Slashdot Mirror


Watching China Turn Off the Pollution

NewbieV points out coverage of the effort to assess Beijing's air pollution control efforts. Quote from one of the investigators: "This will be a very interesting experiment that can never happen again." Here's the main project scientist's site on the monitoring effort, and Newsweek coverage that brings out a paradoxical effect of reducing pollution on global warming. "Unmanned aerial vehicles are measuring emissions of soot and other forms of black carbon. The instruments are observing pollution transport patterns as Beijing enacts its 'great shutdown' for the Summer Olympic Games. Chinese officials have compelled reductions in industrial activity by as much as 30 percent and cuts in automobile use by half to safeguard the health of competing athletes immediately before and during the games."

38 of 427 comments (clear)

  1. Watching China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about the American athletes who got in trouble for wearing breathing masks due to the (still) poor quality of the air?

    Is the Olympic Committee going to step up and make sure future governments who host the Olympics don't get to prevent the athletes from protecting themselves?

    1. Re:Watching China by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is the Olympic Committee going to step up and make sure future governments who host the Olympics don't get to prevent the athletes from protecting themselves?

      A more useful idea would be to be proactive: make local health factors like air pollution a critical consideration in selecting a site.

    2. Re:Watching China by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, I have an idea: let's develop a series of competitive events dedicated to showing off the pinnacles of raw physical endurance and human health... ...and then host it in one of the world's most polluted cities!

      Mexico City (1968)? Los Angeles (1984)? Athens (2004)?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  2. Re:Smashing by AndersOSU · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think I've heard that before... Something about bread and circuses.

    Or maybe eating cake...

    You should write your presidential candidate of choice, perhaps they can make it a campaign slogan.

  3. Perhaps by Colin+Smith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You also noticed the oil price falling too. Watch what happens to that after the olympics.

     

    --
    Deleted
  4. Re:Haha by magarity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    see how many China haters there are on Slashdot
     
    No reasonable person hates "China"; China is a great place with a lot of fascinating history and culture. Maoist style communists, on the other hand, most reasonable people can agree to hate.

  5. Re:Smashing by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We should have more Olympic games. Every month, in each and every single country in the world.

    The Olympics can only happen the way that they do because advertisers are willing to pay MegaBucks to the host city for the privilege of becoming an official sponsor, because tourists will flock in droves, and for a million other reasons that essentially center around the fact that the Olympics are a rather limited and exclusive event.

    You hold it every month and you dilute the brand value.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  6. Cue the rationalists.... by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Particles in pollution that enter the atmosphere cool the Earth by shielding radiation from the sun and bouncing it back out to space. Cutting down on the release of these particles by improving air quality, which China is doing right now and which the West has been doing for some time, actually diminishes this shield and the Earth's temperature rises, Ramanathan and others say.

    Cue the rationalists who will use this as yet another argument against the climatologists and environmental "whackjobs" who are trying to destroy capitalism in order to protct their "American" way of life.

    To paraphrase my wife: "It doesn't matter if global warming is true or not. We all want cleaner air."
    SHe was talking to right winger who was "educated" (told) by a talk radio host that global warming is a myth created by anti-capitalist environmental whackjobs.

    1. Re:Cue the rationalists.... by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It doesn't matter if global warming is true or not. We all want cleaner air."

      By that logic, "It doesn't matter if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Saddam was a cruel and ruthless dictator who oppressed and murdered his people." Something I hear right wingers say everytime someone brings up the WMD discussion.

      Honestly, I agree with the sentiment. I think the recent improvements in alternative energy are a direct result of the global warming scare and will greatly benifit the entire world. At the same time, global warming being true or false is very important. We are making decisions that will affect the world in many different ways, both positive and negative. We have the right to be informed when making these decisions, and changing the reasons why the decisions were made after the fact is wrong.

