Ruminations

Lest we forget

Kranji Cemetery, Singapore, 25 April 2005

I made my annual pilgrimage to the ANZAC Day dawn service on Monday morning, my second here in Singapore. Some of the pomp and ceremony makes me feel a little ill at ease, especially the religious aspects of it -- or the institutionalised religious aspects do, at least. The words used by these people always seem so hollow and insincere. I also baulk at the singing of the national anthem. Not that I'm unpatriotic, it's just that some people look upon this as a nationalist symbol, which is a little ironic given that nationalism has been the source of so many wars. Anyway, these personal hang-ups aside, ANZAC Day is always a special day for me, and this year was no exception. It was a very moving occasion, and the highlight was the halt in proceedings when, after all the dignatories had laid their wreaths, an old digger came forward to place his bunch of flowers in memory of his mates. This is commonplace in Australia, of course, but not in Singapore. Having read The Naked Island (by Russell Braddon) recently, I imagined to myself he might have been one of the inmates at Changi during the last war.

Another highlight was the short speech from the Turkish Ambassador who read out the words attributed to Ataturk, inscribed on a memorial at ANZAC Cove. These words had a deal more resonance than those read aloud in 'automatic pilot' mode by the priest in attendance.

Those heroes that shed their blood
and lost their lives;
You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country.
Therefore rest in peace.
There is no difference between the Johnnies
and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side
here in this country of ours.
You, the mothers,
who sent their sons from far away countries,
wipe away your tears;
your sons are now lying in our bosom
and are in peace.
After having lost their lives on this land they have
become our sons as well.

A trip to Sembawang

Sembawang beach (facing south)

After perusing the Singapore weekend papers on the 'raging debate' (sic) about the proposed casino (should Singapore be hip and have one to bring in squillions of dollars of tourist revenue each year, or take the moral high ground and remain boring), I decided that this was way too controversial for me and I set out to see if this country I temporarily call home has the remnants of a 'soul' somewhere. I'd read in a Reuters report that, amazingly, the Republic of Singapore has grown in size by around 20% over the last 40 years -- that's not population, but area. Roy and HG once joked that such was the Singaporean zeal for land reclamation, it wouldn't be long before ex-pats like me could take a weekend drive back to Australia. Maybe the only thing that's preventing this happening is that there aren't many hills left to bulldoze in Singapore, and the Indonesians stopped them dredging sand from the ocean bed a couple of years ago because it was starting to affect their coastline! Anyway, in this Reuters report, a reference was made to Sembawang Beach at the northern tip of the island, and how this was one of the last remaining 'natural' beaches, the others being man made, a few dumper loads of sand having been tossed around the concrete retaining walls after the land reclamation process. I also read that a small group was lobbying to save this beach from reclamation and development and had even gone to the extent of setting up a web site to "provide quiet feedback" to the government. This sent my pulse racing and I simply had to see this beach with my own eyes.

I don't really know what I expected, but if this is all that's left, then the Singaporean government may as well get on with it. The damage has been done. The shot of the beach above is pretty much it. The shot below was the view immediately behind me. Camping, meanwhile, is more or less restricted to the concrete paths above the beach, and even the beachside palms don't escape the concrete surrounds. I felt a deep sadness, but given there isn't so much as a muddy river bank or swampy looking stream anywhere in Singapore, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised.

Who needs casinos when you can gamble away the nation's ecological future?

Sembawang beach (facing north)

The NYT sticks the boot in on Bush (again)

Following on from Friedman's op-ed the other day, another editorial in the New York Times has expressed its disbelief at the short-sightedness and poor leadership of the Bush administration in terms of energy policy. Everybody and their dog appears to pointing out just how ludicrous it is to continue pumping money into a carbon-based economy, yet the US Congress continues to be quite pig-headed about the whole thing, happily passing laws to dig holes for oil in national parks in Alaska (among other things). As the editorial concludes, it appears as though special interests come before the national interest (... and most certainly before global interest!).

Friedman goes green

Image source: http://www.olin.wustl.edu

For someone who supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and is generally regarded as an apologist for globalisation and laissez-faire capitalism, it was with dropped jaw that I read Thomas L. Friedman's op-ed, Geo-Greening by Example, in the New York Times last week where he not only criticises Bush's energy policy, but also advocates the kind of greeny-left interventionist policies that are trotted out on this blog from time to time. "We need a gasoline tax that would keep pump prices fixed at $4 a gallon, even if crude oil prices go down" says Friedman, "At $4 a gallon (premium gasoline averages about $6 a gallon in Europe), we could change the car-buying habits of a large segment of the U.S. public, which would make it profitable for the car companies to convert more of their fleets to hybrid or ethanol engines, which over time could sharply reduce our oil consumption." I lost interest when I read the next paragraph in the article where there is a suggestion that it would be a good idea to start building nuclear power plants again, on the grounds "The risks of climate change by continuing to rely on hydrocarbons are much greater than the risks of nuclear power", but the piece is a jolly good read all the same.

