Image credit: rytc/flickrEven with half of private cars off the road, Beijing remains wrapped in a haze of smog. The real causes of Beijing’s air quality woes lie elsewhere.
This story originally posted to HuffingtonPost.com.
On July 20, half of private cars in Beijing went off the road in a sweeping attempt to improve air quality in advance of the Olympic games. Commercial and governmental vehicles, taxis and buses are all running as usual, but traffic is moving noticeably faster. I’ve been watching the plates, and drivers really are obeying the regulations. Furthermore, the Chinese have suspended tourism and visas for anyone not attending the Olympics, which is improving traffic even more. There are noticeably fewer tour groups, taxis, rental cars and minibuses. At the same time, a new subway line and the light rail to the airport opened, and more people are taking mass transit.
But guess what? Beijing’s air pollution doesn’t appear to have changed. In fact, visibility outside my window the last few days has been worse than it was in the week before the car regulations came into place.
This should come as no surprise. Beijing’s air pollution varies a great deal from day to day. The fact that it seems worse is probably due to unfortunate weather conditions-high temperature and humidity, and low winds that would otherwise dissipate the smog.
Contrary to popular perception both inside and outside China, Beijing’s air pollution problem is not primarily due to increases in personal vehicle use. Granted, there have been dozens of press reports about the surging numbers of vehicles that Beijingers are buying. These reports are true, but also misleading. In contrast to the experience in the U.S., Beijing’s boom in vehicle ownership has not yet invaded its surrounding areas. It is mainly China’s wealthiest cities that are participating in the car boom; smaller cities and towns have seen more modest growth in vehicle ownership.
The real causes of Beijing’s air quality woes lie elsewhere. An article last year suggested the key component to Beijing’s ozone problem (the stuff that makes your eyes itch, causes shortness of breath and reduces visibility) is actually volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from small factories in neighboring Hebei province. A sniff test suggests that there are plenty of these factories operating in and around Beijing. Many are small (and possibly illegal), and they operate only at night to avoid the scrutiny of environmental inspectors. So the Beijing government has several problems: first, it must locate these hidden factories. Then they must shut them down—and convince neighboring provinces to do the same.
Beijing’s other major problem is particulates, which come from several sources. One is construction: Beijing is still rushing to complete non-Olympic buildings before the big day. Another is coal-fired power plants and factory boilers. China’s largest coal-mining province, Shanxi, is directly up wind of Beijing. Shanxi ships much coal to other provinces, but it also has mine-mouth power plants and coking plants that contribute to regional pollution.
A final source is trucks. As with the VOCs from small factories, emissions from heavy vehicles are worst during the night, since trucks are banned from the city during the day. Studies have shown that Beijing’s pollution levels are highest in the early morning. This would not be the case if most of the pollution came from passenger cars, which operate mainly during the day. But it is good evidence that the chief sources of pollution are the VOC-producing factories and trucks operating at night.
The international focus on Beijing’s car problem, when the true problem lies more with industrial emissions, suggests we often apply lessons from one place a little too readily to another. China’s air pollution problem—like its [greenhouse gas emissions](node/9331)—is primarily connected to industry. There is no question that smart transportation planning would help China avoid vehicle-caused smog and global warming in the future. But for the here and now, the real challenges are in industry, and the real efforts need to be in strengthening local enforcement of existing pollution and energy efficiency standards and with developing new multipollutant standards that address issues like VOCs.
Related Links
- Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities. Contains links to air quality data and background information for the seven cities hosting the 2008 Olympic Games.
- Interactive air quality forecast map (for Beijing and other major Chinese cities). Note: this link was taken off-line after this article was first posted.
Deborah Seligsohn, Principal Advisor, China Climate and Energy Programdseligsohn@wri.org+86 139-1119-5762Deborah Seligsohn serves as Principal Advisor to WRI’s climate and energy program on issues in China as well as to the ChinaFAQs China Climate and Energy Network.
9 Comments
We need to find a solution
We need to find a solution about the china's air quality problem, it's both cars and air planes. The bad air quality is worsing the world and temperature is getting higher by the years, more storms and orkanes will be more usual. by the 5-15 years the storms will be 15% more and water limit will be twice in the next cople of thousand years. If we can find solutions with the power problem this will be even better with the problem's we got today. The greenland's ice will melt, the other ice island's too. a guy from the .u.s. i don't remember his name, found a great solution about cars, he found out we can use comprimised air to our cars instead of gas. I hope we will find more solutions about our problems with bad air quality all over the world.
