If it is said that straw burning causes heavy haze, it will be easy.

People often use "golden" to decorate "autumn", which gives people the hope of a bumper harvest. However, in the eyes of many ancient people, there seems to be little such joy, only the bleak autumn wind, the withering of plants and plants, and a scene of desolation, so when they need to express their sadness, they often use the cool image of "autumn". In fact, not only the literati, but also the relevant departments, which were overwhelmed by haze, also took advantage of this worrying season to breathe a sigh of relief to the "long-term cure" of haze.

China's Ministry of Environmental Protection announced in Beijing on the 18th that suspected straw burning sites have been detected in 20 provinces in the past two weeks, and the situation of pollution prevention and control is grim. On the 15th-17th, North, East and Central China just experienced the first large-scale haze since the beginning of autumn. (Chinanews.com, October 18)

Is the burning of straw really the culprit of haze? If you look at the scene of burning straw, it must be the sky and the sun, and the sky is dark. If this kind of smoke is the intractable haze, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Because, first, there is always a time when the straw burns out, and it will not be harvested all the year round; second, it is not very difficult to control the burning of straw. I have not heard that many places have set up "military warrants". "one fire" can burn the black gauze of the relevant officials?

However, after barbecue and bacon became the source of haze, straw burning caused a large area of heavy haze in autumn in China. Not to mention the way of life and production that existed before the formation of the climate of haze is the key to the formation of haze. The author is just worried that when the straw is burned out and the farmland is green, if the haze is still not scattered, what will the relevant departments come up with at that time?

This is not to deny the significance of banning the burning of straw for haze control, but for fear of misgrasping the focus of haze control and neglecting the monitoring and control of major pollution sources. According to the report, the use of straw and the prohibition of burning have always been an important focus of haze control. In this regard, the response of public opinion has been a little unconvinced. Perhaps, people are judged by their life experience, and the smoke from burning straw has been used to ward off mosquitoes in the past, but its power is very limited. If Zhang Sanjia lit straw in front of the door, Li Sijia still had mosquito bites. So, the burning of straw in rural areas should keep the smoke in the air far away from the city? People have also seen that haze is not the same thing as ordinary smoke. It may produce smoke for a short time, but it will not last for a long time.

The author is not pretending to be an expert to talk to experts about haze. I am just worried about whether the current haze control action has found a real goal. There is a ban on barbecue and bacon, and it feels like a bit of a hammer and a stick, but haze is coming. If the relevant departments are satisfied with finding a "target" at the right time, it will be serious, although it is enough to reflect what they have done, but how useful will it be?

The harm brought by haze has been well known, and its governance is also imperative, which can not only be satisfied with momentum and movement. Indeed, for straw burning, the Ministry of Environmental Protection will further step up satellite remote sensing inspection and monitoring efforts, publish daily satellite monitoring on the government website, and take secret visits to urge local prevention and control, and provinces with poor prevention and control will be publicly notified. That's a lot of momentum. However, autumn is almost over and the straw will be burnt out. If the haze is still there, will the "battlefield" be moved to barbecue and bacon?

Admittedly, in order to improve air quality, it is necessary to reduce or eliminate related pollution sources. However, there may only be an analogy for a problem that none of them is willing to talk about: just like the family can no longer afford the oil pan for cooking in order to improve the living environment, and the mosquito repellent does not order mosquito incense, that is, the family has not given up smoking. Because, the family earns the most money, and they are bored if they don't smoke. What are we going to do?