After the Tokyo Olympics wrapped up last month, the Paralympic Games concluded on Sept. 5. In this article, Zhou Muzhi, professor at Tokyo Keizai University and head of Cloud River Urban Research Institute gives a rare glimpse of the Games from the unique perspectives of geographical features and people-to-people exchanges.
In most previous Olympics, I found myself hard to sit down and enjoy the Games due to my busy schedules. This year, with the continued spread of COVID-19 and Tokyo under strict “state of emergency,” I had a rare chance of watching the Games amid the lockdowns. Here are some of my interesting takeaways from this year’s event.
1. Hercules in the south
First, to my great surprise, Shen Lijun, from my ancestral home Yiyang, China’s southern Hunan province, has been crowned the Olympic champion in the weightlifting men’s 67kg event, bucking my stereotype that Chinese Hercules were normally born in the northeastern or northwestern part of the country. After searching the information of 18 Chinese male Olympic weightlifting champions, I found out that only two were born in China’s north, with the rest all come from the south. So it is no wonder that Xiang Yu, “Hegemon-King of Western Chu” during the Chu–Han Contention period (206–202 BC) of China, was also a native southerner and was said to have the strength that can lift mountains. I feel quite proud that I also come from the south like so many Chinese Hercules.
2. Ping Pong: North dominating the sport
Another thing that surprises me is that many top Japanese Ping Pong players can speak very good Mandarin with northern accent. That’s because they were trained by Chinese coaches since they were young.
Since the Seoul Games in 1988 when Ping Pong officially became an Olympic sport, China has won 32 out of the 37 gold medals, accounting for 86% of the total, representing an overwhelming dominance in the game. Geographically, the 28 gold medal winners were mostly born in the north, including 10 from the northeastern part of the country.
Retired Chinese Ping Pong players have been spotted worldwide as coaches of the foreign teams and promoters of the sport. Those Chinese coaches, either train their players in Japan or bring them back to China for intensified training, would naturally leave a northern mandarin accent on their disciples.
For example, Ai Fukuhara, a four-time Japanese Olympian in women’s table tennis, had a personal coach from northeastern China and a sparring partner from the same region to practice with her. She even joined a table tennis club in northeastern Liaoning province and picked up a heavy local accent.
China’s north has been holding Ping Pong’s supremacy domestically, and also influenced its immediate neighbors like South Korea and Japan to be world’s leaders in the sport. Olympians in Northeast Asia have dominated the event for years, with China, South Korea and Japan snatching 32, 3 and 1 gold medals respectively, accounting for 97% of the total. The dominance was only broken once by a Sweden Olympian at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics.
The reason why the three countries in Northeast Asia could almost bag all the Olympic gold medals in Ping Pong can be attributed to their close people-to-people exchanges. Though Japan was not traditionally strong in Ping Pong, the sport is quite popular because its domestic audiences expect much from the game as it represents a platform for exchange and competition with the Chinese players. According to a recent survey in Japan, Ping Pong, instead of Judo in which the Japanese team clinched a staggering 9 gold medals, was ranked as the most thrilling event during the Tokyo 2020.
Due to various historical reasons, countries in Northeast Asia have long been locked in mistrust and opposition. However, due to a long history of exchanges, people in those countries are invariably bonded together despite historical conflicts.
3. Badminton: South holds supremacy
In contrast to Ping Pong, the sport of badminton is displaying a total different picture where the dominance is long held by China’s south.
Badminton was an exhibition sport at the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul before debuted as an official medal sport at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics. In the past nearly three decades, China has bagged 20 out of the 39 gold medals in the Olympic badminton events, accounting for 51.2% of the total.
During previous Games, a total of 22 Chinese players were crowned as badminton champions, with seven come from central China, six from eastern China, four from southern China, and one from southwestern China.
In the rest of Asia, Indonesia took eight, South Korea six, and Japan and Chinese Taipei each took one during previous Games. Therefore, Asian countries and regions have bagged up to 92% of all the gold medals in this sport, which reflected another thread in people-to-people exchanges in Asia.
Badminton’s development in China cannot be possible without the contributions of several legendary Indonesian Chinese players. In 1954, four Indonesian Chinese including Wang Wenjiao returned to China and helped promote the sport in the country. In 1960, more Indonesian young players like Tang Xianhu, Hou Jiachang, Fang Kaixiang and Chen Yuniang followed suit. As professional players and later coaches, they contributed hugely to China’s current standing as one of badminton’s powerhouses. The southern part of China, due to its close proximity to Indonesia, has naturally become a fertile ground for the sport to take off in the country.
Throughout history, China’s development has also benefited from its exchanges and interactions with neighboring countries and regions. People-to-people exchanges contributed greatly to the relations between China’s north and the rest of the Northeast Asia and between China’s south and the rest of the Southeast Asia, which are also mirrored in the friendly interactions among the Olympians at Tokyo 2020.
China’s relations with its neighbors, sometimes being regarded as historical burdens, should be more rationally defined as a rich historical legacy, which during the times of great global changes, may help create a solid foundation for peace and prosperity in the Asia Pacific region.
(Zhao Jian, a senior researcher at Cloud River Urban Research Institute, has contributed to the article.)
The article was published on China net on Sep 6, 2021, and was republished by foreign media, including China Daily as today’s headlines and other platforms.
“Ozone: A Powerful Weapon to Combat COVID-19 Outbreak” is a paper published by Zhou Muzhi, professor of Tokyo Keizai University and head of the Cloud River Urban Research Institute on Feb. 18, 2020, during the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak (hereinafter referred to as the “February Zhou Paper”). The “ozone fighting pandemic” series breaks down the paper into three hypotheses, and discusses in detail the complicated relationship between ozone and the ecological equilibrium on the earth as well as the mechanism of ozone inactivating the novel coronavirus. In the final piece of the series, the professor focuses on how latest experimental results prove the Hypothesis III that low concentrations of ozone can inactivate the novel coronavirus, and looks to the prospects and projects of fighting the pandemic with ozone.
Can low concentrations of ozone truly inactivate the novel coronavirus as said in the Hypothesis III of the February Zhou Paper?
I. Verification through experiments
Hypotheses require verification through experiments, and for this question, the verification takes three steps. The first is to infer that ozone may inactivate the novel coronavirus; the second is to verify that ozone can truly inactivate it; the third is to verify that low concentrations of ozone can do so.
The effect of ozone in disinfection is not only related to its concentration, temperature, humidity, and exposure duration, but also has a certain relationship with the types of bacteria and virus. Experiments had not yet directly proved whether ozone was effective against the novel coronavirus or not by the publication of the February Zhou Paper, but the experiments led by Professor Li Zelin on ozone inactivating the SARS virus provided valuable references.
In 2003, Li, professor of Beijing University of Technology and an expert of the Ozone Committee of the China Federation of Industrial Economics, headed an experiment at the national P3 laboratory on how ozone kills the SARS virus (hereinafter referred to as “Li’s experiment”). The results show that ozone is effective in inactivating the SARS virus inoculated on green monkey kidney cells, and can realize an inactivation rate of 99.22%.
Since the SARS virus and the novel coronavirus are both coronaviruses, and share 80% of genome sequences, the February Zhou Paper makes a bold inference that ozone is equally effective in inactivating the novel coronavirus, and thus can contribute to preventing and controlling COVID-19.
Based on the Hypothesis I that ozone inhibits the overgrowth of microorganisms and maintains the ecological equilibrium on the earth, the Hypothesis II that ozone is the real “hand of God,” and the results of Li’s experiment, the February Zhou Paper puts forward the Hypothesis III that ozone at as low concentrations as in nature can inactivate the novel coronavirus. It also strongly advocates the extensive use of ozone for disinfection and air purification in human environments.
Three months after the publication of the February Zhou Paper, a research team comprising Professor Toshikazu Yano of Nara Medical University in Japan, et al. verified for the first time in the world on May 14, 2020, that ozone can inactivate the novel coronavirus (hereinafter referred to as the “Yano & Kasahara experiment”).
The Yano & Kasahara experiment thus provided evidence for the prerequisite of the Hypothesis III of the February Zhou Paper; however, it adopted relatively high concentrations of ozone – 6 parts per million (ppm) and 1 ppm – only applicable in unmanned environments.
Six months after the publication of the February Zhou Paper, a research team comprising Professor Takayuki Murata of Fujita Health University in Japan, et al. verified for the first time in the world on Aug. 26, 2020, that low-dose ozone – 0.05 ppm and 0.1 ppm – is effective against the novel coronavirus (hereinafter referred to as the “Murata experiment”).
The Murata experiment provided solid evidence for the Hypothesis III of the February Zhou Paper. In other words, the Hypothesis III that low concentrations of ozone can inactivate the novel coronavirus was verified through scientific experiment.
More valuably, according to the results of the Murata experiment, higher humidity can improve the effect of ozone in inactivating the novel coronavirus. It offered solid evidence for the elaborations of the Hypothesis II of the February Zhou Paper that higher humidity can improve the effect of ozone in disinfection, and humidity is an important factor facilitating the inactivation of the novel coronavirus.”
The occupational exposure limits for ozone concentration defined by the Japan Society for Occupational Health and the safe ozone threshold set by the National Health Commission of China are both 0.1 ppm. Now that the Murata experiment has verified that ozone at concentrations of 0.05-0.1 ppm can inactivate the novel coronavirus, it means that ozone can be popularized to fight the pandemic in a safe and effective manner under current standards. Despite so, I suggest that the standards be relaxed to a certain extent to further improve its inactivation effect.
Based on the evidences from the Yano & Kasahara experiment and the Murata experiment, I made some supplements to the February Zhou Paper, and published a longer one titled “Measures Against the Novel Coronavirus by Using Ozone” in Japan in December 2020.
2. Opportunities lie in crisis
Along the process of studying ozone application in inactivating the novel coronavirus, the communication with Zhang Yue, president of BROAD Group, has been thought provoking. Since the COVID-19 outbreak in January 2020, we have been discussing online about using ozone for disinfection purpose. Zhang is among one of the first advocates for its application, but has not yet drawn much attention from society. I also see people’s misunderstanding and caution against ozone use from my discussion with domestic and overseas atmospheric scientists as well as based on related research studies. Therefore, I decided to clarify the deeply misunderstood ozone by systematically summarizing its intricate characteristics, because only after eliminating the misunderstanding can its application be facilitated.
At the most critical moment of the outbreak in Wuhan, BROAD Group donated a large number of air purifiers with ozone generating function to hospitals there, including the Huoshenshan Hospital, the Leishenshan Hospital, and other makeshift ones. I followed up their use in two makeshift hospitals – Qingshan and Nanmu, where BROAD Group installed 22 TB100 (ozone generating capacity: 1g/h/unit), 35 TA2000 (ozone generating capacity: 7g/h/unit), and 12 TD5000 (ozone generating capacity: 14g/h/unit) electrostatic air purifiers with ozone generating function that it had donated or the hospitals had purchased. The devices were put into use upon the opening of the hospitals. Though makeshift hospitals converted from stadiums have high risks of potential nosocomial infections due to the large number and high density of patients and medical workers, the novel coronavirus did not infect any medical worker engaged in medical activities there according to the monitoring report by on-site BROAD employees. So to speak, ozone should have played a great role.
The publication of the February Zhou Paper led to a small upsurge in China in the use of ozone against the COVID-19 outbreak, and air purifiers with ozone generating function were sold out of stock at that time; however, ozone attracted much less attention as the outbreak eased in China. Japanese researchers continued studying it though, leading to the Yano & Kasahara experiment and the Murata experiment that provided evidences for the hypotheses of the February Zhou Paper. Japanese, European, and American manufacturers also launched a number of great ozone products, making ozone no longer a dangerous thing to avoid in those countries now. Some manufacturers even began to add the inactivation effect of ozone on the novel coronavirus to their product advertisements, and some producers even directly cited my advocacy of using ozone to fight COVID-19 in the February Zhou Paper as an endorsement of their ozone technology. These are all progress unimaginable in the past.
