The Yangtze’s initial recovery is testimony to China’s “immense” ability to concentrate state resources on environmental problems, says Wang Limin, a veteran Chinese conservationist. He is encouraged most by the rise in the finless porpoise population because, as an “indicator species” and top predator, the porpoise is a sensitive barometer of the health of the overall ecosystem. It is also cute enough to attract lots of public attention. Mr Wang hopes the tale of the Yangtze’s decline and rebound will make the Chinese people more environmentally aware. Even so, the human cost of the Yangtze’s recovery has been substantial. Some 230,000 fishermen lost their jobs and their boats, which were destroyed or confiscated. According to China’s state-run media, they were given compensation, were retrained and in some cases found new jobs that were better paid than their old ones. But a visit to former fishing communities paints a different picture.

Jinxian county is on the banks of Junshan lake, south of the Yangtze’s main channel. Locals reckon that only one in five fishermen got compensation for the loss of their livelihood, and even that was far less than they used to earn. Most had to leave to work as migrant labourers in big cities. “No one listens to the common people. The government decided everything. You can’t argue with them,” says one bitter former fisherwoman who now runs a restaurant. A propaganda sign nearby offers cold comfort: “Ban fishing together; move forward together.” At a village down the road Mr Zhang, shirtless in the stifling heat, points to the dock where his boat used to moor, now overgrown with weeds. He once enjoyed the best fishing on the lake, he sighs. Encouraged by the government, he has raised swamp eels, a local delicacy, in ponds since the ban. But unlike fishing, aquaculture requires big investments that can go sour if demand slumps. “Everyone’s losing money this year,” he says.

So “at what cost” is they found two bitter uncles, one who transitioned to running a successful restaurant and the other who transitioned into running a successful aquaculture business with the help from the government

It’s also a way to obfuscate and prepare people for the west’s oncoming eco-Fascism.

Excerpt from the article itself

THE MIGHTY Yangtze, running 6,300km from the Tibetan plateau to Shanghai, is sometimes known as China’s “mother river”. Yet it was not always treated with much respect. Sewage and industrial waste were poured into its waters. Millions of tonnes of fish were dragged out. Mega-dams clogged up its channels. It was all too much for some of the Yangtze’s most wondrous inhabitants. The baiji, a white-bellied, nearly sightless dolphin, is probably extinct; so is the gigantic, sword-nosed paddlefish. But not all the damage is permanent. Asia’s longest river is now making a remarkable comeback.

Sweeping protection measures in place since 2021 seem to be aiding a recovery. Fish biomass (the estimated total weight of all the fish in the river) has risen by over 200% since then, after seven decades of decline, according to a study released in February by researchers in China, Canada, America and France. In April other scientists witnessed a rare type of sturgeon breeding in the wild for the first time in two decades. Another study published in July found that a significantly greater proportion of fish in the river were reaching sexual maturity, good news for the prospects of the next generation. The latest government figures, meanwhile, say over 1,400 finless porpoises—a chubby, snub-nosed relative of the baiji that locals call a “river pig”—now live in the river’s basin, up from a low of 1,000 in 2017.

BUT AT WHAT COST

unlimited piss on the economist

I hate The Economist more than any other publication

“Once famous for pillaging from the natural world”??? What level of projection is this? Coming from the mouthpiece of the British empire that deforested every habitable continent, directly caused the extinction of countless species, and strip mined all of its colonies.

Ecologically responsible destruction is actually eco-terrorism
Ecologically responsible construction is actually eco-authoritarianism
Marx failed to consider that the slightest bit of mercy for the biosphere imperils our democracy

You WILL protect the environment.

You’re telling me what to do! That’s authoritarianism!

there it is… been waiting for this to come. They’re doing good things for the environment, BUT AT WHAT COST?

In the 90s and early 00s western politics often used “watermelons” in a similar manner, green on the outside but red on the inside. I never came across eco-authoritarian back then, but the same concept was being used to disparage any regulation for the sake of ecology or climate. It was a slippery slope to eroding of liberty.

Globalize climate Stalinism Xiism

Reassemble the letters of “authoritarian” and you get “butatwhatcost”.

the last time “eco-authoritarian” crossed my attention was when i read on d peter theil. It talked about that lord of the rings remake by that russian neo-nazi who cast mordor as enlightened industrialists fighting an “oppressive” shire. oppressive because they were environmentalists.

Removed by mod