Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Up To a Quarter of California Smog Comes From China

Posted by samzenpus on from the you-can-have-this-back dept.

wabrandsma writes "What goes around comes around – quite literally in the case of smog. The US has outsourced many of its production lines to China and, in return, global winds are exporting the Chinese factories' pollution right back to the U.S. From the article: '...the team combined their emissions data with atmospheric models that predict how winds shuttle particles around. These winds push Chinese smog over the Pacific and dump it on the western US, from Seattle to southern California. The modelling revealed that on any given day in 2006, goods made in China for the US market accounted for up to a quarter of the sulphate smog over the western U.S..'"

52 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Pollution from China by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now, I'm mostly libertarian, but in the whole 'your right to throw your fist stops at my nose' sense I'd be okay with imposing tariffs on products that aren't produced up to US pollution standards, or even trade restrictions against countries that aren't even trying, pollution wise.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Pollution from China by Njovich · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Great, so will the US then also meet EU polution standards? Or does this rule only apply when you like it?

    2. Re:Pollution from China by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Now, I'm mostly libertarian, but in the whole 'your right to throw your fist stops at my nose' sense I'd be okay with imposing tariffs on products that aren't produced up to US pollution standards, or even trade restrictions against countries that aren't even trying, pollution wise.

      The tricky thing about libertarian analyses of pollution standards is that a 'pollution standard' is actually a rather odd thing (from a libertarian standpoint, from the 'just throwing things together according to no particular overarching theory as the needs of the day dictate' sense, they occur quite naturally): Depending on how unpleasant it is, pollution is anywhere from a cost imposed on others to lethal violence visited on others, and a 'pollution standard' is the state explicitly granting the right to inflict a certain amount of that on everybody else. It's like talking about 'theft standards' for regulating the activities of pickpockets to a certain amount per wallet...

    3. Re:Pollution from China by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, there's definitely a reason why even the assorted "Green Parties" (in countries that have them) propose pollution standards greater than zero, and why the 'just bodging our way toward something resembling compromise' school of legislation tends to end up at some equilibrium value.

      My point was merely that libertarianism is among the most vexing theoretical frameworks from which to try to arrive at acceptable pollution levels that aren't either zero ("Pollution is violence, one of the state's few legitimate roles is preventing you from committing it unless you, as is probably impossible, negotiate the consent of all those affected") or infinite ("Pollution is a product of me exercising my property rights, state infringement on which is unacceptable"), with zero being the arguably stronger; but rather less well-befriended, outcome. It's not a useful outcome (preindustrial society kind of sucked, and somebody was still shitting upstream from your drinking water); but trying to come up with a theoretical justification for some pragmatically calculated value is quite an exercise (coming up with the pragmatically calculated value is bad enough; but that's at least mostly a technical problem).

    4. Re:Pollution from China by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a reason why the 'let's have an anti-regulatory pity party' school of libertarianism has better donors; but the 'pollution as violence' model is arguably about as unhelpful to polluters as anything on the table. This might explain why it tends to get left on the table and accidentally covered with loose documents and forgotten about...

    5. Re:Pollution from China by Kagetsuki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Very well put. The only catch is politicians from China will freak out if the US tries to put in such restrictions, and politicians from the US will freak out once the EU tries to put in such restrictions. It's a shame governments tend to look out for national profit rather than global welfare.

      Actually, what ever happened to the Kyoto Protocol? That seemed like something that could work and I remember hearing it did have a positive effect, but you don't seem to hear about it or anything like it lately.

    6. Re:Pollution from China by number17 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      China seems pretty libertarian about this whole pollution thing.

    7. Re:Pollution from China by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Indeed, look at how much the US complained about RoHS. China just got on and dealt with it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Pollution from China by Virtucon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      LOL, sure when the EU outlaws two stroke engines. I was in Spain last month and couldn't count fast enough the number of sputtering two stroke bikes whizzing around the city al belching smoke. So as they say: "Physician heal thyself."

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    9. Re:Pollution from China by rts008 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a price for outsourcing production, and now we are seeing some of the price.