Opportunities lie in crisis, and humankind has made major turns and substantial technological progress after each global war or crisis since modern times.
The pandemic adds up to the urgency of pursuing technological progress and opening up new technological paths so that some of those underappreciated in the past can stand out. One typical example would be ozone, which has long been ignored due to bias.
3. Blessing for fighting COVID-19 and improving people’s health
A Japanese study concluded that the odds that a primary case transmitted COVID-19 in a closed environment was 18.7 times greater compared to an open-air environment. Therefore, a major anti-epidemic response in Japan is calling on people to avoid confined spaces, crowds, and close contact.
Due to the fear of infections in enclosed spaces, such as offices, classrooms, medical establishments, restaurants, bars, cinemas, theaters, department stores, shopping centers, and public transport facilities, countries worldwide have repeatedly imposed lockdown, shutdown, and school suspension under the threat of COVID-19, and encouraged telecommuting, tele-education, and telemedicine. The Tokyo Olympics even had to play most of its events without spectators.
The Hypothesis III and the Murata experiment show that maintaining ozone concentrations indoors as low as that in nature can effectively inactivate the novel coronavirus without causing discomfort or side effects to people. In other words, using ozone to inactivate the novel coronavirus in human environments can address potential virus infections in indoor spaces, and free people from the fear of confined spaces, crowds, and close contact. Thus, it will be a great blessing.
Whether ozone can take effect in such scenarios heavily depends on our ability to control the concentrations of the volatile gas. High-precision sensors are required to monitor the concentrations and maintain it at a low level indoors; however, the sensors are much too expensive and cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars, while inexpensive ones cannot accurately monitor the concentrations.
Therefore, I call for the development of cheap, high-precision ozone sensors in the February Zhou Paper, and look forward to seeing that humankind can control ozone concentrations as cheaply and precisely as they control temperature.
Now, one and a half years after the publication of the February Zhou Paper, I have not seen breakthroughs in such sensors, but many manufacturers have made great progress in controlling ozone concentrations through algorithm on factors like ozone supply, time, and space. At present, many ozone generators in the market can control ozone concentrations indoors well under safe thresholds.
The relationship between ozone and microorganisms demonstrates an exquisite balance among living bodies on the earth. On one hand, without the protection of the ozone layer, microorganisms would be impossible to exist on the earth; on the other hand, ozone exists as a strong oxidizing agent that kills bacteria and viruses.
We need to put aside bias amid regular epidemic prevention and control, and make good use of ozone to fight the novel coronavirus and resume our everyday life despite its threat.
The extensive use of ozone in human environments will not only be a great blessing for our current fight against COVID-19, but also help to create cleaner indoor environments. It is expected to greatly reduce virus spread and infections, improve people’s health and increase average life expectancy, and lead to a safer and healthier future for humankind.
The article was published on China Net on Aug 13, 2021, and was republished by foreign media, as well as today’s headlines and other platforms.
“Ozone: A Powerful Weapon to Combat COVID-19 Outbreak” is a paper published by Zhou Muzhi , professor of Tokyo Keizai University and head of the Cloud River Urban Research Institute on Feb. 18, 2020, during the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak (hereinafter referred to as the “February Zhou Paper”). The “ozone fighting pandemic” series breaks down the paper into three hypotheses, and discusses in detail the complicated relationship between ozone and the ecological equilibrium on the earth as well as the mechanism of ozone inactivating the novel coronavirus. In the second piece of the series, the professor closely examines the three hypotheses and investigates into the logical relationship between them.
1. ‘Hand of God’ conjecture
SARS raged from the winter of 2002 to the spring of 2003, causing extreme panic in society. However, it suddenly disappeared around May and June in 2003, leaving various speculations behind.
Coincidentally, most of the airborne viruses, such as the influenza virus, erupt in autumn and winter and disappear in spring and summer. It seems that there is an invisible “hand of God” driving away epidemics and saving lives of people.
In regard to the phenomenon, many researchers looked for the correlation between viruses and temperature/humidity. Yet there hasn’t been any evidence so far to back up the relationship between virus activity and natural temperature fluctuations. Taking influenza virus as an example, it is generally believed that the virus can maintain its activity for a long time under the condition of low temperature and humidity, and that its activity will be inhibited as the temperature and humidity increase. However, experiments have shown that everyday temperature changes actually do not affect the virus much, although increasing humidity can reduce its activity.
In fact, influenza is typically at its worst between December and March in the northern hemisphere, and between June and September in the southern hemisphere. However, influenza spreads all year round at the equator, the hottest area on the earth, without an obvious peak.
In this regard, based on Hypothesis I that “The low concentration of ozone in nature has always been inhibiting the excessive reproduction of microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses and fungi, and maintaining the ecological balance of the earth,” the February Zhou Paper further puts forward the Hypothesis II: “Ozone with oxidation property is the real ‘hand of God’.”
2. Ozone concentrations vary by latitudes and seasons
Ozone concentrations vary significantly by seasons: low in autumn and winter and high in spring and summer. According to observations of the ozone layer by Japan Meteorological Agency, the total amount of ozone for Sapporo, Tsukuba, Kagoshima, and Naha – Japanese localities from north to south generally reach a peak in February to May, but the peak in the farther north comes earlier and that in the farther south comes later.
Ozone concentrations change from region to region as well. The above observations also show a higher peak concentration in the northern regions and a lower peak concentration in the southern regions. Studies have found that the total amount of ozone in the earth’s atmosphere changes significantly with latitude: lowest in equatorial regions and highest in northern regions near latitude 60°. In addition, at mid-latitudes, the total amount of ozone in the northern hemisphere is more than that in the southern hemisphere. In particular, the total amount of ozone in Japan is also high at mid-latitudes.
The stronger the ultraviolet rays, the faster the oxygen molecules break down. The equatorial regions, where the sun shines the most, are the most prone to producing ozone. However, many factors and complex mechanisms act on ozone concentrations. The stronger the ultraviolet rays, the easier it is to either produce ozone or break it down. The rate of ozone resolution is also related to temperature: the higher the temperature, the faster the resolution. These variables interact so that ozone both forms and breaks down easily near the equator. Earth-scale atmospheric circulation is also one of the factors that cannot be ignored, because it can transport the ozone generated locally to other regions.
The largest source of tropospheric ozone is the ozone layer in the stratosphere. The oxygen produced by plants through photosynthesis, the NOx and VOC emitted out of industrial activities, and the destruction of ozone caused by volcanic eruptions also affect the concentration of tropospheric ozone.
To sum up, ozone concentrations, which depend on the magical resolution and polymerization of oxygen molecules and oxygen atoms, show a pattern of low in autumn and winter and high in spring and summer, and also vary by latitudes – high at high latitudes and low at the equator.
The above analysis concludes that ozone, which is low in autumn and winter and high in spring and summer, is the real “hand of God.” It is particularly noteworthy that ozone has correlations with temperature and humidity. One correlation is that the higher the temperature is, the faster ozone breaks down; the other is that humidity can boost the sterilization ability of ozone, and the sterilization ability of ozone will decrease sharply in dry state.
When the season changes and the weather turns warmer, the ozone concentration, temperature, and air humidity would rise, and the “hand of God” would begin to dispel epidemics.
The more rigorous rationale of the Hypothesis II should be that assisted by temperature and humidity, the main force – ozone drives away epidemics as its concentration rises with the seasons. Of course, ultraviolet rays, another killer of microbes, also kills outdoor bacteria and viruses as they become stronger in spring and summer.
Why didn’t COVID-19 disappear like SARS in the spring and summer of the second year? There are many speculations about the phenomenon. Compared with SARS, COVID-19 had spread around the world before the ozone concentration rises. The phenomenon can also be explained by the fact that the virus that has been continuously evolving and mutating cross-transmits between the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere.
3. Low concentrations of ozone can kill novel coronavirus
On the basis of the Hypothesis I and the Hypothesis II, the February Zhou Paper put forward the Hypothesis III – Ozone at as low concentrations as in nature can inactivate the novel coronavirus.
Ozone, though highly effective for sterilization and disinfection, will cause discomfort, or irritate mucous membranes, when it reaches a certain concentration level. Therefore, it is mainly used in the unmanned environment. If the Hypothetical III – if ozone can inactivate COVID-19 without producing discomfort and side effects on the human body, ozone can be applied to curb the novel coronavirus in the human environment, and thus block the transmission of the virus. Its application will be a blessing for countries around the world that restrict travel to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
As early as March 2020, the Japanese government called for avoiding closed spaces, crowds, and close contact to reduce COVID-19 infections. With repeated “emergency declarations,” restrictions on dining out, entertainment and even going out have become the norm. The country’s pillar industries, such as restaurant, entertainment, and tourism industries, have borne the brunt from the lockdown, not only devastating economy, but also taking a heavy toll on the physical and mental health of people who are eager to return to a normal life.
Ozone concentration is low in cities, and even lower in crowded spaces. Closed spaces, dense crowds and close contact are much likely to lead to COVID-19 transmission. The use of ozone to inactivate COVID-19 is therefore the ultimate solution to the problem. The use of ozone to inactivate viruses has three characteristics.
Full coverage. Ozone created by ozone generators or electrostatic air purifiers can reach every corner of the environment, which can overcome the problem that ultraviolet sterilization can only go straight up and down, leaving some places unsterilized.
High detergency. Oxidizing bacteria and virus is how ozone works, with no poisonous residue. On the contrary, the chemical disinfectant we use now is not only harmful to human body, but also will cause secondary pollution of poisonous residue. During the current epidemic responses, the overuse of disinfectants has been a serious problem that we should pay attention to.
Convenience. Ozone can be produced by simple equipment. The equipment, large or small, can be used for a single room, a large public space, or public transportation modes such as buses, high-speed railways, ships and airplanes.
Yet, can low concentrations of ozone really kill novel coronavirus? The question will be addressed in the third piece of the series.
The article was published on China Net on Aug 13, 2021, and was republished by foreign media, as well as today’s headlines and other platforms.
Since the COVID-19 outbreak over one and a half years ago, the global infections have topped 200 million while the death toll is nearing 4.3 million. In most places outside China, repeated lockdowns and massive vaccine rollout have failed to stop the spread of the pandemic. Under such circumstances, ozone, as an effective weapon with no side effects to inactivate the novel coronavirus, deserves more attention worldwide. On Feb. 18, 2020, during the initial stage of the epidemic, Zhou Muzhi, professor of Tokyo Keizai University and head of the Cloud River Urban Research Institute, published a paper titled “Ozone: A Powerful Weapon to Combat COVID-19 Outbreak” (hereafter referred to as the “February Zhou Paper”), calling for the use of the ozone to curb the spread of the disease. The paper has been reposted by many media outlets and platforms, thus promoting the ozone trials in combating the novel coronavirus.
The February Zhou Paper, as well as its English and Japanese versions, was three weeks earlier than the WHO’s declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic. The paper has provided a new solution to the global combat of COVID-19 and gave a boost to the application of ozone on the world stage. The hypothesis of using low concentration of ozone to inactivate the novel coronavirus has been proved through experiments and the research and applications of ozone generators have made rapid progress. In order to promote its applications, Professor Zhou wrote three papers in a series to discuss in detail the complicated relationship between ozone and the ecological equilibrium on earth as well as the mechanism of ozone inactivating the novel coronavirus.
Ozone is now widely used in disinfection, sterilization, deodorization, detoxification, preservation and bleaching. But most people still see it unfamiliar and even remain vigilant. To promote its wide applications, we should first recognize its contribution to ecological equilibrium, clear away people’s misconceptions, and help them understand the mechanism of low concentration of ozone in disinfection and sterilization.
1. The earth’s protective shield
Ozone is a gas made up of three oxygen atoms (O3). It is created primarily by ultraviolet radiation. When high-energy ultraviolet rays strike ordinary oxygen molecules (O2), they split the molecule into two single oxygen atoms, known as atomic oxygen. A freed oxygen atom then combines with another oxygen molecule to form a molecule of ozone. As an allotrope of oxygen, the pale blue gas has a distinctively pungent smell. The word ozone comes from the Greek word OZEIN, meaning “to smell.” So ozone is mainly created in nature when ultraviolet rays strike oxygen molecules and split the molecule into two single oxygen atoms which then combine with another oxygen molecule.
