Slashdot Mirror


Beijing Issues 'Red Alert' Over Smog (independent.co.uk)

An anonymous reader writes: The Chinese capital of Beijing has issued a "red alert" for air quality within the city, the first time the city has reached the level of caution where it's deemed "unhealthy" for all residents. Starting Tuesday morning, schools will be shut down, the production of smoke will be limited, and cars will be under an odd/even alternate day ban while the local government waits for air quality to improve. It's expected to last until mid-day on Thursday when the weather looks likely to blow it away. "Air pollution monitors showed that areas of Beijing had more than 256 micrograms per cubic metre of the poisonous particles. The World Health Organisation (WHO) says that anything over 25 micrograms is considered unsafe. The poisonous smog in Beijing is caused by the burning of coal for industry and heating, as well as huge amounts of dust from the city's many construction sites. The problem is being made yet worse by high humidity and low wind." The city has been in bad shape for a while now, and Greenpeace called for this very measure a week ago.

145 comments

  1. Smog is not for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You are all cows. Cows in smog do cough. Cough! Cough! Cough cows Cough! Cough do the Cows. YOU NON MOOING COWS!!!

  2. Just have a few red shirts die and sweep it under by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

    Just have a few red shirts die and sweep it under the rug.

  3. "Red Alert"...commies...heh! by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Red Alert"...commies...heh!

    1. Re:"Red Alert"...commies...heh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS IS THE OVERLORD ... TANK

  4. Race to the bottom by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let this be a reminder to those enamored with politicians who claim "we can compete with China by relaxing our regulations".

    I believe we should tariff goods from countries who don't adhere to basic labor, pollution, and safety standards.

    For those who claim that prevents such countries from "advancing", the country can instead encourage more local consumption. Asian countries have been slow to do this, largely because governments are afraid it will make their population pop-culture addicts, like those found in the USA. They don't like "work hard, play hard". They only want the first.

    But if you want the benefits of pop culture (sales & profits), you have to take the downsides also. We make it too easy for them to have the good sides of globalization without the bad. We should put our foot down. Why do we always trade on THEIR terms?

    1. Re:Race to the bottom by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Should everyone else cut off all trading with the US too since Los Angeles has the very same issues?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:Race to the bottom by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      blah blah blah, you'd put over half the U.S. population into poverty since they wouldn't be able to buy things to meet their basic needs, as they are made in China. You point of view is not actionable, it is stupid

      Perhaps the richest 1% of the US population could provide the half that lives under the poverty limit with bread and games? That worked out pretty well for the Rom.... oh... never mind....

    3. Re:Race to the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You are an idiot. Prices will rise somewhat until they are produced locally or regulations take hold and they are produced in china again but with environmental controls. Lets not race to the bottom making cheap stuff we probably don't need anyway.

    4. Re:Race to the bottom by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 0

      blah blah blah, you'd put over half the U.S. population into poverty since they wouldn't be able to buy things to meet their basic needs, as they are made in China. You point of view is not actionable, it is stupid

      Yeah, because over half the population of the U.S. was in poverty before we started importing cheap goods from overseas. Idiot.

    5. Re:Race to the bottom by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Why do we always trade on THEIR terms?

      Don't try to apply popular values to psychopathic corporate/political leaders. They are playing an entirely different game. *There are no nations. There are no peoples...*

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Race to the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      blah blah blah, you'd put over half the U.S. population into poverty since they wouldn't be able to buy things to meet their basic needs, as they are made in China. You point of view is not actionable, it is stupid

      Basic needs?

      Just about all of our food is US grown and some fruits come from Latin and South America.

      Clothing is made Mexico, Latin and South America and in Southeast Asian countries.

      Medical and education is 100% US.

      Also, China is investing heavily in green energy because they do in fact know that their reliance on coal is killing them. Most likely in the near future if one wants a solar panel, it's gonna be Chinese designed and made.

      Anyway, right now if we did what the GPP says would be wonderful and may help bring some of those jobs back. And it wouldn't anything to put people into poverty - global trade is doing that quite well. See, Econ 101 teaches us that with global trade, local company expands, hires more people at all levels, makes more money, and people experience more prosperity.

      But what happens in real life is that Big Corp builds overseas "to be closer to their market", hires folks over there for pennies on the dollar, keeps the profits over there (tax inversion) and the gains go into the CEO's and the stockholder's pockets - which is nothing for us peons who own only a few shares and does nothing to compensate for our reduced standard of living.

      So, I'm all for chilling China trade.

    7. Re:Race to the bottom by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because we really need cheap Chinese made gadgets in order to live...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    8. Re:Race to the bottom by sjames · · Score: 1

      Of course, their income will improve when there are manufacturing jobs to be had in the U.S. Meanwhile, the collected tariffs can go towards poverty relief.

    9. Re:Race to the bottom by sjames · · Score: 2

      LA's problem isn't even 1/10th the problem in Bejing.

    10. Re:Race to the bottom by jdavidb · · Score: 2

      But if you want the benefits of pop culture (sales & profits), you have to take the downsides also. We make it too easy for them to have the good sides of globalization without the bad. We should put our foot down. Why do we always trade on THEIR terms?

      How about I trade or don't trade with them on my terms, and you trade or don't trade with them on your terms? Sure we have the same rulers, but there's no real such thing as "we."

    11. Re:Race to the bottom by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This "race to the bottom" is a rejection of two and a half billion people raising themselves out of literal dirt floor poverty, proving, again, economic freedom works the miracles central planning cannot.

