The World's 10 Dirtiest Cities

neever writes "You may already know about the pollution plight of Linfen, China. But how about the heavy metals Pittsburghers breathe in on a daily basis? Or the incomparable smog Milanesi put up with? PopSci has culled an eye-opening selection of some of the world's most problematic cities. From the painfully high cancer rates in Sumgayit, Azerbaijan to the acid rain destroying La Oroya, Peru, writer Jason Daley walks readers through the lowest of the low; and explains why, despite it all, there's still hope for these places."

Comments

digg

[Anonymous Coward]

/. seems to be turning into digg with all these 'worlds #' topics...

Re:It doesn't have to be that way...

[servognome]

Anyway, I live in one of the minor million-plus cities of Japan near Tokyo, and I just want to note that you can have a high-tech, high-quality lifestyle without destroying your environment.

The thing is the worst places typically aren't high-tech, high-quality life. They are industrial enough to attract large population concentrations, but not developed enough to have resources for mass transit, sanitation, and other health improvements.

The list please

[Ranger]

Just give me the damn list. I don't want to click through every goddamn picture so I can watch your stupid ads. If you think I'm being insensitive, then why do the people who present the info put a different name and picture on separate web pages so you can see a new ad every time you click on a link.

And the other thing, since most of the slashdotters are in North America unless they live in or near a hazardous city, they don't give a rat's ass. There are plenty of dirty communities here and they are disproportionately affect minorities.

Pollution

[pipingguy]

And this is why we must reduce CO2 emissions, like, RIGHT NOW, before it destroys the planet. Man-made CO2 pollution is the worst evil threat the planet has ever faced and the only way to deal with it is to Kyoto so that polluters can buy credits and send money (somewhere) in order to continue to pollute. The fact that the two largest emerging world economies on the planet are exempt/opted-out from Kyoto is irrelevant. Quick, before the bubble bursts and we all die!

Re:Pollution

[pipingguy]

OK, so who is "we", who is going to be paying carbon/trade taxes and who will be adding all this CO2 to the atmosphere in the coming 10 years? If wealthy, polluting industries "pay to pollute", does that actually reduce emissions? Where does the money go? How much time will it take until "we" are safe again? Will we see objectively measured results that all parties agree on? Is it a 10 year, 20 year, 50 year plan to save the planet? So many questions.

Re:Pollution

[BlueParrot]

It works like this:

The main reason Coal is being used to produce electricity rather than say Nuclear, Wind Power and Solar is price. Coal is cheap. If you impose a carbon tax , however, forcing companies that emit a lot of CO2 to pay for it, then that will make electricity generation from coal more expensive, and thus hopefully cause electric utility companies to build nuclear power plants, wind turbines, and solar panels, instead.

The idea is that you integrate the environmental cost of pollution into the market system, thus forcing supliers to take environmental concerns into consideration when making business decisions. Now, while flat out taxation is one way to achieve this, it is very difficult to determine how much to charge for a given amount fo environmental damage, and this is where tradeable emission permits comes into play. Rather than taxing companies directly, what you do is you decide how much of a certain pollutant we can emit without causing major trouble, and then you auction it off to highest bidder. That way you force the market to adapt to a lower emission scenario, and the price adjusts itself according to normal market principles. With time you can then reduce the "acceptable" level of emissions as technology improves, periodically reducing the amount of pollution.

The catch is of course that this WILL have negative effects on other aspects of the economy. The important thing to realize is that this is not some new negative effect the government has created, it is a price that we were previously paying in terms of environmental damage. What tradeable permits do is to limit the extent to which manufacturers can impose that cost on everybody, and instead put it right down where it belongs , with the consumers that use goods and services that generate pollution during their production. Yes, I said consumers, not companies. Manufacturers will on pass the cost to the consumers, in the form of higher prices, and this will in turn reduce demand.

"Oh but you can tax as much as you want people still want to drive their cars... blah blah blah...". This is why you use tradeable permits rather than direct taxation. Tradeable permits outright forces the market to adapt meaning prices will increasethe UNTIL they are high enough that demand drops. When it comes to goods that people consume a lot regardless of price ( such as gasoline ) this trabnslates into a large price increase. When it comes to things you can eaisly replace with other things, the increase in price will be smaller.

The real problem is that the cost of CO2 is really really large. Emitting it causes major damage to the planet, curtailing it causes huge costs to the environment. There isn't an easy solution to this, which is why a number of peopel prefer sticking their head in the sand and deny the whole thing. I am seriously very sceptical to weather the necessary measures will be taken. People won't put up with a 3 fold increase in energy prices ( which is where wind power is relative to coal and nuclear ) so if we hope to get rid of coal it would appear that unless we get a sudden breakthrough in solar, only Nuclear has a chance to save us. Somewhat ironically, the most hardline environmentalist groups oppose it almost religiously, and thus it woudl appear we will be stuck with coal for a long time.

Re:Pollution

[Sapphon]

If wealthy, polluting industries "pay to pollute", does that actually reduce emissions?

Err... yes. "Pay to pollute" => pollution costs money => you can make a bigger profit by lowering costs, in the form of pollution => Profit! Oh, and Environmental Quality! Economics 101, hello?

Where does the money go?

