Countdown Beijing : Greening of Beijing

Q&A: Green Forum, Not-So-Green Games

Jonathan Ansfield — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:56:13 GMT

The goal of a “Green Olympics”, to Beijing’s chagrin, has become just another green light to have a go at its environmental woes. It is hard to hold back. After all, water is being pumped into a man-made addition to a parched riverbed, just to hold the Olympic rowing regatta. A reeking lather of algae docked on the shores of sailing host city Qingdao last month, requiring more than 10,000 workers to remove it. China's weather mod squad – officially, the ‘Weather Modification Office' – conducts constant aerial experiments in man-made rain to cool the cities and clear the skies. And the only thing less transparent than the air seems to be Beijing’s air pollution testing, which critics say is configured to lowball the numbers. Some Olympic runners are swooping into town for the days of their events alone, so leery are they of the haze. They’ll come muzzled in super-sophisticated masks.

The government's had to pull out all the stops - ordering half the cities' cars off the road (alternating daily bans on even- and odd-numbered license plates), closing factories, and shutting down construction - in the mere hope of making Beijing appear a less forbidding city.

So acute are the problems, however, that China’s also opened up to all sorts of innovative efforts at fixing them. At one newly established forum in Beijing earlier this month, environmental experts, green business gurus and grassroots activists pondered the future of the “environmental economy”. We emailed with Richard Marks and Sophia Trapp of Productions 1000, co-founders of the “International Earth Forum” (IEF), about China's prospects of improving a grim environment and their own challenges operating in a toxic climate of pre-Olympic security. Excerpts from our e-interview follow:

NEWSWEEK: Tell us what the International Earth Forum is and how it came about.

We brought together a mix of communicators, connectors, forestry experts, business people, renewable energy & carbon trading leaders, academic and youth leaders from the UK, US, Netherlands, Germany and China. Our core discussions centered around the theme of leadership within the new “environmental economy”, in which attendees asked, “How can we do Business with Nature?”

Why China?

Four years ago, China invited us into early discussions about the urgency for addressing its serious energy concerns. That first renewable energy business delegation brought us face-to-face with senior government leaders from Shanghai to Beijing to discuss renewable technologies, investment and long range environmental planning, sustainable development in China, clean energy technologies and policy planning for the protection of China’s environment.

To organize the International Earth Forum, we partnered with senior level Chinese business people and government officials to connect re-forestation projects with international venture partners. But as we proceeded, we realized the importance of communicating fresh international and inter-cultural thinking. We all want to know what China is doing about the environment. In addition, our third co-host, Jing Su, is a young Chinese woman who has undertaken to help the environment by bridging the gap between China and the international community on environmental ideologies and practices. She is now the China Program Associate for the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE).

Timing-wise, why did you choose the run-up to the Beijing Olympics?

Planning an international event in the run-up to the Olympics was an obvious opportunity to celebrate and communicate the positive changes happening in China, to share common ideas and desires for sustainability, and discuss how doing business that is good for the environment can be profitable and healthy. In a dialogue, people coming from different backgrounds typically have different basic assumptions and opinions. In the course of our dialogues, we seek to question our assumptions, set them aside, and are willing to set them free if we find we can do better with the words and ideas that will light the way for others.

But the Olympics hasn’t made for the freest of times here. Plus conferences in China normally require local partners and official approvals. Yet you managed to avoid all that. How and why?

In the beginning, Productions 1000 was eager to partner with a Chinese environmental NGO that wanted its organization to be recognized as the host; otherwise "it wasn't interested." We had to hold firm that it's an inappropriate role for an NGO to host a business-oriented forum. We decided to risk it and continue on our own. Launching for the first time in China, it was touch and go until the end.

Through two years of relationship-building with private sector environmental business ventures in China, we had made friends with business people and NGO’s in China. Our idea to bring international people to the table required an agenda that would be communications-driven, so our approach was to remain a private and social gathering – an invitation-only event. This ensured the integrity of doing business while protecting the exposure to our guests, many of whom are CEO’s and presidents of significant venture funds for the environment.

While the original people we felt we needed to work in China did not stay along for the ride, some very senior government and business people working in China's environmental space ultimately gave us the "nod" to allow it to happen [on an unofficial basis]. We feel that’s because they recognized we are good people who had something good to contribute to China's environment and people.

Greening the guanxi: Trapp, Marks, Su and fellow participants

Can you fill us in on some other stumbling blocks you encountered, and the adjustments you had to make?

