Why didn't you convince me under the dome?

First of all, I want to declare that this article is not to criticize under the dome. On the contrary, Chai Jing's works are very commendable in terms of exquisite packaging, narrative design of copywriting, depth of interviewees and informative information, and may even become classics in the history of science communication in China. However, after jumping out of the framework of those emotional narratives, I can only say that Under the Dome touched me but didn't convince me. From a more rational point of view, if smog is not regarded as a "personal grievance" but as a public policy, it seems that there are still more problems that need further in-depth discussion.

How harmful is smog? In fact, the scientific community is inconclusive. Chai Jing quoted the former Minister of Health as saying that about 500,000 people die prematurely every year in China due to air pollution (in fact, the original figure is 350,000-500,000). But this is only a rough estimate. Due to the lack of more detailed research data, it is difficult for us to know how reliable this conclusion is.

In the whole scientific community, the research on the harm of PM2.5 has just made progress. For a long time, people actually didn't find any relationship between fine particles floating in the air and lung cancer. 20 13 when Zhong Nanshan claimed that air pollution caused an increase in lung cancer, it was also refuted by Fang. Until the end of 20 13, according to a number of latest surveys, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listed air pollutants as first-class carcinogens for the first time.

However, most of these surveys are conducted in western countries, and the concentration of PM2.5 in China is often several times or even ten times that of these countries. According to Turner's research, every increase in PM2.5 concentration 10 μ g/m3 will lead to an increase in lung cancer mortality 15%-27%. According to this algorithm, air pollution alone will lead to the death rate of lung cancer in China more than 300% higher than that in Europe and America. But in reality, although the mortality rate of lung cancer in China is slightly higher, it is far from being so exaggerated. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the linear relationships found in these studies can be simply copied to China.

Of course, many people may say, do you know that PM2.5 is harmful? As for whether it causes 6,543,800 deaths or 500,000 deaths every year, what is the significance?

But this is precisely a key point in public decision-making. If we don't take smog as a personal grudge, we must understand the specific cost we pay for smog. Because social decision-making, not telling stories with warm feelings. Behind any social choice is often a cold economic accounting. Few things are unprofitable, and any choice has gains and losses. What we want to discuss is whether it is worth it.

Chai Jing once wrote a story about DDT in his blog: DDT was invented to kill mosquitoes and reduce malaria. But in 1962, rachel carson published the famous Silent Spring, pointing out that DDT causes cancer and pollutes the environment. Silent Spring almost became the bible of environmentalists, which eventually led to the complete cessation of DDT.

It sounds great, but unfortunately, after DDT was stopped, there was no equally effective drug to deal with mosquitoes, which made the incidence of malaria in Africa soar. A malaria outbreak in South Africa alone killed at least 654.38 million people. Because of the prohibition of DDT, by 2000, there were at least 300 million malaria patients in the world, resulting in more than 6.5438+0 million deaths every year, which is equivalent to "seven Boeing 747s full of children crash every day".

Therefore, scientists began to call for the re-use of DDT. In 2003, South Africa adopted this proposal and quickly reduced the number of malaria deaths to less than 50%. Later, even WHO began to call on African countries to reuse DDT.

But by this time, more than 20 million people had died of malaria. Later, the famous writer michael crichton once said that the book Silent Spring probably killed more people than Hitler.

Here, I don't want to criticize the environmental party. Take out Chai Jing's own story, just to show that when making public decisions, you can't just resort to feelings. Does DDT pollute the environment? Of course not. But what if polluting the environment can save 20 million lives? The question here is "is it worth it", not "is it good". Therefore, it is not enough to curse something "bad". We should ask at least three questions: How bad? "What could be worse?" And "Would it be worse without it?"

