Global Air Pollution, From Above

neutron_p writes "Based on satellite observations, the high-resolution global atmospheric map of nitrogen dioxide pollution makes clear just how human activities impact air quality. I'm a bit surprised not to see that many red blobs above US and the strange one is on the east of Russia."

Comments

Take note

[AKAImBatman]

Take note everyone, the biggest red blob is over China (insert communist jokes here). For all the whining and complaining about how the US should have joined the Kyoto accord, it's very easy to see that China is the #1 offender, and that Europe is not doing so hot itself. What good would Kyoto have done if it exempted the country who needs it most?

That being said, China is still developing. Pollution should be a big concern for them, but it's an unfortunate fact of life for now. As their technology improves, the pollution levels should drop. With one caveat, that is:

Many modernized countries have sent their manufacturing to China. Thus placing restrictions on countries to reduce their emissions will do little good when we've already sent the real pollution over there. I'm not sure how we can respond to the situation, but it's important to pay attention to it.

The blob over Canada is actually a bit surprising, but I'm guessing that's related to the earlier article on the odd increases in pollution levels. I do have a thought on why North America sees less pollution than Europe, however. Since the North America has a massive amount of farmland and forest land, a good deal of the pollution is sapped up by these massive carbon sinks. This doesn't actually impact NO2 levels, but it does explain some of the pollution reduction.

FWIW, it seems that NO2 is primary produced by cars. Moving to the hydrogen vehicles of the future may help stop almost all NO2 production.

(P.S. I know slashdotters have a penchant for insulting people, but please try to keep your replies civil. I don't know everything, so correct me in a polite manner. Thank you.)

Re:Take note

[JeffSh]

you are exactly right

but, not to take away from any of your statements at all, there is a gigantic underground coal fire in china that emits enough CO2 in one year to equal and surpass all exhaust from all cars in the US.

and that's just the coal fire burning coal, not counting all of the industrial development in china. it's no wonder things must be insane over there.

here's the first site i could find with info, there are better:
http://www.itc.nl/personal/coalfire/problem/china_ coalfire.html

i had to repost, my first post was to the wrong place.. woops.

Re:Take note

[plopez]

I can't get to the link due to what appears to be the slashdot effect, but the synopsis says NO2 only.
No CO2, sulpher dioxide, methane, ozone, light hydrocarbons or other pollutants.

So to say the US is blameless is premature, you need to see all the pollutnats and how they interact.

Re:Take note

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes down to it, the only way the US would be harmed by Kyoto is electric power generation and automobiles. Since manufacturing is no longer done in this country, it wouldn't really harm industry. All of our pollution is now from power plants or cars. People have claimed that the purpose of Kyoto is to harm the US economically. I think the real purpose is to change American lifestyles and force them to take inefficient public transit and use less electricity. Either way, Kyoto is dead in the water. The only countries who agree to it are the ones that can use it as a weapon against competitors. Since the US Senate voted 98-0 in favor of scrapping it, this treaty will never be ratified, with or without Bush's support.

Re:Take note

[aeroegnr]

Even if all the cars in the world were hydrogen, we would still be polluting. Where do you think the electricity to make the hydrogen comes from? In the U.S., we'll have to get realistic about nuclear power and reprocessing, or else we won't have any alternatives to coal.

Re:Take note

[JeffSh]

this link works

Re:Take note

[Martin Blank]

The blob over Canada looks to me more like it's over the industrial sections of the Northeast, particularly the steel belt running from Ohio through Pennsylvania. I know the steel producers are regularly villified for pumping evil into the air, so perhaps this is just one more of them.

Re:Take note

[drmike0099]

Looks like it's largely spilling out from the major industrial areas, which doesn't jive with the article you quote, but does go along w/ the article that the picture is in. It's spilling largely from the Detroit/Chicago area in the USA (as well as Pittsburgh/south NJ), eastern China, and southern England on that map, which coincides nicely w/ industrial centers. There really wasn't anything on top of Canada, I grew up under the northern end of that big red blob, and I was in upstate NY.

One of the lower posters also raised a good point. Being a successful economy means you can use your sources of energy to create more money. The USA has mastered this, largely because we were one of the first nations to do this, and because we were blessed w/ huge amounts of wood, then coal, and then oil that allowed us to get so far ahead. This is grossly oversimplified, but a lot of our infrastructure is already paid for, so our energy is cheap. Contrast that w/ China, who is just now trying to create that "good living through more energy" that we've enjoyed for decades, and you realize that their costs are higher. If they did it in a environmental way, it would cost even more, and they wouldn't make it as far w/ the same amount of money. It's easy to see why they have a black cloud, cuz that's what their money dictates. They'll spend more money in the future on it, but not until their (newly wealthier) middle class starts demanding it, and then they'll pass the cost along.

Re:Take note

[krlynch]

This doesn't actually impact NO2 levels, but it does explain some of the pollution reduction.

The primary reason that you don't see this type of pollution in the US is that the federal and local governments have taken a very agressive stance on NOx and SOx reduction from transportation (cars, trucks, and trains) and power plant (coal) sources. Some here have complained that the attack on these pollutants (along with particulate emission) has a lot to do with our lower fuel economy standards, as the rules make it pretty difficult, for instance, to introduce diesel powered cars, and they mandate the use of catalytic converters.

It isn't hard to understand why this has happened, either. NOx and SOx are the primary drivers of acid rain and smog, both of which directly and visibly impact quality of life in densely populated areas, like cities. Fixing them isn't something we have fought against, since the vast majority of Americans work and live in or near major cities, even in the "sparsely populated" parts of the country.

Western Europe on the other hand has chosen to go after consumption, and driven up fuel efficiency at the cost of reducing these types of pollutants. Given that Europeans tend to live in smaller, more distributed communities than Americans, smog, while a problem in Urban areas, directly impacts fewer people on a day to day basis than it does here.

Re:Take note

[Specter]

National Geographic had an article recently about pollution in China and it was just down-right frightening.

Excerpts from the March 2004 issue are available here: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0403/featu re4/index.html

Re:Take note

[Anonymous Coward]

For all the whining and complaining about how the US should have joined the Kyoto accord, it's very easy to see that China is the #1 offender, and that Europe is not doing so hot itself. What good would Kyoto have done if it exempted the country who needs it most?

Umm... what? That makes no sense. The #1 offender being exempted doesn't magically erase the good of all the other countries signing the treaty. It's like saying "what's the good of arresting lesser terrorists if we haven't arrested Bin Laden?"

(P.S. I know slashdotters have a penchant for insulting people, but please try to keep your replies civil. I don't know everything, so correct me in a polite manner. Thank you.)

For future reference, characterising other people as whiners is not a good idea if you want replies to be civil.

Re:Take note

[halftrack]

I'm a bit confused by the angle of your post. It seems to me that you would want China to reduce its emmissions too. However according to wikipedia China emits 2.3 tons per capita of CO2 while the U.S. 20.1 tons per capita (Europe at 8.5 tons per capita.) and isn't this the way to look at emissions? I believe that there is a base energy requirement to support one person and that for most of the world this - sadly - means burning fossil fuels. (At least at present time.) Thus shouldn't China really be allowed to release 5 times (gross product) as much as the U.S?