A drawback of holding the forum [IEF] independently was the suggestion that guests trying to get their visas to enter China for any 'official' gatherings would not be allowed. Actually that was helpful to know up front. We therefore made sure that even though our agenda would be on relevant subjects for China's environment, our format was a more social one. We steered away from the word 'conference' and recommended that speakers and guests enter on tourist visas, rather than business visas.

Another tricky moment happened when we met with quite a high ranking official a week before the event and he wanted to discuss our guest list with us. It was surprising when the decision was made that he would not be attending after all, apparently because we had a number of younger people coming. We had a tough decision to make, but in the end we remained true to our vision that if the environmental situation in China -- and therefore the world -- is going to be solved it will be because all ages are in the room together. It paid off in spades but we were tested. The easier road would have been to back down and we would have had any number of high government officials coming. In the end, a few government officials attended to hear what the IEF was about and saw how successful it was. We hope they will all be there again next year.

How did the some of the changes you had to make going in ultimately affect the event?

We originally planned a forum that would bring Chinese business opportunities to international business leaders together, but the IEF evolved into a gathering of frontier-thinkers deeply interested not just in doing green business, but for people who wanted to be exposed to a deeper understanding about positive opportunities for doing business that will improve China’s – and the world’s – environment. It wasn’t just about making “a lot of noise”, as one senior-level invitee remarked, but about “making the right kind of noise”. The recent tragic earthquake also helped to reinforce the message that people together discover ways to help one another across all political and environmental lines.

How did things go? What did you learn? Highlights?

Beautifully, we thought. The IEF was an eye-opener for people who made the journey. For a number of people, this was their first time in China. For some, rapid changes have transformed China since they were here last.

The highlight was making new friends, the most important thing to be working anywhere, but especially in China. The government people who are associated with NGO's in China recognized that we were mixing senior-level and youth leadership, which is not the ordinary structure in business-driven forums. And that was ultimately perhaps the most unique thing about its success.

In one dialogue session, we asked what people need to know about China in order to do green business. We learned – from an all-Chinese group of leaders - that “China is [a system of] governmental capitalism.” For example, [it’s the] government who is creating new policies for obligations of companies to recycle. Second, we learned that education (at the moment) works from the top-down. Government rules are far above the people and need to be more connected. Youths want [the message] to go out locally that “green isn’t always more expensive” – it’s not a luxury. Third, what’s needed to know about doing green business happens to be a universal business creed: working with good people is what one needs. NGO’s are good for advocacy but not for business.

Young leaders also expressed that they would like a ranking of companies for their “green-ness.” The right green information - and trust in that information - is missing. If that changes, then we’d see a positive consumer swing and people would be confident to start more green businesses. They also want to spread the thinking that “green equals change and opportunity” and that this message would help to create new jobs.

The European and American guests were truly impressed by the level of seriousness, talent and intelligence of the younger people. Likewise, some of China's best NGO's came along for the ride came. Among them, the directors of forestry for the World Wildlife Fund in China and Washington DC took notice of this opportunity, and introduced us to the Director General of the Department of International Cooperation at the Beijing Muncipal Bureau of Landscape and Forestry. They jumped into the IEF with two feet just days before it began, presenting in-depth and cutting-edge ideas not just about their solutions for the greening of Beijing prior to the Beijing Olympics, but also about their role in facilitating China's first carbon sequestration program launched this month.

You’re in the business of environmental consulting. So what about the “Green Olympics”? A lot of critics and reports still contend that it’s a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Based on what you’ve observed in China and heard at the forum, what impact do you think the Olympics has made on environmental practices, whether positive or negative?

Isn't there a 'Blue-Sky Day' count that has been recorded for 10 years ... and statistically, according to the government, aren't there are twice as many blue days now than 10 years ago? But is the situation still bad? Yes. But are they doing something about it? Yes as well.

Is there a lot of 'green hype'? Yes of course. The whole world is going through green hype! All of a sudden your bank is 'green' because they send you your bill via email. They would have done that anyway, they are saving money doing so, but now all of a sudden they are 'green'!

The Beijing Olympic Committee set out to make some necessary changes and then oversell it as well as they could. That is the age we live in. But amidst all the hype there are people using this window of opportunity to enact real change and its a pity that they get attacked with all the rest. The Beijing Forestry Department of International Cooperation for example have put real science behind their improvement plans and have established the first carbon sequestration plan for any city in the world. That is something real.

In general the “Green Olympics” has helped expose certain relevant environmental issues such as energy saving, renewable energy, and the importance of air quality, so that it became a national discussion point. Now, as a result, some people are even more eager to make the ‘green’ dream a reality and that can only be a good thing in a country as motivated and resourceful as China is.

