Slashdot Mirror


China Races To Clean Up Olympic Air

Hugh Pickens writes "With the Olympics due to start in less than three weeks, Beijing is cranking up antipollution measures by yanking cars off the roads, expanding mass transit and staggering work hours in a bid to meet its pledge of a 'green' Olympics. Beijing has gone on a spending spree, relocating factories, seeding clouds, retiring old vehicles, planting millions of trees and halting building construction amid concerns that athletes and visitors could suffer breathing problems. For the next two months, owners of 3.3 million private cars can drive only on alternate days in China's capital, based on whether the last digit of their license plates is even or odd. Environmental and sports performance experts have cast doubt on the effectiveness of the measures taken so far. 'Arguably these are all short-term measures, just designed to control air quality for the time when the Olympics are on,' says Dr Andy Jones. Dr Angus Hunter warned that athletes are at risk for low performance if the air quality cannot be brought down to acceptable levels. 'Average times could be lower and the chances of records being broken become less. It's a bit like trying to exercise in a room when the gym is full of smokers.'"

38 of 362 comments (clear)

  1. Just now? by IronWilliamCash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If only they would do this for the right reasons... They'll be cleaning up for the olympics but it will all go back to hell as soon as it's over. They should try to solve the problem permanently instead of suppressing it so others think it's livable over there.

    1. Re:Just now? by HairyCanary · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I'm glad they are working so hard. At this point it's way too late to save their image. Even if they cut the pollution to zero for the Olympics it will be a hot topic. Every day on the news we hear about how hard they're working to solve the problem, and we get bombarded with pictures of how bad the situation is. China's pollution needed to be exposed to the world, now it is.

    2. Re:Just now? by barzok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They should try to solve the problem permanently instead of suppressing it so others think it's livable over there.

      They aren't doing it for image purposes, to make people think that "it's livable over there."

      They're doing it because they've been told that events will be postponed or canceled to protect the health of the athletes if the air quality is poor.

      Which, yes, could ultimately come back to their image, but really it's about the money & what happens if scheduled events have to be canceled.

    3. Re:Just now? by initdeep · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and most of that air quality has to do with the coal power plants which run with no emission controls like other countries have.

      they haven't, and are not, going to change that.

      it's something they have literally hundreds of years of supply, and something they can get for next to nothing in the way of costs, unlike oil based products which they have to import.

      and they aren't interested in spending money on economically friendly "alternative" energy sources that wouldn't supply 1% of their needs when they can again, spend next to nothing (including wages and other costs) to just use something they have.
      COAL.

    4. Re:Just now? by initdeep · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it has been for years.

      witness the very reason the kyoto protocol treaty was not ratified by the US despite a cetain person's desire.

      it was bullshit.

      and now everyone knows it.

      and the biggest reason it was bullshit was because china and india weren't going to be held accountable for their actions.

      and the "Developed" countries were, yet they already have in place protocols to limit their emissions.

      amazing how it comes full circle.

    5. Re:Just now? by techiemikey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yes, that would be great. Unfortunately, they have 3 weeks until many athletes are competing in the highest level of competition there is. In order to do it so that it will last beyond the Olympics they should have started sooner. That being said, at least they are doing something for the time being. If the US was holding the Olympics in LA, i'm willing to bet we would have just told the other countries to live with it.

    6. Re:Just now? by megaditto · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Get off your high horse. Industrialized countried ("First World") have been polluting the Earth for over a century and are still -- by far-- the largest polluters in the world. Per capita, US is ranked 10th worst CO2 polluter, while China is 91st: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
      There are many more examples one could come up with.

      As to all the Chinese coal-fired plants and carcinogen-spewing heavy industries, and I am not so sure the people's lifes would be better off without them. I have been to China, and all the clean rural places are dirt poor. The "dirty" industrialized areas, on the other hand, are much better off (probably at a level of Mexico or Brazil, but with a brighter future).

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    7. Re:Just now? by Ced_Ex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Granted China may be the single largest user of coal power, however, if you consider the pollution on a per person basis, the Chinese are polluting far less than most developed nations.

      I know for a fact, that Canadians are one of the most wasteful users of water, and the reason is because we have a lot and take fresh clean water for granted.

      Perhaps before we start pointing fingers, we should start with ourselves and set better examples?

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    8. Re:Just now? by Alzheimers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US: We're not over-polluting, we're under-overpopulated!