Now there aren't AFAIK any restrictions on China or other developing countries, but China has ratified the agreement and when they really step up as an industrialized country they will have restrictions imposed thus it is in their interest to stay within the future requirements.

Had there been placed restrictions on China or other developing countries they probably never would have signed the agreement because it might have inhibited their growth. (Now what is the real reason the U.S. isn't signing?)

Furthermore I don't think the true objective is reduced emissions, we're far to spoiled to let that happen. The point is getting a situation under control before it gets out of hand.

(P.S. I know slashdotters have a penchant for insulting people, but please try to keep your replies civil. I don't know everything, so correct me in a polite manner. Thank you.)
Ditto

Re:Take note

[demachina]

I think this satellite is almost entirely mapping pollution from coal fired power plants, and coal involved industry like steel production.

"The blob over Canada is actually a bit surprising"

Not sure which blob you are talking about. The really bad one in Eastern North America is almost certainly coming from the massive concentration of coal fired power plants in Ohio, Pensylvania and West Virginia some of which drifts in to Canada.

The lighter blob in Western Canada is almost certainly coal fired power plants in Alberta. they get half their electricity from coal and were trying to build more last I heard.

Not sure why the submitter is surprised there aren't more blobs over the U.S. There is one really nasty dense one over the Northeast where there is massive use of coal. All the lighter blobs over the west are also almost certainly coal fired power plants, there aren't a lot of cities or heavy industry in the Western U.S., its mostly farms, desert and empty space.

The cities on the Pacific Coast are in a long skinny line which probably serves to preclude a build up of a big blob for this satellite to see.

Coal plants in the West are a massive pollution source but they are spread out over a wide area so they end up not looking bad in this kind of measurement because the wind spreads it out so the concentration stays low.

I really doubt cars even come close to matching coal fired power plants for concentrated NO2 production. Maybe they match it in total but its much more diffuse than coal fired power plants which are giant blinking red blobs of concentrated NO2 to this satellite.

Its pretty obvious China is A) doing all of the worlds heavy manufacturing. Steel production in particular shows up well to this satellite. B) making heavy use of coal for power. China produces 75% of their power with Coal which is why they are the massive red blob they are.

Germany also gets 50% of its power from Coal which I wager accounts for some of the blob over Western Europe.

If the Bush administration figures out this satellite is doing what I think it is, which is mapping coal fired power plant pollution, there may be a sudden failure of this satellite after a mysterious missile launch from the U.S.

Re:Take note

[Mac Degger]

There's an even better, yet much more cynical, reason why NOx and SOx are so heavily regulated; they're the polutants which you can see and smell. SOx isn't even that bad for you, but it smells like shi^H^Hsulfur. There are other polutants which are much, much worse for you, much more deadly, but aren't as readily visible or nasally detectable.

It's sad to say, but politicians go after the obvious, not the bad. If you can't smell it, they seem to be doing their job, even if the crap you can't smell or see is killing you and little is being done to stop the use/spread/contamination.

Re:Take note

[Vellmont]

If you accept that human emissions of greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming (which it sounds like you do) then you'd also agree that we have to do something about stopping it. The developed countries including the US should be the ones leading the charge away from greenhouse gas emissions. This is for no other reason than it's the developed countries that are best able to afford the changes to power plants, fuel efficient cars, etc.

We've already done the exact same thing with Ozone depleting chemicals with the Montreal Protocol in 1987. The developed countries largely payed for the technology development for safer ozone depleting gasses and the developing countries get a bit more time to implement it. If developing countries don't, you're in a lot better position to start imposing sanctions, trade policies, etc to try to get them to do so. If you just sit on your hands and do nothing, that's probbably what you're going to get.

Re:Take note

[Kent_Franken]

There are underground coal fires all around the world, not just China. However, according to the article, coal fires in northern China alone are responsible for between two and three per cent of worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide - the main greenhouse gas. And here is another article from the BBC.

Re:Take note

[spuzzzzzzz]

I've always worried about the danity of the world. Does this have something to do with moving to the Netherlands?

Re:Take note

[Breakfast Pants]

Yes there is a difference. Burn hydrogen with air and you get water. The nitrogen stays in the air and doesn't chemically combine with anything to any relevant degree; what's your point again?

Re:Take note

[Ricdude]

Introducing diesel cars that meet stricter emissions requirements in the US only requires reducing the sulfur content of diesel fuel. Once that happens, the US can use all the cool exhaust treatments that are used *today* in the EU to meet their stricter emissions requirements. In 2006, ULSD (ultra low sulfur diesel) standards take effect, and you will see some more diesel vehicles on the market.

Last year, the only manufacturer of diesel passenger vehicles in the US was Volkswagen. This year, Mercedes (3xx CDI), and Jeep (Liberty CRD) also join the field. By 2006, who knows, maybe we'll even have diesel-electric hybrids...

Re:Take note

[gwernol]

Looks like it's largely spilling out from the major industrial areas, which doesn't jive with the article you quote, but does go along w/ the article that the picture is in. It's spilling largely from the Detroit/Chicago area in the USA (as well as Pittsburgh/south NJ), eastern China, and southern England on that map, which coincides nicely w/ industrial centers. There really wasn't anything on top of Canada, I grew up under the northern end of that big red blob, and I was in upstate NY.

England isn't a major industrial nation - hasn't been for about 50 years. What remains of its heavy industry is concentrated in the north of the country, not the south, so this doesn't seem to align. I'd guess its actually the (mostly non-industrial) pollution from London.

Likewise I'm not sure what accounts for the large concentration of NO2 shown over the north of Italy. It looks like the Alps are generating a lot of pollution. That can't be right...

Re:Take note

[(54)T-Dub]

My girlfriend is currently doing a study abroad program in Jinan, China right now and the pollution is rediculous. She was there for a week before a rain storm came in and revealed the mountains a couple miles from her hotel. She is also suffering from chronic headaches as a result of not getting enough oxygen. The sickness rates in parts of china are around 50% because of what pollution does to the immune system. What is particularly sad is that this is not simply issolated to the metropolitan/industrial area's. Factories dump chemicals in rivers which of course effects all the farmers and villages that live off of the water.

There was an interesting article in the NY Times a few months ago (since archived) talking about complete lack of enviornmental regulation in China. Seems to me they have taken the worst of communism (complete political and social control) and combined it with the worst of capitalism (completely un-regulated private sector). Though I do believe in less government regulation, I simply can't sign onto the Libertarian ticket because of the enviornment. I firmly believe that left to it's own will the private sector would obliterate the enviornment.

Re:Take note

[jsebrech]

I think the real purpose is to change American lifestyles and force them to take inefficient public transit and use less electricity. Either way, Kyoto is dead in the water. The only countries who agree to it are the ones that can use it as a weapon against competitors. Since the US Senate voted 98-0 in favor of scrapping it, this treaty will never be ratified, with or without Bush's support.

Wow, a lot of myths there, let me just cover the major ones.

Myth #1: public transportation is always inefficient.

Take a look at the public transportation systems of most of europe. There's no reason public transportation needs to be expensive, low-comfort, or have lousy geographic availability.

Myth #2: the american lifestyle must be changed to reduce energy use in america.