The smog problem is the same. But any normal person, I'm afraid no one will like smog. Everyone knows that smog is bad for health. But only through quantitative analysis can we figure out how to prioritize public resources. For example, if we want to specifically deal with the impact of air on people's health, I would suggest paying more attention to smoking. From a scientific point of view, the impact of smoking on health is far more clear than that of PM2.5 About 60-80% of all lung cancers are caused by smoking, while outdoor air pollution is less than 10%. In fact, smoking is also a process of producing PM2.5. A cigarette can produce PM2.5 equivalent to 633 μ g/m3. In China, the number of people who die from smoking exceeds 6.5438+0.2 million every year.

Some people say that smoking is a free choice of individuals and cannot be compared with air pollution. But is this really the case? In China, 88% people smoke passively at home, 60% people smoke passively in public places and 30% people smoke passively in the workplace. Especially among women who don't smoke, the probability of second-hand smoke causing lung cancer is probably higher than that of air pollution. About 654.38 million people die of secondhand smoke every year in China. Only this, its harm is not much less than the air pollution caused by coal burning.

Smoking ban in public places is difficult to implement completely in China.

It can be said that in today's China, when you start to worry about children's breathing, tobacco is far more serious and urgent than smog. Many people don't know that the value of PM2.5 in China has actually decreased gradually in the past ten years (the reason why it has become so violent recently is just unknown before), but the number of smokers is just the opposite, and it is still rising, especially among teenagers and women.

However, in media propaganda, smog is far more valued than tobacco control. Since 20 12, smog has been one of the favorite topics of the media. Check Baidu Index and you will know that it has received much more attention than tobacco control. It is true that tobacco is also a government monopoly, and its interests involve a wide range of industries. In reality, it is difficult to change at once, but there is such a huge difference in media attention, which will inevitably produce some misleading effects. This is not to say that we can't pay attention to smog, but when we associate health problems with smog, it is best to have some quantitative concepts for more objective discussion.

Secondly, people who really care about public affairs should understand that many things are not black and white, and there is no harm in them. Just like DDT, what we want to discuss is not whether DDT is harmful, but whether the benefits brought by DDT can offset or even exceed its harm. This is the so-called balance, or balance of interests. We have always lacked this spirit in our discussions. One thing is either 100% great, glorious and correct, or 100% heinous. I had expected Under the Dome to compare the pros and cons of smog more deeply and objectively, but it didn't seem to have much effect in this respect.

While the sky is foggy, Beijing is also one of the regions with the highest life expectancy in China.

In the film, we repeatedly see one-sided and dramatic rendering of environmental problems. Chai Jing locked her daughter in her room, facing the gray sky outside: Will this city hurt me? The answer is: yes. But the problem is that it will compensate you in other ways. As far as PM2.5 concentration is concerned, Yunnan is the second best place in China, and Beijing is the second from the bottom. However, the average life expectancy in Beijing and Yunnan has just dropped: Beijing is the second longest in China, with an average life expectancy of 80. 18 years, and Yunnan is the second lowest, with an average life expectancy of only 69.54 years. This is the benefit brought by economic development and the growth of medical resources, which far offsets the harm brought by the environment.

If I can choose, I would rather have my child born in foggy Beijing than beautiful Yunnan. In this way, if he is not too unlucky, he can spend ten more warm years with his family.

Obviously, a large number of people made the same choice as me. They endured smog and high housing prices, and they came to Beijing from all over the world, which made the total population of Beijing increase by half in ten years. Don't they know that smog is bad? Of course, it's just that they made their own choices. They believe that compared with other benefits, the price of enduring smog is "worth paying".

I have always hoped to see a serious discussion among the public, that is, from a quantitative point of view, how much GDP is smog worth "exchange"? Instead of venting unilaterally forever, it is better to develop GDP by hook or by crook or protect the environment by crook. In economics, nothing is worth "doing whatever it takes" or paying an infinite price, and our decision-making should also be a balance between the two demands. Some people say, what's the point of exchanging health for economic development? But the problem is that if you don't develop the economy, you have to pay the price of health and even life.

