Pollution From Asia Affects US Climate

I laught at the western countries when I look by Nudeboy · 2012-05-27 00:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm European, but living long-time in Asia. I can't but laugh at USA and EU worrying about little things and having mundane pollution and trashing laws when I look around myself. Everything is packed in plastic (often multiple times), cars and mopeds fart tons of black gas and factories just dump their waste where they want.

Interestingly, while everyone trashes, places do tend to stay really clean, as people make money by collecting all the trash from streets and bringing it to recycling.

Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 01:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Pollution and trash are NOT the same. Your streets can be sparkly clean and yet your air dirty as hell. That said, this article just reaffirms what we long known. Pollution is a global problem that affects everyone much like how cigarettes affects those next to you. That said, America is no saint either...
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by gsgriffin · 2012-05-27 01:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

You're obviously not in India. Just got back from there myself. Never saw the sun directly in the five Weeks I was there and covered half the country. I can believe that a billion people cooking over wood burning fires everyday makes a difference. I've seen it.

--
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by Kreigaffe · 2012-05-27 01:51 · Score: 2

He's not in China, either. I'd not be shocked if this guy was the same troll posting for the past several months an endless string of posts pointing out how novel and better everything in "Asia" is than in the West. Never any specific nation, simply "Asia", and always the dumbest drivel you could possibly imagine "only Asia has restaurants! only Asia invites friends over!".. It's less entertaining and humorous than the cleanmypc spam

--
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by moonbender · 2012-05-27 01:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think the hope is that pollution standards will (continue to?) rise along with living standards in Asia, and at that point the West will already have developed certain practices and technologies that the newly developed countries can adopt. E.g. the price of PV panels has dropped significantly in the past years (along with the energy required to build them), fueled by an increase in demand in the Western countries. If it drops a bit more, it'll be cost effective enough to at least be a part of the strategy dealing with the rapidly increasing energy needs of the Asian countries. That's just the general argument and you don't need to "believe" in PV power generation to buy the argument itself.
Of course that's just one part of it, there's also the fact that despite much better environmental regulations, our per-capita emissions are still much worse (even you don't consider "exported" emissions via product manufacturing) and of course the fact that we've been emitting for a much longer time than the newly developed countries[0]. Those are moral arguments, the first one is more utilitarian -- e.g. even if you don't think per-capita emissions should be the important figure, the argument holds water.
[0] We have been emitting since the industrial revolution, that is. I wonder, though, considering the growth of both population and world economy -- 28% of the human hours lived were lived in the 20th century and, incredibly, "over 23% of all the goods and services made since 1AD were produced from 2001 to 2010" --, if the (CO2) emissions of the past 10 or 20 years don't exceed all emissions made prior to that.

--
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by magarity · 2012-05-27 02:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think both of you might not be parsing his comment correctly. He says he's been living in Asia long term and looks around himself to see belching smoke and dumping factories. You've seen the "I'm European" part and connected it to looking around Europe to see smoke and factories. I spent a couple of years in China and saw nonstop belching smoke and dumping factories.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by oiron · 2012-05-27 03:01 · Score: 1

Who said anything about wood fires? I'd say that a large proportion of the population uses Kerosene, and a smaller minority uses LPG (basically methane, IIRC)...
I think most of the pollution per se comes from the millions of vehicles on the roads; inefficient roads designed for much smaller loads - mostly pedestrians and the occasional bullock cart. A good portion comes from industry, and a (very) small percentage from people cooking, whether over wood or otherwise.
Anyway, reading TFA (yeah, I know), it seems to me that what they're talking about is the potential for effects if emissions go up another 6-10 times by 2024; a scenario that may well happen, but I don't know...
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 03:16 · Score: 0

So if I fart in New York, London can smell it...cool!
" Shut up Beavis, you're mom's still a slut."
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by LifesABeach · 2012-05-27 04:23 · Score: 1

I keep hearing alot about "clean coal energy", could its application be applied in India, and China?
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by mikael · 2012-05-27 04:25 · Score: 1

You haven't seen what happens to a single street when their is an "air inversion" on a cold day and someone decides to light a fire in one of their chimneys. All the smoke just remains at ground level.
Edinburgh used to be called "Old Reekie" because there was so much soot that it actually stained all the yellow standstone buildings black.

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by hairyfeet · 2012-05-27 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Whether the guy is an idiot, a troll, or just a dumbass doesn't change one simple fact...Free Trade DOES NOT WORK because it is just what we see in TFA, we are simply exporting our pollution to the third world!
This is why i have been saying for years you just can't have free trade with countries like China and India which let corps dump toxins out the back and belch toxic clouds of filth into the sky because, and I'm sure the free market types will scream for me daring to point this out, but we live in a fishbowl folks and anything you dump on one side eventually affects everyone. all that crap dumped into rivers ends up in the ocean, all that crap in the air ends up carried over here or likewise settles in the oceans, it all comes around.
This is why we should simply not allow trade with countries that don't have similar environmental regulations to us, because all that is happening is the mutilnationals are playing three card monty with the pollution and they enjoy higher profits the more they pollute.
So frankly the "greenies" can stick it right in their ass, because as long as we allow multinationals to just pollute the third world while selling to the first all that green shit is fucking pointless. Its like simply throwing all the garbage in the basement and then bragging about how clean your house is, you're just putting the nasty shit out of sight, not actually doing anything about it. You can screw Americans with carbon credits and give huge tax breaks to electric cars but so long as damned near every thing in every store is made in pollution friendly countries then none of it will make a damned bit of difference, not a damned bit at all.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by 0111+1110 · 2012-05-27 05:53 · Score: 1

I'm not sure it's possible to force China to stop polluting. Nor am I sure that it's possible to just stop buying Chinese products. They make almost everything now. They are the manufacturer for the world. It's just not realistic to boycott them. It also may not always be fair. I doubt if every Chinese manufacturer actually creates pollution. To be fair you'd really have to investigate each company and only boycott the ones who are actually polluting. Punishing every Chinese company solely because they are located in China is obviously wrong. What might be more useful is some kind of organization that investigates Chinese companies accused of poor environmental practices and publicizing it so that people can choose not to buy their products.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by riverat1 · 2012-05-27 06:17 · Score: 2

"Clean coal" is an oxymoron.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 07:17 · Score: 0

In your unnamed place "in Asia", do people collect and recycle exhaust gas? Because that's what TFA is about.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by Crosshair84 · 2012-05-27 07:51 · Score: 1

Whether the guy is an idiot, a troll, or just a dumbass doesn't change one simple fact...Free Trade DOES NOT WORK because it is just what we see in TFA, we are simply exporting our pollution to the third world!
Non sequitur logical fallacy. Your argument basically breaks down to, "China lets corps pollute at will, therefore Free trade is bad." Sorry, that's bad logic.

Saudi government: "The US lets Women work in whatever job they want, therefore Free Trade is bad. This is why we should simply not allow trade with countries that don't have similar gender regulations to us, because all that is happening is the mutilnationals are playing three card monty with the gender roles and they enjoy higher profits the more they exploit women.

Apartheid South African: The US lets blacks compete with white workers, therefore Free Trade is bad. This is why we should simply not allow trade with countries that don't have similar race regulations to us, because all that is happening is the mutilnationals are playing three card monty with the workers and they enjoy higher profits the more they hire non-white workers.

Frenchman: The US has a 40 hour workweek, therefore Free Trade is bad. This is why we should simply not allow trade with countries that don't have similar environmental regulations to us, because all that is happening is the mutilnationals are playing three card monty with the exploiting the worker and they enjoy higher profits the more they hire 40 hour workers."

EVERY economic activity exports "X" to "Y". The reason companies and corporations are leaving the US in droves is not because of things like scrubbers on smokestacks, it's because of the high taxes and simply insane amounts of business regulations that exist in the US that make producing things too expensive while doing little to protect anything except a bureaucrats job.. In the 19th century, US companies paid the highest wages and produced the lowest cost goods.

The only reason the Chinese government can get away with this pollution is:

1. Chinese government does not enforce private property rights.
2. The Chinese people as a whole feel that the pollution produced is worth the economic benefits to them. They prefer the increased material wealth over the non-polluted environment.
3. Westerners are not as riled up about pollution as you think they are.

Just like the west, the Chinese will eventually get rich enough to be able to afford to care about the environment. Restricting trade will not reduce that pollution, Chinese factories will simply retool to produce for domestic consumption, which is what the US did for much of the 19th century. The US has had a trade embargo against Cuba for what, 50 years? Is their environmental policy up to first world specs? What about North Korea? If anything, restricting free trade hurts the environment because not only does the government have a scapegoat, they can justify the pollution under the auspice of there being no alternative.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by SuricouRaven · 2012-05-27 10:33 · Score: 1

It would be more accuratly termed 'cleaner coal.' It's still polluting, but not as much. It means things like the use of filters and electrostatic precipitators to reduce particulate pollution, and chemical processing to turn the really nasty stuff like sulphur dioxide into less nasty stuff. Think of it as like a giant catalytic converter from a can: Really nasty polluting gasses go in, moderatly polluting gasses come out. The ideal goal is to capture and store the carbon dioxide produced and then put it somewhere safe and out of reach, like a depleted natural gas pocket, but this is prohibatively expensive.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 12:24 · Score: 0

