Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

China To Begin Submitting Air Pollution Reports

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the everything-counts-in-large-amounts dept.

China 176

smitty777 writes "China will start to publish air pollution reports, possibly in response to reports from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing which has been publishing its own data. This report is significant in that it's based on the PM2.5 standard, which measures the more harmful particles that are less than 2.5 microns. This comes on the heels of a separate report that lists China as the worst polluter worldwide. According to this report, China now produces 6,832 m tons of CO2, a 754% increase since 1971. While the U.S. is in second at 5,195 m, this represents an increase of only 21%. This article notes 'the rapid growth in emissions for China, India, and Africa. This will continue as their middle classes buy houses and vehicles. The growth in Middle East emissions is staggering, a reflection of their growing oil fortunes.' While we're on the subject of India, their pollution levels are thought to be responsible for a dense cloud of fog that is so thick it created a cold front, and is repsonsible for a number of deaths."

cancel ×

176 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Meanwhile... (4, Insightful)

vought (160908) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626724)

Half the US population will pretend that scientific consensus does not exist as they drive automobiles created with the fruits of science, the Chinese will fudge their numbers, and nothing will change.

Re:Meanwhile... (0, Troll)

winmine (934311) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626830)

I wish people would get this right. The consensus is about the earth getting hotter, which would make sense since we're going away from an ice age, not toward one. There is no consensus about man's impact on the earth. From the article, it would appear that mankind is curbing our inevitable heat wave.

As long as the buzzword is so ingrained in grant-writing culture, the conversation about climate change cannot progress.

Re:Meanwhile... (5, Informative)

404 Clue Not Found (763556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626976)

I wish people would get this right. The consensus is about the earth getting hotter, which would make sense since we're going away from an ice age, not toward one. There is no consensus about man's impact on the earth.

False, at least according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, consisting of hundreds of international scientists reviewing and synthesizing the data of their peers. If that's not a broad scientific consensus, I don't know what is.

From their 2007 report: Combining evidence of anthropogenic climate change [www.ipcc.ch]

Anthropogenic means human-caused. The report takes into account many different scenarios, comparing models with human activity and without, and none of the natural-only models fit the data well enough to be considered appropriate.

As in all science, there is always room for doubt and mistakes, but if you're going to claim that there is not a broad consensus, please cite some qualified sources.

Re:Meanwhile... (0, Flamebait)

winmine (934311) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627194)

Fascinating.

Although the source there puts the odds at "Likely," without quantification. It's also the lowest category of confidence they have. The consensus appears to say that's it's more likely than not, but not as certain as the mere fact that it's getting hotter.

One Anti-ACC point I've seen lately is that of cities being hotter because they're bigger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island [wikipedia.org]
This supposedly skews the results to 'prove' ACC, although this is apparently overrated.

I've only been reading wiki today, and your source.

Re:Meanwhile... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627254)

yes but what are your feelings concerning NIGGERS?!

Re:Meanwhile... (3, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627280)

Heat islands have been known and accounted for in the numbers used. At this point climate change is as certain as anything is and I haven't seen any credible scientists disputing the view that climate change is real and largely driven by human development.

It's quite well known what we're emitting and scientists have records that go back a long time that show a general relationship between temperature and atmospheric composition. At this point there's very little question about what's happening and why.

Re:Meanwhile... (4, Insightful)

404 Clue Not Found (763556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627600)

(I hope that you're sincerely interested in exploring this topic because I am too and I would be very interested in credible sources suggesting that there is in fact not a consensus among scientists that anthropocentric climate change is happening. I'll answer your concerns to the best of my abilities -- I'm just a student and still learning as I go.)

1. "Likely" means > 66% probability. I provided you a link to an excerpt of the full report (loooooong), and the same likelihood system is used throughout. See their explanation of likelihoods [www.ipcc.ch] (scroll to bottom). It is not the lowest category of confidence they have. I apologize for the lack of context; some of their FAQs [www.ipcc.ch] might provide more digestable, standalone summaries. The full report is a hard read -- I've skimmed through parts of it -- but the data and methodology is there if you care to dig deep enough.

2. I assume the "likely" you're referring to is in regards to surface temperature rise, but that's only one part of climate change. Other changes, such as the sea level increase, are considered "very likely" due to human influences.

3. The thing about climate change is that behavior "likely" to lead to a massive, abrupt change in our only habitat, potentially affecting millions of humans and countless more animals, is not a scenario to be taken lightly. There is ALWAYS room for error, but the best available data that we currently have suggest that we should be taking immediate corrective action. Until and unless better data appears, this seems to the best course of action. If we're later proven wrong due to some unforeseen causes, we'll have to make corrections... but that's the way science has always worked.

4. Heat islands are an example of cherry-picked "mistakes" that disprove ACC. The alleged mistakes (some of which were mistakes, some of which weren't) I've heard about have been corrected in later papers or studies and overall, the consensus still stands: Climate change is happening, and it's partially fueled by humans.

5. Both the wiki pages for climate change and heat islands reiterate my main point: That there is indeed a consensus among qualified scientists (as judged by their peers, mainly) that we are experiencing anthropogenic climate change.

If you have good sources that argue against that, please provide them.

Re:Meanwhile... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627378)

False, at least according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

Argumentum ad veracundiam, and the ostenisible authority you're citing is a political organization.

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

404 Clue Not Found (763556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627504)

I didn't know the fancy Latin term meant, but Wikipedia says it's a like an appeal to a false authority.

The IPCC is a political organization in the sense that the United Nations is a political organization. That doesn't automatically disqualify it from doing science.

As far as I can tell, its working groups consist of qualified scientists reviewing each others' works.

If you believe the scientists to be unqualified or the IPCC to not be a legitimate source of scientific analysis, please explain why.

Re:Meanwhile... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627870)

IPCC does not do science. It's not their mandate.

Re:Meanwhile... (4, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626978)

The consensus is about the earth getting hotter, which would make sense since we're going away from an ice age, not toward one.

