China Is Set to Spend 2% of GDP Cleaning Up Pollution--Cost Of Doing Nothing ~= 50% More

by: Paul Rosenberg

Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:30


Can Twitter save China?  China's environment--and thus public health--has been severely undermined for 30 years, and environmental protests have been a major feature of Chinese political life for at least 20.  But what's changed recently is the role of social media to help organize those protests on a massive scale.  With that force growing ever more powerful, and an overall cost of pollution greater than the cost of cleanup, a major shift is in the offing, Bloomberg News reports:

China Is Set to Lose 2% of GDP Cleaning Up Decades of Pollution

Li Pingri remembers swimming with fish and shrimp as a boy in Guangdong's Chigang waterway in China. Today, even after the city spent 48.6 billion yuan ($7.2 billion) on a cleanup, he can't stand the canal's smell.

"We are surrounded by black and smelly waterways, breathing the foul air every day and paying the price at the cost of our health," said Li, 79, a former researcher at the Guangzhou Institute of Geography. "If we can't breathe clean air or drink clean water, high economic growth is meaningless."

China, the world's worst polluter, needs to spend at least 2 percent of gross domestic product a year -- 680 billion yuan at 2009 figures -- to clean up 30 years of industrial waste, said He Ping, chairman of the Washington-based International Fund for China's Environment. Mun Sing Ho, a senior economist at Dale W. Jorgenson Associates and a visiting scholar at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, put the range at 2 percent to 4 percent of GDP.

Failure to spend that much -- equivalent to the annual GDP of Vietnam -- may cost the Chinese economy half as much again in blighted crops, health costs and pollution-related expenses, He said: "The cleanup can't catch up with the speed of pollution" if spending is less....

Lost Productivity

The costs arising from pollution in China -- including lost productivity due to health issues, crop degradation and losses from pollution-related accidents -- totaled 511.8 billion yuan, or 3.1 percent of GDP, in 2004, the latest figures available, according to the Beijing-based Chinese Academy for Environmental Planning, part of the Ministry of Environmental Protection.

China doubled total environmental spending in the 2006-2010 period to 1.4 trillion yuan from the previous five-year plan, and may more than double it again to 3.1 trillion yuan in the five years through 2015, said Wang Jinnan, vice-president of the academy.

That's less than the amount He predicts will be needed on the cleanup and includes other costs: developing alternative energy and new sewage works, and protecting ecological habitats. It's also less than the 4 trillion yuan China spent on stimulus in one year to boost the economy.

And as for the social forces pushing for change:

Twitter Protests

"Environmental protests have been one of the leading sources of social unrest for more than two decades," Elizabeth Economy, director for Asia Studies at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations and author of "The River Runs Black," a book on China's environment, said in an e-mail. What has changed is "the ability of people to communicate through texting, e- mail, and Twitter to organize a protest."

Campaigns of up to 10,000 people in major cities such as Xiamen, Zhangzhou and Chengdu were fighting the planned siting of large-scale chemical plants, and in some cases have forced the government to reverse a decision, Economy told the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China in October 2009. She said about 700 million people in China drink water contaminated with human or animal waste.

And China doesn't even pretend to be a democracy!

Clearly things are much, much worse in China, but they seem to be on the cusp of starting to get dramatically better.

What will it take for us to do the same?

Paul Rosenberg :: China Is Set to Spend 2% of GDP Cleaning Up Pollution--Cost Of Doing Nothing ~= 50% More

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
"What will it take for us to do the same?" Guts? (0.00 / 0)
Spine? Responsible politicians? A party that cares for the people?
|-(

in this country, we've been taught (4.00 / 1)
to lower our expectations bit by bit over the last thirty years or so.

Clean air and water? Costs too much, you'll have to do without. Affordable health care? Costs too much, you'll have to do without. Decent housing? Costs too much, you'll have to do without.

That's why we'll sit here, and we'll take the steaming pile of crap they very begrudgingly dump in our bowl, and we'll like it. Because, as we know, healthy food costs too much, you'll...


It's the new, improved "can do" spirit! (0.00 / 0)
"Can do" without it...

[ Parent ]
Btw, Bloomberg is writing nonsense. (4.00 / 1)
Look at that headline: "China Is Set to Lose 2% of GDP"
Uh, no. If you spend an amount equal to 2% of GDP on repairing environmental damages, you don't "lose" that money, you boost the GDP with all the jobs funded by government spending! It's a STIMULUS. Weird that a media business that focusses on the economy makes such a freshman error...

I was going to comment on their choice of wording as well. (4.00 / 1)
Lose 2%? Uh, yeah, spending all that money creating jobs and infrastructure to clean stuff up is a LOSS. Cue the canned laugh-track.

"Pollution-related expenses." Of course, this is what our glorious "capitalists" are worried about. They'll have to clean up their act and reduce pollution and that means they won't be able to externalize those costs anymore.

Next thing you know, the government will demand they pay a living wage! Heaven forfend!

An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US antiwar and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults. If that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent. -- John Pilger, May 2008


[ Parent ]
Yes, But (0.00 / 0)
at the same time, they do acknowledge that it will save more than it costs.

So, given it's businessworld context, I'd say it's relatively enlightened.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
True dat. (0.00 / 0)
But it's a very mixed message. The usage is negative, even though they contradict themselves by admitting it actually makes sense.

If it saves more than it costs, that would imply nominal economic utility--like putting up solar panels pays for itself and leads to GAINS over time. So instead of "losing 2% of GDP," they should be telling it terms of multipliers and net economic gain... not loss.

But they still put the word "lose" in there anyway, hence my snark.

An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US antiwar and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults. If that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent. -- John Pilger, May 2008


[ Parent ]
Njoy Electronic Cigarettes (0.00 / 0)
I think its very costly for china to loss 2% of GDP for cleaning up pollution and after losing 2% GDP still its not clean.Things are going very worse in china.
Njoy Electronic Cigarettes |
Best Electronic Cigarette





USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS