Gainesville Loves Mountains

I lived in Appalachia for several years, and it was there that images of mountaintop removal (MTR) and its effects on the people and landscapes of the region were burned into my consciousness--images that I carry with me many years later. I learned about ilovemountains.org a few years ago, and became interested in building connections between the coal that my municipally-owned utility in Gainesville, FL consumes and impacted Appalachian communities. So, in 2011, I took advantage of a local environmental film festival to screen the movie Low Coal and bring Larry Gibson to Gainesville.

During his visit, Larry spoke at numerous public events, was interviewed by local media, and met with some of our City Commissioners, our Mayor, and representatives from our utility. His message was powerful and resonated with many in our community. After Larry's visit, we began pursuing an official policy to end the purchase of MTR-coal through our City Commission's utilities committee. We started a Facebook page for our group, “Gainesville Loves Mountains,” and asked citizens to contact their Commissioners and the utility to speak out against MTR. We received lots of positive media attention and it was clear that the Commission was hearing from people. I've seen firsthand that the more people learn about MTR, the less they want to be connected to it.

While we are having an impact on our Commissioners, the technocrats at our utility's fuels division have been steadfast in their opposition to any sort of restrictions on where they purchase their coal. As recently as last week, the Assistant General Manager of the utility was stating publicly that they remain “...reasonably agnostic on where the coal comes from, other than we prefer deep-mine coal for performance reasons.” Yet as we continued our campaign, other forces were at work.

As it turns out, the growing availability of natural gas, resulting partly from the controversial gas mining practice known as “fracking,” has driven fuel prices so low that in recent months the bottom appears to have come out from under the coal markets. Whereas our utility had previously considered deep-mined coal a luxury it could only sometimes afford, and had been using approximately 60% MTR-coal, we were able this year to sign 1-year contracts for nearly 100% deep-mined coal and still come in under budget.

It is an awkward position to be in, to have “won” our local campaign against purchasing MTR-coal, thanks in large part to another highly destructive mining practice. This “victory” is obviously inadequate, and our campaign will continue. Our goals for 2012 include:

· Continuing to discuss MTR at every opportunity. We'll host more film screenings and Appalachian activists this year, and continue to build public support in advance of the next round of coal contract negotiations later this year.

· Building a bridge between Gainesville and the Appalachian communities that provide our coal. One definitive victory that our campaign has had is a line item in all new coal contracts that requires the companies to disclose any major environmental violations. We'll be watching.

· Educating ourselves, our community, and our Congressional representatives on any federal efforts to ban MTR mining.

· Supporting a local effort for a more aggressive energy conservation ordinance that will move our community closer to a future free of electricity generated from fossil-fuels.

We want to hear what folks up in Appalachia have to say about our efforts, and want to encourage other communities that consume MTR-coal to duplicate our campaign. Please check out our new flyer (at top, I can send you a pdf version if you want) and contact us with any feedback, questions, or resources you have to offer.

Sethusamudram Shipping Canal

The Sethusamudram Shipping Canal: still dredging up controversy

An abbreviated, *heavily-edited* version of this article appeared in the April 2008 issue of Gobar Times, a youth magazine published by the Centre for Science and Environment.

In the Hindu epic Ramayana, Lord Ram constructed a magical bridge from India to Sri Lanka so that he and his army could rescue his kidnapped wife, Sita. Many people believe traces of that bridge still exist and that it is in danger of being destroyed by a controversial canal project called Sethusamudram (SSCP). If completed, the 167 kilometer (km) channel would link the Bay of Bengal with the Gulf of Mannar and provide a continuous navigable route around the Indian peninsula. Currently, ocean-going vessels must navigate around Sri Lanka rather than passing through the Palk Bay, thereby increasing shipping time and costs and diminishing the development potential of much of Tamil Nadu’s coast.

Yet the channel’s current proposed alignment puts it on a direct collision course with a site considered sacred by many Hindus. Proponents of the project contend that the so-called “Rama Setu,” a chain of shoals running between northwestern Sri Lanka and southeastern India, is merely a collection of sand resulting from natural geological processes such as sedimentation; there is little if any physical evidence which links the shoals to the bridge depicted in the Ramayana. Yet others point out that the reality of how these structures were formed is secondary to the cultural importance which people have assigned to the site over the ages. Picking up on these concerns, some politicians and Hindutva groups have vowed ongoing demonstrations until the project is stopped. For the moment, the Supreme Court (SC) has acceded, putting a halt on any part of the channel’s construction which would damage the Rama Setu. In a landmark ruling that will likely have significant implications for similar controversies in the future, the Court will soon decide whether the purported benefits of the canal outweigh the religious and cultural values of the existing structure. While on its face the issue may appear to be a classic question of superstition versus progress, or cultural preservation versus material gain, a closer look reveals that there may be much more at stake.

The purported benefits of the canal include advancing India’s national security via increased freedom of movement for the Indian Coast Guard and Navy; boosting trade by reducing maritime shipping costs; and improving the livelihoods of coastal residents via expansion of economic opportunities in the region. Mr. Maravanpulavu K. Sachithananthan, a retired marine biologist based in Chennai who has studied this project extensively and given public seminars on the topic, calls it “viable, development-oriented, futuristic, and beneficial to both countries [India and Sri Lanka].” Yet comments such as Mr. Sachithananthan’s, combined with repeated references to Sethusamudram as the “Suez canal of the East,” imply that this project may also have a lot to do with international prestige. As with similar projects in China and other “rising” nations, the completion of large-scale, technically-challenging development projects sends an important message to the rest of the world. In its 2004 ruling on this issue, Madras High Court stated: “We must never overlook the basic aim of our country which is to make India a powerful and modern industrial state. Today the real world is cruel and harsh. It respects power, not poverty or weakness…if we wish to get respect in the world community we must make our country highly industrialized and prosperous.”

Yet despite its concern for “prosperity,” the High Court refused to hear arguments that the channel would cause irreparable harm to the coastal ecology of Tamil Nadu and the fisher-folks whose livelihoods depend upon it. Nor has the Supreme Court adequately examined the ecological and livelihood objections pending before it. Yet clearly many people are concerned; at the official opening of the project’s construction in 2005, hundreds of people protesting the canal on these grounds were arrested. A month later, one of the dredger ships had to be defended by police and naval personnel as 1,500 fisher-folk attempted a blockade. Now, this coalition of fisher-folk, environmentalists, and other concerned citizens is watching to see what the SC will decide while continuing to amass evidence to support their cause as well. An SC decision allowing continued work on the canal will likely lead to renewed grassroots opposition by an “alliance” of religious fundamentalists and those who oppose the project for more secular reasons.

Much of the environmental critique of the canal is related to its proximity to the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park—only a few kms away at its nearest point. The National Park is the core area of India’s largest Biosphere Reserve and the first of its kind in all of South and Southeast Asia. It is prized both for its world-class marine ecology as well as its historical and cultural significance. Yet there is already one major port and a handful of minor ports located within or directly adjoining the Reserve, not to mention the 100,000 residents, many of them fisher-folk, along its coastline; between natural resources extraction and industrialization of the coast, preservation of the region’s biodiversity is already a considerable challenge. By enabling a dramatic expansion of ship traffic so close to the Park, environmentalists allege that the Ministry of Environment and Forests is violating the spirit of international agreements as well as its own rules regarding species protection and buffer zones surrounding protected areas.

Sethusamudram’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), carried out by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), asserts that the canal will have “insignificant” impacts on the Reserve. Yet opponents maintain that the EIA was biased in favor of the project, non-comprehensive in scope, and based on faulty data. As if to underscore this point, a dredger working in the Rama Setu area was seriously damaged in May 2007 when it unexpectedly struck a rock bed. This discovery was particularly troubling because it meant that explosives would likely have to be used to clear a path through Rama Setu, a scenario that was not envisioned by the EIA or by the “Detailed Project Report” (DPR) submitted in 2005. Critics allege that other aspects of the proposal have also not been adequately modelled.

Moreover, the effects of increased shipping and coastal development which the Assessment predicts will result from the canal have been mostly overlooked; similar to road construction into land-based conservation areas, it is likely that the major damage will result not from the project itself, but from the further incursions that it facilitates. For instance, significant port development is being proposed for Thoothukudi, Puducherry, and Rameswaram in tandem with the construction of the Sethusamudram canal. Yet the EIA repeatedly refers to the synergistic effects of these activities as outside of its scope, therefore they have not been taken into consideration.

The EIA also acknowledges that there will be “significant, adverse impacts” from the canal’s construction on fishing activities, and that displacement of current residents may occur, although “…the extent of land acquisition, the need for resettlement and rehabilitation of affected population, if any, could not be assessed at this juncture.” The Coastal Action Network (CAN), a group representing fisher interests in Tamil Nadu, believes it has a better sense of what this project will entail for fisher-folk in the region. Jesu Rethinam, one of CAN’s convenors, offers a conservative estimate that “The one lakh fishing families who will be immediately affected by the SSCP will incur losses of Rs 24,000 crores in terms of household assets and loss of livelihood assets, marine resources, land and housing, and social goods…This is a conservative estimate accounting for only the next 5-7 years and does not include environmental destruction of the coastal environment, biodiversity, etc.” Yet it is obvious that any activities which further damage the marine ecology and fisheries of the region will have substantial impacts on fisher-folk, and CAN claims that some fisher-folks are already reporting decreased fish-catch during the construction phase of SSCP. Greater ship traffic will also undoubtedly exacerbate already-existing conflicts between traditional fisher folk and industry. Rethinam continues, “In the last two years, dredging ships have destroyed fishing nets worth Rs 2.5 crore…No action was taken despite fishermen’s complaints to the District collector and the police. Instead, fishermen who ventured too near the dredging area have been harassed by the Coast Guard.”

Given that the project will affect at least six of Tamil Nadu’s thirteen coastal districts, including hundreds of fishing villages and lakhs of fisher-folk, such impacts are no small matter. Yet the level of consultation with these communities in the lead-up to construction was poor. Though there were public hearings held from September 2004 to February 2005 in the districts to be affected, these meetings were racked with protest and interrupted by the December 2004 tsunami; in some instances vocal critics were barred entry or removed from the premises. As with the environmental assessment, the project’s social accounting also appears to have fallen short. The shortcuts the government took in securing local support have resulted in conflicts during the construction phase of the channel and ongoing resistance from the fisher community.

But perhaps the most critical weakness of Sethusamudram is from the economic perspective, as re-assessments of the canal’s DPR have undermined some of its key arguments. Even if the project were to remain on-budget—which is unlikely due to underestimations of dredging costs, its primary expense—some recent economic analyses demonstrate that the canal will also fall short with regards to revenue. Jacob John, an economist based in Bangalore, is the author of one such analysis. John estimates that there will be significantly less financial incentive for foreign ships to use the canal than the DPR has suggested; this projection does not bode well for the canal given that revenue from these ships was supposed to provide two thirds of its income. Further, the channel’s limited depth means that only ships with a draught (the distance from a ship’s lowest point to the water’s surface) of 10 meters or less will be able to use it. Therefore as the shipping industry moves towards ever larger ships, and Indian ports are being deepened to accommodate them, NEERI’s EIA states that deepening the Sethusamudram channel would be both economically and environmentally unviable. These facts bring the actual usefulness of the project, and hence its ability to generate a profit, into serious question. Beyond the concerns about revenue, interest rates have risen substantially since the initial planning stages, meaning that the loans which would be used to finance Sethusamudram will now be much more expensive to repay.

For all of these reasons, the canal is obviously in need of a mid-term assessment even if the SC overrules the religious opposition. As John argues:
Given the likelihood of overestimation of the revenues and underestimation of costs, it is a big question on whether the project will be viable on the grounds it was granted approval. Therefore, do mechanisms need to be built into project design, that stop projects that have significantly changed vis-à-vis the original approval documents…At the heart of this debate is the way many projects are projected to give stratospheric gains for the economy, employment, GDP, etc, but in reality there is little check once the entire project has been approved and operationalized… there is a duty of those promoting projects to consider the impacts it has on people, and allow people to review these impacts especially in the early years of a project.

On the other hand, if the SC does rule to halt destruction of Rama Setu, thereby putting it on indefinite hold, the situation could become even more complicated. Since the canal project was initially put forward more than 140 years ago, there have been numerous proposed routes. Despite their other shortcomings, NEERI is correct in the assessment that, from the ecological and livelihood perspective, the current route is the least destructive. As CAN asserts: “There is no scientific justification for a realignment of the canal. The destruction will be the same or worse.” Regardless, many religious opponents of the canal’s current alignment would support the project if it were to utilize one of the alternate routes, thereby causing a split between those who oppose the canal on religious grounds and those who oppose it for environmental or economic reasons. Revathi, a journalist who has studied the issue closely and is currently producing a documentary film on Sethusamudram, says, “A true ‘coalition’ with the religious fundamentalists does not exist. The BJP and RSS were sitting quietly during the early stages of the project; their motivations for becoming involved at this late stage are purely political and self-serving. I don’t see any big commitment from them for the environment, for the fisher-folk, for the taxpayer.” Yet reconsideration of alternate routes would at least delay construction and hopefully open Sethusamudram up to a fresh round of environmental and economic assessments.

