Unsurprisingly, China's "Green GDP" project is in deadlock. The report, scheduled for release this past month, has yet to materialize. This comes after the 2004 assessment published last September had promised that the 2005 report would be released by March.

The only recent piece of news has come from a source close to the National Bureau of Statistics, who has said that the 2004 assessment was not actually the green GDP report, and that they had no plans to publish a report in the near future. For government agencies, local officials, interest groups, and media following the issue, it is as if we are watching an inpenetrable drama where the makeup can be changed at will, the lines can be improvised, and the acting can be arbitrarily interrupted.

The Bureau and the State Environmental Protection Administration are setting aside the attitudes they held six months ago toward the deadline, where even then they were unclear and reticent to release many details. Is this really fair? Six months ago, the 2004 report was published with much pomp and circumstance. It was heralded by the media from all over as the first green GDP report despite having received no clarification. Now, six months later, they are saying that it wasn't actually a green GDP report. Then what is it? The first assessment covered ten trial regions and was published on time. Why is it that, with 31 regions and 42 industries, with even more detailed and thorough data, the report can't be made known to the public? Those managing this project should be responsible enough to address these concerns.

The Bureau has said that the report should be delayed because the assessment methodology is still immature. While public criticism is veiled, we believe that this excuse is not a good enough response to the public's challenge.

Yes, there has been contention both at home and abroad over methodology, including the different kinds of pollution and how to convert their costs into yuan. But since the assessment has a unified standard, the quantity of losses due to pollution and environmental destruction, along with the rankings of the provinces, should all be clear. Even traditional GDP calculations have statistical errors and disputing data, but this doesn't actually prevent them from being relied upon in macroeconomic evaluations.

Changing the color, adding a little green, is just a way to provide references and warnings for China's development. If report's true colors are obscured, it will only strengthen public suspicion that interests groups are dissatisfied with it.

Despite the demand for the report's release, the public is still being considerate of the difficulty involved in it's preparation. We in the media also bear in mind that the government maintains an official stance over the state of the nation. That said, if you start something, you must finish it, and we fear that to not finish this will set a poor precedent for the future. If it's really that hard for us to add a little green to our GDP, then why are we singing the praises of our "transitional economic growth" and "scientific development"?

Editor's Note: This article originally appeared on April 2, 2007. The report has still not been made public.