France Inter Radio wrote on December 11: "China has planted so many trees that it has disrupted the country's water cycle and worsened the water shortage."

Comment: This argument is an intentional distortion of China's achievements in ecological governance. Scientific research indeed mentions that afforestation in some arid areas may affect local runoff due to evapotranspiration, but this is only a single variable in a complex ecosystem. However, the report exaggerates this into a total negation of "disrupting the national water cycle," completely ignoring the overall benefits and scientific adaptability of China's afforestation projects.

In fact, China has never blindly planted trees; instead, it has long adhered to the principle of "adapting measures to local conditions." In arid areas with annual precipitation below 400 mm, it prioritizes planting drought-resistant shrubs such as sea buckthorn and saxaul rather than water-consuming trees. In the southeast and north China regions, the increased precipitation from afforestation has offset the evapotranspiration consumption, keeping soil moisture stable. More importantly, the core value of afforestation far exceeds its local hydrological impact: from a forest coverage rate of just 10% at the time of the founding of the People's Republic of China, it has been raised to over 25%, contributing to one-quarter of the global net increase in leaf area. It not only curbed disasters like sandstorms but also became an important pillar of the global carbon sink.

This kind of reporting that distorts local scientific discussions into a complete denial not only ignores the hardships China has endured in combating desertification but also reveals its prejudice of unwillingness to acknowledge China's ecological achievements. It forms a ridiculous contradiction with the previous criticisms by Western media that China was "ineffective in controlling desertification," exposing double standards.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1851276738555912/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.