Too rainy for you? Blame the government.
Shanghai summers are hot and humid, sometimes unbearably so. Last summer, the city’s high temperature remained above 95 degrees for a record 40 days in a row. And sorry Shanghai dwellers, summers aren’t likely to get better any time soon, because — as we all know — Shanghai is also one of the most polluted megacities in the world. What little bit of ozone our sky has left will likely be burned away soon. Automobile sales here are growing at a record pace — even though the roads are already overcrowded and the city has about one parking lot downtown — and factory emissions go largely unchecked. Oh, the country is also in the midst of an energy crisis because the government forgot to figure out how it was going to power its economy’s historic growth. Last summer, Shanghai experienced a series of power shortages because too many people were using their air conditioners at the same time.
But, have no fear, people of Shanghai. The government is coming to our rescue. It has a plan to solve all of our problems. The government’s going to make it rain, baby.
That’s right, at more than US$500,000 a pop, the Shanghai Meteorological Bureau is going to have airplanes toss chemicals into the sky with the hopes that it will cause rain. The thinking is this: if they can get it to rain on the summer’s hottest days, the temperature will go down and less people will use their air conditioners, thus saving the city’s already over-taxed power sources.
Uh, what?
Perhaps you don’t see the genius in this. By utilizing the shaky science of rainmaking — which the encyclopedia says is “now generally disregarded” — we are battling a problem of overconsumption with even more excess. Instead of trying to save Mother Nature we are trying to manipulate her. We are giving her steroids. We are playing God. And the end result, the desired outcome of this elaborate scheme, is to allow people to continue to live the overconsumptive lives that cause the problem in the first place. In a country where image is everything, this is the perfect solution.
Now, knowing that the goverment rainmakers will always come to its rescue, Shanghai can now keep pumping its factory smokestacks, building its energy-inefficient housing, filling its streets with cars, sapping its oil supply even further. The city can continue to live the Western dream. If the problem gets worse, we can buy a bigger plane, fill it with even more chemicals and make it rain for an entire month — maybe two — whatever is needed to help conserve power.
But aren’t we already in the middle of the méi yǔ season. Doesn’t it already rain every day anyway? Doesn’t matter. We in Shanghai are doing our part to conserve energy. Don’t you see the airplanes releasing chemicals into the sky?
Rube Goldberg would be proud.
06.20.2004, 1:28 PM · News, Observations, Politics
10 Comments
1) Full disclosure. Is it at all worth mentioning that the USA (our shared country of citizenship) is by far the worlds largest polluter and consumer of energy?
2) The science behind this method is questionable, and admittedly it does sound silly, but the Shanghai government is not the first to try this: apparently at least 24 countries and 10 US states still use ‘cloud seeding’ (http://msnbc.com/news/992685.asp?Osi=-&cp1=1). Im reminded of a time not so long ago when the Mexico City government proposed building giant fans to help disperse the air pollution beyond the surrounding mountain ranges. City planners have interesting ideas sometimes.
LAT,
Just because I am an American does not mean everything I write is pro-America. I am not a spokesperson for my country. If I write something critical of China, Shanghai or their respective governments, it does not necessarily mean that I am contending that the situation in America is better. I don’t think it is necessary for me to infuse my nationality into everything I write. I am merely a resident of Shanghai making a comment about something that is happening in Shanghai. I would do the same in Chicago, Charlotte or Shippensburg — and I doubt I would be called anti-America if I wrote something critical of the local governments in those places (oh wait, in this day and age, maybe I would). But I contend that a critical citizenry is necessary for a successful and free society full of checks and balances.
But, yes, I am aware of America’s pollution problem. And I thought most of my readers would be, too. So I didn’t feel it necessary to mention it. I would contend, however, that the pollution problem in China is worse. I think any study of air quality would bear that out.
As for the science part of your comment, I haven’t much of a response. I was an English major. I avoided science classes in college. In fact, for the two science classes that were required of me to graduate, I took them during the summer at another school so the grades wouldn’t count against my GPA. (I shouldn’t have. I actually did rather well in them. But, sadly, neither one was meteorology.) I just think this “solution” to Shanghai’s energy woes doesn’t get to the root of the problem. It ignores it.