Very interesting topic and
Very interesting topic and you give me a new view on Beijing air pollution problem. I will think more about it. But I had one question on the picture (Olympic Stadium Beijing) you link. The picture was actually taken on about Jul. 23-28, 2007, so it can not show the actual effect after half of cars were banned on Jul. 20, 2008. Furthermore, can you list data on the air quality change before and after this action, which could contributed to your conclusion.
A number of comments raise
A number of comments raise the issue of VOCs as a contributor to ozone, rather than a pollutant in and of itself – or as an additional, but secondary pollutant, because some are carcinogens. That is all correct, and was my point. Beijing’s ozone problem is “VOC-limited,” which as one writer notes can lead to the counter-intuitive situation that ozone actually goes up if NOx are limited.
Whether ozone is actually going up is difficult to document, because Beijing does not regularly report ozone data. One excellent development just last week is that the Ministry of Environmental Protection has announced that it will start monitoring and reporting both ozone and PM 2.5 after the Olympics. As writers note, these are both key pollutants, and this new information is an essential step in a control strategy.
I cannot, as requested, provide an accurate assessment of the air pollution level and the Olympic measures. I believe there are a number of groups working either with local monitoring equipment or collecting satellite data that will be publishing at a later date, and we will see a full assessment. The photo is simply a file photo the webmaster used. There are a number of sites posting daily photos of Beijing during this period.
There is no question that particulates (PM) are a major part of Beijing’s ordinary day-to-day pollution problem. These have only been measured as PM 10, but hopefully soon we will see PM 2.5 data, as well. The measures that were originally taken, including reducing traffic and probably more importantly adjusting the use of power plants, completing Olympic construction, and cleaning up many of Beijing’s construction sites, did address a portion of the particulate issue. What I was pointing out was that pollution did not simply go away, and that part of the reason was that VOCs had not been addressed, and that there appeared to be a significant ozone issue. The point about nighttime pollution is simply that it is not a private vehicle issue. The data I’ve seen, which is primarily for particulates, shows heavy numbers building through the night and starting to drop around the same time as the morning commute.
But my other point was that the number of private cars in the vehicle mix and the private car contribution to pollution is simply overstated. Heavy vehicles are a much more direct contributor to Beijing’s considerable PM problem. Transport itself is only 10% of China’s energy use, compared to 33% in the United States. Beijing city itself has a large and growing number of passenger cars, but Hebei province, with a larger area and population, completely surrounding the city, has fewer cars than Beijing. Moreover, use patterns appear to be very different from in the United States. The number of Beijingers that use their private cars for occasional trips rather than daily commutes appears to be quite large. The number of people per vehicle in the vehicles that are on the road all week is also considerably higher than in the United States. Public transportation, commercial vehicles, taxis, and government-owned vehicles are all a larger part of the mix. Thus, a focus on private cars seems to miss many of the major issues. This is not to say that traffic didn’t clear up considerably – I did also receive a note from a writer that points out there is still traffic congestion in places and sometimes it appears on highways with designated Olympic lanes – true on some and at some times, but overall vehicle use is down considerably. It appears that there has been an active effort to keep out heavy vehicles that are not needed for goods relating to the Olympics and its visitors. Also, many offices and institutions have closed for the Olympic period, so lots of travel of all kinds has dropped.
The global focus on cars in Beijing leads to the misapprehension that cutting the cars will automatically lead to dramatic air quality improvements. Without focusing on some of these other issues – like industrial pollutants, including VOCs – that type of policy can run into challenges. My point was being made simply, in short article form. There are certainly more complexities in the chemistry that could be discussed. I hope that as the data comes out from various efforts to assess what happened, we can discuss this more.
But one final point is that this same view of cars is often then applied to climate change, and again my point that transportation is but 10% of China’s energy mix is often forgotten. Industry is 71%. This is a very different energy use pattern and requires different, and obviously industry-focused, solutions, especially in the short to medium term. Obviously private vehicle use is growing, and choices about mass transit and city planning today will affect pollution and climate change tomorrow. So for the longer term, good transportation management will be essential.
There seems to be some
There seems to be some confusion in this article that might warrant a bit of rethinking.
