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."
Carbon Dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) increase heat retention. Soot (and other opaque particulate matter) reflect heat before it reaches us. The trick is determining the effect of each in isolation. The temporary reduction in soot emissions in Beijing gives us a chance to see the effect of soot in isolation (or close to it).
This isn't exactly new ground (we've previously observed the effect of increased particulate matter in the wake of large volcanic eruptions), but it's one of the few times we see it in reverse, triggered by human activity.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Why is it, when there are more important issues, this ONE, probably a lesser issue, gets all the "controversy" air-time?
Some reported facts and anecdotes:
As told to velonews, air pollution builds-up because Bejing sits on the edge of the Gobi desert. A good rain is required to clear the air that's trapped in Bejing. http://www.velonews.com/article/81199
As a former competitive cyclist living in Los Angeles, I can tell you from experience, you feel the pollution later, not really during the event.
What *would* affect most outdoor performances more than pollution is the heat/humidity combination.
Finally, the last olympics had major heat issues for road cyclists, so each location has issues. Smog is not a major one for Bejing.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
"It doesn't matter if global warming is true or not. We all want cleaner air."
Except that "fighting global warming" isn't about cleaner air. It is about reducing "greenhouse gases", primarily CO2, which is an essential part of the atmosphere. So, it does matter if "global warming" is true, because people like Al Gore are asking us to cripple our economies to reduce CO2 emissions, which are only a problem if global warming is a problem.
Which is a question that I rarely seen discussed. If Global Warming is true, is it really a problem?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Chinese officials to citizens: We can move heaven and earth when we deem it sufficiently important; foreigners will enjoy proper breathing conditions. Once they are gone, you'll go back to sucking down the equivalent of a cigarette drag every time you breathe outdoors. STFU, coolies, and get back to work.
Everybody is talking about how this will be the Chinese century, rah-rah, all is grand. History doesn't always go along with the popular consensus. The communist revolution was supposed to occur in advanced, capitalist countries, not a semi-feudal backwards backwater like Imperial Russia. Everyone was convinced the Shah's Iran was a model of western influence in the region and a shining bulwark against religious radicals. Hardly anybody saw the Iranian revolution coming.
I'm not saying it will go one way or the other, I'm just proposing a scenario on how China could fail in a couple of broad brushstrokes.
1. Eroding faith in government. We already saw how bad their construction was after that recent quake. 20 year old buildings stood up to the shaking, more recent buildings fell down. Government regulation and enforcement has failed.
2. Shitty infrastructure. A lot of reports talk about how the Chinese are building a bunch of stuff but the quality has been poor. This is not infrastructure that will last for decades, this is just slapping stuff together as quickly as possible, Haliburton style. We already know Three Gorges Dam has a lot of problems, what happens when it fails during a quake? Go back to point 1, eroding faith in government.
3. The pollution is freaking out of control. What kind of collapses and failures environmentally can they look forward to? The Gobi is expanding rapidly. What happens if they have famine?
4. Economics. Right now they are holding an incredible amount of American debt but to what end? Is this an economic cudgel to use against us? What if they misjudge and the weapon turns out to do them more harm than us? If the US defaults on the loan, what next? Who are they going to sell their cheap shit to? Are their domestic markets ready to create demand and wealth?
5. Disproportionate share of prosperity. The oligarchs are making out fine, what about the rest of the people? Will class resentment grow too powerful?
6. Population time bomb. One Child per Family means there's a lot of boys and not many girls to go around. What are they going to do for wives when they grow up? And what of families who have lost their only sons in disasters like the quake. The Chinese put a huge premium on family, carrying on the line, etc. Could there be massive popular resentment against these policies when such disasters wipe out entire families such as we've seen?
It seems like the current Chinese leadership has learned from the errors of their predecessors -- isolationist thinking in a violent world makes China a conquered country. They're now going to be actively engaged on the world stage. It will remain conflict to be sure, but how much will be diplomatic, how much economic, and will military be resorted to when the other two have failed? Will China get itself involved in wars it cannot win? Could a major loss see the fall of the party? What would the successor states be like? Would we see a return to the warring states period?