      This is not China 'throwing their fist' at our nose, this is China burping after the buffet we gleefully threw at them.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    10. Re:Pollution from China by rioki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How? Each and every "green" technology has some form of "problem". Solar? Forget it the energy to produce the cells is astronomical and the rare earth are non trivial to extract. Wind and water? Better, but you need to build the damned things from some metals. Smelting metals, even when recycling creates toxic smoke and other junk. Biomass? Works sort better, you are CO2 neutral, but the process of burning still creates SO2 and similar pollutants. You can combat air pollutants with filters, but then you end up with highly toxic filters you need to dispose of.

      This also ignores the production of certain substances. Yes you can reduce use of plastic with a wood compound or wholly replacing some materials. The problem is that these materials where selected for their properties. You can replace many but the result is that you basically can ditch a large part of your high tech. You can build a car that has zero emissions (e.g. Hydrogen from solar-heat-plants in the Sahara), but building the car and infrastructure itself will never be zero emission.

      We can do significantly better than now and I am totally for scientific research into this these areas. But zero pollution is fully and totally out of the question.

    11. Re:Pollution from China by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      How? Each and every "green" technology has some form of "problem". Solar? Forget it the energy to produce the cells is astronomical and the rare earth are non trivial to extract.

      Modern thin-film PV solar pays back its energy investment in three years and uses less materials than ever. Much of the research in solar is directed at using more easily extracted materials.

      Smelting metals, even when recycling creates toxic smoke and other junk.

      Right, but those gases can be captured, and the use of metals can be reduced.

      Biomass? Works sort better, you are CO2 neutral, but the process of burning still creates SO2 and similar pollutants.

      The long term goal is that we shouldn't be burning anything but hydrogen (and precious little of that at this point due to the high energy cost of its production) and whatever "natural" gas naturally escapes, no fracking. In the shorter term, there's several biofuels (most notably butanol and green diesel) which can substantially reduce or even entirely eliminate emissions when used with modern trap and catalyst systems.

      You can build a car that has zero emissions (e.g. Hydrogen from solar-heat-plants in the Sahara), but building the car and infrastructure itself will never be zero emission.

      I reject that notion entirely. There's no reason to imagine that any emissions which can't be trapped can't be accounted for by fixing. That is, there's no point whatsoever to spending a lot of effort trapping CO2 when you can cheaply fix it, e.g. by growing algae or bamboo. The problem then is ensuring that the fixing is actually done. It's also interesting you bring up cars, since they're such a big part of the problem. I really enjoy driving, and cars, but I think cars can and should go away and be replaced by PRT. This would eliminate most of the issues with the road surface (which is replaced by longer-lived, lower-impact rail) and all of the issues with tire wear and dust.

      We can do significantly better than now and I am totally for scientific research into this these areas. But zero pollution is fully and totally out of the question.

      Your failure is one of imagination.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Pollution from China by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Great, so will the US then also meet EU polution standards? Or does this rule only apply when you like it?

      We don't even have a mechanism to deal with this within the US. I live in western New Hampshire, right by the big hydro power plant. Aside from a few automobiles, all of our air pollution comes from elsewhere (and we have lots of trees to absorb pollution so we're probably a net negative for pollution in this area). Yet, when the heat of the summer comes and the midwest cranks up their coal-fired power plants, the smog builds in, our visibility goes to crap, and I'm buying a new set of contact lenses every week (or just switching to glasses if it's bad enough :shudder:). The low visibility hurts our tourism, because there goes the 200-mile views from atop the hilltops, and I'm out-of-pocket for the contacts (and who knows what the long-term damage is).

      But just imagine the laughter of the "judge" throwing out our small-claims court cases against each of those coal-burning plants if we try to recover our costs that we incur to ease their expense ratios.

      To answer your question - the rules only apply in 'the system' when it privatizes the gains and socializes the costs. The government tells us this is "for the common good". To the GP's point - that's hardly a libertarian approach.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    13. Re:Pollution from China by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      Strawman argument alert. Additionally, tu quoque argument alert.

      Firethrorn never said the US should be exempt from similar laws. Additionally, Firethorn is not an embodiment of the US, nor does he have much power over US trade agreements. You appear to be suggesting hypocrisy where there is none.

      You could make an argument that such a move will have unintended consequences when other countries enact similar laws, however Firethorn might thing that was a good thing. I certainly would. Countries imposing sanctions on the US and China until our countries quit dumping CO2 and other pollutants might be the only way to get the oligarchs to finally quit screwing over the climate. I'm willing to take the risk that my standard of living decreases as a result.