Two and a half years after its official unveiling, the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal continues to dredge up controversy. There are still no definitive answers on the probable environmental, economic, and livelihood outcomes of the project, and we will likely never know whether the Rama Setu is a natural formation or one built by a god thousands of years ago. But what is clear are the deep-seated problems with the process through which the GOI continues to define and implement development. Take, for instance, the blatantly biased perspective of the Madras High Court, which concluded that:
We should not obstruct the scientific and technical progress of the country in the name of environment protection. No doubt, the environment has to be protected, but… industrialization itself ensures a good environment…

Yet progress should not be imposed on people from on high, and discussion, planning, and implementation of development objectives must make a thorough accounting of all stakeholders and their rights as well as employing the precautionary principle with regards to potential social and environmental impacts. While all the legal wrangling and citizen unrest may be a serious inconvenience to those who want to see this project completed anytime soon, it presents new possibilities for the GOI to open up to the public and address the critiques which have been raised by all sides. If the SSCP turns out, as its critics assert, to be a terrible idea, then the time, resources, and acrimony wasted on it will hopefully be a reminder to the government that full involvement of stakeholders, responsiveness to criticism, and ongoing assessment is central for any future endeavors. Yet even if supporters are right that this is a meritorious project whose time has come, then they obviously need to learn how to do a better job demonstrating those benefits and marketing such projects to the public in the future.

Works cited:
*personal interviews with Mr. Maravanpulavu K. Sachithananthan and Sudarshan Rodriguez
*“Sethusamudram Canal: An Expensive Voyage?” Economic and Political Weekly July 21, 2007; Jacob John
*Rodriguez, S., J. John, R. Arthur, K. Shanker, A. Sridhar. 2007. Review of Environmental and Economic Aspects of the Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (SSCP). pp 76.
*SWAMINOMICS “150-year dream for 150-year old ships” 23 Sep 2007, Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar.
*“Sethu project faces 20-30% cost surge” Animesh Singh / New Delhi September 20, 2007;
*Tamil Nadu State Forest Department
*Wikipedia
*”In Short” 11/15/07
*”Sethusamudram's financial woes”
*”Ecological reasons to oppose Sethusamudram project” 10/15/07,
*”Political Dredging” 7/31/05
*”Sethusamundram project is unviable” 6/15/07.
*“After 150 Years”
*”Deep Waters” & “Blueprint Blues” 5/15/07.
*focused analysis on project in 3/15/06 issue of DTE.
*”Neighbours Worry”, 10/15/05.
*”Strait Hit”, 6/30/05.
*”Green Light?” 6/15/05.
*”A very heavy metal load” 2/28/01.
*”Saving a reserve” 1/15/98
*”Threat to dugongs” 7/31/01
*”Reserved!” 10/31/01
*”Assessing Marine Threat” 5/15/02
*”PMO exposes system slip-up” 4/15/05
*”Supreme Court stays DMK-sponsored Tamil Nadu shutdown” By ANI (www.aniin.com) Sunday September 30, 03:07 PM;
*”Setu- Faith vs national interest” Central Chronicle, 9/19/07;
*“Silence, controversy shroud…” 9/10/07;
*”Project a recipe for disaster, scientists say” 9/12/07;
*”Centre criticized for excluding key experts from Sethu panel” 10/23/07;
*”SC rejects Swamy plea for reconstitution of Sethu committee” 10/24/07;
*”Govt on back foot, withdraws affidavit” 9/15/07;
*”No one benefits from a Rs2,600 crore channel” 9/13/07;
*”Lack of Access to Sethu Panel Criticized” 10/30/07;
*”Channelling religious sentiment into rare political opportunity” 9/14/07;
*Interview w/ T.R. Baalu, 2/6/08;
*W.P.NOS.33528 AND 34436 OF 2004 and W.P.M.P.Nos.40521 and 41570 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS; DATED: 17.12.2004 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.MARKANDEY KADJU, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN
*”Adam’s Bridge,” Encyclopedia Britannica online
*Sethusamudram Corporation Limited
*”Environmental Impact Assessment for Proposed Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project.” National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI)
*”Tuticorin port has potential to be global container hub: PwC” by Raja Simhan T.E; The Hindu Business Line 6/16/05
* “DMK has been isolated on Sethu issue: TN BJP” The Hindu, February 5, 2008
*”Sethu project: Centre counters environmental concern.” March 2, 2008.
*”Centre files fresh affidavit on Sethu project in SC.” The Hindu, 2/29/08.
*”Role of Fisherwomen in Coastal Eco-system of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and TamilNadu—an Overview” by Vijaya Khader and R. Sathiadhas; prepared for the 22nd Annual Conference Proceedings of the AIAEE in Clearwater, FL.
*“Govt should declare Sethu heritage: BJP” NDTV.com; 2/1/08
*“Yes to Ram, no to sethu: Govt” NDTV.com; 1/31/08
*“Coast Guard 'torpedoes' Sethu project” The Economic Times, 2/1/08
*“Sethu project to raise security issues: Coast Guard DG” The Economic Times 1/31/08
*”The Sethu gridlock” by Professor Willie Mendis. The Island online edition.
*”Cong files affidavit in SC to give Sethu its go-ahead.” IBN Live, 3/1/08.
*”Government seeks apex court’s nod to Sethusamundram project“ Thaindian News, 2/28/08.
*”Doublespeak On Ram Sethu” Tehelka, 3/7/08.
*”Sethu project will trap government in immeasurable debt: experts” The Hindu, 2/19/08
*”Rama Sethu in the mist of political prejudices” Mynews.in, 2/7/08.
*Captain (retired) H Balakrishnan of the Indian Navy, 10/1 interview with Shobha Warrier of Rediff, which is one part of Rediff’s ongoing coverage the project
*”Impacts of the Proposed Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (An Alternate Report).” Coastal Action Network, 3/12/04.
*Tuticorin Port Trust, “Final Detailed Project Report.” Feb. 2005
*”Review of the Environmental Impacts of the Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (SSCP),” by Sudarshan Rodriguez. Indian Ocean Turtle Newsletter No. 6, July, 2007.
*”A Status Report on Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project & the Struggles against the project.” The Movement Against Sethusamudram (Sea Channel) Shipping Canal Project.

Canary in the Coalmine

An abbreviated, *heavily-edited* version of this article appeared in the November 2007 issue of Gobar Times, a youth magazine published by the Centre for Science and Environment.

