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.
smog is not climate. you are a moron
"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?
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....
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.
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.
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!
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.