Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Global Air Pollution, From Above

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the but-poverty-is-noble dept.

Science 545

neutron_p writes "Based on satellite observations, the high-resolution global atmospheric map of nitrogen dioxide pollution makes clear just how human activities impact air quality. I'm a bit surprised not to see that many red blobs above US and the strange one is on the east of Russia."

cancel ×

545 comments

n/t (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497278)

There's a red blob in my wife's knickers tonight.

Arse.

Re:n/t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497385)

sorry about that.

Re:n/t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497533)

If the missus is up on blocks, then go to the pub.

Re:n/t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497588)

Fuck, I got first post.

Pity the boozers are shut(ting) now.

Still, I can flip her over and pot the brown.

slashcode is the stuff (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497280)

writing a site like this in perl is retarded.

on a related note, php and mysql are also inappropriate for anything but 'hello, world!' webapps. thanks. bye.

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497410)

ASP.Net and MS SQL Server are the wave of the future. Bow down to Microsoft innovation, you sexless open source hippies!

Take note (5, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497285)

Take note everyone, the biggest red blob is over China (insert communist jokes here). For all the whining and complaining about how the US should have joined the Kyoto accord, it's very easy to see that China is the #1 offender, and that Europe is not doing so hot itself. What good would Kyoto have done if it exempted [sfsmith.com] the country who needs it most?

That being said, China is still developing. Pollution should be a big concern for them, but it's an unfortunate fact of life for now. As their technology improves, the pollution levels should drop. With one caveat, that is:

Many modernized countries have sent their manufacturing to China. Thus placing restrictions on countries to reduce their emissions will do little good when we've already sent the real pollution over there. I'm not sure how we can respond to the situation, but it's important to pay attention to it.

The blob over Canada is actually a bit surprising, but I'm guessing that's related to the earlier article on the odd increases in pollution levels. I do have a thought on why North America sees less pollution than Europe, however. Since the North America has a massive amount of farmland and forest land, a good deal of the pollution is sapped up by these massive carbon sinks. This doesn't actually impact NO2 levels, but it does explain some of the pollution reduction.

FWIW, it seems that NO2 is primary produced by cars [airqualityontario.com] . Moving to the hydrogen vehicles of the future may help stop almost all NO2 production.

(P.S. I know slashdotters have a penchant for insulting people, but please try to keep your replies civil. I don't know everything, so correct me in a polite manner. Thank you.)

Re:Take note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497320)

The real problem here is that the blob over China/Eastern Russia is only going to get much worse. More and more Chinese will start using motor vehicles and even industry won't limit production.

Re:Take note (4, Informative)

JeffSh (71237) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497346)

you are exactly right

but, not to take away from any of your statements at all, there is a gigantic underground coal fire in china that emits enough CO2 in one year to equal and surpass all exhaust from all cars in the US.

and that's just the coal fire burning coal, not counting all of the industrial development in china. it's no wonder things must be insane over there.

here's the first site i could find with info, there are better:
http://www.itc.nl/personal/coalfire/problem/china_ coalfire.html [www.itc.nl]

i had to repost, my first post was to the wrong place.. woops.

Re:Take note (3, Interesting)

JeffSh (71237) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497402)

this link works [www.itc.nl]

Re:Take note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497611)

The map doesn't track CO2, so the coal fire has nothing to do with the map. The map shows NO2: Nitrogen Dioxide.

Re:Take note (4, Informative)

plopez (54068) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497355)

I can't get to the link due to what appears to be the slashdot effect, but the synopsis says NO2 only.
No CO2, sulpher dioxide, methane, ozone, light hydrocarbons or other pollutants.

So to say the US is blameless is premature, you need to see all the pollutnats and how they interact.

Re:Take note (1, Insightful)

TheAxeMaster (762000) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497358)

FWIW, it seems that NO2 is primary produced by cars. Moving to the hydrogen vehicles of the future may help stop almost all NO2 production.

except for the fact that even with hydrogen powered vehicles you're still burning air unless you're talking about fuel cell technology, which is still too young to be widely useful. So even if we switch to burning hydrogen, you've still gotta burn it with air, which is something like 70% nitrogen, so it won't make a difference.