As George Bush’s escapades in the Middle East continue to sour and petrol prices rise ever higher for the American citizen-consumer, more and more voices are clamoring for “energy independence” and “freedom” from foreign oil. While U.S. environmentalists have long called for a strong emphasis on efficiency and increased investment in renewable energy technologies, their demands are being diluted and sidetracked as big business interests and their political cronies join the bandwagon. Their goal: massive government subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in hopes of developing a technological fix which will preserve the (wasteful) “American way of life.” So-called “advanced” coal technologies, such as coal-to-liquid and coal-to-gas, are prime examples of such hopeful techno-fixes. Actually both of these technologies have been around for some time, but have not been utilized extensively because of their inefficiencies and/or high costs. It is important that we understand the full implications of these technologies before they become more widely implemented.

Coal-to-gas

The gasification process used for coal is essentially the same as that used for other carbon-based “feedstocks” such as biomass and waste materials. The coal is subjected to carefully-controlled chemical processes under high temperature and pressure, ultimately resulting in a gaseous mixture. The contents of this mixture, consisting of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and other compounds, can then be used for fuel or other commercial products. A new generation of U.S. power-plants, with two already on-line and a few dozen more proposed as of 2007, will utilize this coal gasification process and are known as Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle, or IGCC.

While proponents of these plants promise higher levels of efficiency and better reduction/capture of pollutants, to-date the significantly higher capital costs of IGCC plants means that they can only function with large government subsidies. The U.S. state of Minnesota has already rejected one proposed IGCC plant because of its high costs and relatively low guarantee of pollution reduction as compared to standard coal-fired power plants updated with the latest pollution control technologies. Additionally, some researchers have raised concerns about increased wastewater and mercury pollution using IGCC technology.

Coal-to-liquid

If coal gasification is questionable, coal-to-liquid is downright shady. In order to liquefy coal, it is first gasified, as in the process described above. The gaseous mixture is then converted, via a chemical process known as “Fischer-Tropsch” (FT) into a number of liquids such as ammonia, naphtha (petroleum ether), methanol, and diesel. As with gasification, the FT process can be used with a wide variety of feedstocks. Proponents of this technology argue that by ramping up the U.S.’s consumption of coal and converting this coal into liquid fuel for transport, the U.S. could eliminate its current importation of >10,000,000 barrels of oil/day.

The problems with this approach are many. For one thing, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that to replace U.S. oil needs, coal consumption would have to increase several-fold. Meanwhile, the National Coal Council has stated that even a doubling of domestic coal production would require “major investment and effort” and could not be accomplished for another twenty years. Not to mention the estimated 132 massive new power plants which would be required to manufacture this fuel, with each plant taking in between 40,000-80,000 tons of coal/day (depending on the quality of coal used) and churning out 80,000 barrels of oil/day. Each of these plants would cost approximately four times as much to build as an equivalent petroleum refinery.

Coal-to-liquid is a losing proposition for the climate as well, producing nearly twice the CO2 as the petroleum refining process; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warns that replacing petroleum with liquefied coal would lead to a 119% increase in greenhouse gas emissions—an increase the planet can hardly afford given the U.S.’s already record-high emissions. The sizable investments required and low payback make this technology uneconomical without massive government subsidy, which is why to-date it has only been used on a large scale in Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa, two regimes which were cut off from international oil supplies and hence had no other options.

Coal woes

Indeed, these proposed technologies spell bad news for our global environment all-around, since their underlying purpose is to replace part of the U.S.’s petroleum and natural gas use with increased coal consumption. A resource that is relatively cheap and plentiful within North America, coal consumption increased nearly 11% between 1996 and 2006. Under these schemes proposed by coal interests, coal consumption would rise even more dramatically. Already, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates 139 GW of new coal-based generating capacity will be added to U.S. energy grids by 2030.

As with any potential energy source, we must evaluate the entire life-cycle costs of coal: these include mining, transportation, and processing of coal as well as power plant and pipeline construction, the air/soil/water pollution and greenhouse gases emitted through burning coal, and the disposal of the coal waste that remains after it has been burned. On all these fronts, coal gets extremely low marks and has been deemed “the dirtiest of all fuels” by the U.S.-based Clean Air Task Force. Worldwatch estimates that coal-fired power plants cause >40% of the U.S.’s annual mercury emissions, and that Americans spend more than $160 billion/year in medical expenses resulting from power plant-generated air pollution. In addition, coal is the most CO2-intensive of any fossil fuel, emitting approximately three pounds of CO2 for every pound of coal burned. Coal currently supplies more than half of the U.S.’s electricity and accounts for 40% of its overall CO2 emissions.

The U.S.’s “energy sacrifice zones”

As is often the case when examining the full costs of environmental degradation, we find that these costs have not been distributed equitably. For instance, one report which examined the how the effects of coal combustion are distributed found that African Americans are significantly more likely than white Americans to live near coal-fired power plants and power plant waste sites, and a likely result of that proximity is that African Americans suffer from higher rates of asthma and other air quality-related health problems. Similarly, the nation’s first proposed coal-to-oil facility is to be sited nearby a prison in a poverty-stricken area in eastern Pennsylvania.

Residents of the Appalachian coalfields, another community which has been disproportionately affected by U.S. coal consumption, have good reason for concern when they hear of schemes that would increase coal mining in the region several-fold. Appalachia is named for the ancient mountain range that defines the region’s geography; it includes parts of 13 U.S. states and is roughly the same size as the United Kingdom. Originally inhabited by Native Americans, the area was re-settled by immigrants of largely Scottish, Irish, German, and English descent in the 18^th century. Due to the mountainous terrain and relative isolation of the region that resulted, much of these immigrants’ culture remained relatively intact. Today however Appalachia is home to over 20 million people and is undergoing rapid economic, cultural, and demographic changes.

The region is also known as the home to some of the richest coal seams in the world, and has for generations supplied that fuel to the U.S. and other nations, too often at great ecological and social costs. Teri Blanton, a native of Appalachia and a long-time anti-mining activist, has stated: “Harlan County [a coal mining county in Appalachian eastern Kentucky], my home county, has produced over 1 billion tons of coal in the past century, yet…coal has left us with polluted water, a corrupted political system, poor schools, too many unhealthy people, and a disappearing heritage. And today the destruction is increasing.”