As mentioned above, the economic level is one of the most important factors that determine the average life span, and its impact on "health" far exceeds the pollution value of smog. In economically underdeveloped provinces, even if you are "environmentally friendly", your average life expectancy will be lower than that in heavily polluted provinces. In China, everyone in the eastern provinces can live ten years longer than in the west. In fact, if regression analysis is carried out, the concentration of PM2.5 in each province is even positively correlated with life expectancy, that is, the higher PM2.5 is, the longer life expectancy may be. This is not to say that PM2.5 is good for health, but that in places with high pollution, the economy is often developed, and its "compensation" for your health is greater than the harm caused by pollution.

There is some rough analysis on the relationship between the economy and the average life expectancy in various provinces of China. Some people have established a linear model, thinking that every increase in per capita GDP of 1000 yuan can bring about 0.3 years of life increase in the local area. What about the health loss caused by smog? Earlier, some scientists published a paper saying that heating and burning coal in the north led to an average life loss of 5.5 years, but it was not widely recognized. Recently, it was calculated that PM2.5 led to the average "life extension" of residents in 74 cities in China 1.48 years.

Connecting these two figures, we can draw an interesting conclusion, that is, if the "smog" can be eliminated at the cost of less than 5,000 yuan per capita GDP, it will be cost-effective (in 2065, China's per capita GDP was about 45,000,438+04). And if the loss of GDP exceeds 5,000 yuan per capita in order to eliminate smog, it will not be worth the loss from the perspective of "health". Because a lot of resources are spent on environmental protection, it may lead to a shortage of medical and health facilities, but it will lead to a decrease in life expectancy.

Of course, this is only a very rough calculation, and the numbers and logic inside are obviously not rigorous enough. I just want to say here that the problem of smog control should be an economic profit and loss analysis problem, not a full-day confrontation between the industrial party and environmental protection workers. The gains and losses here are not just money. Talking about money may be too vulgar. Let's talk about life again Haze will lead to early death, which is fate. However, if a large area of unemployment is caused in order to eliminate smog, isn't it fatal? Recently, The Lancet published an article in the Journal of Psychiatry, arguing that the unemployment rate is one of the important factors affecting suicide. According to surveys in 63 countries, about 45,000 people commit suicide every year because of unemployment. How many lives are we willing to exchange? This is the problem decided by the cruel reality.

For another example, smog is one of the by-products of China's rapid industrialization and urbanization. Under the dome, the scale of urbanization is questioned, but is China really over-urbanized? Obviously not. In 20 14, the urbanization rate of China was only 54.77%, which was far behind the western countries. Urbanization involves not only money, but also a lot of life. Twenty years ago, the suicide rate of rural women in China attracted worldwide attention. With the rapid urbanization, the suicide rate of women in China has dropped rapidly, from nearly 30 per 100,000 to below 10 today. This alone saves about 6,500 lives every year. When we complain about the pollution caused by urbanization, we add these people to the scale.

Anything else? Yes At present, there are160,000 births in China every year, but the ratio of male to female has reached an astonishing 1. 17: 1, which leads to the problem of "bachelor" becoming a hot topic in the future. But behind this, how many baby girls die before birth every year? Assuming that the normal ratio of male to female is 1.06: 1, it is easy to draw that there are about 800,000 "killed baby girls" every year due to the concept of "preferring sons to daughters" ("killed" also includes premature birth, etc. What should we do with the lives of these people? Waiting for the change of ideas and customs? Perhaps, as Chai Jing said, we should stop waiting and shirking. Urbanization is the most effective way to solve the problem of gender discrimination. Through further rapid urbanization, we can save 800,000 innocent girls every year. If this will further deepen environmental pollution, is it worth it?