In fact, america could cut its energy use in half without a measurable impact on consumer lifestyles, through tried and tested energy reduction policies which have been employed in europe for years (and europe is pretty bad itself when it comes to energy use), but because the US energy industry funds american politicians (democrats and republicans) heavily, nothing ever gets done about it.

Myth #3: kyoto can't be realized without US cooperation

All that is needed is russia ratifying it, and putin recently said he will. So within a year kyoto will become active, if putin keeps his word that is.

Myth #4: kyoto is a tool for the rest of the world to "go after" america.

Kyoto is simply a tool to stop greenhouse gas levels from rising further, because they're already at the highest they've been in a million years, and if they rise much further dramatic climate change is inevitable. The cost of not doing anything far outweighs the cost of preventing it. The last time there was this much carbondioxide in the atmosphere, there were no polar ice caps. The sad thing about kyoto is that it was watered down significantly to be palatable to the US, and still america broke its word and didn't ratify it.

Myth #5: the only countries to join kyoto are those that have petty political reasons

Right now, 126 nations have joined kyoto (and not just signed the treaty). This is the vast majority of the planet, if measured in population (but sadly, without the US and russia, not in pollution).

Re:Take note

[ColaMan]

Breakfast Pants, Thank you for your completely incorrect post.
Now go sit in the corner and get educated :-)

In your car's engine, Nitrogen in the air combines with Oxygen in air to create oxides of nitrogen, commonly called NOx for brevity.

How does it combine? The heat of combustion of the fuel in the engine is sufficient to do it. Lean-running engines that run hotter (well, have a longer burning flame front), while more fuel efficient, also have the unfortunate problem of creating more oxides of nitrogen.

It doesn't matter what you burn in there, any combustion temperatures over a thousand degrees C or so has sufficient energy to drive the NOx chemical reaction. Petrol, Diesel, Hydrogen... all of those fuels indirectly produce NOx.

The goal in modern cars is to lower the combustion chamber temperatures, which is why most cars have some form of exhaust gas recirculation to deliberately "posion" the incoming air/fuel mix to make it burn cooler. Fuel economy suffers as a result of reducing NOx emissons.

Re:Take note

[Wanker]

After a bit of Googling, I found some "teaser" images advertising the purchase of the raw data, including links to SO2 and O3 maps.

http://www.temis.nl.nyud.net:8090/airpollution/ (nyud.net cached copy)

Nitrogen Dioxide:
http://www.temis.nl.nyud.net:8090/airpollution/no2 .html (nyud.net cached copy)

The US sulfur dioxide emissions seemed pretty low, even in the acid-rain-prone Northeast. Some of the ocean blooms of SO2 seemed odd, tho.

Re:Take note

[chasm!killer]

OK, burn coal or gasoline and the nitrogen stays in the air and doesn't chemically combine with anything. If you don't burn it in air....

But if the air gets hot (like in any thermal engine), some nitrogen reacts with some oxygen and you get some NOx. And hydrogen is pretty much the same or somewhat worse than gasoline with respect to this property depending on how you look at it.

If you look at the autoignition temperatures (the lowest temperature a fuel will burn) hydrogen's is 530 C. And the autoignition temperature of gasoline is about 260 C. So you can make gasoline produce much less NOx than hydrogen with some effort.

Hydrogen's flame temperature is 2045 C in air. Gasoline's is 2197 C, almost the same. This is the worst case temperature for the two. Sloppy engines will probably put out about the same NOx.

(Info from http://www.fuelcellstore.com/information/hydrogen_ safety.html,
http://www.hut.fi/Units/AES/projects/renew/fuelcel l/posters/hydrogen.html and http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ShaniChristoph er.shtml.)

Re:Take note

[drmike0099]

I found more info on it, this from a study done about 4 years ago in California (since I was curious why that map showed essentially nothing over Los Angeles, which has a ton of traffic, improved emissions standards notwithstanding). It didn't actually answer my question, but it's interesting nonetheless (pasted from a PDF). While this talks mostly about traffic, it does mention power plants, which is probably responsible for some of the really wacky ones you see on there (like China's incredible numbers, and the concentration around Lake Michigan, despite having far fewer cars than DC or LA). Just a hunch. The original reference is located here: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/oehhano2.pdf

"The primary sources for NO2 are internal combustion engines, both gasoline and
diesel powered, as well as point sources, especially power plants. U.S. emissions of NOx
in 1996-1997 were approximately 23,000 short tons per year, with roughly 11,000 tons
contributed by fuel combustion from non-transportation sources (Office of Air and
Radiation, 1998). In 1991, 8.9 million people resided in counties that exceeded the NAAQS
for NO2, with the highest annual concentrations occurring in Southern California (Bascom et
al., 1996). National mean concentrations of NO2 decreased 14% from 1988 to 1997, to
about 20 ppb, although NOx emissions decreased little during that time period, and
increased 1% in 1996-1997 (Office of Air and Radiation, 1998). Since 1970, total NOx
emissions have increased 11% and emissions from coal-fired power plants have increased
44%. During the past 5 years, all U.S. counties have been in compliance with the Federal
NO2 standard.

"Compliance with the Federal NAAQS for NO2 does not preclude substantial shortterm
peak concentrations, and the California standard of 0.25 ppm for 1 hour continues to
be exceeded, although with less frequency. In 1999, maximum one-hour values for NO2
were highest in the counties of Riverside (0.307 ppm) and Imperial (0.286), with annual
mean concentrations of 0.022 and 0.035, respectively (Office of Air and Radiation, 1998).

"Because NO2 concentrations are related to traffic density, commuters in heavy traffic
may be exposed to higher concentrations of NO2 than those indicated by regional monitors.
In one study of personal exposures by Los Angeles commuters (Baker et al., 1990), invehicle
NO2 concentrations, averaged over 1 week of travel, ranged from 0.028 to 0.170
ppm, with a mean of 0.078 ppm. This was 50% higher than ambient concentrations
measured at local monitoring sites.

"Indoor NO2 levels, in the presence of an unvented combustion source, may exceed
those found outdoors. Natural gas or propane cooking stoves release NO2, as do kerosene
heaters. Peak levels exceeding 2.0 ppm have been measured in homes with gas stoves
(Leaderer et al., 1984), and exposures during cooking have been measured as high as 0.6
ppm for up to 45 minutes (Goldstein et al., 1988). It is important to recognize that outdoor
NO2 levels provide a "background" for the higher peaks that may occur indoors; thus higher
outdoor levels may drive higher peaks indoors, with outdoor levels contributing
approximately 50% to indoor levels (Marbury et al., 1988).