That does not explain the sudden increase in temperature since the industrial revolution.

There is no consensus about man's impact on the earth.

I think that you will find that there is a consensus in the scientific community that global warming is affected by man. There may be variations in the estimates of how much is due to our CO2 output, but that does not mean that you should consider that the principles about climate change are wrong.

From the article, it would appear that mankind is curbing our inevitable heat wave.

Do you mean the cold front that appeared in one region over a short timespan? I do not think that you can extrapolate this to have any meaning for the entire planet.

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Troed (102527) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627874)

That does not explain the sudden increase in temperature since the industrial revolution.

What sudden increase is that? Our coming out of the Little Ice Age is not more sudden or a change larger in temperature than any number of historic climate shifts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png [wikipedia.org]

97% of climate scientists are convinced of AGW (5, Informative)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627048)

And if that [pnas.org] isn't consensus, I don't know what is.

I too wish people would stop getting this wrong, as it's blocking the conversation about what to do about climate change.

Re:97% of climate scientists are convinced of AGW (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627826)

97% of people of all education and intelligence levels are inept. That's a weird coincidence.

Re:Meanwhile... (3, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627122)

The consensus is about the earth getting hotter, which would make sense since we're going away from an ice age, not toward one.

B-b-but it's cold outside right now! I mean, really cold! My anecdotal experience therefore proves science is wrong! And if science is wrong even once, it's wrong all the time!

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627218)

With regard to the recurrent major ice ages that have occurred over the last couple of million years, this is likely a cosmological event and not driven by what occurs on the earth.

Not that the majority of the human population is clustered around the coast with the majority of major cities being coastal.

In the even of a significant flooding catastrophe making large areas of those cities uninhabitable, the pressure to imprison for life or execute those that were the major proponents of activities that likely brought about those events will be undeniable. Whether corporate executive or politician, you can be assured that those affected both rich and poor will be screaming for their heads.

The only lack of consensus is driven by religious ignorance and greed. That is not considered a lack of consensus that is simply mass media PR=B$ which is now largely being ignored.

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627416)

There is actually negative evidence that has been measured. It is called Global Dimming. Global dimming effects are lessened rates of evaporation and cooler temperatures. Global dimming is caused by particulate matter from pollutants.
So you could say that burning oil can regulate itself by some margin.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/529/global-dimming [globalissues.org]

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

caerwyn (38056) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627626)

This is true, but all major client models take this into account. The cooling effect from particulates is vastly smaller than the warming effect from concurrently emitted greenhouse gases.

Re:Meanwhile... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627444)

You are fucking retarded.

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627656)

How did you get modded +5 insightful for a bald faced lie?

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

cats-paw (34890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627764)

this crap gets modded insightful ?

there's no consensus among oil companies that humans are affecting the climate. Scientists who actually have a clue do have a pretty good idea what's going on, and people like you are never going to believe what they have to say regardless of how much evidence gets shoved in your face.

why is it all you denier types think there is a vast conspiracy of grant-writing culture members but think that multi-billion dollar corporations WHO HAVE NO ETHICAL STANDARDS WHATSOEVER, except to make money, are somehow not interested in spreading disinformation.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627868)

It's been very clear for me, that climate is behaving very strangely the last years where i live : ( a very wet previous autumn, a very cold winter with a lot more snow , a very warm spring , a very cold summer , a very dry autumn , a very mild winter , with occasional heavy storms )

My guess is that out of balance now, which is why we get such strange weather.

Re:Meanwhile... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38626846)

As you type this in from a computer thats electricity was probably generated by natural gas or coal. (hint those are the two largest polluters in the world). As you sit in your house with its fertilized yard with fertilizer created from oil, on your chair with foam made from oil, in the room painted with oil, typing on plastic keys created by oil.... See my point?

It is *everywhere*. We as a society are addicted to the stuff. We use it by the metric ton.

What is my point of this? You sit all smug in your computer chair or couch or wherever saying others should 'listen to you'. Guess what you sound like a twat who tells others what to do without realizing you yourself are part of the problem. Want to change peoples minds? Its simple, pollution sucks. People get that. "we might be changing the climate" will get you a yawn and no one will really care. But lets say 100% of everyone gets the point. What is the alternative? The current one on the table (and being implemented) is higher taxes. That helps very little and does not actually make things better. It just means those who can afford to will pollute will while you pick up the tab. As those same companies can afford it (due to many of them being regulated monopolies). And companies will just do what they always do. They will pass down the cost to the consumer. As guess what I can not buy my electricity from someone else I pay a higher price for no change. I need to get to work so I can buy food for my family (so I have a car). Without a radical remaking of our entire society nothing will change.

I'm in area power by nukes and natural gas (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626904)

The coal is up north But I do see the train cars full it going up to the plant from time to time.

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626928)

I'll be more than happy to join an environmentally friendly, self-sustaining commune where all food is grown or killed, and electricity is generated by "exercise duty" so that the people have power and stay physically fit. Your "job" could be to pedal power 8 hours a day and you could read any literature you wanted while doing so.

The problem is that those types of situations attract more than their share of dope-addled(not the harmless marijuana, but the ex-crack and meth-heads whose brains have been rendered into mush), stinky, lecherous pederasts; and the politically correct atmosphere allows for leeches who do not put in their fair share.

I speak with authority because I have toured such communes in rural Washington.

Re:Meanwhile... (4, Insightful)

caerwyn (38056) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627694)

What is my point of this? You sit all smug in your computer chair or couch or wherever saying others should 'listen to you'. Guess what you sound like a twat who tells others what to do without realizing you yourself are part of the problem. Want to change peoples minds? Its simple, pollution sucks. People get that. "we might be changing the climate" will get you a yawn and no one will really care. But lets say 100% of everyone gets the point. What is the alternative? The current one on the table (and being implemented) is higher taxes. That helps very little and does not actually make things better. It just means those who can afford to will pollute will while you pick up the tab. As those same companies can afford it (due to many of them being regulated monopolies). And companies will just do what they always do. They will pass down the cost to the consumer. As guess what I can not buy my electricity from someone else I pay a higher price for no change. I need to get to work so I can buy food for my family (so I have a car). Without a radical remaking of our entire society nothing will change.