Saudi government: "The US lets Women work in whatever job they want, therefore Free Trade is bad. This is why we should simply not allow trade with countries that don't have similar gender regulations to us, because all that is happening is the mutilnationals are playing three card monty with the gender roles and they enjoy higher profits the more they exploit women.
Apartheid South African: The US lets blacks compete with white workers, therefore Free Trade is bad. This is why we should simply not allow trade with countries that don't have similar race regulations to us, because all that is happening is the mutilnationals are playing three card monty with the workers and they enjoy higher profits the more they hire non-white workers.
Frenchman: The US has a 40 hour workweek, therefore Free Trade is bad. This is why we should simply not allow trade with countries that don't have similar environmental regulations to us, because all that is happening is the mutilnationals are playing three card monty with the exploiting the worker and they enjoy higher profits the more they hire 40 hour workers."
You act as though these things are unreasonable. It's funny how you think free trade is good but sovereignty is not, you've just outed yourself as a globalist.
All your proposed scenarios are perfectly reasonable even if they seem stupid from the outside, the thing you are deliberately ignoring is that closing trade only works when you have alternative suppliers or local industry. In all likelihood, they couldn't tolerate the lack of imports which acts against doing it for "trivial" (social rather than economic) reasons.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by slowLearner · 2012-05-27 12:46 · Score: 1

I think you are being more than a bit disingenuous, I think what the post is saying is that free trade without the level playing field of emission standardisation can only lead to corporations who are morally ambivalent to move to countries where one of the major attractions is to circumvent emissions policies in developed countries.
You are comparing Apples with Oranges.
Environmental legislation is generally in place because there have been issues in the past which have lead to new legislation to prevent accidents re-occurring, in a similar fashion to workplace safety laws.
When corporations side step these laws in order to make a buck then I think it is fair to say that Free Trade is directly endangering both the environment and peoples lives and quality of life.
Maybe Free Trade needs to reflect the imbalances in Environmental and Labor laws to protect the peoples of countries that do not value their citizens rights to freedom, fresh air and protection form morally bankrupt corporations.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-05-27 13:36 · Score: 2

Punishing every Chinese company solely because they are located in China is obviously wrong.

Not really, no. Think of it not as punishing the company, but as punishing the country. If they want free trade, they're welcome to it - just enact solid environmental protection laws.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-05-27 13:38 · Score: 2

1. Chinese government does not enforce private property rights.
2. The Chinese people as a whole feel that the pollution produced is worth the economic benefits to them. They prefer the increased material wealth over the non-polluted environment.
It's not just "their" environment they pollute. We all share the same globe, and every ton of toxins and greenhouse gases they dump into the atmosphere affects all of us. I don't see why we should subsidize the very same activities that we declare illegal within our own borders.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by X0563511 · 2012-05-27 16:42 · Score: 1

I haven't bothered yet though, I already have really bad lungs so the little damage more can't be that serious.
You won't be saying that when the little bit that's left goes and you start coughing up more blood than air you breathe in.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by ap7 · 2012-05-27 18:51 · Score: 1

Seriously? You didn't see the sun directly in India for five weeks in peak summer? What was the reason? Black smoke clouds all over the country? Which are these fantastic regions you went through? Gee I wonder how the wood we use to cook our food grows at all, considering the sun has not been visible in summer for 5 weeks! Temperatures in some parts of India are currently beyond 47 degrees C. Let me know how that happens without a sun visible.
For your information, much of urban India uses LPG to cook food. It is far more convenient, safe and cheap. Cities like Mumbai and Delhi have piped gas even. Even small towns have LPG. Spends on fuel in India as a proportion of income are far higher. So we tend to be far more frugal with our use of electricity, gas, petrol and all other natural resources.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by jandersen · 2012-05-27 23:03 · Score: 1

I spent a couple of years in China and saw nonstop belching smoke and dumping factories.
Could you be a bit more specific? China is a big place, and it changes a lot. So, when and where?
I remember in the 70es and 80es how polluted places like Ruhr in Germany and allegedly whole of USA were covered in smog and crap, and the Thames in London was nearly void of life. But I have been through the Ruhr District many times and there is nothing like that now; and the salmon has returned to the Thames, as far as I know. Just goes to show that things can change for the better if we want them to.
The Chinese are not the bunch of mindless pigs you and others try to make out; in fact, the pigs are the ones most aligned to Western capitalism, which is not exactly the government, if you catch my drift.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 23:57 · Score: 0

I don't buy Chinese products. Sometimes it takes a bit longer, costs a bit more, or both. My principles are backed by my wallet.
Then again, I'm not a hypocrite, nor do I make excuses.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by bhtooefr · 2012-05-28 11:14 · Score: 1

Are you posting from a 20 year old computer, then?
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by nobodie · 2012-05-28 12:32 · Score: 1

Afew years ago i was in Suzhou, a village (only 6.5 million people) near Shanghai. It was exam time and I was grading exams in a classroom and went back to the office to get some more hot water for my tea. There was the most insane industrial fire i have ever seen, lightening shooting up, bright flourescent colors streaming through the fire and into the air, black clouds exploding through the melee and fireballs shooting out from the center of the ... well maybe it was a single building, maybe more.
I called my colleagues out and we were all dumbstruck by the amazing colors and lightening and fireballs. I asked my Chinese friends to find out what happened. They could find nothing.
Two hours or so later I was going over that way to a side job at Samsung and drove in the same area as the fire. I asked the Samsung driver if he had heard anything about it, not a peep. The next day my Chinese also had heard nothing. I asked them why it wasn't reported: "nobody wants to report bad news"

--
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by nobodie · 2012-05-28 12:37 · Score: 1

aside from the waste of profanity (its not like the people you are cursing will listen better if you curse) you also don't mention that this has been standard process for generations. I remember DDT, the factories that made DDT, after the western ban, just got torn down and moved to Asia. In 1994 i found DDT for sale in a farm supply store in Thailand, and being bought by the resort I was working for. The same resort that was claiming that "everything is grown organically on our own farm"
and they would be exporting too, don't think they wouldn't.

--
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by hairyfeet · 2012-05-28 14:51 · Score: 1

Thank you, as that was EXACTLY what i was going for. I'm all for free trade to other nations but am NOT for simply exporting pollution and misery. As I said we live in a fishbowl so it is just like simply dumping garbage into your basement and then claiming how clean your system is, it just doesn't work. Our air gets fouler, our oceans get sicker, yet these companies can simply import the stuff off some boat belching bunker fuels and still make more profit than doing it cleanly because they can just dump their waste in the river and let the stacks belch out poisons all day long.
In the end one simply has to accept the fact that globalism is death, its exporting death for profit. 9 of the 10 most cancer ridden cities are in China now, 20%+ of their farmland produces food that is toxic yet is fed to the population, what we have done by allowing globalism to flourish is allowed the exportation of misery and death, nothing more or less. i have a feeling in a century people will look back upon this time with shame, it will be looked upon as another "white man's burden" where exploitation of foreign workers and the suffering they endured or their lives being cut short mattered less than the quarterly earnings report and that is both disgusting and a shame upon us as a people.
As a final note many have said "The Chinese will improve their quality of life as they advance, just as we did" but this is false, look upon the shelves and see how many items you find with "made in Malaysia" stamped upon it. As the Chinese demand better pay and better quality of life the corps, who care only about profits and not the suffering their practices bring, are already beginning to leave China for Malaysia because they allow toxic dumping and will work for even less pay. as it is now they are starting with the simple plastic items, garbage cans and toys and the like, but that is also how China started and what I believe you will see happen to China is just what happened in the USA, with tons of superfund sites dotting the landscape while the corps sneak out in the night to the next area they can pollute and exploit.
But in the end there is only one planet and by the time the corps have gone through every dirt poor third world country the amount of destruction they have inflicted will be astronomical. With the planet's population growing by the day we simply can't afford to have so much of the land destroyed and so much of the water made toxic so some corp can pay the CEO a bigger bonus, it has to end.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:I laught at the western countries when I look by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-29 07:56 · Score: 0

WHAT free trade? Much of the reason industry WENT to China is regulations and taxes in the US.

What blows around comes around by petes_PoV · 2012-05-27 00:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

And all the pollutants created in the USA gets dispersed on the wind to other places - as does the pollution from Europe and everywhere else on the planet. It's not that america is therefore suffering unduly - it's just that we should recgonise the world is a closed system and it's not a good idea to crap on each others doorsteps.

--
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons

Re:What blows around comes around by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 00:38 · Score: 0

The world is not a closed system. Sunlight and rocks enter it. Fortunately, the atmosphere is almost closed.
Re:What blows around comes around by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 01:14 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Duh...Kyoto Treaty...which the US would have signed if China and India had been subject to the same pollution constraints.
Duh... China and India didn't go along with it.
So what was your point again?
Re:What blows around comes around by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 01:19 · Score: 0, Insightful

> Duh...Kyoto Treaty...which the US would have signed if China and India had been subject to the same pollution constraints.
> Duh... China and India didn't go along with it.
> So what was your point again?
You must have had a wonderful schooltime. Like, nobody is studying, why would I do it?
People that don't do their duties and claim others don't are scum. So, in a way, you really are part of the problem...
Re:What blows around comes around by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 01:27 · Score: 1

Duh...Kyoto Treaty...which the US would have signed if China and India had been subject to the same pollution constraints.
Duh... China and India didn't go along with it.
That's not the full truth. The constrains aren't defained in a fair way, but based on traditional emissions. A country already high in emissions today will then after constraints still lead the world after constraints are enforced.
From wikipedia, which probably cites some other sources, re-orderd by the important column. CO2 Emission per Capita:
Saudi Arabia 18.2
USA 17.6
Australia 16.0 ...
China 6.2 ...
India 1.7 ...
Asking India and China to "reduce" the emissions to go down even further than their lowly emissions today?
Re:What blows around comes around by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 01:53 · Score: 0

America has the national opinion that although it has built its wealth and economic power on the back of massively polluting industries countries like China should not be allowed to do the same. I'd love to see China cut emissions but I can hardly blame them for wanting to reach the level of prosperity we have (while polluting) before then.
The alternative is that the western world subsidise the emerging world for not polluting so that we haven't gained an unfair advantage just because we were polluting before we knew the damage it did. Of course, even though that would be fair, you'll never see America sign up to the idea because they want the best of both worlds.
Re:What blows around comes around by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-05-27 03:51 · Score: 1

The alternative is that the western world subsidise the emerging world for not polluting so that we haven't gained an unfair advantage just because we were polluting before we knew the damage it did.