"Distance of residences from roadways appears to influence indoor NO2 levels. In
Tokyo, Japan, NO2 exposure among adult women, age 40-60 years, was determined at
varying distances from the roadside, using personal monitoring and monitoring inside and
outside the home (Nakai et al., 1995). The highest mean personal exposure levels were
found in women living closest to the roadway at 63.4 ppb, compared with 55.3 ppb farthest
from the roadway. Personal monitoring in homes with unvented combustion sources were
less clearly correlated to distance from the roadway than homes without combustion
sources. In another study in the Netherlands (Roorda-Knape et al., 1999), NO2 levels
in school classrooms were found to be significantly

Re:Take note

[amper]

Some things to think about, courtesy of the CIA World Factbook

US population (2004/07 est.): 293,027,571
China population (2004/07 est.): 1,298,847,624

US population growth (2004 est.): 0.92%
China population growth (2004 est.): 0.57%

US industrial production growth (2003 est.): 0.3%
China industrial production growth (2003 est.): 30.4%

US GDP per-capita (2003 est.): 37,800 USD
China GDP per-capita (2003 est.): 5,000 USD

US GDP real growth rate (2003 est.): 3.1%
China GDP real growth rate (2003 est. official data): 9.1%

US electricity consumption (2001): 3.602 trillion kWh
China electricity consumption (2001): 1.312 trillion kWh

US oil consumption (2001 est.): 19.65 million bbl/day
China oil consumption (2001 est.): 4.57 million bbl/day

US natural gas consumption (2001 est.): 640.9 billion m^3
China natural gas consumption (2001 est.): 27.4 billion m^3

How long do you think it will take China to catch up with the US? How much energy will China be using then? How much pollution will China be creating then?

And, as an aside:

US GDP (2003 est.): 10.99 trillion USD
China GDP (2003 est.): 6.449 trillion USD

US current trade account balance (2003): -541.8 billion USD
China current trade account balance (2003): 31.17 billion USD

How long will it take the US to go totally bankrupt?

I'm not suprised, because I have a clue

[jmorris42]

The submitter is suprised, but I'm not. Wealthy nations can AFFORD the luxury of enviromentalism, unlike poor ones like the former Soviet block and the third world. The solution is obvious, encourage more nations to become wealthy by helping them become free.

No serious student of current events can escape the reality that political freedom and economic prosperity are linked. The old soviet empire attempted to foster economic openness to gain it's productivity benefits while keeping political freedom in the hands of the Party. They failed. China is making the same attempt and the signs are they are also going to fail. Freedom is the natural state of affairs and you can't supress it in one sphere while keeping it in the others.

Rising standards of living solve most of the pressing problems facing the world today. Birth rates are lowest in the free/wealthy nations and highest in the poor/oppressed ones. Wealthy/Free nations don't tend to make war on each other. Wealthy nations don't tend to produce terrorists either.

Re:I'm not suprised, because I have a clue

[bigtallmofo]

I believe in your first statement, that wealthy nations can afford the luxury of environmentalism and that goes a long way in curbing pollution from industrial sources. However, I think that as a developing nation becomes wealthy and enacts pollution controls on industry, any environmentalism is offset by sheer numbers of individuals. This is a very complicated subject, but to take just one example... Currently, 1 in 3,000 Chinese people owns a car (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0 628_040628_chinacars.html). This small number has many reasons not the least of which is that they just can't afford them. As average wealth increase, so too will the number of cars on the road. As stated, this is a very complicated subject with lots of variables, but I would expect that as China becomes wealthier that they would definitely not see any decreases in the amount of pollution they emit.

Re:I'm not suprised, because I have a clue

[l0ungeb0y]

"The solution is obvious, encourage more nations to become wealthy by helping them become free."

So, BushCo should just keep trucking the troops into every non-democratic country to enforce democracy at gunpoint? I mean, Iraq and Afghanistan are such "Cataclysmic Successes" [Bush, 2004] and we all know that our humanitarian efforts are applauded by the international community.

I'm sure most non-G8 countries are lining up to be the next ,a href="http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Ce ntralAmerica.html">El Salvador, Columbia, Honduras, Nicauragua et al. I mean America is only acting in everyones best interest when they assisinate DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADERS who happen to be communist or socialist and surplant them with their own corporate owned "Democratic" puppet.

I'm sorry to sound trite, but your notion of a "simple solution" is so utterly niave and devoid of a clue that if you were in front of me at this moment, I'd be laughing hysterically while back handing you. Your statement is so stupid as to be both laughable and violently aggravating.

Someday you might decide to turn off Fox, pick up a book on US Foriegn policy in developing countries and realize that most countries hate us. Not for our freedom or SUV driving big Mac eating way of life, but for our policy of expolitation, assasination, political subversion and hypocritical support of biological warfare and terrorism where and when it serves out needs.

Actually, my simple plan would be for the US to get the fuck out of everyones face and go back to it's pre-WWI stance of isolationism and work on our domestic policy and our own problems instead of creating new ones for everyone else.
Hahaha -- Like that will ever happen.

Re:I'm not suprised, because I have a clue

[StateOfTheUnion]

Rising standards of living solve most of the pressing problems facing the world today.

Perhaps, but not pollution . . . as global prosperity increases, so does global pollution. Efficiency of energy and resource usage increases, but overall consumption also increases such that overall there is a net increase in environental impact. One may argue that Kuznet's curve predicts that as people become more wealthy, they care more about the environment. this has been shown to be true in many locals; however, I'm not convinced that this has been demonstrated on a global scale. In other words Kuznet's curve might hold true except that "Not in My BackYard" pushes environmental damage to remote locations . . . e.g. Yucca mountain, developing countries, etc.

Additionally, poor people in developing couuntries don't throw away broken VCRs and DVD players and buy new ones . . . they fix them because it is economically viable to do so. In the US, we even throw away cars just because they are ugly or old. I would agree that our technology makes our use of energy and resources more efficient in manufacturing, but we also also tend to produce enormous amounts of trash due to product packaging and the fact that it is cheaper to buy a new item than fix an old one.

Many have postulated that the environment would be stressed to the breaking point if everyone in the world lived like the most privledged people (western developed world). PBS's NOVA did a fantastic two part series on this and other issues. The website is here.

Re:I'm not suprised, because I have a clue

[demachina]

"China is making the same attempt and the signs are they are also going to fail."

Bullshit. China is almost assured of being a raging economic success at this point, as long as they can keep a handle on their raging growth. You specifically mentioned them, and tried to dismiss them, because they derail your whole "Freedom and Democracy = "Wealth" theory. Singapore is another raging financial success and they aren't a towering symbol of freedom either.

The U.S.S.R's major economic failing was they chose economic isolation, and the west obliged and economically isolated them. They also impaled themselves on a misguided war in Afghanistan, a quagmire very similar to Vietnam and the new Iraq.

China astutely figured out they had lots of the thing Capitalis want most, cheap, oppressed, well educated labor. Rather than fighting the West like the U.S.S.R they threw their doors open and hung out a welcome sign. Capitalists can't tear down their factories in the West and ship them to China fast enough.

China is almost certain to surpass the U.S. as the world's economic superpower unless something cataclysmic happens, especially if the U.S. keeps its head up its ass and keeps handing all its capital and IP over to China.

"Rising standards of living solve most of the pressing problems facing the world today."

Excepting of course energy consumption and pollution.

"Wealthy/Free nations don't tend to make war on each other."

No but they do make war on poor nations especially ones they want to turn in to colonies, reference the British empire, the French empire, the German empire, the American empire(formally dominating the Phillipines and the entire Western Hemisphere and now moving to Asia and the Middle East.

Its a lot easier to be a "free/wealthy" nation when you are looting poor third world nations where you've installed dictators who do your bidding.

"Wealthy nations don't tend to produce terrorists either."

Saudi Arabia is a very wealthy nation, though the wealth is poorly distributed, and it produced most of the 9/11 hijackers.