      What you call "the bottom" is something they aspire to. They find the idea of an apartment and a smart phone and TV intoxicatingly attractive and will work for it.

      There can be too much pollution, but regulations need to consider actual advancement. People live longer and healthier in a modern, polluted society than in grinding, dirt-floor poverty.

      Equalizing regulations to the vastly over-regulated west (where factory and plant construction is ground almost to a halt) is in nobody's interest *here*, much less in China. You need the happy medium where regulation does not interfere much with growth...if health and longevity, both of which rely on advancement, are your priority. If these are not your priority, thanks for killing people with your policies.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    12. Re:Race to the bottom by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      blah blah blah, you'd put over half the U.S. population into poverty since they wouldn't be able to buy things to meet their basic needs, as they are made in China.

      Right because China completely cut off trade with us if we put reasonable tariffs in place and turned the heat up (tariff size slowly) until they either adopted similar labor and environmental standards.

      No they won't do that because we are the biggest market and if they had to stop selling into our market in large quantity their own economy would completely collapse. The time to end free-trade and use access to our market as a lever to affect Chinese policy is NOW not later after they have expanded their domestic market. If we force China to reform today they won't be able to roll back those reforms in the future even if we are no longer as large a trade partner as a percentage of their overall economy. Its not like you can get a workforce accustom to safe conditions and fair wages and than take it away without revolts.

      No it would not plunge the US into poverty. Poverty is about not meeting ones basic needs, food, heat, shelter. Those things for the most part don't come from China. Its electronics gadgets nobody really needs that would shoot up in price. Now that might also mean some medical equipment and less elastic goods as well. Provide we don't completely shut down trade overnight the effects could be controlled. The quality of life might fall a little bit for the upper middle class and the well healed, that is alright. It will be short while domestic industry pops up to provide a source of the cheap goods we are no longer bringing in from China, it should also create jobs and push wages up here, which will help close down the wage gap everyone is so worried about.

      'Free' Trade with China, while they don't play by the rules and are permitted to play games with their currency, bring labor to market in ways our sensibilities would never allow, and operate excessively dirty industry rather than investing in cleaner improved processes is dumb. Its bad policy that has been hurting us for the last 30 years and it should be stopped.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    13. Re:Race to the bottom by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      Why do we always trade on THEIR terms?

      Because, at the end of the day, most people only care about getting what they want as cheaply as possible. And Congress supports this view with their trade agreements, because they are afraid of not getting re-elected. This is why illegal immigration is really a manufactured problem in the US as well. Companies want the cheap labor more than the government cares about people breaking their immigration laws.

      Realistically, even if everyone wanted to pay more for locally made goods, manufacturers would still try to sneakily outsource production and charge more for "locally assembled" goods to make more of a profit.

      The only real solution will be time. The Chinese quality of life is increasing to the point that the urban components of the population expect more government regulation and better treatment. These new health and safety regulations are making it too expensive Chinese companies to compete with Vietnam, India, and other countries with less manufacturing oversight. Thus, the problem will move around the globe until we run out of countries willing to whore their population out. Of course, this could go on for a while....

    14. Re:Race to the bottom by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Los Angeles has the very same issues?

      Yeah, they're breathing Chinese smog too... And some of the bad weather can also be attributed more to the smog than to climate change.. Chinese smog is a global issue, quite a mess...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    15. Re:Race to the bottom by reanjr · · Score: 1

      You think American pop culture is worse than the air in China? Ok...

    16. Re:Race to the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And air they can't breathe and horrendous work conditions. Yeah it's a great situation they are in.

    17. Re:Race to the bottom by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Let this be a reminder to those enamored with politicians who claim "we can compete with China by relaxing our regulations".

      Who are you quoting here? I can't remember, ever, hearing a politician say that.

    18. Re:Race to the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pretty sure the U.S. economy still grew like gangbusters after the formation of the EPA and cleaning up of the lakes and rivers catching on fire.

      I really despise this attitude that environmental regulations put people out of business. While it may make the cost of business too expensive for some it creates new industry over and over. People said the same thing about the catalytic converter with cars. Pretty sure they are still around in abundance.

      If an industry relies on being out to pollute the crap out of the area then I would ask do we really want it? Do we need another tv manufacturer that much?

      Probably the worst assumption out of all of this is that these stricter regulations would all happen at once rather than setting goals and timelines which has been in every proposal. Its just like the minimum wage proposals, none of them put it at $15 right away, it about setting it higher and setting a goal. Goal setting isn't a bad thing.

    19. Re:Race to the bottom by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      There is very little "basic needs" stuff that comes from China. Construction labor/materials and food really aren't what China is known for.

      Trust me the world can live quite well without $5 blenders and $0.50 HDMI cables from China. The average American could probably SAVE money by avoiding "junk" purchases anyways and buying quality items to begin with, but sadly the average person is too stupid to understand that a $25 item that lats a lifetime is a better deal than a $5 version of that item that breaks and needs to be replaced every 2 years.

      Not to mention that half of those people living in poverty because they're flipping burgers might actually be able to get a decent paying manufacturing job again.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    20. Re:Race to the bottom by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Informative

      Rome had gladatorial contests from 216 BC to 354 AD with smaller contests continuing into the late 400's, possibly early 500's.

      Most (99.999%) nations fall faster than that, so bread and circuses was a solution more than a problem.

      So it did work out pretty well for the Romans.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    21. Re:Race to the bottom by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      because people don't need clothing, shoes, cooking appliances and light bulbs? guess again

    22. Re:Race to the bottom by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      clothing and shoes and tools and light bulbs and fasteners and tools and motors....you really don't know, do you?

