Slashdot Mirror


Choked By Smog, Beijing Creates A New Environmental Police Force (csmonitor.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Christian Science Monitor: A new police force will crack down on environmental offenders in Beijing, city officials announced Saturday, marking the Chinese government's latest attempt to reduce smog... Other measures included cutting coal use by 30 percent in 2017, shutting down 500 higher-polluting factories and upgrading 2,500 others, phasing out 300,000 higher-polluting older vehicles, and supplying cleaner gas and diesel at fuel stations starting February 15. The announcement came one day after municipal authorities in Beijing announced they would install air purifiers in the city's schools and kindergartens.
Beijing's mayor said that smoke from trash burning and open-air barbecues and even dust from roads "are actually the result of lax supervision and weak law enforcement."

95 comments

  1. the EPF by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    EPA was already taken

    1. Re: the EPF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EPA won't be taken much won't be taken for much longer if Trump has his way.

    2. Re: the EPF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please point out where Trump has specifically told you that he will shut down the EPA.

      Or are you full of shit?

    3. Re: the EPF by mspohr · · Score: 1

      His nominated director for the EPA, Rick (uh, I forgot the third one) Perry, has said he will eliminate the EPA.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    4. Re:the EPF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Actually, can we export all our climate change activists - from the Leo di Caprios, the Algores, the Hollywood climate activists and so on - to Beijing, so that they can help the Chinese regime crack down on any and every violation of environmental standards?

      It's really like we are destined as a species to go the way of the lemmings. Here is someone who just admitted that the climate in China is a problem. His apparent solution is to suggest sarcastically that we should give them our environmental regulations, so, what, so we can have killer smog?

      16 of the last 17 years have been records, yet we as a species seemed determined to plug our ears and flip on Faux News where we can learn the real and correct truth. I supposed worst comes to worst, if we do manage to eventually end ourselves as a species, there is always the chance that a lifeform that evolves from cockroaches will somehow replace us ;)

      Decisions need to be based on science and reason, yet we seem to think populist dumb assery is the answer of late.

    5. Re: the EPF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Maybe not but if you want something to thrive you don't appoint someone to head it who is known to be against some of it's core ideals, like Jeremy Hunt and the N.H.S or closer to your question, Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general suing EPA on climate change who Trump picked to head the EPA.

    6. Re: the EPF by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Like so many other US politicians they say a whole bunch of crap, one lot of crap to get major campaign donor cash and another load to get votes so they can continue to get campaign donor cash, incidentally they spend as little as possible on advertisements and as much as possible on inflated insider campaign salaries and management fees (not to forget the off balance sheet tax haven 'er' bonuses).

      China has more environmental regulations than the US, they are simply far more corrupt at a regulatory level and as such are much worse off. Problem is, anything they attempt to implement will again be corrupted and again fail to achieve targets.

      Chinas problem much like the US at the moment is the inability to achieve goals as a result of corruption weaken efforts to achieve those goals, China of course worse of than the US, although the US is catching up, whilst China is starting to clean up, not just the environment but also corruption.

      The new US solution to all of it's problems, control the messaging. If people do not hear about all the problems, the corruption, then the problems 'er' no longer exist.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re: the EPF by peragrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is what Trump is going to do. He is going to force the politicians to actually do all the things they say. I hate Trump but kind of executed by the prospect that all the horrible ideas republicans have are finally going to be put to the test. Wipe out Obamacare. Wipe out Medicare wipe out social security wipe out the EPA wipe out those pesky regulations that only existsed because some company was screwing people over.

      Just look at the Obamacare talks. 6 friggin years of complaining and only now are they talking about replacement instead of out right repeal. Only now do they hesitate. Trump won't let them hesitate. Also the only reason Obamacare works at all is the fact that Obamacare forced the poor and cheap to pay their fair share to the best of their ability. Otherwise they get it all for free on the governments dime. Without the individual mandate we go back to the old system of 50 million plus without health insurance as why pay for it for republicans give it you for free?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re: the EPF by queequeg1 · · Score: 2

      Trump nominated Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. He nominated Perry for Department of Energy.

    9. Re: the EPF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus has /. gotten stupid.

    10. Re: the EPF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike your other lies, Trump WILL be conducting foreign policy on twitter. Sober, drunk, psychopathic, taking a shit, whatever.