Perhaps it's not the only alternative . We could can set the acceptable pollution standards for each country a little differently taking into account all factors - historical political and environmental.
The overall *thing* we all need to do is start a worldwide effort to offset carbon and other GHG while funding R and D into alternative energy sources.
I think China knows that they can't pollute their way to prosperity and social stability the way the US did on account of the destabilizing effects of global warming.
This is one area where it really makes sense for us all to set aside our differences and just pull together. Even my Tea Party friends (yes, i have some of those) seem to be accepting the idea that humans are likely causing global warming and we need to do something about at the governmental level.
Re:What blows around comes around by 0111+1110 · 2012-05-27 05:59 · Score: 1

Right. Because if it's not CO2 it's not pollution. You do realize that it's possible to actually output toxic chemicals into the air and water. Stuff that causes problems immediately instead of maybe in 10,000 years.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:What blows around comes around by SvnLyrBrto · 2012-05-27 06:32 · Score: 2

eh?
The United Stated *DID* sign the Kyopto Treaty... while Clinton was president.
Then George dubya took office. And he never particularly cared for things like the notion that international treaties and obligations (or, for that matter, our own Constitution) should constrain him from doing anything he damn well pleased.

--
Imagine all the people...
Re:What blows around comes around by sjames · 2012-05-27 07:06 · Score: 1

It's another case of TANSTAAFL. Corporations decide they don't like the cost of environmental regulations in the U.S. so they try to 'export' the pollution to China. The rest figure it's OK as long as it's just Chinese people getting poisoned, so it's allowed (rather than requiring goods sold in the U.S. to be manufactured cleanly wherever it happens). Guess what?
Re:What blows around comes around by sjames · 2012-05-27 07:44 · Score: 1

We have already subsidized in a sense. We spent all the R&D costs to develop less polluting industrial processes. The developing world is free to enjoy the benefits of that.
Re:What blows around comes around by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 08:16 · Score: 0

Toxic chemicals are so 1980s. Nowadays the only remaining pollutant is "carbon".
Re:What blows around comes around by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-05-27 13:50 · Score: 1

We could can set the acceptable pollution standards for each country a little differently taking into account all factors - historical political and environmental.
Who decides "acceptable"?
I can assure you that US - and probably many other Western countries will not consider it acceptable to give larger quotas to China and India on account of them being late on the industrial revolution train. And it's not even just about the standard of living, it's about retaining the upper hand that the West enjoys today - which also ensures its collective safety in the face of geopolitical threats. If, say, US caps its carbon emissions by slowing down its industry growth, while China does not, that means that China is going to start catching up. And once it's as powerful as US, who's to say that it's going to cap its emissions then?
TL;DR version: it won't work for as long as there are different countries in the world with different agendas.
Re:What blows around comes around by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 14:29 · Score: 0

eh?
The United Stated *DID* sign the Kyopto Treaty... while Clinton was president.
Half-truth. Clinton signed, but he the Senate did not ratify so it is not a binding treaty.
Re:What blows around comes around by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-05-27 16:53 · Score: 1

I agree with you about PHP btw
Well who decides anything? How is any consensus achieved? There are some who will complain about doing anything as we all know. They're the naysayers and naysayers are never relevant, always proved wrong but they're never less relevant than when they oppose the inevitable and the world doing something about climate change is inevitable. Why? Because there's ONE reality , not as many as you want to spin into existence like the Post Modern loving Republicans would have it.
There is one reality and that reality is going to happen. People who act as though that were true are the people who matter in the end.
Doing something about climate change now doesn't mean we have to lower our standard of living in the west ; that's a canard. The Princeton wedges program clearly lays out a multi-prong approach that doesn't introduce any real shocks to the existing system . This is a doable thing.
As far as national security is concerned, no one takes global warming as seriously as the US armed forces and intelligence agencies and towards that end the Navy is going to have 50% of its energy come from alternative fuel sources:
www.navy.mil/features/Navy_EnergySecurity.pdf
It's overly cynical if understandable reaction to believe that the world is incapable of handling this threat. We've done this before and it looked just as bad just as late- our delayed entry into WWII comes to mind.. It's not much fun when you have to live through it and the outcome is not certain. That's especially true with this since no one can be sure that we won't unleash negative feedback loops that are beyond our control to stop.
How does that like Chinese curse go? - may you live in interesting times. ....

Strange bedfellows here....... by allaunjsilverfox2 · 2012-05-27 00:28 · Score: 0

This could encourage some elements of the American populace to start thinking about recycling, clean air enforcement and so on. Environmental Jingoism. I mean, if people are going to be bigoted and general douchenozzles anyway, why not put it to a cause that helps everyone? It would be a interesting campaign, to say the least. Though that would be a rather sad statement about America in general.

--
Restore the madness of youth's lechery

Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 00:33 · Score: 0

Seems a bit coincidental to me not long after the US declares climate change on the agenda of national security. Another cold war coming?

Maybe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 00:34 · Score: 0

Maybe this is true, if they've programmed their computer simulations the same way that reality behaves. Or are they mistaken in the effect of the pollution, and thus misprogrammed their computers to simulate something that does not really happen?

What a bunch of bullshit by aliquis · 2012-05-27 00:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Rather pollution from US consumption affect the global climate.

Whatever it's pollution or animal slaughter it is the consumer who make the demand and got the power to choose.

The people in the US (and hence you could say the US) is the biggest polluters by far. And it make no sense to compare countries with differences in population size (I'm from Sweden so we never have to worry about pollution because we're such a small nation anyway?) but rather per capita.

If the Chinese and Indian people would live as the average person in the US I assume we would more than doubled the pollution? But they don't. And why should they who are far behind restrict themselves then people in the US doesn't?

I hate these kind of posts. The US consumers are the filthiest and they are the one who order all (well, not all..) that crap from China for instance. Stop complaining on people in China and India damnit.

You don't want global warming, pollution, ecological disasters and what not? Consume less. (Or rather just what nature provides on a local scale and take care about how you do it.)

Re:What a bunch of bullshit by TFAFalcon · 2012-05-27 00:51 · Score: 1

So the producer is forced to sell cheap stuff while creating a lot of pollution? Sure the consumer shares the blame, but the producers are the ones that can see the process first hand. And don't talk about the poor people in India and China. If they have too high populations for the resources they have, that's not the fault of the rest of the world. If they had shown some restraint in the past they'd be living better lives now.
Re:What a bunch of bullshit by aliquis · 2012-05-27 00:57 · Score: 1

So the producer is forced to sell cheap stuff while creating a lot of pollution?
If no-one bought his/hers goods he/she wouldn't.

And don't talk about the poor people in India and China. If they have too high populations for the resources they have, that's not the fault of the rest of the world.
I haven't. And it's a global problem of course.

If they had shown some restraint in the past they'd be living better lives now.
I don't think the problem necessary is population size. Also Chinese population is declining.
Re:What a bunch of bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 01:09 · Score: 0

Every body needs some one to blame. the report was probably released to force these countries to take more actions and redirect the focus from the US. Probably the scientists had FOX news to help them with it.
Re:What a bunch of bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 01:23 · Score: 1

While I agree that consumption and pollution per capita should be weighed highly, the total population count can't be disregarded completely. You can not increase your total pollution budget by making lots of people and claiming that each of them has the right to live like an American. Population control must be part of pollution control.
Re:What a bunch of bullshit by erroneus · 2012-05-27 01:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

You cannot blame the supply. You cannot blame the demand. Those two things operate as they do and as they should. Almost no one acts out of conscience but rather out of self-interest.
The only way to fix such problems is "across the board," unilaterally, all at once. Regulation.
You can't blame people for being stupid. It is what we are. It is why government and regulation are simply necessary. Think about it. No one would voluntarily stop at an intersection without a stop sign or a stop light would they?
Re:What a bunch of bullshit by phantomfive · 2012-05-27 05:26 · Score: 1

Good data is hard to find, but even if you adjust for population size, it looks like US is pretty good on pollution.

