China's Anti-Pollution Initiative Produces Stellar Results (popularmechanics.com) 84
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."
Re: (Score:1)
The USA is under attack from Russia. Donald Trump, sworn to protect the USA, is deliberately ignoring that attack, and actively preventing the government from responding. Sure sounds like treason to me.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Pollution (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Pollution (Score:1)
Submitting the Nikkei Times for unbiased reporting on China is akin to expecting Brietbart to humbly bow before Hillary.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could, you know, actually go to China and see for yourself, or ask someone who's been there?
anecdotal (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
I did not know that Beijing was China, thanks.
Complaints about the harsh closure of many businesses (many factories) in Beijing (not China).
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3)
Probably some low hanging fruit as well. WRT pollution I think they have a lot of low hanging fruit.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Tampering going on? (Score:2)
Do you think there is merit to this story? http://www.globaltimes.cn/cont... [globaltimes.cn]
"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."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
There's a lot of admiration for China (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: There's a lot of admiration for China (Score:2)
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.
Re: There's a lot of admiration for China (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:There's a lot of admiration for China (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.
Re: (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 th
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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/ [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
Re: (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 d
Lacking context in all sources... (Score:5, 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... [berkeleyearth.org]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 /. is full with claims like that.
That is nonsense. No idea why
Re:Seems very close to the 1970s U.S. experience (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... [go.com]
https://www.motherjones.com/en... [motherjones.com]
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.
Stellar Results (Score:2)
I've read this comic already. Superman throws the waste into the Sun, right?
Difference between (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.
They Have Access to OSHA and EPA Documents... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
The pollution in the USA was never even close to that in China today. THis is mainly due to climate differences.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You must be very young, padawan.
Why don't you ask one who has a clue?
Re: (Score:2)
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 [theguardian.com] yesterday.
It shouldn't take much (Score:2)
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.
Pollution From Asia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
China is solving that with a massive build up of nuclear power.