    11. Re: the EPF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking a shit is the only time I'd ever use a twitter. Why not, since everyone does it, including you right now and denying it, you psycho.

    12. Re: the EPF by mspohr · · Score: 2

      Oops... I guess I forgot also.
      Pruitt has been suing the EPA to prevent clean air regulations. He should be able to cripple the EPA.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    13. Re: the EPF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The president does not, and should not, have the power to shut down or dismantle entire parts of the government.

    14. Re: the EPF by Izuzan · · Score: 0

      If he can keep them from overstepping their boundaries thats all well and good.

    15. Re:the EPF by Izuzan · · Score: 1

      uhh. i dont see where he said give them the US' regulations. he said give them the US' climate snobs. You know. The idiot that thought a Chinook in Alberta was caused by climate change and chastised the people of alberta for it ?

    16. Re: the EPF by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And why shouldn't you? Given the content of Twitter, I'd say that's pretty much what everyone does.

      Just, please, be so kind and be that person that starts the trend of flushing your turd instead of sending it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re: the EPF by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      The problem with the EPA is not the intent of clean water and air. Nobody disputes that. The problem is a bureaucracy that makes its own regulations (which have the force of law). Would you like police departments making its own laws? How about INS?

      No?

      Then stand back from the rhetorical precipice; see problem; and stop making straw men.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    18. Re: the EPF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh, so he is going to get rid of the EPA by nominating people to run it?

      Is this the world anti-Trumpers live in?

    19. Re: the EPF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of deniers in the Tea Party who dispute clean water and air. Especially if it means that fossil fuel CEOs will lose money, that oil and coal workers will be out of work, and farms won't be able to use tons of toxic chemicals.

      The EPA makes regulations because they have people looking at the science and current situation, and aren't blinded by campaign contributions or conservative media lies.

    20. Re: the EPF by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      That is what Trump is going to do. He is going to force the politicians to actually do all the things they say.

      I wouldn't get your hopes up. Trump has already said they'll probably just get rid of the parts of Obamacare they don't like and keep the ones they do. That wall is never getting built just because of the engineering issues and costs involved. He's not deporting all the undocumented people for the same reason they haven't already been deported, the sheer scale and cost of doing so prevents it from happening. Thing is, his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. They expect him to do something about Obamacare, immigration, illegals, etc, but not exactly what he said he'd do. I see no reason that he would actually try and get the Republicans to hold to their promises any better than he does his own, nor do I think he has enough power with the bully pulpit to make them.

  2. Here's a hint, police detectives! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's your fucking coal plants. You have a ton of them and no emission regulations. Either clean their output or get rid of them.

    But that's not why you created this force, is it? You'd rather use this PR stunt to blame random Chinese people grilling out in their yard.

    1. Re:Here's a hint, police detectives! by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could have at least read the summary, where they say they're going to cut coal use by 30% this year alone.

    2. Re:Here's a hint, police detectives! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same deal in the US. The overwhelming majority of pollution is caused by businesses and their products. Yet the government seems to want to go after the people. Nope. Go after the deep pockets.

    3. Re:Here's a hint, police detectives! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's your fucking coal plants. You have a ton of them and no emission regulations. Either clean their output or get rid of them.

      While it may be one of the larger contributors, tackling one single pollution source like you're suggesting is an incorrect course of action and won't solve the problem entirely, just reduce it. Trash & Biomass burning is a real problem too - it doesn't matter how many regulations you create to stop it if you don't

      a) give people a more convenient way of disposing of trash & garden waste,
      b) educate the people on how to use the services you provide and
      c) actually start handing out disincentives like fines for continuing to burn

      Hopefully the EPF will help to create 'a' whilst enforcing 'b' and 'c'

    4. Re:Here's a hint, police detectives! by zedaroca · · Score: 1

      They do say that the coal use will be reduced, because they have to reduce it anyway, but they use the opportunity to also blame the open-air barbecues and attack them. That is part of Beijing's dream of becoming a "clean", modern city like Shanghai; to take the poor and the muslins from the streets/city.

      The AC assessment that this is a PR stunt to blame random people grilling is correct. You don't even have to know the Chinese government well to see it through their BS. He read the summary and pointed the BS, the "reason" why they created this force is not pollution, I'll add that it is blaming the problems not on random people, but on the poor people, painting them as responsible for the pollution as much as the factory owners, and then hunting/expelling them through fines and prison threats, while financing upgrades for the rich.

