The National People's Congress Law Committee has stated that "a comprehensive ban on fireworks and firecrackers is not legal, and local regulations need to be amended." How do you view this matter?

Hong Kong’s Victoria Harbour

The fireworks released in one day are enough for a province to use for more than a month.

Disney and various theme parks

There are fireworks shows every day

Are these places concessions, perhaps?

---

Why has everyone come to party here…

Look at my list of answers, search for Israel and Ukraine, then decide whether or not to give me a thumbs up.

Don’t mistake someone else for me, that would be quite embarrassing.

Environmental Policies and Social Norms

Calling a one-size-fits-all approach to environmental issues lazy, foolish, and overbearing is a stance put forth by the People’s Daily.

Moreover, why are scenic areas and entertainment venues legally allowed to set off fireworks and charge admission fees?

I personally believe that the law should not ignore social norms, especially those that have been established and deeply rooted in society for thousands of years.

In fact, many places have this phenomenon - prohibiting the setting off of fireworks and firecrackers. When local police enforce it strictly, the implementation of the law is better; when enforcement is lax, the effectiveness is much worse.

This is also why administrative departments emphasize it repeatedly every year because they know that if it’s not emphasized, everyone will act as if there is no such ban!

Clearly, while the degree of enforcement plays an important role in the implementation of the law, the natural foundation of legal authority - the degree of public approval of this law, ultimately determines the extent to which the public obeys the law.

Law and social norms are complementary. And social norms are determined by the moral and value judgments of the masses.

For example, why is there less opposition to “No Spitting” compared to “Ban on Fireworks and Firecrackers”? It’s because, even without legal provisions, spitting in a densely populated area will earn you the disdain of many people around you. Before the law was announced, there was already a social norm of “do not spit anywhere.” And this norm is determined by the common moral standards of everyone’s hearts.

Even if someone just glares at you, if you are a normal, rational person, you will feel the psychological pressure, even if you act nonchalant, but deep down, you will be aware of why you are being glared at. Therefore, for “No Spitting,” the law and social norms are consistent, and both are complementary in the enforcement of rules. In such cases, when the law is supported by social norms, its enforcement is naturally more effective.

However, banning fireworks and firecrackers is different! No one feels that setting off fireworks during the festive season is wrong; on the contrary, if someone doesn’t, others might even wonder if something unfortunate happened to their family!

In the minds of most Chinese people, setting off fireworks and firecrackers signifies “bidding farewell to the old and ushering in the new” and is an important symbol of “celebrating the New Year with lively festivities.” In many people’s consciousness, there is a notion that “it can’t be considered New Year’s without setting off firecrackers.” Many people, seeing others “breaking the rules” to set off firecrackers and fireworks, not only do not despise them but also feel happy and enjoy the spectacle, which implicitly reduces the deterrent effect of enforcement. Even, punishing those who break the rules may be seen as making a mountain out of a molehill by many!

When there is inconsistency between the law and social habits, the effectiveness of law enforcement is not very good. At least, public judgment is not favorable!

I can almost recite this situation by heart

Next step

XX: “Never said to completely ban the setting off of fireworks and firecrackers, it’s the residents themselves who don’t want to set them off”

Allowing Fireworks During the Spring Festival

Fireworks and firecrackers should be allowed during the Spring Festival, at least within a fixed time frame. This not only aligns with the public’s desire for fireworks during the Chinese New Year but also upholds our five-thousand-year-old tradition. It also makes it easier for relevant authorities to manage the activity within a specific time period. Allowing some freedom in this regard is not a bad idea; it’s about accommodating public sentiment.

Most of the regulations on fireworks and firecrackers are driven by environmental concerns. Indeed, the large amount of pollutants produced during fireworks can exacerbate haze problems within a certain range, impacting the environment and human health. However, the extent of this impact needs a comprehensive evaluation. After all, our ancestors used fireworks for centuries without causing environmental degradation. Why is it suddenly a pollution issue now? There are many pollution-causing industries that need regulation, yet fireworks are being singled out. Isn’t this a bit excessive? In addition to environmental factors, a small part of the concern stems from the potential for personal injury and property damage due to fireworks. After every previous Spring Festival, hospitals would see cases of injuries caused by fireworks.