The troposphere is the lowest layer of our atmosphere, which starts from ground level all the way extending upward to about 10 kilometers. The temperature generally decreases with the altitude. Therefore, the higher we climb up on the mountain, the colder we may feel. The next layer up is called the stratosphere, which extends from the top of the troposphere to about 50 kilometers above the ground, with the temperature increasing all the way up.
The ozone layer is found within both the troposphere and the stratosphere. Because oxygen molecules are more at lower altitudes and less at higher altitudes, and oxygen atoms are less at lower altitudes and more at higher altitudes, a high concentration of ozone layer is formed in the stratosphere, but not on the ground or higher up altitudes. That is to say, the ozone concentration in the atmosphere increases gradually from about 10 km above the ground, reaches its maximum in the stratosphere, and then decreases sharply higher upward.
Therefore, a concentration of 10 to 20 ppm (parts per million) ozone layer is found in the stratosphere. Ultraviolet radiation can be subdivided into UV-A (315-400), UV-B (280-315nm) and UV-C (<280nm) according to wavelengths. By absorbing the high-energy UV-B and and UV-C from the sun, the ozone layer acts as a shield for some UV damage to the cellular DNA, thus protecting the life on the earth.
Ozone, which is created when ultraviolet rays strike oxygen molecules, can absorb harmful ultraviolet radiation from its damage to the life on the earth, acting as a shield to protect their reproduction. Therefore, ultraviolet rays, the ozone layer and the life on the earth form an interdependent ecosystem.
The time when the ozone layer reaches the current concentration almost coincides with the time when life on the earth evolves from the ocean to the land. In other words, the higher level in ozone concentration may play an important role in the colonization of life on land, as a thin ozone layer could only allow for life to exist in the ocean. To put it simply, life or organisms, which formerly only existed in the ocean to shield from the harmful UV radiation, were able to migrate on shore thanks to a higher level of ozone concentration.
It is fair to say that the massive diversification of life is only made possible with the protection of the ozone layer.
However, the use of man-made chemicals in industrial development such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other volatile organic compounds (VOC) is damaging the ozone layer and even causing ozone depletion.
This would weaken the human’s immune system and increase the risk of skin cancer and cataract. In 1974, Professor Frank Sherwood Rowland and Dr. Mario J. Molina at the University of California, Irvine published a paper in the journal Nature, explaining how CFCs silently kill the ozone layer. In 1995, the two were awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their findings.
With increasing public awareness of the protection of ozone layer, a series of global conventions and protocols have been introduced, and ozone layer protection has become an environmental issue of global concern.
2. Angel in the sky, devil on the ground?
Although dubbed the earth’s protective shield, ozone did not enjoy a good reputation and even has long been misunderstood.
Ozone smells. Although most people could not feel it under natural conditions, its smell may grow more pungent and even cause discomfort as its concentration increases.
In the troposphere near the earth’s surface, the natural concentration of ozone is about 0.02 to 0.1 ppm, which is harmless to the human being and other big living creatures. As the concentration level grows, it can cause discomforts to human body and may even be harmful to eyes and the respiratory system. The FDA’s maximum allowed ozone concentration in the air for residential areas is 0.05 ppm ozone by volume; the Japan Society for Occupational Health (JSOH) recommends the Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) for ozone concentration is 0.1 ppm; while the China National Health Commission has set the safe ozone threshold as 0.1 ppm.
What really made ozone “notoriously famous” is the photochemical smog, which refers to a mixture of pollutants, including primary pollutants like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC), together with secondary pollutants ozone produced in the chemical reaction of UV ray. Although NOx and VOC are the primary source of photochemical smog, the share of ozone in the smog could reach as high as 80% to 90%. So people usually equate photochemical smog pollution with ozone pollution.
Photochemical smog not only stimulates mucosal tissues like eyes and respiratory system, it could also cause sore eyes, headaches, coughing and asthma. It could also inhibit plant growth which leads to crop failure, and even cause more hazards like acid rain and visibility reduction.
Since the industrial revolution, mass emission of NOx has led to an increase of ozone in the troposphere by 300% in the past 100 years.
Although the concentration in the troposphere is merely a tenth of that in stratosphere, ozone is still the third largest contributor to global warming among all greenhouse gases, following carbon dioxide and methane, and making its reputation even worse.
All the factors above have led to a common belief that ozone is a harmful pollutant in the troposphere, and some even compare it to “an angel in the sky, a devil on the ground.” Several countries including Japan have made the observation and prevention of ozone cross-border pollution in the troposphere an important research topic.
Therefore, we should clear up its reputation before promoting its use in the battle against COVID-19. It should be justified that the ozone in photochemical smog is at an unnaturally high level of concentration due to man-made pollution, much higher than the normal concentration of ozone in the troposphere. Moreover, unlike pure ozone in nature, photochemical smog consists of a large amount of hazardous pollutants like NOx and VOC.
Concentrations of ozone in nature vary by season and geography, but generally do not reach levels that can harm human health. For example, one way ozone is naturally produced is through electrical excitation of oxygen molecules in lightening. Due to ozone’s purification effect, the air is usually more refreshing after thunder and lightning. Another example would be the refreshing air in the coastlines and forests because of high ozone concentration.
Therefore, naturally produced ozone is anything but hazardous to the human being as well as other big living creatures. We must recognize the difference between the naturally produced ozone and ozone in photochemical smog, and should not blame it as a cause for environmental pollution.
3. A balancing power to ecological equilibrium
For the human being, naturally produced ozone is anything but hazardous.
According to the HypothesisⅠof the February Zhou Paper, “though harmless to big living creatures, ozone could pose serious threats to microorganisms. As a strong oxidizing agent, ozone has always been inhibiting microbe reproductions, while also acting as a balancing power to ecological equilibrium.”
Unfortunately, little attention has been given to its role in inhibiting the growth of microorganisms. One reason is that low concentration of ozone was not believed to have sanitation values.
The author made thorough research and studies as well as logic reasoning on the role of ozone in the complicated ecosystem and found out that a low concentration of ozone as little as 0.025 ppm is still able to kill bacteria, viruses and molds, if given enough exposure, according to a Japanese study.
It is fair to say that a higher concentration of ozone in the nature has balanced and inhibited the overgrowth and reproduction of microorganisms on the earth. Furthermore, it can be inferred that ozone, whose concentration varies with seasons and regions, plays a dominant role in the cycle of microbial reproduction and that it reflects to seasonal changes and controls the cycles of living creatures on the earth.
To sum up, ozone is beneficial for human and nature in both stratosphere and troposphere, as it acts as a shield in stratosphere to protect living creatures, while its presence in the troposphere also works as a balancing power to ecological equilibrium.
Only by further understanding the relationship between ozone and life on the earth can we find out the greater benefits that ozone may bring.
The article was published on China Net on Aug 13, 2021, and was republished by foreign media, as well as today’s headlines and other platforms.
Editor’s note: The following piece was written by Zhou Muzhi, head of Cloud River Urban Research Institute.
The global film industry was hard hit by COVID-19 in 2020. Just in 2020, however, China eclipsed North America to become the world’s largest film market. Moreover, a strong recovery in its box office catapulted a string of domestic productions such as “The Eight Hundreds” to top earners worldwide. Why was there such a surprising turnaround? Which city had the most moviegoers? Which city spent most on movie tickets? Zhou Muzhi, head of Cloud River Urban Research Institute, will give answers in the following article.
1. China rises as world’s largest film market
China’s box office earnings plunged 68.2% in 2020, as its film market was battered by the coronavirus. Fortunately, after the epidemic was swiftly brought under control in China, its film market showed a rapid recovery.
Failing to effectively contain the virus, North America, the long-term biggest movie market in the world, saw its box office plummet by a whopping 80.7%. Hence, China, where attendance returned the fattest in 2020, overtook North America as the largest film market in the world for the first time.
Compared with the previous year’s gloom, China’s total box office collections during this year’s Spring Festival hit a record 7.82 billion yuan (US$1.23 billion), setting a few new records, such as the world’s single day box office in a single market and the world’s weekend box office in a single market.
China’s film market is in the middle of an explosive bounce.
2. Rankings by the Index of Chinese Cities’ Theater Spending in 2020
Cloud River Urban Research Institute released the “Index of Chinese Cities’ Theater Spending in 2020” for 297 Chinese cities at prefecture level and above, drawing on the China Integrated City Index 2019.
Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chengdu, Chongqing, Hangzhou, Wuhan, Suzhou, and Xi’an made the top 10. They combined accounted for 28.9% of the country’s total box office, 32.1% of viewing trips, and 21% of theater numbers, meaning that those cities contributed roughly one third of the country’s box office and viewing trips.
The 11th to 30th places were occupied by Zhengzhou, Nanjing, Changsha, Dongguan, Tianjin, Foshan, Ningbo, Hefei, Wuxi, Shenyang, Kunming, Qingdao, Wenzhou, Nantong, Nanchang, Changchun, Shijiazhuang, Harbin, Jinan and Nanjing. The top 30 cities combined made up 53.9% of the country’s total box office, 51.3% of viewing trips, and 39.3% of theater numbers. That means the top 30 cities, only one tenth of all Chinese cities, contributed half of the country’s box office and viewing trips.
Figure: Top 30 cities by the Index of Chinese Cities’ Theater Spending in 2020
The index also reveals the following sets of data.
The top 10 cities in terms of box office were Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chengdu, Chongqing, Hangzhou, Wuhan, Xi’an, and Suzhou.
The top 10 cities in terms of viewing trips were Shanghai, Beijing, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chongqing, Wuhan, Hangzhou, Xi’an, and Suzhou.
The top 10 cities in terms of per capita viewing trips were Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Haikou, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Changsha, Wuhan, Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Xi’an.
The top 10 cities in terms of per capita box office were Shenzhen, Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Zhuhai, Guangzhou, Nanjing, Haikou, Changsha, and Lhasa.
It is particularly noteworthy that during the epidemic period, numbers of screens and theaters in China increased rather than decreased. The number of screens in China increased from 2,668 in 2005 to 75,581 in 2020, a 27-fold increase.
From October 2019 to May 2021, numbers of cinemas in 203 of 297 Chinese cities increased. Specifically, Chengdu, Suzhou, Guangzhou, Wuhan, Zhengzhou, Changzhou, Baoding, Beijing, Hangzhou and Shijiazhuang were the top 10 cities with biggest increase. Numbers of cinemas decreased in 38 cities, however, with Siping, Taizhou and Jiujiang leading the decrease. That means 826 theaters in total were added in China during this period.
3. OTT a game changer amid COVID-19
COVID-19 undermined box office during the 2020 Spring Festival Holiday, but triggered a revolution. “Lost in Russia,” originally scheduled for release in cinemas, premiered on ByteDance’s streaming platforms for free on Jan. 25, 2021, the first day of the Lunar New Year, after it was purchased by the tech firm for 630 million yuan.
The movie, despite missing its theatrical release, was viewed 600 million times in the first three days on ByteDance’s four video apps – Douyin, Huoshan, Jinri Toutiao, and Xigua Video, with a total number of 180 million individual viewers. The movie brought numerous viewers to those video apps.
Figure: The change of the mode of film releases amid COVID-19
OTT stands for “Over The Top” and refers to any streaming service that delivers content over the internet. International major OTT platforms include Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, Hulu, and HBO Max, and domestic platforms include Aiqiyi, Tencent Video, and Youku.
ByteDance created a brand new mode of movie showing, making “Lost in Russia” the first movie to skip theaters to premier on an OTT platform amid the COVID-19 epidemic.
In 2020, the first blockbuster that premiered online was the Disney-made US$200-million “Mulan.” On Sept. 4, without theatrically released in North America, Disney premiered the movie on Disney+, which was launched in November, and raked in viewing and revenue.
On Dec. 4, 2020, Warner Bros. announced that all the 17 films launched in 2021 will be broadcast simultaneously in U.S. cinemas and its OTT platform HBO Max, a move that systemically changed the eyeball game.