    14. Re:Pollution from China by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      You can't build solar panels without polluting.

      That's the best you can do?

      Oh, I see, you're done.

      Now, it's naptime for you.

      I'll get more out of a nap than from any comment you've ever posted.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Clearly Impossible by some+old+guy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Have we not been repeatedly assured by the UN and the US government that our bestie friend China is a paragon of environmental awareness? Don't all the charts show China with a lower carbon footprint than Switzerland? Surely the pollution must be the US's own being recirculated. After being partially cleansed by the pristine skies of China, of course. /sarcasm

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  3. Re:Eh? Smog is low level by some+old+guy · · Score: 2

    I seem to remember an axiom from E-school: "Gravity always works."

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  4. Somehow fitting by pablo_max · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have often said to people that there is a reason why things are so cheap at these big box stores.

    I do not say this as a critique of China or which ever country is producing low cost products, but rather as a critique of Western culture and "acquire more crap at all costs" mentality. China is just filling our demand.
    Sadly, we tend not to think about the real price of what and where they buy thing. What the human costs of not supporting our local economy is.
    We do not think about HOW theses items are so cheap compared to locally produced goods. We do not think twice about buying goods from a US company which closes his factories in America or Europe to sweat shops in China or India.

    I do my best to source my goods locally, but it getting more and more difficult. The fact is, local producers of most items cannot compete because westerns are not willing or not able to pay what it actually "costs" to produce.

    Now, the fruits of this are coming to bear. From a polluted planet to not getting a living wage. I wish it would turn around, but it won't.

    1. Re:Somehow fitting by BlackPignouf · · Score: 2

      +1. Sad truth.
      A lot of people don't understand that the less they give as customers, the less they'll receive as employees.
      It's the same problem at a global level : Germany doesn't understand either that a 2 billion $ train produced in Germany is much cheaper than a 1 billion $ train produced in China.
      Karma and macroeconomics are bitches.

    2. Re:Somehow fitting by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      "More efficient" in the economic sense only means that it operates at lower cost. Always start from that axiom. While there are some pollution-reduction methods that are also economically efficient (e.g. reusing or selling your waste products rather than dumping them) that is unfortunately those are in the minority. That's why pollution tariffs exist; they add environmental impact to the efficiency problem. In China's case, where their economic efficiency largely comes from cheap power from coal, you've definitely got a conflict.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:Somehow fitting by dkf · · Score: 2, Funny

      I do not say this as a critique of China or which ever country is producing low cost products, but rather as a critique of Western culture and "acquire more crap at all costs" mentality. China is just filling our demand.

      So you're saying that a consequence of my wanting cheap electronics is that Californian hipsters have to put up with choking to death on smog imported across the Pacific?

      Is this an argument for or against?

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    4. Re:Somehow fitting by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      There's only four things we do better than anyone else:
      music
      movies
      microcode
      high-speed pizza delivery "

      Sadly, our music and movies are both going downhill and nobody trusts our microcode any more... Better fire up those pizza ovens.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Somehow fitting by DeathToBill · · Score: 2

      A lot of people don't understand that the less they give as customers, the less they'll receive as employees.

      Which is, of course, why we're all much worse off now than when the industrial revolution started. Back then it was the machines making goods cheaper than the people could. Of course people would buy the cheaper goods made by machine, not realising they were sowing the seeds of their own economic destruction. The less they gave as customers, the less they received as employees!

      Honestly, can we drop this tosh now? Another way of saying the same thing is, "The more expensive everything is, the more you'll be able to buy!" It is obvious nonsense.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
  5. Re:Eh? Smog is low level by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nope, definitely low-level; it's a tropospheric transport model. Apparently it's a standard model (GEOS-Chem) that's pretty reliable, and it seems to incorporate interactions between particulates and the surface, including e.g. exchange of particulates between the troposphere and ocean/land.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  6. Basic Math by NoKaOi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe it's just a horrible article, but the numbers don't make sense:

    The team found that between 17 and 36 per cent of smog produced in China in 2006 came from factories making goods for export. One-fifth of those goods are destined for the US.

    Okay, so let's take the average of 17 and 36, we get (17+36)/2 = 26.5. One fifth of that is 5.3. So, 5.3% of smog produced in China came from producing goods for export to the US.

    The modelling revealed that on any given day in 2006, goods made in China for the US market accounted for up to a quarter of the sulphate smog over the western US.

