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."
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."