    9. Re:Just now? by Slowping · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm no China apologist, but I wonder if people are dismissing the long-lasting impacts of these efforts. Big political events such as the Olympics are great motivators for change and innovation in the same way as wars; and in much more agreeable conditions. A significant amount of spending and change that Bejing is instituting here is indeed short term; but not without some residual long-lasting impacts for Bejing and other cities. Even if the enviro-friendly spending is cut to a fraction of what it is now, the experience and momentum gained is non-trivial, IMHO. 10 years from now while the developed Western world is still holding each others' dicks and talking about policy change, we may wake up to find China as the underdog that beat everyone to the punch. I have no doubt that the central political forces in China would love to deal such a large international political blow.

      --
      (\(\
      (^.^)
      (")")
      *beware the cute-bunny virus
    10. Re:Just now? by Narpak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Becoming more energy efficient and reducing our emission in any sensible way we can is a very reasonable path to take. Saying we shouldn't do it because China isn't doing anything isn't an argument.

    11. Re:Just now? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you have more water than you can store, then it's not wasting it if you use more than you need. On the other hand, citizens of the US use far more than our share. On the gripping hand, our government uses much of that (and dictates how we shall use much of the rest of it) and isn't really listening to us any more (if it ever did.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Just now? by comp.sci · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What kind of an argument is this? Some of the other guys aren't playing nice so we won't either? Let's keep things in perspective, China and India, while both becoming economically strong, are still to some degree developing countries. India's yearly budget for health spending is $4 per person, just to give an example. You are saying that if an impoverished country like them doesn't put in an equal amount of effort then you shouldn't either... I think people don't realize how big the gap is between developed and developing countries. I personally believe that since we got so lucky on where we were born, we also have a moral obligation to work towards better chances for future generations to enjoy the same prosperity as we do. And yes, that includes taking initiative ourselves, showing that we are above silly fights like that. We need to stop seeing this as a competition but as a collective effort to improve this world.

    13. Re:Just now? by Arccot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      then why dont they just sign onto the kyoto protocol at the same level that other developed (read the united states) countries are supposed to.

      oh wait.......

      China is the single largest user of coal power and also the single dirtiest and most unsafe user as well.

      the average death rate for chinese coal workers is more than 10/day iirc.

      They're also a massive manufacturing center and exporting superpower. It's easy to tell China to shape up, when the only reason wealthy Western countries are relatively cleaner is because they outsource most dirty manufacturing to China.

    14. Re:Just now? by dodobh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita indicates that the US emitted 22.9 tonnes of CO2 per capita, China was at 3.9 tonnes, and India was at a measly 1.8 tonnes per capita. The US should have been emitting ~ 0.8 tonnes per capita of CO2 to be equitable to India, twice that for China.

      After all, all that India and China are asking for is the same quality of life for their citizens as enjoyed by the more "developed" nations. Perhaps you need to rethink your assumptions here.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    15. Re:Just now? by Solandri · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They've spent a fortune relocating factories including one of the world's biggest steelworks. They are not going to spend a fortune moving them all back again. They are not going to close the new metro lines. Even some of the temporary measures may have long term effects; people using the new transport networks while their cars are banned may switch permanently. This isn't just window dressing.

      While public transport use is definitely a plus, moving the factories is probably a net negative. The factories were probably initially located there for a reason - availability of labor, proximity to customers. Moving them doesn't reduce the pollution, it simply shifts it to a different location. Forcing workers into longer commutes and increasing transport distance to customers causes an overall increase in pollution.

    16. Re:Just now? by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're also a massive manufacturing center and exporting superpower. It's easy to tell China to shape up, when the only reason wealthy Western countries are relatively cleaner is because they outsource most dirty manufacturing to China.

      True, but only because the governments of Western nations impose all sorts of enviromental regulations making it too cost prohibited to manufacture locally.

      Basically, it's the whole concept of "the path of least resistance" in action.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    17. Re:Just now? by DarthJohn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm gonna go ahead and reveal (yet again) how stupid I am. Here we go...

      How can you waste water? It's water. It evaporates, rains over the mountains, runs back to the oceans and repeats the process.

      What's it matter if I let a bit extra run down the drain?

      The only thing to waste is (I think) the energy used in the purification process. Somebody used some energy to clean the water and transport it. If I then pour that water down the drain, the energy was wasted.