    Ok, so here's what doesn't make sense. If they're saying 25% of the smog came from china, then only 1.3% of the total smog is from goods produced for export to the US. On the other hand, if they're really saying that what they're saying, and 25% of total smog is from US goods, that means 470% of the smog in total is form China.

    This leads to the conclusion that one of the following must be true:
    1. The study is full of shit, and the authors need to go back to elementary school. Or,
    2. The article is full of shit, and the journalist needs to go back to elementary school. Maybe what the study really says is 25% of the US west coast's smog comes from China, of which 5.3% of that is from production of goods for the US. Or,
    3. The paper was written in Chinese, and the translator needs to learn English. Ever put together something complicated made in China? As in, wtf do you mean insert 4 bolts there? There are only screws, and there are only two holes, and they don't line up! Or,
    4. Somehow, perhaps by magic, only the sulphate molecules that came out of factories producing goods for the US get blown to the US, while the sulphate molecules made in other production don't. If these molecules somehow know the destination of the goods whose manufacture resulted in their creation, that could make for some really interesting follow up studies! Or,
    5. I'm really tired and I missed something. But I don't think I'm that tired.

    1. Re:Basic Math by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      first, they are "journalists" It seems that they just make crap up and do not do any actual research on their articles anymore. I have discovered that 99% of technology journalists are complete idiots that dont even know 1/80th of what they are talking about and do ZERO research before they write something down.

      Environmental Science is harder than tech, so I will bet these are the same caliber "journalists". We dont have an real ones out there anymore, most of them are just half hearted bloggers that happen to be paid to do a half assed job.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Basic Math by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Informative

      One's the average, one's the maximum day-to-day. It fluctuates. It's not the study that's "full of shit", it's that the New Scientist article is written unclearly. You can find the original PNAS at the bottom of the NS piece, can't tell if it's open-access because I've got a golden ticket:

      http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  7. US paying Europe for emissions... by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, I did a quick google search on emissions, a fair bit about cars, not industry. My general conclusion is that the differences are basically a wash. Which is why I mentioned 'aren't even trying, pollution wise'. China for the most part isn't even trying. The USA at least tries.

    A country that is trying to protect itself will generally protect it's neighbors as well.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:US paying Europe for emissions... by Njovich · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, it may seem like a wash because it's complicated. The EU only sets broad rules, which the individual countries then must implement.

      Also, you can't always directly compare rules.

      However, For instance for some directly possible comparison:

      SO2 Annual mean is 20 microgram per m^3 in the EU, 79 in US.
      NOx: 40 vs 100 ug/m^3
      PM10: 40 vs 50 ug/m^3
      Ozone: 120 vs 160 ug/m^3 (way of measurement differs slightly)
      CO: same for both 10000 ug/m^3

      These are *huge* differences. It may seem like a wash, but on the scales we are talking about, these are enormous differences.

      Of course, some regulations may be stricter in the US than EU, I didn't do a full on study on this.

      (these numbers may be a couple of years out of date, but I doubt there were many changes)

      Having said that, my previous comment wasn't entirely meant to be serious. In fact, I'm all in favor of applying more pressure on countries to do things about pollution. Also, the EU regulation might be a bit over the top.

    2. Re:US paying Europe for emissions... by Njovich · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a huge difference between making a law and applying a law, obviously. This is just standards, not what you will actually find when you measure.

      But here you go:

      China:
      SO2: 20ug/m^3 (60 in urban areas)
      NOx: 50ug/m^3
      PM10: 40ug/m^3 (70 in urban areas)
      Ozone: 160 ug/m^3
      CO: 10000 ug/m^3

    3. Re:US paying Europe for emissions... by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a huge difference between making a law and applying a law, obviously. This is just standards, not what you will actually find when you measure.

      But here you go:

      Tell me about it - next to your air quality limits, here are the actual figures for High-tech zone, Shijiazhuang at http://aqicn.org/.
      China:
      SO2: 20ug/m^3 (60 in urban areas) - actual 60
      NOx: 50ug/m^3 - actual 73
      PM10: 40ug/m^3 (70 in urban areas) - actual 546!!!!!!!
      Ozone: 160 ug/m^3 - actual 3
      CO: 10000 ug/m^3 - actual 0

      Note that this is a point-in-time value. So, the laws are actually somewhat better than the US, but apparently nobody follows the law.