That depends on the scheme. Some governments issue the certificates for free and let the industry trade amongst itself. The money then goes to whoever sells their certificates i.e. whoever pollutes the least. How much is polluted then depends primarily on how many certificates are issued.
Alternatively the goverment can sell the certificates. This isn't a bad idea, because that way the Gov't gets the money and can fund environmental cleanups (or minister junkets, whatever). Biggest problem is the fact that the government may set a too low or too high price.

You can get the benefits of both by having the government sell a fixed number of certificates (who gets to buy them is another issue) and letting the secondary market take care of the process of marginal cost/benefit equalisation. The issue price would have to be below the market equilibrium price, but with a bit of practice the government can figure it out.

Current practice in the EU, AFAIK, is Model 1: issue the the certificates, let the market trade. In the last few years there were far too many permits on the market, so that the costs for a ton of CO2 were somewhere around 0.26â, but this year it's around 20â, I think (haven't checked the market recently).

I don't know what the GP meant with his "two largest emerging world economy haven't signed the Kyoto protocol" statement: Brazil, China, and India have all ratified it.

Answers to the OP's further questions can be found in the Kyoto protocol itself:
Full Text
Layman's guide

Re:come on

[Lehk228]

soviet russia was no more proper socialist than capitalist america, both subverted the will and well being of the people for the benefit of the wealthy and connected

Re:Pittsburgh for University.....

[Hungus]

Don't worry, the article (PopSci) is self contradicting in the first place. On one page it says that 16 out of the 20 most polluted cities are in China, it then goes on to name 9 out of the top 10 which are somewhere other than China. Last time I checked 20 - 16 was 4 not 9. Of course maybe they are using the new math.

Within another 10 years, maybe sooner

[WindBourne]

these will all be chinese/tibetan cities. Sadly, China has no real pollution controls on anything. They have a trillion US$, but do not want to purchase any of our's or EU's controls for their coal plants. Likewise, from the pix, their mining techniques are far worse than has been deployed. Their tailings are leaving a lot of waste to run into their streams. The sad thing is that they can see what other nations did, and have the ability to buy better equipment and processes, but insist instead that they be given the tech.

Re:Bad air...

[timeOday]

I have a friend from China that was excited to be able to find the sun. First spotting in 10 years.

Living in New Mexico, I find that mind-blowing. I am worried that, with all our concern about doing little things like switching to fluorescent lighting, there is little to no recognition of the root problem - human overpopulation. It's not just the pollution, I love wild natural places and they are all filling up with people and farmland. Our reliance on illegal immigration to support our economy shows that we are not ready to give up ponzi-scheme economics. Yet the Chinese, of all people, can hardly be criticized, since they're the ones taking draconian measures to level off. I don't want to get to that point. Disclaimer: I'm a hypocrite with 4 kids.

Re:Bad air...

[N3WBI3]

Human over population is *not* the root problem, wastefulness is! Europe is far more densely populated than the US yet it has cleaner air and water why? because they give a crap. We waste food, waste energy, waste water, etc. Thats the problem.. Give me 2 six-person households who are diligent about not wasting things and who dont need 1K sq ft each over *1* family with one kid, two SUV's a McMansion, and who have no cares about conservation..

Tragedy of the commons

[gnuman99]

And what do people complain about in these shit places? The environment? No! They complain about lack of money, about laws and other worthless shit.

Back few months ago, Bombay,India wanted to mandate *some* regulations that would require those shitty rickshaws to stop using kerosine mix crap for fuel. Never passed because of lobbying from the rickshaw drivers. I guess they don't give a shit if they die at 30 from lung cancer, but they do care if they have to pay *anything* to make their own environment cleaner.

This situation is the the everywhere. Kind of makes you think how shortsighted we think.

Re:Tragedy of the commons

[Gorshkov]

I guess they don't give a shit if they die at 30 from lung cancer, but they do care if they have to pay *anything* to make their own environment cleaner.

It's hard for most people to worry about what's going to happen to themselves when they're 30 when they're too busy working their butts off to try to feed the family supper that night.

This situation is the the everywhere. Kind of makes you think how shortsighted we think.

Farsight is a luxury only for those who are not fighting for survival on a daily basis.

Re:come on

[leoboiko]

I'm a libertarian capitalist. However, I think libertarianism breaks when it comes to protecting the environment. The way I see it, there are at least three reasons for it being so:

1. Economics theory pressuposes rational agents. People often aren't rational; they do stuff that will get them into lots of trouble later, just to get some profits right now. They also do stupid shit like owning cars only because other people also do it ("status symbol").
2. Further, the theory pressuposes abstract immortal agents. People don't care about what will happen after they're dead.
3. Tragedy of commons. Air, water, tropical ecosystems etc. are "outside" the capitalist system, so people are free to abuse them for profit.

I don't know of any better alternatives though. Deregulated capitalism still seems to me to be the best system we got; but, even with my distrust of giving power to government, I've got no choice but to support regulation and taxation to prevent fuckers from destroying *my* planet.

Now if only I could figure out a way of making Americans giving up on SUVs...

Re:Bad air...

[HiThere]

Sorry, it's a hangover from "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth" (Somewhere in Genesis)

Re:Bad air...

[timeOday]

Actually I think evolution is a much more obvious explanation of the drive to overpopulate than religion is.