      The environmental police squad was one of several new measures

      Other measures included cutting coal use by 30 percent in 2017 ...

      They are being forced by the situation to act on the pollution issue, something that will be done by reducing coal use and closing/renewing factories. But they are using the opportunity to hunt the people who are not really contributing to the problem (thousands of open-air barbecues are nothing compared to one polluting factory), but that they dislike.

      Do know that there is a lot of smoking inside Beijing's restaurants, even though it is illegal (and the law was made so that restaurant owners have no reason to try to enforce the law). Where are the police squads to enforce that law? The second hand smoking people get because of this lack of enforcement is a real problem*, but they are after the open-air bbqs. You see the discrepancy? That happens because the politicians are mostly smokers, and like the resources that come from China Tobacco ("the world's largest manufacturer of tobacco products measured by revenues").

      *The US Surgeon General, in his 2006 report, estimated that living or working in a place where smoking is permitted increases the non-smokers' risk of developing heart disease by 25–30% and lung cancer by 20–30% source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#cite_note-93

    5. Re:Here's a hint, police detectives! by jandersen · · Score: 1

      It's your fucking coal plants. You have a ton of them and no emission regulations. Either clean their output or get rid of them.

      But that's not why you created this force, is it? You'd rather use this PR stunt to blame random Chinese people grilling out in their yard.

      They are investing very heavily in renewable energy, so they are hardly likely to be blind to the issue with coal. And if you have been to Beijing (you haven't, have you?) then you'll know that:

      1) Next to nobody in Beijing has a 'yard' or garden in which to barbecue anything, and I have never seen people having barbecues in the parks and communal spaces around where they live. What the mayor is referring to is the enormous number of more or less illegal street vendors who offer various foods, very often things like lamb-kebabs, roasted sweet potatoes etc. They have tried to get rid of them for years, not least because of health concerns. Whether it actually contributes much to the smog, I can't say, but I'm open to the possibility.

      2) The road dust is probably a far more important problem - that and private cars - since it is a very find powder: loess that blows in from the deserts to the north-west. It covers everything, and it the major component of what you see in the dramatic photos that get pulled out of the archive every time, as far as I can see. Not really smog, as far as I know - my wife's in Beijing at the moment, and she tells me that there isn't anything like what Western press reports; I can't see why she would lie to me about this, but I can see how a newspaper could make a dramatic write-up without checking facts too carefully.

      The real problems causing air pollution in Beijing, apart from the dust-storms, are coal fired power plants and private cars. There is an absurd number of cars in Beijing. People in Beijing, for the most part, don't live in terraces (like in UK) or in American style sprawl; they live in high-rise apartment blocks, and since every family insists on having at least one car - or preferably more - they have huge problems not only driving around, but also finding a parking space in the evening. If you visit any of the residential areas after 5 PM, you will see cars parked almost in layers everywhere, most of them illegally.

      So, you are right - the environment police is not there to keep an eye on people enjoying a quiet barbecue in the privacy of their leafy gardens. But it is actually a very good idea, all the same - the Chinese have a relaxed attitude to the law, is my impression; it is only one of several, interesting options in many cases, and rich people in particular feel that they are somewhat above laws that are clearly meant for the lower classes (this is not particularly a Chinese thing, rich Americans, Britons etc feel the same way). The main problem for the central government in China has always been that local governments have tended to ignore them in favour of building very friendly relations with whoever is a big shot in their area: in the past, rich landowners and war-lords, now-a-days perhaps more rich businessmen. In that context it makes good sense to have a centralized, independent police force to crack down on things like corruption and now also environmental crimes.

    6. Re:Here's a hint, police detectives! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do say that the coal use will be reduced, because they have to reduce it anyway, but they use the opportunity to also blame the open-air barbecues and attack them.

      Open-air barbeques are not a problem in a small town. It is a serious problem if done by the majority in a dense city with 11 million people. There is so much "common stuff" the majority can't do in a large city.

      You can have barbeques in small towns - and you can have limited barbequing in large cities. But not for everybody, not daily.