“007: No Time to Die,” a US$250-million blockbuster, also attracted much attention during the pandemic. The film was originally slated for release in theaters globally in April 2020, but has been delayed time and again without a set date yet due to the pandemic. On May 26, 2021, Amazon suddenly announced a US$8.45-billion acquisition of MGM, the 007 series producer. Given that Amazon has an OTT platform of more than 200 million subscribers — Amazon Prime Video, how and when “007: No Time to Die” will be released is a question raised by many people.
Now, big-budget blockbusters hit OTT platforms and cinemas simultaneously, or just OTT platforms exclusively. An OTT strategy for a film has not only become a major factor that affects the film’s box office, but also had an impact on the future of the film maker.
Figure: The game between cinemas and OTT amid COVID-19 in 2020
4. Chinese market catapults domestic films to top earners
Chinese domestic films in 2020 had a strong showing. According to Box Office Mojo data, “The Eight Hundred” became the top earner worldwide in 2020. Other Chinese films in the top 10 earners included “My People, My Homeland” at No.4, “Legend of Deification” at No. 8, and “A little Red Flower” at No. 9. Moreover, Chinese film “The Sacrifice” ranked 14th. A string of domestic films made their way into the top at the world’s box office thanks to a strong rebound in the Chinese movie market.
The contribution of domestic movies to China’s box office had fluctuated between 50% and 60% since 2005, and the figure surged to 83.7% in 2020.
China’s box office has skyrocketed over the past 20 years, from 2.05 billion yuan in 2005 to 64.27 billion yuan in 2019, an increase of 30 times. With the COVID-19 epidemic curbed effectively, the world’s biggest film market will embrace for a bigger rise in box office, usher in a golden era of China’s film industry.
Editor’s note: With the countdown clocks clicking, will the Tokyo Olympics be open on schedule? The following piece is written by Zhou Muzhi, professor of Tokyo Keizai University.
Why does Japan with world-leading healthcare capacity have to extend lockdown measures again and again and yet is unable to control the COVID-19 pandemic? With the countdown clocks clicking, will the Tokyo Olympics be open on schedule? What are the “Zero COVID-19 Case Policy” and the “Coexisting with COVID-19 Policy?” Professor Zhou Muzhi will give explanations in detail to these questions as Japan announced to extend the third COVID-19 lockdown.
On May 7, the Japanese government extended the third state of emergency formerly scheduled to end on May 11 to May 31, and added Aichi and Fukuoka prefectures to the lockdown list. The extension means that Japan’s lockdown measures had failed to reach expectations.
On April 8, 2020, Wuhan reopened after a 76-day lockdown brought on by the COVID-19 outbreak. Just the day before, Japan announced its first state of emergency on Tokyo, Saitama, Kanagawa, Chiba, Osaka, Hyogo, and Fukuoka, which then expanded to the rest of the country and had lasted for 49 days.
On Jan. 8, 2021, Japan announced the second state of emergency on the nation’s capital and the neighboring prefectures of Kanagawa, Saitama and Chiba, which lasted 73 days.
On April 8, 2021, the one year anniversary of Wuhan’s reopening, Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike asked the central government to apply pre-emergency measures in the capital to stop a further spread of novel coronavirus infections.
The pre-emergency measures are a less stringent policy by the Yoshihide Suga administration to buffer the socioeconomic impact brought by the lockdown, which includes shortening operating hours for restaurants and encouraging people to avoid cross-regional movements.
Unfortunately, those measures failed to control the spread of COVID-19 and Japan later announced the third state of emergency on Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto and Hyogo.
The problem is: Why could China’s lockdown measures reach the expected outcome once and for all, while Japan needs to place new lockdowns time and again?
1. IncompleteJapanese-stylelockdown policy
The point is not that the state of emergency measures are too strict which need a pre-emergency alternative, but that the original measures were not enough to contain the COVID-19 outbreak. There are three reasons for the failure of Japan’s lockdown policy.
(1) Relaxed lockdown measures
First, the state of emergency measures do not ask for a complete cut down of people’s contact, but rather to reduce their contacts by 70% to 80%. So Japan’s measures are too relaxed compared with those of China, which require the shutdown of businesses, schools and traffic, and avoids people’s movement and contacts.
Even with this relaxed lockdown measures, Japan’s daily COVID-19 infections were reduced significantly after the first state of emergency, reaching visible outcome to contain the virus.
(2) No demand for zero infections
Wuhan reopened after the city reported no new infections for 16 days in a row. Unlike the situation in China, Japan lifted its first state of emergency on May 25, 2020, when the country reported 20 new infections, thus sowing the seeds of a future resurgence in COVID-19 cases.
Its impact was severe. A week after Japan lifted the state of emergency, Tokyo issued an alert to residents urging additional caution against the coronavirus pandemic, after a spike in new cases.
(3) Encouraging people’s movement
To make matters worse, Japan made the premature move of encouraging people’s movement. On July 22, 2020, Japan launched the “Go To Travel” campaign in regions outside Tokyo by subsiding people’s cross-regional travel. On that day, Japan reported a total of 792 new COVID-19 infections, which was 1.1 times that of the peak during its first state of emergency. That was a rather bold move with little consideration of its impact.
The outcome was immediately visible.Ten days later, Japan reported a daily new infections of 1,575, 2.2 times that of the peak during the first state of emergency. However, Tokyo was included in the “Go To Travel” campaign on Oct. 1.
With mounting anti-epidemic pressures and wide-spread criticism, the Japanese government suspended the campaign on Dec. 28, 2020. Twelve days later on Jan. 8, the country announced the second state of emergency.
Chart: Japan’s daily new infections and deaths of COVID-19
2. ‘Zero COVID-19 Case Policy’ VS ‘Coexisting with COVID-19 Policy’
Unlike Japan, China adopted the “Zero COVID-19 Case Policy” aimed to wipe out all cases. The Chinese government issued risk-grading criteria on Feb. 18, 2020, classifying counties, cities and districts that report no cases or no new cases in the past 14 days as low-risk areas.
After successfully containing the first outbreak, China still stuck to the “zero case” goal across the country. Once a new case was confirmed, strict restrictions and massive testing would be implemented immediately to block the spread of COVID-19.
Developed countries, such as the European countries, the U.S. and Japan, resorted to lockdown measures that had produced markedresults, but they hastened to lift lockdowns prematurely due to fierce opposition to restrictions on human and economic activities.
A study by the Germany-based IFO Institute for Economic Research and the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research was released on May 13, 2020. The study said keeping the Rt (the effective reproduction number, referring to the average number of people who become infected by an infectious person) at 0.75 provides the safest balance between hammering out output and risking a new outburst of infections. In other words, keeping the Rt at 0.75 can minimize the economic costs without jeopardizing the medical objectives. The study is an endorsement of the “Coexisting with COVID-19 Policy” in the academic circle. However, the report failed to come up with effective measures to keep the Rt at 0.75 in response to the highly contagious virus. Therefore, the golden balance put forward in the report is just a hallow theory. The report provides theoretical backing to the “Coexisting with COVID-19 Policy” adopted by European countries and the U.S., which was the scourge of later resurgence in those countries.
It turns out that the Europe, the U.S. and Japan haven’t been able to effectively control the pandemic after repeated lockdowns and reopening.
3. Economic growth VS economic recession
The world economy was hard hit by COVID-19 in 2020, as GDP in real terms of Western countries slipped into negative territory, with the U.S. shrinking by 3.5%, Japan 4.8%, the U.K. 9.9%, Germany 4.9%, France 8.2%, Italy 8.9%, and Spain 11%. Those countries all implemented the “Coexisting with COVID-19 Policy.” Their society and economy have been devitalized by repeated lockdowns and reopening and the “Coexisting with COVID-19 Policy” has led to a long-term economic recession.
On the contrary, China bucked the trend to post a 2.3% economic growth in 2020 thanks to its “Zero COVID-19 Case Policy.” Vietnam and China’s Taiwan who applied similar policies both posted an economic growth of 2.9% and 3.1%, respectively.
4. Will Tokyo Olympics go ahead as scheduled?
In Osaka, where coronavirus variants are raging, only 10% of patients can be admitted to hospital while many others have to stay at home waiting for beds. This could neither provide effective treatment for patients who are not hospitalized nor contain the spread of the virus, leaving the Osaka’s medical system overstrained. Tokyo and other Japanese cities are taking and is about to take the same “grueling test” as Osaka.
Japan has pinned high hopes on vaccines. However, Japan has neither produced vaccines nor given greenlight to vaccines developed by overseas pharmaceutical companies, lagging far behind in vaccine rollout.
The Japanese policy prioritizes old people aged above 65 due to a shortage of vaccines. Even so, less than 1% of its 36 million senior people have been vaccinated.
In other words, by July 23 when the Tokyo Olympics open, Japan will be still unable to vaccinate its population, put rigorous quarantine measures in place, or provide sufficient medical support. If the Olympics have to open as scheduled, Japan will face the perils of coronavirus mutations, turning itself into a hotbed of variants coming from around the world.
Despite the looming dangers, Japan’s leaders still insist on holding the Games as scheduled, and the media keep silent on the issue.
On May 5, Kenji Utsunomiya, a lawyer who had run for Tokyo governor multiple times, launched an online petition to cancel the Tokyo Olympic Games.
The petition had got more than 230,000 signatures in just two days as of May 7, beginning a battle between public opinions and politicians’ obsession.
The article was published on China Net on May 12, 2021, and was republished by foreign media, as well as today’s headlines and other platforms.
Editor’s note: The soaring carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have led to frequent occurrences of climate anomalies and extreme climate disasters all over the world, and global climate change has become a common challenge for mankind. No one can insulate itself from climate crises. In this context, most of the heads of 40 countries and regions set clear targets to reduce CO2 emissions by 2030 at the Leaders Summit on Climate on April 22, 2021.
Following the commitment to striving to peak CO2 emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 at the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 22, 2020, China said at this summit that the targets of carbon peak and carbon neutrality have been added to its overall plan for ecological conservation.
How are global carbon emissions like today? What are the factors that affect carbon emissions? What challenges are countries in the world facing? You will find in this article by Professor Zhou Muzhi all the answers in detail based on the data analysis of the top 30 CO2 emitting countries and regions in the world.
The 21st century has seen the most rapid growth of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in human history. If we put global CO2 emissions in the timeline, three time periods would stand out: first, the world’s total volume of CO2 emissions up until 1979 accounted for only 54% of cumulative emissions; second, the CO2 emissions during 1980-1999 accounted for 15.3% of cumulative emissions; third, the CO2 emissions during 2000-2019 accounted for up to 30.7%. In other words, global CO2 emissions nearly doubled since 1980. Even more notably, CO2 emissions during 2000-2019 doubled that during 1980-1999, and global CO2 emissions have skyrocketed since the 21st century.
1. Global CO2 emissions
Today, 79 countries and regions able to accurately track their CO2 emissions are responsible for 96.7% of global emissions.
During 2000-2019, 28 countries (the US, the U.K., Germany, Ukraine, Japan, Italy, France, Greece, Venezuela, Spain, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Denmark, Uzbekistan, Romania, Finland, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal, Hungary, Slovakia, Ireland, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Croatia, North Macedonia, and Norway) out of the 79 saw declines in their CO2 emissions. Those countries are generally composed of two types: developed countries (almost all the developed countries in the West included) and those with a sluggish economy.
On the contrary, the CO2 emissions of the remaining 51 countries and regions, mostly developing ones, increased incrementally, with those of newly industrialized countries led by China, rising significantly. In particular, the increase contributed by them was much greater than the reduction contributed by the aforementioned 28 countries. In fact, the reduction offset only 15.7% of the increase. It was the 51 countries and regions that drove up the rapid growth of global CO2 emissions during the period.
Today’s global CO2 emissions have three main characteristics. First, the countries and regions who have reduced emissions co-exist with those still on the path of continuous emission increase.
