Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

June 14, 2008 |  6 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Leah  Strauss

Pollution as a Human Rights Issue

Leah Strauss: Both the UN Environment Program and Human Rights Council have acknowledged the ever-present human element of environmental degradation. Globally, the recognition that those who pollute are violating human rights is of urgent importance, nowhere more-so than in China.

Pollution has made cancer China's leading cause of death.
750,000 people a year die prematurely in China because of pollution.
Only 1 percent of China's 560 million city dwellers breathe air considered safe by the EU.

China's human rights record is being thoroughly examined in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics. Yet even with such a strong commitment by human rights groups, pollution continues to exist outside of their agenda.

"Those who pollute are not just committing a crime against nature, but are violating human rights." --UN Environment Program, Klaus Toepfer, 2001

Within China, one-fifth of the world's population is suffering from grave abuses; clean water and air, what the UN Millennium Project Report calls, "preconditions for human life," are fast-becoming memory.

Pollution is not only a threat to an individual's health, but a multi-dimensional violation of one's dignity, safety and psychological well-being.

According to the UNHRC, "everyone has the right to live in a world free from pollution." Despite this acknowledgement, on the Amnesty International website "pollution" remains absent from "Beijing Olympics Priority Issues." The same is true of Human Rights Watch.

Instead, pollution is addressed through "business and human rights" or by "health and human rights."

Human Rights Watch describes itself as "standing with victims and activists to bring offenders to justice." This objective is being met in China in regards to the most frequent subject of public protest: land disputes. Yet, the second most frequent subject of protest, pollution, is an issue the Chinese people are engaged in without direct support.

In 2005 there were 55,000 environmental protests reported, a 30% increase on the year before. That same year police killed at least three villagers in Dongzhou, Guangdong province, while quelling a riot over a planned power plant.

On 4 May, police severely beat seven demonstrators who were trying to shut down a factory in Zhejiang province.

The scale of the problem is daunting. Pan Yue, deputy minister of China's environmental regulator, SEPA, estimates the annual cost of environmental damage at 8-13 percent of GDP--effectively canceling out China's annual economic growth rate.

Furthermore, Mr. Pan projects the levels of pollution in China to double over the next 15 years.

Connecting pollution and human rights, provides a key for individuals suffering from pollution in the name of "economic progress." Individuals will be able to recognize a violation when it occurs and demand that development happen in a just manner, fully respecting their human rights--without exception.

Also, members of the activist community, traditionally considered part of distinct domains, can together engage from a stronger, more unified starting-point, to realize shared goals, i.e. environmental and human rights organizations.

As stated in the UN Millennium Declaration, we must "spare no effort to free all of humanity, from the threat of living on a planet irredeemably spoilt by human activities."

  • 12
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
Tags: | China | pollution | climate change |
 
Comments
Heinrich  Bonnenberg

June 14, 2008

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I am traveling three times the year to China, to all parts of the country, last time to the border to Myanmar. I have seen the very bad environmental situation at many places, but I have also seen many acceptable solutions.
I had many discussions about the environmental situation with political, business and scientific elite and I have found that it is completely understood the necessity for improving the environmental situation and that they have also understood that good environment is a basic right.

We should not criticize worthy China with moral arguments; we should assist by telling them how we in our country have solved and are still solving the problems.
German industrialization started in the second part of 19th century, with a high booming after the second world war. But the German environmental laws are only from 1957 water, 1974 air and noise, 1977 nature, 1986 waste, all being furthermore developed till today. Environmental development needs much time, in cultural understanding, in development of technologies, in administrative realization.

The Chinese are very interested to adopt our lessons learnt, experiences, developments and all which is connected with environmental protection, protection for nature entirely, not only for men.

It would be interesting if some body could tell us what e.g. Germany is doing to assist the Chinese in realizing efficient environmental protection.

I ask for fairness and respect for great China.
 
