Slashdot Mirror
China To Begin Submitting Air Pollution Reports
smitty777 writes "China will start to publish air pollution reports, possibly in response to reports from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing which has been publishing its own data. This report is significant in that it's based on the PM2.5 standard, which measures the more harmful particles that are less than 2.5 microns. This comes on the heels of a separate report that lists China as the worst polluter worldwide. According to this report, China now produces 6,832 m tons of CO2, a 754% increase since 1971. While the U.S. is in second at 5,195 m, this represents an increase of only 21%. This article notes 'the rapid growth in emissions for China, India, and Africa. This will continue as their middle classes buy houses and vehicles. The growth in Middle East emissions is staggering, a reflection of their growing oil fortunes.' While we're on the subject of India, their pollution levels are thought to be responsible for a dense cloud of fog that is so thick it created a cold front, and is repsonsible for a number of deaths."
Half the US population will pretend that scientific consensus does not exist as they drive automobiles created with the fruits of science, the Chinese will fudge their numbers, and nothing will change.
Our CO2 output has only grown 21% since 1970. We simply MUST do better.
With just a little more effort on each persons part, we can once again be in first place.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
According to this report, China now produces 6,832 m tons of CO2, a 754% increase since 1971.
Why not going back to numbers of middle age? That should be a quite impressive increase then. For anyone who knows Chinese history, it's obvious that activity in 1971 wasn't high, so it really doesn't make sense at all. And by the way, since when CO2 is one of the worth polluting component? Judging by the short version, it doesn't at all make me want to read TFA. Then I still did, and TFA is crap. Come to Shanghai, and I'll show you that the biggest issue isn't CO2!!!
These stories are another way to block CO2 reduction. Provide some statistics that make it look like China is main polluter and therefore they need to change before the US should.
I think the fairest way to measure this is CO2 per person (possibly with allowances made for cold countries). As each person has a requirement for energy for personal and economic use, that will require CO2 to be produced. Saying China should not be allowed to burn the same amount of CO2 per person as the US for cheep power and petrol will not go anywhere, the US is still the problem.
I love reading fiction!
I guess it shouldn't be surprising anymore that the concept of "per capita" is once again completely omitted to make a headline rather than a point?
7000 MTon vs 5000 MTon... hmm doesn't sound impressive enough, let's try 754% vs 21%!! Oh my god!
How about 5.4 Ton/person (China) vs. 16.7 Ton/person (U.S.)?
Or better yet, how about 90+% of U.S. consumer needs being shifted to China?
Not only is China already more efficient in what it does for the CO2 it's producing compared to the U.S., it's supplying the rest of the world too. What's the complaint here?
This is a funny numbers game. CO2 is far from the worst greenhouse gas, so all these people posting their reactions about Americans and their big suv's, cars whatever, need to look more closely at which gases cause the most greenhouse effects, and where these gases come from.
You can fit me into the "greenhouse deniers" if you like, but I'm suspicious of pretty much all the data that is surrounding this issue -- there is too much money to be made on "popular" science like this for there to be any real hope of getting sound scientific data right now...
I've also yet to hear anyone make a reasonable sounding proposal to make any positive changes, its always up in the air stuff like "We all need to hold hands and plant trees and drive less" -- that's absurd. Lowering pollution is a good idea whatever the effects on temperature so I'm all for this goal, but to actually get to the point of seriously damaging the economy and lives we've all come to like living isn't going to happen and shouldn't. These are scientific issues and probably have scientific solutions.
People seem to want impossible things on this issue. Hippies are an illogical group of people who work solely in knee-jerk reactions and boogey-man scare tactics, they just complain without making much sense. Coal power bad, but nuclear is bad too! Damn, these goes our safest and best way to generate power. It all has to be hippie-power, hydro and solar. Yeah, well, if that worked then why wouldn't they use it, they can fleece us on power bills with solar or hydro just as easily as coal or nuke.
I don't see a lot of logic and reason with this entire issue.
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
Juxtaposition is not an argument.
What argument do you think was being made? The summary just grouped separate environmental reports into the one post. Do you also think that it was a problem that they mentioned more than one country when the story title just mentioned China?
Millions were still dying as a result of famine & the cultural revolution in 1971, it's only natural emissions would spike once everyone stopped dying, but still...
The coal is up north But I do see the train cars full it going up to the plant from time to time.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And if that isn't consensus, I don't know what is.
I too wish people would stop getting this wrong, as it's blocking the conversation about what to do about climate change.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Except that's not really true when you factor into the equation all of the costs of manufacturing. Sure China has cheap labor and non-existent labor laws, but that's not the only cost. There's the cost of shipping, the cost of redoing shoddy work, the costs related to difficulties in monitoring the process, the different view of how contracts work and the cost of product recalls if there's too much lead or melamine in the product. Even trying to manufacture a product in the US for a EU business can be significantly more costly than producing it locally due to the increased challenge of keeping things monitored and going smoothly.
Consequently one of the things that's starting to happen is for American companies to take their manufacturing lines back from China and set them up back in the US.
Well this is what happens when you push capitalism all over the world. At one time they all had only bicycles, didn't they.
Day 1: Air sucks big time. Day 2: Can hardly see across the street. Is this bad? Day 3: ... bad...
Day 4: Did I mention the air sucks big time?
They go putting their people before the profits of the multinationals, and the multinationals will relocate to Mars or Venus...with Corporate America leading the way.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How about a better comparison: Pollution(CO2 tonnes) vs area of land (km2)? This is a better comparison based on the CO2 tonnes divided by the area of the country/region with a resultant tonnes of CO2 per km2 value:
Sources:
Wikipedia for areas of country/region
IEA CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2011
(and yes I am Canadian)
and generate far less pollution, because they could have implemented pollution control technologies from the get-go.
Why they did not is a real mystery to me. Greed and corruption are almost certainly at the root of it, though.
Absolute statements are never true
No, I think he was pointing at the fact that, although the article talks a lot about 'pollution' the numbers it gives only refer to CO2. Which is not pollution. Doh.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Since you are all about efficiency: What is the per capita emissions in terms of people who actually benefit or live the life associated with it?
Here's the thing you either don't know or choose to ignore about China: It is not uniform in the way the population lives. There are two Chinas, more or less. The "city" China is the one you always hear about. Large, modern (in most ways) cities very densely packed, lots of heavy industry and so on. This is, of course, where the pollution happens. Then there's the other China, the rural China. Here the people are peasants in a very literal sense. Subsistence farming, no access to modern amenities, education, etc. The majority live like this.
The life of rural China is why people are so willing and eager to live in dense cities and work long hours for low pay. It is better than the alternative life.
Ok well the problem when you talk per capita emissions is you can't pretend as though the rural citizens are benefiting from them, or generating them. They live a lifestyle without all those modern conveniences. So saying that China is efficient because you factor in their low emissions is a lie. It is not, it simply has a lot of citizens that still live a pre-industrial lifestyle.
When that comes out, we are going to find out that CO2 is MUCH MUCH HIGHER.
What is interesting is that this report shows some of the much higher emissions that I have spoken about here. When I mentioned it, I told about a group of ppl that were allowed to monitor them, but could not report it. What few realize still, is that this report is STILL FAKED. What happens is that China has numerous coal plants that have pollution controls on them (required by Japanese treaty), but they purposely turn off (lowers the amount of electricity by something like 5-10%, foolishly, the treaty with japan does NOT require them to turn it on; though to be fair, I doubt that China would have cared). As such, these measurements are taken about 1 day to 1 wekk after running coal plant pollution control. What you see here is the much lesser pollution by steel, concrete, etc. IOW, it does not include the much higher pollution from unclean coal plants.
What it comes down to, is China is STILL emitting on most days of the year) far more than what it reports here.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
CO2 and pollution should be tied to 2 things: Size of area (farming, etc) as well as GDP.
The size of area makes sense for 'fairness', but another issue is how much business somebody does. You will notice that China's pollution rose with GDP rising. They basically, cheated their way to growth, but that is because they are in a cold war.
At this time, controlling CO2 emissions and pollution is not possible because far too many are pushing for OTHERS to do something. What is needed is for nations to TAX ALL GOODS (local AND imported) based on the CO2 (and possibly other pollution) from which the good (and its components) come from. That puts ALL OF US into making changes.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So is mercury, and I don't think jumping that up in concentration is a good idea.
Thesis disproven.
time to do something about it.
Privacy is terrorism.
No, I think he was pointing at the fact that, although the article talks a lot about 'pollution' the numbers it gives only refer to CO2. Which is not pollution. Doh.
No, that argument was not mentioned in the original post. It only discussed the different themes covered in the summary. And some people do consider the CO2 emissions to be pollutants.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Some people consider ketchup a vegetable too, but it doesnt make it so.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Some people consider ketchup a vegetable too, but it doesn't make it so.
I could point out that it is neither a fruit nor a vegetable because it is actually a condiment made from a variety of ingredients, but it would be a douche thing to do because it is obvious that you meant the humble tomato - just as the use of the word pollution to describe CO2 does not alter the point of the article.
That said, it does still fit the simple dictionary definition for pollution anyway:
Noun: The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.
No, I meant ketchup. You may be a little too young to remember the issue, but I chose my words carefully. And you are correct - ketchup is not a vegetable, and no amount of partisan political sleight-of-hand was able to make it a vegetable.
The theme in the article does, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, go back and forth just as the OP you were replying to said it does - talking about 'pollution' and then changing the subject completely to talk about CO2, then talking about pollution again, as if the author were under the influence of some bad drugs or something. CO2 is a natural, non-poisonous component of the atmosphere, it is not pollution. CO, on the other hand, is a genuine pollutant (and there is a very long list of other substances in that category) - yet no information is to be found in the article in relation to CO or any other pollutant.
I know the standards for 'popular' science articles are ridiculously low but this is even worse than expected. It's nothing but political propaganda dressed up (badly) as science.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.