Why can unreliable pollution treatment technologies become so popular?

Thread Content

This post was last edited by slll611 on 2016-9-28 at 22:10. Many unreliable pollution control technologies share several common traits: they are mostly found in niche industries or small enterprises, and they claim to offer strong pollution control effects under the guise of new processes and technologies. So, why have these pseudo-technologies become so popular? A chemical manufacturing company was recently investigated for exceeding permissible levels of pollutant emissions; the company felt both aggrieved and helpless about this. Last year, the company spent nearly one million yuan on installing a new set of exhaust gas treatment facilities. It is said that this facility can directly react the waste gases such as nitrogen oxides generated in the workshop with the ammonia gas produced by the ammonia stripping tower in the wastewater treatment plant, to produce nitrogen and water without any by-products. Yet, even with such seemingly miraculous technical equipment, problems such as difficult control of reaction conditions, intentional neglect of by-products, and difficulty in achieving required emission standards have caused great hardship for enterprises. Coincidentally. Another company that was penalized for exceeding pollution limits experienced a similar situation. The so-called “nanocatalysis” technology purchased at high prices by companies only maintained its effectiveness for a few months after use. At first, the monitoring data did meet the standards, but over time the performance declined sharply. When companies questioned the reliability of this technology, the environmental protection company shifted the blame to poor management of the operators. Subsequent testing and analysis by a specialized laboratory at a university revealed that this technology actually merely involves packaging activated carbon mixtures as nanomaterials for use in treating exhaust gases. In fact, the experiences of these two companies are not uncommon these days. Upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that these unreliable technologies share several common features: they are mostly found in niche industries or companies, and they claim to offer strong pollution control effects under the guise of new processes and technologies. So, why have these pseudo-technologies become so popular? The author believes that the main reasons are as follows: first, there is a lack of management systems and insufficient supervision. Those who provide pollution control technologies and engage in fraud should bear the legal consequences for the environmental pollution and ecological damage they cause, but currently there are no relevant laws and regulations in place. Even some environmental regulators believe that it is sufficient to manage the enterprises that discharge pollutants well, and any problems arising in the enterprises responsible for pollution control should be addressed by those enterprises themselves in accordance with the contracts in place. Due to the technical disparity between polluters and pollution treatment firms, few of these treatment companies are held legally accountable for insufficient technical capabilities; as a result, the responsibility for environmental violations falls mainly on the polluting enterprises, while the treatment companies end up reaping profits with no risks. Secondly, in order to meet environmental regulations, pollution-emitting enterprises, consciously or unconsciously, become contributors to the emergence of these fake technologies. Most small businesses know very little about the pollution control technologies suitable for them. As long as a company claims to have a technology that can solve the problem, it is regarded as a treasure. Waste-discharging enterprises rely mainly on short-term monitoring data to assess the effectiveness of treatment, and it is not difficult for professional waste-treatment companies to meet the required standards. There are also some polluting enterprises that, in order to start operations as soon as possible, resort to unreliable technologies out of desperation. As long as one can pass this current challenge, no one cares about the long-term effects. What’s more, some unscrupulous environmental companies even teach polluting enterprises tricks to pass inspections, which allows such fake technologies to find their use. Third, local environmental protection agencies lack the ability to identify fake technologies. Since many small businesses are not the focus of monitoring, the frequency of routine inspections and surveillance is already low. Especially in the developed areas in the east, due to the large number of enterprises and limited staffing in local environmental protection departments, the number of inspections per year is limited. And the number of times comprehensive monitoring is carried out is even fewer. At the same time, the monitoring capabilities of local environmental protection agencies are limited; especially for certain exhaust pollutants, many areas lack the necessary facilities for monitoring. On-site inspections rely mainly on visual inspection; as long as there is no black or yellow smoke, no problems are suspected. These seemingly advanced pollution control facilities have turned into channels for illegal discharges. And even if excessive levels of pollutants are detected, it is generally attributed to inadequate operational management by the company, rather than the pollution control technologies themselves. Companies, out of guilt or ignorance, do not question the technology either. This allows unreliable pollution control technologies to move freely between enterprises and regulatory authorities. Fourth, niche industries receive little attention from the market and have limited investment in research and development, which provides a foothold for these fake pollution-control technologies. Currently, capable research institutions and environmental protection companies are focusing on pollution control in major industries such as steel, power, cement, and papermaking, as investing in this area yields significant returns. Moreover, the market for pollution control in niche industries is limited, yet the difficulty of carrying out such control is not necessarily low. Technologies developed at considerable cost have a very limited scope of application, and the investment does not yield proportional returns, which inevitably undermines enthusiasm for technological research and development. The consequence is a balance of gains and losses, with the market being occupied by environmental companies that lack technical capabilities, creating a vicious cycle. Due to the high concealment of these unreliable technologies, it is very difficult to carry out environmental supervision, and large amounts of pollutants are illegally discharged under the cover of so-called high technology. So, how can these technologies be effectively regulated to reduce the possibility of illegal discharge of pollutants? The author believes that action should be taken in the following areas: First, improve the regulatory system and step up enforcement efforts. Management systems should be established for enterprises engaged in pollution control, specifying the legal consequences they must face. In particular, for acts that cause environmental pollution and ecological damage, such enterprises must not only bear financial compensation responsibilities but also face legal accountability. Establish a credit system for pollution-control enterprises, place unqualified companies on a blacklist, expose acts of dishonesty, and prevent them from accessing the market altogether. Furthermore, any instances of polluting enterprises and those responsible for pollution control colluding with each other, using so-called high technology as a cover to deliberately discharge pollutants illegally, must be severely punished whenever they are detected, so that both parties pay a heavy price and the situation in which interested parties team up to undermine environmental regulations is reversed. Second, strengthen surprise inspection monitoring to improve the ability to identify issues. The current situation of insufficient capacity in local environmental protection agencies is unlikely to change in the short term, but this should not lead to a relaxation of regulatory efforts. Especially regarding the so-called new technologies for pollution control, one should not rely solely on reports and documents, nor believe uncritically in the figures presented in promotional materials; instead, it is necessary to ask more questions and pay close attention to these aspects during routine supervision. It’s not enough to be done just after passing the inspection; at least one or two surprise inspections and comprehensive monitoring efforts should be carried out after that. Only by understanding the actual operating conditions can one be informed and avoid being deceived. Third, increase funding and strengthen technical guidance. Environmental protection agencies are inherently responsible for serving businesses; therefore, while focusing on pollution control in large enterprises and major industries, they should also pay attention to the advancements in pollution control technologies for niche industries. Appropriate financial support should be provided to research and development organizations that have the capability and willingness to do so, to encourage them to explore niche markets. At the same time, truly representative and effective pollution control technologies should be introduced through industry demonstration projects and other means, with increased publicity efforts to encourage similar enterprises to learn from them. In short, supervision of unreliable pollution control technologies should receive attention at all levels; this is crucial for effectively reducing pollutant emissions and also helps to promote the healthy development of the environmental protection industry.