Archive for July, 2009

welcome to the new livefrombeijing

Monday, July 27th, 2009

Welcome to the new livefrombeijing.

Unlike my old blog (live-from-beijing.blogspot.com), this new site should be accessible all over mainland China and will hopefully remain that way. Plus, having my own domain opens up some cool possibilities for future site development, should I have the time to realize a few ideas I have brewing.

In the meantime, for now, this site should be functionally very similar to the old one. The primary difference (outside of the url change and accessability within mainland China), is the addition of pages in addition to pure blog posts. I’ve migrated the contents of two oft-updated posts (list of Chinese energy and environmental standards for vehicles and reports repository) to pages, and expect that over time I will be creating more.

Also, for those of you who subscribe, please note the new feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/livefrombeijing/feed.

It took a long time to update all the images and inner-blog links from blogspot to the new domain. I may have overlooked some, though, so if you are within mainland China and come across a missing image / broken link, I would appreciate it if you would let me know either in the comments or by e-mail: livefrombeijing at gmail dot com.

It will also take me some time to complete the full transition to using wordpress smoothly (not to mention some time to catch up on all the posts I have wanted to write over the past few weeks),  so I appreciate your continued patience!

Enjoy the new site, and please do get in touch with comments or questions.

Best,

Vance

livefrombeijing is under construction

Tuesday, July 7th, 2009

08185
Greetings,

I am doing some site maintenance (and have been really busy), so my posting will likely be light for the next little while.

For the record, this is not “maintenance” as related specifically to the massive information control currently occurring in China as a result of the protests / riots in Xinjiang. The maintenance I am doing is, however, related to the fact that blogspot (including this blog), has been blocked in China since mid-May. Especially given the events of the last two days, it seems unlikely that China will unblock blogspot for some time; therefore, I am in the process of setting up a new blog and migrating my posts.

With Twitter blocked again as of Sunday night, I was a little disappointed to see the BeijingAir feed tweet about “routine maintenance”:

beijingair 7 7
A more appropriate tweet would be “Site is currently under routine harmonization. Please refer to the last available reading.”

Lastly, here is some recent news reading / placeholders for future commentary:

7/2 China Daily: Beijing air cleanest in 9 years
7/3 Time blog: Cleaner Skies in Beijing
7/4 Xinhua: Chinese Minister refutes doubts over air quality results during Olympics
7/6 CELB: Beijing Makes Straw Man of Paper Tiger

xinhua’s international herald leader on the us embassy air quality monitor

Wednesday, July 1st, 2009

This post contains some translation and commentary on the recent story in Xinhua’s International Herald Leader (国际先驱导报) on the US Embassy’s independent air quality monitor. The story was reprinted in the Hong Kong-based Phoenix magazine (凤凰) here.

First, title: I think it’s noteworthy that, although the stories in the two Chinese-language sources are the same, the title in the IHL is 美国驻华使馆自建空气监测站 (“US Embassy Independently Sets Up Air Quality Monitoring Station”), whereas that in the Hong Kong-based Phoenix is more provocative: 美驻华使馆发布自测北京空气指数 与气象局数据分歧 (“US Embassy in China Issues Independently-Tested Beijing Air Quality Index – Different from the Meteorological Bureau’s Data”).

And now content: The IHT begins with similar content as the China Daily story: information about the Embassy’s twitter feed and concerns about discrepancies with the officially-reported data, followed by assurance from an Embassy official that the numbers are not directly comparable. As in the China Daily, the IHT story then describes the health impact differences between PM2.5 and PM10.

Following this, though, the IHT diverges from the China Daily story. A section titled 建监测站应循通行规则 (Regulations Should Be Followed When Setting Up Monitoring Stations) questions whether the US Embassy’s data is even valid:

中国气象科学院院长张人禾向《国际先驱导报》介绍道,设立空气监测的站点需要在整个区域具备代表性,且50米内不能有污染源,否则将严重影响监测结果。…

因此事实上,美国驻华使馆自建的空气监测站并不符合通行的国际规范。

According to Zhang Renhe, Director of the Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, an air quality monitor must be installed in a location representative of of the entire city; moreover, there should be no pollution sources within 50m that could strongly impact the monitoring results…

In fact, the US embassy’s independent air quality monitoring station is not in accordance with international criteria.

于去年8月建成的美国新使馆区坐落在北京CBD商业圈、背靠亮马河的黄金地段,它毗邻女人街等商业场所,平日里交通繁忙、人群熙攘,这些因素都很可能对监测站的数据收录产生影响。

记者28日在美国使馆的所在地更是发现,其对面原有的星吧路酒吧餐饮街已被大规模拆除,工地上一片狼藉,灰尘扑面。而它南面的其他使馆区仍在建设中…

Completed last August, the US Embassy is located in the CBD business area, near the prime locations around Liangmahe. It is near the Ladies’ Market and other commercial areas with high weekday traffic and bustling crowds; these factors all possibly influence the data recorded by the monitor.

