Provincial leaders have long been devotees of G: Growth, glory and the investment greenback.

Now, they have to follow another: Green.

According to a State Council policy on "per unit of GDP energy consumption evaluation", a provincial or municipal leader who fails to fulfill the energy saving quota might find upward mobility an uphill task.

For many years, they directed most of their enthusiasm to the rise in GDP and the amount of overseas investment, especially in their annual reports to the local people's congresses or during interviews with the media.

Until recently, they have had a reason to do so. GDP growth has been the top criterion to evaluate local officials. As a result, they pushed for building profit-making plants, such as paper mills or small coal-fired power plants, but ignored the pollution and energy costs.

They spent huge amounts of money building white elephant projects, without considering their consequences. And they erected high-rise buildings, which only served as symbols of vanity.

Yet many of them got promoted.

GDP figures were regarded as the "hard" indices, which could be supplemented by other figures such as rises in revenues and production. By comparison, environment protection and energy conservation were usually seen as "soft" standards that were mostly seen as optional and could be ignored.

A skewed appraisal system has, in a way, abetted the blind pursuit of economic returns and, in turn, a degraded environment. The air is becoming smoggier, the rivers dirtier and the soil polluted with chemicals and pesticides.

The new assessment criteria, which will likely percolate to lower levels of officials, would be helpful in balancing local officials' sense of achievement.

The assessment has not only to be top-down, but also bottom-up.

A comprehensive appraisal of officials should include the opinions of local residents, because many decisions directly impact on their lives.

The energy targets set by the central government and residents' feedback are by no means contradictory, because the goals are the same.

Objective opinion polls could be formulated to let the public have a say in judging the performance of officials. And the feedback should be continuous, like a weather forecast, throughout the term of governors or mayors so that they are on their toes and are reminded of public concerns.

It is true our GDP has been spiraling up and our wallets swelling. But it does not necessarily mean the quality of life has been improving. If the air quality is poor, drinking water tainted and people do not have much confidence in food quality, there is really no point boasting about figures and percentages.

The price the people, as well as the governments, have had to pay, for health and for pollution treatment, for instance, have been higher, even though those costs have not been properly factored into GDP figures.

Implementing the scientific outlook on development, the State Council's latest appraisal policy is a timely measure.

The public has been making clear that livability, not the wealth, of their cities is important.

The top 10 "happiest cities" were recently chosen in a nationwide survey, which polled more than 3 million people, based on income, the environment, healthcare, work pressure and public security.

The top three cities are Hangzhou, Shenyang and Ningbo, not Shanghai and Beijing, ranked eighth and tenth.

With their basic necessities met, the Chinese are seeking a life that stresses quality, and the environment is among the top concerns.

"Serve the people" is the motto of our officials - and meeting people's needs must be the yardstick of their performance.

When a mayor or governor leaves office, he, or she, should be asked in the opinion poll:

"Has your city been using energy more efficiently?

Are the air and rivers cleaner?

Is your city a better place to live in?"

If the answers are "yes", he, or she, definitely deserves a promotion.

E-mail: wanghao@chinadaily.com.cn