    23. Re:Race to the bottom by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      yes you do. you need the textiles and tools and motors and generators and HVAC and fasteners and electronics and valves

    24. Re:Race to the bottom by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      wrong, those things only will be imported from another country at higher cost. the manufacturing isn't coming back

    25. Re:Race to the bottom by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      in point of fact in 1980 when trade started with China there was massive unemployment and inflation in the USA. You could say we were on the path to poverty. Your turn, moron

    26. Re:Race to the bottom by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no, the manufacturing is never coming back. If we closed relations with China we'd only import more from other countries at more cost than China.

    27. Re:Race to the bottom by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      My are you confused, shelter and clothing do come from China. I'd suggest you learn where construction materials and tools and fasteners and plumbing and motors orignate

    28. Re:Race to the bottom by sconeu · · Score: 1

      LA hasn't had a stage 1 smog alert in over 12 years (2003), hasn't had a Stage 2 alert since 1988, and the last Stage 3 alert was in 1974.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    29. Re:Race to the bottom by Kagato · · Score: 1

      Most things needed for basic needs are still made in the USA. The US still manufactures more things than China, the vast majority of which are related to agriculture, building materials and petroleum items (gasoline, natural gas, etc.) We'd get along just fine. Electronics would take a hit.

    30. Re:Race to the bottom by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      You mean individual-to-individual? That's pretty much what we got now, and it has lead to pollution, de-facto slaves, rust-belt job-loss violence, and a plutocracy (in the USA).

    31. Re:Race to the bottom by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Because, at the end of the day, most people only care about getting what they want as cheaply as possible.

      Not necessarily. Lopsided trade has been slipped in by the rich without asking, for the most part.

      Consumers may agree to tariffs, and higher prices, if "forced" to weigh it against the downsides such as pollution and inequality. When one is shopping, they are focused on shopping, not geopolitical issues.

    32. Re:Race to the bottom by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      you'd put over half the U.S. population into poverty since they wouldn't be able to buy things to meet their basic needs

      That's a common claim of conservatives, but it's only a theory. Other countries have put in place forms of "protectionism" without causing more poor, and even do better in that arena than we do.

      Plus, most of the basics do NOT come from China: food, water, housing, medical care. Plastic lawn-chairs are not a "necessity".

    33. Re:Race to the bottom by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I thought we already had SNAP and broadcast television.

      That worked out pretty well for the Rom

      Romney administration?

    34. Re:Race to the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 5$ item is going to break because of bearings without grease (cost saving)
      The 25$ item is going to break because of overly complex design (added value)

      Welcome to capitlism.

      Maybe if you go dumpster diving and pick only old stuff you'll be able to find some quality item.

    35. Re:Race to the bottom by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      You already got marked troll but I figure you should know that goods use to be made here and people survived. Moving our manufacturing to China removed accountability (hence the poor quality of some products) and increased wastage. Over consumption is a real problem and it stems from low cost goods.

    36. Re:Race to the bottom by omnichad · · Score: 1

      the average person is too stupid to understand that a $25 item that lats a lifetime is a better deal than a $5 version of that item that breaks and needs to be replaced every 2 years.

      With planned obsolescence, lasting more than 2 years just leaves you with an unsupported, abandoned relic.

    37. Re:Race to the bottom by omnichad · · Score: 1

      expect more government regulation and better treatment.

      They may expect it, but it obviously isn't happening if you read even the headline of the summary. That's pretty crucial to quality of life.

    38. Re:Race to the bottom by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      I know we're on a tech site, but don't fixate on computers so much. There is a TON of stuff out there that as far as technology simply isn't evolving that much.

      A good waffle iron from 40 years ago will still work perfectly and will probably still be working long after whatever junk you can buy from Walmart today gives out.

      On my fishing rod I've got an Abu Garcia Ambassadeur reel that I bought USED about 12 years ago - still working fine. They still make them (the real Made in Sweden ones cost around $100-$125), but my brother can't fathom spending that much on a fishing reel. So he buys $15 reels from Walmart. And he buys a new one pretty much every year because that's how often they break.

      My washer and dryer are both 20+ year old Kenmoores that are still working fine (and are simple enough that if they DO break there are local repair guys that can fix them easily). Nothing new that you buy will last that long.

      So yeah, if you're talking iPhones you might be ready for a new one every 2 years, but for the every day necessities? There's a whole bunch of stuff that continues to work just fine for a LONG time.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    39. Re:Race to the bottom by nblender · · Score: 1

      Where do you think the $25 item is made?

    40. Re:Race to the bottom by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You used to be able to say most of the same things about cars. It's only a matter of time. They'll find a way to force you to keep buying.

    41. Re:Race to the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People in the US were able to buy enough to meet their basic needs before we started trading with China.
      All we have done in trading with China is ship jobs and wages to a country who's leadership is moderately unfriendly to us.

    42. Re:Race to the bottom by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You don't own the earth, you don't get to screw it up just because you want to. Get your own planet and do what you want, or accept that it's a shared resource and we all have a say.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    43. Re:Race to the bottom by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      When Europe introduced ROHS people said it would mean China pulling out our massively increasing prices. Of course what actually happened is that they became ROHS compliant and prices continued to be low.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    44. Re:Race to the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what happens in real life is that Big Corp builds overseas "to be closer to their market", hires folks over there for pennies on the dollar, keeps the profits and the pollution over there (tax inversion) and the gains go into the CEO's and the stockholder's pockets - which is nothing for us peons who own only a few shares and does nothing to compensate for our reduced standard of living, not to mention the enormous cost of the pollution and the lack of compensation the Chinese receive for suffering to build cheap goods for snotty Western liberals.