Second, top emitters contribute to the vast majority of global emissions. In 2019, the top five emitters, including China, the US, India, Russia, and Japan, were responsible for 58.3% of global emissions. In other words, nearly 60% of global emissions came from the leading five countries. We can see from a further look at the list that the top 10 countries and regions accounted for up to 67.7% of global emissions, and the top 30 countries and regions 87%. The US and Japan pledged to cut emissions by 50-52% (compared with 2005) and 46% (compared with 2013) by 2030, respectively. These two challenging goals are undoubtedly a powerful boost for the upgrading of their energy structure and industrial structure.
Third, China ranks first with a striking volume and a contribution of 28.8%. Its emissions in 2019 were already approximately equivalent to the combined emissions of the four countries running behind — the US, India, Russia, and Japan. That is precisely why China’s commitment to striving for carbon neutrality by 2060 is both significant and challenging.
2. Six main factors affecting CO2 emissions
Six main factors must be taken into consideration when discussing CO2 emissions.
First, CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumption, also known as carbon intensity of energy. It is related to the quality and efficiency of energy. For example, China’s energy structure, with coal as the primary energy source, gives off relatively higher CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumption. However, as its primary energy sources switch from coal to natural gas in thermal power generation, accompanied by enlarged shares of renewable energy such as wind power, solar power, and hydropower as well as the development of nuclear power, its CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumption will decrease gradually.
Second, energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product (GDP), also known as energy intensity. It goes up in the early stages of industrialization, but then turns to go down as the level of industrialization increases and the industrial structure changes, the backward productivity being phased out, and the equipment and working procedures being optimized. Therefore, in the long term, the curve of a country’s energy consumption per unit of GDP will rise sharply in the early stages of industrialization, but a turning point to a downward trend will ensue after a certain period of time if the industrialization develops smoothly.
Third, CO2 emissions per unit of GDP, also known as carbon intensity. It measures the correlation between a country’s economy and its CO2 emissions. The interplay between CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumption and energy consumption per unit of GDP determines the level of carbon intensity.
Fourth, per capita GDP. It measures the level of economic development. As economy develops, industrial activities expand, and people’s lifestyles modernize, per capita energy consumption will increase, leading to higher CO2 emissions.
Fifth, total population and demographic structure. The larger the population of an economy, the higher its CO2 emissions will be. The impact of demographic structure on energy consumption must also be taken into consideration.
Sixth, CO2 emissions per capita. It embodies the interplays of all the previous five factors, and it is a key of measuring the CO2 emissions of an economy. Its turning point marks the peak of CO2 emissions in a real sense.
Generally speaking, when the socio-economic development reaches a certain level, CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumption and energy consumption per unit of GDP are the first to turn downward, and CO2 emissions per capita will respond later. However, only when CO2 emissions per capita start for a continuous decline does it signify a real turning point.
3. China’s achievements and missions
Since China’s accession to the World Trade Organization, its economy has entered a chapter of tremendous development fueled by export and urbanization. During 2000-2019, its exports increased by nine times, and the urban area (the area of urban land that meets certain standards for construction and infrastructure) by 1.9 times and GDP by 4.2 times, both in real terms.
The soaring economy greatly increased China’s real GDP per capita by 3.6 times, from US$2,151 in 2000 to US$9,986 in 2019. Large-scale industrial development, accelerated urbanization, and increasingly modernized lifestyles of a large population resulted in a significant expansion in energy consumption, which is the fundamental cause of the increase of CO2 emissions in China.
On the plus side, China’s CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumption, energy consumption per unit of GDP, and CO2 emission per unit of GDP have all reached their turning points and showed obvious downward trends. China’s CO2 emissions per unit of energy in 2019 decreased by 10% compared with 2000, and its energy consumption per unit of GDP and carbon intensity both dropped by 40% during the period, a result of China’s relentless efforts in energy conservation, emission reduction, and clean energy development in recent years. China has achieved remarkable results in promoting green, sustainable, and low-carbon development.
However, during the same period, China’s CO2 emissions per capita increased by 1.6 times. Despite the downward trends of the previous three factors, China is yet to reach its peak in CO2 emissions per capita. How to reach the turning point quickly and drive down CO2 emissions per capita steadily will be the determining factor for China to fulfill its commitment to striving to peak CO2 emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060.
4. Data analysis of top 30 emitting countries and regions
The top 30 emitting countries and regions make up nearly 90% of global CO2 emissions, and they are also home to 69% of the world’s population, producing 84% of the world’s GDP. Moreover, during 2000-2019, they contributed as much as 92.7% of global emission growth, a reality worthy of a thorough analysis.
(1) Changes of CO2 emissions
During 2000-2019, global CO2 emissions increased by 40%. However, among the top 30 emitters, seven major countries — the US, Japan, Germany, the U.K., Italy, France, and Spain — achieved CO2 emission reductions. Specifically, the U.K. reduced its emissions by 30%, Germany, Italy, and France by 20%, and the US, Japan, and Spain by 10%.
In the meantime, 23 countries with increased emissions, led by China and India, more than cancelled out the emission cuts made by the seven above. In fact, the reduction made by the aforementioned seven countries only offset 13.2% of the increase contributed by the 23, resulting in a steep rise in global emissions.
During the period, the emissions of China and India grew by 1.9 times and 1.6 times, respectively. China overtook the US in 2005 to become the economy with the largest CO2 emissions worldwide. India rose to third place, surpassing Japan and Russia. Vietnam, currently ranking 22nd in CO2 emissions, became the country with the most rapid increase in emissions at a growth rate of 510%.
(2) Changes of primary energy consumption
During 2000-2019, global primary energy consumption increased by 48%. Specifically, China became the economy with the fastest growth of energy consumption at a rate of 230%, and exceeded the United States in 2009 to be the world’s biggest consumer of primary energy. India, with a growth rate of 160%, became the third biggest consumer of primary energy. Vietnam became the fastest-growing country in primary energy consumption during the period with a rate of 450%, ranking 22nd in primary energy consumption.
However, 22 countries reduced their primary energy consumption during the same period. Six countries out of the 22 are from the top 30 emitters, which are Japan, the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, and the US in the order of the magnitude of reduction. All the six countries are developed ones, among which the US even achieved a 45.4% real GDP growth during the period. In other words, the developed countries achieved fruitful outcomes in energy conservation and emission reduction.
(3) CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumption
During 2000-2019, CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumption were reduced across the top 30 emitters except India, Japan, Indonesia, South Africa, Vietnam, and Kazakhstan. The U.K. and Thailand decreased their CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumption by 20%, and China, the US, Russia, Germany, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Brazil, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland, France, the United Arab Emirates, China’s Taiwan, Spain, and Singapore by 10%.
The US has begun to develop new energy and CO2 emission reduction policies since President Clinton. In spite of policy changes under different presidents, the country has been continuously optimizing its energy structure. By 2017, renewable energy power generation had already accounted for 42% of the total power generation in the 11 Western states, as coal-fired power generation was phased down. Notably, the policy to push for small-scale natural gas power generation originated during the presidency of President Carter, and small-scale power generation fueled by natural gas became the country’s largest power source in 2002.
Japan stood out as a unique case in the developed world. The country resorted to thermal power generation on a very large scale after the nuclear power failure in 2011. One third of its power came from coal-fired power generation, resulting in the increase in its CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumption.
Coal-fired power generation occupies a larger proportion in the power sources of developing countries. For example, it accounts for as much as 46% in the power structure of Southeast Asia.
How to find an efficient way to terminate coal-fired power generation has become the most important step for the globe to achieve carbon neutrality. On April 21, 2021, in an article published on Nikkei, the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that developed economies must commit to phasing out coal by 2030; other countries must do this by 2040.
China relies heavily on coal-fired power generation. Despite the decrease in its CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumption, coal still takes up as much as 57.7% of its primary energy consumption structure. Its energy structure needs to be optimized urgently.
At the Leaders Summit on Climate on April 22, the Chinese leader said that China will strictly control coal-fired power generation projects, and strictly limit the increase in coal consumption over the 14th Five-Year Plan period and phase it down in the 15th Five-Year Plan period. It indicates that China has truly gotten on a fast track of primary energy transition.
The analysis of the CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumption of the 30 countries and regions shows that with the improvement of technologies, the increase of equipment investment, and the optimization of energy structure, most countries will steadily reduce their CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumption. However, there are also cases whose CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumption increased even further, for example, Japan, due to radical changes in its energy structure caused by nuclear power failure, and India, Indonesia, and Vietnam, due to accelerated industrialization in recent years.
(4) Energy consumption per unit of GDP
During 2000-2019, energy consumption per unit of GDP decreased across the top 30 emitting countries and regions except Iran, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Thailand, Vietnam, and the United Arab Emirates. Specifically, countries like China, Russia, the U.K., and Poland saw reductions by 40%; the US, Japan, Germany, South Korea, France, China’s Taiwan, and Kazakhstan by 30%; India, Indonesia, Canada, South Africa, Australia, Italy, Spain, and Malaysia by 20%; and Mexico, Turkey, Singapore, Egypt, and Pakistan by 10%.
With the improvement in technologies, the increase of equipment investment, and the optimization of energy structure, most countries have continuously improved their energy efficiency. During 2000-2019, energy consumption per unit of GDP on a global scale dropped significantly by 20%. There are also exceptions. For instance, Iran, whose economy suffered from the sanctions of the US, and Vietnam, due to rapid industrialization, both saw declines in energy efficiency, while their energy consumption per unit of GDP went up by 50% and 60%, respectively.
(5) Changes of CO2 emissions per unit of GDP
During 2000-2019, CO2 emissions per unit of GDP dropped across the top 30 CO2 emitters, except Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, and the United Arab Emirates. Specifically, the U.K. and Poland halved their CO2 emissions per unit of GDP, the largest reductions in carbon intensity; China cut its CO2 intensity by 40%, which was also a remarkable decrease; the US, Russia, Germany, and France, and China’s Taiwan by 40%; South Korea, Canada, Australia, Italy, Spain and Kazakhstan by 30%; India, Japan, South Africa, Turkey, Malaysia, Singapore, and Egypt by 20%; and Indonesia, Mexico, Thailand, and Pakistan by 10%.
On the contrary, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam increased their carbon intensity by 10%, 40% and 80%, respectively.
Thanks to the steep decline in carbon intensity among major emitters, global CO2 emissions per unit of GDP decreased by 18.1% in the period.
China has scored huge success in reducing its carbon intensity, as its carbon intensity accounts for only 76.1% of India’s, 64.9% of Russia and 60.3% of Vietnam. However, China is still lagging behind developed countries, since China’s carbon intensity is 180%, 260%, 450% and 500% higher than the US, Japan, Germany, the U.K. and France, respectively. Therefore, the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2015) set out a scheme in which controlling carbon intensity acts as the main task supplemented with controlling carbon emissions. How to quickly reduce carbon intensity and shift to a low-carbon development pattern remains a daunting challenge.
5. Analysis of carbon emission peaks of top 30 emitting countries and regions
To scientifically analyze peaks of carbon emissions and avoid the disorder caused by the abnormal value in a single year, this article introduces the concept of “moving average” to analyze the peaks of carbon emissions. The analysis of “moving average line” is a method of averaging the data in a certain period, and looking at the trend by moving average lines of average values in different periods. It is widely used in the trend analysis in financial and business areas, and has recently been applied to the analysis of COVID-19 spreading or receding.
This article calculates the average value on a five-year basis, and analyzes CO2 emissions per capita and CO2 emissions of each country from 1980 to 2019 through the method of moving average lines, so as to evaluate the performance of each country in carbon emissions, energy conservation and emission reduction through judgment of the turning point and trend in a more accurate way.
(1) Analysis of peaks of CO2 emissions per capita
Seen from the “moving average line” analysis of CO2 emissions per capita, 17 of the top 30 emitting countries and regions saw their CO2 emissions per capita continued to decline after reaching a peak — the US, Russia, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Canada, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Australia, the U.K., Italy, Poland, France, Spain, Malaysia and Egypt.
