An Interview with Daniel K. Gardner
By Claire Topal and Yeasol Chung
January 14, 2014
Rising levels of air pollution have accompanied three decades of phenomenal economic growth in China. Coal-burning factories and vehicle emissions fouling the air in the country’s major industrial and population centers have made deteriorating air quality a leading health concern that until relatively recently had been downplayed or dismissed by Chinese government authorities. Key announcements in the past year, however, have signaled a significant shift as the central government has begun to tackle the difficult question of how to reduce pollutants without slowing down economic growth.
Daniel K. Gardner, the Dwight W. Morrow Professor of History and East Asian Studies at Smith College, specializes in the intellectual and cultural history of premodern China and has written extensively on China’s pollution challenges. He spoke with NBR about the seriousness of China’s air pollution, the health implications for the Chinese people, the impact on the country’s economy, and the influence of domestic environmental NGOs. This is part one of a two-part interview with Professor Gardner.
How serious is China’s air pollution?
Recent images from Harbin, Shanghai, Beijing, and other cities show us all too graphically what air pollution in China looks like these days: a brownish, soupy concoction that renders buildings, streets, and people all but invisible. Day becomes night. The few people who make shadowy appearances in these images sport facemasks.
If these images aren’t enough to persuade us of the seriousness of China’s air pollution, the air-quality numbers certainly are. In late October 2013 the PM2.5 level registered an astonishing 1,000 in the city of Harbin. [1] This is 40 times what the World Health Organization (WHO) deems safe for humans to breathe. In January 2013, during Beijing’s now infamous “airpocalypse,” scores between 500 and 900 were routine. In the last couple of months, Shanghai has experienced its worst air pollution on record, hitting 600 on December 7. If we consider that a PM2.5 reading of 500 is the upper limit of the Air Quality Index (AQI) scale, anything beyond 500, or “beyond index” as the Chinese call it, is just plain scary.
What do we need to understand about air pollution in China in the context of rapid social, political, cultural, and economic change?
When Deng Xiaoping introduced market reforms in the late 1970s, few observers would have imagined what the next three decades would bring. China’s GDP has grown roughly 10% annually since, and its economy is now the second largest in the world. Thirty years ago, the single-speed Flying Pigeon bicycle ruled the roads; today, China is the world’s largest car market. If one looked out across the Huangpu River from the Bund in Shanghai thirty years ago, one would have seen farmland and a few warehouses and wharves; now one looks up from the Bund and sees the Pudong cityscape. The material progress of the past thirty years is staggering—a source of pride for the Chinese people, as well as a source of legitimacy for the ruling Chinese Communist Party. But that progress has come at great cost: toxic air.
What are the short-term and long-term health implications for the people of China?
China’s air is full of pollutants emitted by power plants, heavy industry, building construction, and cars. Breathing in that air, especially what is called particulate matter, poses a serious health threat to human beings. Particulate matter is a term for solid particles and liquid droplets—dust, dirt, smoke, organic chemicals, metals, and so on—suspended in the air. This matter comes in two sizes: particles smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) and particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers. When we inhale, these particles enter into our respiratory system and can travel into our lungs and even our bloodstream. PM2.5 is the more harmful of the two: at a miniscule 2.5 micrometers, these tiny particles, which are less than 1/30 the width of a human hair, can make their way deep into our lungs and lodge there. In the past twenty years, scientific studies have shown that PM10 and PM2.5 are linked to a range of health issues, including shortness of breath, asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, decreased lung function, lung cancer, heart attacks, and premature death.
Consider this: a 2012 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention measured the air quality in a typical smoking lounge in a U.S. airport and found the average PM2.5 reading to be 166.6 micrograms per cubic meter. A few months later, in January 2013, the month of the airpocalypse, the daily average PM2.5 reading in Beijing was 194 micrograms per cubic meter. The air Beijingers breathed was 16% worse than the air in a U.S. airport smoking lounge. Imagine breathing in that thick, acrid-tasting mix over the course of a lifetime. Keep in mind, too, that going into a smoking lounge is entirely up to you; breathing the air in Beijing, Harbin, or Shanghai, if you live there, or happen to be visiting, is not.