      FTFY

    45. Re:Race to the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know exactly what you mean. The capitalist economy is inherent in human history and we must abide by its rules, even if those rules will destroy the planet and us.

      Have fun eating money, dipshit. You and your ilk won't be able to buy yourselves out of global warming (which you deny, which I don't care, because i'll enjoy watching you die of thirst while I do the same.)

    46. Re:Race to the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Logic fail. This stuff can be made anywhere, not just China, it is only made there to cut costs and make rich people even more money.

      You are behind this strategy, which is why you endorse this logic fail. You are an intellectually dishonest Capitalist scumbag, less than shit.

    47. Re:Race to the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people seem to be unaware that China is now outsourcing back to the USA, buying up and opening factories and paying US citizens to produce products destined for the US.

    48. Re:Race to the bottom by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      in point of fact in 1980 when trade started with China there was massive unemployment and inflation in the USA. You could say we were on the path to poverty. Your turn, moron

      The unemployment rate was 7.1% in 1980, which then rose and fell in waves. Unemployment is actually worse today than then, due to the way the government now skews its numbers. And, despite the inflation of the 1970s, salaries and wages did reasonably keep pace. Not like today where wages and salaries are pretty much flat. Try using actual facts instead of right-wing talking points. Also, kindly go fuck yourself in the ass with a rusty hand blender until you bleed to death. The world will be better without you in it.

    49. Re:Race to the bottom by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      Clothing, aside there are still plenty of domestic source of most construction materials. It does not a huge amount of investment to expand the production facility for most of those things either. We are not talking about high si chip manufacturing or even automobile assembly. If prices rise even a little and there is more margin to capture, getting the financing store more gypsum and rollers to press a little more dry wall should not be problem; if you can show unmet demand to the bank.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    50. Re:Race to the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If an industry relies on being out to pollute the crap out of the area then I would ask do we really want it?

      Considering that you (as in: the majority of the population) still use fossil fueled cars, I would say yes you really do.

    51. Re:Race to the bottom by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      That kind of freedom doesn't exist right now, by any stretch of the imagination.

    52. Re:Race to the bottom by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      And you don't own me.

    53. Re:Race to the bottom by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      The stuff is already made by other countries too, cutting out china just means importing from elsewhere at higher cost but the manufacturing for that won't come back

    54. Re:Race to the bottom by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      the main production facilities and machinery are gone, those won't spring back in the USA if china trade closed. just other countries will get the business. manufacturing is not coming back

    55. Re:Race to the bottom by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Somalia: small government, small taxes, lotsa freedom. But, the jerks around you will also have lots of freedom.

  5. Re:We need to lose about 80% of the population, st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Why don't you and everyone else with this line of thought do the right thing then and kill yourself?

  6. Re:We need to lose about 80% of the population, st by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    smog is not climate. you are a moron

  7. How does their current level compare to 1970's LA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I remember cresting the grapevine highway going into the LA valley in the the back of my parent's car. Sometimes, the air was PURPLE!
    After the majority of it cars had catalytic converters, it greatly improved (although the air does sometimes have a kind of "gritty" feel to it even to this day.)

  8. The definition of insanity? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Starting Tuesday morning, schools will be shut down, the production of smoke will be limited, and cars will be under an odd/even alternate day ban while the local government waits for air quality to improve"

    At which point, it is presumed, the entire system will go back to what it was doing before the red alert. That strikes me as counterproductive - as if maybe, next time, all that pollution won't lead to smog.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:The definition of insanity? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

      If you start every morning staring at yourself in the mirror like that, you may want to consult a therapist.

    2. Re:The definition of insanity? by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      schools will be shut down

      "What is it, Ben?"
      "I felt a great swelling in the Force, as if millions of small, youthful beings held their breath, and suddenly cried out in joy. I fear something unusual has happened."

    3. Re:The definition of insanity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At which point, it is presumed, the entire system will go back to what it was doing before the red alert. That strikes me as counterproductive - as if maybe, next time, all that pollution won't lead to smog.

      Similar problems here in Salt Lake City, though not as bad (yet).

      Notice that humidity and low wind are part of the current problem in Beijing. SLC has similar issues with "inversion layers" that are created by certain weather conditions and the surrounding mountains. When these conditions occur, particulates from traffic, local oil refineries and one of the worlds largest strip mining operations are trapped and accumulate over several days causing unhealthy conditions. Schools suspend outdoor activities. The elderly are encouraged to stay inside. Even healthy people are warned to avoid recreating outdoors.

      There are many competing interests and there are no solutions that won't be widely unpopular. As such, the plan seems to be to hope that inversion conditions don't last too long. During a winter with a frequent storm cycle, the pollution may not become a problem at all (at least for us).

      So, you see that there is a hope, foolish as it may be, that people will be able to do the same things and not suffer the same consequences. And I'm sure you can understand that as long as people have this small hope, there is NO hope of a real solution.

    4. Re:The definition of insanity? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      It's a practical, rather than ideological approach. Sometimes the weather conflates with pollution to make the situation worse. Sometimes, international event planning predicates a necessity to be extra clean on some particular date. This is when China intervenes. They are addressing practical problems without becoming ideologically driven about them. America has had some more years of political development for its leadership to realize the need for ideology to drive practical change. That's why we have emotionally-driven politics. Otherwise, no one looks up from the internet long enough to know what's going on.