Hey, by the way, can you tell your friends down in Mexico City to send those giant fans to Shanghai? It’s starting to get hot here.
Thanks for the comment,
Dan
Its not really a question of being pro- or anti-American. It seems that this piece has a “how silly of the Shanghainese government and how wasteful of its citizens” slant to it. And I agree. Your country of citizenship does not preclude having an opinion, however given that you frequently use the US as a point of reference it seems fitting to do so here as well. I just find it useful to point out that the US still easily beats China on pollution and wastefulness despite having a fraction of the population, and that the Shanghai city government does not have a monopoly on odd city planning.
good point, LAT!
LAT,
I understand your point. I’m just saying I think it’s a silly idea. And, for me to make that point I don’t think it is necessary for me to mention that cities in my country and other countries have silly ideas, too. I think this silly idea stands on its own. And I don’t think the people who thought it up need to be comforted by the fact that they are not the only shortsighted government officials in the world.
As far as America’s penchant for pollution and wastefulness, it is sad, I agree. But even sadder is how eager China seems to catch up.
Dan
So we agree. And I didnt actually say you needed to include statistics on US pollution. I believe I asked you if you thought it was useful to include some reference to it.
I suppose the reason I feel its important to say this is because I read a lot of articles talking about how polluted China is (and youre right, its catching up with the US—although its still got a long way to go), and very few are put into perspective. Its very easy to criticize China now that weve finished with our industrial revolution.
Out of curiosity, why is it sadder that China is ‘eager… to catch up’?
“Catch up” to us in terms of pollution and wastefulness. Would be nice if China learned from our mistakes, not repeated them.
I realize the terms you meant. We havent learned from our mistakes (http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/02/pf/autos/suv_sales), so why should we expect it of China? As to whether its ‘sadder’, Im not sure we agree. I would argue that the US, with the advantages of time and technology, is the ‘sadder’ of the two scenarios, if one can qualify them at all.
Can I just buy you a beer or something?
Dear LAT and DAN: Democracy is a beautiful thing. Fierce debate and constructive criticism is not only the sign of a free society (here online of course) but also you have demonstrated the Chinese audiences that Americans stood for what they believe in. Well done!! Dan, a great Journalist supposes to provoke the audience although I have reserves of Dan’s bribe “ a beer”. Shouldn’t there be at least two?
As a Shanghainese left Shanghai 8 years ago, traveled in Europe and now reside in America, I would like to say that although Shanghai’s pollution is still one of the heaviest in the world, it is gradually improving. Growing up in the French concession area of Shanghai, I remember my neighborhood only had one bus line come in and out. The air was Fresh, birds were singing and the garden of my pre-school in a Spanish villa was beautiful. Shanghai’s reconstruction starting from mid 80s to catch up the economical gap left by the culture revolution and to improve the city wide basic facility for Shanghai such as Highways, subways and housings, then Shanghai’s average housing was 2 square meters per capita. Reconstructions have been on going until today. However, I see the improvement every time I came back for a visit. From no tree left on the sidewalk every street the city has widened, to today they replant the big trees moved from out of city and building more and more public parks. From trash everywhere to today I witness more people throw their trash into near by trashcan. That was a behavior I wouldn’t dare to think because there were not any trashcan around when you need it.
There is a price tag for city’s growth and even bigger price tag for growing too fast. Nobody has ever seen such density of construction anywhere in the world. Whether such growth maybe better managed to avoid environmental hazard and to preserve culture heritage, the history will be the judge. Environmental awareness will take generations of education. Economy disparity will not create great education. Compare to a lot great cities in the world, Shanghai’s air quality and environmental record is far from being perfect, however compare to the Shanghai 15 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago. Shanghai is definitely progressing. Maybe it’s our job to let people aware there are more we can do to make shanghai better, cleaning and more breathier.
Henry Hai Huang ( Shanghaisam )
Writing in shanghai while wiping off his nose, allergy caused by air pollution