Johannesburg glowing

[Splinton]

I see Johannesburg is the bright spot in Africa - probably has much to do with Sasol oil-from-coal.

red blob over east russia

[Anonymous Coward]

that is likely due to some forest fires that have been burning in siberia

Re:red blob over east russia

[ernstp]

I just want to say this again, that's not Russia. It's China!
And the image only shows nitrogen dioxide, which is a _man made_ pollution, unlike CO2, which could be produced by forest fires!

A quick mirror

[Exocet]

Since this site will probably get slashdotted ...I went ahead and made a quick PDF mirror of the article.

I don't normally make mirrors so if someone has a better method (somehow using wget?) lemme know.

PS: this is off've my 1.5Mb/768Kb DSL line, so don't expect any miracles.

Red blob

[Hatta]

I'm a bit surprised not to see that many red blobs above US and the strange one is on the east of Russia.

That's the "Red menace", we've known about that since the '50s

That blob...

[drivers]

on the east side of Russian is called "China."

Re:That blob...

[pbox]

Well, the red blob IS in china. It is the triangle roughly between Beijing, North Korea and Hanzhou, The northern industrial region in China.

I guess the blurb was written by someone attending geography classes in a US highschool...

night map

[Coneasfast]

note how the red areas are somewhat similar to the light areas on the nasa night map

not so surprising

[uujjj]

The US does have fairly strict emmisions laws (hence the small number of diesels). Any Americans who have traveled to Europe in the summer months will notice that they often have higher smog. London and Rome are especially nasty.

Re:A quick mirror - I'm an idiot

[Exocet]

It's here. Sorry for the bad link, should have checked it in the preview.

Dihydrogen Monoxide is at fault

[Ucklak]

I didn't see anything in the article about DHMO.

I'm sure that DHMO has something to with this since it is far worse for the environment.

Russia?

[Zocalo]

Um, no, that's largely China and maybe the Korean peninsula, although it does extend far enough to the North to encompass Vladivostok I think. Still, I suppose they have a better excuse than we do here Europe... That big red blob is mainly over the lowlands of Holland and surrounding areas, so it's either tulips or the output from the "coffee" shops of Amsterdam. I'm thinking it's probably not the tulips. ;)

Coral cache of mirror

[FooAtWFU]

I have a Coral cache of the pollution image map.

Re:And not only that...

[Ctrl-Z]

(And alternative fuels won't be the only way to release ourselves from oil dependence. One would hope that we'd continue to heavily research nuclear, including fusion, options; plans for complete nuclear non-proliferation completely kill any significant efforts in these areas, even for energy means.)

Are nuclear options not alternatives to fossil fuels?

Re:all the pollution activist in the US are pointl

[fiannaFailMan]

the rest of the world pollutes far more than the US nowdays and they don't really care that Johnny Q Hippy dosn't like it. They'll happily continue strip mining and using mercery to strip out copper from ore while they eat a tiger mcmuffin. All the eco freaks do is help ensure the US can't compete as well in the global market.

Read my lips. The US contains 5% of the world's population but consumes 25% of the world's resources.

Not in this context

[daveschroeder]

"Alternative" in this context usually refers to non-nuclear (and non-fossil fuel). Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc.

Re:And not only that...

[AKAImBatman]

Are nuclear options not alternatives to fossil fuels?

Yes. And No.

There are two sides to the equation of power generation. One is large stationary power plants. Switching these to ever more modern nuclear designs would make a lot of sense, and would improve things dramatically.

Unfortunately, the other side of the equation is portable power generators like petroleum engines. (i.e. your car) These use power independent of the stationary plants and are much harder to find alternatives for. The best suggestion so far seems to be to switch to hydrogen for fuels, then create the hydrogen from the stationary power plants. That way we put all of our eggs back in one, easily controllable, basket.

Where are the third world offenders?

[Sheepdot]

One of the biggest reasons why global warmning proponents have had issues in third world countries is not because their facts are inherently in err, but because the developers cannot understand why "Americans want us to make them a building" and "Other Americans want us to make it the 'wrong way'". They know how to make a building, the same way they always have, yet some foreigner comes in and says they are doing it 'wrong'. It's like telling them, "You're not doing it the way God wants you to".

You can't tell someone that the world is dying when it is right in front of them, unchanged for years. They are trying to make a living, they get offered an opportunity to improve their environment, and don't change. Yet for some reason, even with *this* atmospheric data you can see who the "big offenders" supposedly are.

Why then, do global warmning advocates expend so much time and effort making third world countries try to adhere to restrictions even the US and China don't want to?

GLOBAL AIR POLLUTION PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

[Mstrgeek]

a well done site dealing with air pollution

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/onlcourse/chm110/outl ines/topic9.html

Global Pollution and Climate Change http://www.jri.org.uk/brief/climatechange.htm

this is a great write up with good information

One step China has taken -

[Tristan7]

China has prohibitted the burning of wood by anybody, and has undertaken a massive reforestation project across the nation. Wood fires produce incredible amounts of pollutants, especially open cooking fires. By reforesting wherever they can, various types of pollution will be reduced. Of course, all this takes time, but it is a good step.

You're kidding, right?

[Delusional]

Are we looking at different images, or are the commenters just as ignorant of geography as the average slashdot reader is ignorant, of, say, the mating rituals of the human species? Or have we been overrun by neocons?

The single biggest blot, other than the one over everybody's favorite red menace, is square over the northeastern US. The richest country pollutes more than anyone except the country that does all of the richest country's dirty work (and has more people than everyone else combined, to boot).

LATFI! (look at the _ucking image!)

Re:You're kidding, right?

[AKAImBatman]

The single biggest blot, other than the one over everybody's favorite red menace,

Am I the only one who gets a real kick out of this statement? :-D

good start

[Doc Ruby]

With or without Kyoto, China would be pumping pollution into the air. But with Kyoto, the rest of us would be pumping less, so that alone is reason enough to comply. The other, more subtle, reason is diplomatic. It's impossible for the US to pressure China into even minimal Kyoto compliance when the US hasn't signed it. Signing it would help us pressure them. Kyoto is a good start, which is better than nothing. The perfect is the enemy of the merely good. Even humans have to take baby steps towards big changes, walking before we run. Giant polluting countries are even more disposed towards incremental progress.

That's where the Arctic haze comes from

[RealAlaskan]

I'm not surprised about the concentrations of pollution in Northern China and Siberia. The Soviets put quite a lot of industry in Siberia (why?) and it pollutes a lot. After all, the folks in Moscow were never going to smell it.

In Alaska, we often see a hazy sky, caused by pollution from Siberia and points east.

For the long term, we should probably be more worried about the Soviet nuclear waste the Soviets and now the Russians have accumulated in the Arctic and Pacific Oceans. Then there's the nuclear plants, two of them in Siberia, that we're down wind of. They were built by the same government which brought us Chernobyl.

If you're looking for things to worry about, you'll never run out.

Opening our eyes

[Doc Ruby]

The article's maps show an example of how "human activities impact air quality". But of course Greenhouse deniers will whine that there's no evidence that puny humans can affect the big, wide world. There's ample evidence that we are locked in a vital interaction with our atmosphere, affecting it for better or worse with our industrial activities. When you hear people denying even the possibilities that are demonstrated simply and graphically as this, you can discredit any further comments. Or let them draw you into their denial to your mutual detriment.