This is not strictly true. The point of taxes on carbon emissions is that it helps to reduce externalities- costs that party A incurs and party B must pay, without an actual economic link between them. For instance, power plants currently emit pollutants (including greenhouse gases). Those pollutants ultimately result in costs (health care cost increases, infrastructure development to deal with changing climate, environmental reclamation costs) that are not paid by the entity that reaps the benefit from incurring them - the power plant operators. By placing a tax on the polluting activities, we cause those entities to pay for the costs that they are incurring. That cost more fully reflects the actual cost of the good that they are providing- electricity produced from coal, which levels the playing field for alternative energy sources which do *not* incur such external costs. *That* is the point of such taxation- to *level* the playing field by actually making every pay for all of the costs that they incur to society.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627356)

This ought to be a real gas.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627432)

we don't burn millions of tons of plastic in barrels as an industry

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627538)

You are wrong, it has already started. In a few years actually, there will be a lot of changes...to worst of course.

The USA in second place? (3, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626728)

Our CO2 output has only grown 21% since 1970. We simply MUST do better.

With just a little more effort on each persons part, we can once again be in first place.

Re:The USA in second place? (4, Informative)

niftydude (1745144) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626790)

Don't worry - USA is still winning per capita!

Re:The USA in second place? (2)

fred911 (83970) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627358)

From the US census bureau numbers of world population, the US accounts for 4.48% of the world, with a Jan 2012 population date. They use a population date of Nov 2010 for comparison, and put China at 19.18% with relation to the current US census numbers (dont ask).
  Seeing how we consider China to be a "developing industrial" nation, and the US "developed", whos the real dirty dog?

Re:The USA in second place? (1)

niftydude (1745144) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627766)

Quite a sophisticated argument to justify individual selfishness you have there.
So according to your logic, each country in the world should be allocated the exact same resources, without taking into regard the size of their population?

Well if that is what everyone agrees to - I guess I'm moving to Iceland! (pop. 320,000).

Re:The USA in second place? (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627698)

We *shifted* the majority of our carbon emissions involved in manufacturing to China. A lot of China's emissions should be charged to *us*.

Interesting turn this post took (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38626738)

It started off talking about pollution and health hazards, then changed the subject to carbon dioxide. Then it changed the subject back to pollution.

Juxtaposition is not an argument.

Re:Interesting turn this post took (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626808)

Juxtaposition is not an argument.

What argument do you think was being made? The summary just grouped separate environmental reports into the one post. Do you also think that it was a problem that they mentioned more than one country when the story title just mentioned China?

Re:Interesting turn this post took (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627862)

No, I think he was pointing at the fact that, although the article talks a lot about 'pollution' the numbers it gives only refer to CO2. Which is not pollution. Doh.

Stupid numbers (2)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626748)

According to this report, China now produces 6,832 m tons of CO2, a 754% increase since 1971.

Why not going back to numbers of middle age? That should be a quite impressive increase then. For anyone who knows Chinese history, it's obvious that activity in 1971 wasn't high, so it really doesn't make sense at all. And by the way, since when CO2 is one of the worth polluting component? Judging by the short version, it doesn't at all make me want to read TFA. Then I still did, and TFA is crap. Come to Shanghai, and I'll show you that the biggest issue isn't CO2!!!

Re:Stupid numbers (2)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626760)

Come to Shanghai, and I'll show you that the biggest issue isn't CO2!!!

Yeah, it's pirates! Right?

Re:Stupid numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38626984)

Pirates of recycling waste disposal?

Re:Stupid numbers (4, Interesting)

JimCanuck (2474366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626772)

But 1971 is such a good year to pick, after a decade of China not only stopping any real industrialization, but instead falling apart in its manufacturing and technological base, while at the same time it was the start of the EPA and the Clean Air Act in the US. It helps skew the numbers the right direction for a politically motivated article.

/sarcasm

China in 1971 might as well have been the Democratic Republic of Congo technology and manufacturing wise, actually I think the Congo today outperforms what all of China did then!

Re:Stupid numbers (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626870)

China is the only nation that doesn't have to care about pollution. They already have a population problem. Let their pollution cull the population a bit, and it's a win-win situation.

It's not like the average Chinese citizen is gonna be charged $100,000 for a single hospital visit.

Re:Stupid numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627202)

Yeah they'd never be stupid enough to let a system that bad exist in their healthcare.

Re:Stupid numbers (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38626786)

This comes on the heels of a separate report that lists China as the worst polluter worldwide

No shit.
Last time I checked (big industry) == (big pollution).

Some people also expects a Ferrari is going to get great gas mileage.

Re:Stupid numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627118)

Of course Shanghai's biggest issue isn't CO2. The Jiangsu and Zhejiang region is China's trade and financial center, with very light manufacturing. Most of the polluters are well to the west and north. But your fortune of being insulated in that city doesn't mean there is no pollution problem. As for the 1971 starting date, it is indeed unfortunate that it comes without historical context. However, the problem of climate change cannot be dismissed because some report was insensitive to history. They can say the US experienced a 6000 percent increase from the 1910's, and while it may be insensitive to the history of post-depression growth, it still wouldn't alter the facts of the issue at hand -- which is that the problem exists NOW, and the solution depends on EVERYONE.

Re:Stupid numbers (2)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627550)

1) I'm pretty sure gp meant the problem was pollution in the traditional sense (poor air quality), which is what most of the summary was about, is the bigger problem
2) the dates make for a meaningless comparison,making I clear the article is a fluff piece.

CA on is a real problem, but is not what I assume the primary focus of the article is, as it's not generally called pollution.

Re:Stupid numbers (2)

plover (150551) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627768)

1971 is a very sensible choice. 1971 marked the start of U.S. - China trade, which was the starting point of China's massive industrialization boom. China's pollution problems were minor until Tricky Dick's visit.