But without comprehensive research, it’s impractical to completely ban fireworks across the board based solely on factors like environmental pollution or fire hazards. In essence, this is a shortcut and reflects a lack of responsible attitude. Whether it’s about laziness or cost-cutting measures, it doesn’t consider the public’s desire for the festive atmosphere and the sound of firecrackers bidding farewell to the old year.

So, after a year of hard work, it’s unnecessary for people to be anxious about setting off fireworks and worry about getting caught and penalized. We genuinely miss the Spring Festival of the 1980s when, at the stroke of midnight on New Year’s Eve, the sound of firecrackers echoed through every household, creating a wonderful feeling.

Global warming and air pollution are ironically being tackled by forbidding us from setting off fireworks. It’s a colossal joke. Factories release more pollutants in a day than the fireworks we set off in a year. Cutting off our people’s rightful rights in one fell swoop, and blindly pursuing the facade of a civilized city, we have lost the soul of a civilized city. What’s the point?

Where Is the Illegality?

The 82nd article, paragraph 2, of the “People’s Republic of China Law on the Prevention and Control of Atmospheric Pollution” states: “It is forbidden to produce, sell, and ignite fireworks and firecrackers that do not meet quality standards. No unit or individual shall ignite fireworks and firecrackers in the time periods and areas prohibited by the city’s people’s government.” Article 28 of the State Council’s “Regulations on the Safety Management of Fireworks and Firecrackers” stipulates: “Local people’s governments at or above the county level may, according to the actual situation of their administrative regions, determine the time, place, and types of fireworks and firecrackers that are restricted or prohibited.”

During the record review, the Law Committee of the National People’s Congress believed:

The Law on the Prevention and Control of Atmospheric Pollution, the State Council’s Regulations on the Safety Management of Fireworks and Firecrackers, and other laws and regulations do not comprehensively prohibit the sale and ignition of fireworks and firecrackers that meet quality standards. They also authorize local people’s governments at or above the county level to set restrictions or prohibitions on the time, place, and types of fireworks and firecrackers that can be ignited. The provisions of local regulations that comprehensively prohibit the sale and ignition of fireworks and firecrackers are inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Atmospheric Pollution and the Regulations on the Safety Management of Fireworks and Firecrackers. There are differences in understanding and practical difficulties in enforcing comprehensive bans on sales and ignition. Therefore, they should be modified in accordance with the spirit of the higher-level laws and regulations.

This reflects two main points:

1. Local regulations that comprehensively ban the sale and ignition of fireworks and firecrackers violate higher-level laws because the higher-level laws allow local governments to restrict ignition times, locations, and types, without a complete prohibition.

2. The issue of comprehensive bans on sales and ignition has significant legislative differences, and there are varying opinions on this matter. Therefore, there won’t be changes at the higher-level law for now.

So, how might local legislation change in the future?

I personally think it may be relaxed within limited time frames, like during New Year’s Eve, Spring Festival, Qingming Festival, etc. It’s unlikely that local governments will completely lift the ban, considering the environmental pressure.

How Far Are We from Pollution-Free Fireworks?

There has always been a thought: Why not develop pollution-free fireworks to address pollution concerns?

Some friends have told me that it’s costly, and ordinary people can’t afford them. However, the issue is that Chinese people have been setting off fireworks for thousands of years. Can we suddenly ban them?

Pollution is everywhere. Shouldn’t we be thinking about how to prevent pollution caused by fireworks and firecrackers rather than banning them altogether? After all, we haven’t heard about pollution problems caused by fireworks and firecrackers in the distant past…

Legal Framework of Fireworks Regulations in China

Article 82, paragraph 2, of the “People’s Republic of China Law on the Prevention and Control of Atmospheric Pollution” states: “It is forbidden to produce, sell, and ignite fireworks and firecrackers that do not meet quality standards. No unit or individual shall ignite fireworks and firecrackers in the time periods and areas prohibited by the city’s people’s government.”