When comparing this sort of thing, it's important to remember that CO2 is not the only thing that is considered pollution, or even the worst thing. There are many things that are far, far worse than carbon dioxide, by any measure.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:What a bunch of bullshit by 0111+1110 · 2012-05-27 06:17 · Score: 1

Do you live in Southern Italy? I'm not sure why you guys even bother with stop signs or traffic lights. Totally pointless.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:What a bunch of bullshit by JeffAtl · 2012-05-27 09:30 · Score: 1

And it make no sense to compare countries with differences in population size (I'm from Sweden so we never have to worry about pollution because we're such a small nation anyway?) but rather per capita.
Per capita makes no sense either. By that logic, the US could be less of a poluter if we imported in millions of people from mexico and forced them to live off the land in areas without any electricity.
People from small european countries with homogeneus populations tend to rely on this "per-capita is all that matters" fallicy pretty heavily.
Re:What a bunch of bullshit by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-05-27 13:53 · Score: 1

The only remaining question is, where do we get the meta-government to regulate governments?
(UN ain't it - it doesn't have teeth)
Re:What a bunch of bullshit by erroneus · 2012-05-27 14:18 · Score: 1

In the US, it's built into the structure of the thing. However, the players in their arenas have been rendering those protections useless. We have the Freedom of Informaiton Act which is still in wide use today, but it's being heavily denied where it shouldn't be. We are supposed to have all manner of accountability and transparency, but somehow important things remain concealed. And the government is supposed to be representative of the will of the people but also address the needs and interests of the people. But thanks to uncontrolled sources of "big support" through large contributions, the interests of the people are not being served.
It was working for a while. It's just not working now.
Re:What a bunch of bullshit by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-05-27 14:54 · Score: 1

Even if US somehow got its shit together, it still doesn't explain how that would help with, say, China. If you want compliance, you need a guy with a stick. We don't have such a thing on international level - or at least the stick is not big enough to deal with everyone.
Re:What a bunch of bullshit by thej1nx · 2012-05-27 22:43 · Score: 1

Perhaps you should stop being a twat and read about, you know, those nuclear sanctions that USA had been so fond of putting on India in order to appease Pakistan. India wants to have clean nuclear power plants. Having cheap power would be the end of pollution in India, what with electrical hybrid cars becoming popular and affordable. But apparently the country with the biggest nuclear pile on the planet wants to ensure no-one else gets to have them, while actually giving billion dollars in aid to the known nuclear-proliferator Pakistan and calls it an "important ally", while putting all sorts of unreasonable conditions and demands for letting India have the technology and components required for its civil use nuclear power plant(just because they *might* be used for developing military nuclear capability, which ironically India already has, leave alone the fact that it is a stable democracy).
.
Seriously, with those kind of demands and conditions, USA is pretty much creating the conditions for the situation being discussed. US itself, with its nuclear power plants gets its power dirt cheap, while it wants India to match up, even while having all the restrictions put on it by USA. Which is a blast, considering that India has less pollution produced per-capita as compared to USA, even while USA companies treat India as a dumping ground for all their toxic wastes.
Re:What a bunch of bullshit by thej1nx · 2012-05-27 22:44 · Score: 1

Toxic wastes are pretty much history(unless you count the toxic wastes produced by USA's nuclear power plants). CO2 pollution is what matters today.
Re:What a bunch of bullshit by phantomfive · 2012-05-28 03:30 · Score: 1

This article is mainly about particulate matter, so that is important too. Toxic waste is not 'history' in China or in many other parts of the world, your point is somewhat ignorant, you might want to learn something before you post something like that again.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

The Fish Bowl Effect... by xTantrum · 2012-05-27 00:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

This isn't news. There is already strong evidence indicating that circa 1970's/80's US pollution played a key part - if not the cause of - the 1980's Ethiopian Famine. I think people forget that we live in a fish bowl. Excuse the expression but what I shit you eat...and vice versa.

--
$action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily

Re:The Fish Bowl Effect... by argStyopa · 2012-05-27 02:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'd love to see a link to that "strong evidence".
The only thing I've seen suggesting this are CSIRO "reports" whose basis is essentially "laws were put in place in the west to reduce aerosol pollution in the 1990s, and the drought in the Sahel ended at the same time".
By that level of intellectual rigor, a decrease in world ninja populations directly caused WW2.
The idea that pollution in one area of the globe effects others isn't novel or even particularly new; the 'tragedy of the commons' has been a long-term issue for anyone concerned about the environment. However to look at the coincidental end of a drought event (roughly 1970-1985) and the passage of legislation at the same time is specious at best, or politically-motivated mendacity at worst.
Two very simple questions that the study chose not to answer:
- Passage of the laws was neither geographically nor chronologically homogeneous as the studies' authors would like to imply; to suppose that a 15-year drought 'suddenly' stopped because of their passage would require postulating a 'tipping point'. Tipping points are generally a sign of poorly-understood systems. Sure, TPs exist in nature, but more frequently they're just a sign of sophomoric science and failed interpretation; they are the scientific equivalent of hand-waving.
- If Western industrial pollution was the cause of the Sahel droughts, why did they START in 1970 when by every measure western industrialization was DECREASING? Remember, you've already posited a nearly-instant connection between turning off the pollution and the end of the drought.
It's absolutely logical to expect that an input (pollution) into a complex system has an impact somewhere else, but to believe this specific assertion would require some basis of faith in the first place - faith that the West is evil, white-guilt, whatever you want to call it.

--
-Styopa
Re:The Fish Bowl Effect... by couchslug · 2012-05-27 02:54 · Score: 1

"There is already strong evidence indicating that circa 1970's/80's US pollution played a key part - if not the cause of - the 1980's Ethiopian Famine."
It's nice to post citations.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:The Fish Bowl Effect... by rtfa-troll · 2012-05-27 03:48 · Score: 4, Informative

This is not Wikipedia. If you want a citation just ask for one. Before you do that you are expected to do a bit of searching. However, since you are probably just going to go on whining, here's your citation. I'm not a qualified climate scientist so I can't tell you if it's true or not. However the same is certainly true of all the people who are going to come running in to tell us how it is completely made up.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:The Fish Bowl Effect... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 04:09 · Score: 0

By that level of intellectual rigor, a decrease in world ninja populations directly caused WW2.
Oh hell yes. This is my new pet theory for innerwebs forums... more ninjas for world peace. Right after vaccines making people retarded and inhaling large quantities of hydrogen peroxide to cure cancer.
Re:The Fish Bowl Effect... by Rogue+Haggis+Landing · 2012-05-27 05:12 · Score: 4, Informative

This isn't news. There is already strong evidence indicating that circa 1970's/80's US pollution played a key part - if not the cause of - the 1980's Ethiopian Famine.
The Ethiopian Famine ran from 1983-1985, and was mainly caused by a civil war that ran for 17 years, and by disastrous government food policies in the wake of the "Red Terror" of the late 1970s and the construction of a Marxist state that poured all of its resources into its military. Sort of like a much less extreme version famine-prone North Korea. Wikipedia has a fairly weak article on the famine. It's worth noting that the famine began in 1983, but the major drought started in 1984. With a stable society and a reasonable government there would have been food shortages in 1984, but no more, and there definitely wouldn't have been mass starvation before the crops started failing.

Listen, I'm a bleeding heart environmentalist and sympathetic to the idea that the US has historically shit in its own bed, and continues to do so in certain ways. But citing any old thing as caused by US pollution makes environmentalists look like kooks. It's very bad for the cause.
Re:The Fish Bowl Effect... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 07:56 · Score: 0

You're probably referring to this: Rotstayn & Lohmann, Tropical Rainfall Trends and the Indirect Aerosol Effect , AP article from 2002
Re:The Fish Bowl Effect... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 12:31 · Score: 0

Acid Rain, that is why we in the Pacific Northwest have to stop driving cars because we cause so much acid rain.
Re:The Fish Bowl Effect... by khallow · 2012-05-27 13:26 · Score: 1

There is already strong evidence indicating that circa 1970's/80's US pollution played a key part - if not the cause of - the 1980's Ethiopian Famine.
More important than local deforestation and third world farming techniques? Not a chance.

Pollution in Asia... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 00:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

There's always a misconception from people in the U.S. that China and India are the polluters of the world. Please understand that they are the ONLY countries left that can manufacture all the stuff we need at bargain basement price. They are the reason why we can have a RC car for $24.99 or $5 for a 4GB USB flash drive. The majority of the factories and cars in these countries are used to make stuff and deliver for us. The average citizen of these countries use about 1/10 of the energy and resources of any developed countries. If only that the rest of the world stops consumerism and start paying more, please don't bitch about the pollution. We made it happen.

Re:Pollution in Asia... by gsgriffin · 2012-05-27 01:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

The cheap products aren't because they are allowed to pollute. There cheap because labour and materials are cheap. If forced, they could reduce their emissions and add little to no cost to consumers. Their governments don't care. Anyway, the brown skies of India are caused by a billion people cooking over wood burning fires a couple times a day. Been there a lot. Seen it with my own eyes.

--
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
Re:Pollution in Asia... by Kreigaffe · 2012-05-27 01:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually.... no.
That RC car, if produces in America, would still be 25 bucks.
Yeah, you heard that right.
When has anything ever decreased in price by moving production to China? Don't be silly. Moving production to China doesn't lower prices, it increases profits.

--
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
Re:Pollution in Asia... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 05:24 · Score: 0

So there's no correlation between environmental regulation and costs? Really? I'll give you a hint;our costs are hugely constrained by environmental legislation. I could make all sorts of shit cheaper here than in China if I didn't have to follow environmental regulations because I'd sue the same raw materials and ditch the transport costs.
I'm not proposing ditching all environmental regulations, but lets either charge for foreign pollution, that does affect our climate, or relax environmental standards to the point where we get a lower net affect on the environment vice the Chinese "fuck the environment" capitalism.
Re:Pollution in Asia... by 0111+1110 · 2012-05-27 06:19 · Score: 1

Have you actually ever purchased goods? Have you ever gone to a store of some kind and bought a product? It sounds like you haven't.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:Pollution in Asia... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-27 07:22 · Score: 1

Only true if there is no competition. When the competition exists the prices start dropping towards the cost of manufacturing. I doubt there is a monopoly on RC Cars.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pollution in Asia... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 07:40 · Score: 0

In fact, even a pure monopolist would change the price they charged for RC cars as a function of what they pay their manufactures to produce them.
Only in the case where there was a sharp drop in the demand curve at $25, would it make sense to keep the price at $25 no matter what the cost of a car was.
Re:Pollution in Asia... by riverat1 · 2012-05-27 10:16 · Score: 1

The Chinese are in the process of learning the true cost of all of that pollution. Most environmental regulations save more money than they cost.
Re:Pollution in Asia... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-05-27 13:59 · Score: 1

Actually, the products are cheap both because of labor abuse, and because of environment abuse. Green is not free.
Re:Pollution in Asia... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 18:54 · Score: 0

Do you even realize the shit that comes out your mouth before spitting it on all of us? Just for the sake of mental exercise how much wood do you think would be required to cook food multiple times a day for over 1 billion people? I don't know but I don't think there is enough wood to do that on our planet. Next time think about what you buy and if you really need it. Here is the kicker, if you're using a dryer to dry your clothes you're already using more energy than most of the people on this planet on a daily basis.
Re:Pollution in Asia... by thej1nx · 2012-05-27 22:47 · Score: 1

Perhaps you could get USA to play nice and allow India to have nuclear power plants without putting in unreasonable conditions/sanctions? You might find that it may actually reduce the emissions drastically from India at least. Stop trying to crib about a situation that you, yourself have created and are responsible for,

Gee that wasn't forseeable by rolfwind · 2012-05-27 00:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just like it wasn't forseeable that trading with China (read: getting cheap labor in exchange for IP and quasi-building up their infrastructure closer to 1st world standards) would mean we're just making our own competent competitors for resources and business in the next generation.