Among the many unfavorable consequences resulting from coal mining in the region, perhaps the most striking is the proliferation of a destructive form of surface or strip mining known locally as “mountaintop removal.” Mountaintop removal uses heavy machinery and high-powered explosives to literally destroy the part of the mountain which covers the coal seam, dumping the resulting “waste” into nearby valleys and streams. Seen as a labor and money-saving method of mining by the coal companies, strip mining and other technological advances have been replacing underground mining for a few decades now. In the past 50 years, the mining workforce has decreased from 335,000 coal miners working in 7,200 mines to 104,824 miners working in less than 2,000 mines. This declining workforce has occurred despite an 83% increase in production over the past 30 years.

In addition to a decline in some of the best-paying jobs the region has to offer, Worldwatch estimates that mountaintop removal has already “buried or polluted more than 1,200 miles [>1900 kilometers] of streams, destroyed more than 7 percent of Appalachia’s forests, and eliminated entire communities. If current trends continue over the next decade, affected land will cover 2,200 square miles [nearly 5,700 square kilometers]...” These “affected lands” of Appalachia include people’s homes, farms, places of worship, and family cemeteries, lands that the current residents are not willing to give up without a fight.

Already hard-hit by coal mining and supplying up to 1/3 of the U.S.’s coal consumption per year, Appalachia obviously has a huge stake in any proposals which would increase that consumption, especially given that the “most accessible” coal seams have largely already been mined out. While coal companies pay off local politicians to do their bidding and try to seduce citizens with promises of jobs and wealth, residents of these sacrifice zones know better and have started organizing against increased coal mining. In the words of one resident of the coalfields, “…coal has been dominant in Appalachian economies for a hundred years now and they are still some of the poorest counties in the U.S.”

Kentuckians for the Commonwealth (KFTC), one group of concerned citizens, has founded a statewide “Canary Project,” the aim of which is to move their communities beyond the long-standing domination of the coal industry. Explains KFTC, “For years, coal miners would take canaries into the mines to warn of dangerous gases. When the canaries died, the miners knew it was time to get out of the mine. Now, we are the canaries, warning everyone about the dangers of coal before it is too late. We no longer believe the big lie that coal is a cheap source of energy, and we are no longer willing to have our homes and lives sacrificed for coal company profits.”

To raise awareness of their concerns, coalfield inhabitants have also created a virtual “memorial for the mountains." This website uses Google Earth software to tell the stories of coalfield residents and more than 470 mountains destroyed by mountaintop-removal through photos, stories, and interviews; stories such as those of the students at Marsh Fork Elementary School in Sundial, West Virginia, whose school is located directly downhill from an impoundment holding back 2.8 billion gallons of coal sludge. If this impoundment were to become breached, the students would have only a few minutes to evacuate before being buried under several feet of coal sludge.

As in India and throughout the world, the livelihood of one group of people is being sacrificed so that others can enjoy wasteful lifestyles and outsource the consequences. But the citizens of Appalachia have had enough and are busy opposing the implementation of any technologies that will lead to increased coal consumption and increased destruction of their communities. Instead, they have joined forces with other environmentalists in calling for environmental justice and a clean energy future for the U.S. and the planet.

Sources:
*KFTC’s website & newsletters, Balancing the Scales

*EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html as well as stats on coal consumption)

*DOE (http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html)

http://www.energyjustice.net/

http://www.ultracleanfuels.com/html/about.htm

http://www.ultradirtyfuels.com

*EPA (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/coal.htm)

*“Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts of Coal.” Clean Air Task Force, June 2001 (also has a great graphic, “Figure 1 illustrates the numerous ways that contaminants from coal end up in the environment”)

*“Air of Injustice: African Americans and Power Plant Pollution,” Black Leadership Forum et al, Oct. 2002

*“American Energy: The Renewable Path to Energy Security,” Worldwatch Institute & Center for American Progress, Sept. 2006

*Wikipedia “Appalachia”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia

Special Economic Zones in India

Special Economic Zones in India, or Hey, They Worked Great in China, Right?

This article was originally published in the October 2007 issue of the Industrial Worker, my union's newspaper.

In one of his recent works, How Much Should a Person Consume?, noted Indian historian Ramachandra Guha points out that developing nations currently on the rise, such as India and China, do not have the same opportunities for colonial plunder that were available to the West. While these budding economic superpowers are increasingly pursuing stronger "relationships" with other developing nations, to date they have relied largely on plundering their own human and natural resources in the name of development. Indeed, to quote Gandhi, "the blood of the villages is the cement with which the edifice of the cities is built."

Immediately upon arriving in India in March of this year, I found such sentiments underscored by events in the village of Nandigram in the state of West Bengal. According to official accounts, open warfare erupted between as many as 5,000 enraged villagers and paramilitary police aided by supporters of the ruling Communist Party of India. The conflict, which resulted in hundreds of injuries and the deaths of more than a dozen protestors, captivated the nation and received wide-scale media coverage. The source of the conflict: the proposed creation of a “Special Economic Zone” (SEZ) in the region and resulting eviction of agriculturalists from land that they depend upon for their livelihoods.

This outbreak of violence was but a crescendo however to ongoing struggles in the region, and throughout the country, around SEZs. Less than two months prior, the IWW’s International Solidarity Commission had issued a letter in support of a rural workers’ union (the Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity, or PBKMS) in West Bengal. Yet it would be naïve to allege that India’s land struggles originated with the nascent SEZ approach to development. Rather SEZs are merely the newest public face to the liberalization of the Indian economy (dating back to the early 1960s, and intensifying in the 1990s), and to the politics of rich and poor going back much, much further. As noted by the PBKMS: “The legal mechanism for these land seizures—the Land Acquisition Act—derives from [British] colonial law.” Guha also points to an “imperial model of [natural resources] management” that runs throughout modern Indian history, the aim of which has been “…to legislate commercial exploitation of [natural resources] as the only legitimate use, thereby denying traditional subsistence use by locals. Such an approach inevitably resulted in ongoing breaches of policy and even open rebellion by locals.”

A far cry from the economies of the North, in India a vast proportion of the population still relies directly on the agricultural sector for their livelihood. While academics speculate as to whether the nation’s economy has entered a “new phase” of development, a whopping 60+% of Indians still rely upon natural resource-based livelihoods, declining only 15% over the past 50 years. Agriculture directly employs 234 million Indians, and these agriculturalists, again in contrast to those in the North, run predominantly small, subsistence-based operations, with 90% of landowners still tilling their own fields. In India, as in much of the global South, land is life. Contrast this economic reality with a brutal history of land-grabs and displacement and the outcome is not hard to imagine. Indeed, India’s poor have good reason to view “development” schemes with hostility; the New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) estimates that since 1950, 40 million people (the majority of whom are tribal people and Dalits, or “untouchables”) have been displaced from their land due to large industrialization projects; at least 75% of them still await rehabilitation and resettlement. As reported in the pages of the Industrial Worker in recent months, similar State-sponsored land grabs, also in the name of development, have resulted in mass civil uprisings in Vietnam and in China.