  8. Re:How about the pollution originating in USA? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

    If I am right USA is not interesting in "Kyoto protocol stuff".

    Kyoto protocol covers greenhouse gasses, this study is about smog. I'm sure that there's some overlap, most chemicals do more than one thing; but "Pollution" isn't some sort of uniform, fungible, phenomenon. Different sources, different flavors, different regulatory mechanisms.

  9. Re: The Price We Pay by buck-yar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We can't regulate China, but we can regulate the US companies that do business over there. My company does 80% of its sourcing from China. The companies that we do business with have zero regard for the environment. How come a company here can't pollute when making widget X, but they can buy that widget X from a company that pollutes up a storm (and that storm blows to California).

  10. Re:Doesn't make sense. by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Informative

    The New Scientist article has smudged a lot of things from the original text. Basically overall, they find that "EEE-related Chinese pollution contributed about 3–10% of the annual mean surface sulfate concentrations, 1–3% of BC, 2–3% of CO, and 0.5–1.5% of ozone over the western contiguous United States (west of 100W)." However the amount reaching the US was highly variable from day to day (is episodic) because the atmosphere is complicated. It can "save up" pollution and dump it en mass, and on those days, it could account for "12-24% of sulfate concentrations, 2–5% of ozone, 4–6% of CO, and up to 11% of BC over the western United States".

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  11. Karma by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Funny

    Made in China.

    Designed in California.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  12. Canadian Acid Rain from US Coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For quite a long time, acid rain was causing severe deforestation in Canada, killing fish in lakes and so on, as a result of burning coal in the US.

    Coal has a lot of sulfur in it. When you burn sulfur, then makes the resulting oxide gases with water, you get sulfuric and sulfurous acid.

    Canada protested vigorously, but the US totally blew it off and kept sending the acid rain to the great white north.

    Back in 1983 or so, I watched a documentary movie about this, that had been produced in Canada. The United States authorities labeled the film as "Foreign Propaganda".

    Now, I'd rather than China not send us her smog, but I don't see how the United States has standing to gripe about it.

  13. Smog from China from outsourcing by Trogre · · Score: 2

    Smells like poetic justice...

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  14. Re:Doesn't make sense. by Sockatume · · Score: 2

    No, he means that if US-attributable pollution is X% of China's pollution output, then it cannot possibly be more than X% of the pollution at the West coast of the US. Either it's X%, if the stuff originating in China is the only source; or it's less if mix it with other sources. Unless the pollution somehow fractionates according to attribution.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  15. Re:Seven or so years too by Sockatume · · Score: 2

    They actually discuss a full decade of emissions data from 2000-2009, and state that they picked 2006 as an interesting turning point in China's consumption versus production emissions. I'm guessing that 2000-2009 was the most up to date info when somebody started their PhD in 2009, and now they're writing up.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  16. Weird summary by SETY · · Score: 3, Funny

    "These winds push Chinese smog over the Pacific and dump it on the western US, from Seattle to southern California."
    The smog probably actually covers western North America. I highly doubt Chinese smog hates the US so much that it only goes from Seattle to San Diego.

  17. Re:Eh? Smog is low level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    > How can these particles remain in the very lowest part of the atmosphere

    That's the Invisible Hand, son.

  18. Re:Eh? Smog is low level by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If thats the case then it'll almost certainly be skewed by all the pollution from shipping along the way. The high sulphur fuel oil they burn produces hugh amounts of sulphates.

    So what? That shipping is done to bring the goods from China... might as well fold it in.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  19. The real benefit of globalization... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... is that it keeps us all from murdering each other.

    If we weren't trading with China, perhaps it would have attacked Taiwan by now.

    China is at present far from being a democracy, however it is making great strides in that free speech, while officially suppressed, is still quite widespread.

    While Russia and the US have disarmed to a modest extent, we still have thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at each other. However we are now major trading partners; during the Cold War there was very little trade. For example what at one time was an antiquated glass factory in Russia, received a great deal of investment from United States auto manufacturers, and now is quite prosperously making high-quality glass for automobiles.

    What is now the American Southwest was seized from Mexico in an invasion that had not the slightest pretense of justification. The US also took the Virgin Islands and the Philippines from Spain.