    5. Re:The definition of insanity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a practical, rather than ideological approach. Sometimes the weather conflates with pollution to make the situation worse.

      Deferring to the whims of the Weather Gods is the ultimate ideological approach.

    6. Re:The definition of insanity? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      as if maybe, next time, all that pollution won't lead to smog.

      Yes well maybe it won't. The formation of smog in places like Beijing is highly dependent on the weather at the time. Let the dust settle, wait for a windy day and then start polluting again. Pollution levels in China are quite constant, but some days you have a beautiful clear day with good visibility, others you're not sure if it's sunny our cloudy and if you can see the sun it'll be a glowing deep red ball you can look at with the naked eye.

    7. Re:The definition of insanity? by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      One may generalize but there is progress made at political levels. It's often easier to make changes when everybody agrees. Events like this one in China as they occur more often will cause businesses and individuals to pressure governments for a solution. After all it's human nature. Look at how much pressure has been put to get pot legalized in the US and Canada and it's now happening.

      I haven't been on this earth for that long and I've seen significant progress in many areas including the closure of gas plants, the implementation of solar panel programs that have already proved successful and the implementation of regulations in polluting industries. Governments can't solve all problems at once so they prioritize as well as they can with the information they have.

    8. Re:The definition of insanity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I find interesting are these things:

      If you are pooping in your house, intelligence would seem to say stop, especially when it starts killing because the accidents that come thru stop spreading it around to dilute it don't happen often enough.

      But further, the idea that when something proves harmful, simply spreading it around is a solution.

      As a species, we seem pretty stupid sometimes.

    9. Re:The definition of insanity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your definition of "addressing practical problems without becoming ideologically driven" is to lock up the children while letting private cars pollute the air without any restrictions on alternating days? In a metropolis where people could just use public transport? This is not going to reduce traffic or pollution in any way. It is going to go on killing people. If this isn't insanity I don't know what is.

    10. Re:The definition of insanity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What a beautiful day! I can even see the sun! Get the children and the car, we're going picknicking!"

  9. Re:How does their current level compare to 1970's by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...or London in 1952?

    http://history1900s.about.com/...

  10. Re:We need to lose about 80% of the population, st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a huge area and its microclima is heavily influenced by humans. OP has a good point.

  11. Re:Just have a few red shirts die and sweep it und by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    Well TFS did say:

    the weather looks likely to blow it away

    so you are not far off.

    Um, so . . . where is it going to be blow away to . . . ? Maybe Shanghai . . . ?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  12. Re:We need to lose about 80% of the population, st by Coren22 · · Score: 2

    It is also influenced by geography, maybe they should just flatten all the mountains around Beijing to prevent this issue.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  13. In 20 years the population will go down.... by tekrat · · Score: 1, Informative

    When a billion people die of congestive lung failure all around the same period. Of course, given our current state of continuous war, combined with a ever growing lack of resources, we should lose a billion even sooner after we have fished the oceans dry. You can't feed 8 Billion with a drought and empty oceans at the same time.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:In 20 years the population will go down.... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      There is no lack of resources, only a disagreement over the price.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  14. Re:Just have a few red shirts die and sweep it und by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Informative

    Um, so . . . where is it going to be blow away to . . . ? Maybe Shanghai . . . ?

    California!

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  15. Red alert! Red alert! by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Red alert! Red alert! Shields up, ready photon torpedoes!

    1. Re:Red alert! Red alert! by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Now, I was thinking:

      "An ill wind comes arising
      Across the cities of the plain
      There's no swimming in the heavy water
      No singing in the acid rain
      Red alert
      Red alert"

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  16. They manufacture smoke there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there anything that the US doesn't import from China? ...

    Or was that just a terrible translation.

  17. Once visited Beijing airport in 2010 by rsborg · · Score: 2

    Was only on the way to HK, but the air quality was so bad even in the airport that my daughter (who has situational asthma) was coughing ceaselessly and we had to use her nebulizer while in the lounge - luckily we were only laying over for 3h.

    I had no interest in leaving the airport to visit the city proper even if I could.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  18. It's the media!!!!!! by Dutchmaan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pollution has been around since the dawn of time.. This is just a naturally occurring cycle in our planets history, plus the data doesn't go back far enough to come to a conclusion. This is just a story by the main stream media to further the agenda of "Big Science".

    1. Re:It's the media!!!!!! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Pollution has been around since the dawn of time.. This is just a naturally occurring cycle

      A Brontosaurus fart is equivalent to the exhaust of 500 SUV's ;-)

  19. Re:We need to lose about 80% of the population, st by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    It would be slightly cheaper to just hand out hazmat suits to everybody.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  20. America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet, here in America, I am told almost every single day how I am an evil, disgusting, horrible person living in a country filled with vile, inconsiderate people who hate the environment and want to cover the world in oil. I'm also told that global warming - oh wait, climate change - is all MY fault, and that I have to drive electric cars or we're all going to be cannibals in five years.

    I'm so sick of being the poster child of environmental damage when THIS kind of crap is going on somewhere else.

    1. Re:America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:America by omnichad · · Score: 1

      As long as there's someone worse to compare yourself to, you're OK.

  21. I blame solar panels by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    Probably caused by making all those solar panels for the western countries.