Article 28 of the State Council’s “Regulations on the Safety Management of Fireworks and Firecrackers” stipulates: “Local people’s governments at or above the county level may, according to the actual situation of their administrative regions, determine the time, place, and types of fireworks and firecrackers that are restricted or prohibited.”

In recent years, many regions have imposed restrictions and bans on fireworks and firecrackers, expanding from specific areas and timeframes to entire urban areas and even nearby rural areas, as well as prohibiting the sale of fireworks and firecrackers in areas where they are completely banned. The legal basis for such actions lies in the provisions of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Atmospheric Pollution and the Regulations on the Safety Management of Fireworks and Firecrackers, which authorize local governments to determine restrictions or prohibitions on the time and place of fireworks and firecracker ignition.

However, during the review of regulations by the Law Committee of the National People’s Congress, it was clarified that existing laws and administrative regulations do not comprehensively prohibit the sale and ignition of fireworks and firecrackers that meet quality standards. Moreover, local regulations that comprehensively ban the sale and ignition of fireworks and firecrackers are inconsistent with the provisions of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Atmospheric Pollution and the Regulations on the Safety Management of Fireworks and Firecrackers, which allow local authorities to “determine restrictions or prohibitions on the time, place, and types of fireworks and firecrackers.” In other words, the higher-level laws only authorize local governments to partially restrict or prohibit fireworks and firecrackers in certain areas or during specific time periods, rather than imposing a complete ban in all areas and at all times.

However, there is still some lack of clarity in the information disclosed by the Law Committee of the National People’s Congress. Does this mean that the practice of completely banning fireworks and firecrackers in all areas and at all times within a city, county, or district’s administrative region (i.e., a comprehensive ban on fireworks and firecrackers in both urban and rural areas) does not comply with higher-level laws? Or does it mean that regulations at the city level that completely ban fireworks and firecrackers in urban areas (while allowing them in rural areas) also do not comply with higher-level laws? If it is the former, then most local regulations or government orders that prohibit fireworks and firecrackers in urban areas of a city are in accordance with the spirit of higher-level laws and do not require modification. Nationally, only a very small number of local regulations or orders implement a comprehensive ban on fireworks and firecrackers in all areas and counties within a city. However, if it is the latter, then many local regulations, government orders, and government regulations across the country that prohibit fireworks and firecrackers in urban areas will need to be modified. Regulations prohibiting the sale of fireworks and firecrackers in urban areas will also require revision. Of course, even if the latter interpretation is correct, local regulations or government regulations on the prohibition or restriction of fireworks and firecrackers in urban areas are unlikely to be completely lifted and may be relaxed only during holidays such as the Spring Festival and Qingming.

Rural Fireworks Ban and Resistance

Some places even forbid fireworks in rural areas!

Last year, when we set off fireworks, we were surrounded by several cars. Although we weren’t fined, it was because we were all heavily intoxicated and refused to admit guilt. They didn’t dare to confront us forcefully in the village.

Afterward, I checked the local regulations and found that there were only some regulations at the city level, with no specific requirements for rural areas. Surprisingly, they even came to the villages to inspect.

So, we started to “resist.”

We purchased a large number of “firearms,”

Engaged in guerrilla warfare in the village,

With the support of the villagers, we organized ourselves and lit fireworks everywhere, darting through various alleyways. If they couldn’t catch us, we would simply enter someone’s house (with the people’s support). We played games that kept them running in circles, and at night, we even set off firecrackers in the fields. They could only flash their car lights in the village, but they dared not leave.

Those official vehicles were like the foreign invaders in the sparrow warfare!

The consequences were severe. During those days, there were patrols of four or five cars in the village every day. In addition to whatever bureau they were from, there were also police cars. They honked and made announcements all over the streets, making the whole village too scared to set off firecrackers. The atmosphere was tense, and the entire village was quiet during the Lunar New Year. The streets were deserted, and we felt very guilty.

The Lunar New Year is approaching again this year,

We’re not planning to engage in guerrilla warfare,

We’re going to confront them head-on,

If they want to fine us, show us the relevant documents!