On the contrary, 13 of the top 30 emitters — China, India, Iran, South Korea, Indonesia, Turkey, Thailand, Vietnam, the United Arab Emirates, Kazakhstan, Singapore, and Pakistan saw their CO2 emissions per capita rise in the period.
Global CO2 emissions per capita continued to drop after reaching a peak in 2011, largely thanks to the efforts of developed countries in cutting emissions.
During 2000-2019, the U.K. cut CO2 emissions per capita by 40%, the US, Italy, France and the United Arab Emirates by 30%, Germany and Spain by 20%, Japan, Canada and Australia by 10%. Those major Western countries are key contributors to energy conservation and emission reduction.
However, CO2 emissions rose due to an increase in energy consumption in newly industrialized nations that experienced industrialization, urbanization and improved life styles. In the period, CO2 emissions per capita in China and India rose by 160% and 100%, respectively, and Vietnam surged by a staggering 400%. CO2 emissions per capita in Kazakhstan went up by 90%, Indonesia by 80%, Iran by 70%, Thailand by 60%, Turkey, Malaysia and Singapore by 40%, South Korea, Saudi Arab, Egypt and Pakistan by 30%, Brazil by 20%, and Russia and China’s Taiwan by 10%. Overall, CO2 emissions per capita rose in newly industrialized nations and regions.
Quite notably, China’s current CO2 emissions per capita have surpassed the U.K. and France. Policy makers should put the goal of peaking CO2 emissions per capita as soon as possible high on the agenda.
(2) Analysis of CO2 emission peaks
Seen from the “moving average line” analysis, CO2 emissions in 12 countries of the top 30 emitters — the US, Russia, Japan, Germany, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, the U.K., Italy, Poland, France, and Spain, assumed a trend of declining after reaching a peak. Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, Malaysia and Egypt haven’t peaked their CO2 emissions, although their per capita CO2 emissions have peaked. That’s because their populations increased remarkably from 2000 to 2019. Specifically, Saudi Arabia’s population increased by 70%, Canada by 20%, Australia by 30%, Malaysia by 40%, and Egypt by 50%. Population growth has delayed the peaking of carbon emissions.
The US encountered a similar situation. From 2000 to 2019, US population grew by 47.35 million, delaying the peaking of carbon emissions. Although the US peaked its CO2 emissions per capita in 2000, it didn’t peak CO2 emissions until 2007.
China’s CO2 emissions currently grows at a slower pace, but haven’t reached a peak. With the target of peaking carbon emissions by 2030, all sectors across China are formulating plans for carbon drive, in the hopes of reaching the goal as scheduled or even ahead of schedule.
6. China and US: biggest players and beneficiaries of globalization
The world entered a new stage of globalization in the 21st century, with a sharp increase in global trade, investment, technology transactions, and personnel exchanges. If we put global exports in the timeline, we will find the global export volume in 1979 accounted for only 10.8% of the current volume. The net growth during 1980-1999 doubled that of 1979, and made up 23.2% of today’s global export volume. Exports were given a boom during 2000-2019, with growth in the period accounting for 66% of the current volume. In other words, 70% of today’s global exports were created in the 21st century, meaning that wealth model was swiftly shifted from the national economy to the global economy.
It was the globalization that made the explosive growth of global wealth happen. Global GDP in real terms during 2000-2019 grew by 74.5%. In the period, China’s GDP in real terms grew by 420%, becoming the biggest contributor to the world economic growth. Despite a modest growth rate of 45.4% in the period, which was below the world’s average, the US had a colossal growth of wealth due to its large economy.
In the period, 49.6% of the world’s GDP in real terms was created by China and the US Specifically, China accounted for 32.2% of the world’s increment, the US 17.4%, ranking first and second respectively in the world. The remaining countries in the top 10 were India, the U.K., South Korea, Germany, Russia, Indonesia, Japan and Brazil. Compared with China and the US, those countries had a much smaller share of the global GDP increment.
It is fair to say that it was the division of labor and cooperation between China and the US that propelled globalization and created an age marked by the explosive growth of wealth in human history. The two countries are the biggest players and beneficiaries of the globalization age.
How is the relationship between economic growth and CO2 emissions in this period? Measured by GDP growth rates in real terms and CO2 emission growth rates, the top 30 emitters can be divided into three groups.
The first group includes those countries experiencing a low growth of real GDP and a negative growth of carbon emissions, such as the US, Japan, Germany, the U.K., Italy, France, and Spain, all among major developed countries.
The second group includes 18 countries and regions experiencing a medium-to-low economic growth and a low growth of carbon emissions — Russia, Iran, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Canada, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Australia, Turkey, Poland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, China’s Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Egypt, and Pakistan.
The third group includes those countries and regions experiencing a medium-to-high economic growth and a rapid growth of carbon emissions, such as India, Indonesia, Vietnam and Kazakhstan. Among them, Vietnam stands out with a remarkable growth of carbon emissions.
The fourth group includes China that enjoys a fast-growing economy. Its growth rate of carbon emissions is roughly the same with that of the third group.
Graphic: Real GDP growth and CO2 emission growth (2000-2019)
From the analysis above, the first 20 years of the 21st century was marked by the global division and cooperation of labor as well as the exponential growth of global wealth fueled by scientific advances and globalization. In the 20 years which was arguably an extremely special period in human history, labor division developed greatly, accompanied by huge amounts of CO2 emissions.
In the next 20 years, human needs to rely on cooperation to promote energy conservation and emission reduction, realize the growth of a green circular economy and combat climate change through improving the quality of development to retain hard-won prosperity.
Xie Zhenhua, China’s special envoy for climate change affairs, met with his US counterpart John Kerry to talk about the climate crisis in Shanghai from April 15-16. In a joint statement issued after the talks, the two parties stressed that the two countries will work together with other countries to cope with the climate crisis and stay committed to implementing the Paris agreement alongside with other signatories.
The IEA estimates global CO2 emissions will increase 4.8% in 2021 year on year, which indicates that the carbon reduction drive still faces grim challenges. China and the US, the biggest players and beneficiaries of the global division of labor and wealth growth, should take the lead in developing the global green circular economy in the next 20 years.
The author is a professor of Tokyo Keizai University and president of Cloud River Urban Research Institute.
The article was published on China SCIO Online on May 09, 2021, and was republished by foreign media, including China Daily, China net, as well as today’s headlines and other platforms.
The tasks of promoting urbanization, improving the spatial pattern for urbanization and strengthening management of urban planning and construction laid out in China’s 11th Five-Year Plan have been completed, ushering in a new stage of China’s urbanization with new goals and tasks.
Editor’s note: The following piece on China’s urbanization was written by Ming Xiaodong, official of the National Development and Reform Commission, and former minister-counsellor of the Chinese Embassy in Japan.
In the summer of 2017, I was very happy to have heard that the China Integrated City Index (hereinafter referred to as the Index) was published. At that time, I was working at the Chinese Embassy in Japan. When Professor Zhou Muzhi from Tokyo Keizai University was compiling this book, I was quite interested in his research focus and the indicators he had selected in his project. Because one of my work responsibilities when I was in China is to propose strategies and plans for China’s new urbanization.
I believe that evaluating a city’s development through a specific set of indicators can be a new tool and benchmark to study China’s urban development and its urbanization strategy. So I wrote an E-mail to Professor Zhou, showing my appreciation for the Index and hoping that it can become a benchmark for analyzing cities’ development across the world.
In the spring of 2018, when I was finishing my term and about to leave Japan, I encouraged Professor Zhou to further explore in this field and make it a routine to publish the Index annually. Actually, Professor Zhou was already preparing for his new edition of the Index. Now, it has been four years since the introduction of the first edition, and the fourth edition of the Index had already been published.
The China Integrated City Index is a system that evaluates growth performance of 297 cities at prefecture level or above across the country, which are major representatives of China’s new urbanization. The Index measures urban development in three dimensions: the environment, society and economy, under which there are 27 sub-dimensions and 191 indicators that systematically depict, study and evaluate economic development, social progress and environmental improvement in 297 cities. The 191 indicators are supported by 878 data sets that contain a lot of information from which we can see the implementation of major national development strategies, the new urbanization strategy and other related policies, and identify many routine factors in urban development. Recently, I made quite a few valuable observations through studying the Index.
1. Data and facts
By comprehensively analyzing data from the Index, we can see the changes in China’s urban development and urbanization process in the last few years.
Chart: The top 30 Chinese cities by GDP, DID population and manufacturing radiation in 2019
(1) GDP ranking
From the GDP ranking and the DID (Densely Inhabited District) population ranking, the top 30 cities in terms of GDP are relatively stable. The top 10 cities are Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Tianjin, Suzhou, Chengdu, Wuhan and Hangzhou. These cities remained in the top 10 rankings from 2016 to 2019, with slight changes in places. Geographically, the 10 cities lie in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, the Yangtze River Delta region, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, and the Upper and Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River. They are major economic growth drivers as China further opens to the world, and their combined GDP accounted for 23.2% of the whole country. The following 20 cities in the top 30 ranking have their unique geographical features. For example, Zhengzhou and Xi’an are cities in central China, locating in the Central Plains and Guanzhong Plain respectively; Jinan, Qingdao and Yantai are major cities in the Shandong Peninsula Megalopolis; Changsha is in the megalopolis of the middle reaches of the Yangtze River; Dalian is in the coastal area of Liaoning province; Fuzhou and Quanzhou are in coastal area of Fujian province; Changchun is in the Harbin-Changchun Megalopolis. By DID population, these cities are in different echelons of development.
(2) DID population ranking
Among the top 30 cities in the GDP ranking of the China Integrated City Index 2019, only five didn’t appear in the top 30 cities in the DID population ranking, which shows strong correlations between the population and economic factors. The top 30 cities listed in the 2017 and 2019 DID population rankings are the same, with only minor changes in their places. Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou and Shenzhen maintained their places in the top 4; cities like Chengdu, Nanjing, Hangzhou, Quanzhou, Fuzhou, Zhengzhou, Kunming, Jinan, and Changsha moved higher in the ranking; Tianjin, Shenyang, Xi’an, Ningbo, Shantou, Hefei, Qingdao, Wuxi and Changchun slipped down the rankings. These changes indicate that megalopolises in eastern China have maintained strong attractions, with obvious and continued flow of populations from central and western part of the country to the coastal areas. At the same time, with the outflow of population in central and western areas as well as the northeastern areas, populations are becoming more concentrated in major cities of those regions.
(3) Wide-area analysis of population flow
As we carry out an analysis in a wide area to study population flow, we find out that the top 10 cities with the most population inflow in 2019 are Shanghai, Shenzhen, Beijing, Dongguan, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Foshan, Suzhou, Ningbo and Hangzhou, while the top 10 cities with the most population outflow are Zhoukou, Chongqing, Bijie, Fuyang, Xinyang, Zhumadian, Nanyang, Shangqiu, Zunyi and Maoming. Comparing the figures between 2016 and 2019 in terms of the size of the cities with population inflow and outflow as well as their place changes in the ranking, we can see transformations in the size of migrant populations. Population flow can be seen in the following features as we study the statistics of migrant populations. First, the number of migrant population is declining. China’s migrant population has dropped from 245 million in 2016 to 236 million in 2019. Second, the proportion of intercity migrant population is growing. If we take a closer look at the ranking changes in terms of population inflow, population outflow and DID Population, we can see the proportion of intercity migrant population is continuously increasing. In 2019, the proportion of population migrating from counties and cities were 45.1%, up by 6 percentage points over the previous year, demonstrating a quick upward trend. Third, regions with population inflow is diversifying. The general trend for population flow had always been from the central, western and northeastern part of the country to the eastern coastal areas. According to statistics on population flow, however, some major cities in central, western and northeastern regions have seen remarkable increase in DID Population. There are once even signs that central and western regions are experiencing population inflow.
2. Analysis and findings
Based on the data concerning economic aggregate and migrant population provided by the China Integrated City Index, a comprehensive analysis of statistics of manufacturing radiation, higher education radiation, science and technology radiation, as well as container port convenience can lead to the following findings.
