However, even when climate change has become evident, most visibly through the historic storms in 2024 and 2025 that caused horrific damage, we sometimes still default to the perception that environmental protection is the job of the state, or "someone else," rather than our own.

Right now, the air in Hanoi and other urban areas has become suffocating. If we do not break down these screens of lies today, our children in the future will no longer have the chance even to breathe.

In such conditions, a recent shocking incident has occurred: the prosecution of acts of manipulation and large-scale falsification of environmental data.

Digital barrier

With nearly 160 monitoring stations interfered with in multiple provinces, accounting for 55 percent of the total nationwide, this is no longer a matter of isolated violations or ordinary technical incidents.

The core of automated monitoring systems is the Data Logger, considered the “brain” responsible for collecting, storing and transmitting measurement data from sensors (such as BOD, COD, pH, PM dust, SO₂) to regulatory authorities. 

Despite safeguards like sealed clamps and closed-circuit cameras, perpetrators still can use specialized software to directly interfere with source code or network configurations, adjusting parameters remotely. 

This mechanism allows them to “polish” the data: when actual pollution levels exceed regulatory limits, the software interpolates, truncates peaks, and transmits falsified figures that remain within “safe” lines.

With 55 percent of the system effectively neutralized, vast quantities of untreated toxic substances may have been discharged directly into river ecosystems and the atmosphere, threatening water security and air quality, and increasing the public health burden.

More potentially dangerous, monitoring data serves as the only empirical foundation for assessing environmental carrying capacity, which in turn determines approvals of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for new projects. 

When baseline data is widely distorted, socio-economic development planning based on such data risks being flawed, leading to approvals that exceed ecological safety thresholds.

What to do?

The manipulation of environmental data is a global problem, not unique to Vietnam.

In China, driven by pressure to meet “green transition” targets tied to officials’ political promotion prospects, a notable case occurred in Linfen city in 2017, when SO₂ concentrations repeatedly exceeded 1,000 micrograms per cubic meter. 

Instead of addressing the root causes, the former head of the local environmental protection bureau hired individuals wearing helmets to conceal their identities to interfere with the monitoring system software more than 100 times in a single year.

In India, the state of Gujarat has implemented an effective policy. A central fund is established by the government, into which enterprises pay fees. Authorities then use algorithms to randomly assign independent auditors to verify data. As a result, false reporting dropped by up to 80 percent. 

This forced factories to genuinely invest in emission-reduction technologies, while monitoring units only provide the truth because they are responsible for this and receive money from the state. They don’t face pressure from their clients.

The first and decisive step for Vietnam is to establish an independently funded auditing model similar to India’s. Legal provisions should be amended so that enterprises contribute monitoring maintenance fees into a state-managed fund. Authorities would randomly assign maintenance contractors, completely cutting the opaque financial ties between polluters and monitoring units.

At the same time, it is time to mandate the application of blockchain technology for Data Logger, encrypting data at the point of measurement so that no one can retroactively alter figures.

Furthermore, strict criminal penalties, including mandatory imprisonment, should be legislated for the creation, trade and use of software that falsifies environmental data, treating it as a national security offense comparable to ecological terrorism.

Finally, transparency creates life. It is necessary to adopt an “open data” philosophy and live-streaming emissions data from industrial zones onto national portals. Every citizen with a smartphone would know what nearby factories are discharging. A people-powered monitoring network would then become an unbreakable safeguard.

The case involving 74 suspects manipulating nearly 160 monitoring stations is an opportunity for Vietnam to launch a profound transformation in ecological governance, ensuring that environmental data is never just abstract numbers on a screen, but a vital guarantee for public health.

It is time for society to awaken and truly “monitor” its own living environment, not by delegating responsibility, but by taking ownership of every breath of future generations.

Nguyen Phuoc Thang (Hoa Binh University)