Two major scientific studies released in the past year leave little doubt as to the havoc that China’s polluted air has wreaked on the health of the Chinese people. A team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Tsinghua and Hebrew Universities demonstrated that during 1981–2001 the average level of particulate matter in north China was 55% higher than in South China because of the north’s greater dependence on coal for winter heating. This burden of pollution had a stunning effect on life expectancy: the 500 million people in north China lived on average 5.5 fewer years than the residents of south China, owing almost entirely to the higher incidence of cardiorespiratory illness. [2]
The findings of the second study were equally dramatic. The Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 concluded that particulate matter in outdoor air pollution in China contributed to 1.2 million premature deaths in 2010 alone. [3] The study also found that there has been a rise in cardiovascular diseases in China—ischemic heart disease, strokes, and pulmonary disease—all conditions that recent research has shown to be affected by exposure to polluted air. Clearly, China’s air is doing substantial damage to the health of people who breathe it.
What are the economic implications?
The economic costs of air pollution are immense. A number of studies have attempted to calculate the cost of China’s air pollution as a percentage of the country’s GDP, but the figures they arrive at range widely—I’ve seen 2.5% to 10%—depending to a large degree on what metric researchers use and whether they take into account both short-term and long-term health outcomes. Some studies also factor in “material” or “non-health impacts” in addition to “health impacts.”
Polluted air significantly raises morbidity and mortality rates, as the MIT and the Global Burden of Disease studies indicate. These higher rates, in turn, translate into higher medical costs and an increase in missed working days (i.e., lower productivity). Additionally, polluted air results in resource depletion: soil acidification from acid rain reduces the amount of China’s arable land, lowering crop productivity; mercury emitted by coal combustion enters the water systems, contaminating water and affecting fish, rice, vegetables, and fruits; and airborne pollutants kill off trees and forests. Polluted air also takes aim at building structures, hastening their deterioration. Indeed, many worry about the effect that airborne chemicals will have on the country’s precious historical monuments.
There are indirect economic effects of the sooty air to consider as well. For instance, as Shanghai revs up efforts to attract foreign businesses to the new Shanghai Free Trade Zone, there is worry that China’s, and now Shanghai’s, reputation for unhealthy air may be a deterrent. Then there’s tourism. Foreign visitors to China were down in 2013 by 5% in the country as a whole and by a full 10.3% in Beijing. Media-drenched events like the January 2013 airpocalypse have likely played a sizable role here.
To what extent does the Chinese public recognize and acknowledge a problem with air pollution?
Recognition of environmental problems appears to be gaining considerable momentum. After all, when the airpocalypse turns day into night and the air into a smoking lounge, people are bound to notice. In a 2013 survey conducted in China by the Pew Research Center, 47% of respondents rated air pollution a “very big problem,” an increase of 11% over the previous year and 16% over 2008. [4] Pollution now gets a lot of air time on social media sites. The chatter—especially on a bad-air day—can be intense. For example, for the week running from June 28 to July 4, 2013, my search for the two terms “PM2.5” and “air pollution” yielded more than 280,000 posts on China’s Twitter-like weibo. Comments ran the gamut: some posts asked why air quality should be so bad in the summer when burning coal isn’t a factor; some sought advice about which face mask or air purifier to buy; some asked whether the air inside a shuttered house is any healthier than the air outside; some talked about emigrating; and some pleaded with the Beijing leadership to take responsibility (e.g., “It’s summer and the sky’s been dark for almost a week. You should stop deceiving the people and explain the reason for it and fix it. It’s only then that you’ll be good leaders”).
The number of environmental NGOs has grown dramatically in recent years, and protests over environmental issues have become more frequent. People have taken to the streets to express opposition to the building of coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, chemical plants, oil refineries, and the like. Yang Zhaofei, vice-chair of the Chinese Society for Environmental Sciences, estimates that environmental protests have increased an average of 29% annually since 1996 and that 2011 alone witnessed an increase of a mind-boggling 120%. [5] According to Chen Jiping, Chinese Society for Environmental Sciences, estimates that environmental protests have increased an average of 29% annually since 1996 and that 2011 alone witnessed an increase of a mind-boggling 120%. [5] According to Chen Jiping, a former leading member of the Communist Party’s Political and Legislative Affairs Committee, pollution has now displaced land disputes as the leading cause of social unrest in China. [6]
Do environmental NGOs in China play a role in addressing pollution challenges?
