China's leaders say nation needs a green revolution
China's industrial development is unsustainable because its people, resources and environment cannot cope.
This assertion, published yesterday, was not the intellectual musing of a green pressure group. It was the conclusion of the State Environmental Protection Administration, a branch of Beijing's Communist government not known for rhetorical bombshells.
Pan Yue, deputy director of SEPA, said China adopted the west's resource-hungry model of development even though it was unsuited to a country with a huge population, limited agricultural land and scarce resources. The solution was to develop renewable energy sources, slash waste and promote recycling, he said.
"If we continue on this path of traditional industrial civilisation, then there is no chance that we will have sustainable development," Mr Pan said. "Because China's populace, resources, environment has already reached the limits of its capacity to cope, sustainable development and new sources of energy are the only road we can take."
Beijing espoused a doctrine of "sustainable development" in early 2003, but the concept has remained largely undefined and senior officials have refrained from saying what some academics have started to think: that China's wasteful, energy-intensive, capital-hungry industrial revolution cannot continue.
Mr Pan said that in the past 20 years the consumption of oil has risen 100 per cent, natural gas 92 per cent, steel 143 per cent, copper 189 per cent and aluminium 380 per cent. But while China has 21 per cent of the world's population, it has only a fraction of its reserves of oil, natural gas, iron ore, alumina and other resources.
Most of these deficiencies can be offset by imports, albeit at a cost to China's sense of security. But other problems such as the 2.7m sqkm of farmland lost to desert, 400 cities short of water, the Yellow river's dwindling flow and chronic pollution are issues of a more elemental nature.
Liang Congjie, China's leading independent environmentalist, said multiplying current trends by a population of 1.3bn make it obvious that a Western development model will not work. If every second Chinese owned a car - the US average - there would one day be 600m cars in China, more than the current world total of 540m. The roads, parking lots and petrol stations required for those vehicles would consume much of China's scarce agricultural land, making the country dangerously dependent on foreign food sources. Mr Liang said: "If Chinese wanted to live like Americans, we would need the resources of four worlds to do so."
It is clear, though, that Beijing is not about to abandon its economic ambitions and turn the clock back 25 years to rural penury. The full force of the fastest transformation in human history is directed at industrialisation, urbanisation and the rise of consumerism.
Mr Pan acknowledges this. His point is that the government should expend considerable effort and funds to develop new energy sources - such as solar, wind and hydrogen generation - and insist on recycling waste metals, water, paper, glass and a host of other products.
He said: "We should give full play to the government's green guidance, smash the monopoly interests of some powerful ministries and enterprises and invest large-scale government funds on the development of new energy sources and a recycling economy."
Mr Pan's vision may take years to become reality. Environmental degredation is entrenched. Imports of food - especially grain - are likely to jump in coming years as China's farmland is eaten up by cities and water tables sink.
It may also take many years for China to wean itself off a diet of coal-generated electricity which satisfies 70 per cent of the country's energy needs. And if oil and natural gas were about to be eradicated from China's energy mix, then state companies would not be spending billions of US dollars in securing overseas supplies.
However, Mr Pan urges his readers not to scoff. In Texas in 2002 a green technology revolution took place; solar-powered car prototypes averaged speeds of 56km per hour.
That may not be regarded as fast, Mr Pan said. "But 100 years ago the first petrol car race was also held in America and at that time the fastest speed was 8km per hour, inducing the audience to stand up and shout 'Let's have a race with horses.' "
中国：需要绿色革命
中国的工业发展是不可持续的，因为中国的人口、资源与环境都应付不了。
昨天发表的这个主张，并非某家环保施压团体理性思考的结果，而是中国共产党政府下属机关国家环保总局(SEPA)的结论，该机构从不以一语惊人闻名。
环保总局副局长潘岳表示，中国采取西方的资源饥渴发展模式，而不顾这种模式并不适合中国，因为中国是个人口众多、耕地有限和资源稀缺的国家。他表示，解决方案是发展可再生能源，大大减少浪费，并推动资源循环利用。
“如果我们继续走传统工业文明之路，就不可能实现可持续发展，”潘先生表示，“因为中国的人口、资源、环境容量已到支撑的极限，可持续发展与新能源使用成为我们惟一的可行之路。”
中国政府于2003年年初采纳了“可持续发展”的理论，但这个概念基本上还没有明确的定义，而高官对一些学术界人士已开始考虑的问题闭口不提：中国这种浪费的、能源密集型的、资本饥渴式的工业革命不能继续。
潘先生表示，在过去20年间，中国的石油消耗量已上升100%、天然气消耗量增92%、钢铁消耗量增143%，铜消耗量增189%，铝消耗量增380%。但是，尽管中国人口已占世界人口的21%，但中国只拥有全球石油、天然气、铁矿石、氧化铝和其他资源储备的一小部分。
这些短缺问题中大部分都能用进口来弥补，虽然代价是降低中国的安全感。但诸如270万平方公里耕地被沙漠吞噬、400座城市缺水、黄河流量不断缩减，以及长期延续的污染状况，这些才是更本质的问题。
中国重要的独立环保人士梁从诫表示，将目前趋势乘以13亿人口，结果可以明显看出，西方发展模式行不通。如果按照美国平均水平，每两个中国人拥有一辆汽车，那么总有一天中国将拥有6亿辆汽车，超过5.4亿辆的当前世界总量。那么车辆所需的公路、停车位和加油站就将消耗中国已然稀缺的大部分农业用地，从而使国家危险地依赖于外国粮食来源。梁先生表示：“如果中国人希望像美国人那样生活，那我们将需要四个地球的资源才能实现这个目标。”
显然，中国政府不会马上打消其经济雄心，重回25年前贫穷的农村经济时代。在中国发生的这场人类历史上最快的经济转型，其全部力量都指向工业化、城市化，以及消费主义的兴起上。
潘先生承认这点。他的观点是，政府应该花费相当大的力气和资金用于开发新能源，如太阳能、风能和水电，并坚持对废旧金属、水、纸张、玻璃和大量其他产品进行回收利用。
他说：“我们应充分发挥政府的绿色引导，打破一些权力部门和企业的垄断私利，将政府财政大规模投向新能源开发和循环经济，”
潘先生的憧憬可能要过许多年才能成为现实。环境恶化已成痼疾。随着中国耕地被城市吞噬，以及地下水位的下降，未来几年内食品（尤其是谷物）的进口可能会激增。
中国可能还要花多年，才能摆脱对燃煤发电的依赖。燃煤发电满足了全国70%的能源需求。如果把石油和天然气从中国的能源组合中完全取消，那么中国国有企业就不会花费数十亿美元资金，以确保海外供应。
但潘先生敦促读者，不要对此不屑一顾。2002年美国得克萨斯发生了一场绿色科技革命；由太阳能提供动力的原型车平均时速达到了56公里。
潘先生表示，这一速度或许还不算快。“但100年前，第一次汽车竞赛也是在美国举行，当时最快的速度是每小时8公里，引起观众起身高呼：‘和马比一比！’”
