Sinobyte: China and technology

Much has been made of Beijing's decision to keep a lighter version of its Olympics traffic restrictions, not least because whatever the city did to clean the air seemed to have worked in August. But the renewed measures are weaker and the probable effect is unclear.

Alex Pasternack at Treehugger points out that the sustained restrictions, which took effect October 1, will be weaker than during the Games. Only one fifth of cars will be pulled from the road on weekdays, versus half under the Olympics rules.

According to The Beijinger (also via Alex), the city's other restrictions include:

• Restricting the number of car license plates issued for the city every year to 100,000--one fourth of the current rate of new car registration. This may in the long run be the most powerful measure, because it will reduce the extent to which increased wealth leads many people to obtain cars.
• Raising parking prices. If it costs more to park, maybe people will take the...
• Growing public transportation network. Lines five, ten, eight, and the airport express opened in the year leading up to the Olympics. Expansions of existing lines and other new lines are planned in the next two to three years.

But it's hard to tell whether the automobile and transportation efforts were really the core of Beijing's cleaner skies during the Olympics. For one thing, it's useful to remember that before a series of rainstorms, many people didn't feel the skies were particularly clear. Afterward, opinion among those used to standard Beijing air was uniformly laudatory. The rain may have helped clean things up.

It is difficult to assess, too, how important the other measures taken around the Olympics were. Manufacturing was slowed or stopped all over the region. Some of the dirtier power plants were shut. (Some may still be shut, but reports indicate that much of the industry has reopened.)

And significantly, dust from construction, a major fact of life in contemporary Beijing, was halted, because construction was halted. Though the surge of building that led up to the Olympics will probably not be matched in the near future in that city, some construction will restart.

So, to the extent that the sustained restrictions on driving decrease people's emitting behavior, that's great, but only time (and reliable measurements of air quality over time) will give a fair estimate of the effect.

So-called "short-lived" gasses and black particle pollution from power plants in Asia and transport in the United States could have a greater influence than previously predicted on temperature changes in North America and elsewhere on Earth, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week. But is the headline the whole story?

While the general press and blog coverage of the report emphasizes Asia as a cause of warming in the United States, scientists also emphasized that better practices in energy-intensive economies with less-than-clean power plants could be an equally large opportunity for stabilizing the climate. Especially in the case of these short-lived pollutants.

The particles being discussed are considered short-lived because their effect is shorter than that of CO2. Much shorter. While CO2 is a global warming agent until it is chemically changed into something else or sequestered, these particulates and gases affect temperatures on Earth's surface by either absorbing more heat or reflecting more than regular air, but they only do so for days or weeks at a time. Since the NOAA predictions estimate short-lived pollutants will be responsible for approximately 20 percent of global warming by 2050, this is both a great opportunity for improvement and a reminder that the largest culprits still need to be dealt with.

The key advantage to reducing these pollutants may be that the benefits will be seen immediately and previous emissions are not compounded. At least, once the production of these pollutants reduces, that 20 percent of warming could cease very quickly.

Certainly air pollution created in Asia is a significant factor in the global climate. But in the case of this non-CO2-related report, I find the press accounts unnecessarily and perhaps unfairly paint Asia (and yes, it's "Asia" rather than anything more precise) as a culprit.

Without having read the entire report, the NOAA scientists seem to have been more careful. They note that U.S. transport, i.e. automobiles and perhaps airplanes, as well as power generation a hemisphere away are likely to contribute to hot, dry summers in the United States.

What's key to remember, however, when media reports talk about Asian pollution, is that manufacturing-related pollution is not completely Asia's fault. Much of the manufacturing going on in China and other countries in East and South Asia is for export, and the United States is a top market for many countries. When I went to the store recently and bought a bunch of housewares, many items were made in China, and I have no idea under what environmental conditions they were produced. I share responsibility for related pollution. I likewise don't know the environmental pedigrees of many non-Asian products in this room.

This disconnect between our purchase and the emissions it causes is a challenge even for green consumers far more diligent than myself. For consumer pressure, we'll need more life-cycle data about products at the point of the purchase, and meanwhile we'll have to work on some far-reaching strategies to clean up the global manufacturing system. Meanwhile, here's hoping we can get rid of most of this short-term gunk.

Despite advertised measures to decrease pollution, as the one-month countdown to the Beijing Olympics approaches, the government's numbers rank Beijing as having the dirtiest air in China.

With a rating of 98, officially a "blue sky day" but only by two points, Beijing yesterday had the dirtiest air among monitored cities according to the Chinese government Web site that releases daily pollution figures.

Only four other cities, including the capitals of Sichuan, Qinghai, and Liaoning Provinces, ranked above 90 on the scale.

This does not mean that the air will not get cleaner this month. Large numbers of personal vehicles, as well as cargo trucks that do not have Beijing license plates, will be taken off the roads in efforts to reduce car pollution. Additionally, the hyperactive construction with huge numbers of buildings scheduled for completion or undergoing rushed renovation before the Games will stop completely late this month when a citywide construction freeze goes into effect.

The government is planning drastic measures. I hope for the sake of the athletes, visitors, and Beijing residents that they have clear, clean skies. But let's not kid ourselves: the pollution problem in Beijing is not going to go away any time soon. Cleaning up for two weeks may be a nice show, but the city really needs drastic measures. My favorite option: even bigger car taxes than exist now, and get that subway going.

Chinese authorities in January announced they would ban ultrathin plastic bags, and make customers pay for reusable canvas grocery bags, in an effort to reduce waste.

Are reusable shopping bags a thing of the future?