Re:Opening our eyes

[Doc Ruby]

Help, I'll never know whether nuclear war causes nuclear winter!

Greenhouse denial is everywhere. The name is descriptive enough to know what it means, but I'll explain (as I have in umpteen other Slashdot posts). The Greenhouse is the accumulating atmospheric defect (from human perspective) that traps more solar energy than the biosphere has adapted to survive. It's a feedback loop, with excess CO2 gas - and others, like the NO2 demonstrated in this map - trapping more energy, which causes more biological cycles to release more CO2 into the atmosphere. The CO2 balance moves from one equilibrium to another, at differing concentrations. Some of these biological cycles include human activity, like burning oil and coal, or their byproducts. It's a cycle because the the increased concentration causes more extreme weather fluctuations, which stimulate burning more fuel (air conditioning, heating, transportation for refugees and commuting, etc), which generates more CO2.

People are very attached to their energy consumption, and the changes are relatively slow (over lifetimes and generations). So it's easy to deny the process, especially when the most powerful people depend on the industries that perpetuate the process. So people deny the Greenhouse. They are Greenhouse deniers. Like most pathological denial, they demand black and white proofs of subtle, complex phenomena, and make black and white statements to support their denial. So Greenhouse deniers will say that there's no evidence for human effects on the environment. This map is just another compelling confrontation with that denial, from which deniers cannot recover, at least in credibility from naive listeners.

There are lots of reasons to quit polluting. The Greenhouse is one of them. And the stubborn danger from Greenhouse deniers is a reason to cite examples like this when debunking their delusions.

Re:And not only that...

[ivan256]

Unfortunately, the other side of the equation is portable power generators like petroleum engines. (i.e. your car) These use power independent of the stationary plants and are much harder to find alternatives for. The best suggestion so far seems to be to switch to hydrogen for fuels, then create the hydrogen from the stationary power plants

Better yet: Build nukes, and let people juice their cars up on hydrogen that they generate in their home garages through electrolysis of water using all that nuclear generated electricity that has become so plentiful... While you're at it, change your house over to electric heat from oil. That would be much easier than shipping all that hydrogen around, and we already have infrastructure in place to get the electricity and water to peoples homes, so there would be less initial investment required.

I don't believe it

[bigtangringo]

I'm sorry but I don't believe anything scientists say about the climate.

If you read http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/environment/ it's quite obvious climatologists have no idea what the hell they're talking about as almost every article contains something about "this new information radically changes the way scientists think about xyz."

Don't get me wrong, we do need to stop burning fossil fuels, stop driving SUVs and shoot trash into the sun. Climatologist is still synonymous with quack in my book.

Re:I don't believe it

[pclminion]

You "don't believe it?" How can you "not believe" a map? Do you think the satellite is biased? Tell me, do you think the satellite will vote for Nader?

Re:all the pollution activist in the US are pointl

[Martin Blank]

Among the larger nations, the US has the highest per-capita emissions in many things. But I think there's something more complex here. For example:

How many nations produce automobiles? US vehicles are used around the world.

How many nations produce aluminum? This is an extremely power-intensive procedure. (Anyone know what fraction of the US grid goes to these plants?)

I'm not sure about worldwide aluminum production, so I may be off there, but it's something to consider.

This story and an earlier one on /. ....

[3seas]

... and then there is the dark ages --- talk about air pollutants...

Re:all the pollution activist in the US are pointl

[krlynch]

The US contains 5% of the world's population but consumes 25% of the world's resources.

Which is of course, not only completely wrong, even if it was correct, it would be comparing the wrong things.

It is true that the US consumes roughly 25% of the industrially supplied energy on the planet ... but that is a far cry from concluding that the US consumes 25% of ALL world resources. In this type of energy to population comparison, Western Europe also fairs poorly by consuming a far larger share of the world's industrial energy production than its population entitles it to consume.

Of course, more relevant comparisons would be to industrially produced energy consumed per unit of economic output, or some such similar metric. In this type of comparison, the industrialized world fairs much better, than most third world nations. The amount of energy required to produce a bushel of grain in the US or France compared to sub-saharan Africa is much, much lower, and a kilo of sheep's wool in Australia is less energy intensive to produce than a kilo from South America. The US just happens to produce vastly more grain than sub-saharan Africa, so overall, so overall its grain production efforts will consume much more energy.

I don't mean to excuse wasteful or inefficient consumption of energy in the industrialized world, because there certainly is a lot of that going on, just to point out that you are not considering a realistic metric for comparison.

Re:all the pollution activist in the US are pointl

[radinator]

"Read my lips. The US contains 5% of the world's population but consumes 25% of the world's resources."

I had to respond to this, with the fact the poster conveniently left out:

The U.S. produces 31% of the worlds output.

Thus, we use the energy more efficiently than the rest of the world.

validity of the study

[theMerovingian]

This looks like a relatively professional study: the maps on the website are a composite of 18 months worth of data. This is good methodology to ensure that anomalies are removed (unusual smog days, lightnings storms, etc).

This map is a measure of the vertical density of NO2 in a given column (represented by the area of each pixel on the original image, which is dependant on the camera).

One misleading thing: There is no mention of the climatological effects of the world's mountain ranges, and thus the prevailing winds. This is clearly illustrated along the Himilayas in India and the Andes mountains in South America. The topography is clearly causing bottlenecks in the distribution and dispersion of air. Thus, the map is not necessarily an indicator of where the actual pollution was produced. Naturally, in locations where airflow is reduced, the vertical profile of ANY gas concentration will be higher.

I'd predict you'll even see some similar patterns in global precipitation maps if you were to overlay the two.

(disclaimer: yes I am a prefessional geographer)

Re:validity of the study

[theMerovingian]

(disclaimer: yes I am a prefessional geographer)


On the other hand, I am not a prefessional speller...

It's easy, really...

[jellisky]

Notice that NO2 leads to the production of ozone in the TROPOSPHERE.

The ozone layer is in the stratosphere.

Ozone in the troposphere is not all that great, since it causes a lot of problems in respiration. Ozone in the stratosphere is good since it cannot be inhaled (too far away from us) and keeps that UV radiation from hurting us.

With ozone, it's all about where it is.

-Jellisky

NO2 is not that good.. N2O is much better :)

[roman_mir]

Nitrogen dioxide should be harvested and converted to very very useful Nitrous Oxide, which is very very very hahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
jahahhahahaaaaaaaaaduuude it's funny :)

Re:And not only that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uranium ore is about as common as silver. Not everywhere, but common enough. The big item in use of fuel is whether breeder reactors are used or not. By using a breeder reactor, you will only slightly (or not) enrich it, and you will use much less fuel in proportion to the energy put out (due to the production and later fission of plutonium). The use of such reactors is purely a political problem.

Additionally, due to the extreme energy density of uranium, it is feasable to 'mine' the oceans if the near-surface deposits on Earth were exhausted. It would require some energy to find the trivial amount of uranium dissolved in a ton of seawater, but it would ultimately come ahead in terms of energy produced. And unless noone has ever told you, the oceans have probably about 100x as much uranium dissolved in them as we can find in near-surface deposits.