Next up: Captain Obvious Reports that Invading Iraq has not been a cost effective means to reducing terrorism.

Population boom in Monaco! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 00:42 · Score: 0

Chinese cowering in fear...

Nobel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 00:43 · Score: 0

Wait a minute!? Holy Smoke!
Things performed on one place on the planet affects things on the other side of the planet?

Passing the blame by galadran · 2012-05-27 00:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_car_dio_per_cap-pollution-carbon-dioxide-per-capita

Per person, the USA is the worst country in the world for air pollution, whereas China and India are among the best. Even if you ignore population and compare absolutely, the USA produces 5x the pollution of India and roughly equivalent to the pollution of China.

If there is a smog cloud over North America, I would be looking much closer to home to find the source...

Re:Passing the blame by arisvega · 2012-05-27 01:08 · Score: 2

Per person, the USA is the worst country in the world for air pollution [..]
Not only that, but the USA is the only country not intending to ratify the Kyoto Protocol
.

--
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
Re:Passing the blame by YrWrstNtmr · 2012-05-27 01:22 · Score: 2

Not only that, but the USA is the only country not intending to ratify the Kyoto Protocol [wikipedia.org]

Oh please. There are a few others. And Kyoto was so flawed from the start that some countries are actively withdrawing (Canada, Japan, Russia)
Re:Passing the blame by night_flyer · 2012-05-27 01:27 · Score: 0

USA didn't sign it... China and India are exempt from it

--

Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Re:Passing the blame by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 01:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

CO2 isn't smog. Smog is composed of CO, NO2, O3 and various particulate matter, all of which are substantially more dangerous than CO2 is.
Re:Passing the blame by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 01:44 · Score: 0

Go live in India or China for a few years and I guarantee you will change your tune. It has to be seen to be believed.
Re:Passing the blame by gsgriffin · 2012-05-27 01:50 · Score: 1

These statistics are just that. They completely disregard the wood burning fires that 2 billion people in Asia make everyday to cook. That is the source of the brown haze and not in these stats.

--
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
Re:Passing the blame by argStyopa · 2012-05-27 01:55 · Score: 0

At best useless, at worst a deliberately tendentious metric. Might as well measure it by hair length.
Sure, the PER PERSON pollutant output of countries like India and China is low; they have BILLION(s) of people living essentially like pre-industrial primitives.
Let's use CO2, since you like that metric, but instead of using raw population numbers, let's take at OUTPUT: PPP.
US CO2 5.7 bill (tons/yr), China CO2 3.4
US PPP: $11 trillion. China PPP $7 trillion
On that basis they're basically the same.
If we compare per-capita income - since you want to consider that whole population figure more proportionally: US citizens have a PPP income of $43K. China's is $7K. At that same proportion, China's pollution output should be barely 1 bill ton/yr - or in other words, they are putting out more than 3.5 TIMES more pollution per $1 that goes into their citizen's pockets, than the US.
What were you saying again about the US being the "worst in the world"?

--
-Styopa
Re:Passing the blame by DaveGod · 2012-05-27 02:59 · Score: 1

Per person, the USA is the worst country in the world for air pollution, whereas China and India are among the best. Even if you ignore population and compare absolutely, the USA produces 5x the pollution of India and roughly equivalent to the pollution of China.
While the metric has some validity, it's only part of a complex picture.
Consider, for example, that USA consumes rather a lot of goods that cause pollution when being made in China. Depending on the specific issue/point you are trying to consider, you may have to attribute to the USA some pollution generated in producing those goods. The amount to be attributed would be the standard (i.e. normal) amount of pollution generated from such production, while China should take the credit or blame for being more or less efficient than the standard.
After all, it seems rather unfair to start complaining to China about all the pollution the USA is exporting there?
Of course there are other issues where the above approach isn't appropriate.
Also, I'm not quite sure what to make of the "carbon dioxide from energy use only" caveat, leaves me rather sceptical that the figures are fudged. I'm prone to giving the OECD some credit though so more suspicious that figures generated for some specific purpose are being shoe-horned into something else that they were never intended to be relevant for.
Re:Passing the blame by loneDreamer · 2012-05-27 03:06 · Score: 1

Off course, as they are less developed. Are you honestly proposing that your metric, which basically states that those who have more money should get to pollute more, is more useful and fair that pollution per capita? Just WOW.
Re:Passing the blame by galadran · 2012-05-27 03:13 · Score: 2

At best useless, at worst a deliberately tendentious metric. Might as well measure it by hair length.
Sure, the PER PERSON pollutant output of countries like India and China is low; they have BILLION(s) of people living essentially like pre-industrial primitives.
Let's use CO2, since you like that metric, but instead of using raw population numbers, let's take at OUTPUT: PPP.
US CO2 5.7 bill (tons/yr), China CO2 3.4 US PPP: $11 trillion. China PPP $7 trillion On that basis they're basically the same.
If we compare per-capita income - since you want to consider that whole population figure more proportionally: US citizens have a PPP income of $43K. China's is $7K. At that same proportion, China's pollution output should be barely 1 bill ton/yr - or in other words, they are putting out more than 3.5 TIMES more pollution per $1 that goes into their citizen's pockets, than the US.
What were you saying again about the US being the "worst in the world"?
If you want to dig deeper you're missing another crucial point, that also explains the PPP:CO2 imbalance.

A significant proportion of Chinese emissions are related to the manufacture of goods which are directly exported to the USA. That is to say, as American manufacturing capacity has declined over the last 50 years, the CO2 production has been outsourced to China. This explains the CO2:PPP imbalance as the majority of the manufactured goods/wealth are immediately exported back to America.

Additionally, this article is framed in the context of pollution over mainland America. We can explain away the reasons for the CO2 production, but fundamentally America is producing as much CO2 as China in absolute terms, despite a far lower manufacturing base.
Re:Passing the blame by galadran · 2012-05-27 03:16 · Score: 1

These statistics are just that. They completely disregard the wood burning fires that 2 billion people in Asia make everyday to cook. That is the source of the brown haze and not in these stats.
Wood burning is carbon neutral (think about it). Additionally carbon it produces does not travel long distances. Also, bear in mind that gasoline is effectively high density wood. These people may be burning wood, but they aren't driving cars.
Re:Passing the blame by oiron · 2012-05-27 03:23 · Score: 1

I do live in India, but I will not make a comparison to the US because I have never been there.
Compared to Japan and Europe (where I have been), I'd rank us somewhere in the middle - mostly because of Tokyo, which is something like the inside of a refinery smokestack...
But the numbers really do speak for themselves. The US is much higher than India per capita; and recall, much of this - CO2 especially, is invisible. Visible particulates, I'd have to go search for the numbers...
Re:Passing the blame by oiron · 2012-05-27 03:25 · Score: 1

I assume you didn't read TFA, this being Slashdot and all... Second para down:

Some forms of pollution—especially light-colored aerosols such as sulfates that spew from power plants and volcanoes—scatter light back into space, cooling Earth. But dark aerosols, such as soot from diesel engines and power plants, absorb more sunlight than they scatter, gaining heat and warming the air around them. Rapidly developing countries, especially China, India, and those in southeastern Asia, are prolific sources of such aerosols. Over the past few decades, the pall hanging over the region has come to be known as "the Asian brown cloud."
Re:Passing the blame by oiron · 2012-05-27 03:32 · Score: 1

The differences are about 1 billion tonnes, I think, give or take. Imagine if we could halve the US's per capita emissions - that's about 3 billion tonnes of CO2 right there!
Of course, I agree that reductions, especially for China, wouldn't be a bad thing, but let's not put the blame on just one country. The current ranking is something like 20% each for the US and China, 15% for the EU and India and Russia coming in far lower at 5%.
Re:Passing the blame by budgenator · 2012-05-27 03:47 · Score: 2

That might have meant something if any of the countries that did ratify it, actually fulfilled their obligations under it.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:Passing the blame by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 04:33 · Score: 0

You ARE joking right? In Europe pretty much every country has implemented aggressive laws and programs to reduce pollution. I am Portuguese, so by far not a country with the best economical situation, and still you will find that the country now has countless wind farms and solar installations, over 70% of all electricity comes from renewable and car regulations are so strict that although air quality is pretty great all around you can't drive in the center of the capital if your car isn't equipped with all the latest particle and emission filters.
Yes, most of the countries that signed it are doing something about it. Don't judge others by your own standards.
Re:Passing the blame by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-05-27 05:47 · Score: 1

Only if you believe that CO2, which only causes health problems in humans or other animals at much higher levels than anyone is talking about ever coming to be, is a pollutant in the same class as nitrogen dioxide or sulfur dioxide and similar pollutants.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Passing the blame by 0111+1110 · 2012-05-27 06:31 · Score: 1

You might want to check a map. Asia is big. It's like talking about the Americas as in both North and South America together. I've visited every country in East Asia except for Mongolia and Myanmar, and I've actually lived in a couple and I don't ever remember seeing anyone cooking with firewood. Where are these 2 billion people supposed to be living? Are you talking specifically about India? I've never been there. It seems strange that wood would be more cost effective than propane or electric stoves. It doesn't seem like it would be.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:Passing the blame by theArtificial · 2012-05-27 06:46 · Score: 1

Quite right, they're driving scooters which most certainly don't burn wood to get around.

--
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
Re:Passing the blame by galadran · 2012-05-27 07:12 · Score: 1

Quite right, they're driving scooters which most certainly don't burn wood to get around.
Oil Consumption
Re:Passing the blame by gsgriffin · 2012-05-27 13:07 · Score: 2

Like you said. You've never been to India. A billion people just there. A wood costs nothing because they cut it down.

--
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
Re:Passing the blame by theArtificial · 2012-05-27 13:44 · Score: 1

India's air
quality.

--
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
Re:Passing the blame by budgenator · 2012-05-27 16:17 · Score: 1

"National limitations range from 8% reductions for the European Union and others, to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia,"
The question remains have you reduced CO2 equivalent emission 8%? The answer is no

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Imagine that. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 00:56 · Score: 0

It's almost like we all live on the same planet.

Go on by Swampash · 2012-05-27 00:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Someone post a chart showing the world's oil consumption by country.

Re:Go on by amoeba1911 · 2012-05-27 01:06 · Score: 4, Informative

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html U.S.A! #1
Re:Go on by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 01:08 · Score: 0

Um, OK. http://bit.ly/LTGgtB
Re:Go on by houghi · 2012-05-27 01:47 · Score: 2

http://chartsbin.com/view/pdd

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Go on by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 01:54 · Score: 0

Nice to know that the good people of the USA still have a No. 1 rating at SOMETHING!
Re:Go on by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 06:47 · Score: 0

Yes! USA! USA! USA!
Not. But at least there's a reduction happening. The US could reduce its oil consumption by 30% just through higher efficiency. Sustained high oil prices will hopefully have an effect.
Posting AC because I just modded.
Re:Go on by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 08:22 · Score: 0

China and India combined don't even come close to US consumption of oil.
Re:Go on by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 23:07 · Score: 0

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2175rank.html show the production and imports too.
Looks like the US imports an amount nearly equal to saudi arabias oil production.

this is how you convert climate change deniers by circletimessquare · 2012-05-27 01:05 · Score: 5, Funny

How do you defeat oil indistry propaganda that climate change isn't real for the faux news set?

Appeal to their nationalism and xenophobia:" China is forcing climate change on you and your beautiful country"

Now there is no question climate change is real: it's a dastardly Chinese Communist plot to destroy Amurrica!

The power of low IQ tribal paranoia.

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:this is how you convert climate change deniers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 03:26 · Score: 0

Luckily, Big Oil and other faceless evil groups of liberal fiction only amount to but a small, insignificant percentage of the total population.
Meanwhile the 99%ers, who deny millennia of provable non-anthropogenic climate change can safely ignore the evil greedy low IQ 1%ers in their quest to save the planet from technology and omnivores, and will make any sacrifices necessary to that meet that goal.
Am I right fellow non-anthropogenic climate change deniers? Time to put down our keyboards and iPhones, shut down our electricity and gas lines, cease using transportation, and stop breeding altogether. Also I'm holding a suicide party this weekend, if you'd care to join us. Let's show them we take our climate change seriously!
Re:this is how you convert climate change deniers by circletimessquare · 2012-05-27 03:34 · Score: 1

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=E01

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:this is how you convert climate change deniers by wytcld · 2012-05-27 03:43 · Score: 1

The power of low IQ tribal paranoia.
Pointing out that Asian tribes generally have higher IQs than Caucasian tribes is racist, my friend. Even if it is the case that the Gods decree that the highest IQ tribes shall with every right enslave the rest....

--
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Re:this is how you convert climate change deniers by circletimessquare · 2012-05-27 04:23 · Score: 1

there is only one race, homo sapiens
there are many tribes
poor troll

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:this is how you convert climate change deniers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 04:48 · Score: 0

The power of low IQ tribal paranoia.

Appeal to their nationalism and xenophobia:

indistry

Pot, meet kettle.
Re:this is how you convert climate change deniers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 06:49 · Score: 0

Obviously it's by insulting people. I mean it's worked for never or something, besides the majority of people agree that the climate changes. The disagreement is by who and where.
Re:this is how you convert climate change deniers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 06:54 · Score: 0

You're confusing species and race.
Re:this is how you convert climate change deniers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 07:48 · Score: 0

Yes, nothing sells like anti-sinitism, especially among educated people who will get in trouble for any other kind of prejudice.
I'm not saying that all criticism of China is anti-sinitic, but singling out China for criticism when other countries do the same, or worse, is. China's pollution in absolute terms is still less than that of the US (measured by CO2 equivalent emissions), yet stereotypes of "Asian Hordes" make it easy to pretend otherwise.
Re:this is how you convert climate change deniers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 21:45 · Score: 0

I'm not sure what your point is.
Either "Big Oil" consists of more people than are actually IN "Big Oil", and the climate alarmists are lying when they say the only "climate deniers" (a misnomer) around are a vocal minority of shills?
Or "climate deniers" really ARE the minority of Big Oil, but they happen to be the wealthiest portion. Which is irrelevant, because money doesn't cause pollution, people do, and if the vast majority of people took climate change seriously it wouldn't matter how rich everyone else is. Big Oil can lobby government for all the fossil fuel subsidies they want, hell they could get the government to abolish "clean" energies if they want, it won't make a lick of difference if the population truly believes we need to act on climate change.
So, which is it? Climate alarmists are big fat liars? Or they're too busy dictating everyone else's lives that they don't bother taking their own beliefs seriously?

BREAKING NEWS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 01:13 · Score: 0

The United States of America and the People's Republic of China turned out to be located on the same planet's surface!

Misinformation, Lies and Statistics by dragisha · 2012-05-27 01:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

If, by any criteria, US does not top such charts, it's only because of outsourcing of manufacturing. Meaning - most of second-hand "smoke" is because of US consumption too.

Also, see this. Just for example, additional llustration:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44781282/World_s_Most_Polluted_Countries

--
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/

Re:Misinformation, Lies and Statistics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 01:36 · Score: 0

Just for the record, the US isn't too far behind in terms of pollution, especially if compared among the developed countries. After all, it did refuse to sign the Kyoto Protocol and also the Copenhagen Conference. So while the US continues to point fingers at India and China, countries that are trying to develop as fast as possible(but pollution is pollution) the US doesn't do much about curbing its own polluting habits either. So its, much like the kettle calling the pot black.

Re:Its a blessing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 01:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Our emissions are actually quite clean"

Dude, US is the mother of polluters. I'll just consider you tried to enact Steven Colbert and made a joke.

Re:Its a blessing by th3rmite · 2012-05-27 01:39 · Score: 2

Anybody who would say this has obviously not been around the world. I don't need to justify wanting clean air by saying that America is the worst country in the world.

Wow by Progman3K · 2012-05-27 01:47 · Score: 1

Amazing, it's almost like we live on the same planet and what we do in one place can affect people in other places...

Seriously, it's refreshing to see stories like this. Back in the 1970s, I remember everyone's attitude (and mine) as being "the world and its resources are infinite", seeing people litter and pollute without a second thought was the mainstream idea.

It's good that attitudes are changing, maybe there is hope for us.

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J

Right by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 01:48 · Score: 0

I'm going to just run intersections on my bicycle. That dump
truck can't hurt me.

Re:Right by erroneus · 2012-05-27 03:46 · Score: 1

You're trying to be sarcastic, but THAT actually happens a lot. I currently live in an area where there are lots of cyclists and they all run red lights and death happens often enough to make you wonder.

It's our pollution too by wjcofkc · 2012-05-27 01:56 · Score: 2

We are after all essentially paying them to produce it.

--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.

Re:It's our pollution too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 14:55 · Score: 0

technically given the way the world debt and trade situation is right now they're actually loaning us money to pay them to produce our pollution ;)

Re:Its a blessing by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-05-27 02:02 · Score: 4, Informative

Nope, China has that honor. They surpassed US carbon dioxide emissions years ago and in many other categories they are also the top polluting nation. The USA still exceeds them in per-capita carbon dioxide emissions.

Solution to Global Warming? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 02:03 · Score: 0

So by dumping a great deal of pollution at the right spot we can artificially create a similar effect which will reverse the warming trend in the US?

If it's their fault, it must be real! by muggs · 2012-05-27 02:25 · Score: 1

Well, if we can blame it on foreigners, it might convert some global warming deniers.

But Fox News might just take umbrage by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 02:28 · Score: 1

This story is important because it changes the AGW discussion in the USA in important ways; ways that could cause AGW deniers to flip their positions.

Up until now, conservatives have seen AGW as something which, if real, would require increased regulations and other impositions on American businesses in order to benefit the residents of the USA as well as other countries. But this changes things: it says that man-made pollution from China and India is negatively affecting the climate of the USA -- and that might just change the conservatives' tune on the issue. If Fox News starts reporting on how other nations' pollutants are harming good old Americans, then no matter how cleverly they downplay the impact of American pollutants on the environment, they've already started down the slippery slope toward acknowledging AGW as a valid and relevant issue.