And while CO2 may not be the best number to measure for human health problems, it's an important measure with respect to global climate change. Other pollutants simply don't matter to the U.S. Chinese particulates are regional, and precipitate out long before they get across the Pacific. Remember, as long as we get cheap consumer goods from them we don't care how much China pollutes their own sky, their own dirt, or the oceans. We only want to worry about their contribution to CO2 around the globe, which everyone else says is causing global warming, and we want to look slightly less insane to Europe. And because in Congress it's easy to get near-unanimous agreement to say "China, you must pollute less," but the Republicans would never order our own industries to cut emissions of any sort.

So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. (1, Insightful)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626764)

These stories are another way to block CO2 reduction. Provide some statistics that make it look like China is main polluter and therefore they need to change before the US should.

I think the fairest way to measure this is CO2 per person (possibly with allowances made for cold countries). As each person has a requirement for energy for personal and economic use, that will require CO2 to be produced. Saying China should not be allowed to burn the same amount of CO2 per person as the US for cheep power and petrol will not go anywhere, the US is still the problem.

Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38626798)

I think the fairest way to measure this is CO2 per person

Should be per unit of GDP or some other measure of economic activity. Economic activity takes energy.

China has half GPD than USA but pollutes more, so they are less efficient in this way.

Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. (2)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626898)

Seriously how capitalist can you be?

How do you arrive at this premise? That the free market is entitled to write whatever rules it likes to beat china. That a persons worth and rights is proportional to his income, yes this does happen but there is no ethical or moral justification for it.

Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. (1)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626966)

Dammit, successful troll was successful.

Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627034)

How do you arrive at this premise?

Umm, basic sanity? Because it's the only thing that makes any sense?

A thousand people running an automobile production plant creates more pollution than a million people sitting around in tents doing nothing.

Can you claim with a straight face that economic activity is unrelated to pollution? Of course the nature of it matters too, but it takes energy to run those server farms, manufacture those tractors and airliners, and so on. It isn't a perfect 1:1 thing between GDP and energy use due to variances in technology and so on, and that's where the US is doing much better than China here: it's producing more economic output with less overall pollution.

Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. (1)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627166)

You still are equating a persons worth to his income/lifestyle. If everyone sat around in tents climate change would not be an issue.

To reduce CO2 emissions those cars should either not be made or be constructed more efficiently costing more. The pollution making the care effects both. Regardless of the reasons why, the car maker is destroying both peoples environment while the guy in the tent is innocent.

That logic only make moral and ethical sense if you are a selfish American supremacist capitalist (yes there is redundancy there). The rest of western world pushes the guilt to the back of their minds or tries ignore that this occurs.

Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627272)

I think the correct comparison is 100 people in a rich country generating x tons of CO2 producing cell phones, compared to 100 people in a poor country generating the same x tons of CO2 burning coal inefficiently. Clearly the first activity is preferable as it actually produces something useful in exchange for the CO2 emission. How to quantify this? Income, which is a measure of how economically valuable a person's activity is. For a whole country we end up with CO2 per unit of GDP.

Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627372)

You still are equating a persons worth to his income/lifestyle

Umm, no. You are putting words in my mouth. I've never said any such thing. I am making a simple observation about reality, that is all.

Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. (5, Informative)

JimCanuck (2474366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626804)

Per person you say?

Qatar is number one at 53.5 tons per person, followed by Trinidad and Tobago at 37.3 tons oddly enough.

Going down the list you find Australia to be the number one developed polluter per person at 18.9 tons, giving it 11th place. Immediately afterwords at 12th place is the US at 17.5 tons per person. We Canadians are 15th with 16.4 tons per person, and going down you find Russia at 12.1 tons per person or 23rd.

Germany is 37th with 9.6 tons per person, Greece is 41st with 8.8 tons, The UK is 43 with 8.5 tons. And France who can forget them at 6.1 tons, they are 65th.

For the drum roll, China is number 78th at a mere 5.3 tons per person.

All per the US Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)

Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. (1)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626856)

For the drum roll, China is number 78th at a mere 5.3 tons per person.

So its the rich, especially those with oil, that are the problem. I stand corrected.

China is a small fish though.

Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. (4, Informative)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627044)

This graph [cam.ac.uk] is more interesting - it shows Co2 emissions per capita against population (so area of rectange = absolute emissions). Being able to compare the area visually gives a better indication as to the degree of the problem in each nation. This graph [cam.ac.uk] shows another interesting thing - responsibility for cumulative/historical co2 emissions. Since co2 stays in the air for 50 to 100 years, the vast majority of co2 that is in the air right now was actually put there by the nations that were industrialised throughout the last century - ie. the US and Western Europe.

btw. The author of that book also addresses the issue of China:

What about China, that naughty “out of control” country? Yes, the area of China’s rectangle is about the same as the USA’s, but the fact is that their per-capita emissions are below the world average. India’s per-capita emissions are less than half the world average. Moreover, it’s worth bearing in mind that much of the industrial emissions of China and India are associated with the manufacture of stuff for rich countries.

So, assuming that “something needs to be done” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, who has a special responsibility to do something? As I said, that’s an ethical question. But I find it hard to imagine any system of ethics that denies that the responsibility falls especially on the countries to the left hand side of this diagram – the countries whose emissions are two, three, or four times the world average. Countries that are most able to pay. Countries like Britain and the USA, for example.

Whether "it is fair to share CO2 emission rights equally across the world's population" is an ethical question, as is the question of who should pay to clean up a problem like this, but it is hard to construct a moral argument that a Westerner should be entitled to emit more co2 than a person born in another nation. Why should we have this entitlement?

Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627684)

Why should we have this entitlement?

It's not an entitlement: it's a step on the way to a better future for all, and we are at that step because of the confluence of good fortune and organizational competence.

The question of why a Westerner emits more CO2 than a non-Westerner is couched in the language of geography, which brings to mind the "Guns, Germs and Steel" theory. We gained the ability to use hydrocarbons for energy through the good fortune of having the right resources and population density to make the industrial leap. That's just one step, though, on the longer scale of human progress, and it's time to move to alternative energy supplies like nuclear power, solar power, and other greener technologies to provide energy: that's where the "Guns, Germs and Steel" arguments fall short, because there's an element of human agency, and thus of ethics, missing in the form of our ability to organize and choose efficiency.

To some extent, organizational competence also helps explain why we in the West exploit resources differently than non-Westerners. Take Israel as a case study: snark all you want, but Israel is patently more organized than its neighbors. They are more prosperous and more militarily successful because they organized themselves for those goals, while their neighbors did not. Similarly, China has become prosperous and has taken a leading role in industry because of their organizational competence, while India still lags behind because of corruption and a failure to organize as efficiently. Mexico is dragged down by inefficiencies and corruption, while the US flourished. There are some geographic factors that helped or hindered each of these along the way, but there are also organizational choices that each society made: the case of Israel and her neighbors, being roughly equivalent geographically, should make that clear. Zimbabwe's history and the Haitian/Dominican divide should illustrate that as well: on the one hand, a country went from mediocrity to failure within a few years; on the other, a single island is split between beauty and immense poverty. There is a very real power to the ability to form and maintain order.

That power derives from human agency: the power of choice. Countries that reached the top of the energy usage charts chose certain forms of organization that, for all their superficial differences, are more or less similar. They all have certain amounts of regulations in otherwise open markets (the Soviet Union failed, and China became more or less capitalist) with a mix between central planning and demand-based markets. The Chinese are demanding more oversight in some respects (like milk production) and more freedom in others, and this evolution is today bringing them closer to the other industrialized leaders. Pollution is going to be one of those areas in which the people demand organization (regulation), and the leaders of China are already working on this (solar and nuclear power are major fields for new development and investment there).

The West requires immense amounts of energy because it has organized itself enough to enter the industrial age through the gateway of hydrocarbon use. Non-Western nations like China and India are following the same path, but they're beginning to work on alternate solutions to sustain growth while diminishing their reliance on hydrocarbons. Brazil likewise has put effort into ethanol. They've demonstrated the organizational competence we achieved and are moving to even more efficient solutions because they now have the organizational competence required to move to the next step. They're taking the next step beyond CO2 reliance, and it's an ethical failing of the developed West that we didn't take the lead in that initiative.

We've become mired in inefficiency and corruption. It's becoming a cultural issue: see the story earlier today on SOPA/PIPA and the indignation of the comments, or any story on the economy, sovereign debt, or politics. The anger in the comments gets expressed in different ways (anti-government, anti-corporations, anti-whatever), but it's all rooted in the realization of a failure to maintain the right balances necessary for a competently organized society. Certain segments of society have vested interests in inefficiency, and the inefficiency of our continued reliance on CO2-emitting energy sources instead of reorganizing ourselves for the development of nuclear and green power is profitable to those vested interests.

China is less hindered in that respect, and it may be that they end up with more organization competence than we can muster -- they may make the leap to the next phase of energy use first. While some here have expressed cynicism about China's purposes in publishing pollution reports, it may well be the tip of a centrally-planned awareness campaign designed to push their nation into less-polluting industrialization and a high standard of living that doesn't require a high rate of CO2 emission. The perspective you take on their actions depends on how you view the institutions of social organization: as corrupt and mendacious or as aspiring to a better future -- and that is, in the end, a coloring that depends on your own culture's level of organizational competence.

I, for one, hope that China is serious about this and that we in the West can work with them in a spirit of honest competition -- not ZOMG teh ENEMY but a mutual striving to increase the all-around standard of living for our respective peoples by building a better future through technological progress coupled with a willingness to share technologies that create common benefits like lowered CO2 emissions. We can compete to build better reactors and solar cells, better cars and battery packs, better lives that the other nation's people will envy and emulate; and, we can cooperate to build a world that's safe and healthy. Or, we can follow Haiti and Somalia and the Soviet Union into failure. It all depends on what we choose.

The CO2 we release is a result of our progress towards becoming more efficient and competent at organizing ourselves with moderation and prudence; whether we make the next step into reducing our emissions or have that step forced on us by the eventual end of oil and the collapse of our way of life is the ethical question that faces us.

Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38626820)

USA has a population of 308,745,538 while China has a population of 1,339,724,852. So per capita the US has three times as high CO2 emissions as China. Comparing total emissions for different countries is very misleading and calling China the worst offender is just ridiculous. But I guess that's the point, to bullshit us into being scared of the evil chinese.

Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Re:So the US was big polluter 30 years ago. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38626954)

Wrong. When we talk about mitigating pollution, per capital numbers are meaningless. In the context of climate change, the potential harm is caused by the totality of greenhouse gas output. When government intervention is the only effective solution, we are forced to look at the problem and its solution as bounded by what each government is able to control. Since the Chinese government has power over the greatest amount of pollution, its participation in reduction treaties is essential, and its responsibility to the future the greatest.

You can bring up the role of the US in the past, and its role as the top contributor to the problem, but that would be another argument altogether, and it still would not change the responsibility to act that is borne by every country that has not had year-to-year reduction.

In other news. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38626778)

Slashdot goes a day without having a story about china on it's frontpage. Wait, that was just a dream.
Sure we get that the US government wants to go to war with china and russia, no need to harp on about it.

Re:In other news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627024)

Why, do you have some personal stake in China's good name on the internet? As to your second claim about the US itching to go to war with China, let me point out that there are far more discussions on the topic of a future China-US war on Chinese bbs forums than there are on US forums. What does that say about the public attitude, and who wants to go to war with whom?

Re:In other news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627508)

It's just a reflection of the US attitude of "attack first, discuss later".

If you are a potential/likely target of attack from a military superpower, you'd be concerned too.

Re:In other news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627250)

Dude, what would you do if you can't make your mortgage payments, and you have a gun?
Answer: You go and rob the bank.

Great! (1)

TheRedSeven (1234758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626780)

I love reading fiction!