    7. Re:Here's a hint, police detectives! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember wandering the streets of Beijing in 2010. Until the day it rained, Beijing seemed to be in perpetual fog. You could not see more than 4 blocks. After the rain, you could see the skyscrapers and the distant mountains... for about a day and a half. Even in the high-rise neighborhoods, where the short apartments were 5 or 6 stories and the tall ones 20 or 30, the merchants had huge piles on the sidewalks of coal briquettes shaped like hollow round bricks - obviously for cooking. Maybe about a third of the scooters were electric, the rest seemed to be two-stroke. Industry probably contributes a lot to pollution, but never underestimate the degree that individuals can contribute too. Perhaps the public there needs to be educated that rules exist for a real purpose, not just to generate bribes - and so do the enforcers.

  3. Lax Supervision by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In related news, Beijing announces the creation of a pollution enforcement squad. You'll see them driving up and down the streets in big vans, looking for violators.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Lax Supervision by kuzb · · Score: 0

      s/looking for violators/collecting bribes/

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    2. Re:Lax Supervision by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

      More likely in a black or dark blue Audi A4/A6 with government/army plates and a hooker or er nai (mistress) inside.

    3. Re:Lax Supervision by PPH · · Score: 1

      Actually, driving anything that makes the smog worse.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Lax Supervision by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They are targeting industry, which is quite easy to enforce because it's really hard to hide chimneys belching out pollution. Granted, it's a little easier to hide the faked emissions data for the cars that roll off your production line, but since the VW scandal even that got a lot worse. And regular emissions testing for existing vehicles is also pretty common and effective.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Lax Supervision by hey! · · Score: 1

      China has had tough-sounding pollution laws for years. The problem with those laws is that nobody was in charge of enforcing them. For example cars and trucks are suppose to have emissions equipment like US cars do, but nobody checks to see that the equipment is actually installed.

      Two years ago the Journalist Chai Jing released a blockbuster film about air pollution in China; you can watch it on youtube. The format is Chai presenting data and video segments to an audience in an auditorium. At one point she shows them a video of a routine roadside truck inspection in California, and the audience is just floored. It's as if you were watching a film from a foreign country in which the cops pull over a truck driver and administer a calculus exam. And the driver passes.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Lax Supervision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chinks won't enforce shit. They'll turn it in to a racket.

  4. Road Dust by Luthair · · Score: 1

    You're arrested.

  5. MCGA ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... stop this forward-progress shit.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:MCGA ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Multi-Colour Graphics Array?

  6. Maybe Beijing is getting serious or a PR stunt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need to fix their entire country - not just the parts that are seen on worldwide TV and mocked.

    1. Re:Maybe Beijing is getting serious or a PR stunt? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But the parts that are seen worldwide and mocked are the problem.

      I mean, be honest: Do you give a shit whether a million Chinese people have asthma? See? Why should they?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. BBQ-police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "and open-air barbecues" .. will leave no steak unturned!

  8. Outdoor BBQs by rossz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, it couldn't be all those coal burning plants they are building and bringing online faster than the rest of the world can reduce pollution. Definitely the outdoor bbqs.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
    1. Re:Outdoor BBQs by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      They're already slashing construction of new plants and cancelling constructions of a lot of what isn't done yet. Not much more they can do there.

    2. Re:Outdoor BBQs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These aren't just any outdoor bbqs. Similar shaokao places in Flushing, NY, etc. require that the charcoal used by these shaokao trucks, and joints must use some kind of filtering system to filter out a lot of the smoke.

      When you walked down a Chinese street, back in the days before they started kick out or disallowing a lot of these huge outdoor shaokao places, you could definitely sometimes see a huge haze of smoke going down the street... Perhaps they will start requiring these people to also place filters as well, because it would definitely suck to not be able to get good shaokao these days in China, or use e.g. propane...

    3. Re:Outdoor BBQs by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Those non Beijing coal plants? The ones they are reducing this year? Are those the ones you're talking about? The ones that don't exist in one of the most densely populated mega cities? Yeah they are totally the problem exclusively and there's nothing else contributing to high levels of smog. I guess all those non existent coal plants in Paris contribute to its smog too.

    4. Re:Outdoor BBQs by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The summary points out that they are reducing coal use by 30% this year.