      I'm not saying global warming is wrong, but this kind of logic (revisionist rationalizing) destroys accountability. Quite frankly, if global warming turns out to be incorrect, I hope that it's advocates will have the decency to stand up and say "we were wrong, and we understand that our mistake has impacted countless lives" rather than "but... but... but... the air is cleaner people!".

    2. Re:Cue the rationalists.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A few points
      -Most who call themselves environmentalists today are extremist whackjobs. Real, science based environmentalism has been sidelined for the last 20 years in favour of the politicized variety.
      -Climate change is a real, recurring, natural phenomenon. Human induced global warming is greatly exaggerated. IPCC still won't explain the fudge factors they had to include to make their models work. Ptolomy would be proud.
      -Lower greenhouse gas emissions != cleaner air. The pollution controls in your car consume power to run. This decreases your fuel economy and actually increases your total CO2 production.
      -Your wife's newsletter, subscription, etc.

    3. Re:Cue the rationalists.... by asc99c · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The science says definitively it is real and it is a problem - the melting icecaps will raise sea levels and flood a lot of coastal cities.

      An interesting question though is whether it's a problem for us or the planet. Certainly the planet has been a lot warmer than it is now and the world didn't end. It's really our fixed infrastructure that will suffer if sea levels change.

    4. Re:Cue the rationalists.... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "It doesn't matter if global warming is true or not. We all want cleaner air."

      By that logic, "It doesn't matter if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Saddam was a cruel and ruthless dictator who oppressed and murdered his people." Something I hear right wingers say everytime someone brings up the WMD discussion.

      That discussion sucks. Saddam didn't have stockpiles of nuclear warheads. We did find a large cumulative amount of scattered uranium ore (processable into weapons grade or nuclear fuel-- but he wasn't supposed to have it!), long range planes and missile engines (that he wasn't supposed to have), chemicals and processing equipment for dual use (benign or bio/chem warfare), and secret military research facilities.

      So what we found was a bunch of stuff that was kept secret but could be COMPLETELY INNOCENT (minus planes/missile engines), but could also possibly be used to bring up a WMD program full-scale in a month or so (i.e.: Very fast). Depending on the logic you apply, we found nothing or everything. Both sides have an argument.

    5. Re:Cue the rationalists.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      people like Al Gore are asking us to cripple our economies to reduce CO2 emissions...

      Why does changing our economy cripple it? Why is driving 50+ miles to work every day a good thing? Why is walking to your grocer a bad thing? Why is being energy conscious crippling?

      The number one best way to reduce harmful emissions is through conservation. So why do the nay sayers focus on extreme ideas like shutting off all the coal fire plants at once? Try shutting off the light when you leave the room first.

      I think everyone would love to buy a car that gets 50miles to the gallon, sounds like the car industry can capitalize on that. Gas stations can become battery exchange stations, or alternative fuel stations or mini-marts, and if entire petroleum industry shrinks by 20% over 10 years is that catastrophic?

      I don't think so.

      All FUD aside, the economy will benefit from greater efficiencies. The power companies want/need help supplying power to an ever growing demand, they would welcome more solar installations.

      Tourism will benefit, with more fuel efficient cars and cheaper fuel people will fly/drive more places.

      Restaurants and other amenities will benefit, less money going to fuel thus more disposable income.

      Feel free to stop me if I missed the "crippling" part.

    6. Re:Cue the rationalists.... by KillerBob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      SHe was talking to right winger who was "educated" (told) by a talk radio host that global warming is a myth created by anti-capitalist environmental whackjobs.

      Even if it was created by anti-capitalist environmental whackjobs, how do they explain away the fact that reducing emissions is about reducing waste, which in turn improves efficiency? Running efficiently is good for your bottom line. Even if it is a crazy idea cooked up by enviro-nazis, it still makes good economical sense to be conscious about the waste you're producing.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    7. Re:Cue the rationalists.... by Bryansix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Find me a job within walking distance and I'll walk to it.

    8. Re:Cue the rationalists.... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And every last bit of that stuff was known to the US beforehand - largely because WE SOLD IT to Saddam. Not to mention that all that stuff dated from before the previous Gulf War.

