China Struggling to Meet 2011-2015 Environment Goals

China is struggling to meet its 2011-2015 targets to reduce pollution, cut greenhouse gas growth and introduce cleaner sources of energy, a report submitted to the country's parliament said on Wednesday.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

BEIJING (Reuters) - China is struggling to meet its 2011-2015 targets to reduce pollution, cut greenhouse gas growth and introduce cleaner sources of energy, a report submitted to the country's parliament said on Wednesday.

The report, which covers the 2011-2012 period, said faster-than-expected economic growth was to blame for China's failure to meet environmental targets ranging from energy use to nitrogen oxide emissions.

The state of China's environment has come into particular focus in 2013, with most major cities engulfed by hazardous smog during the course of the year, including Beijing in January and Shanghai earlier this month.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Desperate to head off growing public anger about the state of the country's air, water and soil, Beijing has promised to put an end to its "growth at all costs" economic model. It has already introduced new policies aimed at reining in polluting industries, cutting coal use and thinning traffic.

But the government report said China was already playing catch-up, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

China wants energy intensity - the amount of energy consumed per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) - to fall by 16 percent over 2011-2015, but it had dropped by just 5.54 percent by the end of last year.

Efforts to reduce the amount of carbon emissions per unit of GDP by 17 percent over the same period were also behind schedule, with the actual decline over 2011-2012 standing at just 6.6 percent.

China also aims to raise the share of non-fossil fuels in its total primary energy mix to 11.4 percent over the 2011-2015 period, but it had reached just 9.4 percent by the end of last year, up only 0.8 percentage points since 2010.

The slow progress made over 2011-2012 could put additional pressure on local governments to implement tougher measures against polluters, and even shut down energy-intensive industries like steel or cement.

At the end of 2010, northern China's Hebei and several other provinces ordered dozens of steel mills to close down in a last-ditch attempt to meet a binding 2006-2010 energy intensity target.

This month, several steel production facilities have already been temporarily closed in Hebei in order to cut pollution, and more closures are expected next year.

(Reporting by David Stanway; Editing by Ruth Pitchford)

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe