Slashdot Mirror


China's Anti-Pollution Initiative Produces Stellar Results (popularmechanics.com)

hackingbear writes: China has declared war on its pollution -- one of the worst on the planet -- and now appears to be winning. Popular Mechanics reports: "Over the past four years, pollution in China's major cities has decreased by an average of 32 percent, with some cities seeing an even bigger drop, according to professor Michael Greenstone of the Energy Policy Institute. This decline comes after several aggressive policies implemented by the Chinese government, including prohibiting the building of new coal plants, forcing existing plants to reduce their emissions, lowering the amount of automobile traffic, and closing down some steel mills and coal mines. Some cities, like Beijing, have achieved even greater reductions in air pollution. Beijing has seen a 35 percent drop in particulates, while the city of Shijiazhuang saw a 39 percent drop. China has prioritized pollution reduction in these cities, with the government spending over $120 billion in Beijing alone."

39 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. anecdotal by rvr · · Score: 4, Informative

    As someone living here, I have to say that I do see more blue sky and less haze than I used to.
    My phone displays the Air Quality Index and today it is bad - mid 200s. There used to be 400 days but they do *seem* fewer. Tomorrow is 12 and friday is 39.
    Because the government is all powerful, they shut down 1000s of polluting businesses in Beijing and put in place requirements that made it hard for them to return to business unless they cleaned up their emissions. Of course there are complaints, but Chinese like Americans complain about government, but the Chinese mostly move on as recourse is limited and they know it.
    I am limiting my stay here (one year) because of the pollution, but I may waver in that. That is, waver tomorrow, but not today.

    1. Re:anecdotal by rvr · · Score: 2

      I did not know that Beijing was China, thanks.
      Complaints about the harsh closure of many businesses (many factories) in Beijing (not China).

    2. Re:anecdotal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let's not break out the Champagne just yet. Soil pollution is a much bigger problem than air pollution. Getting the infamous "Beijing blue sky", where the government orders companies to shut down to impress foreign dignitaries with splendid blue skies, is achieved in a few days, getting the soil clean will take decades. And if you check aqicn.org, China, in the Winter, is still mostly red and purple, with their pollution blowing over to Korea and Japan, while most of the 1st world is green or yellow colored. They still have a long way to go - this might be a beginning. Or maybe it's just lucky weather patterns.

    3. Re:anecdotal by Walter+White · · Score: 2

      Probably some low hanging fruit as well. WRT pollution I think they have a lot of low hanging fruit.

    4. Re:anecdotal by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

      I am of the same opinion, although I do not live there. The pollution issue has definitely improved, and hopefully, it will continue to do so.

      Also, I found that the Chinese people were very nice and welcoming. More people should visit, but will want to avoid rush hours, especially on the subway.

    5. Re:anecdotal by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      I live here too.

    6. Re:anecdotal by rvr · · Score: 1

      I will add that I see lots of trees planted. 1000's of newly planted (within last few years) trees of all sizes. It's in District Tongzhou where I live, in urban areas. There is also word that China will redeploy 50K soldiers to plant trees this year. So low hanging fruit yes, but also serious efforts as far as I can see.
      It's about my only wish for China - is to clean the air, everyone will benefit.

    7. Re:anecdotal by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      It makes sense that pollution in the capital would be cleaned up first and foremost.

      After all, those who benefit the most from China's economy would want to be far removed from the negative effects of a poorly regulated industrial society.

  2. There's a lot of admiration for China by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful
    A lot of people, including the New York Times, admire China's system and say that it's better than what we have in America. China is achieving great results with enlightened leadership and this cut in pollution is a shining success story. America couldn't have done it, there would be lawsuits and regulatory capture in the EPA and other important federal agencies. Who's to say the Times is wrong?

    There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

    One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China's leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.

    Our one-party democracy is worse.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:There's a lot of admiration for China by RazorSharp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The New York Times likes to put over-the-top columns on the op-ed page from both sides of the aisle. It's disingenuous for you to claim that the column you cited is indicative of the opinions of those who run the company. They frequently have two columns on the same page that contradict one another. Does that mean that the New York Times has paradoxical opinions? No. It means it's an op-ed page.