Though India first began experiments with free trade zones (under the rubric of “Export Processing Zones”) back in the 60s, the more recent rush to develop SEZs is frequently attributed to the “success” of this model in China. Yet as Shankar Gopalakrishnan points out in a recent re-assessment of Chinese SEZs, “The general impression that China’s special economic zones are a remarkable success is an incomplete one. Left out of the picture are inequities in development, arable land loss, real estate speculation and labour violence…What is happening in SEZs can be seen as progress, therefore, only insofar as aggregate investment is concerned; socially it is nothing but regression.” Further, he concludes that while Indian states are scrambling to emulate and even intensify the Chinese SEZ model, they have utterly failed to address the aspects of this model which have led to such regression.

Special Economic Zones in India, as in other countries, have been established with the ostensible goals of attracting greater foreign and domestic investment, improving productive capacity, and boosting employment and exports. This model typically involves a “streamlined” regulatory environment, enhanced infrastructure, tax breaks, government subsidies, and other forms of State support. And according to the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry, SEZs are yielding great results, with an increase of hundreds of thousands of new jobs and several billion dollars of private investment predicted by year’s end. Yet these rosy statistics leave many questions unanswered and gloss over a few important facts on the ground.

Already mentioned is the highly contentious issue of displacement of those dependent upon natural resources, such as the Mundra SEZ in Gujarat, whose development undermines the livelihoods of local fisher-folk and pastoralists, or the proposed Midnapur petrochemical SEZs in West Bengal, which would be built alongside and over top of the area’s freshwater supply and farmlands. In addition to dispossessing locals and the specter of environmental spillover, SEZs are also specifically designed to create “industrial townships” or “countries within a country,” thereby removing authority from local governments and even township residents and relaxing important labor, health and safety, and environmental legislation. If SEZs are truly being established to advance the common good, then they should obviously be beholden to citizens and to laws enacted to protect residents and the natural environment. In the words of one local NGO critical of the SEZ model, “…this is a new form of the East India Company establishment.”

Indeed, the SEZ debate epitomizes the competing interests of rich and poor so frequently glossed over in “development” schemes. By simply designating their project a SEZ, developers are able to (sometimes forcibly) acquire land at rock-bottom prices, fueling a highly-speculative real estate boom with powerful ripple effects for neighboring farmers struggling to hold on to their land as well as landless agricultural laborers. While the robber barons make a fortune, those most ill-prepared to adapt to the rapid economic, demographic, and ecological shifts accompanying the SEZ model of development are left behind. Further, since no more than 50% of the overall land area of the SEZ is required to be devoted to manufacturing, the rest can be used for “support infrastructure” such as housing developments, shopping malls, and other amenities aimed at India’s growing middle class—all subsidized at taxpayer expense. As with China’s SEZ experience, rapid development in a few privileged pockets will likely be exchanged for revenue shortfalls in the country’s poorest districts—a policy which can only exacerbate regional inequalities.

Critics of SEZ policies can be found even within the ranks of the Indian bureaucracy, with the Finance Ministry bemoaning an estimated 1,750 billion rupees (>$43 billion) in foregone tax revenues by 2011—a hefty price tag for a cash-strapped government unable to deliver basic services to much of its populace. To-date it has not even been adequately demonstrated that the private sector investment flowing into the SEZs is a direct result of the policy itself, as opposed to capital which would have been invested in the fast-growing Indian economy anyway but is simply being redirected towards the path of least resistance (as capital is wont to do). Sunita Narain of CSE points to Korean giant Posco's mega steel plant as a case in point: “It 'managed' to get categorized as an SEZ, well after it had already come into the country to set up shop.”

Given the high social costs and inequitably-distributed benefits of current models of development, citizens’ groups across India are agitating for alternatives. Sadly, scenes such as those witnessed at Nandigram are likely to reoccur. Today there are few regions of India which are not caught up in one way or another with contentious land disputes that pit the State and moneyed interests against the working poor, many of whom with little left to lose. In response to this public outcry, the government has taken a number of steps, including limiting the size of SEZs and stripping state governments of the power to acquire land on behalf of developers. The Ministry of Rural Development is also formulating a much-needed overhaul to the State’s approach to resettlement and rehabilitation, and political leaders have suggested that productive farmland should not be diverted to SEZ projects. Whether these reforms will address criticisms of SEZs without also undermining the professed goals of the program remains to be seen, but for the moment at least, the SEZ march continues largely unabated. As of this summer, a total of 339 SEZs had been formally approved by the central government, with another 170 projected approvals on the way.

WORKS CITED:

-Guha, How Much Should a Person Consume?

- Guha chapter in Environmental Issues in India for commentary on how British colonialist policy/relations w/ rurals has continued under independent India (e.g., 1935 declaration re: State’s role in land acquisition)

-ISC solidarity letter re: West Bengal: http://lists.iww.org/private/isc/2007-January/000881.html

-IUF statement on violence/repression in West Bengal: http://www.iuf.org/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=4017&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1

-“India: General strike called after 14 protesters killed” http://libcom.org/news/india-general-strike-called-after-14-protesters-killed-20032007

-“Special Economic Zones: Are They Good for the Country?” by Ram Krishna Ranjan, Centre for Civil Society

-Shri Kamal Nath, India’s Union Minister of Commerce and Industry, addresses University of Oxford (University College) re: the Doha round of the WTO negotiations. May 4, 2007. http://commerce.nic.in/pressrelease/pressrelease_detail.asp?id=2025

- March 2005, IMF Country Report No. 05/87. “India: Selected Issues”

-Economic and Political Weekly May 26, 2007 “Nandigram and the Question of Development” MALINI BHATTACHARYA

- Economic and Political Weekly May 26, 2007 “Help the Rich, Hurt the Poor: Case of Special Economic Zones” E A S SARMA

-Shankar GOPALAKRISHNAN, “Negative Aspects of Special Economic Zones in China” Economic and Political Weekly April 28, 2007.

-CSE’s Natural Resources Management and Livelihoods “Towards Green Villages” workshop materials

-Website, Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce: http://sezindia.nic.in/HTMLS/about.htm

-“Prowling tiger: India pushes anew for special economic zones”

Jul 9th 2007, From the Economist Intelligence Unit ViewsWire: http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9462984

-“A peasant surprise: A scheme to provide land for industrial development hits the skids”

Jan 25th 2007 | GAR CHAKRABERIA, From The Economist print edition: http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8597150

-“Cash cows: They worked in China. But will India's zones boost investment, or just divert it?”

