 |
 |
Andrew wrote about China's development and associated environmental effects and then said: >Sure, there are political and economic angles on any action that a nation takes, but the scientific angle is being given a much less important role than it deserves, largely on the basis of the lack of understanding of, first, what science really is and, second, what it's actually saying. Andrew What is the science and what is it actually saying? It sounds beguilingly simple - but does science offer an easy answer for, say, China's Premier Zhu Rongji, who recently said: "China has always seen environment protection as important but, over the past decades, other priorities took precedence due to historic and economic necessities. Now, this is a key priority for us." China does have increasing environmental problems. To return air pollution. A recent(ish) study estimates particulates cause the premature death of 10,000 people each year in Chongqing, Beijing, Shanghai and Shenyang. But then the development has had undoubted positive effects - with the country enjoying, over the last couple of decades, what the World Bank described as "perhaps the most spectacular poverty reduction in the history of the world". If a scientist was in charge - what would China do next? David ------------------------------------- David Steven River Path Associates http://www.riverpath.com [log in to unmask] +44 (0)1202 849993 (work) +44 (0)7939 038832 (mobile) 61a West Borough, Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 1LX, UK %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%