      Even if you take that article to represent the paper's opinion, you misconstrue the author's point. He's not praising China's political structure as much as he's criticizing the ineffectualness of America's system. Considering that your post is so tongue-in-cheek, it would seem that you ought to recognize the same tone in the article you cite.

      You're trolling and trying to turn a non-political story into a political discussion.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    2. Re:There's a lot of admiration for China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When the leaders are good, the people rejoice. When the leaders are bad, the people suffer.

      Unfortunately, there is no way to ensure that the leaders are good.

    3. Re: There's a lot of admiration for China by javaman235 · · Score: 1

      It's true. The crazy thing is the emergence of strong state sentiments on the American right, the wave Trump is trying to ride. A decade ago you'd never hear collectivist insults like "snowflake" thrown around with talk of building to block cheap labor, or a desire to curtail global trade. The swing from libertarian to populist shows desire for govt that can actually get stuff done.

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
    4. Re:There's a lot of admiration for China by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The New York Times likes to put over-the-top columns on the op-ed page from both sides of the aisle.

      Claiming that there are only two sides is part of the problem.

      It's disingenuous for you to claim that the column you cited is indicative of the opinions of those who run the company.

      The piece was written by Thomas Friedman. He has been the Times' foreign affairs columnist since 1995. He won three Pulitzer Prizes. To say that he doesn't represent his employer well is disingenuous.

      he's criticizing the ineffectualness of America's system.

      He's praising authoritarians because they can get things done. All of us know the sick, twisted history behind this idea. Hey, that Mussolini's not so bad, at least he made the trains run on time. I'll take the American system any day of the week. The Times said our system is worse than China's. That's wrong and it needs to be called out as the toxic speech that it is. A lot of people worship the New York Times, and they need to have it pointed out to them that their hero has feet of clay. The latest example, they wrote a lengthy article telling everyone how the tax cuts were going to make a hypothetical American couple pay $4,000 more in taxes this year. Oops, turns out they were going to save money. Another "accidental" mistake. What we should expect with journalistic "mistakes" is that they sometimes go in one direction, and other times go in the other direction. That's exactly what does not happen at the New York Times.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re: There's a lot of admiration for China by aberglas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Problem is that History is not taught in schools. People do not know China's recent history.

      During Mao's strong man Great Leap Forward some 30 *Million* people starved to death. A billion went hungry -- the birth rate plummeted. All due to Mao. Then the cultural revolution.

      Since Deng Xioping there has been an economic miracle. But now we have a new emperor, Emperor Xi Jinping. Ruler for life.

      Maybe he will be good for China. But if he is not, then there will be no way to remove him until he dies. He has centralized all power, removed all checks and balances, and cracked down on media and anyone that dissents at any level. Not good signs. He also boasts an aggressive foreign policy.

      So, be careful what you wish for. Most strong men have been disasters for their countries of the highest order. Hitler, Stalin, Mao. The exception is probably Lee Kuan Yew, but he kept a semi-democratic system in place.

    6. Re: There's a lot of admiration for China by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      But now we have a new emperor, Emperor Xi Jinping. Ruler for life.

      Um, there are no 'N's in that name, it's spelled: Xi Jipig and it's pronounced with a french accent, Ze Gi Pig.

      Any leader in any country that attempt to change the constitution of said country without a vote from the people should be immediately eject from power. My 2cents

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    7. Re:There's a lot of admiration for China by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

      The New York times published a provoking editorial. They do this kind of stuff. It's what makes them a new source rather than a propaganda machine. The NYT is not advocating that we have Chinese-style government with press freedoms curtailed and journalists killed/jailed! The column does rightly criticize how hard it is to get thing done in the US. All systems have advantages and disadvantages and people/corporations learn how to game whatever system is in place. Also, water is wet.

    8. Re:There's a lot of admiration for China by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      China is achieving great results with enlightened leadership and this cut in pollution is a shining success story.

      Yep, I just can't wait for the next Trump Tweet announcing that he has declared himself, "President-For-Life", in the Idi Amin sense of the term. That would certainly fly well with the Hillary Clinton crew.

      Who's to say the Times is wrong?

      "I am!" . . .

      . . . "Spartacus!"

      The NYT is paywalled, which is just plain wrong. They should look at The Economist ( https://www.economist.com/ ) as a shining example. They have a free section for headline news, but a paid, subscription service for folk who want to dive deeper.