Someone may want to say it again. Under the dome is telling us that the pursuit of GDP does not necessarily mean pollution, and the pursuit of economic progress does not necessarily produce smog. But it is at this point that Chai Jing failed to convince me. Because this slogan is too tempting, too ideal and too perfect, so many people have made such a utopia, so I have to accept it with great vigilance and treat her argument with great caution. History has told us what happens when extreme idealists influence national decision-making.

China is moving from coal age to oil and gas age?

But in the whole film, I can sum up the following suggestions: first, clarify the subject of law enforcement, strengthen the authority of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, and abide by the law, which I agree with both hands and feet. But what kind of impact this will have on economic development does not constitute a debate. The conclusion I can get from the film is that many small steel mills are extremely thin now, so strengthening environmental protection will close down one after another, so simply stop subsidies and eliminate these backward industries, and then they can automatically upgrade to advanced industries that do not pollute the environment and the economy will not retrogress. As for whether the new industry can accommodate the same employment population, how long it will take to complete it and whether it meets the economic needs, I can only imagine it myself. Judging from the transition history of Europe and America, I am skeptical about this. Of course, this is another big topic, so I won't elaborate here.

Secondly, it is energy conversion, which completely shocked me. As a country with more coal and less oil, Chai Jing actually suggested that China give up coal and switch to oil and natural gas that need to be imported in large quantities. But how much will it cost? What about feasibility? Not a word about it. Of course, I admit that such a huge problem can't be clearly stated in a short documentary, but the two statements thrown behind Under the Dome are a bit ridiculous. First of all, it is believed that as long as the monopoly of "three barrels of oil" is broken, the oil industry can innovate itself, improve quality and reduce costs. I'm not going to try to figure out whether this is another "big chess" to adapt to the status quo, and I'm not opposed to breaking the monopoly of the oil industry, but I strongly doubt whether the industry can innovate automatically after breaking the monopoly. Chai Jing seems to have forgotten that the coal industry she opposes is only to break the monopoly and fully compete. Why is the quality getting worse, but there is no innovation?

Secondly, it means that after breaking the monopoly, we will soon find more oil and gas reserves, and the natural gas production will soon double. I don't know the basis of this statement that sounds like the Great Leap Forward. However, the Dome later took Britain as an argument, saying that since the London pollution incident in 1952, Britain quickly changed from coal to oil, and the environment changed from then on. I don't deny the fact itself, but Dom didn't mention that although Britain passed the Clean Air Act in 1956, it was not until the discovery of Beihai Oilfield in the 1970s that the total proportion of oil in energy rose rapidly. I always feel that it is not reliable to pin our country's future energy on the discovery of a new and unknown large oil field or gas field. So I'm sorry, if you want to convince everyone to accept this, I'm afraid Chai Jing will have to produce more evidence.

In fact, from the current situation, whether to use coal or oil has no essential impact on air pollution. The EIA standard of coal-fired power plants in China is extremely strict. As long as it can be thoroughly implemented, it will not cause great pressure on the environment. In fact, in today's Britain, the proportion of coal in the energy structure is gradually rising. Therefore, realistically speaking, if you want to control smog, it does not mean that you must give up coal. A more effective way is to shut down more small thermal power plants, leaving a few large power plants that are convenient for supervision and management, and implement strict environmental protection standards and supervision. In principle, this is still a question of cost. As for more clean energy sources not mentioned in the dome, such as hydropower, wind power, nuclear power and solar energy, we can naturally consider them.

But these still haven't solved my previous question, that is, the dome didn't provide reliable evidence to prove that China can quickly enter a pollution-free economic development stage. So as an appeal, I agree with Chai Jing's efforts. She makes more people pay attention to environmental protection, which is of course excellent. But I still have doubts about her point of view. As a public policy discussion, I hope to see more detailed discussions on the costs and benefits of smog control. I hope that everyone will weigh the pros and cons, don't be impulsive, and naturally take "controlling smog at all costs" as the default premise.

After all, after the emotional offensive, rationality is the practical tool to solve problems.