« | Home | »

Climate Change?

Tags: | |

On 28 July there were violent clashes between thousands of local residents and police in the Chinese city of Qidong, north of Shanghai. The protesters were concerned about pollution from a Japanese paper factory’s planned new sewage outlet, which they thought could contaminate drinking water and harm the city’s fishing industry. They overturned several police cars, stripped the mayor of his shirt and entered local government offices, where they found expensive bottles of alcohol, condoms and cigarettes, all things that officials are often given as bribes. Some demonstrators were beaten by riot police. The protest came to an end when it was announced that the sewage pipe project would be permanently cancelled.

Environmental protests are on the rise in China. In Xiamen in 2007 a campaign organised by text message prevented a chemical plant from being built near the city centre. In August 2011, demonstrators in Dalian, again using text messages and social media to organise themselves, forced another plant to close. In both cases, crowds of more than 10,000 were able to gather. The authorities tried to censor online discussion of the incident, but the news spread anyway.

Early last month, people in Shifang, in Sichuan province, gathered to voice their opposition to plans to build a copper smelting plant. The police fired tear gas and sonic bombs on the crowd, but few arrests were made and the project was cancelled. The success of the protests was widely discussed on various weibo sites, most of which were left uncensored (which seems to contradict a recent study arguing that the main aim of internet censorship in China is not to block criticism of the government, but to prevent collective action).

One reason that news of the successful protests has been allowed to spread may be the Chinese government’s wish to present itself as promoting environmentally progressive policies. But this is sometimes at odds with attempts to stimulate the slowing economy. The copper smelting plant in Shifang was supposed to be at the centre of a scheme to boost the region after the destruction caused by the 2008 earthquake. A recent editorial in China Daily appeared to argue that the real problem is a public-relations failure by the Qidong and Shifang authorities:

maybe the environmental concern and worry of the two cities’ residents were not totally based on informed judgment… had both local governments communicated and interacted properly with the local residents on the projects they had been planning, they could have avoided the embarrassment of facing demonstrations.

This argument tacitly invokes the proverb that ‘heaven is high, and the emperor is far away’, which is often used to exempt the central authorities from blame (though it’s extremely unlikely that such major investments were not approved by Beijing).

The response to the protests in Qidong and Shifang suggests that the government accepts it’s impossible to block all forms of dissent. Calls for political reform tend to be quickly suppressed (as are demonstrations in sensitive border regions like Xinjiang or Tibet). But the authorities can afford to respond more leniently to the environmental demands of urban middle-class citizens. It remains to be seen, however, if the apparent concessions in Qidong and Shifang are more than gestures of temporary appeasement. There have been reports that the Dalian plant has now reopened, and the paper factory in Qidong resumed operations on 31 July.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement