Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Fear Impact of Asian Pollutants On US
During the Olympics we discussed the international monitoring effort as China shut down factories and curtailed automobile travel in an attempt to reduce pollution. Now reader Anti-Globalism sends in a story that reveals that monitoring effort to be ongoing, with a bigger mandate: assessing the impact of China's pollution on the US. In fact the problem is bigger still because, as one researcher put it, "It's one atmosphere." Scientists are finding that pollution from, for example, Europe can travel right around the globe in three weeks. "By some estimates more than 10 billion pounds of airborne pollutants from Asia — ranging from soot to mercury to carbon dioxide to ozone — reach the US annually. The problem is only expected to worsen: Some Chinese officials have warned that pollution in their country could quadruple in the next 15 years. While some scientists are less certain, others say the Asian pollution could destabilize weather patterns across the North Pacific, mask the effects of global warming, reduce rainfall in the American West and compromise efforts to meet air-pollution standards."
Their exports are pretty skunky, too. Would you care for some lead paint with your toy, junior?
Oh, but there I go being all liberal and gay and shit. Really, we should let the free markets decide what an acceptable level of poisoning should be for our children. "But they're using asbestos as a padding for the cushion in this crib!" The free market decided it was cheaper than foam. I'm sorry, but the market's decision is final, you'll just have to accept that.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
... the solution is simple. Just forbid imports from polluting Chinese factories.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
America only pumps pure clean oxygen into the atmosphere.
Deleted
kettle.
Gotta love the unwitting parochialism in this story- Those polluty old Asians are making all out cheap stuff!
This is our pollution. If you outsource industry, you outsource the concomitant waste. So do we wash our hands (in increasingly filthy water), or step up to the plate and deal? (A rhetorical question, I know....)
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
It's not just China's pollution. It's the world's pollution. We consume the product, and we should be responsible for the process waste.
Some portion of the purchase price should be allocated to r&d for minimising process waste. Whether taxed by manufacturers directly, or by participating governments.
Or there's no pollution in the US, never has been. The rest of the world has nothing to worry about from US manufacturing or transport. The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere now are someone else's fault; probably the French till the Chinese came along.
If the US wants another country to cut their pollution, then it has to deal with its own.
It has refused to sign up to a commitment to reduce its own pollution, yet would like others to do so.
Ok, the US may not be the worst offender, but still 'do as I say not as I do' is hardly a philosophy fit for the world stage.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
partisans on the left, partisans on the right, nationalists of every nationality...
please shut the fuck up
the earth is our planet, and we must steward it
this applies to you on the left: a hands off attitude to mother gaia is complete bullshit in a world of 6 billion technologically inclined homo sapiens
this applies to you on the right: yes, human activity actually has an impact on our planet's climate, and yes, we must do something about it. we are sorry you are in denial on this subject. please learn to adapt to reality
furthermore, it does not matter who fucked up our environment, it simply matters that we must manage it, all of us. talking about blame is simply a desire to avoid responsibility. we all have the responsibility for our planet
we must must find ways to turn up the thermostat, we must find ways to turn down the thermostat, and then, we must actively do this. we have plenty of time to adjust and anticipate and counteradjust our manipulations. the scaremongers wish to talk about run away processes, but we are very much in the middle of a fluid and forgiving climate model. no atmosphere would have survived this long on earth were it so fragile and susceptile to runaway change. millenia of abuse from volcanoes and sun cycles and life processes has proven our atmosphere to be quite rugged
but not invulnerable, and certainly totally indifferent to our well-being and our need to grow crops. the earth has no problem turning into tundra or desert. but we have a problem with that. so let us actively manage the atmosphere to stay within comfortable parameters. this is of course completely artificial. the natural evolution OR human-made greenhouse gases migth dictate that the atmosphere go to a hellish extreme at some point. who cares WHY it might drift to an uncomfortable fringe state, natural or man-made, are we to simply sit back and suffer and wait for things to get comfortable again in a couple of thousand years?
no. we are mankind. unlike other animals, we do not adapt to our environment. we wear clothes, build huts: we adapt our environment to us. in this way, we conquer the taiga, and conquer the sahara. therefore, we must begin to actively engineer and manage our atmosphere to our liking, to homo sapiens comfort level. which is, pretty much as the climate is right now globally. freeze the status quo for all eternity
who CARES who is to blame, if anyone. active management is simply what we must begin to do. obviously, this should be a world body, something attached to the un. meanwhile, if we simply sit around passing the buck, blaming something else, nothing gets done, and we all go to hell. literally, in the case of climate change
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Ethnocentric? The fact that pollution from europe can reach the US in 3 weeks is just illustrating that pollution travels. Presumably, thats just based on a study that found that. No one is saying pollution from the US never goes to china, it's just likely that hasn't been specifically tested and would therefore be illogical to use to support the argument.