      Is that it? The wasted energy cleaning and transporting it? I mean... we're not seriously going to run out of water are we? We just might run out of energy to process and transport it.

      p.s.
      I'm trying to ask a question and not be confrontational. I'm not saying that conserving water is a bad thing. I just want to be clear as to why we need to conserve water. I'm sure this is a stupid question and I'm an idiot.

    18. Re:Just now? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Energy consumption is roughly proportional to economic output (roughly, obviously there are many factors in play) so it should come as no surprise that the US, with a larger economy than China, consumes similar amounts of coal.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    19. Re:Just now? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cancer rates doubled in the industrial revolution.

      This is an astonishingly pointless thing to say. Cancer is, for the most part, something you get to die of when you're old. Life expectancy went up, more people got old, thus more people got cancer.

      For the most part, increased cancer rates have been a good thing. Cancer rates have, IIRC, tripled over the past hundred years or so. This is not because the environment is now loaded with carcinogens. Rather it is because people die less and less of things like heart attacks, strokes, accidents, etc., leaving more people to die of cancer instead.

      The number you want is incidence of cancer at any particular age, and even then you must be extremely careful not to get your numbers skewed because of improved detection.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  2. Air quality by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    athletes are at risk for low performance if the air quality cannot be brought down to acceptable levels

    Shouldn't that be "athletes are at risk for low performance if the air quality cannot be brought up to acceptable levels"?

  3. Just like a 10 year old... by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When mom comes around saying he can go play when his room is clean, he frantically shoves the mess into the closet...

  4. uh, wtf? by pak9rabid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    athletes are at risk for low performance if the air quality cannot be brought down to acceptable levels

    Uh..call me crazy, but shouldn't this have been something that should have been taken into serious consideration before choosing a place like this for the Olympics? I mean, I may not be an expert on human physiology, but it would seem to me that having clean air for the Olympic competitors to breathe would have ranked among one of the highest in the checklist for selecting a location for the Olympics.

    1. Re:uh, wtf? by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure that the location was chosen using the time honored political methods...

      In other words, it was picked based on which locality was willing to bribe the judges the most, while at the same time having the best means with which to hide the bribes, or make them look legitimate.

  5. Re:Environmental Wackos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't understand why China was even considered for a place to have the Olympics let alone how they won that bid.

    They [the government] don't care about their people or the environment treating both like trash.

  6. Re:Environmental Wackos by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    China is the one of the worst, if not THE WORST environmental disasters this world has ever had. They are having one HELL of a time trying to clean up the mess they've created for themselves.

    At least they seem to be acknowledging the problem for once.

    It's not much, but it's a start.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  7. Re:Environmental Wackos by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree with you in general regarding China's pollution problem, but the racist overtones (Egg Foo Young?) are unnecessary.

    That said, maybe if you look back at the industrial revolution in "cleaner" countries, we were just as bad. Read accounts of Liverpool in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century. Or how about chemical pollution in the US until the 1970s?

    China's position on pollution is no different than what other countries went through... the difference is just one of scale.

    This does not mean that China's attitude towards pollution is any more tenable, but it helps if we consider the processes by which other countries cleaned up their acts. Of note, grassroots support for a cleaner environment is problematic in China, given their political system, and the ease by which laws can be overlooked.

    But it doesn't reflect well on Americans (or other Westerners) to chastise China while ignoring our own sordid past.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  8. Re:Environmental Wackos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But it doesn't reflect well on Americans (or other Westerners) to chastise China while ignoring our own sordid past.

    You'd think they might have taken a look at our sordid past and learned to do things in a more sane way. In stead they took a look at our (westerners) sordid past and thought: "Hell, if they could do it so can we... times ten!".

  9. Western world's creation by failedlogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its fine and fair to blame the Chinese government for not bringing up tougher industrial anto-pollution laws. We are also being narrow-minded in saying this is alll a Chinese problem.

    The Western world has made China one giant production facility. All the really toxic production facilities - PCBs, paper (increasingly), steel and other metals, etc. are all being made in China. And they're making our clothes, food (which I *dont* buy), and so on. The shipping yards in China are the largest in the world for good reason.

    I'm buying made in the USA or Canada - first, less pollution in transportation, saves jobs, and (should) be higher quality and safer.

    China is overpopulated, yes, and thats a problem they (and we all have) to work to solve. Even if they had reduced pollution say by even 80% over the last decade, there's still too much being produced and too many people. We'd still have a problem.

    I don't think for many reasons it was wise of IOC to approve China. Living in the city of the host of the next Games, development ain't all that environmentally friendly either. Sea-Sky highway being one of them.