The Minister for Greenwash

The Rt Hon Ian McFarlane, MP
Image source: http://www.abc.net.au/rural/ outlook2002/image.htm

I had to smile the other day when I read that the Australian Energy Minister, Ian McFarlane, was reported to have told a conference organised by the coal industry in Sydney that they should clean up their publicity act, saying the future fuels issue had been taken over by a so-called green media machine. Meanwhile, his buddy, Ian Campbell, the (so-called) Minister for the Environment is trying convince Australian business that it isn't losing out from the non-ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. As The Australian reported at the weekend, Australian businesses are having to resort to joint ventures with companies from New Zealand (a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol) in order to participate in the Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism project. (See below if the hyperlink is broken.)

Aussies sidestep Kyoto ban
The Weekend Australian
Amanda Hodge
April 09, 2005

AUSTRALIAN companies hoping to invest in clean energy projects in developing nations are being forced to find backdoor channels to get around the ban on countries that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

The federal Government has continuously denied suggestions business would be disadvantaged by its refusal to join the international agreement on greenhouse gas reductions.

But New Zealand Transport Minister Pete Hodgeson said yesterday one of the most significant measures the two countries were taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developing nations was to foster joint ventures between Australian and New Zealand businesses that were keen to invest in clean energy for Third World nations. The New Zealand Government convened a conference in November to bring together Australian and New Zealand companies that wanted to participate in the Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism project.

As a non-ratifying country, Australian businesses are prohibited from participating in the CDM, which provides carbon credit incentives for developing nations and businesses wanting to invest in them.

At a joint forum on climate change in Sydney yesterday, called to discuss greenhouse gas reduction measures beyond the Kyoto protocol, Mr Hodgeson said the New Zealand Government was happy to act as the conduit for companies from both countries to forge partnerships in the CDM sphere. "One of the features of (CDM) is you have to be a ratifier and Australia is not," Mr Hodgeson said. "Certainly the future will include Australian and New Zealand businesses working through a New Zealand rubric to undertake a bunch of projects which will then benefit the companies that take part in them."

Top legal analyst Martin Wilder, from Sydney law firm Baker McKenzie, said a dozen Australian companies were already using backdoor means, such as joint ventures, to participate in the CDM.

But federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell denied Australian companies would be disadvantaged by the Government's refusal to ratify.

Senator Campbell said Australia would use its US free trade agreement and strengthening ties with countries such as China and India to work closely on existing and future environmental schemes.

China’s environmental suicide

Pan Yue, Vice Minister of China's State Environmental Protection Administration
Image source: http://www.bjreview.com.cn/200425/viewpoint.htm

One could be forgiven for thinking that I've been picking on China recently. The fact is, I haven't, it's just that most of the biggest ecological horror stories seem to emanate from this country at the moment.

In the latest Eco-Economy Update I received last week, for example, I learned that overpumping groundwater in China's Hebei province has lowered the water table to such an extent that 969 of the province's 1,052 lakes have disappeared. Meanwhile, Madoi County in northwest China's Qinhai province, which had 4,077 lakes 20 years ago, now has less than half this number.

You don't have to be a brilliant genius to work out that if Chinese demand for water continues to outstrip sustainable supply at the rate it is, a disaster on a monumental scale is in the offing. If it is any consolation, the Chinese government knows they are in big trouble. In an interview published in this week's openDemocracy, the Vice Minister of the State Environmental Protection Administration, Pan Yue, is stunningly candid (especially for a Chinese government official) about the Chinese ecological crisis. I have pasted the full interview below. The statistics he cites alone make for compelling reading.

China’s environmental suicide: a government minister speaks
Andreas Lorenz
6 - 4 - 2005

China’s deputy environment minister, Pan Yue, tells Andreas Lorenz that China's economic miracle is creating an ecological crisis.

Pan Yue, born in Jiangsu region, is deputy director of the State Environmental Protection Administration in the People’s Republic of China, and a member of the Leading Party Group of the Communist Party of China

Andreas Lorenz: China is dazzling the world with its booming economy, which grew by 9.5%. Are you pleased with this speed of growth, and what effect is it having on the environment of China?

Pan Yue: Of course I am pleased with the success of China’s economy. But at the same time I am worried. We are using too many raw materials to sustain this growth. To produce goods worth $10,000, for example, we need seven times more resources than Japan, nearly six times more than the United States and, perhaps most embarrassing, nearly three times more than India. Things can’t, nor should they be allowed to, go on like that.

Andreas Lorenz: Such a viewpoint is not exactly widespread in your country.

Pan Yue: Many factors are coming together here. Our raw materials are scarce, we don’t have enough land, and our population is constantly growing. Currently, there are 1.3 billion people living in China – twice as many as fifty years ago. In 2020, there will be 1.5 billion people in China. Cities are growing but desert areas are expanding at the same time; in these fifty years, habitable and usable land has been halved.