      It's the same as those nonsense stories about Germany building more coal power. Germany was building new, more efficient, cleaner coal plants that were better able to follow load and support renewables, while closing even more older plants. The same is happening in China.

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

      You must be one of those people who are too bright to read the summary before posting you anti-China nonsense.
      China has already experienced peak coal, it using less and less every year.
      Just shows the quality of the moderators here that obvious bullshit like this is constantly getting +ve mods.

  9. A little low. by SeaFox · · Score: 0

    I'm sure they will start walking the beat immediately, searching at street level for the cause of pollution that is in the troposphere..

  10. Name suggestion by bazorg · · Score: 1

    I hope they call it karma police.

    1. Re:Name suggestion by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It's a fair trade -- to pollute while rising out of peasantry.

      Only when it becomes more harmful than helpful is it worth it to fix.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Name suggestion by bazorg · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's what we've all done in different decades and centuries. Hopefully the biggest part of the harm won't be reserved for those who get the smallest part of the helpfulness..

    3. Re:Name suggestion by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Worth mentioning that while pollution can cause health problems, poverty causes health problems too.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Name suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worth mentioning that while pollution can cause health problems, poverty causes health problems too.

      This is a fair point. Politicians could take this kind of idea, apply their best data modelers and calculate which sources of power have the least cost to society. Perhaps cheap coal costs X dollars per MWh when averaged over the next hundred years, while natural gas costs X/2 and solar costs X/3, and so on.

      In short do the math and justify your decision.

      We cannot, under any circumstances, have a good government based on lies though. Just today I saw Trump and his people lie about the report that was just released and say Russia did not affect the outcome of the election. The report specifically stated they made no attempt to calculate that. They just stated that the votes themselves weren't tampered with. Of course a large and complex campaign to influence the results of an election is going to affect the results. It would be insane to think otherwise. Did it affect them enough to toss the election to Trump? We can't say with 100% certainty, but it was a very close election if you look at the vote counts.

      I begin to think that the most important thing to vote for is honesty. If neither is honest, but one at least lies notably less, then vote for that person. This would be a long term strategy to try to start removing the liars from politics, since you at least stop that from being a key to winning. Once the level of lying is cut down then maybe we can vote on other qualities and have a rational discussion, but with things that are now, we can't have that discussion.

  11. Whoop whoop by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Cough, splutter, that's the sound of the police.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  12. Conspiracy by Princeofcups · · Score: 1, Funny

    I say it is all a conspiracy by crooked scientists who are just trying to scare people so that they can all get rich doing climate research. There's no way that man can affect the environment. The smoke must be part of a natural cycle. Or maybe god taking vengeance against those godless communists!

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    1. Re:Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of the starving oil company execs whose livelihoods are threatened by this grossly irresponsible research.

    2. Re:Conspiracy by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      and their starving little children!

  13. What about SPECIAL FORCES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Camouflage-pattern hazmat suits and gas masks, where is the video clip to draw in those mouseclicks??

  14. And Spend $360 billion on Renewables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The bigger story is that they are investing $360 billion on renewable energy over the next 4 years.

    That's a plan that will not only pay dividends in pollution reduction, it will keep them on the cutting edge of energy technology. An industry that is obviously a growth market because India and Africa both have tons of unmet demand for energy and Chinese companies are going to own that market.

    Meanwhile, the US has just voted for more coal. Maybe, if we are lucky, some more fracking too.

    The future is bright! (for china)

    1. Re:And Spend $360 billion on Renewables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The future is bright! (for china)

      Not after their economy tanks after free trade is ended. Mexico's is going down as well. Their economies are built around export. When that ends, game over.

    2. Re:And Spend $360 billion on Renewables by Izuzan · · Score: 1

      Have a look at Ontario Canada's Hydro rates. They have a ton of Wind "Green energy" and our hydro rates are the highest in north america and still slated to rise close to 300% in the next 3 years. (1400sqft house, all compact florescent's, only use dishwasher and washer and dryer after 7 (when time of use kicks in) and my hydro per month is close to 200 a month. All because of Wynne's Green energy act, and Cap and trade Carbon taxes.

    3. Re:And Spend $360 billion on Renewables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...

      Meanwhile, the US has just voted for more coal. Maybe, if we are lucky, some more fracking too.