From a public health perspective Beijing's two main air quality problems right now are ozone and PM 2.5. Ozone is a "secondary" pollutant in the sense that it doesn't come directly from a smokestack or tailpipe; PM 2.5 can be either a primary or secondary pollutant. For ozone, there are two main precursors: NOx and VOCs. NOx forms mainly through oxidation of N in high combustion temperatures ("thermal NOx"); VOCs come from a variety of sources, including cars (e.g., as hydrocarbon vapors that escape during refueling).
As California has learned over the years the relationship between ozone formation and NOx and VOC concentrations is not linear. Reducing NOx emissions without reducing VOC emissions can actually (and somewhat non-intuitively) lead to higher ozone concentrations, and this may have been what happened in Beijing. In that sense, it's probably more accurate to say that "cars aren't necessarily the only problem" than "it isn't the cars." In other words, reducing tailpipe emissions may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for improving air quality in Beijing. Because of the complexities of this relationship, and because as far as I know VOC sources in Beijing have not been adequately fingerprinted, it’s probably misleading to use Beijing as an example to make the case that “China’s pollution problem is primarily connected to industry.” Indeed the fact that efforts to reduce air pollution in Beijing are more complex suggest that the city has “graduated” to post-industrial air quality problems that are also driven by atmospheric chemistry rather than simply direct emissions.
A couple of factual quibbles. First, note that VOCs are not criteria pollutants; they are in some cases known and in other cases potential carcinogens but at ambient outdoor concentrations they typically do not directly cause respiratory problems or impair visibility like ozone does. In terms of reducing outdoor air pollution, the argument to make would seemingly thus be that major cities in China should be focusing on reducing both NOx and VOC emissions to control their ozone problems; as with NOx, a singular focus on reducing VOCs can actually increase ozone concentrations.
I would also check the accuracy of this statement: "Studies have shown that Beijing’s pollution levels are highest in the early morning. This would not be the case if most of the pollution came from passenger cars, which operate mainly during the day." As far as I know, this pattern is actually typical of most cities with big ozone problems, including Mexico City and Los Angeles. The early morning commute is typically a peak in NO2 emissions, which are cleaved by photons into NO + O, with the O combining with an oxygen molecule to make O3.
I feel like you need to
I feel like you need to consult a Atmospheric Scientist to clear up some of the facts in your article. In order to produce ozone, you need both NOx and volatile organic compounds. Neither species on its own will lead to ozone. Also, I am not certain your assessment of the source of morning pollution is completely correct. The trucks and night factories may contribute to airborne particulates but are an unlikely source for ozone. Ozone needs sunlight to form and therefore could not appear until the sun appears and sufficient time has passed for the chemistry to occur. During the night time ozone is depleted. But because the article was vague, it is hard to tell what forms of pollution were being measured to contribute to the high pollution levels during the morning.
Au contraire, it is the cars
Au contraire, it is the cars - It seems to me that since cars form a significant part of the new Chinese economy and life, they are at least indirectly responsible for a lot of the other pollutants. New house, new car... big house, big refrigerator, big car. It all goes together. The trucks ship the goods people fill their cars with, and so on.
Seems like the map you're
Seems like the map you're linking to is now password protected, so it's impossible to get to; any other sources?
I quite agree with your
I quite agree with your opinion, causing Beijing’s air quality problem is beyond Beijing municipality, it is a regional problem! especially the areas around Beijing in Hebei Province. I remember clearly there were so many small industries, such as lime, cement plants which were big polluters. We can sniff terrible air when we passed these areas. Many years passed , unfortunately, these polluters are still there right now.
My home was just beside Fu Xin Road in Beijing. There were terrible traffic noise during evening time, when so many heavy trucks ran into city. These trucks with full load stuff, coal for instance, may be one of polluter contributing Beijing air quality. Unfortunately again this situation is still there.
As to particulates in Beijing, besides construction and coal-fired power plants and factory boilers, I think another important contributor is from Northern Desert…
For cars’ role of air pollution of Beijing maybe it needs further detailed studies for a relative longer time.
Cars contribute to worsening
Cars contribute to worsening local air quality. Also to congestion and accidents, and reduction of personal activity. The fact that the car restriction is not working as an emergency response to poor air quality does not mean that cars are OK, and nothing should be done with them: their technology should be improved and their indiscriminate use reduced.
The author is right that other causes of poor air quality need to be tackled (point sources from industries), and that the weather conditions this week are not helping. But, I think that her piece could be misinterpreted: cars are also part of the problem, and the fact that Chinese authorities are considering restricting their use part of the solution should be considered a step in the right direction. More needs to be done, not less.