    1. Re:I blame solar panels by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      There's some truth to that, but more important is that a lot of heavy industry is now in China, More than half the world's cement and steel are made there. Almost all nuclear plants being built are there, I read once that half the building cranes are there. So yeah it's easy to have clean air here if you put the factories in China.

  22. The threat level is "orange" by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    If you like "red alerts", get ready for the "the threat level is orange; the threat level has always been and will always be orange" 3.0: DHS just announced a new threat level alert system.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...

    1. Re:The threat level is "orange" by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 2

      If you like "red alerts", get ready for the "the threat level is orange; the threat level has always been and will always be orange" 3.0: DHS just announced a new threat level alert system.

      http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...

      Odd, how I first read that as "theatre level alert system"

    2. Re:The threat level is "orange" by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      If you like "red alerts", get ready for the "the threat level is orange; the threat level has always been and will always be orange" 3.0: DHS just announced a new threat level alert system.

      http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...

      I still think the Ron White system is the most clearly articulated threat alert system. It consists of 2 levels: 1.(low level)Find a helmet; 2. (high level) Put on the damn helmet.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  23. Posting from Beijing... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's a total madhouse here! We're on red alert because of the smog. A klaxon keeps blaring, while red lights keep flashing at every street corner. In Tianamen Square, the large portrait of Mao Tse Tung, which has a speaker set behind the mouth for such occasions, keeps shouting out (translated from the Mandarin): "This is a red alert! This is a red alert! Stay in your homes! Stay in your homes! Long live the Glorious Revolution!"

  24. Confused by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Is this 'Red Alert' pre-beard or post-beard Riker?

    1. Re:Confused by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      LOL

      I am imagining post-beard Riker, complete with "manual control" joystick.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  25. Re:We need to lose about 80% of the population, st by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Yeah, as long as YOU are NOT one of the branches trimmed.

  26. Re:How does their current level compare to 1970's by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    It was worse in Pittsburgh, PA around 1900.

  27. Re:How does their current level compare to 1970's by obenchainr · · Score: 5, Informative

    The highest PM2.5 in Los Angeles is estimated (it wasn't measured back then) to have been about 100 ppm (from the LA times last year: http://www.latimes.com/world/a...). In recent times, the max was 79, and the daily average is 18 or so. That puts Beijing at 2.5x the worst LA has ever seen and about 15x worse than LA on any given day.

  28. Re:How does their current level compare to 1970's by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    How about horse shit dust covering everything pre-awful-cars days?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  29. Greenpeace called for this very measure by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2
    1. Re: Greenpeace called for this very measure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously think China listen to Greenpeace?

      Read this:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

  30. Reds On Red "Dawn" Alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha ha

    They need Patrick and crew to blow the shit out everything that moves. ;-)

    That was a good one.

  31. Screw Greenpeace, this is their fault... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is the persistent anti-nuclear campaigning of Greenpeace and other "environmental" organizations which has left the world with a dwindling complement of 1950s era reactors, and prevented the development and adoption of better nuclear technologies. If they hadn't killed the first nuclear renaissance, the world would be off of coal by now. Places like France, Sweden, and Ontario have proven that nuclear can eliminate coal use while providing clean energy on a large scale, even with old technology. Even so, the limited amounts of conventional nuclear remaining are responsible for a large majority of the clean energy produced today.

    Meanwhile, those most vigorously pursuing Greenpeace's dear wind and solar have only demonstrated how ineffective those technologies are at displacing coal or other fossil fuels. Excepting the large contribution of biomass to renewable energy production reveals an even more hopeless situation. As if it weren't bad enough, the "green" solution to the intermittency of those technologies is to burn biomass or biofuels, which are worse yet than coal. At the end of the day, the rise of coal consumption continues unabated. Thanks!

    1. Re:Screw Greenpeace, this is their fault... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Environmental groups may have influenced public opinion, but I don't think they have had a huge effect on actual policies which are basically set by the elites. I mean, seriously, look at the world. Does it resemble at all what environmentalists are asking for?

    2. Re:Screw Greenpeace, this is their fault... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the advice went unheeded and we have one that just popped recently (Fukushima) with hilarious mismanagement follies, etc. Humans (and especially reckless, sociapathic capitalists) are too stupid for nuclear. They will cut costs ruthlessly, regardless of the danger. Because the cost of human life resulting from any accidents is not enough to offset the profits. They are stupid, dangerous people who should probably be put away before they hurt someone.

      Thanks for your selfless advocacy for nuclear, however. Unless you have shares (wouldn't surprise me...) or are otherwise 'in the family' so to speak.

  32. You mean the solar panels made by burning coal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. Are we bootstrapping ourselves into a clean solar powered future or just deluding ourselves by shifting pollution to China: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/ar...

  33. OHHH HEYY! by NetNed · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Where are all those that kept saying China is leading the way in cleaning up pollution? These are the same people that doubted when I said by 9am there you can barely see across the street. GET OUT OF YOU BASEMENTS PALE WHITE VIRGINS!

    1. Re:OHHH HEYY! by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Considering much of the manufacturing in China isn't for themselves it's hard to say whether or not their carbon footprint is larger than ours. I'm pretty sure the carbon footprint/capital is smaller in China than it is in North America but that's only because their population is poor and living in lower standards than ours.

      I think our rules and regulations are probably tighter than theirs but I'm honestly ill informed about China's pollution regulations.

  34. There is no "Away" by MonkeyTrial · · Score: 2

    "It's expected to last until mid-day on Thursday when the weather looks likely to blow it away." Just a reminder...when it comes to air pollution, there is no "away". It all stays here on planet earth, in the air we breathe all over the world. Just saying.