Lots and lots of questions. I just think the whole "This is China's century" narrative is only one of several possible outcomes.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
The irony is the Olympic Committee gave the Americans the masks because they complained about the air pollution.
I expect the "Daily Show" will have a field day with that.
The BBC is measuring pollution themselves, much to the annoyance of the Chinese government. August 10 was a really bad day. August 11, not so bad.
The equestrian events are in Hong Kong, which also has high pollution, but the drastic control measures being used in Beijing aren't being applied to Hong Kong. That's a small-scale competition. Hong Kong's racing fans think dressage is boring, and more than half of the 10,000 spectators walked out yesterday.
If Global Warming is true, is it really a problem?
Well if you are just looking for the economic consequences of global warming the Stern review must be the most well known work. Nicholas Stern was the chief economist of the World Bank, 2000-2003. Here is the Wikipedia summery:
Although not the first economic report on global warming, it is significant as the largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind.
Its main conclusions are that one percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) per annum is required to be invested in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk global GDP being up to twenty percent lower than it otherwise might be. Sternâ(TM)s report suggests that climate change threatens to be the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen, and it provides prescriptions including environmental taxes to minimize the economic and social disruptions. He states, "our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century." In June 2008 Stern increased the estimate to 2% of GNP to account for faster than expected climate change.
The Stern Review has been criticized by some economists, saying that Stern did not consider costs past 2200, that he used an incorrect discount rate in his calculations, and that stopping or significantly slowing climate change will require deep emission cuts everywhere. Other economists have supported Stern's approach, or argued that Stern's conclusions are reasonable, even if the method by which he reached them is open to criticism.
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
It is about reducing "greenhouse gases", primarily CO2, which is an essential part of the atmosphere.
The incorrect implication being that we risk reducing CO2 too much, as it is 'essential.' It is unlikely that we even *could* do this, and we are certainly not at risk of doing so.
So, it does matter if "global warming" is true, because people like Al Gore are asking us to cripple our economies to reduce CO2 emissions, which are only a problem if global warming is a problem.
The cripple our economies claim is so non-sensical, I wonder if people actually believe it. Reducing carbon emissions != economic disaster. It will mean an adjustment that more accurately prices the use of carbon-heavy items (fossil fuels in particular) by accounting for the huge negative externalities they cause. So yes, oil will get more expensive, but cleaner technology will get cheaper. Capital investment will funnel towards greener technology at the cost of high-carbon-output technology. Rather than there being tons of profit in, say, mining coal, there will profit in, say, developing high efficiency refrigeration or higher temperature superconductors.
The crippling-the-economy baloney assumes that our economy can not change and adapt to a different set of value models, something that is just clearly not true.
If Global Warming is true, is it really a problem?
If you care to believe science, climate change is true. If you think adapting 6 billion people to new shorelines, climates, and weather patterns is not a problem, then no..it might not be such a big deal. Seems to me, though, it probably will be.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
If you'd like to replicate this experiment in a NASA climate simulation yourself, the EdGCM project has wrapped a NASA global climate model (GCM) in a GUI (OS X and Win). You can add CO2 or turn the sun down by a few percent all with a checkbox and a slider. Supercomputers and advanced FORTRAN programmers are no longer necessary to run your own GCM.
Disclaimer: I'm the project developer.
Space and Computers.
Honestly, I didn't entirely understand the furor over the athletes wearing masks. So what???
Within the last year, I visited Asia including Taiwan (*cough* sorry, that's "Chinese Taipei"), Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Shanghai -- although not Beijing. Throughout my travels I saw a number of locals wearing masks in different places: bicyclist or motorcyclists, pedestrians, people in airports and on planes.
Where did all this commentary originate? I'd think that the Chinese people wouldn't think very much of the Americans wearing masks. Am I wrong?
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
High thin clouds have a different effect from low thick clouds with respect to surface temperature.
High thin clouds reflect/reradiate more infrared energy downwards while low thick clouds reflect more incoming visible band radiation back to space. The infrared band energy radiated by the surface is heading out to space to balance the incoming (from the sun) higher frequency radiation. The result is that high clouds may warm the surface while low clouds cool it.
Neat eh?
