The other oil spill

A firefighter drowns while trying to clean up a spill -- this one in Dalian, China.

While the efforts in the Gulf of Mexico to stem the flow of oil are dominating the world's headlines, another major oil spill is happening off the busy port of Dalian, in China.

China's largest-ever reported oil spill began a week ago when a pipeline operated by the China National Petroleum Company exploded. Details of the incident have predictably been few and far between, but it is thought that the explosion was caused by an injection of desulpheriser into the pipeline after a tanker had finished unloading. The pipeline has since been repaired and has started operating again.

Again, details of quite how much oil was released are not precise, but China Central Television has reported today that an estimated 1,500 tonnes of oil has been spilled, or roughly 400,000 gallons (compared with the 94 million thought to have escaped so far into the Gulf of Mexico).

Officials have warned of a "severe threat" to the coastline and sealife. A clean-up operation has begun, but has been marred by the death of Zhang Liang (above, left), a firefighter who drowned in the oil.

The Associated Press reports that clean-up workers have been using "chopsticks and their bare hands" to remove the oil from beaches. Meanwhile, the agency also reports that state media said 2,000 soldiers, 40 oil-skimming boats and hundreds of fishing boats were helping with the cleanup.

Worse, Greenpeace is reporting that beaches have not been closed and that children are playing in the oil. A spokesperson for Greenpeace China said:

Greenpeace was . . . surprised to see that the beaches have not been closed to visitors and lack any warning signs. As a result, locals and visitors unaware of the extent of the oil spill were playing in the water with their kids, risking exposure to petroleum.

Although the scale of the Gulf spill is so much greater, it is being tackled with professional equipment and armies of volunteers. The response to the Dalian spill suffers from poor co-ordination and equipment, and suggests that the recovery for the fishing and tourism industries in the area is likely to be just as arduous as for the people of Louisiana.

Caroline Crampton is assistant editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.