Zzz (5, Insightful)

XiaoMing (1574363) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626796)

I guess it shouldn't be surprising anymore that the concept of "per capita" is once again completely omitted to make a headline rather than a point?
7000 MTon vs 5000 MTon... hmm doesn't sound impressive enough, let's try 754% vs 21%!! Oh my god!

How about 5.4 Ton/person (China) vs. 16.7 Ton/person (U.S.)?
Or better yet, how about 90+% of U.S. consumer needs being shifted to China?

Not only is China already more efficient in what it does for the CO2 it's producing compared to the U.S., it's supplying the rest of the world too. What's the complaint here?

Re:Zzz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38626908)

Where're my mod points when I need them? Mod parent up!

China: 6.832 billion tons CO2 for 1.3314 billion population = 5.13 tons CO2 per person
USA: 5.195 billion tons CO2 for 307.007 million population = 16.92 tons CO2 per person

(using 2009 population figures courtesy Google Public Data [google.com] .) And as noted, that's even despite China doing a huge amount of production for the US market (ie. CO2 for US population is being counted as for Chinese population.)

It's clear where the bigger problem lies!

Re:Zzz (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627066)

When blaming the US for CO2 production, it's also worth considering this lil' thingy I ran into a while ago (googled for it again)

http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/41060.html [livejournal.com]

Yes, it is true the US produces a hell of a lot of CO2 per capita. It is also true that the US has the good fortune, climate wise, to be an overall net absorber of CO2.

You know, if that makes anyone in the US feel better...

This is totally setting aside questions of overall longterm impact and most effective mitigation strategies, and just focusing on the fingerpointing that's been going on lately.

Re:Zzz (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627298)

That's something that people really ought to keep in mind. It doesn't necessarily excuse emitting too much, but it is something which should be factored into the equation. Ultimately it's the relative change in CO2 levels that people are worried about, not necessarily how much is being emitted. If you emit 1 ton of CO2 by burning lumber but you grow enough lumber to burn that initial material you haven't really changed the total amount at all, or have done so by some other amount related to the energy used to produce the lumber in the first place.

Re:Zzz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627814)

Trotting out per capita numbers here is just as stupid and ignorant of historical context. Quick America, pump out 700,000,000 dirt poor peasant babies (making sure you weed out most of the girls, to account for that shining period of The Middle Kingdom's history). That way your per capita numbers will go down!

Measuring CO2... only? (5, Insightful)

SalsaDoom (14830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626800)

This is a funny numbers game. CO2 is far from the worst greenhouse gas, so all these people posting their reactions about Americans and their big suv's, cars whatever, need to look more closely at which gases cause the most greenhouse effects, and where these gases come from.

You can fit me into the "greenhouse deniers" if you like, but I'm suspicious of pretty much all the data that is surrounding this issue -- there is too much money to be made on "popular" science like this for there to be any real hope of getting sound scientific data right now...

I've also yet to hear anyone make a reasonable sounding proposal to make any positive changes, its always up in the air stuff like "We all need to hold hands and plant trees and drive less" -- that's absurd. Lowering pollution is a good idea whatever the effects on temperature so I'm all for this goal, but to actually get to the point of seriously damaging the economy and lives we've all come to like living isn't going to happen and shouldn't. These are scientific issues and probably have scientific solutions.

People seem to want impossible things on this issue. Hippies are an illogical group of people who work solely in knee-jerk reactions and boogey-man scare tactics, they just complain without making much sense. Coal power bad, but nuclear is bad too! Damn, these goes our safest and best way to generate power. It all has to be hippie-power, hydro and solar. Yeah, well, if that worked then why wouldn't they use it, they can fleece us on power bills with solar or hydro just as easily as coal or nuke.

I don't see a lot of logic and reason with this entire issue.

Re:Measuring CO2... only? (2)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626994)

there is too much money to be made on "popular" science like this

Oddly enough far, far less then can be made from working with various PR groups (eg. Heartland Institute) denying it. A puzzle writing snakeoil salesman like Monckton makes more money as a travelling climate "expert" than any Nobel prize winner, and it's the same with the various economists that are rolled out to supply the feelgood message that we don't have to do anything.
Do you really think people are freezing their arses off in the coldest places on the planet faking data when they could be at home faking it where it is warm?
This weird science denying crap is annoying.

Re:Measuring CO2... only? (2, Interesting)

SalsaDoom (14830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627104)

there is too much money to be made on "popular" science like this

Oddly enough far, far less then can be made from working with various PR groups (eg. Heartland Institute) denying it. A puzzle writing snakeoil salesman like Monckton makes more money as a travelling climate "expert" than any Nobel prize winner, and it's the same with the various economists that are rolled out to supply the feelgood message that we don't have to do anything.
Do you really think people are freezing their arses off in the coldest places on the planet faking data when they could be at home faking it where it is warm?
This weird science denying crap is annoying.

Well, is that a fact, though?

Also, even if so, that doesn't actually change anything -- because what you are talking about are lobby groups, not scientific researchers. Lobby groups always make a tonne of cash, but take a good look at the number of environmental organizations that are actually lobby groups, there are a great many of them and they all appear to be well funded. Its easy to say, "oh look, this climate change skeptic got paid a bunch.." but look at the other way, entire pro-climate change organizations get massively funded as well.

Let be clear here, I never said that pro-climate change people are "faking data" -- you just made that up, I never said it, and I don't even believe that. What I'm saying is that they have data showing something, and that they seed models with that data and that I doubt those models are as accurate as they believe they are. The only way to actually tell the accuracy of those models is to wait and see what happens.

If you are going to fake data for money, you should at least make the attempt look believable, so yes, you would go and chill out somewhere cold for a little bit even if you just made the numbers up.

Finally, "science" means "testable claims". "weird science denying crap" seems to have nothing to do with anything I've said. Climate research does not turn up a lot of short-term testable claims, and that's the problem with this whole issue, is that actually testing these theories is extremely difficult.