Don’t use trivial matters to intimidate us, farmers know how to stand up for their rights!

---

I just realized that many comments have been deleted, including many of my own replies. I’ll provide a unified response here.

First, our “resistance” began after we checked the relevant regulations and found that our county had not issued any documents regarding fireworks. Even at the city level, there were only regulations for the urban areas, so the town officials coming to the village to inspect fireworks was not based on any clear legal basis.

Second, we are not troublemakers. That night, there were six of us directly involved in setting off fireworks: one graduate student, three undergraduates, and two junior college graduates. Yes, none of us had any criminal records, and we were all law-abiding citizens. So, why would educated individuals like us be unwilling to comply, while the young villagers dared not move? I don’t think the problem lies with us.

Third, while law enforcement officers may have low salaries and were working overtime during the Lunar New Year, their difficult circumstances do not justify them arbitrarily infringing on our rights. The law should be followed unless explicitly prohibited; this is a universal principle.

Fourth, the entire village supported our resistance, even though they were ultimately oppressed and felt oppressed. But they cheered us on, and while we felt guilty, we couldn’t find any areas for self-reflection.

Fifth, law enforcement officers in your eyes may be traffic police officers diligently working at intersections or police officers bravely upholding justice in the face of danger. However, in rural areas, most of the people coming in are those who enjoy free meals and drinks, those from the newly established “Agricultural Management” department, the ones who enter the village to catch chickens, ducks, and geese. In our area, they don’t go as far as catching poultry, but what they do is not well-received in the village. For example, indiscriminate tree cutting throughout the entire village and bans on raising livestock and poultry. These regulations were made without any apparent reason, and we have no idea who the so-called experts behind them were. So, while I love my country and respect law enforcement, I have no positive feelings for this department.

Effectiveness and Controversies of Fireworks Ban

The ban on fireworks and firecrackers has proven effective in environmental pollution control and reducing fire hazards. However, it’s an undeniable fact that it has also led to a fading festive atmosphere.

Phrases like “the sound of firecrackers ushering in the New Year” and “I was in a daze, faintly hearing the continuous sound of firecrackers in the distance, as if it were the culmination of a day’s symphony, accompanied by dancing snowflakes, embracing the entire city” may become increasingly rare.

The “one-size-fits-all” policy has achieved quick results but lacks the process of soliciting public opinion. It can only rely on the assumption that decision-makers are always wise.

As the People’s Daily once pointed out, the real-world “one-size-fits-all” approach is often closely related to decisions made without proper research, detached from reality, and even accused of bureaucratic laziness.

Fine-tuned social governance is the trend, and for activities like fireworks, which have cultural significance, specifying the time and location for ignition, and even limiting purchases and quantities, would undoubtedly yield better results. Punishments should be imposed for non-compliance with these regulations.

The recent statement from the National People’s Congress Law Committee suggests that a comprehensive ban on fireworks and firecrackers goes against the spirit of higher-level laws. Generally, laws have a significant impact on citizens' rights and obligations, making the legislative process rigorous and the content meticulous.

Beneath the law, there are administrative regulations, local regulations, departmental rules, and more, all of which have weaker legal force than the law itself. According to the spirit of the Legislation Law, they can only further refine within the limits prescribed by the law but cannot exceed its provisions.

As a result, the higher-level laws, such as the Law on the Prevention and Control of Atmospheric Pollution and the State Council’s Regulations on the Safety Management of Fireworks and Firecrackers, do not comprehensively prohibit the sale and ignition of fireworks and firecrackers that meet quality standards. They also empower local governments at or above the county level to determine the time and area for restricting or prohibiting the ignition of fireworks and firecrackers. Therefore, a direct comprehensive ban on ignition by county governments contradicts the spirit of higher-level laws and should be modified!

The Role of Fireworks in Traditional Customs and Legal Oversight

Fireworks and firecrackers play a significant role in traditional customs, especially during the Spring Festival. Igniting fireworks and firecrackers carries the hopes and aspirations of many for a prosperous New Year and a vibrant life. It is not just a folk activity; its symbolic significance surpasses its mere expression.

