Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the all-hands-to-battlestations-captain-picard-to-the-bridge dept.

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.

6 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. 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?

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
  2. 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".

  3. 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.