(Credit: Paper Nor Plastic)

A Beijing Review article quotes a Hangzhou supermarket manager on the old days, when shopping didn't produce billions of bags worth of waste that will biodegrade only after 200 years, if at all.

"When I was a child, my mother always took me to the vegetable market with a bamboo basket. She put a bowl in the basket for holding bean curd. When we bought sugar powder or salt, the sellers would wrap them with a piece of paper. I miss those days very much," Jin said.

The main purpose of promoting the (canvas) bags is to encourage the consumers to reuse the materials, he added. Some old living habits should not be thrown away, no matter how fast the economy has developed.

I would worry a little bit about my ability to move tofu in a bowl on my bike in Beijing, but I'm more or less onboard with the initiative. It's sometimes hard to convince cashiers that I'd like to put my food in the canvas bag with my books and computer. I've never thought of bringing an old jar when buying grains, but that wouldn't be a bad idea at all!

Coal is burned most days in my neighborhood in central Beijing. Even the newer electric heaters installed this year didn't stop my neighbors from cooking and keeping warm with smoke-spewing briquettes. Coal is a fact of life. But some businesspeople are marketing boilers that make the best of coal by burning it in a cleaner way, reports Feng Yongfeng of the Guangming Daily in a story republished at China Dialogue.

One such technology was developed by the Beijing Xiongcai Group, whose chairman, Wang Yongjiang, explains:

"Normally coal is burned from underneath," he explains, "but our boilers burn the coal from above, which allows us to collect the soot and burn it again. When the harmful components in the soot are exposed to temperatures over 800 degrees, they are burnt away, massively reducing emissions. The flame inside burns pure blue and translucent, which means the fuel is being burned completely. Yet the coal we use only contains 3,500 kilocalories per kilogram - about half the energy content of fine coal." ...

Since 2000 the firm has approached these questions by treating fuel and combustion technology as a single, integrated subject. The company's patented biomass boiler and "biomass coal" fuel together make up a system for burning biomass combined with lower grade coal, which burns with a heat energy efficiency of more than 80%. Its emissions are on a par with the cleanest of boilers, and the system reduces energy consumption and waste. The "biomass coal" is made up of compressed chaff, tree leaves and branches, household waste, gangue, coal powder and other low-grade coals. The resulting fuel is dense, burns completely, does not produce black smoke and fixes sulphur. When burned in the boiler, it can produce the same heating effect as fine coal. The waste from the boiler also has a number of applications: it can be used in water purification, in building insulation and as fertiliser. Both the biomass fuel and waste from the boilers is transported in sealed packages to prevent any secondary pollution.

Check out the full article for another example of cleaner coal burning. Coal will never be as clean as greener energy sources, but it's unlikely to be eradicated anytime soon. If we're going to burn it, we should burn it right.

DearChina.org is a new site where people can cry out to the great Chinese "other" and ask it to be more sustainable. Its sentiment is admirable. "Not about criticism," according to the introductory blurb, "It's about recognizing the fact that China will play a major role in determining the possibility for a sustainable world."

The submissions, all 19 of which as I write are in English, are translated into Chinese and displayed side-to-side. Many are heart-felt and imbued with some sort of desperate positivity:

Dear China,
Don't do it. Don't be like us. We f****d up. Leap frog us. Renewable energy. Limited growth. What's going on? I heard you can't see the sun sometimes.
Sara

Some are ignorant and disrespectful:

Dear China,
We've bought billions of your great products. Now that we are finished using them, can you please provide an address so we can return them? Thank you.
Chad R

The second is the only post of 19 that has not been translated. Where the translation would be, it says in English "Translation in progress." I hope this means moderators haven't seen this post to delete it. I also hope the delay on this one isn't due to an urge to censor what Chinese not literate in English might read.

The site was created by Ci (Conscientious innovation). While I am a little uncomfortable with the "us" and "you" tone of the notes, the idea of getting messages across from regular people to other regular people in different language and national contexts is admirable. It will be interesting to see what people have to say to "China."

[h/t TreeHugger]

It's a fact of life in China that just about anything comes in a little plastic bag. That's all about to change: In what all reports are calling a surprise move, the central government has banned (translated) ultra-thin plastic bags and will require regular bags to be sold with a clearly marked price starting June 1.

This demonstrates the way the government can simply declare an end to a technology for environmental reasons, even a 1950s technology like plastic bags. Whether enforcement will actually end plastic bags is not something I care to guess about.

The key here is to understand what an ultra-thin plastic bag is. Coming from the United States, where the question "paper or plastic" is a cultural institution, I was used to thicker bags. These are problematic enough for the environment, and several cities, countries, and stores. The plastic from these bags deteriorates into microscopic particles, but it does not bio-degrade, resulting in the gradual dispersion of tiny plastic particles throughout the world's oceans.

The bags subject to the ban are even thinner than what I was used to--less than 0.025mm thick. I first encountered them when buying jīanbǐng (煎饼), often known as Chinese crepes or Chinese pancakes, at a university convenience store. Once the 25-cent treat was ready to eat, the cook slipped it in a tiny sack, and I walked off to savor my junk food. These bags started accumulating in my trash bin. Fried noodles came in them, as did roasted nuts, baked goods, and fruit, among other things. I can only imagine that these ultra-thin bags deteriorate faster than the stronger ones.

There's even some hope that the pay-for-bags structure may make the sort of biodegradable bags used at the Sydney Olympics in 2000 appealing to more people. At the very least, one hopes the 2008 Olympics in Beijing will deal with waste gracefully.