      Our one-party democracy is worse.

      The US has a two-party duopoly . . . and both the Democrats and the Republicans like it that way, and, barring an armed insurrection, it ain't no never gonna change.

      This prevents alternative voices to be heard in Congress. Let's say that 10% of the voters in the US are concerned about clean air. Nation wide, a "Green" party would get 10% of the votes . . . and some seats in Congress to push for clean air. But with the current system, these votes get lost on the local level, where the "choice" is between a Democrat and a Republican.

      Your local Democrat or Republican has obligations to, in no particular order: Big Unions, Big Pharma, Big Coal, Big Hollywood, Big Banks, Big Cars, Big Guns, Big Oil, Big Google (H1-Bs!), Big Facebook (more H1-Bs!), Big Fast Food, Big High Fructose Corn Syrup . . . and several other "Bigs" that I failed to mention.

      The obligations to the ordinary American voter . . .

      "Thank you for writing to your Representative in Congress! Your opinion is very important to us! We will see what our staff can do about your concern."

      "Please donate to our campaign contributions! It's tax deductible!"

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    9. Re:There's a lot of admiration for China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      China will continue to plow ahead. They plan to start 8 new nuclear reactor construction projects this year. They know this is essential for success in reducing emissions.

      The problem with the democratic systems is that the path forward can be clouded by FUD and misinformation. The general public's ignorance and greatly skewed risk perception of nuclear power, along with the misleading impression that wind and solar can solve all our generation problems, are going to be the central reasons why most western democracies WILL fail at emissions reductions.

    10. Re: There's a lot of admiration for China by Whibla · · Score: 2

      Problem is that History is not taught in schools. People do not know China's recent history.

      During Mao's strong man Great Leap Forward some 30 *Million* people starved to death. A billion went hungry -- the birth rate plummeted. All due to Mao.

      Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone. The problem is, when you're basically a dictator the consequences of your mistakes tend to be magnified. It is for this very reason that I call businesses moral amplifiers.

      Of course in retrospect it's easy to tell that 'close planting', based on bullshit by Lysenko, and 'deep ploughing', based on bullshit by Lysenko's colleague Maltsev, were horrendous ideas but even the wisest among us sometimes falls for bullshit.

      In my view Mao's egregious & unforgivable error was in refusing to admit he'd made mistakes, and refusing to accept that perhaps he wasn't the best man for the job, which essentially led to the Cultural Revolution.

      Since Deng Xioping there has been an economic miracle.

      I'd say there has been an ongoing convergence between the economies of China and the west, but this is more an inevitability than a miracle. In a global market you'd actually have to struggle, or fuck up really really badly, to achieve anything else. Their general economic indicators such as GDP growth will mostly settle at the same level as those of the west once convergence has been achieved, with one caveat: It remains to be seen what their net foreign ownership will be at that point - because of their laws limiting inward foreign investment they are likely to be better off than us (i.e. net positive rather than net negative for e.g. the US / UK) once the dust settles.

      But now we have a new emperor, Emperor Xi Jinping. Ruler for life.

      Yeah, you've got a point here! Given the current 'state of the system' in China his removal of term limits has, to all intents and purposes, done just that. It does remain to be seen if he will be good for China, but bear in mind my first point: Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone.

      What might save them from another disaster, in whatever form that takes (and it's extremely unlikely to take the same form as the 'Great Leap Forward') is if he has aides and advisors who are strong enough to face up to him, and he's 'secure' enough to admit he could be wrong.

      Time will tell...

  3. Lacking context in all sources... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A win is a win, and of course a drastic reduction in pollution for China is a great thing.
    But all the sources sounds extremely one sided, like propaganda or something.
    32% decrease OF WHAT?

    Because you know, there is a big difference between reducing 32% of normal pollution that's expected on any major urban center, and reducing 32% of a smog so dense and deadly that it looks like you are around a volcano that just erupted.

    Yes, an improvement is still an improvement, but for those curious not about the reduction but about the current state, here's a more informative map:
    http://berkeleyearth.org/air-q...

    So the thing is, yes, 32% reduction is awesome, but it's still nowhere near good enough. It's not even close even to major urban centers in the rest of the world.
    To get to the same level of some other countries, China would probably need something more towards 70 or 80% reduction.