On the 28th, this reporter visited the location of the US Embassy and discovered the large scale demolition of Super Bar Street across the street; much dust blew out from the messy construction site. Additionally, on the south side was another embassy area under construction…

Although the article does not question the accuracy of the Embassy’s data, it clearly indicates that the Embassy’s data is disproportionately bad because of poor and non-standard monitor placement. This possibility was not raised in the China Daily piece.

(Side note for future investigation: I think perhaps the US Embassy monitor is at the old embassy near Ritan park, not on site at the new location.)

Moving on, the article briefly mentions Steven Andrews’ criticisms of Beijing’s air quality management, that Beijing’s air quality monitors have been selectively placed in areas of low pollution to yield better overall averages and that officials artificially inflated the statistics on number of blue sky days. Although it is noteworthy that the article mentions Mr. Andrews at all (I haven’t seen his analysis directly covered in the Chinese media before), the article immediately quotes experts supposedly refuting his claims:

“蓝天数量有目共睹,如何造假?”周凌唏评价到。在她眼中,为了北京奥运会顺利召开,在北京民众的努力下,的确明显提高了首都空气质量,“蓝天多,说明大气透明情况好,在一定程度上说明内含的污染物就少。”

而张人禾对“监测站多分布在低污染区”的质疑感到“不解”,“别忘了,空气也是流动的。”他说。

“Everyone can see the number of blue sky days, so how can they be faked?” [an analyst with the Chinese Academy of Meteorology] commented. In her eyes, to ensure a smooth Olympics in Beijing, through the effort of all of Beijing’s citizens, there was indeed an obvious improvement to Beijing’s air quality. “More blue sky days means a more transparent atmosphere, which means to some extent less pollutants.”

In addition, Zhang Renhe felt he “couldn’t understand” the suspicion that “some of the monitoring stations are located in low pollution areas.” “Don’t forget, air is also flowing,” he said.

I can’t quite understand what either of these experts meant, which may or may not be due to the language barrier. Despite that, though, it doesn’t seem as if either expert addressed Mr. Andrews’ concerns directly, so it doesn’t make sense to me that the article would raise them at all.

Finally, the article quotes an anonymous Beijing EPB official saying that the Embassy is breaking no laws by independently monitoring air quality, before closing with this quote:

“不过,与此相关的我国《环境监测条例》已被纳入国务院今年的立法计划中,有望今年内通过。”他说。

“However, the relevant “Environmental Monitoring Regulations” have already been placed into the State Council’s legislation plan for this year; there is hope they will be passed this year,” [the Beijing EPB official] said.

In other words, although there is nothing wrong with Beijing’s current monitoring system, the Beijing EPB still hopes that it will be improved this year with new, unspecified State Council legislation.

Although I was initially encouraged by yesterday’s direct and somewhat challenging China Daily piece, this Chinese-language Xinhua piece is more of what I would expect from China’s state media: convoluted logic and fact-twisting that attempts to shape reality to fit the government’s agenda as opposed to strong investigative reporting attempting to uncover the truth.

china daily features online survey on beijing’s air quality monitoring

Wednesday, July 1st, 2009

When I wrote yesterday about the China Daily article on the discrepancies between China’s officially reported air quality data and the US Embassy’s BeijingAir Twitter feed, I didn’t realize that the China Daily story appeared on the site’s home page along with an incredibly direct web survey:

china daily survey 1

Web surveys are, of course, not scientific or reliable at all, but nonetheless here’s a screen capture of the results as of around 11am this morning:

china daily survey 2
It’s difficult to imagine such a critical survey happening on a Chinese-language state media site, but I will keep an eye out for anything comparable.

Lastly, for the record, there are several mistakes in the China Daily story that I should point out. Three are in this sentence alone: “A blue-sky day is when the city’s air pollution index, the level of five airborne pollutants, falls below 100, indicating that no health implications exist.”

First, MEP makes no claim that blue-sky days have “no health implications,” only that those days have the poorly-defined “excellent” or “good” air quality. Air quality on blue-sky days can certainly have negative health implications, especially for sensitive populations in the short term and for everyone in the long term. What MEP calls “good,” the US EPA calls “moderate,” saying, “Air quality is acceptable; however, for some pollutants there may be a moderate health concern for a very small number of people who are unusually sensitive to air pollution.”

Second, the air pollution index only covers three pollutants, not five. I’m not sure how China Daily made this mistake, because later in the article they describe the number correctly (“the current evaluation system uses only three indices: Sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and PM 10s”), although they get the pollutants wrong. (The three are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and PM10.)

Third, this is minor, but a blue-sky day is a day in which the API is technically 100 or below, not below 100.