China, growth at any cost...................

[non-starter]

After China's multibillion-dollar cleanup, water still unfit to drink

By David Stanway

BEIJING | Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:59pm EST

BEIJING Feb 21 (Reuters)- China aims to spend $850 billion to improve filthy water supplies over the next decade, but even such huge outlays may do little to reverse damage caused by decades of pollution and overuse in Beijing's push for rapid economic growth.

China is promising to invest 4 trillion yuan ($650 billion)- equal to its entire stimulus package during the global financial crisis - on rural water projects alone during the 2011-2020 period. What's more, at least $200 billion in additional funds has been earmarked for a variety of cleanup projects nationwide, Reuters has learned after scouring a range of central and local government documents.

That new cash injection will be vital, with rivers and lakes throughout China blighted by algae blooms caused by fertiliser run-off, bubbling chemical spills and untreated sewage discharges. Judging by Beijing's cleanup record so far, however, the final tally could be many times higher.

Over the five years to 2010, the country spent 700 billion yuan ($112.41 billion) on water infrastructure, but much of its water remains undrinkable. The environment ministry said 43 percent of the locations it was monitoring in 2011 contained water that was not even fit for human contact.

"The reason why they have achieved so little even though they have spent so much on pollution treatment is because they have followed the wrong urbanisation model - China is still putting too much pressure on local resources," said Zhou Lei, a fellow at Nanjing University who has studied water pollution.

A close look at publicly available documents shows limited environmental ambitions, as Beijing strives to prolong three decades of blistering economic growth and fill the estimated annual water supply shortfall of 50 billion cubic metres (bcm) required to feed growing energy and agricultural demand.

At the same time, the government faces growing pressure to address environmental effects of fast growth, as public anger over air pollution that blanketed many northern cities in January has spread to online appeals for Beijing to clean up water supplies as well.

The huge costs suggest that treatment, rather than prevention, remains the preferred solution, with industrial growth paramount and pollution regarded as just another economic opportunity, Zhou said.

"INDUSTRIAL-USE ONLY"

On top of the 10-year rural water plan, China last year vowed to spend another 250 billion yuan on water conservation, and has since allocated a further 130 billion yuan to treat small and medium-sized rivers over the next two years.

East China's Lake Tai, a test case for China's environmental authorities after suffering a notorious bloom of algae and cyanobacteria in 2007, has spent 70 billion yuan in the five years since, and more is expected.

Both cleanup projects have been designed merely to bring water up from "grade V" - meaning "no human contact" - to "grade IV", which is designated "industrial use only", according to detailed plans listed on local government websites.

Even such negligible gains could be crucial for a country that has the same amount of water as Britain although its population is 20 times as big.

Data from China's Ministry of Water Resources shows that average per capita supplies stand at 2,100 cubic metres, 28 percent of the global average. The government has vowed to cap total use to 700 bcm a year by 2030, but that will still require a big increase in supplies, with consumption now about 600 bcm.

"Part of this increase in the supply of water will come from removing all 'grade V' water supplies, which is actually useless even for agriculture," said Debra Tan, director at the China Water Risk organisation. "Grade IV is not safe to swim in, but it at least is usable." ($1 = 6.2270 Chinese yuan)

[Bushwhacker]

Same guy who doesn't want government, complains about water quality ?? "Man", you're a complete hypocrite.

[non-starter]

Bushwhacker wrote:

Same guy who doesn't want government, complains about water quality ?? "Man", you're a complete hypocrite.

Republicans are the party of water qualilty, we started the EPA.

[Bushwhacker]

You NOW want to dismantle it... LMAOROFU~! Funny, you have to go back a half dozen presidents to make claims...

[Smart Liberal]

non-starter wrote:

<quoted text>Republicans are the party of water qualilty, we started the EPA.

Hey non, didn't you know that you are supposed to want dirty water so you can be poisoned and die?

And just as good, your kids and their kids will also be poisoned and die.

Low information Lib voters believe that the Conservatives want dirty water and dirty air. They really are nit-wits.

[Bushwhacker]

non-starter wrote:

<quoted text>Republicans are the party of water qualilty, we started the EPA.

Try in today's world...

[non-starter]

Smart Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey non, didn't you know that you are supposed to want dirty water so you can be poisoned and die?
And just as good, your kids and their kids will also be poisoned and die.
Low information Lib voters believe that the Conservatives want dirty water and dirty air. They really are nit-wits.

Libs think that because we question runaway spending and want value and results for our tax dollars that we don't want to spend anything.

Education is failing? We must not be spending enough money. Racial tensions? We must not be spending enough money. Poor people poor because they aren't working? We must not be spending enough money.

Real incomes falling? We aren't spending enough money and we need more unions.

It sure would be nice to see some accountability across the aisle occasionally.

[non-starter]

Bushwhacker wrote:

<quoted text>Try in today's world...

No money for common sense programs today, your party has all the money we bring in plus a trillion dollars tied up.

[Bushwhacker]

It sure would.... now why did Romney get a pass for destroying fertilized fetus', get a pass for untaxed children's gifts, outsourcing, and telling retired folks ... they didn't earn their benefits..

Oh sorry, were we ONLY going to blather generalities ???