I'm actually more interested in increasing efficiency so that we get more energy per unit of fuel. Global Warming provides one such motivation to get all that we can out of the fuel that we have.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
I think the biggest opportunity that could be had here, besides the science, is that China's and specifically Beijing's residents will get to see what their city is like without much pollution. I hope that they come to the conclusion that they LIKE not having smog and pollution. There is the possibility, that the Chinese will demand that they want less pollution in their cities, and are willing to do what it takes to clean up their power plants, cars, and factories to do it. If only they we could do this once a year for all big countries. India, Brazil, Russia, China, the U.S., etc... We could get people really behind making positive changes.
Party at O'zorgnax's Pub! Buy me a Slurmtini aye?
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.
Except the Bush administration simply stated (and reiterated hundreds of times over) that there were WMD's in Iraq. Not "there might be" or "there could be resources that bring up a full-scale WMD program within a month."
When this discussion comes up, I think a lot of people are just upset that they were lied to. The Bush administration definitely tried their best to make it seem like Saddam had stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Excluding the "Oops, we made an honest mistake" (easiest excuse to use when you get caught lying) argument, I really don't think both sides have an argument on this topic.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
Today, I heard a very interesting comment on an early-morning business/investment radio show that I listen to:
One of the hosts was talking about how the Chinese stock market has gone South lately because of this "Great Shutdown", but he was trying to give his listeners encouragement by telling them that as soon as the Olympics are over, China will go back to their polluting ways and then all will be well for the investment community that depends on China in so many ways.
It was a very clear window into a world where the business community absolutely prays for the bad things to happen to most of us, in order for the very very few to get rich. Honestly, there was a pause in the host's spiel during which it almost seemed as if he realized what he was saying, and the moral implications of wishing environmental disaster on a billion people so that he and his friends can offset their sub-prime losses.
It made me realize that there are worse things than a severe downturn in the stock market. It might even do some good, except for the fact that so many of us have been suckered into putting our retirement savings into that fool's game. Can you imagine what might have happened if we'd listened to Bush and McCain and had privatized Social Security?
Tell you what: China's economy is going to come on strong in the next few decades, and the US is thinking it's going to go along for the ride. The only problem is, once the Chinese figure out what this "economic boom" really means, they are going to be really really pissed.
You are welcome on my lawn.
True, CO2 mitigation would have high costs, but so would climate change. The benefits of mitigation outweigh the costs, but mitigation isn't very effective unless all the major players are on board. That's the real problem.
No kidding! I was in Shanghai in January for 5 days. I felt like I had smoked 5 cigars by the time I woke up, and no I don't smoke. What they really need to do is put green roofs on as many buildings as they can. I read a great article about how they are trying to do that called, "Green Roofs in China, Helping Beijing Breathe" found here: http://cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/2008/06/green-roofs-in-china-helping-beijing.html
My wife's family lives on a rice paddy in rural Japan and the air looks exactly the same as it does in Beijing all summer long.
(I've never been to Beijing in the summer, but I was in Beijing the week before the IOC got there and what I saw and breathed made Los Angeles and Tokyo look like pristine rural parks).
It varies from place to place. Tokyo and the Kanto plains is quite polluted even in the rice paddies. So is Osaka/Kobe and Kansai. Higher up is clear.
You do not see the air in the Philippines, usually even in Manila despite the humidity.
The point is when the humidity level is that high, you can't tell visually how polluted a city is.
And that is nonsense.
From TFA:
But take one look at the map in the article and ... hey, wait a minute... Jeju/Cheju Island is located right smack in the middle of that blue blob in the lower middle of the photo!! And since the caption says "Areas in red depict the dimensions of the main aerosol mass emanating from Beijing", that means Jeju is exactly the WRONG place to gather data, since it's out of the aerosol stream.
This is a factual inconsistency in the article, as the map and the text contradict each other. Granted, most Americans couldn't find Jeju on the map, but that's still no excuse for poor attention to geography on the part of the article writers.
Which makes one wonder why these measurements aren't being taken in China. Oh wait, but of course they are. It's just that the measurements are being done by Chinese scientists ... and the fact that they aren't working in cooperation with the American scientists is just further evidence that there is a real information Great Wall between these countries...
Wikipedia is your friend.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?