What would you do differently next year? What lessons did you learn? What advice would you give to other event organizers in China?

One important thing to know about the 'form' of the International Earth Forum is that we paid for it ourselves. Productions 1000 did not go for corporate sponsorship of any kind. We felt is was essential to keep the IEF independent, and now that we've done it this way, we feel it should remain independent. Three committed individuals made it happen. That's a story of personal commitment -- to actually doing something and not waiting for someone else to slow it down, stop it, weaken it, judge it beforehand, or make it beholden to ideas that might not be in line with the need for creating a new and necessary space for open dialogue and communication. And it allowed us to work without any strings attached with the government officials and NGO's whom we met initially.

The idea of the 'two day dinner party' had a more real effect than we could have known. You had to see the energy at the Forum to believe it. We are going to host the IEF again in Beijing next year to have even more people at the table and to push the discussions even further.

Beijing's "Blue" Skies

Quindlen Krovatin — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:28:15 GMT

I suppose it was inevitable.

After four days of (relatively) blue skies, the summer haze has descended once more upon Beijing. Nature's palette includes many lovely hues of blue: cerulean and cyan, turquoise and teal, azure and aqua; but the blue of a Beijing sky is seemingly indescribable and lies somewhere along the visible spectrum between tar heel pride and acid-washed jeans.

Granted, what we’re looking at today, Thursday, July 24 – a sky you can’t quite call overcast – is better than the polluted pall that usually hangs over our God-forsaken city. But still, it’s a sky the color of bed sheets that have been slept in too many times. Shadows lack defined edges. Visibility barely extends beyond the buildings across the street.

Which makes us wonder, will Beijing’s ambitious plan to reduce pollution in the capital ahead of the Olympics actually work?

Cars are only allowed to drive on alternating days according to whether their license plates end in odd or even numbers (on the first day, Sunday, July 20, odd-numbered vehicles stayed home). But there are significantly more cars with even-numbered plates in Beijing because Chinese people prefer digits ending in 6 or 8, which are considered lucky.

Traffic seems slightly reduced. But as someone who lives in an apartment overlooking the East Second Ring Road between Dongsishitiao and Chaoyangmen Bridges, I can tell you that congestion remains a significant impediment to progress for at least five hours a day (7:00AM to 10:00AM and 5:00PM to 7:00PM).

Part of the problem is Olympic lanes – specially designated thoroughfares that lead to and from the Olympic Village and Venues. But the lanes are poorly marked in most places, and a normal lane can suddenly become an Olympic lane without warning. This leads to bottlenecking delays as drivers hastily merge into other lanes rather than risk steep fines.

Those who aren’t on the roads use public transportation instead, and the opening of three new subway lines this past weekend was meant to mitigate the effects of a sudden influx of straphangers. But as someone who rides the subway every day, I can tell you that the trains are packed to capacity and the list of good manners and behaviors for the Chinese people is regularly flouted.

Blue skies are always a joy, yet with clarity comes concomitant heat. Beijing is burning up. But The Weather Channel's 10-day forecast appears to indicate we’ll be getting some much-needed, man-made rain early next week. Let’s hope it can wash away this haze and cool off the city’s cramped, cantankerous commuters.

Environmental Optimism Among Beijing Youth

Manuela Zoninsein — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:04:27 GMT

Wednesday, July 9th was the launch of a student-led national conservation campaign called the Green Long March, referring to the epic journey by Chinese communist stalwarts retreating from Kuomintang adversaries in the 1930's. Conversations with student volunteers from the Beijing Forestry University (BJFU) revealed a sharp contrast between negative perceptions of China's environmental challenges by much of the outside world — versus the optimism and pride many locals feel on the eve of China's Olympics debut.

    The second annual Green Long March will take thousands of student environmentalists from 32 different universities along 10 routes across 26 provinces to spread awareness of conservation efforts. Part of their aim is to conduct education campaigns—and to “spread the spirit of the Green Olympics,” said Yu Jishun, the Secretary General of the Youth League at BJFU.

    Yet the "Green Olympics" slogan seems a bit laughable at the moment, at least for those of us who've been confronting Beijing's thick smog for weeks now. I looked out my window this morning and could barely identify the form of a gargantuan ‘Z’—the OMA-designed CCTV Towers and the second largest office building in the world—defying gravity just across the street.

     Despite the limited visibility in Beijing, members of China’s largest youth environmental movement are looking at their surroundings with rose-colored glasses. Han Renya, one of the volunteers, hopes that foreign visitors during the Olympics will see “the air and sky as clean; and the streets and rivers clear of trash" (she may get her wish on the latter, but hopes for clean air have been looking pretty bleak, at lease so far.) Ma Chizhi, one of the student leaders for the Green Long March, feels “encouraged by recent changes, and wants to share these successes and encourage others to participate.” He wants foreigners to understand that “during these Green Olympics, all Chinese people are trying to make our environment better.”