      Yes, Saddam was a psycho, and the world is a better place with him gone. No, none of the previous reasons Bush and Cheney gave were true. To top it off, thanks to their incompetence, Iraq and the world is a less safe place than under Saddam.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    9. Re:Cue the rationalists.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually the correct question is: Does anthropogenic climate change really matter?

      The answer is no. Climates change, nothing on this planet is static, that includes the weather. The ONLY thing that homo sapiens can do is try to deal with the consequences of a changing climate.

      Even if every ton of human generated CO2 was removed from the atmosphere in one fell swoop, it doesn't matter, the climate will change anyway. Maybe not as fast, but it will still change.

      As such we can only deal with the consequences of it. For instance:
      Deserts are getting larger and drier. So how about we stop building cities in the middle of them?
      Ocean levels are expected to rise. So how about we stop building cities below sea level?
      Some watersheds are expected to have increased precipitation. So how about we stop building homes in flood plains?

      Climate change is a fact, regardless of weather anthropogenic, or natural, the only thing left to do is deal with the consequences.

    10. Re:Cue the rationalists.... by Reziac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Consider that 90% of the volume of the world's sea ice is already underwater, and that ice contracts slightly when it melts. (Water is unlike other materials, in that it expands when frozen.) How much would melting all the world's ice raise ocean levels? I've seen figures as low as a few INCHES.

      How much would be offset by the fact that when it's warmer, more water evaporates? That's going to come down as rain somewhere, and some of it in areas where it won't become immediate runoff.

      That might even be a net benefit as arid and desert areas are likely to receive more rainfall.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    11. Re:Cue the rationalists.... by stinerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's another problem. Crazy high rent. The cost of living in California is insane. Here in the rust belt you don't have too hard of a time finding a studio apartment for $300/mo. Of course, $30,000/yr salary is doing pretty well.

      Another thing is the craziness in your cities. Us Midwesterners are used to white flight and suburban living. Our downtown areas are dirt cheap. You can easily buy decent, livable housing in downtown Dayton for $30,000. It's been this way for years.

      I always took it for granted that housing expenses decrease the closer you are to downtown. Imagine my surprise when I was looking outside the rust belt for a job and an apartment.

      Personally, I don't see how anyone could take more than a 20 minute commute. I'd take a significant pay cut (well right now I'm jobless, but in theory ... work with me here) to work within a short bus/bike ride from home. Here's to hoping that people will start building commercial properties in Riverside County.

    12. Re:Cue the rationalists.... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Global warming is the y2k of this decade. It's about creating a problem/minor panic and a cause that can generate new markets and flow megabucks for things that just aren't worth it.

      Pretty much all the world's leading climate economists find that CO2 mitigation passes a cost benefit test. Look at Nordhaus, Weitzman, Yohe, Tol, Stern, and so on.

      If you've got a scientific or economic argument for why global warming isn't a problem, let's hear it.

    13. Re:Cue the rationalists.... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's true, but global warming isn't about cleaner air. Global warming is the y2k of this decade.

      So you are saying it is a very real problem (those extra digits didn't appear by magic) that with proper warning, foresight, and pre-emptive action can be mitigated such that it causes fewer problems. Well then, I must say I agree.

  7. OK put it simply. by seeker_1us · · Score: 1, Insightful
    short summary:

    1)We have global warming which is from the greenhouse effect.

    2)You have a shitload of sooty pollution it keeps the sun out from the ground level so it feels cooler.

    3) The sun comes out after you clean up your disgusting air and you start to notice the global warming.

    4) Global warming was always there.

  8. It's almost perfect. by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now we have a wonderful rationale to implement a totalitarian world government because ONLY THEY have the ability to stop those dirty, pollution-making people with their freedoms and their poor personal choices. Finally!

    --
    -Styopa
  9. Horrible Article by CaptainPatent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Journalists have a strange way of muddying the waters of studies like this with regards to intent and theory, so I won't make any conclusions as to the validity of the study, but there are a few points that need to be made.