(1) City spaces form new pattern
The 11th Five-Year Plan took megalopolises as the main form for promoting urbanization. After more than 10 years of development, Chinese cities have given full play to agglomeration effects, as their population, resources, technologies and other factors were rapidly funneled to central cities and megalopolises, the economy of administrative regions has turned to the economy of metropolitan areas and megalopolises, and urbanization has polarized in terms of spaces and functions. Centered on Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and other mega cities, for instance, the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, the Delta River Region, and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay areas – three world-class megalopolises, were formed. Centered on Qingdao, Jinan, Yantai, Xi’an, Dalian, Changchun, and Fuzhou, megalopolises, such as the Shandong Peninsula, the Liaodong Peninsula, the Harbin-Changchun Area, Fujian’s coastal area, and the Central Plains have been formed, becoming China’s new driving force areas for economic growth. At the same time, a number of metropolitan areas and central cities have emerged as China new areas of growth poles. As megalopolises have become the main form of urbanization, the power system for national development has taken shape, comprised of main power areas, emerging power areas and new areas of growth.
(2) Development of cities polarizes
The China Integrated City Index introduces the concept of DID (Densely Inhabited District) population, well solving the data distortion of urban population density caused by the fact that urban areas include rural areas, and truly identifying changes of urban population. For example, Chongqing is a city with a net outflow of population, but its DID population has increased remarkably in recent years. If we only gauge the population change by administrative districts instead of DID districts, we will misjudge the trend of urban population changes. Aided by DID population data, many problems emerging from urban development can be spotted. For example, seen from the analysis of the DID population ranking year by year, DID populations increase significantly in some cities, but decrease quickly in other cities, showing that China’s urban development features polarization. In particular, populations of some medium and small-sized cities in China’s central and western regions, and China’s northeastern regions continue to drop, resulting in nearly 100 cities across China having their populations shrink. Those cities are divided into two categories: One is that its population continues to decrease, but its population structure almost remains the same, and its economy maintains a steady growth; the other one is that its population dwindles away, its aging population grows, its industries shrink, and its economy is in a downturn.
(3) Urbanization development exhibits new pattern
For a long time, China’s urbanization development has been largely driven by population movement between urban and rural areas, as a lot of surplus laborers in rural areas headed for cities for a job, leading to an increase in the permanent resident population in urban areas. China’s urbanization rate thus rose from 17.9% in the beginning of reform and opening up to 60.6% in 2019. Looking into DID population ranking and the wide-area analysis of population movement, we found that the balance of cities’ DID population flips, showing that population movement between cities has been a trend. Although cities in eastern China have more inflowing population than outflowing population, those cities saw their migrant workers decreased by 480,000 in 2016, and the figure climbed to 1.08 million in 2019, meaning that the population flowing between cities joined urbanization. Getting an urban permanent residency was once a dream for youth in rural areas. However, many migrant workers now are reluctant to settle down in cities although many cities have lifted hukou restrictions. What can be concluded is that changes will happen to the driving force and the pattern of China’s urbanization.
3. Goals and tasks
The analysis above shows that with the spatial pattern for China’s urbanization already established, most cities have removed restrictions on urban permanent residency for people from rural areas, and have boosted their comprehensive carrying capacity. The tasks of promoting urbanization, improving the spatial pattern for urbanization and strengthening management of urban planning and construction laid out in the 11th Five-Year Plan have been completed, ushering in a new stage of China’s urbanization with new goals and tasks. After an initial analysis, focus on work should be gradually shifted to eliminating the urban-rural dichotomy, promoting integrated urban-rural development and invigorating medium and small-sized cities.
(1) Overcome urban-rural dichotomy
The urban-rural dichotomy is the major cause of the widening gap between the rich and the poor and the unbalanced regional development. China’s urbanization rate has surpassed 60%, the relations between urban and rural areas have undergone great changes, so focus should be placed on eradicating the urban-rural dichotomy. First, we should lift restrictions on granting urban permanent residency to people from rural areas, so that residents are allowed to choose where their household registration is, and we should realize the free transfer of household registration. No matter from rural or urban areas, migrant population is an important component of urban population. There should be new cities, rather than migrant workers, so that new citizens and their families have the freedom of horizontal flow, but also have the opportunity of mobilizing upward vertically and entering the middle-income group. Second, the rural land management system should be reformed so that rural collectively owned profit-oriented construction land is allowed to enter the market with the same rights and at the same prices as state-owned land, and farmers can financially benefit from land. Third, we should improve public service allocation, promote the allocation of public services based on population, and allow residents, irrespective of their groups and social strata, to have access to public services of the same quality.
(2) Improving integrated urban-rural development
“Over density” in cities and “over sparseness” in the countryside are the two problems that ailed China’s neighbor Japan during its rapid urbanization. More than half of its population concentrates in its three major metropolitan areas, its rural areas suffer from population aging and hollowing-out and the country depends heavily on grain imports. China, who also has been urbanized quickly, should learn from Japan’s lessons, and promote integrated urban-rural development to ensure the prosperity of both urban and rural areas. Promoting integrated urban-rural development hinges on interaction between urban and rural areas. Cities should channel capital, technologies, and personnel into rural areas to gain benefits from the agricultural development, and promote personnel exchanges between urban and rural areas. Rural areas should develop scale business, provide cities with raw materials and farm products, and promote the integration of industries in urban and rural areas. At the same time, we should encourage centralized residence of rural residents, extend urban public services to rural areas, and equalize urban-rural access to public services.
(3) Invigorate medium and small-sized cities
Currently, some of China’s medium and small-sized cities are experiencing population drop, industrial contraction and a weak economy. Maintaining a fairly number of healthy medium and small-sized cities is key to an urban system. These cities, including counties, are in proximity to rural areas and enjoy a close connection with neighboring large cities, so they serve as an important bridge for promoting integrated urban-rural development. Developing medium and small-sized cities is conductive to undertaking functions of neighboring cities, and providing development space for large cities. It also helps farmers nearby develop urbanization in their localities, to ensure the sustainable development of rural areas and farming culture. Therefore, we should give priority to developing medium and small-sized cities on the agenda of future urbanization, sale up effort to build medium and small-sized cities, keep improving the living environment in cities, accelerate the building public facilities, enhance quality of public services, and strengthen industrial supporting capacity.
(4) Promote renovation and upgrading of cities
Since reform and opening up, the size of built-up areas in Chinese cities has expanded at a fast pace amid the country’s fast urbanization. The growing-fast urban sprawl was accompanied by large numbers of shoddy buildings, and many high-quality buildings are getting older, so cities are in urgent need of renovation. Japan has designated organizations for urban renovation, which are tasked with giving cities’ old buildings and structures a facelift. With the establishment of China’s land space planning system and the strict demarcation of the boundary of urban development, cities will shift from getting bigger to renovating internally. Renovation can beautify old cities, add appeal to old cities, and improve living conditions for residents. It also helps advance the building of smart cities, cultural cities, and healthy cities, and better satisfy needs of urban dwellers who are pursuing a good life.
The article was published on China SCIO Online on April 16, 2021, and was republished by foreign media, including China Daily, China net, as well as today’s headlines and other platforms.
Editor’s note: The following is an opinion article written by Zhou Muzhi, head of Cloud River Urban Research Institute.
From March 14 to 15, northern China was hit by the worst sandstorm in a decade. Beijing was shrouded in sick brown dust on March 15, as levels of PM10 surged to 2,153 micrograms per cubic meter. The severe air pollution sparked a heated debate.
The sandstorm swept across 13 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions across China, including Xinjiang, Qinghai, Inner Mongolia, Gansu, Ningxia, Shaanxi, Shanxi, Hebei, Beijing, Tianjin, Liaoning, Jilin, and Heilongjiang, affecting more than 120 million people.
What caused such a massive sandstorm? The meteorological authorities concluded it was the rising temperatures, decreased rainfall, and gusty winds in Mongolia and northwestern China that provided thermal and dynamic conditions for the formation of the sandstorm. In fact, another major environmental factor causing the sandstorm is grassland degradation, and even desertification.
The massive sandstorm was considered to start from Mongolia. Many experts blamed farming and overgrazing for the accelerated desertification of Mongolia’s grasslands. Grasslands perform functions of preventing winds, fixing sand, purifying air, absorbing CO2, adjusting climate and conserving water source, and play an important role in improving human living environment. Improper exploitation has wreaked havoc on grasslands. There is a global consensus on the recognition of the importance of grasslands and crises.
Distribution, and increase and decrease of grasslands
What is the status quo of China’s grasslands? According to the satellite remote sensing data of grassland areas, provided by Cloud River Urban Research Institute’s latest “China Integrated City Index 2019,” China’s grassland resources feature an uneven distribution.
Specifically, Tibet, Qinghai, Inner Mongolia, and Xinjiang take the top four spots in the ranking in terms of grassland areas, accounting for 32%, 18.4%, 16.8% and 15.9% (83.1% combined) of China’s total grassland resources, respectively. The top 10 provinces and autonomous regions in the ranking make up 97.9% of the country’s total.
Grasslands are one of China’s largest land resources, and serve as an important hub of material circulation and energy flow in the ecosystem, but they are concentrated in southwestern, northwestern and northern China.
Chart: Top 10 provinces and autonomous regions by grassland areas
Among the 297 Chinese cities at prefecture level and above, Naqu, Shigatse, Chamdo, Hulunbuir, Ordos, Chifeng, Shannan, Jiuquan, Nyingchi, and Ulanqad, which are the top 10 in the league table, account for a combined 31.3% of the country’s total grassland area. However, their permanent resident population only makes up a combined 1.1% of the country’s total, their GDP only 0.9%, and their GDP of the first industry only 1.7%. That means the top 10 cities have the most grassland resources, but occupy a small proportion of the country’s total population, GDP and the first industry.
Chart: Top 30 cities by grassland areas
Ecological products and functional zones
The sandstorm taking place on March 15 warned that over exploitation of grasslands not only brings environmental devastation, but also a disaster to our living environment.
I agree with the idea of “ecological products” proposed by Yang Weimin, a member of the Standing Committee of the CPPCC National Committee. We should not blindly pursue the economic benefits of grasslands, but should treat grasslands as ecological products instead and try to achieve their economic value. Of course, to realize the value of grasslands as ecological products, we need to purchase ecological products through the central government’s finance, exchange ecological value between regions, sell water rights, emission rights, and carbon emission rights, realize the price premium of ecological products, and charge for tourism products. All these ways need the protection of policies and systems.
The system of functional zones, which has been implemented in China, serves as the framework mechanism for building this kind of policy system. The main functional zones divide the land space into four types: optimized development areas, key development areas, restricted development areas and prohibited development areas. Different development policies are implemented for different areas. Policies of “converting farmland to forests” and “converting farmland to grassland” in restricted development areas and prohibited development areas, as well as policies of restricted and prohibited development, aim to reduce production space and increase ecological space.
China’s grassland resources mostly concentrate in limited development areas and forbidden development areas. With improving and implementing the system of functional zones, grassland resources can be restored in the long run. Whether it is the construction of systems and mechanisms, or the implementation, we still have a long way to go before we truly turn lucid waters and green mountains into invaluable assets.
The article was published on China SCIO Online on Mar 24, 2021, and was republished by foreign media, including China Daily, China net, as well as today’s headlines and other platforms.
In the beginning of this year, Cloud River Urban Research Institute released the China Integrated City Index 2019, which ranks 297 Chinese cities at the prefecture level and above based on a comprehensive evaluation, as well as the top 100 cities in the categories of the environment, society and economy.
In the beginning of this year, Cloud River Urban Research Institute released the China Integrated City Index 2019, which ranks 297 Chinese cities at the prefecture level and above based on a comprehensive evaluation, as well as the top 100 cities in the categories of the environment, society and economy. Renowned scholars such as Zhao Qizheng, Yang Weimin, Zhou Qiren, Qiu Xiaohua, Du Ping, and Ming Xiaodong all have given a positive feedback on the Index in their articles, as well as their outlook on and expectations of the future development of Chinese cities.