Why is it you're so anxious to see ethnocentrism? You really had to distort things to come away with that conclusion. Are you a lawyer who has found a way to sue scientists for ethnocentrism?
I never bought into this whole argument that China didnt have to sign on to Kyoto but the US does since the US is "developed". Since when is a space age nation and has nukes not a developed country? If the US gives back the moon flags can we go into this protected nation status that China gets?
Stuff like this has always been happening... Pollution from one country going into another. Just think of a large river, like the Danube, which goes through 5 or 6 countries, each of which used to dump a lot of trash in it. There's nothing that the downstream countries could do about it.
The US is guilty of stuff like this as well. The Colorado river had a huge delta in northern Mexico. After the dam was built, the area where the Delta was is now a desert. What could the Mexicans do about it? Nothing.
So, I frankly think that pollution wafting its way from the PRC to the USA only serves the Americans right, and they I think the chinese should can all their pollution and send it to the states (or whoever else hired them to make te crap in te first place) and be done with it. This is not Chinese pollution. It is american pollution coming home where it belongs.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Well said, it all pretty much started with Nixon when he opened trade and continued through Clinton and Bush. Everyone couldn't resist the money that China had to offer so they'd do anything and accept anything despite the human rights abuses as well as pollution. China never had to compromise their position even in the slightest. At least as far as I'm aware.
A tax or tariff based on pollution involved would encourage people to buy goods from places which are more neighbor friendly and would be fair since it's based on something tangible. The money could be used to help fund energy research or perhaps even more importantly cleanup efforts. This wouldn't be a bad idea per company instead of per country as some items produce less pollution than others during manufacturing.
The problem with taxing like this is that it wouldn't really have to stop at pollution as other causes could easily be picked up as well which could start a downward spiral so I'm not exactly sure what the correct course of action is beyond my own purchasing habits.
If you consider pollutants as a consumption issue, rather than as a production issue, then USA, being the largest consumers, should take some of the environmental responsibility too: That electronic gizzmo cost you $100 + your share of environmental "guilt".
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The US didn't like pollution from making stuff at home so it had it made in China, from where it could import the stuff and leave the pollution. Now the Chinese make so much stuff for America that the pollution is coming home by itself anyway. The irony is almost tangible...
Your point would be fair if the Kyoto treaty was actually being met by member nations. Most every nation is improving but they are falling far short of their goals which is the stated reason why the U.S. didn't get involved because they knew the standards were too high and could not be reasonably met without serious compromises to profitability.
Before Bush came into office the U.S. had tough emissions controls on manufacturing and power generation facilities. Things have gotten worse since Bush rolled back the regs but they still aren't near as bad as they were in the 50's and 60's when entire lakes were being rendered toxic.
That also said, cars in the U.S. have stricter regulations than in Europe in terms of emissions which is why all the people with truly fast cars have to import them. Of course America has a lot more cars so that is probably why you feel the way you do about our output.
You are right in that acknowledging and investigating global effects of all things we do is a worthy endeavor.
Of course with that said, what about the U.S. energy policy has been hypocritical? Or are you just trolling about an obviously failed foreign policy which is widely condemned inside the country?
The last thing I'll add is that measures are already being taken to improve matters in the U.S. China is not budging on its position and quite clearly sees no need to. I know my home town is cleaner today than it was in the 80's. Here in Arizona Phoenix is getting worse as more and more people move here but outside the valley the air is quite clear and quite healthy which is more than 75% of the state. Arizona is also going to build a rather large solar array just north of here hopefully becoming one of the largest.
A lot of research is being done right here in the valley to help improve conditions, our malls have recharge stations for electric vehicles. The U.S. is hardly standing still, more can and should be done but why agree to benchmarks you know you can't meet?
The fact that some Americans are now worried about the effects of OTHER countries' pollution on the local American environment seems hypocritical, at best. I wonder: did the Chinese press publish articles in the past century decrying the effects of American and European pollution on their local environment? The globe was first awash in American and European pollution for nearly a century (or more, depending on whether one assumes pollution only began with the industrial revolution). How can we expect them to not repeat our actions when we've never shown sufficient remorse or reparations for those actions? This article sounds a bit like the ex-Hippie parent trying to convince their child not to try LSD.
Doing nothing to stop global warming so as not to lose some perceived ground to an enemy is also an interesting way to commit suicide.
Ever hear the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face"?
The US has been the largest polluter for awhile. China has only just over taken the US. Where was the outcry about what US pollution is doing to Asia?
What is worse yet, imo, is what western society's computer waste is doing to other countries. It should be illegal to dump that sort of stuff outside of your own country. Then people will think twice about it.
Of course this is nothing new. Not long ago, Japan was "the place that produced cheap crap". Now Japanese labor is relatively expensive and Japan offshore their work. Same thing is happening in Korea and many other places too.
What really has to change to ward of fear of diminished resources is for people to stop linking quality of life with material consumption. When you're starving then it makes sense, but right now obese people outnumber starving people so there is no food shortage, there is a consumption problem. It really needs people to stop using excessive consumption as a pill for their social ills. Getting a new cellphone every year != a high quality of life.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I remember two decades ago (and still ongoing) that the US is pumping pollution into the Red River (among others) which travels into Canada. We complained and they said tough. But, apparently it's a horror if it's done to them.
Perhaps it is this that forces the US to realise that the world map doesn't end at its borders.
We STILL have companies spewing chemicals into the air. Even in the marine industry, engineers cheated on pollutions regulations by simply running a bypass or disconnecting polluted discharge lines from sensors meant to measure and log the overboard discharges (which the US Coast Guard caught wind of and brought charges against such owners/operators/masters/ and engineers).
When I worked with liquid toner copiers in the late 80's it was our common practice to take the liquid toner (ink) and dispersant bottles and simply dump down the drain if we could, and if there was nowhere to pour it, then place the bottles in the customers' waste bins. Failing that (in the hip/environmental offices), we'd have to take it with us and dispose elsewhere. I am glad i got out of that job. Doing that dumping gnawed at more conscience. Working with the chemicals eroded my health. Fingers clean by Sunday night, dirty by Tuesday... a year of that shit.
We still have gasoline leaks. We still have major post-product pollution. Why do we not have ordinances compelling fast food restaurants provide drain bins to collect the unfinished drinks and ice the customers otherwise dump in the garbage? When I in Dec 2004 - Feb 05 was in Tokyo area cities such as Roppongi and Miyamaedaira and Shimbashi, I ate at McDonalds that had marked recepticals for separation of plastic, paper, non-recyclables and liquids. That's easy for "typically conformist" Japanese to do. Asking 'merkun public to do it by request, backed up by fines or risk shut-down of their favorite location eatery would spark insurrection. So much for "a kind, gentle, peace-loving people"...
Yeh, and people, don't tell me that the liquids in the garbage help speed up the composting/decomposition of the waste. It could also be argued that pre-separation of liquids in restaurant waste might make it easier to separate recyclables such as the papers and food that animals might otherwise eat if not broken down by soda and coffee and such.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
China supports 5 times the population, and the majority of cheap goods productions. Also GDP number is not a indicator to use because it ties to how you value services, not manufacturing.
Oh yes...nothing...except for compounds which are detrimental to human health in quantities of parts-per-million or parts-per-billion.
And the fact that this pollution is being added to year over year, with increasing amounts.
And the fact that some of those compounds have no natural mechanism of breaking down in the environment, so they accumulate into ground water, plants, and animals over the years.
But yeah...it's nothing.
~X~
~X~
At least the other countries are trying. The US isn't even bothering to start.
That also said, cars in the U.S. have stricter regulations than in Europe in terms of emissions which is why all the people with truly fast cars have to import them. Of course America has a lot more cars so that is probably why you feel the way you do about our output.