    While this study will be informative as to the pathways pollution will take, I'd really like to know how a 1 month venture is going to address something like climate change. Climate change is something that happens over hundreds of years on a very broad scale. Even though Beijing is a very large city, the pollution there (or lack thereof) will have little (if any) measurable effect over a 1 month period.

    The Newsweek article also posts some of the theories which are speculated by Scripps as scientific fact when they are to be determined by the article - which has the above problems. I can see validity to studying pollution effects on people and where the pollution goes after it leaves Beijing, but climate change is really a stretch.

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
  10. Re:Summary: by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Between coal and all the other oil fields in the world (a great deal of the oil that gets pumped out of the ground eventually gets burned...), that event would probably be a blip locally, but hardly noticeable globally.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  11. Re:Haha by gnuman99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No. I do not hate Maoist style communists. I do not like anyone that denies *reality* for propaganda purposes. Of course, this also includes the so called "communists" in China as well as some standing under Mission Accomplished banners on aircraft carrier.

    Anyone that stands there proclaims fact A in-spite of the facts - I do not believe that person anymore.

    But then maybe this makes me a "science hugger" or whatever term is coined for that. You know, people that look at facts as they are and can change their mind in light of new information? You know, people that *think*?

    So no, I do not hate "Maoist style communists" because,

        1. I do not know enough about them

        2. I do not believe in extremist's propaganda vs. communists (they also hate Castro for some reason while they supported Batista - Castro cared and did a lot more for Cuba than Batista even cared to think)

        3. China is rifled with corruption. So called "Maoist style communists" that people hate is probably more to do with that corruption than the actual economic ideology.

        4. There is a lot worse abuses around the world than in China yet same people that so crazily *hate* the Chinese leaders do not exactly hate or care about the real atrocities.

        5. Most reasonable people do not hate - hate is an irrational emotion. And if you can hate one thing, you can easily be manipulated to hate another, including your own mother.

        6. China doesn't have "Maoist style communists" anymore. None that actually matter. All of them basically converted to nationalistic "china first - me second - rest way behind" type of people.

  12. According to Yoda... by denzacar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No reasonable person hates.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  13. They aren't all whackjobs by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but damn if a large number of the bigger pushers of carbon credits not heavily invested in those "credit industries" let alone massive abusers themselves.

    The global warming as defined; feel free to pick your definition it seems the experts love to change it up a lot too; is not a hoax but a carefully planned wealth and power transfer. Did you ever wonder why the interest in it spiked even with proof we haven't warmed in years but actually may have cooled? Simple, many figured how to make money off of it and many realized how they could get power over other groups by crafting laws to give them oversight.

    Its an eco system. I know we can influence it but when I see the results that show one Pacific volcano was measurable beyond doubt yet its passed over like how all the planets warmed too. Go figure, the fact is that the whackjobs lost their credibility when they kept moving the line. They then fell back on total scare tactics, TWENTY YEARS TILL DOOM, EIGHTEEN YEARS, TWELVE, hell some even go as low as TEN YEARS AND WERE DOOMED!

    Sheesh, people lament religion here and fail to see the newest one.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  14. Re:Smashing by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Physical well-being? Its a freakshow of people who train hard everyday since childhood and many of whom are serious drug abusers.

    Its the ultimate dirty competition where countries exploit little kids. Thats not even mentioning how dirty IOC is.

    These people can no way compete monthly on this level. You would just have a batch of different winners every so often.

    That's ignoring the flawed economics. Youre not sitting around watching this stuff monthly. You'll watch a little every 4 years. No way advertisers are paying those rates monthly.

  15. Re:Summary: by myrdos2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It was all being burnt before there were oil fires. In fact, it's all still being burnt today. (Just check your tailpipe for proof).

    No, the wells could only have increased emissions if the fires were removing oil from the ground faster than the operational, non-burning wells were.