Many places have imposed varying degrees of restrictions on the ignition of fireworks and firecrackers through local regulations, and some have even outright banned them.

There are two primary considerations behind these actions. Firstly, the ignition of fireworks and firecrackers can cause pollution, including air quality and debris after ignition. Secondly, there is a certain level of safety risk associated with fireworks, and local authorities are accountable for the safety of people’s lives and property.

While the safety of people’s lives and property and a livable living environment are undoubtedly important, the desires and requests of the people to preserve and embrace traditional culture and customs also deserve attention.

The statement from the National People’s Congress Law Committee signifies a legal standpoint that challenges the complete bans on fireworks and firecrackers in some regions.

The National People’s Congress has the authority to review and supervise local regulations. The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress has the power to repeal administrative regulations, decisions, and orders that contradict the Constitution and laws, repeal local regulations and resolutions that contradict the Constitution, laws, and administrative regulations, and repeal autonomous regulations and single-line regulations approved by provincial, autonomous regional, and municipal people’s congresses that violate the Constitution and the Legislative Law’s provisions on legislative authority.

While the National People’s Congress has the power to repeal local regulations, and the national standpoint seems to favor preserving traditional customs and traditions, it is essential for relevant authorities to consider further adjustments to the incentive and penalty systems to encourage and support these cultural practices.

Encouraging and guiding simple, virtuous, and diverse folk customs is not solely determined by a single set of laws and regulations. Local governance is a systemic effort, a multifaceted and multi-level system of evaluation. To achieve specific goals, it often requires coordination with other aspects of governance.

The economy this year is really struggling. Even as the year-end approaches, there’s still a need for fireworks and firecrackers to stimulate it.

Fireworks and firecrackers also require a lot of consumption. This year, no one seems willing to spend on them. It remains to be seen whether lifting the restrictions will ignite people’s enthusiasm and lead to increased spending in this area, thereby boosting the economy. This is also a part of the industry chain.

In the past, there were slogans everywhere advocating a complete ban on fireworks and firecrackers, with fines and detentions for violations. This year, there’s been a deliberate announcement that they can be used again. Is this not for the sake of economic development? The only question is how effective it will be.

Zhihu truly is the cradle of economists. Disregarding customs and public sentiment is one thing, but now they’re associating fireworks displays with boosting the national economy? This little bit of money will only give a slight boost to the economy of Liuyang City. I would call this the second economic earthquake after the State Administration of Taxation deliberately wiped out billions of yuan in A-share market value just to make a few hundred thousand yuan through insider trading.

You have to look at it from a positive perspective too; it makes sense in a way. Even with missing limbs, hospitals can increase their revenue, and when buildings burn down and get rebuilt, it contributes to GDP growth. Let them coexist.

Let’s wait for Zhihu to start criticizing environmental protection and fire safety after the New Year.

Is it still necessary to celebrate this year? There’s no holiday for New Year’s Eve, and the festive atmosphere gets thinner with each passing year. Fireworks and firecrackers can’t be set off, so it’s fine not to celebrate the New Year.

The Mysterious Changes in Fireworks and Barbecue Regulations in China

This incident isn’t too distant in the past, but many people’s memories have become confused in the haze of mist more magical than the smoke from fireworks and firecrackers.

First of all, it’s clear that fireworks and firecrackers do produce air pollution, emitting smoke.

However, it’s also clear that the severity of the air pollution caused by fireworks and firecrackers is a matter that shouldn’t ignore the dosage and toxicity.

Because alongside fireworks and firecrackers, another culprit is home cooking.

In response to Beijing’s air quality issues in 2013, the Director of the Beijing Municipal Office of Foreign Affairs stated:

Chinese people’s cooking also contributes to PM2.5 pollution, so we hope that citizens can cooperate better with the government in cleaning up the air.

Isn’t that surprising?

But this is just the spoken word.

There were also concrete policies.

For instance, from 2013 to 2014, something that deeply affected me, a Chengdu resident, was the ban on barbecues.