Oct 12th 2006 | DELHI, From The Economist print edition: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8031219

-Editorial Note: SEZ Policy “Ceiling on size will limit growth” by Savita Kulkarni

-website and research paper of Paryavaran Mitra http://paryavaranmitra.org.in/

-“A concession called SEZ, all for foreign exchange: Special Economic Zones barter away democracy” by MAHESH PANDYA AND HIRAL MEHTA; http://downtoearth.org.in/Full6.asp?FolderName=20061031&FileNAme=news&sid=30&sec_id=18

- Sunita Narain editorial in Down to Earth 10/25/06

-Gobar Times, 30/6/07 http://www.gobartimes.org

-Asian Development Bank, Asian Development Outlook 2007

-Down to Earth, “Freeze on special economic zones lifted” 4/30/07: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20070430&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=12

-“Background Paper: Land Acquisition and Displacement” Shri. Sanjay Upadhyay, Supreme Court Advocate, New Delhi

-“Land Sovereignty and Food Sovereignty the Key Issue in the Land Debate,” Dr. Vandana Shiva

-“Testimonies from Nandigram,” April 15, 2007, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20070415&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=1

-“Mundra SEZ Spells Displacement for Fisherfolk” March 31, 2007, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20070331&filename=news&sec_id=50&sid=18

-“UP Farmers Continue Protest Over Land Acquisition by Reliance” February 15, 2007, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20070215&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=6

-“Update” Dec. 31, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/Full6.asp?FolderName=20061231&FileNAme=news&sid=60&sec_id=4

-“SEZ, How Special” November 15, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/cover.asp?foldername=20061115&filename=news&sid=58&page=1&sec_id=9&p=1

-“Scratched record: Will SEZs succeed, where precursors failed?” November 15, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20061115&filename=news&sec_id=9&sid=59

-“Zones of conflict: Land acquisition has united farmers” November 15, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20061115&filename=news&sec_id=9&sid=61

-“Not wasted: New compromise excuse to grab” November 15, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20061115&filename=news&sec_id=9&sid=63

-“Windfall loss:Tax breaks: Public money for private gain” November 15, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20061115&filename=news&sec_id=9&sid=64

-“New nabobs” November 15, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20061115&filename=news&sid=66&page=2&sec_id=9

-“SEZs get a social face” Down to Earth, Oct. 31, 2006: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20061031&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=8

-“Union ministries clash over SEZ” September 30, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20060930&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=8

-“Gujarat NGOs demand separate environment court” July 15, 2006 Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20060715&filename=news&sec_id=49&sid=51

-“SEZ who?: No industrial revolution this“ March 15, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20060315&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=17

-“Protests against land acquisitions in India intensify“ 8/22/07, http://southasia.oneworld.net/article/view/152479/1/

-“Medha Patkar criticises Indian govt's new SEZ policy” April 9, 2007, http://southasia.oneworld.net/article/view/148030/1/

-“Nandigram bloodbath puts WB’s land acquisition policy on hold” March 20, 2007 http://southasia.oneworld.net/article/view/147295/1/

-“India:Special Economic Zones on the Backburner” Feb. 12, 2007, http://southasia.oneworld.net/article/view/146035/1/

-“Indian economic zones 'hitting the poor'” http://uk.oneworld.net/article/view/145038/1/ 1/21/2007

-“Modhwadia smells foul play in land allotment to DLF” September 6, 2007 http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=254904

-Shoma Chaudhury interview with Arundhati Roy, March 31, 2007, http://www.tehelka.com/story_main28.asp?filename=Ne310307Its_outright_CS.asp

China's Environmental Challenges and the Next Generation of Green Leaders

This article was submitted to me by Zhang Dongli during my tenure at the Centre for Science and Environment. It was intended for publication in CSE's youth magazine, Gobar Times. However, I became impatient waiting for them to publish what I think is an excellent and inspiring article, so I decided to at least publish it here. If anyone is interested in being in touch with the author, let me know.

The world has watched in amazement in the last ten years as China has transformed its economic and social system to become the fourth-largest economy in the world. It has also become increasingly apparent, however, that this rapid growth has come at a severe price for China’s environment. Because of China’s high population and generally poor enforcement of environmental standards, pressure on natural resources and the resultant environmental problems have become acute. For example, one-third of China is affected by acid rain; 16 of the world’s twenty most polluted cities are in China; and over 300 million rural people lack access to clean drinking water. Some of the biggest threats to China’s environment, health, and future sustainable development include water pollution and scarcity, air pollution, and climate change.

China is facing a severe water crisis, with regard to both water quality and water supply. Continuous discharge of untreated sewage from major cities, as well as pollution from mining, paper-making, and other industries has taken a severe toll on China’s waterways. In 2006, 26% of the water flowing in China’s major watersheds was essentially dead, classified by the State Environmental Protection Administration as having lost all basic ecological functions. It is estimated that 660 of China’s cities are affected by serious groundwater pollution. Water supply is also a vital concern; China has 8% of the world’s fresh water but 22% of the world’s population. More than 130 cities in China, including Beijing, face severe water shortages. In order to deal with water shortages in the relatively arid north of China, China has embarked on the world’s largest water diversion project, which will take water from the Yangtze River in the south to northern China. This project involves the construction of 3 canals, totaling more than 3,000 km, and is expected to be completed around 2050 at a projected cost of more than US$60 billion. The full ecological consequences of this large-scale re-engineering of China’s major river systems remain unknown, but environmentalists doubt that it is sustainable to divert so much of the Yangtze’s water.

Air pollution is another serious problem, especially in China’s major cities. According to the World Bank, four of the world’s ten cities with the worst air pollution are in China. About 300,000 deaths each year are attributed to air pollution. Because of China’s huge coal resources, coal accounts for more than 60% of China’s primary energy supply, a much higher percentage than in developed nations like the United States. In cities like Beijing, increased automobile traffic and poor urban planning have also played a critical role in the air pollution problem. When the Chinese government ordered 800,000 cars off of the streets of Beijing to clear the air for the China-Africa summit in November 2006, a type of nitrogen oxide pollution decreased by 40%.

Finally, climate change has been recognized as an increasing threat to China’s environment. According to China’s National Climate Change Program, published by the central government in June, climate change is likely to cause a decrease in the yields of China’s main agricultural crops (corn, wheat, and rice), increased desertification, and sea level rise. Climate change will also make China’s water problems even more acute. Glacial water supplies 23% of China’s population, but it is estimated that China will lose two-thirds of its glaciers by 2050, putting at least 300 million people at risk.