    1. Re:There is no "Away" by Ravaldy · · Score: 2

      Particles do settle to the ground, get absorbed by the vegetation or ends up in our water. The issue is the same regardless. Airborne particles toxic or not are toxic when present in large enough volumes. There's two kids that died in Canada no long ago from exposure to dust from a type of grain. Just tells you how fragile the repertory system can be.

  35. So where do all these poisonous particles go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The wind will blow it all away. Away to where? Who is the recipient of these poisonous particles?

    Apparently if the weather was different this same level of pollution would be going on but being blown away for someone else to deal with. Nice!s.google.com/

  36. Just now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, NOW it's unhealthy? It's been unhealthy for MONTHS now, by any other country's standards. Get your pollution in order China, it's been ridiculous in the last couple years.

  37. Re:We need to lose about 80% of the population, st by Calavar · · Score: 1

    Why in the world is this modded +5 Insightful? Climate scientists have drawn a link between climate change and smog. And last I checked, "climate" referred to long term weather patterns. When the government has to issue several dozen smog alerts for a single city within a single year, that's climate.

  38. Re:We need to lose about 80% of the population, st by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

    How about going towards greener energy, greener manufacturing...?

    Labour is so cheap I'm sure they can get a few million people peddling to generate power :)

  39. LOL! by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    Almost ALL of this is caused by coal burning, both in large electrical generation stations, and locally by individuals cooking and heating.

    China is at least building at an accelerated rate the largest number of nuclear reactors, and some of the most advanced ones at that, in a direct response, however it does take time. They are doing something about the situation, only they are a bit hogtied in the here in now.

    How many nuclear reactors are being built or are planning to be built in the US? How quickly is the US realistically trying to get away from coal plants? I say realistically as a premeditated strike against the eventual posts that wind and solar will solve everything. The US corporations seem to have gone with natural gas as an alternative, with fracking, which has its own issues, but smog and clean air isn't really among them...

    1. Re:LOL! by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      How quickly is the US realistically trying to get away from coal plants? I say realistically as a premeditated strike against the eventual posts that wind and solar will solve everything. The US corporations seem to have gone with natural gas as an alternative, with fracking, which has its own issues, but smog and clean air isn't really among them.

      Surely you jest. Coal is a dead man walking in the US. Even before Obama's recent draconian EPA policy, coal plants were closing en masse for several years now. Most plants that can convert to natural gas have converted to natural gas. The others are closing down at record rates. All new energy capacity being added this year and the next are dominated by natural gas and wind plants. And that trend is supposed to continue for the foreseeable future as coal power continues to be phased out (the vast majority of the coal plants in existence are very old already, nearing end of life, and new ones aren't being built). It's not even close how dead coal is: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

  40. Re:How does their current level compare to 1970's by NetNed · · Score: 1

    If you've been to L.A. then and to Beijing now, you can't see across the street most times after 9am and about only 2 stories up, sometimes less. Beijing would love to have it like L.A. was in the 70's

  41. Hogwash by MakersDirector · · Score: 1

    I grew up in Los Angeles and left, with my family, in 1980 because the air quality had been so consistently bad for 3+ years, the brown smog bank went as far inland as Palm Springs, 100 miles away.

    I flew into Beijing in 2008 and again in 2011, and the smog is so bad there that it extends for 150 miles in any direction away from Beijing, and as the flights descend below 15,000 feet you can actually smell it despite the purifying.

    I was offered an opportunity leading Microsoft's Research and Development efforts on the equivalent of a Star Trek Tricorder there in Beijing, and while 'scouting for apartments', I got to see that every apartment comes equipped with a refrigerator sized air purifier. Not an air conditioner that heats or cools, mind you, but an air purifier. The air IS really that bad.

    I refused the opportunity for one reason: I had no desire to be around the air, it really was that bad.

    Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE Beijing and thoroughly enjoy China, Hong Kong being my favorite city. But that air quality in Beijing is worse than Los Angeles ever was. In my opinion, China is going to have to undertake some major adjustments not just to their infrastructure, but to the health and welfare of it's citizens through not just monitoring simple things like particulate counts - but creating an agency which actually can reinforce government legislation.

    But then again, we're talking about a Communism, right, where the health and welfare of the nation are secondary to the economy it serves.

    Weird how some people can confuse socialism and communism.

    1. Re:Hogwash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then again, we're talking about a Communism, right, where the health and welfare of the nation are secondary to the economy it serves.

      Weird how some people can confuse socialism and communism.

      I don't disagree with you, however i'm assuming that you are implying that capitalism isn't the same way? Because capitalism always serves the interests of the forces of capital, which are always secondary to the health and welfare of any nation.

      I have a feeling you are aware of all of this, however, and are simply being intellectually dishonest.

    2. Re:Hogwash by MakersDirector · · Score: 0

      Capitalism's more of an economic system, not to be mistaken for a form of governance which some quite often do.

      Communism leverages capitalism to it's own end - the elevation of the elite at the detriment of the vast majority of the population - which in the end does precisely as I outlined.

      So does America with Democracy.

      The difference is, America has systems in place which prevent the abuse of the workers and population in general and to elevate that bottom line for the entire country.

      Read up on the roots of capitalism - in particular Keynesian economics. To my awareness, the only country in the world that is primarily capitalistic is Somalia, which - as a result - is led by warlord economics and most countries tend to avoid interaction with because economics rules.

