. It shows at least a gradual change in perspective, or a changing of attitudes to what is acceptable or not.

Like in the case of environmentalism, the fact that people are gradually coming to terms with the importance of sustainability is a good thing. I think it's important that the change in attitude starts somewhere at least. Some would say that change is not happening fast enough, or like this article suggests, that the change also has limits - "Chinese first, global citizen second", but still, I'd like to be optimistic.


This may be the perfect Economist article, crafted as it is to provoke the pro-China astroturfers (by mentioning China) and the global warming denialists (by mentioning global warming). The author would have had the trifecta if he had somehow been able to invoke the Palestine/Israel dispute.


Just saw in today's paper that China is now officially the world's largest energy consumer.


(but no need to do anything about pollution/global warming/health consequences to your own citizens)


Life in all China's big cities are either a glorious Shit or a pathetic shit, depending on how rich or poor you are. That is where the differences end.

It is a raving joke at this moment to talk about environment protection to China's public, when 9 out of 10 of its male citizens would choose to pay to pollute their own lungs, happily. Yes, they smoke in Hospitals, in Gyms, in elevators, and on public transit. With prics are so accomondating, it is certainly one way for the government to downsize the population.

Careful with buying/pocessing any furniture made in China. More likely than not, excessive amount poisnous industrial solvents/agents are present. Symptoms can be immediate vommiting and headaches and/or something taking years to show.

Fair enough globle warming is not China induced, nor is it China's problem along; yer we would all dearly love to pay to hear what China's Health Ministry has to say about its integrity and competences when its own people are being grotesquely poisioned?



The Economist says: “Yet it is an awkward time for NGOs in China. Since March officials have required small non-profit organisations to get restrictive notarised agreements before they can accept foreign funding.”

Chinese these days are not exactly short of funds for causes. Why should these groups competing for foreign funds when domestic funding are available and when untold number of concerns elsewhere, such as Haitian earthquake relieve and Africa wild life to name just two, are in dire need and vying for a much contended dollar or two of foreign donation?

It makes no sense at all for these Chinese NGOs to receive foreign funding unless some strings are attached. And in such case, government monitoring and control are definitely needed and justified.

Roger Dewhurst

For most of the first 4000 million years of this earth's history the earth's carbon must have been largely in the form of graphite and carbon dioxide. There were no organic carbon compounds. With the development of life forms the first organic carbon compounds appeared. Organic carbon molecules really only began to proliferate in early Palaeozoic times. We see the first shell beds/limestones in those times. Life was confined to the oceans in a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere. In middle Palaeozoic times we see the formation of the massive carboniferous coal deposits from forests which flourished in a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere. In Mesozoic times we see the massive chalk deposits of north western Europe and southern Britain created by microscopic plants. In Tertiary times we see the development of oil deposits. Thus throughout geological history carbon has been abstracted from the atmosphere to form peat, lignite and coal deposits, limestones, marbles and marls, oil and gas. The decreasing tenor of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been incremented by carbon dioxide from volcanoes both terrestrial and marine. The tenor of atmospheric carbon dioxide has however now fallen to such a level that it is necessary to supplement it in some commercial greenhouses.


Since when was carbon dioxide a “pollutant”? Carbon dioxide is what makes things grow. Pollutants are things that we would be better off without. If we removed all the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, all life on the surface of the Earth would die very rapidly. In the days of the dinosaurs, carbon dioxide levels were much higher than they are today. Coral reefs thrived and all the plants grew like mad. Which is why we have lots of coal to mine.

The “evidence” that man-made carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming exists only in computer models which, in fact, are programmed to predict warming with increased carbon dioxide. So it is not the computer models that predict warming, it is the person who programmed them. Without the “forcing factors” they program into the computers, a doubling of carbon dioxide causes only a small warming.

And now we have evidence from China that, over the last 2000 years, warming led to prosperity and cold periods led to war, disease and famine. We already know that the Medieval warm period was prosperous and that the little ice age brought plague, wars and famine.

There is now compelling evidence that a long sunspot cycle is followed by severe cooling. Cycle 23, that has just ended, lasted 12.5 years - 3 years longer than cycle 22. Cycle 24 will be weak. With great confidence, it is possible to predict that temperatures will drop by between one and two degrees C over the next 10 or 20 years. From the Southern Oscillation Index, which predicts temperatures seven months ahead, we know that the world will cool around the end of this year. If we lived in a rational world, we would be preparing to cope with this natural but dangerous climate change.

It is high time that the Economist returned to its traditional objective stance and looked at the evidence rather than believing in climate models and a “consensus” that, when examined, does not even exist.


Each country, large and small, must be held responsible for its action. There is no need to play the blame game here because we are in this mess together. The world is getting smaller.
"Think global, do local" seems to be the best course of action to take.


I am glad to see China taking responsible steps, as we all should. It would be nice to see the family of 3.3 in the US considering whether their 6,000 square foot home and their 3 hummers are really necessary.