      The future is bright! (for china)

      While I would never ever recommend voting for Trump or any derivatives thereof, and while many voters may have believed they were voting for more coal they also liked his line about mexico paying for his monument to racism. As with many things Trump, just because he says it, doesn't mean he will do it, or even try to do it. Hillary ain't going to jail either. He flat out admitted he only said that to get votes. Surprise surprise..

      I just don't think coal is going to happen that much. Natural gas is pretty much cheaper right now. It also produces less CO2. Here is a random link. There are various others.

      Is natural gas the perfect solution? Certainly not. Fracking has problems, but right now they look like manageable problems. Compared to putting someone wanting to destroy the EPA in charge of it, Natural gas is a tempest in a teacup.

    4. Re:And Spend $360 billion on Renewables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hydro is carbon free, hydro power ought to end up cheaper since if cap & trade is implemented right because the carbon generators would subsidize the carbon-free power sources with carbon credits

    5. Re:And Spend $360 billion on Renewables by zedaroca · · Score: 1

      You know Clinton was the fracking candidate, right? (it's in the attachment of the email).

      From an article about the subject:

      In one excerpt of a speech to Deutsche Bank in April 2013, according to the document, Clinton boasted about the federal government’s support for fracking and her own work to promote the process across the globe.

      “Fracking was developed at the Department of Energy,” the document shows Clinton saying. “I mean, the whole idea of how fracking came to be available in the marketplace is because of research done by our government. And I've promoted fracking in other places around the world.”

      In another excerpt of the same speech, Clinton outlines why she supports a continued push for fracking.

      “The ability to extract both gas and oil from previously used places that didn't seem to have much more to offer, but now the technology gives us the chance to go in and recover oil and gas,” the document shows her saying. “Or with the new technology known as fracking, we are truly on a path -- and it's not just United States; it's all of North America -- that will be net energy exporters assuming we do it right."

      I don't mean, in any way, that Trump might be good for the environment. Just that he probably isn't going to be worst (frackingwise) than Hillary would have been.

    6. Re:And Spend $360 billion on Renewables by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      Im pretty sure that's why fracking was mentioned as an "if we're lucky".

      Every step of it is far better than coal, and it's cheaper.

      In general for new production green > gas > coal

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    7. Re:And Spend $360 billion on Renewables by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Game over for whom, though?

      Where do you think your economy is going to be heading without cheap computers, TV, appliances and gadgets from China? You might want to ask your dad or grandpa what they had to put down for a TV set. They'll probably tell you an amount not far from what you have to pay for one today. With the difference, though, that this was what they made in wages in a month or maybe two.

      Hmm... thinking about it, considering how the "generation internship" is working, that's not too different to what it's like today...

      Now imagine that TV doesn't cost 300 bucks but 3,000 bucks. Made with pride in the USA, no doubt. Sold ... erh ... well, nowhere, because nobody abroad would pay 3k bucks for a TV and nobody can afford it in that proud USA.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:And Spend $360 billion on Renewables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'The bigger story is that they are investing $360 billion on renewable energy [csmonitor.com] over the next 4 years.'

      Thank you, WalMart shoppers.

    9. Re:And Spend $360 billion on Renewables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Just that he probably isn't going to be worst (frackingwise) than Hillary would have been.

      With respect to fracking that is about right.
      But where she supported DoE investment in geen energy development, he opposes it.
      His vision ends at petro, her vision started at petro and goes greener from there.

    10. Re:And Spend $360 billion on Renewables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when the US economy tanks, China will still be able to sell to Europe, South America, Africa, the South Pacific and Russia. They will even be able to trade within their own country.

  15. Beijing city can't fix its pollution itself by nicolaiplum · · Score: 5, Informative

    Beijing itself is fairly clean for a developing economy capital. Most of the cars are pretty new, there are not too many two-stroke tuktuks or scooters, etc. There aren't that many factories within city limits, as most were all closed or moved for the 2008 Olympics. The pollution isn't generated in the city. That's why you see the dramatic video online of "smog sweeping in" - it arrives from elsewhere, you can see it at higher levels in the air already, it doesnt'tcome from the street level. It's actually uncanny being in Beijing when the smog is bad because you can't see any source, no "that truck is belching smoke" or "that chimney is putting out smoke". It arrives from out of sight.