      And next time - my advice is to read up on the differences between economic systems and governance systems before chiming in with something that makes absolutely no sense. How can you call something dishonest when you clearly have no clue what you're talking about?

  42. Re:We need to lose about 80% of the population, st by tinkerton · · Score: 2

    There are cooling climate effects of aerosols(so pollution can have a cooling effect), but the main point worth making here is that there is an important distinction between pollution from coal and climate warming that people constantly overlook. China uses a lot of coal this produces a lot of carbon dioxide as well as a lot of pollution. They can fix the pollution (or alleviate it a lot) while still keeping using coal.

    China has invested a huge amount in coal based power plants in the last 15 years, and they're going to keep using those new plants. By concentrating the use of coal into modern powerplants and eliminating it everywhere else they may well succeed in having much cleaner air. Coal powerplants can be made much cleaner, though at significant cost, with big installations that wash the pollution out of the air and into the river. The aim is to get the pollution in the air down to tolerable levels.

    The challenge will be even higher for India as their economy grows because the quality of their coal is much much worse.

  43. Re:We need to lose about 80% of the population, st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny, those who are concerned about living should kill themselves.
    Those who rush headlong to death by stupidity ( polluting when it is so clearly shown to be bad ( look at the air in Beijing now ) ) are OK...

    You are some kind of dunderhead.

  44. Re:We need to lose about 80% of the population, st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Usually, your posts are insightful and appropriate.

    You are correct that smog is not climate, but the point that you attempt to dismiss is more than smog. More that "global warming".
    We are affecting our environment for the worse ( I find it hard to believe that you would argue that the issue in Beijing is good ), and plugging our ears yelling "blah blah blah blah".

    Assume global warming isn't anything for a moment ( I don't agree, but say... ).
    Doesn't this ( the air quality in Beijing ) show that there is a problem?
    That was do and can affect our environment?

  45. Re:We need to lose about 80% of the population, st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    smog is not climate. you are a moron

    More than a moron, a racist!

    Sure this smog may be coming from burning coal and oil, but seriously, It's just pure sinophobia to blame China for contributing in any meaningful way to global carbon emissions.

  46. They are not serious about it. by tlambert · · Score: 1

    They are not serious about it.

    A red alert is never serious, unless there's also a "Bridge Lurch, left" accompanying it.

  47. Strange numbers and interpretation by batistuta · · Score: 1

    I have lived in Shenyang for about two years.

    I don't get this whole metric anymore, and the numbers seems to be either wrong or being manipulated, as well as their interpretation.
    The numbers and conclusions are not consistent with the past history. My Android App is currently showing 310 for Beijing, and 267 for Shenyang. On November 10 this year there was an article on BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl... claiming that the 1400 measured in Shenyang were the worst one ever. But to be honest, the Halloween last year in Shenyang was even worse than this Nov 10. It is hard to give a number because above 1000 most measurement devices just refuse to report. But I currently live in Shenyang and you develop your own sense of estimating the pollution by looking for known buildings in the sky, by smelling, and by listening by to your lungs. Shenyang didn't shut down last year, where you couldn't even see past 50 meters (about 55 yards) due to the smog.

    The government won't let you do measurements or post them in the wild. A colleague of mine made some measurements in the office using a state of the art device bought in Germany for PPM values. After recording bad numbers, he tried to convince management to upgrade the air filtering system in the building, they didn't accept these values, because they had to be done using a government-approved system. Same issue when we wanted to measure led content in the water at our residence compound: we were not allowed to do it in our lab, we had to do it through an approved third party company.

    Now to be honest, I do understand the government. It would be very easy to spread terror and false information across the masses; and no offense, but many Chinese are not good in interpreting and digesting information. So the government is careful with that, and it is not an entirely bad thing. That said, you are never sure if you can trust official figures.

    But that said, I still don't understand why now all of a sudden China and its air pollution is in the news. The air is crap, but it has always been crap. I don't think that this year is worse than last year (although it is still very very bad).

    The thing is that most Chinese don't give a fuck. I work with Chinese engineer colleagues, and none of them has an air purifier at home, not even if they have small babies. So I see a combination of many things here: extremely bad air, a suspicious attempt to make the situation look worse than before, inaccurate or fake numbers, and a mass population that is either ignorant or just don't care.
    My two cents.

  48. Re:We need to lose about 80% of the population, st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's true, Human Beings are a Virus. All we do is Multiply and Consume until everything is dead around us. There isn't one single reason as to why we need 7 Billion people, not one.

    I know what you'll say, you'll tell me to kill myself. OK, line up 6 Billion behind me and I'll be the 1st, a first step at saving the Earth.

  49. Re:Just have a few red shirts die and sweep it und by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only gun-crazed Americans are African-Americans. Go check the stats - without blacks we'd be Sweden in terms of gun violence.

    America doesn't have a gun problem. It has a black problem.

  50. Re: Just have a few red shirts die and sweep it un by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or a racist problem

  51. Re:We need to lose about 80% of the population, st by inHaliburton · · Score: 1

    Agreed. Humans have decimated Earth. Too late to fix. Saving Earth is more important than the human race. In fact, when humans have finally destroyed Earth, so will the human race.

  52. Re:We need to lose about 80% of the population, st by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    No the smog around Beijing says exactly nothing about the earth's climate. Percent of CO2 in air and ocean, on the other hand, graphed over the last 250 years, would show a carbon pollution problem

  53. Free public transportation by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Free public transportation can curb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  54. What if by NewYork · · Score: 1

    What if CHINDIA has technology to covertly "export" their https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...