Zhengzhou issued regulations, with fines of up to 20,000 yuan for unauthorized outdoor barbecues.

Shenyang introduced rules, not only stopping outdoor barbecues for profit-oriented establishments like restaurants but also strictly cracking down on non-profit-oriented outdoor barbecues. This meant that even a few friends cooking outdoors or grilling skewers downstairs in their own buildings would face severe penalties.

Jinan took it a step further. Not only did they address outdoor barbecues, but also indoor barbecues without oil fume purification devices were confiscated as well.

You might wonder how far they took it back then.

The People’s Daily even pointed out a bit of the situation for workers and laborers, specifically highlighting the news.

Beijing said that there would be no upper limit on penalties for outdoor barbecues.

I repeat, no upper limit on penalties.

To achieve this, relevant departments utilized 17,000 video surveillance cameras and guard booths, achieving comprehensive enforcement both online and offline.

As a result, many people who relied on barbecue stalls to support their families were left bewildered.

What could they do?

Life still had to go on.

They allowed a workaround by letting these barbecue stalls “affiliate” with restaurants. By connecting the barbecue stalls to the ventilation ducts of the restaurant, they could continue operating, but of course, the operating costs significantly increased.

The entire street of Handkerchief Mouth Barbecue went under.

So, People’s Daily questioned why they weren’t dealing with major factories' emissions, the dust-producing real estate sector, or open burning at landfill sites. They couldn’t understand why they suddenly targeted small-time barbecue vendors, claiming that they contributed 13% to PM2.5 pollution.

They could have asked us to use cleaner coal or switch to gas grilling, but instead, they imposed a blanket ban.

Traditional techniques had been repeated many times and were no longer novel.

The novelty was in why there was a sudden push to regulate barbecues in 2013.

Was it because of new regulations or policies?

No.

The issue of barbecue smoke pollution had already been addressed in the “Air Pollution Prevention and Control Law,” the “Food Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China,” and the “Emission Standards for Oil Smoke from the Catering Industry.” Especially in the “Air Pollution Prevention and Control Law,” barbecue had been mentioned in the second amendment in 2000.

Beijing even introduced the “Beijing Municipality Provisions on Banning Outdoor Barbecuing of Food” in 2000, which explicitly prohibited outdoor barbecue of food in urban areas and towns near the city in Beijing.

Every few years, there was a reiteration, but it was never strictly enforced. It was nothing new.

Did a sudden technological breakthrough or industrial upgrade lead to a significant increase in emissions, necessitating the ban on both barbecues and fireworks?

Not really.

The most significant reason was the release of data and foreign interference.

If you remember, it was the year when terms like smog, PM2.5, and PM10 first dominated the mainstream narrative, even before the special three-year period.

Before the special three years, there was already a surge in the popularity of masks.

As China Youth Daily stated:

In early 2013, Beijing, Hebei, and other areas experienced severe smog; after entering October of that year, extensive smog pollution spread to cities such as Harbin, Suzhou, Shanghai, and even Sanya, with no exceptions from Northeast to South China.

Even the CCTV news program began to report daily, and people realized that the air was not suitable for breathing.

But foreign forces had already started provoking since before 2013.

In 2012, the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Environmental Protection stated:

Some foreign embassies and consulates in China independently conduct air quality monitoring and publish air quality information on the Internet, which not only violates the spirit of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations but also violates relevant environmental protection regulations.

The worst among them was undoubtedly the U.S. Embassy, which published PM2.5 concentration values every hour.

In 2009, we had already refuted the situation, which showed a significant difference between the air quality measured by the U.S. Embassy and the data released by the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau. The main issue was the conversion standards and differences in monitoring points. They said it was hazardous, and we said it was moderate pollution.

This discrepancy was amplified by mobile internet.

On January 1, 2013, the Beijing municipal government officially released air quality monitoring data to the public. Official data and foreign data had to be compared every day, making it quite challenging.

What’s even more embarrassing is that shortly after the official data was released, in mid-January, Beijing and its surrounding areas experienced severe smog pollution. On January 14, the data showed that PM2.5 levels reached a high of 993.