Zhao Qizheng
dean of the School of Journalism at the Renmin University of China, and former minister of the State Council Information Office of China
I think the Index provides a new concept, a new discourse and a new framework for understanding and managing cities. I believe this book is a helpful reference book for Chinese mayors and their assistants. In the 1990s, when I was vice mayor of Shanghai, and the director and Party secretary of Pudong New Area, I was responsible for the development and construction of the new area. It was a pity that we didn’t have such a good reference book at that time.
Many indicators are needed to describe a man’s growth. A medical check-up entails dozens of indicators. Thirty years ago, we and even doctors had no idea of the health indicators that are common today. In such a case, how can we manage our body in a science-based way? Thirty years ago, Chinese people had an average life expectancy of less than 70 years. Now, the figure has approached 80, because health indicators have come into play.
In the same vein, we paid inadequate attention to what indicators can be used to describe the conditions of cities. We had outlined the plan of urban development by simply taking politics, economy, culture and other macro aspects into account. That was a very rough and crude approach. Now, if we need to plan and manage cities in an accurate way, we have to have a clear concept and research of cities, and delve into the analysis supported by a comprehensive index system. Therefore, Chinese cities can be built on the concept and the rational and comprehensive framework provided by the China Integrated City Index. A sophisticated data analysis and an in-depth research will come up with a recipe for “governance.” That is the call of the times.
Yang Weimin
member of the Standing Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference National Committee, and former deputy director of the office of the Central Leading Group for Financial and Economic Affairs of China
The Index, jointly developed by the Development Planning Department of the National Development and Reform Commission and the Cloud River Urban Research Institute, is the most scientific, international and practical index concerning the development of Chinese cities I have ever seen. It is a comprehensive “health check-up report” for Chinese cities. Every city evaluated by the Index can find its “diseases” and get a treatment plan. The “health check-up report,” released on an annual basis, will add more indicators, identify new situations and spot new problems.
Urbanization provides enduring impetus to China’s economic and social development, and China’s urbanization has a long way to go. At the same time, China’s economy has transformed to the phase of high-quality development. Urbanization and high-quality development are converged. Cities are main players in economic development, and also spatial carriers of high-quality development. China’s high-quality development as a whole hinges on high-quality development of Chinese cities.
The China Integrated City Index provides an evaluation of urban development from the environmental, social and economic perspectives, and embodies the idea of spatial balance. That is why I say it is a truly comprehensive and genuine evaluation of development. Only in this way will the evaluation of urban development be scientific and conducive to guiding the development of cities in a more comprehensive, coordinated and sustainable manner.
China’s urban development must adhere to the philosophy of ecological civilization, promote green development, circular development and low-carbon development, and minimize the interference with and damage to the nature, while promoting the economical and intensive utilization of resources including land, water and energy. Much attention should be paid to eco-safety, and the ratio of green and ecological spaces, such as forests, lakes and wetlands, should be increased, in order to enhance the water conservation capacity and environmental capacity. The quality of environment should be improved, by reducing emissions of major pollutants, controlling over the intensity of development, and increasing the capability to withstand and mitigate natural disasters. The China Integrated City Index provides a number of implementable green indicators. All cities should check for their gaps from the indicators and find out the areas to work on for urban development. In this regard, the China Integrated City Index is not only an evaluation, but also points out the direction for future development.
Zhou Qiren
professor of the National School of Development at Peking University
Competition among cities is a major driving force for elevating urban civilization. The areas that cities compete in are crucial as they determine the future and quality of urban development. History shows, the cities that have chosen the right path and target tend to enjoy sustainable and stronger competitiveness. In this sense, the China Integrated City Index, compiled by Professor Zhou Muzhi and his team, provides reliable statistical foundation for China’s high-quality urban development. It’s like vivid “City Portraits” from which citizens, visitors, entrepreneurs, businesses, investors and other stakeholders can find clues for their living, productions, operations, and business investment. Urban planners, decision-makers and constructors can also rely on this set of data to choose the right target for urban development and make effective urban competition strategies, thus laying a foundation for healthier urban development.
Chart: The top 100 cities in the comprehensive ranking of China Integrated City Index 2019
Qiu Xiaohua
vice chair of Cloud River Urban Research Institute, head of the Institute of Economic Research at City University of Macau, and former head of the National Bureau of Statistics
The China Integrated City Index is an important set of indicators, mainly in the following four ways.
First, it’s like a compass that gives the targets and shows the direction navigating future development of the cities.
Second, it’s like a yearbook recording the footprints and depicting major areas of the urban development, which provides various information for officials, scholars and stakeholders of different sectors as they manage or study urban development.
Third, it’s like a “diagnosis” reflecting the conditions of cities’ development within a period of time to help with urban management and urban research.
Fourth, it’s also a report card summarizing achievements in urban development from the statistical perspective. It also offers a sneak peek of the performance of 297 cities over a year.
The China Integrated City Index 2019 has been released. It is an annual review as well as a “physical check” for major cities in China. From the Index, we can see both achievements and setbacks in China’s urban development. The achievements manifest China’s progress in building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, and the setbacks reflect that there are areas we need to pay more attention to in our modernization process. Looking into the future, we need to do an even better job in our strong areas and address the setbacks more efficiently. We expect stable and long-term development as we achieve China’s second centenary goal and create more harmonious relations with the rest of the world.
Du Ping
vice chairman of Cloud River Urban Research Institute, and former vice executive director of the State Information Center
With available English and Japanese versions, the China Integrated City Index is a major set of indicators that have a global influence and provides food for thought for local governments, the academia, businesses and stakeholders in various sectors.
I want to say that the China Integrated City Index has its unique features.
First, it guarantees data integrity and accuracy. China Integrated City Index has pioneered a data collection and processing system sourcing from three major areas, with around 30% coming from statistical data, 30% from satellite remote sensing data, and 40% from internet data. The system can acquire sufficient and accurate data timely to support the validity of the Index’s structure.
Second, the Index is based on available, comparable and regressable data. The China Integrated City Index is a 3*3*3 multi-modal index system with closely related but independent data sets. In Chinese culture, our planet is a huge system composed of the heaven, earth, humanity and all other living creatures. China’s ancient philosopher used the idea of “One produced Two; Two produced Three; and Three produced All Things” to generalize the changes of this huge system in an abstract way. Obviously, the 3*3*3 framework agrees with this philosophy. Seen from its design concept, the logic relations between the indicators and the whole framework, the China Integrated City Index aims to reveal the relevance between each dimensions and sub-dimensions within a city as well as between different cities. To put it simply, the Index measures urban development on the top level in three dimensions: environment, society and economy, under which there are 9 sub-dimensions on the second layer followed by another 27 smaller dimensions on the third layer, all supported by a total of 878 data sets. Therefore, the China Integrated City Index can not only measure the development trends of each city from a macro level, but also evaluate the changes in different dimensions and areas of a city, as well as the changes in urban structures. I believe it is valuable in navigating high-quality and sustainable urban development.
Third, the Index has created a set of new indicators to mirror the cities’ development trends. For example, we can see the scope as well as the quality of urban development from the DID Population indicator; and you can also analyze the relations between industrial development and urban functions from the manufacturing radiation, IT industry radiation as well as indicators like opening and communications.
Fourth, the Index includes the comparison between Chinese cities and their international counterparts. For example, the China Integrated City Index compared major indicators between Beijing and Tokyo metropolitan areas after the 21st Century and effectively and objectively pointed out the problems and future development of China’s metropolitan areas.
In conclusion, the China Integrated City Index is a forward-looking and strategic index system that can help navigate China’s high-quality urban development.
Ming Xiaodong
official of the National Development and Reform Commission, and former minister-counsellor of the Chinese Embassy in Japan
The China Integrated City Index 2019 jointly compiled by the National Development and Reform Commission and Cloud River Urban Research Institute was released. It is the fourth one since its launch in 2016. In view of historical data, the Index accurately documents China’s urban development, and reflects the improvement in the quality of China’s urban development, the spatial forms, as well as the urban-rural structure.
From the perspective of the quality of development, the Index scores the ability and scale of the sustainable development of cities on indexes of the environment, society, and economy, encompassing 878 sets of data. In view With an eye to the new round of the scientific and technological revolution and the industrial revolution, the Index has selected a series of indictors related to innovation and entrepreneurship to reflect the new vitality of urban development. Since the Index was unveiled for the first time five years ago, the quality of China’s urban development and the urbanization rate have been significantly improved. A rural migrant population of about 100 million has settled down in cities, and more than 13 million new jobs were created in cities each year. The urban rail transit has developed rapidly, with operating mileage exceeding 5,500 kilometers. Cities have enhanced their governance ability, as the sewage treatment rate reached 95.6%, and the harmless treatment rate of domestic waste remarkably increased. Cities have taken a new look while scoring substantial progress in building a green, smart and cultural city.
From the perspective of spatial forms, the Index looks at 297 cities at prefecture-level and above across the country, which makes the Index broad-based and representative and reflects the characteristics of China’s spatial and economic layout in cities. Many of these cities are national central cities or regional central cities, featuring city clusters as the main body of China’s urban spatial layout. The Index includes a series of sub-indexes regarding core radiation to represent a city’s influence in a certain field. Over the past five years, the effect of China’s urban population clustering and economy have taken effect, as 19 cities accommodate more than 75% of urban population and contribute over 80% of GDP. The formation of metropolitan areas speeds up. With central cities playing a bigger role, infrastructure, public services and industrial development are further integrated. The number of cities increased from 657 to 684.
From the perspective of the urban-rural structure, although the Index takes cities as the main object to give a comprehensive evaluation of urban development, agriculture-related sub-indicators in the categories of the environment, society and economy have been designed in view of the “cities manage villages” situation in China’s administrative regions. In particular, combining the reality of “uneven urban-rural development is the prominent problem in China’s economic and social development,” the major indicator of economy encompasses a series of sub-indicators concerning urban-rural integration, and reflects interaction between urban development and rural vitalization. Over the past five years, China’s integration between urban and rural development has made headway. With better urban-rural development integration mechanism and policies, we have aligned urban basic public service system with its rural counterpart at an accelerated speed. Rural infrastructure such as water, electricity, roads and the network has been enhanced across the board, and urban-rural income ratio dropped from 2.75 in 2014 to 2.64 in 2019.
The Index represents some new changes in China’s urban development. Compared with the previous year, cities have further polarized as seen in the ranking. Changchun and Harbin in northeastern China no longer made the top 30, largely due to a steep decline on the social indicator. Nanchang in central China and Guiyang in western China made their way into the top 30. In terms of the environment, the ranking changes greatly. Shanghai and Guangzhou moved up to second and third spots after Shenzhen, indicating that the environment of mega cities can be significantly improved as long as their management level are enhanced. Wenzhou, Longyan, Heihe, Tianjin, Nanping, Putian, Quanzhou, Hulun Buir, Lincang dropped out the top 30. Measured by the social indicator, cities’ ranking correlates with the economic ranking, indicating economic growth is the backbone of social development. Shijiazhuang and Taiyuan fell out of the top 30. Measured by the economic indicator, the ranking changes slightly, but the top league is still dominated by those traditionally powerful cities, with Changzhou and Yantai dropping out the top 30. Changes in indicators show that China’s economy is overall balanced, but its economic focus remained in the south. The ecological environment has improved, but several cities that are long famed for their good environment slipped in the ranking. Social development has made progress, but still relies heavily on economy.
To sum up, the Index is based on scientific selection and a complete system, covering major dimensions of urban development. It represents the future development of cities, and can serve as a good reference book for the comprehensive assessment of cities.
Chart: The 101st to 200th cities in the comprehensive ranking of China Integrated City Index 2019
Chart: The 201st to 297th cities in the comprehensive ranking of China Integrated City Index 2019
Chart: The top 100 cities in the environment category of the comprehensive ranking of China Integrated City Index 2019
Chart: The top 100 cities in the social category of the comprehensive ranking of China Integrated City Index 2019
Chart: The top 100 cities in the economic category of the comprehensive ranking of China Integrated City Index 2019
The article was published on China SCIO Online on Mar 3, 2021, and was republished by foreign media, including China Daily, China net, as well as today’s headlines and other platforms.