    Of course, you could always argue about catalytic converters and whether torching a barrel of oil is more or less harmful than burning the equivalent amount of gasoline, or what percentage of the oil is used to make plastic. But most of the carbon goes right into the air. The oil fires were just cutting out the middle-man, as it were.

  16. Re:Haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well,

    I myzelf don't like wel ze parizian, which are ze most arrogant poeple on earth (with maybe ze exception of ze people of new-york).
    As a matter of fact, if you go in France in a a non-so touristic area, people are more sympatical. If you go to paris, then most of the french you will meet are arrogant enough to think that even a french guy from another city (toulon in my case) is just a sucker. Try the countryside, people are more relaxed, landscape is nicer, food is better and cheaper... But no louvre unfortunately....

    A trick for the rude part: just learn one sentence in french, then more parisian would try to speak back to you in english.

  17. Re:Haha by Bryansix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Didn't you ever hear of "Hate what is Evil and Love what is good"? Hate may be an emotional response but many times it is to a logical conclusion one reaches on the good/evil scale of measuring things. It helps if you don't subscribe to relativistic morality to understand this.

  18. Re:Facts Tell a Different Story by poached · · Score: 4, Insightful

    chinese women tend to look younger than they really are. Think of it as a plus.

    think of the disgrace brought upon the chinese, the host country, if what you said is true and is exposed by some creditable source? gymnastics is one of the strongest program the chinese has. I don't think they would risk it.

  19. Nothing paradoxical here by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, the news media couldn't exactly pass up this opportunity to confuse people even more on the global climate change issue, could they?

    How amazingly stupid could an editor be, to take what is a straightforward, well known aspect of local climate, and then title an article with a spurious question like "Is Health Air Bad?" The answer is, he'd have to be so amazingly stupid and ignorant, that it must be deliberate. It's a blessing that nobody mentioned to the reporter that the brownish-yellow particulate haze probably contains high levels of ozone. That would have been yet another opportunity to confound different issues and further muddy public understanding (along with the manufacturers of ozone generators).

    For years there have been studies decrying Americans' scientific ignorance, Still, if anything it's amazing they aren't even more ignorant and apathetic than they are, given that their major news sources are, to all appearances, trying to make them more confused about science than they were.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  20. Kuwait != US land area by Zancarius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course, you could always argue about catalytic converters and whether torching a barrel of oil is more or less harmful than burning the equivalent amount of gasoline, or what percentage of the oil is used to make plastic. But most of the carbon goes right into the air. The oil fires were just cutting out the middle-man, as it were.

    It's necessary to consider that the Kuwait oil fires were burning roughly 2/3rds of the daily US oil consumption (as of 2007) across a relatively small land mass. It's easy to point out the equivalency by claiming that burning the oil out of the ground is no different than burning it from the engine of a car, but I think that's grossly naive. Considering that Kuwait was still suffering from the 1991 fires as reported in 2003, I think you're overlooking the health effects of burning nearly a day's worth of US oil consumption in an area not much bigger than Connecticut--without first refining it.

    There are some things a little worse than carbon dioxide, and I frankly wouldn't want to live next to an oil well that's been on fire for months on end.

    --
    He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
  21. Re:Haha by krog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A trick for the rude part: just learn one sentence in french, then more parisian would try to speak back to you in english.

    This actually works almost every time. Also useful in Quebec.

  22. Re:Haha by SnEptUne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is a saying "Hate the sin, not the sinners".

    Hating a person is very different from hating their sins. Usually, people who hate the sinners have difficult times forgiving them despite what the sinners have tried to do to redeem themselves. There is only so much one can do in his/her lifetime.

  23. Re:Haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There is no such thing as evil. There is bad, and there is worse. And worse. But you will never ever have evil. It's a stupid concept, designed by visionaries, to keep shrimp brains in line.

    A much better line would be: "Fight what is bad, aid what is good". It may appeal less to your gut, but it'll do a lot more good in the end.