So Fu, what do you propose? An economy based on tourism? Sure we know ALL about pollution now, but can we really do anything about it?
For a start prolific polluters could actually be punished according to China's laws. Local authorities sacrifice enforcement of environmental law for growth. There is no reason why China needs to have such very, very high growth. In fact enforcing regulations could take the edge off the high growth level and reduce it to a more sustainable level. Or by cleaning up China not much money may be lost at all, given environmental damage costs several percentage points of total GDP growth a year - can't remember specifics.
You wouldn't need to prosecute everyone at the same time, only some of the biggest offenders to send a message to the rest to clean up their act. These days it is possible to reduce pollution at source if you but invest in it. How about a little state help with cheap loans, or whatever, for companies that invest in polluting-reducing systems - on the other hand people that refuse to upgrade could be restricted in what loans they can get when on what terms, maybe with higher interest rates. There are many things that could be done. It's not a question of polluting massive amounts of crap all the time or shut down - there is a way in between.
But if China puts off such change to save money, it will have to pay a lot, lot more in the future to clear up the mess. Then the economy may falter because the environment is under so much pressure.
Some pain now to offset serious, unavoidable future problems - that's a no-brainer to anyone with a brain.
So the poor kids in China can either have their beloved river run yellow, or starve, and I honestly don't believe that you have the right or the IQ to throw such a blanket statement at such a complex issue. Then again, this is so typical of your ignorant-ness.
Typical apologist over-exaggeration. No one has to starve, or are you saying China's economy is based on mass pollution? Besides I would say those poor kids would prefer to have a healthy future free of cancer and other afflictions caused by pollution for them
and their children by taking a risk there might not be quite as much work in the future. At least they wouldn't be condemning future generations to a ghastly life.
What would you prefer - potentially being hungry or potential dying a slow, painful death with no medical care to make it more tolerable? Oh, wait, you don't live in the countryside where they have all those problems so you wouldn't care, would you?