After that, images started to surface online, showing water cannons and mist cannons circling around monitoring equipment, indicating attempts to manipulate data. Foreign media and academia got excited and started publishing various articles.

For example, the Financial Times in the UK mentioned that according to a study, air pollution was reducing the life expectancy of hundreds of millions of residents in northern China by an average of 5.5 years.

The Lancet published a study that estimated that in 2010 alone, air pollution led to approximately 1.2 million premature deaths in China. Additionally, in the past decade, lung cancer cases in Beijing had increased by 60%.

Of course, we kept refuting these claims.

This issue became serious.

On one hand, it evolved from an environmental problem to a diplomatic issue and even a matter of national dignity.

On the other hand, when it came to respiratory health, both top leaders and ordinary citizens were equal in a certain sense.

So, existing regulations and laws were strengthened and began to be implemented.

Barbecues had to be regulated, and so did fireworks.

You can see the statements from before this period on official websites, starting with the word “Science.” At that time, fireworks weren’t considered the main culprit.

The discussion was still about how fireworks were becoming more environmentally friendly, and the development of low-smoke fireworks was considered a significant advancement. Everyone applauded this progress.

After that, the narrative changed. It was still on an official website, with relevant officials providing a qualitative analysis.

The concentrated burning of fireworks and firecrackers has a significant impact on urban air quality, causing a rapid increase in PM2.5 concentrations. In cases of poor atmospheric diffusion conditions, the burning of fireworks and firecrackers can lead to even more severe air pollution.

In comparison with the statements before and after this period, it’s possible that progress in fireworks technology was reversed.

From another perspective, whether fireworks pollute the environment or not is not a scientific issue but a ZZ issue.

So why is there a sudden reversal now?

Did the development of fireworks technology make a breakthrough?

I tried to find out, but there doesn’t seem to be any significant breakthrough.

Perhaps the core reason is that the economy wasn’t a problem before, but now it is a major issue.

While encouraging the fireworks economy doesn’t have a significant impact on economic growth, just like how banning fireworks, despite their minimal environmental impact, was more about a ZZ issue than an economic one.

As a Chengdu resident, I feel this the most.

Chengdu is surrounded by mountains and has a basin-like terrain, which often results in poor air circulation, especially in winter.

So, in Chengdu, seeing a blue sky with white clouds is like a festival, flooding social media feeds.

However, whenever there’s a major event or activity, the air quality suddenly deteriorates, almost without exception.

Why does that happen?

My parents work in civil engineering, so they know whether to increase concrete production or shut down the construction site is often a matter of a few words.

From the perspective of ordinary people, when air pollution reaches a certain level, various emergency measures are initiated, such as suspending work and production.

However, those in charge have always known the cause of air pollution. They just need to strike a precise balance.

The priority of public health is lower than economic development, economic development is lower than hosting events and conferences, and hosting events and conferences is lower than studying the spirit of documents from top to bottom.

After 2013, the study of the spirit of documents from top to bottom outweighed economic development.

In 2023, the study of the spirit of documents from top to bottom and economic development aligned.

So, suddenly, fireworks don’t seem to pollute the environment as much.

To boost the economy,

Let’s endure for a while,

It’s the only option for now. What else can we say?

What the people like, you don’t like, and you want to forbid it? Who do you think you are?

Great news, Beijing successfully won the bid for the 2008 Olympics!

It has been prohibited for so many years, and now I suddenly realize it’s illegal. How should I evaluate this decision?

A. Promote consumption and relax regulations.

B. No money for recruiting people for joint defense and joint investigation.

C. With the village-wide internet, I only just found out that it’s been banned for so long in various places.

Prohibiting fireworks is like family planning. When you want to let go, what’s lost is already lost forever.

It’s the same old routine, with one playing the “good cop” and the other playing the “bad cop.” It’s your right in the first place, but they make it sound like they’re doing you a favor.

Fully support the National People’s Congress Legal Work Committee, and also request oversight of significant issues related to replacing online content with judicial documents.