Re:But Fox News might just take umbrage by SumterLiving · 2012-05-27 05:50 · Score: 1

You don't understand the conservatives called the "tea party" in the US. They will forever believe AGW is a fairy tale. They want to get into a pollution war with Asia so we again have a manufacturing advantage. They believe there are "red commies" hiding behind every rock and tree in the US. They believe the 2nd Amendment and guns trump any and every right in the world. And they have itchy trigger fingers now hoping Obama gets reelected so they can have their new "American Revolution", wear powdered wigs and march down the streets with a fife and bugle corp. And the US Constitution is theirs and anyone who isn't a tea party supported should be deported and/or executed. But this is just what they tell me 1st hand. I suppose they could be lying.
Re:But Fox News might just take umbrage by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 08:11 · Score: 0

You left out the part where they believe in small government, except if they're regulating who can get married or whether you can ingest a plant. They believe no tax should ever be imposed on anything, but don't even think about cutting THEIR Medicare and Social Security (this applies even to the few who can figure out those are government programs in the first place). Oh, and of course the absolute conviction that pointing out bad behavior on the part of corporations and businesses is somehow "attacking capitalism".
They are dangerous, unthinking followers who are so easily manipulated and who have such a sense of their own alleged superiority it would be pathetic if they didn't also have the time, because of government programs, to go out and get active I politics--under proper corporate-funded direction of course,

So... by AmberBlackCat · 2012-05-27 02:32 · Score: 1

Interesting how they pay attention to pollution they can't control but ignore pollution they can control

.

Re:So... by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-05-27 04:40 · Score: 2

Interesting how they pay attention to pollution they can't control but ignore pollution they can control [thegrio.com]
Interesting link.
So, they've had an "epidemic of cancer since the early '80s".
The nuclear power plant they're blaming it on didn't exist until 1987.
The nuclear weapons facility they mention has been there since 1952.
So, they started getting cancer from a nuclear plant before it was built, while at the same time living next to another nuclear plant for 30 years without a cancer problem.
Wow. Just, wow....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Keep this in mind by drinkypoo · 2012-05-27 02:42 · Score: 1

Keep this in mind the next time you hear about how nothing from Fukushima could possibly have gotten here to cause us any problems. They're called clouds, and it's called a jet stream.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:Keep this in mind by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 07:25 · Score: 0

Keep this in mind the next time you hear about how nothing from Fukushima could possibly have gotten here to cause us any problems. They're called clouds, and it's called a jet stream.
Except, of course, that nothing from Fukushima is causing any significant problems in Japan. So you really have to explain how the ridiculously diluted amounts that gets here would be a problem.
Fukushima should be hailed as proof of the safety of nuclear reactors, and how we all should be building them. Worst case scenario natural disaster hits them, people deal with the resulting problems, and we get zero long-term consequences.
Re:Keep this in mind by drinkypoo · 2012-05-28 01:43 · Score: 0

Except, of course, that nothing from Fukushima is causing any significant problems in Japan.
That is a bald-faced lie, and I am not surprised you made it in an anonymous and cowardly fashion. How much does Japan pay you to lie to people in a way that negatively impacts public health? I hope you get ass cancer and die, soon, before you can repeat these lies.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:Its a blessing by oiron · 2012-05-27 03:05 · Score: 1

That's because the US at least has some standards, and not Chinese-style hypercapi... err sorry, I meant "Socialist Market Economy", of course...

Unholy between laissez-faire capitalists and totalitarian states rarely end well...

Tragedy of the Commons by CopterHawk · 2012-05-27 03:08 · Score: 1

I lean libertarian, but where hard core right wing libertarians get off course on the subject of environmentalism is that nobody can 'own' the atmosphere. Thus if it is not protected via laws and regulations, it is sure to fall victim to the tragedy of the commons. Further, it is shared between countries making it an even bigger problem that cannot be solved or even mitigated by the market.

Re:Tragedy of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 16:00 · Score: 0

You may have a point. All we can do though is stand back and watch.
Re:Tragedy of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 20:18 · Score: 0

Or surround our countries with giant bubbles.

Re:Its a blessing by oiron · 2012-05-27 03:16 · Score: 5, Informative

And its a gift to the rest of the world. Our emissions are actually quite clean; I"ll bet first world car exhaust is safer to breathe than 3rd world standard air.

Did you just literally say that your shit smells like roses?

The US is in the top bracket of polluting countries! Check this out...

Taking just CO2, the US is four times higher per capita, but China's higher overall. Same story with Sulphur... Here, the US is about 3 times as much as China.

In both cases, India is far behind both the US and China.

Again, let me repeat that our country is so clean that our piddly bit of pollution is cleaner than daily life in these countries.

Its a blessing to them to get our exhaust gasses. Its like manna from the gods.

The highest per-capita emissions, and the second highest totals - that's some pretty interesting mana you gods are giving us!

And now don't switch tactics and try to claim that it's necessary for your standard of living; just look at the UK and Germany with far lower levels of both CO2 and Sulphur per capita. It's possible, as long as you give your SUVs up.

Nothing will change UNTIL the west does by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 03:31 · Score: 0

The easy way is for nations to tax ALL GOODS (both local and imported) based on the pollution/CO2 emissions that come from the nations where the product and parts come from. In addition, it should be based on REAL measurements. For example, the CO2 should be measured by the OCO2 (soon to be launched). It will show the CO2 that floats into a nation, and what floats out. Finally, the CO2 tax should be based on the CO2 per GDP. CO2 is based very weakly on the ppl, but strongly on the approach to energy, transportation, etc.

Windbourne.

Amazing, still the US's fault by bryan1945 · 2012-05-27 03:34 · Score: 0

Some people hate the US so much they will come up with any metric to make it look bad. US is worst per capita. Who cares if a group of other countries belch out 5 times as much garbage as the US; per capita the US is worse, so we should just count all the unregistered immigrants- that should drop the per capita down a bunch. The US is only 7th in recycling rates (http://www.aneki.com/recycling_countries.html), so we're 7 times worse than Switzerland, which makes us worse than everyone else lower on the list, because of babble babble babble.
Just shove it and mod me to oblivion; I'm feeling cheerful today.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.

Re:Amazing, still the US's fault by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 09:13 · Score: 0

Just shove it and mod me to oblivion
Reverse psychology. Someone always falls for it.
Re:Amazing, still the US's fault by bryan1945 · 2012-06-04 10:15 · Score: 1

Oddly, I wasn't even trying for that. I really didn't care at that point. Cheers! :D

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.

You miss the point by G3ckoG33k · 2012-05-27 03:53 · Score: 1

You miss the point. Spreading half-wit semitruths like this will actually get the Republicans behind domestic pollution control!

Just say the Chinese will ruin America and people will support it; even the people who thought it was un-American to fight for a better environment a decade ago.

Re:You miss the point by Anne_Nonymous · 2012-05-27 03:57 · Score: 1

All true, except that American pollution smells like violets and unicorn farts.

Re:Its a blessing by peppy · 2012-05-27 04:12 · Score: 1

Duh! How long have you been polluting the planet for with all your gas guzzling

Re:this is how you show that AGW is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 04:14 · Score: 0

Official record of satellite measurements of temperature

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_decadal_trends

Re:this is how you show that AGW is a scam by circletimessquare · 2012-05-27 04:19 · Score: 1

yes, it's like arguing crime with gun control haters, they always have amazing statistics to pull out of their arse, that are either outright lies, mistakes, bad studies or extremely misleading ways of looking at the data (purposely designed by think tanks for you to cite your mythology)

or, you could just look at the damn ice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage#Effects_of_climate_change

deny the ice, ignorant propagandized motherfucker

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

is it really all their fault by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 04:53 · Score: 0

They are also the 2 most populated countries in the world by a very wide margin, to be fair. Very polluted, no doubt about it, but they have been manufacturing for most other countries, and where do you think all the recycled stuff and electronic waste from US has been shipping to?
Of course there are a lot of things they can do to improve the situation, but that doesn't mean it's ok for other "developed" countries to pay to sweep their dirt to the poorer countries and pretend they have nothing to do with it.

Re:is it really all their fault by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 05:30 · Score: 0

Hey fucknut, We have particulate emissions standards. We actually enforce emissions controls. We have n entire fucking vehicle inspection enterprise set up to control emissions. Fuck USA is a great progressive chant, but reality doesn't match the cloud I try to breath in India or C. Africa.

Re:Its a blessing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 04:55 · Score: 0

CO2 is one thing. How about particulate matter and smokey gunk?

I think we're getting CO2 mixed up with pollution here. CO2 maybe be *A* pollutant, but it is not THE pollutant, and not the worst of them for certain.

Re:Its a blessing by oiron · 2012-05-27 05:15 · Score: 5, Informative

Every time you deniers "call us on it", we link again and again and again to the real science. You ask for the data, the data is available. You cast aspersions on the data, and it's independently verified. You fund studies meant to show that there's no warming, the study shows that there really is warming.

When we "call you on it", you disappear into the woods.

wow by Osgeld · 2012-05-27 05:17 · Score: 1

they discovered wind

Re:Its a blessing by phantomfive · 2012-05-27 05:18 · Score: 1

just look at the UK and Germany with far lower levels of both CO2 and Sulphur per capita.

I'm not sure that's true, at least looking at the data from that site. Most countries in the world have per capita sulfur production that is close.

Also, I'm not sure your focus on sulfur is entirely justified when there are many other pollutants, including the particulate matter which is the focus of this article.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:Its a blessing by oiron · 2012-05-27 05:30 · Score: 1

It's one of the most worrying, long-term.

In any case, I showed two - CO2 and sulphur, which are both correlated quite well. I don't have the data to dig up on other pollutants, but my expectation is that the others will correlate too.

Look, I'm in no way claiming that India or China (or any other place) is perfect, but the the GP was saying that US pollution is a "blessing". I'm disputing that to show that the US is hardly perfect. I've argued elsewhere in this thread that we need stricter standards all around, not just the US. But the US has to do its bit too. Mutual suicide pacts are stupid!