On the other side of the “go green” coin, does anyone see this coming?

Flash-forward 7.2 years... the mantra of save the planet and green is god leads to the conclusion that the number one pollutant on the planet is the human race. Which then leads to the next mantra that we must reduce the spread of the human cancer at all costs - to the extent that one gets exponentially fined for every child one has. Next, in the name of planet preservation, those who keep having children in spite of the fine are labeled a threat to society – if they can be reconditioned, great, but if not they must be quarantined for society's sake. “Quarantining” then becomes very ugly, but since the whole world is mad - having professed to be wise but instead becoming foolish - Salvation must come from Another.

I guess I could have said rewind 50 years... But back then there was still some sanity in the world.



So you're saying that China should not regulate pollution and toxic waste dumping that will lead to the its citizens suffering from premature death and health defects because the "West" did the same in the past?

That doesn't seem very patriotic to me.

Isn't it better to learn from others' mistakes and protect your own citizens?


And, by the way, there is no better indication on the degree of over consumption of natural resources than by looking at those enormous human beings walking the streets in the US of A. A regular breakfast set there can feed the whole Asian family of 4 easily.


Don't ever forget that the word "POLLUTION" was invented (and practiced) by the west.
And it would be nice if all those western-owned factories in Asia start practicing what they are preaching. Remember Bhopal in India?


Whatever Law@HK's opinion on the matter, China's fevered rush to "modern prosperity" comes at the expense of its environment and its people's health.

Clearly the US has sacrificed its moral authority to criticize China on resource consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, yet that should be no solace at all to Chinese people forced to breathe the toxic air of its sulfur dioxide enshrouded cities, and to drink water from its heavily polluted rivers.

Cancer villages proliferate, and the Communist Party zealously hides data regarding the worst public health catastrophe in history.

China's rise to super power status will be a short-lived, hollow achievement if its "harmonious society" is ruptured by hundreds of millions of environmental refugees fleeing water shortages and encroaching deserts in the north, and if its agricultural system can no longer feed its 1.5 billion mouths for lack of water, and arable land not poisoned by chemicals and acid rain. Massive piles of foreign exchange won't be enough feed your population.

So pointing fingers at a guilty and wasteful US won't serve the interests of your people. There is no consolation prize for being the second (third, fourth) worst environmental villain if your country's eco-systems can no longer support life.

Your nation's leaders are embarked on a deadly wager, betting the lives of your people that humans can thrive with an increasing abundance of things even if its "mountains and rivers are broken" and so much of its air is toxic to all living creatures. You can't eat GDP any more than King Midas could exist on a diet of gold. Change now, and let us American environmentalists work to clean up our own prodigious mess.



Once again, I think you're taking offense when none was intended. This is not an article intended to demonize China, but to highlight a global problem, to which China is one of many contributors.

China is now the largest emitter of CO2 in the world (although you are correct that the US is much higher per capita).

There have been plenty of articles, including from the Economist, bashing the US for not doing more to reduce emissions, something I completely agree with.

Both China and the US (and others) need to take steps to deal with this issue. Simply blaming the US to avoid taking action doesn't make a global problem go away...


The idea of a nation state is a creation of the 19th and the 20th century. But still some people see the idea of nation state as a given and as eternal and national sovereignty as sacred. The idea of a nation state is incompatible with the time we are in and the challenges we face (global climate change is one among many such challenges; others being global financial crisis, global terror networks, global pandemics etc.) The sooner people reject the idea of nation states, national interests and national sovereignty, the better. But that consciousness of global citizenship needs to come from within; it cannot be imposed by others.


"China’s foot-dragging on greenery"? What a joke written by the Economist. In the individual level, most Chinese just use public transport or cycle or electrical bike for daily commuting. In the government level, China has been building the largest scale of high speed trains and wind and solar power in the world. And the most ridiculous is this accusation of "China’s foot-dragging on greenery"? is coming from a magazine who rarely mentioned the biggest pollutor in the world among all people is the US, with the carbon dioxide emission per capita is about 4 times of China. The US people can easily reduce the level of emission with very little reductioin in living standard, because there are so many room like by giving up their SUVs and pickup trucks and reduce their military. Instead of advocating the US to do this, the Economist instead just blame China, with many poor Chinese is just buying their first washing machine or television. This shows the Economist has no interst in presenting fair facts, not to say interest in really lowering the level of carbon dioxide emission, but the goal is to serve as a mouth piece of the US and to demonize China.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
French telecoms wars: Not over yet
Schumpeter 1 hrs 11 mins ago
Daily chart: Looking high and low
Graphic detail 1 hrs 55 mins ago
African demography: Responses to our article
Feast and famine 2 hrs 55 mins ago
E-cigarette patent wars: A case of the vapers
Schumpeter 2 hrs 42 mins ago


Products & events