Environmental NGOs are a relatively recent phenomenon in China. The first to be established was the Friends of Nature in 1994. Since then the number has grown wildly. Today, less than two decades later, there are roughly 3,500 registered environmental NGOs, and at least as many unregistered ones. Domestic NGOs like Friends of Nature, Green Beagle, the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE), and the Center for Legal Assistance to Pollution Victims have been especially effective in turning the spotlight on the problems associated with air pollution. For instance, in December 2011, before the Beijing government agreed to monitor and publicize the city’s PM2.5 levels, Green Beagle bought its own monitoring device, loaned it to residents around the city, and posted their readings on its website. The initiative generated considerable controversy while raising netizen awareness of PM2.5. A month and a half later Beijing was releasing its own hourly readings of PM2.5 to the public. IPE, directed by the prominent environmentalist Ma Jun, maintains an updated map of air and water quality for every region of China. Included in IPE’s China Pollution Map Database, available very publicly on its website, are the names of all the plants and corporations—both multinational and Chinese—that are in violation of environmental standards. To get off this “blacklist,” a corporation or plant must take corrective action. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the potential damage to the corporation’s image and public reputation can be incentive enough for it to clean up its offending activities.
Foreign NGOs such as the World-Wide Fund for Nature, the Nature Conservancy, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Environmental Defense Fund, and Greenpeace have also established a presence in China. These international NGOs work hand-in hand with domestic ones, at times providing them with financial and administrative support. The NRDC and Greenpeace have been especially active in researching and, importantly, publicizing the effects of China’s coal consumption on air, water, and soil quality and human health, not just in China but globally. These organizations have been among the most persuasive and insistent of the growing chorus of voices calling for China to wean itself from its present lethal dependence on coal.
This is part one of a two-part interview with Daniel K. Gardner. In part two, Gardner explains how the Chinese government has responded to the country’s air pollution crisis and what challenges it will face in implementing policies and measures developed to address the problem. He also discusses the impact of China’s air pollution not only on its Asian neighbors but also on the United States. Read part two.
This interview was conducted by Claire Topal, Senior Advisor for International Health at NBR, and Yeasol Chung, a former intern for NBR’s Center for Health and Aging.
China’s Off-the-Chart Air Pollution: Why It Matters (and Not Only to the Chinese) – Part Two
An Interview with Daniel K. Gardner
By Claire Topal and Yeasol Chung
January 27, 2014
The seriousness of China’s air pollution is visibly evident to anyone who has seen photographs of Beijing and other major cities enveloped in dense smog or hazy street scenes of Chinese breathing through surgical masks. In an earlier interview with NBR, Daniel K. Gardner, the Dwight W. Morrow Professor of History and East Asian Studies at Smith College, discussed the dramatic effects of China’s polluted air on the health of its people and explained the implications of these health issues for the country’s economy. In part two of the interview, Professor Gardner explains how the Chinese government has responded to the country’s air pollution crisis and what challenges it will face in implementing policies and measures developed to address the problem. He also discusses the impact of China’s air pollution not only on its Asian neighbors but also on the United States.
How does China’s air quality compare with that of its Asian neighbours and the United States?
China isn’t the only country in Asia with air quality problems. According to the WHO, annual mean PM10 pollution levels are higher in Pakistan (198), Bangladesh (120), and India (109) than in China (98). What makes China more globally concerning than these other countries, despite its presently lower annual pollution figure, is its blistering rate of development and the attendant increase in consumption of fuel sources, especially fossil fuel. Japan and Korea, China’s immediate neighbors, have much less severe pollution on annual average (22 and 61, respectively). [1]
Finally, if we take annual average PM10 levels as a coarse indicator of comparative air quality, then the United States is doing much better, having a score of 18. For the first half of 2013, Beijing averaged an AQI reading of 101.3; by comparison, Manhattan averaged 8.3. Here we should be reminded that as recently as the 1960s, U.S. cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Pittsburgh had pollution levels approaching those in some of China’s cities today. The vast improvement resulted from the aggressive measures that the United States took to address air pollution in the late twentieth century.