    The problem is the surrounding Hebei province which has many of the coal and iron ore mines of China, and much heavy industry and processing of the ores using coal. Beiing can't enforce pollution controls in Hebei and the industrialists in Hebei don't care at all while they make money. For a USA equivalent, imagine if if Connecticut, Long Island and New Jersey were covered in dirty industrial plant while New York City was trying to improve its air quality. They wouldn't succeed.

    It's nice to see Beijing trying to clean up its air, but it won't improve anything until Hebei province has a similar enforcement and it is effective.

    --
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
    1. Re:Beijing city can't fix its pollution itself by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      For a USA equivalent, imagine if if Connecticut, Long Island and New Jersey were covered in dirty industrial plant while New York City was trying to improve its air quality. They wouldn't succeed.

      Cities in California's central valley get upset when the EPA blames them for smog that blows out of the Bay Area, actually.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Beijing city can't fix its pollution itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There hasn't been a smog day in LA or SF in like 15 years.

    3. Re:Beijing city can't fix its pollution itself by hey! · · Score: 2

      You're right, Beijing is not the worst. Ranked by PM2.5 concentrations, it's only the 57th worst. The worst is Zabol, Iran, although that is in fact a natural phenomenon caused by persistent winds carrying in fine desert particulates. The worst man-made pollution is the Indian city of Gwalior which hits PM 2.5 concentrations of 325 micrograms / m^3, roughly 3x the levels of Beijing's nightmarish.

      While it's true that Beijing's problems won't be fixed until Heibei gets its act in order, I suspect Beijing contributes more to its pollution problems than you are suggesting. Many cars and trucks don't have the mandated emissions equipment, so they might as well be old ones. And Beijing still has a couple of operational coal plants, although they've been switching over to natural gas.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  16. Don't Light That Cigarette by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That air is reserved for the smog clogging coal factories.

  17. Frightening by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Just what the every day Chinese people need is another branch of law enforcement. This is going to effect the poor whom probably cook outdoors to feed their families. Perhaps they might need a car or some other form of vehicles to get by. Will the Chinese Environmental Police round them up and send them to labor camps?

  18. Not expecting many caught aside from unconnected by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Given that offenses are largely based on on having enough familiarity with those enforcing them, I'd not expect this to affect anyone significant.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  19. It will take a major dye off to wake us up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We are not going to act effectively to curb our misuse of the environment until there is a major human die off that makes the second world war look like a school yard tussle. When you have a world wide economy that is based almost solely upon the consumption of fossil fuels and this economy would tank if we started to quickly reduce consumption, the only way we will change our ways is when we have no other choice and accept a radical reduction in our consumption. The pruning of the human race is not far off and those who can get by without burning up carbon will survive. If ocean circulation patterns change radically because of what we are doing, it is quite possible that major smog events will start to happen more frequently.

    It is also possible that the shedding of the ice shelves of Antarctica and Greenland will cause radical local ocean cooling and boost the speed of a radical change in ocean currents. If the ocean currents change over night then it is quite possible that the jet stream will temporarily stop as well. With the known aspects climate change science being a taboo subject in Washington and other world capitols like Moscow we will not see these events coming. I am sure we will go on to blame only Chinese backyard BBQ's and coal generation industry and ignore other important sources like the current move to smogify the US by Trump.The world wide and American coal and the petro chemical industry is just as much to blame here as are we all, when we pave and abuse the shit out of our shared environment with abandon. The outlook for the human race is bleak primarily because we ignore things that we don't like to admit are our fault in the first place. I am sure that as the current crop of Right wing nutjobs is let loose to do a Joseph Goebbels on the American public "Chinese state sponsored pollution" will become one of the most terrible "villain du jour"! Right up there with the evil "Liberal Democrats" who brought affordable health care to millions.

    1. Re:It will take a major dye off to wake us up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets see? If we melt the poles and the quantity of water in the Ocean increases what effect will this have upon the shape of a spinning globe? Is it possible as well as changes to the jet stream and the thermodynamics we will see a change in the shape of the earth? This is not the TV show ancient aliens or Adolf Hitler's perverse vision of a pseudo Darwinian super race calling for survival of the fit, because we were the ones that were fit to survive and we are all on a course of self destruction.