    And yes, I know that China's air polution problem is largely the fault of basically the entire global industrialized society - the polution is there because most major countries with the biggest economies in the world just shifted the entire industrial production, with all it's polution problems, straight to China, where we all knew regulation was lax, and welfare basically doesn't exist. So this isn't an attack against China.

    But perhaps let's not celebrate too much when we still have such a long way to go...
    I'm only saying this because perhaps some people don't realize how bad it really is there. It is not a joke when people say that kids, seniors and people with some health conditions could straight up die and suffocate in a normal hot day in some chinese cities without warning, while they could live pretty well in other parts of the world.
    There were days when people walking around on big city streets there got home looking like they just emerged out of a coal mine - exposed skin brown or black with layers of particulate matter.
    India is another country that will have to do a whole ton of work and invest a whole ton of money to get their pollution levels back to a tolerable state. And both countries needs help on this, because in the end it affects all of us.

    1. Re:Lacking context in all sources... by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 1

      32% decrease OF WHAT?

      Because you know, there is a big difference between reducing 32% of normal pollution that's expected on any major urban center, and reducing 32% of a smog so dense and deadly that it looks like you are around a volcano that just erupted.

      It's the latter. A few years ago in Beijing I could not stop coughing and thought there was an industrial accident in the area. Now, air was much better than I expected, sorta almost fresh with just a slight acidic scent.

      --
      17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
    2. Re:Lacking context in all sources... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      the polution is there because most major countries with the biggest economies in the world just shifted the entire industrial production, with all it's polution problems, straight to China
      That is nonsense. No idea why /. is full with claims like that.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  4. Stellar Results by mentil · · Score: 1

    I've read this comic already. Superman throws the waste into the Sun, right?

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  5. Difference between by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats want the benefits of Chinese style totalitarianism with democracy while Republicans want the Chinese style totalitarianism without the benefits.

  6. Re:Pollution by Z80a · · Score: 1

    While its still the same quantity being produced, the japanese companies are probably a lot more careful on what they do with the stuff, which ends reducing the quantity of chemicals released on the environment.
    So better than nothing i suppose.

  7. They Have Access to OSHA and EPA Documents... by IonOtter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We've already been through this, here in the US and Europe. They don't have to repeat all of our mistakes, and our multiple environmental and regulatory agencies make everything freely accessible to anyone who wants them.

    So it should be no surprise when they make rapid advances in cleaning up things, once they get the word from on high.

    No, what IS a surprise, is the fact that the word came down from on high.

    It's almost as if the wealthy and powerful within China realized, "Oh, shit! I don't have anywhere I can run to, if this all goes to Hell in a handbasket! We better make sure that doesn't happen!"

    This is a realization which the rich and powerful of the US and Europe have yet to arrive at.

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:They Have Access to OSHA and EPA Documents... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      This is a realization which the rich and powerful of the US and Europe have yet to arrive at.

      Of course not, because they all still think they'll be able to flee to China.

    2. Re:They Have Access to OSHA and EPA Documents... by aberglas · · Score: 1

      The pollution in the USA was never even close to that in China today. THis is mainly due to climate differences.

    3. Re:They Have Access to OSHA and EPA Documents... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The pollution in the USA was never even close to that in China today. THis is mainly due to climate differences.

      Actually its due to the US going through the same phase with a much lower population density. Europe, notably the British started industrialisng in the 1700's, the US started in the 1800's. China started in the 1950's, industrailisation meant industries that spouted huge amounts of pollution, for example, people in China were encouraged to have metalworks in their back yards (which produced copious amounts of low quality pig iron). The US and Europe did similar things but with the population densities being much lower, the problem didn't happen nearly as quickly. London started putting in pollution restrictions in the 1850's when much of the US was still agrarian. When the Chinese were building backyard smelters, the clean air act of 1952 came in. China is catching up to the UK in the 50's with their legislation because they're having the same problem as we had (see: the great smog of London).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:They Have Access to OSHA and EPA Documents... by Whibla · · Score: 1

      It's almost as if the wealthy and powerful within China realized, "Oh, shit! I don't have anywhere I can run to, if this all goes to Hell in a handbasket! We better make sure that doesn't happen!"