Andreas Lorenz: Yet, in the eyes of the world, each year China strengthens its reputation as an economic wonderland.

Pan Yue: This miracle will end soon because the environment can no longer keep pace. Five of the ten most polluted cities worldwide are in China; acid rain is falling on one third of our territory; half of the water in China’s seven largest rivers is completely useless; a quarter of our citizens lack access to clean drinking water; a third of the urban population is breathing polluted air; less than a fifth of the rubbish in cities is treated and processed in an environmentally sustainable manner.

China’s economy, China’s environment

Andreas Lorenz: How great are the effects of this degradation of the Chinese environment on the economy?

Pan Yue: It’s massive. Because air and water are polluted, we are losing from 8-15% of our gross domestic product. This does not include the costs for health and human suffering: in Beijing alone, 70-80% of all deadly cancer cases are related to the environment. Lung cancer has emerged as the number one cause of death.

Andreas Lorenz: How is the population reacting to these health problems? Are people moving to healthier parts of the country?

Pan Yue: Even now, the western regions of China and the country’s most ecologically stressed regions can no longer support the people already living there. In the future, we will need to resettle 186 million residents from twenty-two provinces and cities. However, the remaining provinces and cities are able to absorb only 33 million people. China, in short, will have more than 150 million ecological migrants, or, if you like, environmental refugees.

Andreas Lorenz: Has China’s government tried to get pollution under control?

Pan Yue: Yes, it has. In some cities, such as Beijing, the air quality has recently improved. Also, the water in some rivers and lakes is now cleaner than it has been in the past. There are more conservation areas now, and some model cities – like Haikou, on Hainan island, and Zhuhai, in Guangdong province – focus specifically on environmental protection. We are replanting forests. We have passed additional laws and regulations that are stricter than in the past and they are being more rigorously enforced.

Andreas Lorenz: But the fanatics for economic growth in Beijing will still likely carry on just as before.

Pan Yue: They’re still playing the lead role – for now. For them, the gross domestic product is the only yardstick by which to gauge the government’s performance.

But this attitude entails two further mistakes. First, we are convinced that a prospering economy automatically goes hand-in-hand with political stability. I think that’s a major blunder. The faster the economy grows, the more quickly we will run the risk of a political crisis if the political reforms cannot keep pace. If the gap between the poor and the rich widens, then regions within China and the society as a whole will become unstable. If our democracy and our legal system lag behind overall economic development, various groups in the population won’t be able to protect their own interests.

Second, we assume that economic growth will give us the financial resources to cope with the crises surrounding China’s environment, raw materials, and population growth. But there won’t be enough money, and we are simply running out of time. Developed countries with a per capita gross national product of $8,000-$10,000 may think like that, but we cannot afford to. Before we reach even $4,000 per person, different crises in all shapes and forms will hit us. Economically, we won’t be strong enough to overcome them.

Andreas Lorenz: You have advocated the introduction of a different criterion to measure the condition of the economy and environment in China: “green gross domestic product.” What does this mean?

Pan Yue: This is a model that takes into account the costs of growth, like environmental pollution for example. We are discussing it with German experts. We want to assess the performance of functionaries in relation to how they solve environmental problems and social issues as well as to economic growth matters.

China’s state, China’s citizens

Andreas Lorenz: Does your agency have the power to clamp down on environmental criminals?

Pan Yue: We recently shut down thirty projects, including several power plants – one of them at the Three Gorges Dam. The companies involved failed to review what effect their new investments would have on the environment, as required by law.

Andreas Lorenz: But twenty-six other projects were allowed to carry on. They only had to pay small fines – peanuts compared to the billions that were invested.

Pan Yue: Unfortunately, that’s true. This is why our laws and regulations must be reformed. But even though we have little power, we will close down illegal projects, including economically powerful steel, cement, aluminium and paper factories that break regulations and damage the environment in China. And we will ignore the agendas followed by influential officials and companies.

Andreas Lorenz: Many environmental offenders in China have large amounts of cash or are taking advantage of their political connections.

Pan Yue: My agency has always gone against the grain. In the process, there have always been conflicts with the powerful lobbyist groups and strong local governments. But the people, the media, and science are behind us. In fact, the pressure is a motivator for me. Nobody is going to push me off my current course.

Andreas Lorenz: China lacks a grassroots movement to protect the environment. So far, its citizens have very little opportunity to stand up against questionable projects. Courts sometimes don’t even accept the suits that the people are filing, and voicing opposition is not allowed.

Pan Yue: Political dialogue and shared decision-making should be part of any socialist democracy. I want more discussions with the people affected. However, I do not want to put on a show just to look democratic to the outside. We need a law that enables and guarantees public participation, especially when it comes to environmental projects. If it’s safe politically to get involved and help the environment, then all sides will benefit. We must try to convince the central leadership in Beijing of that.

This interview, conducted by Andreas Lorenz and translated from German by Patrick Kessler, was originally published in the English edition of Der Spiegel.