At the same time, we must not ignore the fact that although the United States has made great strides in cleaning its air, the country nonetheless remains, after China, the world’s second-largest emitter of the greenhouse gas CO2. And, as China is quick to note, the United States emits nearly three times as much CO2 per capita as China.
How is China’s air pollution affecting South Korea and Japan? What are the implications for China’s relationships with these neighbouring countries?
As sulfur, mercury, ozone, and particulate matter emitted by China’s coal plants move downwind across the East China Sea in increasing quantity, Japan and Korea voice more frequent and urgent concern about the effects on their air, water, and soil. In November 2013, South Korean media began to refer to the smog making its way from China as “air raids.” Earlier, in October, a Japanese study claimed that air pollution from China was responsible for the high level of mercury deposition on iconic Mount Fuji. [2] Recent research now indicates that China is responsible for 40% of Tokyo’s annual average PM2.5 levels and 60% of Kyushu’s. [3] News outlets in both countries report on the higher levels of PM2.5 when winds blow in from China, the damage done by air from China to their countries’ forests, and the run on face masks when smog blights hit. Relations in the region, and not least among China, Japan, and Korea, are already sufficiently strained over issues like the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and air space in the East China Sea. Toxic air migrating across China’s borders poses the risk of harming relations still further.
Hopeful observers could choose to see this issue as an opportunity to bring the three countries together, and perhaps even to relax tensions in the region. Some cooperation in addressing polluted air is already taking place. For instance, Japan has given the Shanxi provincial government a loan of $125 million to subsidize the desulfurization of large coal-fired plants in the capital city of Taiyuan. Toyota and Tsinghua University in Beijing are collaborating on a comprehensive study of PM2.5, which is expected to be completed by mid-2015. And just recently, in December, representatives of the three governments held a two-day summit just outside Beijing and vowed to work cooperatively to combat the region’s polluted air. We can only hope that such cooperation continues and deepens.
To what extent does the Chinese government acknowledge the country’s pollution problems, and what forms does the government response take?
The Beijing government is not in denial about the profound pollution problems facing the country. There appears to be a general agreement in the upper echelons of the party that the unbridled economic growth of the past few decades has come at a heavy environmental cost that is no longer tenable. The challenge, as they see it, is to curb environmental degradation without halting the country’s economic development. And that’s a challenge indeed, since fossil fuels, especially coal, have been the engine driving economic momentum. Over the last decade, China has built on average two new coal-fired power plants every week; and today China consumes slightly more coal than all other countries in the world combined. [4]
The government now is walking something of a tightrope: on the one hand, economic prosperity—and bringing hundreds of millions of people out of poverty—has been a powerful source of legitimacy for the Communist Party; on the other hand, the damage resulting from that prosperity, to the air and the water—and to people’s well-being—is clearly fueling irritation and discontent among the people.
The party plainly is struggling to find the right balance between continued economic growth and protection of the environment. The Beijing leadership is promoting serious measures to reduce carbon emissions, from putting caps on coal consumption in highly polluted regions, to shutting down small and inefficient coal plants, to banning the building of new coal-fired power plants in the three key economic regions (Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, the Yangzi River Delta, and the Pearl River Delta), to introducing trial carbon-trading programs in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and, Guangzhou. To offset reduced dependence on coal, the government is looking to expand the country’s energy reserves coming from other fuel sources: namely, natural gas, wind, solar, hydroelectric, and nuclear (each of which, of course, presents its own set of challenges). Importantly, the government is also looking to improve overall energy efficiency and thereby lessen energy consumption.