Re:Measuring CO2... only? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627448)

Those nicely shifted goalposts may give you a warm fuzzy feeling but to me they tell me enough to let me know that we have left the realm of rational discussion long behind. Enjoy writing your fiction kid but I'm going elsewhere where there are a few less idiotic luddites that like to pretend that science is worthless.

Re:Measuring CO2... only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627844)

Also, forget making a monthly budget. I mean, you can seed that forecast with your "data," but the only way to really know how much money you'll have left at the end of the month is to wait and see.

Re:Measuring CO2... only? (2)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627136)

there is too much money to be made on "popular" science like this

seriously damaging the economy

I'm guessing you don't see any contradiction here? Or are you referring to all those researchers who have apparently been getting rich doing climate science? Coz I'm not seeing any - maybe they're hiding behind all the oil billionaires.

These are scientific issues and probably have scientific solutions.

And if they don't? I'd actually call dramatic increases in storms/drought/famines/conflicts/refugees something more than a "scientific problem".

Re:Measuring CO2... only? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627466)

Making money and damaging the economy are not mutually exclusive. The financial industry does this all the time: short-term profits in one market (i.e. offshoring, commodities speculation like oil, redistribution of wealth to fewer consumers) cause longer-term damage elsewhere. Carbon science, when used to promote carbon regulation, credits, or rationing, can enable unscrupulous participants in the financial industry to enrich themselves while impoverishing the nation.

For example, there is potential in carbon credit markets for short-term profits and long-term economic damage. If carbon credits should be traded on an insufficiently regulated commodities market, speculation would drive up the price of goods, much as oil speculation does now. Speculation driving carbon credits upward would act as a tool for redistributing wealth from the consumers (higher prices for necessary items siphons off their wealth) to the speculators, with the net result that funds previously available for consumption (and thus demand) are concentrated in fewer hands that, while consuming more individually, cannot make up in luxury spending the difference in numbers of consumers, so that aggregate demand is lower. Cheaper energy = more consumer spending = more demand = more jobs.

The scientists aren't the ones who would ever profit from this: the financial sector is (in a way, a superset of your "oil billionaires"). In the long run, they will find a way to make money off carbon science and carbon regulation -- carbon credit markets are one possibility, but regulatory capture is an art with many creative and resourceful practitioners. Yet, CO2 levels do need to be checked, and doing so provides a good opportunity for creating alternative cheap energy.

The best and most efficient way of lowering carbon emissions is to pour scientific effort and research dollars into zero-carbon or low-carbon energy solutions and electric vehicles that can take advantage of them -- move from an electric/gas mix as much as possible to an all-electric regime to reduce hydrocarbon demand. Nuclear power (especially thorium reactors), solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and other green energy solutions could provide electric power without a trading market (no more Enrons), but the research needs to be done and subsidized: in the long run, those subsidies are investments in cheaper energy and thus a better economy with more jobs. If we accept AGW and move on to funding basic research into thorium reactors, better solar power, etc. (which very likely means cooperating closely with China and India, since they seem more than willing to undertake this research because of their own need for cheaper energy), we stand a better chance of making everyone happy: reducing carbon emissions, fostering job growth, and reducing not only our dependence on coal and foreign oil but the entire world's funding for certain regimes that supply oil to the other major, industrialized nations (less Chinese money flowing into Iran means less Iran to worry about).

Obstinately refusing to get past the AGW issue just digs us in deeper. Reform of the financial sector is needed too (breaking up the TBTFs would be a nice start), because that's where the money will be made at the economy's expense.

Indian smog in winter ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38626814)

I've been to India (Delhi) during January and I can confirm that the fog is extremely polluted: what came out of my nose was no longer green, but black. i.e the junk that my nasal hairs had been filtering out of the air was seriously polluted. It took less than *one day* of walking around Delhi for my nose to become that polluted. Not even Beijing, China, has air as bad as that.

Re:Indian smog in winter ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38626896)

I've been to India (Delhi) during January and I can confirm that the fog is extremely polluted: what came out of my nose was no longer green, but black. i.e the junk that my nasal hairs had been filtering out of the air was seriously polluted.

Eh, if it was green to start, see a doctor?

Re:Indian smog in winter ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627178)

Yes go to the doctor for a green booger that's a wonderful idea.

Re:Indian smog in winter ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627282)

India is a total third world shithole.
Ever wonder why the Tamils refuge from Sri Lanka chose to chance dicey voyages across the Pacific to Australia or Canada instead of treading over to neighbor India?
Guess the Tamils know something we don't?

get your bleeding hearts straight first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38626826)

If the west is so concerned about Chinese pollution, perhaps they can stop buying everything and the kitchen sink from the Chinese, and try keeping some manufacturing back at home.
Instead the west wants to suck and blow at the same time.

Re:get your bleeding hearts straight first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38626860)

Manufacturing in the USA is more expensive than China, which means goods made locally are more expensive than the imports. So either an American company offshores the manufacturing or someone else imports the goods anyway and undercuts the American company. Compare the price of a hand made wooden table made by the Amish community to something that you can get, imported, from IKEA.

If Americans weren't always shopping for the least expensive goods, then maybe America would have a chance, but no, every man and his dog wants the lowest price on everything.

Re:get your bleeding hearts straight first (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627312)

Except that's not really true when you factor into the equation all of the costs of manufacturing. Sure China has cheap labor and non-existent labor laws, but that's not the only cost. There's the cost of shipping, the cost of redoing shoddy work, the costs related to difficulties in monitoring the process, the different view of how contracts work and the cost of product recalls if there's too much lead or melamine in the product. Even trying to manufacture a product in the US for a EU business can be significantly more costly than producing it locally due to the increased challenge of keeping things monitored and going smoothly.

Consequently one of the things that's starting to happen is for American companies to take their manufacturing lines back from China and set them up back in the US.

That growth rate may be skewed (1)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38626858)

Millions were still dying as a result of famine & the cultural revolution in 1971, it's only natural emissions would spike once everyone stopped dying, but still...

OMG OMG OMG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627002)

OMG I don't get the point of this post.