      This is a realization which the rich and powerful of the US and Europe have yet to arrive at.

      I'm pretty sure someone linked to this story yesterday.

    5. Re:They Have Access to OSHA and EPA Documents... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You must be very young, padawan.
      Why don't you ask one who has a clue?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  8. It shouldn't take much by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Going from effectively zero pollution controls to basically any pollution controls should show a big improvement.

    If they institute some genuinely strict controls, they ought to really be able to make a major impact.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Pollution From Asia by tquasar · · Score: 1

    The US EPA and NOAA have found that NOX and O3 pollutants come from Asia, especially China and India. https://www.npr.org/sections/t...

  10. Re:Pollution by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's also only a "success" if you report it as a percentage. The WHO PM2.5 limit is 10 micrograms, China's average was around 40 micrograms. So with a 30% drop it's gone from four times the WHO's worst-allowable value to 2.4 times the worst-allowable value. It's still absolutely terrible, just slightly less terrible than it was.

  11. Re:Seems very close to the 1970s U.S. experience by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Informative

    We had rivers catching on fire and the government got serious about the pollution.

    It remained serious until fairly recently. It's been backsliding in republican areas for a while.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

    https://www.motherjones.com/en...

    The devastation from hurricanes Irma and Harvey, the two weeks of catastrophic flooding, and the toxic aftermath should have been opportunities for the head of the Environmental Protection Agency to snap into action. Had Scott Pruitt done so, it would have been in stark contrast with his tenure so far, which has mostly consisted of making the case that the regulatory power of the EPA should be undermined and advocating that his agency be made smaller in size and scope, be deprived of a robust budget and enforcement power, and shift focus to what he likes to call âoeregulatory certaintyâ for polluting industries.

    In the past, the EPAâ(TM)s job in the aftermath of storms has been to help ensure that victims do not return to homes and neighborhoods that are toxic cesspools. The environmental aftermath of Harvey and Irma has been particularly devastating, with Superfund sites that have flooded, pipelines that have have leaked, forced evacuations because of explosions at the Arkema chemical plant, and a hazardous mix of floodwaters and sewage.

    A week ago, George W. Bushâ(TM)s EPA administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, wrote a scathing assessment in the New York Times of how Pruitt has been performing on the job. âoeThe agency created by a Republican president 47 years ago to protect the environment and public health may end up doing neither under Mr. Pruittâ(TM)s direction,â she noted. When reflecting on Pruittâ(TM)s performance during Hurricane Harvey, she added that the EPAâ(TM)s recent actions, including the EPAâ(TM)s attack on an AP reporter, âoeare only the latest manifestations of my fears.â

    Whitman may have missed some of Pruittâ(TM)s other activities. During the two hurricanes, the EPA administrator has appeared in far-right media, blasted the Obama administration and the mainstream media, disparaged discussions about climate change, and rolled back more regulations. Here are some noteworthy Pruitt sightings that took place during the recent weeks when severe weather battered the United States:

      Trump and Pruitt further sought to significantly shrink the EPA over the past year, proposing drastic budget cuts and offering buyouts that reduced staffing. From December 2016 to January 2018, the size of the agency has shrunk by 1,500 people, according to the Office of Personnel Management, and its current total of 14,162 employees is fewer than worked for it under President Ronald Reagan's administration.

    The agency additionally altered its policy on the scientific boards that advise the agency, blocking any researchers from participating if they received grant money from the EPA.

    ---
    And governor Snyder set up the Flint Michagan disaster by assigning managers who could override local governments.
    Hundreds of kids poisoned with lead. They are still on bottled water. It's just that bad.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  12. Re: Pollution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Submitting the Nikkei Times for unbiased reporting on China is akin to expecting Brietbart to humbly bow before Hillary.

  13. Re: Thank god by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Or you could, you know, actually go to China and see for yourself, or ask someone who's been there?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  14. Tampering going on? by schnipschnap · · Score: 1

    Do you think there is merit to this story? http://www.globaltimes.cn/cont...

    "Two Northwest China officials were punished after their plan to reduce air pollution readings by spraying water cannons near monitoring equipment backfired and left a government building encrusted in ice."

  15. Re:Just moving the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    China is solving that with a massive build up of nuclear power.