Dude, have you seen the size of cars Americans are driving vs Europeans? Or, in other words, when did you last see a pick-up truck in the USA actually lugging something around? And did you ever see a pick-up truck in europe as means of personal transport?
Even if regulations are stronger, i.e. emmisions per horse power might be lower, but in terms of emissions per vehicle, they are much worse...
"Its not that we don't realize it, its just that it costs a lot of money and political will to stop it and fix it."
Or we could just call everything "green" and buy more toxic lightbulbs and organic monoculture and cars that use more fuel to produce but less to operate and "sustainable" mansions and grow corn anywhere we can get seeds in the ground and pump coal exhaust and nuclear waste into the ground.
"You can't blame all of us Americans for that."
What can we blame Americans for? I'm asking, as an American. Because it's to the point that nothing's our fault, whether we do it or just don't take the responsibility to stop it. Innocentamericans really is one word isn't it? Like, I'm not trying to be combative, but I don't understand how no one's responsible for what Americans do, and Americans seem determined to keep their privilege and completely absurd lifestyle as if it's a god-given right.
"At least we recognize the problem and many of us are trying to do something about it."
Exactly what are we doing? I'd be happy to give out the points for effort if there's something actually happening.
"You also have to stipulate to the fact that when the US was in its major industrialization buildup, pollution wasn't recognized as a problem."
Sure it was. Do you think all of the occupational and environmental illnesses were just regarded as magic voodoo? Do you think the most polluted, congested places were occupied by the most poor people by sheer coincidence?
"China on the other hand seems to use developed nations as an excuse to pollute, even though it is globally irresponsible to do so, and the technology exists not to."
So what's our excuse? Hell, we don't even do all that manufacturing stuff that has the worst impacts anymore. We just glut and glut and glut.
"Its not our scientists fault that we pollute"
No, of course not. Science has nothing to do with the internal combustion engine and manufacturing.
Kyoto.. LOL.. Your one of those people.
Well, tell me, what country has made it's goal in meeting the guidelines of Kyoto? Hmm? Well, you only have 37-38 countries to pick from, so tell me. Oh, I know there is something like 157 or 187 some shit like that who have signed on, but only 35-40 have caps on their Co2 so pick one and tell me which one has made progress. I'll tell you what, Germany is the closes and their progress is a combination of an accounting error that inflated their 1990 standards and almost a negative population growth. In fact, Germany's progressive and expensive solar plan hasn't even made a dent in their over all production of Co2.
So while the word is that Kyoto is the wholly grain of environmental activism, it has achieved almost nothing to date. And the achievements it has produced is by exporting industry which is the reason that 130 or more countries who had no intention of limiting emissions signed on. Kyoto is flawed from the start. It is little more then a redistribution of wealth scheme that has only worked at redistributing wealth. We were right to not get involved in it and we are still right to date to not have been involved in it. In fact, we have limited Co2 production more from a private market giving the people what they want then the Kyoto accord have in any given country.
And no, I don't consider shipping industry off to India and China (the current biggest polluter) as a reduction in emissions. It is only putting it somewhere else in the world. It is either a problem in the world or it isn't. Moving emissions from Europe to India or China isn't reducing anything regardless of calling it Kyoto or not. You should actually look into the shit before just assuming a fancy name and Al Gore means everything in the world.
Your point would be fair if the Kyoto treaty was actually being met by member nations. Most every nation is improving but they are falling far short of their goals which is the stated reason why the U.S. didn't get involved because they knew the standards were too high and could not be reasonably met without serious compromises to profitability.
Your first statement is incorrect, see http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Image:Kyoto36-2005.png
And if that was why the US didn't get involved, where is the alternative Washington treaty with realistic goals?
That also said, cars in the U.S. have stricter regulations than in Europe in terms of emissions which is why all the people with truly fast cars have to import them. Of course America has a lot more cars so that is probably why you feel the way you do about our output.
Are you saying that each individual car in the US pollute less than cars in Europe? From a fuel-efficiency stand point this article would disagree: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17344368/ In fact, on average, your cars burn twice the fuel per mile. So you would need to have some pretty fantastic emissions standards to compensate for this.
My UID is prime. Hah!
Pollution/GDP is not an effective measure as a lot of GDP in developped countries is produced by services.
IMHO, a more useful measure would be to account for pollution/manufactured goods
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.