Additionally, its theoretically possible that by the time we exhaust the near-surface uranium, we will be able to do deep mining (>5 km) and tap additional resources. Since the Earth becomes denser towards its center, the deeper that we mine, the more probable it is to find a uranium deposit.

Re:And not only that...

[Christopher Thomas]

Not quite. Uranium is still a limited resource; the idea of "electricity too cheap to meter" is (like a lot of pro-fission thinking) is a product of Gernsbackian imagination.

The idea of "electricity too cheap to meter" is a fantasy because you still need a bigarsed steam-powered generator no matter what the heat source, not because of fuel concerns. The quantity of fuel used is so vastly lower than the amount of coal and oil burned in fossil fuel plants that the cost of mining really isn't that much, even given the relative scarcity of the element itself.

It won't run out any time soon either if you reprocess spent fuel and also breed fissile materials from thorium, but both of those have materials-handling and security problems (not unsolvable, but enough that the US doesn't use them).

Electric heat, no; very inefficient. Ground source heat-pumps, yes.

Electric heating is as efficient as gas heating; in both cases, you're turning virtually all of the available energy into heat. A heat pump is more efficient than either because it draws heat from the surrounding area (at such a relatively small temperature difference, it costs less to do this than to just dump heat into the house). The reason we use gas heating instead of electric is that electrical energy is more expensive to produce, joule for joule, than the equivalent amount of natural gas. This is a production issue, as opposed to a point-of-use issue.

In short, while I agree with your positions, I disagree with the reasons :).

Good book

[Cygnus78]

A good book about the environmental problems is Earth Odyssey by Mark Hertsgaard. Good section about China and the problems there.

Some photographs from China...

[antdude]

See Yahoo!'s News images I saw yesterday:

#1, #2, and #3.

Re:what are the facts though

[tulax24]

What does improving air quality mean? This is a vague and unmeasurable statement(Yes I heard him say it too). My hunch is that this is referring to particulates, sulfur dioxide, or something of this sort, which likely have improved. Certainly it is not talking about reduced CO2 emissions, and most other greenhouse gases, which have worsened signifigantly under Bush.

People keep pointing out that we didn't join Kyoto because the developing countries, ie China, didn't have strict limits. Thats true. Yes joining would put us at an economic disadvantage. However, when it comes to preventing a global catastrophe, I think its time to stop talking about who's playing fair, and take action. Whats more important, giving your grandchildren a chance to live in a world similar to the one you were given, or your stocks going up a couple points?

As to the thinning and forest management, this was a gift to the timber industries, and is much more than is required to prevent forest fires.

If you want to compare Bush's record to other presidents, have a look at the total amount of land reserved for preservation. His doesn't even compare to other presidents.

Re:No

[Doc Ruby]

How *about* a different Kyoto? Where is it? If we give Bush 4 more years, will his "better Kyoto" be just around the corner? Even Kyoto took time, and it's already the law in many countries. How about complying with Kyoto, while we spend the time producing this next step? The workable, though flawed, is what is known in international negotiations as the "good enough for a start". Those fundamental flaws are the motivators to come up with something better. While doing nothing is drowning us in our own pollution, as we can easily see in this new map.

Eastern Russia? Try China

[pertinax18]

Eastern Russia is definitely not the problem. If the article poster had any sense of geography, he would have noted that the "red blob" is over China, specifically Beijing, Harbin, Xian and other immense northern Chinese industrial cities.

Map of China's coal fires

[theslashdude]

Map of China's Coal Fires

Coal fires produce about 2-3% of the total world carbon dioxide production due to fossil fuels.

Some of Chinese coal fires have been dated to the Pleistocene Era!

Your surprised because?

[Ominous Armed Cow]

1. You didn't know that air quality in the U.S. has been improving continuously over the last several decades, even during the big bad Bush administration?

2. You didn't realize that color coded pictures of gases says nothing about the source of a gas, even if you were to blame it on humans based on someone's unchecked assertion.

PSA

[MightyYar]

I'm surprised this hasn't already been said:

You can make a difference if you live in the Northeast. Call your utility and ask to be added to their wind power program. The energy is about 20% more expensive, but you will be making a real difference. If you can afford it, do it. They will even let you pre-set the amount of wind energy you are willing to buy.

In Pennsylvania, for instance PECO has a wind initiative. Go here: PECO Wind Energy Program or call 1-866-WIND-321. The price is an extra $0.025 per kWh. Their competitors have similar programs, so energy deregulation is not all bad :)

Re:PSA

[TykeClone]

So - your power company is spending extra money to produce expense power, while getting tax credits, and you're paying extra to receive it.

Not bad at all.

Hate to argue, but...

[phamNewan]

The most intersting thing of note is the concentration scale -1 to 6. Nothing on the units. Without the units that picture means exactly zero. Those units could be ppb (parts per billion), or ppm(per million). Almost any cool picture of pollution can be generated to show these results if the scale is small enough.

So while the study produced an interesting picture that shows something, maybe, by not scaling it properly, the entire thing useless.

NO2 by the way only means that nitrogen and oxygen were mixed at high temperature. Cars are the most common source of NO2 pollution. Industrial pollution is much better measured by different chemicals.

Re:And not only that...

[Christopher Thomas]

Actually tailings are really really nasty; there are lots of problems with water contamination.

Quantities will still be far less than the wastes (and other environmental disruption) caused by coal mining and oil drilling and shipping of both substances. I agree that with any form of mining, you have a negative environmental impact; it's just that I rarely see people appreciating exactly how much less material is needed.

I'm also amused by listing sodium chloride as a contaminant. While it will cause problems with the local environment, calling it "salt" would put things like its relative toxicity in perspective.

Not if you consider the small percentage of the heat energy at the power plant being converted to electricity.

Apparently I should have put the sentences about production of electricity causing it to cost more per delivered joule in bold caps, because you're the third person who seems to have missed it.

See what you want to see?

[Kell_pt]

I'm always surprised at how people manage to interpret things the way they want, despite obvious proof on the contrary.

First, I don't see how anyone can look at that map and claim Europe has more pollution than the US. C'mon, are you... visually deaf? Use a ruler if it needs be, but please take a close look. I understand that the 1st map being zoomed in can play a role in there, but please, just put it in perspective. The blob just above Italy is about 1/6 size of the one above the US, while the other large blob in Europe is about 1/5th that of the north american one. I mean... c'mon... :)

Second, bear in mind that NO2 is by far not the only polluting agent that human activity sends into the atmosphere - and it's not the only one that is nocious. It does cause O3 to build up, which would be a good thing in the upper layers of the atmosphere but deadly and poisonous at human-reachable levels (ever noticed there are pool-cleaning systems that use O3 (ozone) instead of clorum? ;)

I urge the 1st poster to really go and revisit that link and read the whole article, and actually examine the map in comparable zoom factors. And yes, that's China and not Russia, like another not-so-geographically-challenged reader pointed out. :)

I did like that comment about industry from more advanced countries fleeing to China where regulations are not as harsh - food for thought. I suppose it's ok if we go and poison other countries to protect our way of life. :) Perfectly sound reasoning. *grin*

Re:all the pollution activist in the US are pointl

[Martin Blank]

You're missing my point.