China (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627098)

In other news, China will continue to be a place devoid of culture and morality. Chinese people will continue to be worthless human trash.

Re:China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627210)

What's even weirder is the west's intense fixation on such worthless society.
Sub-Saharan Africa doesn't get half the headlines as China, and I for one find negros contribute much more to the world than those worthless chinaman.
If it weren't for the negros selling everything to the chinaman, China would have nothing.

You can cut the hypocrisy with a knife (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627154)

Looking at this article and the creative use of facts, we realize liberals are just
as racist as anyone else if not more so.
We've had our industrial revolution so Africa, India, and China can't have theirs.

Of course (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627322)

Well this is what happens when you push capitalism all over the world. At one time they all had only bicycles, didn't they.

First reports submitted: (1)

superdave80 (1226592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627342)

Day 1: Air sucks big time. Day 2: Can hardly see across the street. Is this bad? Day 3: ... bad... Day 4: Did I mention the air sucks big time?

Re:First reports submitted: (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627518)

Day 5 : Air Pollution Level - Crazy Bad

Should we trust it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627390)

They talk about China finally publishing it's own environmental report, but it's been doing this for a while now, and every time being debunked by the US Embassy. So, any reason why this one would be more trustworthy?
Just look up Crazy Bad Pollution...

China, India, et al better be careful... (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627436)

They go putting their people before the profits of the multinationals, and the multinationals will relocate to Mars or Venus...with Corporate America leading the way.

Re:China, India, et al better be careful... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627566)

Vietnam is the place to go next. Cheaper and their Party understands the needs of investors rather a place on the world stage.

A better comparison: CO2 Tonnes per km2 (1)

blanchae (965013) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627658)

Canada was getting a pretty bad rap last month and the sad part is that the big polluters were the ones who had the loudest voices.

How about a better comparison: Pollution(CO2 tonnes) vs area of land (km2) [cadvision.com] ? This is a better comparison based on the CO2 tonnes divided by the area of the country/region with a resultant tonnes of CO2 per km2 value:

Sources:

Wikipedia for areas of country/region
IEA CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2011

(and yes I am Canadian)

That's not pollution (0)

Arker (91948) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627840)

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants - elements that should not be present. CO2 is a natural and normal component of the atmosphere. This is just bad pseudo-science in the service of a political agenda. Get back to me when you have numbers on actual pollutants.

False Science: Missing Radiation Tests (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38627750)

I hate to echo the same thing over and over but it seems to be needed.
It's no longer good enought to just say this stuff doesn't exhist, it exhists, " it's time you prove it doesn't exhist " or shut up and listen.

I call bs, just like in the USA, the weather guys/gals on tv dont tell you nothing about the fukushima fallout or hot particles.
It's not a real report when it ignores the fallout from fukushima. It's not a real weatherman, not a real journalist, it's not real science, it's a political agenda, oh sure they might get the local temperature correct, and they have a real dopler radar feed, or satellite feed, but that's it, that's where the science ends. Once you talk RF emission somehow it's no longer science.

This is no different than saying there are no chemtrails only contrails (condensation) but not actually forcing these " classified nato jet missions (tm) " in question down for inspection.and local public oversight, inspection, and mission statement. If I was the general on a Base, I would scramble some jets after their ass! And if they don't cooperate, I'd have them shot down as the foreign terrorists they are! The painted a big giant X over Sacramento YESTERDAY Jan 7th 2012, Why? What is the purpose? Don't tell me it's just the regular flight path, I lived here for more than 50 years! and I SEE the trails coming out of jets, then turning into clouds.

It's no different than saying there is no weather modification only climate change, without having any public oversight of all the haarp-like stations which are heating the ionisphere. For all anyone knows the Japan Tsunami could have happened because of HAARP like technology. Keep in mind, Haarp in Alaska is NOT the only station. Maybe there are weather wars. I don't care for kochs lies and manipulation or sorros lies and manipulation, I don't care where it comes from, it's LIES AND MANIPULATION! The Left / Right paradigm keeps people inactive.

I don't give a damn if haarp-technology/chemtrails/aerial spraying is classified, or privatly owned.. it's NOT science if it's skipped, and has no public oversight,
it's POLITICS/Police State agenda if it doesn't have these basic public oversights.

If greens want to fight climate change, they would be wise to invest in their own local infrastructure, restore the US constitution not give it away in a treaty!, raise/beef up your local levies, fix your local beaches, not to be a stooge and execute this globalist UN Agenda 21 crap, at the local official level, and paying tax to the globalist bankster level. It's our local city councils and local/state epa's, and international treaties which give away your rights and sovereignty. What's the point of having a no burn day, when you have hot particles of plutonium coming down when it rains!?

We are out of time for these games.
The people doing this are about ready to start world war three. how much time does it take to wake up and do something about these oath breaking fascists?

You know I speak from the heart. You know I speak as an aircraft electrician, electronics tech, and veteran. I am your neighbor, your friend, your local volunteer, I'm the guy who comes running over with a fire extinguisher when you accidentally catch your car on fire, what do I profit from any of this? I don't profit, I don't own shit, and I don't have a doctor, in fact the resentments and anger are actually killing my health now, but you don't give a crap, it's not effecting your health, you don't think about the horrible shit going on day after day, you don't have trouble sleeping, you can shut your mind down and relax, I can't anymore, I SEE where this is going.
it costs me TIME and money to even get the word out. Anybody calling me a kook without pointing to 100% public oversight on the activities I described above is an Agent provocateur, and you would be an imbicile for not checkin yourself.

I am just on anonymoous coward, I don't get shit. I'm not selling "prepper goods" I ain't selling anything but begging people to wake up, come to their senses, and restore the US Constitution. That one act puts nearly everything to a stop overnight! OVERNIGHT these fascists get stopped!

they could grow their economies (1)

cats-paw (34890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38627776)

and generate far less pollution, because they could have implemented pollution control technologies from the get-go.

Why they did not is a real mystery to me. Greed and corruption are almost certainly at the root of it, though.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>