Government and NGO Actions

China’s environmental crisis is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. The central government has issued dozens of regulations designed to improve energy efficiency and crack down on polluters. The government’s targets for 2010 include a 10% reduction in air pollution and a 20% reduction in energy intensity of GDP. China has set ambitious targets for the development of wind and biomass electricity generation. In addition, the government has introduced fuel taxes to discourage the purchase of inefficient vehicles and a 5% tax on wooden disposable chopsticks (which consume 25 million trees each year). A new regulation issued in May requires all companies to disclose their environmental information to the public voluntarily or by force.

There has also been a rapid increase in the number of non-governmental organizations working on environmental issues. There are more than 3,000 registered environmental NGOs in China today, a rapid increase from less than 50 only five years ago. These NGOs are gradually becoming more sophisticated and effective. For example, one of the most innovative NGOs is the Institute for Public and Environmental Affairs, founded in 2006 by Ma Jun, author of the influential book “China’s Water Crisis.” Ma Jun was inspired to become an environmental activist because of his experiences as a journalist researching the Yellow River. His Institute has created an online map of water pollution in China, and is using this information to pressure multinational companies to green their supply chains and stop purchasing from polluting factories. Chinese NGOs have also started to pay more and more attention to the problem of climate change. Although NGOs generally lack experience in dealing with climate change, they are rising to the challenge, networking with foreign NGOs and building capacity to effectively address this problem.

The Student Environmental Movement

China’s youth are the ones who will have to deal with the future consequences of today’s environmental pollution. Fortunately, the last 10-15 years have seen a rise in environmental activism among Chinese youth and the rise of a new generation of leaders who are dedicated to solving China’s environmental problems.

Unlike their counterparts in developed countries, Chinese youth often face serious barriers to environmental activism. Since the Tiananmen Square demonstrations in 1989, the Chinese government has actively discouraged any attempts at national-level campaigns by university groups. Student groups generally receive no funding from their university, and their ability to fundraise from outside sources is also restricted. All projects must be approved by the university, and it is easy for a university administration to shut down student organizations.

Despite these challenges, there is a tight-knit and growing community of Chinese students from campuses throughout the country working on environmental issues. Nearly every university in the country has an environmental club, many of which are linked into regional and sometimes national networks. It is almost impossible to describe a “typical” club, since the large regional differences across China lead to different environmental concerns, and government control prevents students from organizing nationally. In the words of Zhang Dongli, a leader in the national College Environmental Forum, “there is more and more diversity in the students' environmental activities now. They used to be more nature-focused, just working on issues of forest preservation, endangered species protection, etc. Now they are reaching out to many aspects of the environmental movement, such as urban rivers, green architecture, public transportation, [and] organic farming.” Here we profile a sample of some of the rising student environmental leaders and their organizations.

Li Li, the College Environmental Forum

Li Li is one of the leaders of the College Environmental Forum, the main national student environmental network in China. CEF provides an online forum for college activists to share news, advice, and success stories; it also organizes an annual conference which attracts leaders from the major regional networks and university environmental organizations. This year’s forum focused on climate and energy; students presented recent projects related to issues like on-campus energy conservation, carbon audits, and wind power. Li Li, a recent college graduate and former president of the regional network Green Henan, was heavily involved in organizing this year’s conference. He has also been involved in organizing tree-planting and bird-watching activities, planning student conferences, and developing summer environmental research projects for college students. His goal is “to inspire more people and bring them into environmental protection through my activism.”

Luo Rui, Peking University CDM Club and JIFF (Joint Initiative for the Future)

Luo Rui, a master’s student in environmental science at Peking University in Beijing, is a leader in the CDM Club, Peking University’s environmental club, and a founding member of a new network called JIFF (Joint Initiative for the Future). The CDM Club was founded in 2006 with the goal of promoting awareness and action on climate change at Peking University and beyond. Luo Rui is passionate about climate change, which he first became concerned about as an undergraduate student. In his opinion, this past year was a significant turning point for climate change activism in China: “climate change and related energy issues become the central discussion over one night.” He currently directs the green campus program of the CDM Club, which is working on a greenhouse gas inventory of Peking University and plans to use the results of the inventory to promote investments in energy efficiency on campus.

In 2007, Luo Rui worked with other Chinese and foreign youth leaders living in Beijing to create JIFF, which was designed to provide a bridge for communication between foreign and Chinese climate activists. JIFF aims to build on and adapt the knowledge and resources already developed by the American student climate movement to develop a platform for helping students run green campus projects in China.

Su Jianhua, Green Student Forum

Su Jianhua, a recent graduate of China Mining University, now works for Syntao, an NGO focusing on corporate social responsibility; she was previously a leader in the Green Student Forum, one of the oldest and best-known student environmental organizations in China. GSF runs leadership and capacity-building trainings for students, and publishes a quarterly newsletter featuring student activities from all over China. Su has been concerned about environmental issues since she was in elementary school, when she was shocked by the serious pollution of the river in her hometown. In college, she became involved in the Green Student Forum, and last year she also helped develop a project investigating energy waste on her campus.

Zhang Dongli, the College Environmental Forum

Zhang Dongli, another CEF leader, is currently a junior at Bryn Mawr College in the United States, where she majors in urban studies. She is using her unique position as a Chinese student environmental leader studying abroad to help bridge the American and Chinese environmental movements. She has organized Chinese students to translate campaign resources from American student environmental organizations into Chinese. She has also helped to initiate CEF’s new focus on climate change. Due in part to her leadership, CEF has formed a climate committee, which presented its “Declaration of Chinese Youth and College Student on Climate Action” to the Live Earth concert in Shanghai this past summer. CEF is planning to promote climate projects on university campuses, ranging from greenhouse gas emissions inventories to green building campaigns, and promote the integration of courses on climate change into the university education system. They hope to issue a guide to youth climate activism next year. Zhang Dongli believes that CEF’s leadership on climate change will help “raise the student environmental movement to another level.”

“A long way to go”

Despite the difficulty of organizing in China, the urgency of China’s environmental problems has inspired a new generation of students to take action. Although the student environmental movement in China is young, student leaders are excited that the movement is learning and growing rapidly. Today’s generation of student environmental leaders are increasingly sophisticated, learning from their counterparts in developed countries and creating a new brand of student environmental activism to fit within the Chinese system. Their work reaches from the campus to the national level and covers issues from biodiversity to climate change. Yet despite their passion and enthusiasm, the student leaders are under no illusions about the severity of the threats to China’s environment. As Su Jianhua put it, “we are not satisfied with China's progress on this issue and it is a long way to go to improve the [situation].”