Lots of pollution over the US. Lots over Europe. Lots over Japan. Less over less-developed nations. How much of that is because the industries are located there, and not in the other nations? Some of these industries require a lot of electricity, and so are difficult to place in other countries. Those areas export to the less-developed nations. Rich providing goods for poor. Now do you get my point?

Re:And not only that...

[ivan256]

the idea of "electricity too cheap to meter" is (like a lot of pro-fission thinking) is a product of Gernsbackian imagination.

Who said anything about it being too cheap to meter? We're talking about feasably replacing gasoline and coal with nuclear, not making energy free. Indeed it could be cheaper, but it wouldn't be free.

Electric heat, no; very inefficient. Ground source heat-pumps, yes.

Inefficient, yes, but better than burning oil or natural gas in every house? Debatable. It certainly less poluting and almost certainly less expensive than coal or gas in the long term. It's also likely better than trucking hydrogen around as the parent to my comment suggested.

Too many people look to still-developing technologies to solve our energy problems. The problem with that is that there's always something better on the horizon so you're continually chasing a moving target, and using technology that isn't ready taints the public's perception of that technology in the future. Solar is a perfect example of this. Lots of people added solar to their houses in the '80s and now they, and anybody that knows them, wouldn't touch solar with a 10 foot pole (not to mention the fact that 20 years later it's still not quite ready). Nuclear technology is mature and ready to solve our current energy problems *today* with practically no additional development. In 20 years when the technology that seems promising now, but it a little bit out of reach is mature we can switch if it's enough of an improvement.

Re:Take note - Blame Clinton for Kyoto

[PacoTaco]

All Bush did was react to the reality of the situation

Yep, that's definitely Bush's strong point.

Air Improves Despite Bush

[cmholm]

Regarding Jay's points on the Bush environment record:

1) Air quality has improved because of the inertia from previous policies put in place by both major parties. Automotive polution controls and smokestack scrubbers, et al, have continued to work, and as old cars and factories go off line, the net effect is improvement. The current administration is taking credit for the effect of policies they'd like to scale back.

2) Bad fire seasons come in cycles, beyond the control of people. How bad is under their control, based on the nature of their forest management. The Forest and Park Services have been practicing 'controlled' burns for twenty years, doing what we used to let nature do at random. Unfortunately, random burns caused by weather and assholes have stayed ahead of the forest management budget. So...

The Bush Administration looked to have the private sector help out by clearing out dead and dying crap that really gets a fire going. At issue was that these policies were written by lobbists from the lumber industry. Sure, they'd be subject experts, but also motivated to take their best shot at harvesting the good with the bad.

The assumption among policy opponents is that the forest industry was just using this as a chance to cut without much oversight, since just about all western forests are stressed and a fire hazard due to prolonged drought, water diversions, and urban encroachment.

Re:Take note - Blame Clinton for Kyoto

[Artifakt]

Kyoto, as finalized, was very seriously flawed, simply because it treated nations such as China and India, both nuclear powers, as entitled to claim special impoverished 3rd world nation status. These latest poliution study results show why that was a really bad idea. There are good reasons why Kyoto needed rejected in that form.
However, President Bush, and a number of White House and Senate Republicans have cited a large number of other 'flaws' that were ALL deal breakers to them. Many of these look like conditions we could have lived with, fair trade offs, or minor points we should have stayed at the table and negotiated over. Various Washington insider writers and gossippers may be deservedly unpopular in general, but in their opinions they have mentioned two big problems worth looking at.
1. Some of the people negotiating for us were very unprofessional - in particular, they didn't seem to grasp which pollution problems were the most major and which were relatively trivial, which issues could potentially cost the U.S. Billions and which 'mere' Millions, and which nations wanting exemptions were major polluters in that area and which ones so trivial it didn't really matter.
2. Some of the U.S. people appeared to be determined to set conditions that were obviously going to leave us with a treaty the U. S. Senate wouldn't ratify, or that all of the other signees would back out on. The core of this arguement is a claim that those people joined the negotiating team with ulterior motives, and weren't really there to get a treaty that would actually help with real environmental problems.
Some (not necessarily all, or even more than the general political mix) of these 'problem' people on our negotiating team were alledgedly financially connected to energy companies supporting the Republican party, or were sponsored by Republican congress-persons. The arguement goes that Bush did more than react to a badly flawed treaty, he had strong connections to the people who made sure that treaty was so badly flawed, and also treated minor flaws as additional reasons sufficient in themselves to justify his decision, so now nobody else wants to open a new round of negotiations. I would not be surprised if the same situation exists with regard some Democrat sponsored negotiators and corporate connections.
How much should Bush be held responsible? That depends on what else he does about the environment, whether Kyoto was really screwed up by a particular group of neo-conservatives or by more general veniality and incompetence that crosses party lines, and lots of other such factors. I'm perfectly fine myself with blameing a good part of it on President Clinton, and part on lots of other people who aren't Republicans, but I also think blame here couples to such related issues as how this administration has handled scientific disagreements over environmental methodology.
Of course some of the people blameing Bush think we should have taken Kyoto even in that final form. Why THEY blame Bush is a good question, as I think they are already mistaken in including that factor in their reasoning. Plenty of people who are strongly committed to one party or the other have picked out only those details of the Kyoto mess that fit their worldview, which I gather was one of your points.

Re:New Zealand is Pollution-free

[refactored]

No we stink as well, just that the trade winds whip it into the wide blue pacific (almost) as fast as we make it.

"Steel Belt"???

[Black-Man]

Huh? Like have you been living in a cave? The steel industry in WesternPA and Eastern Ohio imploded in the early 80's. Given this fact and the fact of the massive population migration, I doubt it's being caused by automobiles.

The Ohio River Valley is a chemical belt and my best guess would be these plants that run from Louisville/Huntington/Parkersburg/Wheeling.

Re:some basic engineering for you

[ColaMan]

Those all all good engineering points, but sadly, higher combustion temperatures mean more NOx. So, the overall engineering intent is to find the sweet spot between NOx production and efficiency... which leads to losses in performance and fuel economy.

And Exhaust gas Recirculation *IS* used primarily for NOx reduction.

You are probably thinking of the system where an air pump pumps air into the exhaust system to burn off the residual fuel products. This page gives a pretty good overview of emission control systems on cars.

A little education

[EmagGeek]

"I'm a bit surprised not to see that many red blobs above US and the strange one is on the east of Russia"

The reason you don't see more blobs over the US is because we have the most stringent atmospheric pollution laws on the planet. Cars in the US are held to the strictest standards in the world for NOx emissions, as are most newer industrial installations. You see a bunch of crap over the northeast because this is where the industrial revolution started, and there are STILL old plants there that are not covered by the new laws - and it's amazing how far companies will go to keep those plants going to avoid having to comply with the new laws (which are very expensive). In fact, the entire northern half of New Jersey, quite possibly the smelliest, dirtiest place on the planet, is home to some of the oldest industrial plants in the country.

Why are you surprised to see a red blob almost completely covering the populated regions of China? China has no emissions laws, and no environmental policy to speak of (or human rights, or IP rights, or any other rights for that matter), so it shouldn't be surprising to see pollution there.