     This optimism, in large part, should be attributed to SEED-SCALE, a development model created by Dr. Daniel Taylor, the President of Future Generations which worked with BJFU to organize the Green Long March. Rather than “always identifying the problems, we’ve taught the students to find the successes and see how things are changing,” is how Denise van der Klamp, a Hong Kong-based organizer, explained it. Said Frances Fremont-Smith, Executive Director of the organization, “Sure, we have polluted days in Beijing; but, there are people doing what they can—and [during the Olympics] we want the world to see that.”

    To someone living in the West, reports of China’s environmental problems understandably inspire apocalyptic visions. My parents regularly worry after my lungs; friends repeat reports of silver iodide-loaded rockets shot into the skies to encourage cloud-clearing rains; former colleagues have recently learned about fear and loathing in the city of Qingdao because its algal blooms threaten to obstruct Olympics sailing races.

     While those in the West is more likely to criticize China's failings in hopes of bringing about change for the better, many Chinese are seeking recognition for their country's advances. If recent media coverage of China is any indication of what’s to come in August, Olympic events could be perceived in dramatically different ways depending on whether you're inside or outside China. It's a classic glass-half-full-or-half-empty situation.

Dreaming of a Green Christmas

Manuela Zoninsein — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:16:36 GMT

Beijing is blossomed with Christmas-related paraphernalia in stores and along streets, lightening up the city a bit.And we had the year's first snowfall, a light dusting. But the coal-burning heaters which keep many Beijingers warm still manage to shroud the place in haze when there's no wind to dissipate the pollution. Those noxious, old-fashioned coal-bricks are being replaced by natural gas as a source of fuel, but not quickly enough to help dispel pollution worries during the 2008 Summer Games.

But, hey, in the name of holiday cheer, how about taking seriously the government's promises to create a "Green Olympics" -- or at least give it a good try, thus improving the city's environment in the process?

At least that's how Nicholas Parker, Chairman and Co-Founder of the Cleantech Group, would have it. Last week Beijing-based Cleantech held a forum in Beijing to encourage networking among "investors, innovators and influencers" in the world of environmentally-friendly technologies. They're certainly focused on the bright side of the future. Clean technologies are attracting 10 percent of total venture capital (VC) in China, third only to information technology and communications.

If the current trajectory holds true, cleantech's share of VC funds will only grow — to as much as 40 percent within the next investment cycle, reportedly. Within the first three quarters of 2007, eastern China landed a spot among the world's top-10 regions in terms of cleantech investment. It is the only region to do so in the developing world—and next to Western Europe, the only one outside the U.S.

China's expected to overtake the U.S. as the leading global emitter of greenhouse gases by the time the Olympics take place -- a decade sooner than expected. And many 2007 goals for cleaning up pollution and promoting sustainable development have not been met.

Still, worries about a pollution-shrouded Olympics have penetrated official consciousness, and we'll no doubt see an increasingly ambitious raft of clean-up of measures -- such as reducing industrial production in neighboring areas -- in advance of the Games. The country's 11^th Five-Year-Plan outlines comprehensive measures which gear the country toward sustainable development, alternative energy (as opposed to fossil fuels) and cleaner technologies. The impact of those policies won't be felt before the Olympics take place. But as part of its legacy, the Games may leave a greener city than Beijing might otherwise have turned out to be.That's not a bad gift, Christmas or otherwise.

Product Safety and a China-EU Hissy Fit

Melinda Liu — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:57:51 GMT

What do the Beijing Games have to do with this week’s diplomatic hissy-fit between Chinese and European Union senior officials over product safety? Following months of export scandals and Western recalls of flawed Chinese goods, the Beijing Olympics media center laid on a Nov. 12 press visit to a string of chicken-processing, pig-butchering and product-inspection facilities to emphasize the city’s commitment to food safety.

Among other things we saw neat assembly lines of pig carcasses being sawed, sliced and cut into bits. While graphic, the scenes bore little resemblance to how we imagine most meat gets processed in China, evoking the Chicago abattoirs of Upton Sinclair’s time. Chinese factory officials bent over backwards to assure us their high standards guaranteed food safety for ALL Beijing citizens, not just visiting Olympians. That was to deflate rumors that secret pig-raising centers had been established to guaranteed hormone-free “pampered” pork for Olympic athletes – gossip which blogger Andrew Lih dubbed “the Olympic pig conspiracy.”