    Japan was at one time a brutal aggressor, now it is a top trade partner with the entire world.

    Cuba came within an RCH of nuking the east coast of the US. While the US still embargoes Cuba, travel to Cuba is actually encouraged now by the US, under certain rather strict rules. It is quite likely that Cuba will be free to trade with the US in ten or twenty years.

    A few years ago, Intel invested a billion dollars to build a Fab in Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh City.

    While North and South Korea remain bitter enemies and strictly speaking are still at war, there is a large industrial park in North Korea that is jointly operated by the two countries.

    The big Physics lab at CERN in Geneva wasn't built to discover anything. It was built to prevent World War III, by giving those who were once enemies, something peaceful to do together.

  20. Re:Eh? Smog is low level by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Forget particulates. Actual sand has been known to show up on my front doorstep (literally) transported across the Atlantic from the Sahara. And, from time to time, going the other direction from Kansas and Oklahoma.

    If something that heavy can be transported that far, the only thing that would change with lighter particles is how much farther they disperse.

  21. uh oh... by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 2

    don't anyone tell Walmart about this...

    they will want to charge Californians an "extra-low price " for it all...

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
  22. Re:Eh? Smog is low level by haruchai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The health problems the Chinese are going to have from this stuff is unimaginable"

    That ship may have sailed.

    A report from 2007 estimated 600,000 deaths annually - http://news.nationalgeographic....
    A recent one, that looks at 100 cities puts the tally at 350,000 - 500,000 annually but another that claims to take the entire population into account is claiming over 1 million.
    http://www.scmp.com/news/china...

    That may not mean much in a country over well over a billion people but it's unimaginable to me that so many die from just breathing bad air.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  23. Re:Article and summary is wildly wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Reading comprehension a bit too much for you?

    But wait what about the other 95% of china smog? We need to multiply that US smog by 20 to get it's contribution.

    therefore 20*25% = 500% of W. US sulphate comes from china!!! those sneaky rascals are exporting 5 times as much sulphate tot eh US as they produce in total!

    Wait, what? let's read that again

    The modelling revealed that on any given day in 2006, goods made in China for the US market accounted for up to a quarter of the sulphate smog over the western US.

    So, by your calculation, China is producing 5 times more smog than there's on the US West coast. Most of it (about 19/20, in fact) doesn't get to the US, quite surprising, eh?

    Playing with numbers is nice, but next time try to understand what it is you're computing.

  24. Re:Eh? Smog is low level by e70838 · · Score: 2

    I live in north of France and I have already received sand from sahara. This does not happen often, but it happens.

  25. The Coal Irony by Dark+Fire · · Score: 2

    The California climate changers have been working to drive coal power out of the United States which is driving up the cost of electricity which in turn drives up manufacturing costs both in the short term and long term. This has created low coal prices in the short term and in the long term causing China to double down on coal power to keep its energy costs low and to make its manufacturing base even more competitive in the international market. This means more manufacturing will be done in China which ironically will actually make the air quality in California much worse (better air quality for the eastern US though). I also think that it would be ironic if this ultimately kills US manufacturing to the point where the US becomes a third world country where all the wealthier nations of the world come to plunder the natural resources that many conservationists have fought hard to protect. But in protecting our natural resources, it has been taken to such extremes that it ultimately weakens our economy and in so doing our government and world influence. People forget that it takes strength to defend what you cherish (ideas, people, etc.) and that there are no given rules that all uphold. People cling too tightly and take for granted that things will remain as they are now. We must find a balance to remain strong.

  26. Re:Eh? Smog is low level by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 2

    How do you know the sand on your doorstep is from the Sahara and not some closer sandy area?

  27. Re:Eh? Smog is low level by riverat1 · · Score: 2

    If nothing else you could chemically analyze the dust to find its origin but dust storm remnants crossing the Atlantic have been tracked by satellite so it's know to happen.

  28. Re:Eh? Smog is low level by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

    If nothing else you could chemically analyze the dust to find its origin but dust storm remnants crossing the Atlantic have been tracked by satellite so it's know to happen.

    Also isotopically.

    However, A) I'm quite familiar with all the local (within 500 miles) types of sand and B) that's where the Weather Service said it came from.

    C) you can sometimes see it in the satellite pictures off the western coast of Africa. When hurricane season is at its peak, that's where the big storms come from, so I keep an eye on it.