Seems responsibility for the preservation of the environmentally vital Tibetan grasslands is in the hands, not of the communist Chinese regime (which has countenanced widespread ecological destruction across Tibet, with once verdant forested areas now resembling a lunar landscape, and financed and sanctioned uranium mining, which has generated considerable radioactive contamination (polluting rivers and lakes) but with the lifestyle of Tibet’s nomads, whose flocks we are asked to believe are dangerously impacting upon the ecologically sensitive grasslands. Sounds almost plausible, until we recall that this claim, which originated from China’s Ministry of Propaganda, masks China’s economic and political objectives. To forcibly remove Tibet’s nomads from areas rich in minerals and fossils fuels, and at the same time erode a central element of Tibetan culture by destroying an ancient tradition and a sustainable way-of-life. The grasslands of Tibet are not being fenced to protect against overgrazing, but to enforce political control and stake territorial claims and ownership over extremely rich territories, that the communist Chinese regime is keen to exploit, with the same environmental disregard as operates in China itself.
Such facts however are not recognized by some environmentalists, who appear willing to swallow China’s propaganda, to do so of course ensures lucrative academic opportunities within China. Convinced by such deception some have become enthusiastic advocates of such distortions. Take for example Mark Notaras, an Australian writer for the United Nations University Media Studio and a researcher for the UNU’s Institute for Sustainability and Peace. Mr Notaras’ views appear on a slick looking web site http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/high-and-dry/ on ecological issues on Tibet’s plateau, all very professional yet troublingly similar in its message to official Chinese propaganda, transferring responsibility for contributing to Tibet’s retreating glaciers to the nomadic lifestyle of Tibetans and their grazing yaks and sheep. He even includes a highly selective and somewhat misleading image of a nomad camp with bare ground and sheep, seeking to confirm the lies of his communist Chinese friends. There are only 6 million Tibetans in a country larger than India, a percentage of them are urban dwellers, while Tibet’s traditional nomadism has operated sustainably for centuries. The impact upon the environment is negligible, and hardly conforms to the slanted image he has chosen for his website.
Such claims are course not only open to debate, but conceal communist China’s more political and commercial objectives with a cloak of ecological respectibility. Curious how the environmental movement in general appears to soft-peddle on China’s appalling environmental record, in this case avoiding what are in all probability far more influential and significant factors that contribute to glacial melting. China’s odious actions however do not appear to concern Mr.Notaras, who perhaps considers human rights and the protection of this ancient Tibetan culture, of minor importance in comparison to climatic and environmental changes?