Last Saturday an air pollution monitor atop the U.S. Embassy in Beijing rated the pollution index at a shocking 755–on a scale of 0 to 500. (The EPA categorizes pollution levels over 300 as “hazardous.”) A Time reporter wrote that the view from her 16th floor Beijing apartment was “akin to a sandstorm in Afghanistan.” Even China’s official People’s Daily ran a front-page story on the appalling haze, calling it a “suffocating siege.” My Beijing colleague Jingjing Qian said that mai, or smog, once a rarely-used word in Chinese, has been the talk of the town.

CCTV building, Beijing (courtesy Anthony Suen)

Dozens of cities in eastern China reported record-breaking levels of pollution last week. Children stayed indoors, while others only ventured out in masks. During the smog’s peak, hospitals reported an uptick in patients with respiratory and heart complaints. This NASA satellite photo, in which grayish-brown smog completely blots out the cities of Beijing and neighboring Tianjin, was taken after the pollution began to dissipate.

NASA Earth Observatory

Weather conditions certainly played a role in trapping the smog above Beijing’s flat plain, but the source of the pollution itself is entirely human–created, in large part, by the burning of coal. Since my last visit to China, when the never-ending haze left a metallic taste in my mouth, the Chinese government has taken steps to cut power plant pollution, improve environmental monitoring, and strengthen the transparency of environmental information. This newfound transparency has helped fuel the unprecedented, and largely critical, coverage on the smog by the Chinese media.

All this is important progress. But to prevent the occurrence of another “airpocalypse” in China, this transparency needs to spark more aggressive action to curb air pollution from coal, cars, and factories. China needs to continue to strengthen and monitor emissions standards for power plants and industrial facilities, accelerate the shift away from polluting industries, expand public transit and walkability in cities, and take steps to clean up its dirty diesel trucks and buses, which contribute huge quantities of particulate soot to Beijing’s air. And possibly the most critical step China can take to clear its air will be to put a cap on the amount of coal it burns.

In 2011, China consumed 3.6 billion tons of coal–half the world’s total consumption. And that number continues to rise. Significant progress on energy efficiency (NRDC has been working on this for more than a decade in China) and the expansion of renewable energy could reduce coal’s share of total energy consumption by as much as 10 percent by 2020, according to an LBNL study. But total energy use in China is still on the upswing, which means total coal consumption–and emissions–will also rise.

Continuing to burn billions of tons of coal each year, without adequate pollution controls, endangers not only the health of Chinese citizens, but also the health of the planet. Coal is a leading source of greenhouse gas emissions, and scientists warn that without effective, global action to curb this pollution, we are propelling ourselves toward catastrophic climate change. China, by virtue of its size and the rapid increase in its emissions from coal, can play an important global role in reducing the risk of severe climate impacts–and improve its own local air quality– by moving quickly to reduce its reliance on coal.

China’s CO2 emissions rose by about 9 percent in 2011, according to the IEA, largely due to increasing coal consumption. Continued growth at this pace will make it very difficult to keep global warming in check, especially as the world struggles to find ways to keep the warming needle under 2 degrees Celsius, the point beyond which, scientists say, we risk extreme environmental and societal disruption.

That’s a fairly dire outcome. But no amount of scientific modeling is as compelling as a thick blanket of brown, soupy air smothering your capital; or the voice of your people who are tired of getting sick from pollution. This could be China’s Cuyahoga moment: when an instance of pollution so severe, like the river that caught fire outside Cleveland in 1969, moves the people, and the government, to action. China has set soft targets for coal consumption in the past, but these are routinely, and overwhelmingly, exceeded. By setting a mandatory, enforceable cap on coal, China can make its air and water cleaner and its people healthier. It can also help the world steer clear of climate disaster

NRDC

7 Comments on "Air Pollution: The Price of Coal in China"

BillT on Tue, 22nd Jan 2013 4:30 am 



I would love to see the NASA pics of Pittsburgh in the 60s…lol. If you could have seen the city at all. Yes, China is polluting the air making the junk you buy at Walmart. If they didn’t make it there, we would be making it here. So?

They are not doing anything we haven’t done for the last century and aren’t doing today. Remember, when you point the finger of blame at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you.

Kenz300 on Tue, 22nd Jan 2013 5:34 am 



Climate change is real…

The world and especially China need to stop building any more coal fired power plants.

There are cleaner less environmentally damaging ways to generate electricity.

China has the opportunity to build a new energy economy and move away from fossil fuels.

Kenz300 on Tue, 22nd Jan 2013 5:59 am 



Renewable Energy Provided half of all new US electrical generating capacity in 2012. If the US can transition to alternative energy sources so can China.

Perhaps this latest pollution event will be the turning point for China.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/01/renewable-energy-provides-half-of-all-new-us-electrical-generating-capacity-in-2012

DC on Tue, 22nd Jan 2013 7:06 am 



The only difference between China and the US, is one of scale. US cities still have very dirty air and toxic corridors where what industry the US still has is clustered. Sure, its not like the pictures above, but if the US had even 100 million more people(yes your working on it I know) even with a ‘service’ economy, US air would look just as bad. In some places, it almost still does.

High density with dirty industry=pictures above.

In the US, most industry gone, except for cars and the O+G guys, and the Industry undertook an effort to make its pollution less obvious. Its still there, just looks prettier than Chinas.

They use the same basic dirty technology we do. We can hardly lecture them while they are making all our cheap plastic throwaway garbage using technology WE provided for them to do it with can we?

TIKIMAN on Tue, 22nd Jan 2013 12:28 pm 



Kenz3000 –

You are fucked in the head. Renewables are still very expensive and are not efficient at all. Coal can be made to spew very little poolutants into the air. Obviously the commie boy lovers in China do not care about their environment. They are too bust driving under the speed limit in the left lane to care.

BillT on Tue, 22nd Jan 2013 1:00 pm 



TIKI..yes, coal can be made cleaner. For a price. Do you want that new TV to cost $2,800. instead of $1,800.? Maybe you think that the coal plants here are not spewing the same pollution that those in China are? Think again. Stop buying their stuff and they will stop making it. Simple, isn’t it?

DC on Tue, 22nd Jan 2013 8:35 pm 



Was that called for Tiki? Yes Ken is bit of parrot, and hasnt thought a few things through to there logical conclusion, but still, thats pretty rude. And FYI, ‘clean coal’ is a myth, it does not exist, anywhere. At best, it can be made slightly less dirty. Doing so is energy and money intense, which is why US coal corporations are hardly sprinting down to the coal-scrubber manufactures and placing orders.

But you know all this right? Coal is very expensive too, and not especially efficient either. But massive subsidies in the US and externalizing costs make coal appear ‘cheap’. If solar and wind had even a fraction of the sweetheart deals in the US that oil and coal does, wind would be just and cheap and you wouldnt be able to tell when you turned on a light. But since your hatred of solar and wind has little to do with efficiency or even its ‘cost’, maybe less swearing at the naive is in order eh?