Leah  Strauss

June 17, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The Intention of this Article:

It is the intention of this article to question why pollution is not a priority of human rights organizations, with a highlight on where pollution is most deadly: China. It is an --urgent-- call for a re-prioritization of the agenda of human rights groups, for the benefit of us all. It is to raise awareness of the human toll from pollution.

Furthermore, it is essential that we are able to hear the voices of those being affected, so that we can better understand the situation (which is near-impossible to imagine) and then together realize the solutions that best reflect the needs of the citizens.

Respect is given when we truly listen.



Wen Di, independent blogger and former journalist:
"We're not dissidents. We're just people who care about our homeland. What we're saying is that if you want to have this project [PetroChina chemical plant in Chengdu], you need to follow certain procedures: for example, a public hearing and independent environmental assessment. We want a fair and open process." [1]

Huo Daishan, activist on Huai River:
“Before the local rate for cancer was 1 in 100,000. Now in some villages, it's 1 in 100.”[2]

Wu Lihong, activist at Lake Tai:
arrested May 2007 for protesting chemical dumping into Lake Tai [3]

Fan Xiao, environmental advocate and geologist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Chengdu:
"People have been hoping this issue would get more attention."[1]

Wu (identified only by her family name), critic:
"We're definitely inspired by the events [environmental protests] in Xiamen and Shanghai."[1]

Devil Xiomei, internet blogger:
"This is a policy closely related to people's interests, so why was it not open to the public?"[1]

Nicholas Kristof, Op-ed contributor New York Times:
“China's biggest health disaster isn't the terrible Sichuan earthquake this month [May]. It's the air. In short, roughly as many Chinese die every two months from the air as were killed in the earthquake. And the problem is becoming international: just as Californians can find Chinese-made shoes in their stores, they can now find Chinese-made haze in their skies.” [4]




Government Efforts:

Efforts have been made by the central government in regards to pollution. For example, the 11th Five-Year Plan (2006 to 2010) calls for growth to slow by 7.5% a year from its current pace. This, according to the Economist, is to allow more time for bureaucrats to plan and direct growth and also avoid the occurrence of wasteful bottlenecks.[5]

According to the environmental lawyer Wang Canfa, the environmental law in China indeed does have many sections, but it stipulates that they can only play a supervisory role and do not have the power to shut down polluting companies. The fines that are imposed are not heavy enough to deter polluters. Furthermore, away from Beijing, there is a complex web of links between local industry and local governments. Courts are financed by local governments and if the court orders the local business to cease production, they will lose revenues. Some local governments even part-own polluting factories. [6]


[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/world/asia/06china.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=
china%20pollution&st=nyt&scp=4
[2]http://www-tc.pbs.org/kqed/chinainside/pdf/pbschina-ep3.pdf
[3]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/world/asia/14china.html
[4]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/opinion/25kristof.html?scp=5&sq=china+pollution
&st=nyt
[5]http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10795714
[6]http://www-tc.pbs.org/kqed/chinainside/pdf/pbschina-ep3.pdf
 
ilyas m mohsin

June 19, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
As International Law etc remains a make-believe affair, human rights do not mean much nor does the UN etc.
 
Donald  Stadler

June 19, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Look at the bright side, Ilyas. International Law may not be able to do anything about China, but may work if directed at the US. That seems to be the way International Law works.
 
ilyas m mohsin

June 20, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Donald I would not put my money on such a bet considering what is going on, generally, in Iraq/ Afghanistan. China as yet does not seem to figure in this mess. That is the brighter side; Gas Emissions etc only attract confences and long-winded statements though some people are, even now, sincere to the cause.
 
Donald  Stadler

June 20, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Ilyas, I would nto bet the life savings on the success of such an effort either. I was merely pointing out that regardless of the original intent or targeting of a piece of International Law, it is the US which eventually ends up on the wrong end of the lawsuit while the true malefactors walk free.
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Agata  Kowalska
Agata Kowalska
Member since
July 17, 2008

Poll