To be sure, formulating policies and enacting measures are not a guarantee of success. But the point here is, yes, the government is aware of the harm being done to the air, the health of the people, and perhaps even its own legitimacy, and it is actively responding. Indeed, constructing an “ecological civilization” has been a mantra of the Chinese Communist Party since a 2007 speech by then president Hu Jintao. [5]
In addition to these measures, the State Council (China’s cabinet) issued an “Air Pollution Prevention Action Plan 2013–2017” in September 2013. Whatever its ultimate effectiveness, the plan leaves little doubt that the Communist Party feels some urgency to tackle the country’s pollution problems now. Between 2013 and the end of 2017, the government proposes to spend $277 billion to begin to clean up the air. The plan includes among its 33 measures reducing PM2.5 levels in key industrial hubs, cutting coal consumption, increasing non-fossil fuel use, removing from the roads in Ch=d of 2017, the government proposes to spend $277 billion to begin to cle= an up the air. The plan includes among its 33 measures reducing PM2.5 level= s in key industrial hubs, cutting coal consumption, increasing non-fossil fuel use, removing from the roads in Ch= ina all cars registered prior to 2005, and requiring that the country’= ;s oil refineries produce the much cleaner China V gasoline.
With its concern for vehicle emissions, the government in the past few y= ears has offered a variety of rebate programs to offset the costs of hybrid= and electric vehicles. It has also sponsored trade-in programs designed to= rid the roads of big, inefficient vehicles and replace them with smaller, fuel-efficient ones. And as anybod= y who has recently traveled to China is aware, the government’s inves= tment in expanding the public transportation system—especially in the= tier 1 cities—continues unabated.
What are the greatest challenges the Chinese government will face in = implementing these new policies and measures?
For whatever good environmental intentions the government might have, th= e real challenge, if recent history is any indication, will be effective countrywide implementation and enforcement. The problem is largely structural= : officials in Beijing have issued new environmental policies and measures, but it is the responsibility of local officials to implement them. And the reality is that local officials h= ave been more interested in economic growth than in protection of the environment.
In part, this is because they are rewarded for economic growth. In asses= sing the performance of local officials and deciding promotions and demotions, the national government gives hefty weight to the development of the local economy, while paying but scant attention to the protection and cleanup of the environment. What is obvious to most observers, then, is that if Beijing is genuinely determined to clean up the country’s polluted air, water, and soil, the government ha= s to refine its calculus for grading and rewarding the performance of local officials. To be sure, the leadership routinely announces its intention to give heavier weight to stewardship of t= he environment, but, in practice, protection of the environment continues t= o mean relatively little.
A related problem is enforcing environmental policy and law. In 2008, when China’s State Environmental Protection Administration was promoted= to one of the 25 cabinet-level ministries as the Ministry of Environmental= Protection (MEP), hopes were high that this move signaled the growing importance of environmental protection and = enforcement. But, to date, Chinese environmentalists remain somewhat disappointed in the MEP’s effectiveness. They point to weak leadership and = lack of courage in enforcing compliance with important environmental regulations. They also criticize the limited = resources given to the ministry by the national government. For instance, t= here are but 300 employees working in the whole of China’s MEP. Compare that with the more than 17,000 employees who work in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States= , a country with less than one-quarter of China’s population. Finally, these critics say that the MEP, a fledgling ministry, doesn’t carry= much weight against other more powerful and established ministries, whose priorities as a consequence always trump the= environmental priorities of the MEP. Zhou Shengxian, China’s environment minister, did little to disabuse critics of his ministry’s short= comings when this past July he bluntly remarked, “I’ve heard that there are four major embarrassing departments= in the world and that China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection i= s one of them.” [6= ]
How does China’s air pollution affect the United States?
We’ve been thinking too compartmentally: that China’s air is China’s and that the United States’ air is the United States;. Air is really all part of the same interconnected atmospheric system . Compelling research this century has indicated that pollutants in China’s air—such as sulphates, ozone, particulate matter, mercury, and nitrogen oxides—can make their way to the West Coast of th= e United States in as little as four days. One study claims that of the particulate matter hanging over California, about one-third comes from Asia (mostly China). Another concludes that about one-fifth of = the mercury in Oregon’s Willamette River originates abroad, again mostly in China. And still another study estimates that 10%–30% of all mercury deposition in the United States comes from Asia (again largely China). [7]
U.S. levels of these toxic pollutants from China still remain relatively= low and probably don’t yet play a significant role in the health of = Americans. But if scientists are right that China’s air is finding it= s way to California, Oregon, and Washington, and if consumption of fossil fuels in China continues to swell, as most energy experts expect, we can assume that the impact of such pollution on health in the United States will escalate. Indeed, it is already estimated that nearly 40% of all mercury exposure in the United States comes from Pacific tuna, which ingest the mercury deposited in the ocean water by China’s coal-fired plants. [8= ] Finally, let’s not forget what China, along with the United States, is contributing to global warming through greenhouse gas emissions: together the two countries account for 44% of the world’s total CO2 emissions (China 29%, the United States 15%). = As climate scientists are quick to point out, global warming carries with i= t widespread implications for global health.