The timing of that media event seemed quite the coincidence when, this past week, Beijing opened a big international food-safety conference. That’s when the high-level catfight erupted. First EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson tore into Chinese authorities for their record of unsafe exports and “tidal wave” of counterfeits. “During the summer some Chinese officials pointed out that less than 1 percent of China’s exports to Europe had alleged health risks,” he declared, “But Europe imports half a billion euros worth of goods from China daily, so even 1 percent is not acceptable.”

Mandelson’s rant was “unfair” and “inappropriate for today’s occasion”, maintained Wei Chuanzhong, deputy director of China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (one of the organizations that featured during our little press trip, by the way). Chinese vice premier Wu Yi-- Beijing’s top trade official, nicknamed the “Iron Lady” -- was even more miffed. She declared herself “extremely unhappy” with Mandelson’s remarks and defended China’s efforts to improve quality control and crack down on pirated goods.

Later that same day, Mandelson riposted that Wu should not have taken exception to his statement that four-fifths of the counterfeit items pouring over Europe’s borders originate in China. “We must seek truth from facts,” he said, citing a phrase identified with Beijing’s late strongman Deng Xiaoping.

What exactly are the facts surrounding China’s food-safety record, and why are Western officials so concerned? Here’s an interview my colleague Han Songmei conducted with Dr Roger Skinner, who’s investigated China’s food safety system as a consultant for the World Health Organization. The London-based specialist is lead author of a report on suggested reforms that was sponsored by China’s State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA), the World Health Organization and the Asian Development Bank. Skinner was remarkably candid; check out these excerpts:

Han: Your report has been presented to China’s State Council, or cabinet, but it hasn’t yet been published. What does it say?

It [sets] out in incredibly clear terms what needs to be done in a practical way.

My concern about the Chinese is they’re very good at setting out the grand objective but they’re very bad at setting out how you achieve it….There’s no particular ministry that has the responsibility for dealing with food safety so when something does go wrong there’s no one there to whom you can say ‘It was your responsibility and you blew it’.

Q: Can you give concrete examples?

A: Four or five different authorities have the authority to go into supermarkets and test things on the shelves, and impose a fine. Because it happens so often the supermarkets are not happy about. It adds up to a very considerable sum of money. [Take] bottled water. They may find one millilitre less than there should be in the bottle…but in terms of public health it’s irrelevant.[They] have to develop some sort of rational, coherent approach, and as far as I can see there’s nobody in China doing that because there are too many players pursuing their own interests. Six government agencies have mainstream responsibilities for food safety, and there are 17 departments or agencies involved altogether.

A: How big a problem is unsafe food? Your report suggested an economic cost of US$4.7 to US$14 billion in 2005, based on medical costs and productivity losses due to food-borne disease.

A: I would be very, very concerned about the controls that exist in relation to foodstuff generally. It’s very difficult to know how big the problem is because the statistics are not there.

Q: What are the major weaknesses of the current inspection system?

A: Authorities are obsessed with testing, which is fundamentally wrong…. The only way of ensuring safe food is you control the production process using hazard analysis at critical control points.

Q: What’s the scale of the present inspection system in terms of budget and headcount? Are rural areas less well-equipped?

A: That’s information that’s impossible to get in China… My impression is that staffing in the SFDA is just inadequate. In broad terms, the central government is under-resourced to do the job.

Q: You’ve called for a Basic Food Law in China. What are the major shortcomings of the current legal framework?

A: The [current] food hygiene law did not contain an obligation that food should be safe and fit for human consumption. To give an example, in 2005 there were reports about children dying because they had inhaled konjac gum, and this is a problem we had faced in Europe so I surprised to see this. They were unable to do anything about it because there was no regulation, no standard, regarding children’s sweets in China. Enforcement had to be based on a regulation, and in the absence of a regulation they couldn’t do any enforcement. This struck me as a fundamental problem with the Chinese food safety law.

You need to have a catch-all, ‘This must not contain any hazard to human health’ so [that] you have a fundamental basis to protect the consumers if something turns up you didn’t predict. It may seem terribly obvious, but after all you do need that. That was one reason I felt there needed to be a basic food law.

Q: You worked for the UK Department of Health during the crisis over BSE (or Mad Cow Disease) in the 1980s, when British beef exports were blocked, and you gave evidence to the public inquiry. What did you learn from that crisis?

A: The biggest lesson… is communication with the public…People need to be brought into the things, people need to have the information on which they can act, and they’re grateful for it. The problem with BSE is they were denied the ability to exercise their own choice.