Re:Its a blessing by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-05-27 05:34 · Score: 1

What China has is not in any way a hybrid between capitalism and totalitarianism. It is a well-known system that is but a short step from Communism. China's current economic system is Fascism.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

that's not pollution ... by joeyspqr · 2012-05-27 05:40 · Score: 1

... that's the sweet smell of the free market!

--
+1 fashionably cynical

Re:Its a blessing by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-05-27 05:41 · Score: 2

Taking just CO2

And right there is your problem, you do not understand what real pollution looks like. Real pollution causes people, wildlife, and plants to become sick and sometimes die within a short time period. A short enough time period that people don't have to be told how bad it is, they can see it for themselves.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

Re:Its a blessing by oiron · 2012-05-27 05:42 · Score: 2

Poor scaling... Take a look at a zoomed-in-version

The reason I picked CO2 and sulphur is that both were available on gapminder. If I want other pollutants, I'd have to hunt a lot deeper, and then the conversation would be stale. I'm all for looking at more data if we can find it.

Again, it's not my argument that the rest of the world needs to do nothing. I'm just saying that the guy I replied to was fundamentally saying that the US needs to do nothing. That, I think is specious.

Re:Its a blessing by phantomfive · 2012-05-27 05:50 · Score: 1

the guy I replied to was fundamentally saying that the US needs to do nothing. That, I think is specious.

True, true.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Denialists by pubwvj · 2012-05-27 06:02 · Score: 0

"China and India are some of the world's top polluters"

Something the neo-greenies like to ignore. It is fashionable to blame the USA. Ironically, almost all the neo-greenies live in cities and are thus bad polluters themselves. Denialists.

Pollution you can smell by 0111+1110 · 2012-05-27 06:47 · Score: 3, Informative

The only US city I've lived in that had pollution you could smell and see was Los Angeles and that's at least partly because of the inversion layer. The last Asian country I lived in had a very different kind of problem. Because trash pickup was infrequent and unreliable and possibly expensive for some people most residents would burn their trash in their yard in plastic bags. The smoke and the scent of burnt plastic would permeate the air for hours nearly every evening. It was so bad that that was the reason I left. I just couldn't take it anymore. I was sick of the nearly constant smell of burning plastic. There were many nights when I tried to fall asleep while wearing a respirator. Yes, it was that bad.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

Re:Pollution you can smell by der_pinchy · 2012-05-27 09:12 · Score: 0

where was this exactly? one of the reasons I left NYC was coz of the smell.
Re:Pollution you can smell by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 09:32 · Score: 0

dido for southern california
Re:Pollution you can smell by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 15:56 · Score: 0

Wow. That's crazy.

news? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 08:55 · Score: 0

really? how is this news?

irony by pbjones · 2012-05-27 11:26 · Score: 2

the US outsourced manufacturing to Asia and Asia returns the goods and the pollution that resulted from it's manufacturing. Nice to see that Canada and Mexico are not affected, else they would have got a mention in the original post.

--
There was an unknown error in the submission.

USA was a top polluter in the last few decades by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 11:45 · Score: 0

Everyone in the world know polluting one part of the world will have an impact on another part of the world. The only difference in this time is china and India are worse than USA.

Re:Its a blessing by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-05-27 13:44 · Score: 1

China is authoritarian, not totalitarian. While they regulate morality to some extent, they don't watch over people for every hour of their lives. Similarly, in economic sphere, there is also considerable freedom, especially for small/medium business.

But, yes, ideologically that's still fascism, just a more mild form of it (which is arguably why it's so successful).

Re:Its a blessing by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-05-27 13:45 · Score: 1

Heck, it should suffice to just link to a physics textbook or something.

America never generate any pollution? by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-05-27 14:02 · Score: 1

America is claiming that pollution from Asia (China and India) is affecting America

What about the pollution that had been spewing off the chimneys / smokestacks in America and Europe since the industrial revolution?

When America points a finger at Asia, 4 fingers are pointing back towards US of A

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:America never generate any pollution? by X0563511 · 2012-05-27 16:41 · Score: 2

So, even though we've "been there done that" we shouldn't be offering up for easy the lessons we learned the hard way?
No, Asia wants to say "you're not our daddy" and do things their own way, and learn it all the hard way unnecessarily.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:America never generate any pollution? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 23:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

What sanctions are you referring to? The US hasn't sanctioned India over its oil purchases from Iran. Even though India is inadvertently supporting a regional rival. The U.S.- India Civil Nuclear Agreement was a huge win for India since they can continue nuclear trade even though they have never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The last sanctions I found any reference to were in 1998 as a result of India's nuclear tests that year.
I ask again, what sanctions are you referring to?
Re:America never generate any pollution? by thej1nx · 2012-05-28 22:44 · Score: 1

Dear clueless, I am referring to 1998 sanctions themselves, which you seem to shrug off pretty casually for some reason. if I keep you starving a decade and then suddenly permitted you to have food yesterday, would still mean that you will end up being mal-nutritioned.

Getting tired of environmental horror stories? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 15:53 · Score: 0

Who really gives a rats ass if is has dawned on some federal grant parasites that they could extend their existence suckling on the US taxpayers teat by 'discovering' China and India pollute the atmosphere with their industry? .04C over the next 20 years (or whatever). People aren't going to stop buying this stuff and there isn't anything anyone can or will do to put a stop to it. There could be a fucking sticker on every apple ipad made reading 'Warning: Use of this product may cause your grandchildren to become blood-sucking zombies' and nobody would think twice about taking one home from the mall. These stories are essentially without the ability to have political consequences so I find them tiresome (for good reason). Sadly, it is also clear there is a significant industry supporting this kind of sensational environmental research so such horror story posting isn't going away any time soon.

Tired environmental horror stories by approachingZero+ · 2012-05-27 16:03 · Score: 1

Who really gives a rats ass if is has dawned on some federal grant parasites that they could extend their existence suckling on the US taxpayers teat by 'discovering' China and India pollute the atmosphere with their industry? .04C over the next 20 years (or whatever). People aren't going to stop buying this stuff and there isn't anything anyone can or will do to put a stop to it. There could be a fucking sticker on every apple ipad made reading 'Warning: Use of this product may cause your grandchildren to become blood-sucking zombies' and nobody would think twice about taking one home from the mall. These stories are essentially without the ability to have political consequences so I find them tiresome (for good reason). Sadly, it is also clear there is a significant industry supporting this kind of sensational environmental research so such horror story posting isn't going away any time soon.

--
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback

Re:Its a blessing by William+Robinson · 2012-05-27 18:21 · Score: 1

I'm just saying that the guy I replied to was fundamentally saying that the US needs to do nothing. That, I think is specious.

I like the way you have put it, and I support it. Keeping Earth clean is a collective responsibility and everybody, absolutely, needs to look at shit they are generating. And, US is no exception to that.

--
hilarious

Meanwhile, America by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 23:23 · Score: 0

..uses 25% of the world's oil production, despite being about 5% of world population. I call this Chinese Pollution Bogeyman propaganda.

Afghanistan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 23:36 · Score: 0

Pollution from rest of the world is very very high, compared to pollution from Afghanistan. AFghanistan requests rest of the world to reduce the pollution from rest of the world to the emission levels of Afghanistan.

Re:Its a blessing by oiron · 2012-05-28 00:14 · Score: 1

Again, what I'd like to see is some real data from your side, in the place of passive-aggressiveness, insults and wild speculation in support of not doing anything.

This conversation just becomes one-sided; every time we provide data, you just go on a tangent without addressing the issues involved.

Re:Its a blessing by khallow · 2012-05-28 00:42 · Score: 0

Ok, here goes. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health issues various guidelines for exposure to chemicals. For carbon dioxide in air, the recommended exposure limit is 9 kilograms per cubic meter. For mercury vapor, it is is 0.5 milligrams per cubic meter. That's six orders of difference in the threshold of toxicity.

Re:Its a blessing by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-05-28 06:14 · Score: 1

China is authoritarian, not totalitarian. While they regulate morality to some extent, they don't watch over people for every hour of their lives. Similarly, in economic sphere, there is also considerable freedom, especially for small/medium business.

But, yes, ideologically that's still fascism, just a more mild form of it (which is arguably why it's so successful).

I'd classify them as one of the most totalitarian states ever. Who else ever tried to control how many kids you have?

Re:Its a blessing by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-05-28 08:41 · Score: 1

I'd classify them as one of the most totalitarian states ever. Who else ever tried to control how many kids you have?

USA did, for example. And so did a good half of Europe, even not counting Nazis.

What the fuck are you on about now??? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-29 00:22 · Score: 0

CO2 is a pollutant from combustion of fossil fuels. Stop talking crap.

Re:What the fuck are you on about now??? by khallow · 2012-05-29 22:15 · Score: 1

CO2 is a pollutant from combustion of fossil fuels.

So is mercury vapor. Coal has some in it. And China burns a lot of coal without pollution controls. Why continue to ignore the relative harm of chemicals and materials? One can't speak rationally about pollution, if one treats all potential pollutants identically without regard to their actual levels of harm.

It wouldn't. Why would it? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-29 00:26 · Score: 0

And why should US doing what's right stop a country from doing wrong?

Because China doesn't bother with obeying copyright laws, does that mean you support their removal?

Flamebait? by drinkypoo · 2012-05-31 02:59 · Score: 1

No, flamebait is when you tell lies. When you tell the truth, that's called the fucking truth.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

They deserve growth.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 06:07 · Score: 0

US and European countries are turned to developed counties by doing tones of pollution during the Industrial Age. They have burned whole worlds fuel and done lots of pollution in War. Now, they panic on Asian countries pollution? Why don't they reduce their needs of goods which causes the pollution?

Slashdot Mirror

Pollution From Asia Affects US Climate

209 comments