As for the economic impact of China’s air pollution on the United = States, if China is serious about reducing its dependence on coal, U.S. coal companies (e.g., Arch Coal and Peabody Energy) will see a reduction in demand for exports—as is already happening. What will that mean for large U.S. coal companies that are already feeling= the pain of declining domestic demand, as the country is enjoying a boon i= n cheaper natural gas and in other sources of energy? And what will that me= an for institutions that have investments in these coal companies?
Air pollution in China has had one other unwelcome effect: it has made t= he United States environmentally and economically lazy. The nightmarish air= there, images of which often make it into our media, has enabled the Unite= d States and the majority of its elected officials to ignore the contribution that we make to environmental= pollution and global warming on the rather feeble grounds that there is li= ttle the United States, or anybody else, can do environmentally to offset t= he damage to the air caused by China. This is not just bad political and environmental policy; it is also bad = 212;and irresponsible—economic policy. The United States has not put = sufficient money or research into the development of clean energy and techn= ology to keep pace with the progress that China is making.
President Obama’s former energy secretary, Steven Chu, made the st= rong case to Congress and the American people that while developing a green= er and cleaner technology is of course good energy and environmental policy= , it is also good economic policy—essential to the future well-being of the country. The United States, he warned, mus= t not stand still and cede the development of green technology and its rela= ted industries to the Chinese. Secretary Chu couldn’t have known that= , within a few months of his resignation, China would designate green industries a “pillar of the economy,R= 21; and that they would receive funding and tax breaks from the government&= #8212;with a projection that the sector would enjoy an annual growth rate o= f 15% and generate $735 billion by 2015.
How is the United States responding, or how might it respond, to the consequences of China’s air pollution?
It was an auspicious sign that President Obama and President Xi Jinping = got together this past June and worked out an agreement to phase out hydrof= luorocarbons, a potent greenhouse gas used for refrigeration and air-conditioning. The more bilateral cooperation between the two countries, the more likely it is that global gains against= air pollution and global warming will be made. Thus, it is another hopeful= sign that new EPA administrator Gina McCarthy paid a week-long visit to China in early December, shortly after her appointment. The visit sends a clear signal, I think, that she and the= current U.S. administration appreciate that the environment is an area where the two countries have strong mutual interests.
Before leaving for China, McCarthy spoke of the need for stronger cooper= ation between the two countries. She insisted that as the world’s two= largest economies, two largest consumers of energy, and two largest contributors to carbon emissions, the United States and China have a duty, and even moral obligation, to work together = to combat the global threats of air pollution and climate change. This sort= of straightforward talk by an EPA administrator is most welcome. We can on= ly hope that it leads to a real partnership between the two countries.
Your question here about the U.S. response raises a related but challenging issue: if the Obama administration is committed to bringing an end to t= he use of coal as a fuel source in the United States because of its well-kn= own effects on global warming, shouldn’t the administration be placing restrictions on, or maybe even prohibiting, = the sale of U.S. coal abroad, including to China? After all, when China bur= ns this coal, it will do to the global atmospheric system precisely what it= would have done if burned domestically—warming the planet with greenhouse gas emissions. In short, we are exporting our c= oal to China, and, in turn, China is exporting greenhouse gases back to us&= #8212;and the rest of the world. To me, this makes little logical, or moral sense.
This is part two of a two-part interview with Professor Gardner. In p= art one, Gardner discussed the seriousness of China’s air pollution, = the health implications for the Chinese people, the impact on the country&#= 8217;s economy, and the influence of domestic environmental NGOs. Read part one.
This interview was conducted by Claire Topal, Senior Advisor for International Health at NBR, and Yeasol Chung, a former intern for NBR’s Center= for Health and Aging.