      It is very logical that the redistribution of the mass of the earth caused by the thawing of the poles will cause major changes in a short period of time to the shape of the earth. The result could very well be a relativistic swelling of the level of the oceans and tides at mid latitudes which in turn has other consequences. The possibility of rapid changes to the distribution of the crust in some areas causing earth quakes that make the one that took out the coast of Japan look like a mild carnival ride?

      Our largely human industry induced rapid melting of the polar ice caps is bound to have consequences that we cannot foresee but we can speculate from the simple physics of what happens when a huge mass moves to a completely different location. Is it possible that like a figure skater spreading their arms the earth will then slow somewhat in rotation and increase the duration of the earth day? Humans are smart enough to understand the physics of what might occur but until it does occur and cause a die off we will continue to deny that what we have done very well may cause a huge global upset that will not favor our survival as a species at the population levels we now enjoy.

    2. Re:It will take a major dye off to wake us up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It did take a dye off to wake me up. Why? I had gone grey & didn't know better! (I' am color blind of course). Now my hair better damn well be perfect! None of those grey roots left behind like last time.

      A dye off will solve it all! (or did you mean die off?).

  20. Re:Not expecting many caught aside from unconnecte by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 2

    It will affect those who haven't "cultivated their political connections" adequately. Follow the money.

  21. Yin/Yang by raind · · Score: 1

    Their smog is effecting are weather, as does ours theirs and India.

    --
    Get up!
    1. Re:Yin/Yang by raind · · Score: 1

      Well you know what I mean...

      --
      Get up!
  22. Amazing. That a country by pjv936 · · Score: 1

    were they put a bullet in the back of your head for every little thing they can think of has a big problem enforcing the environmental laws. Hey, big man, if you look out your window and you can't see the street maybe you you should call up and have a few environment cops killed then maybe they will do their jobs.

    1. Re:Amazing. That a country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking retard, why hasn't anyone bothered to put a bullet in the back of your useless head?

    2. Re:Amazing. That a country by erapert · · Score: 1

      What's the matter? Can't handle the truth?

  23. The Windup Girl by skidv · · Score: 1

    I just read a book called "The Windup Girl" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... by Paolo Bacigalupi where local environmental police was a major component of the plot.

    I enjoyed the book enough to get "Pump Six and Other Stories", a collection of his short stories where I believe he will introduce some of the ideas fleshed out in "The Windup Girl."

  24. This is War! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, the american economy is dependent on exports for jobs and cheap imports to sustain our quality of life. In constant dollars our exports are the most they've ever been. Its been a steady increase in exports since the 60s and NAFTA accelerated it even as manufacturing employment decreased.

    If we get in a trade war we will suffer. China might suffer more because the country with the trade surplus always loses in a trade war. But it will be a war with major causalities on both sides because China is the US's 3rd largest export market. Its likely that our causalities will be greater than the causalities from the current trade imbalance. Even if it is a net benefit in the long term, in the short term the middle-class will bear the brunt of the chaos.

    Especially since any industries that move to the US will be building new factories which means they will be using the absolute latest in automation. So, just pulling numbers out of my butt, China might lose 1,000 low paid jobs but we'll only get 50 high paid jobs in return.

    1. Re:This is War! by erapert · · Score: 1

      causalities

      You keep using that word. I think you meant to use "casualties" instead.

    2. Re:This is War! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spell check did a full text replace.

    3. Re:This is War! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The US may even gain a few low-pay, low-education jobs, but that isn't going to solve much. The problem will be that consumer electronics and appliances become more expensive. That in turn will eliminate about as many low-education jobs in distribution and sales of goods as it created in production, because sales will plummet.

      In the end, the net result is that jobs will stay about the same, stuff gets more expensive.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  25. Beijing is big. by hey! · · Score: 1

    11.5 million people. It is also dense: 11,500 people / km^2. That's roughly six times as dense as New York City. It has a street food scene on a scale that is unimaginable in a US city. A lot of those stands are powered by charcoal.

    So yes, cooking is a real air pollution problem there. It may not be their worst problem, but it may well be their toughest.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  26. Emission standards by ventsyv · · Score: 1

    I doubt China enforces it's emission standards if it has any. That's an easy place to start. Subsidies (less taxes) for electrical vehicle would also help. And of course the big wopper is that they need an EPA on their own to reign in the industrial pollution.