China’s Pearl River smells, but mayor vows to swim

According to a story carried by The Christian Science Monitor: “The mayor of China's top manufacturing city is hosting a "swimathon" this summer in the local Pearl River. Cleanup efforts to reverse years of industrial pollution have been so successful, claims mayor Zhang Guangning, that the Pearl is once again safe to swim. To prove it, he plans to don a suit and join the 10,000 other swimmers whom he hopes will take the plunge.  But after looking into the filmy water and smelling its foul wafts, other officials are said to be begging off. Three vice-mayors told a local newspaper that they couldn't swim.”

Such political grandstanding is nothing new in China (a Great Leap Forward déjà vu), but the good side is that this time the government is focus on the environment.

“Local newspapers reported that government officials might also resort to dumping chlorine into the river or releasing fresh water from upstream reservoirs as a temporary fix. One local government environmental official ducked a reporter's question on whether the water was safe for swimmers, saying it was up to other experts to decide.

"They know the water isn't suitable for swimming if we look at the quality, but they want to push people to pay more attention to water protection," says Li Shiyu, dean of environmental science at Zhongsan University in Guangzhou.”

Although I don’t deny that environmental protection should not be ignored at any stage of economic development, but it is not clear to me whether it is more or less costly to get rich first and then clean it up. The experience of now developed countries suggests that it makes sense to sacrifice the environment when the cost of holding up economic development is too high.  This is true for China too.

“While its rivers and skies have taken a pounding, observers say the degradation pales in comparison with other industrialized parts of China that have less money to spend on cleaning up. Guangzhou has begun collaborating with Hong Kong on monitoring air pollution that often blankets Hong Kong's famed skyline. Guangzhou's middle class is growing more health-conscious, and "green" groups have sprouted on university campuses.”

I know some environmental activists in New York City or Los Angles are always complaining about the air pollution where they live and want to preserve the environment of Africa. But isn’t it unfair and ironic that you are enjoying the highest level of living standard while requiring Africans to starve,  build a zoo to entertain you, and in the meantime impressed by your “high moral standard”. Why don’t you switch your residence with Africans, then you get what you want and they get what they want. I don't think these "enviromental activists" would accept this offer.

Comments

[Stuart Friedman]

As an American who is teaching in Guangzhou this year, and whose apartment is on the Pearl River, I can testify to the nastiness of the water. I am not convinced that the dichotomy between economic progress and enviornmental imporvement is as clear as the author suggests. There are certain serious problems that result in serious health consequences for this generation and I am certain that these victims have not signed off on this deal.

For example, there is a community nearby that is the recipent of much of North Americas's computer waste and there are many toxins that are being taken in by the poor workers who salavge the materials. Wouldn't it be responsible for North American's to deal with their own waste, either by recycling, reducing, or changing the content? Let the economic pressures fall where the benefits are garnered.

[Freeman]

You havn't see the worse polluted Chinese cities yet. Guangzhou is already much better that other cities and than the past, partly because it has huge tax revenue to support enviromental programs.