  10. Didn't they learn from Mexico?? by notdotcom.com · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For the next two months, owners of 3.3 million private cars can drive only on alternate days in China's capital, based on whether the last digit of their license plates is even or odd.

    Mexico tried the whole "even or odd" license plate thing a while back (for similar reasons) and it was an epic failure.

    People either bought another car, usually an older, more-polluting model, or just ignored the law. The result was that Mexico's air quality got WORSE from trying to restrict vehicles on the road because most 2nd (or 3rd) cars that were being purchased were older models with almost no pollution control equipment and higher fuel consumption.

    I don't know what it takes to buy a car in China, or how the government regulates license plate numbers, but if it's in any way similar to Mexico, this will fail too.

    --
    Grandpa: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.
  11. Re:Environmental Wackos by Romancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dude, racist?

    "EGG" Foo Young on their face... as in Egg on their face. As in Mr T pitties the FOO that doesn't get a bit of localization in a bad pun. There's nothing racist about that remark that you didn't put there yourself. It's a joke that does not demean them as a race, or even say that they exibit stereotypical behavior. Just that they live in a region that introduced a type of cuisine. he did not even include the more typical dog ingredient jokes for the eastern nations that are much more typical of the belittling by mainstream comedians.

    I kinda take offence when people try to make general comments racist. If you stopped and thought about the whole racist issue you would find it disturbing that members of most races can use phrases and words that they do not allow other races to use without calling them racist. Isn't that the definition of racist? Treating a race differently because of their race? Allowing them to do something or forbiding them from something else based solely on their race? If we all kinda got the chip off our shoulders and let these comments go, the words would lose their power and that would be the end of at least a part of the problems we all face every day.

    The actions, are a different story of course and I acknowledge that, but the reaction to general comments are sometimes showing of more racist thoughts than the comments themselves.

    --


    ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
    ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
  12. Re:Yeah... by Darktyco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Call me crazy, but couldn't this "cat culling" cause a surge in the cities rat population?

  13. Re:Environmental Wackos by Smackintosh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Umm, perhaps it just isn't offensive at all and the Chinese can judge for themselves if they find it so instead of you somehow policing it for them.

    In the last fifty years or so we've made great strides in terms of racism, prejudice, and solving injustices for various groups - but it has tipped past the point of rationality. Now everyone's ego and self-esteem is some fragile, gossamer shell waiting to be broken by the smallest slight, the barest hint of negativity.

    I am sorry, but we've become a society of wusses. We should be able to poke fun at people (and yes, even groups of them) when the intent is not evil. We should be able to spank our children when they don't act appropriately. We should be able to give awards to the winners and not to the losers. We should make people responsible for their own actions.

    I'm really appreciative of all that we have today and the progress we've made, but I'm also very ashamed of some of the things we've lost.

  14. Re:Environmental Wackos by QuantumRiff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because they could actually put in place the infrastructure in time. Look at it, they have basically built one of the largest airports in the world in the last few years, built all the olympic venues and buildings needed... (most olympics only build a few buildings, and use existing ones for events when they can). They have built hotels, highways, light rail (from the new airport to downtown) and all sorts of infrastructure in a short time frame. Its pretty impressive what you can do when you have the political will, and a lack of environmental concerns, and don't care what the people think...

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  15. Re:Blog from a guy in China with pictures by Paolo+DF · · Score: 2, Insightful

    However, I would say that waaaay more than two pictures are needed in order to compare air quality.
    Just imagine how can change current conditions the presence of clouds, high winds, fog, temperature, working/non working days, ... you got the picture.

    --
    Pumbaa! I don't wonder; I know.
  16. Egg Foo Young? by phorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The racist overtones (Egg Foo Young?) are unnecessary.

    Well, being that the common expression is "egg on their face", and "egg foo young" is a common dish at a Chinese restaurant, it seems more an attempt at humour than racism.

  17. Re:Environmental Wackos by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Which western country are you speaking of? The US ?

    We have some of the strictest laws in place, thank you very much. So much restriction that we've lost all of our manufacturing to places like Mexico and China that don't have such restrictions in place.

    Could we do better? Sure! However we are leading, where many places aren't following because it is economically advantageous not to follow.

    What is more disturbing however is the whole "Blame America First" crap that you seem to subscribe to. People like you are idiots and tools against real reform, because you can't give credit where it is due.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  18. MOD PARENT UP by PRMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And if you go to the Olympics, you may want to avoid the "chicken"...

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...