And not only that... (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497367)

...but China is set to outpace US oil consumption very soon.

With this much competition for oil, and peak oil production close or possibly already passed, it's sobering to think about what could be...

(And alternative fuels won't be the only way to release ourselves from oil dependence. One would hope that we'd continue to heavily research nuclear, including fusion, options; plans for complete nuclear non-proliferation completely kill any significant efforts in these areas, even for energy means.)

Re:And not only that... (2, Insightful)

Ctrl-Z (28806) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497388)

(And alternative fuels won't be the only way to release ourselves from oil dependence. One would hope that we'd continue to heavily research nuclear, including fusion, options; plans for complete nuclear non-proliferation completely kill any significant efforts in these areas, even for energy means.)

Are nuclear options not alternatives to fossil fuels?

Not in this context (2, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497422)

"Alternative" in this context usually refers to non-nuclear (and non-fossil fuel). Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc.

Re:And not only that... (2, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497473)

Are nuclear options not alternatives to fossil fuels?

Yes. And No.

There are two sides to the equation of power generation. One is large stationary power plants. Switching these to ever more modern nuclear designs would make a lot of sense, and would improve things dramatically.

Unfortunately, the other side of the equation is portable power generators like petroleum engines. (i.e. your car) These use power independent of the stationary plants and are much harder to find alternatives for. The best suggestion so far seems to be to switch to hydrogen for fuels, then create the hydrogen from the stationary power plants. That way we put all of our eggs back in one, easily controllable, basket.

Re:And not only that... (2, Interesting)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497599)

Unfortunately, the other side of the equation is portable power generators like petroleum engines. (i.e. your car) These use power independent of the stationary plants and are much harder to find alternatives for. The best suggestion so far seems to be to switch to hydrogen for fuels, then create the hydrogen from the stationary power plants

Better yet: Build nukes, and let people juice their cars up on hydrogen that they generate in their home garages through electrolysis of water using all that nuclear generated electricity that has become so plentiful... While you're at it, change your house over to electric heat from oil. That would be much easier than shipping all that hydrogen around, and we already have infrastructure in place to get the electricity and water to peoples homes, so there would be less initial investment required.

Re:Take note (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497375)

When it comes down to it, the only way the US would be harmed by Kyoto is electric power generation and automobiles. Since manufacturing is no longer done in this country, it wouldn't really harm industry. All of our pollution is now from power plants or cars. People have claimed that the purpose of Kyoto is to harm the US economically. I think the real purpose is to change American lifestyles and force them to take inefficient public transit and use less electricity. Either way, Kyoto is dead in the water. The only countries who agree to it are the ones that can use it as a weapon against competitors. Since the US Senate voted 98-0 in favor of scrapping it, this treaty will never be ratified, with or without Bush's support.

Re:Take note (3, Insightful)

aeroegnr (806702) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497379)

Even if all the cars in the world were hydrogen, we would still be polluting. Where do you think the electricity to make the hydrogen comes from? In the U.S., we'll have to get realistic about nuclear power and reprocessing, or else we won't have any alternatives to coal.

Re:Take note (3, Interesting)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497406)

The blob over Canada looks to me more like it's over the industrial sections of the Northeast, particularly the steel belt running from Ohio through Pennsylvania. I know the steel producers are regularly villified for pumping evil into the air, so perhaps this is just one more of them.

Re:Take note (1)

lphuberdeau (774176) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497415)

You've got a good pair of eyes! The image is very small. I can barly see a thing. Anyway, the blob you see in Canada seem to be in Alberta, where they extract petrol.

Pollution level does match the population density, it's just plain normal.

Re:Take note (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497420)

Note that the map shows nitrogen dioxide, not carbon dioxide. Most industrial air pollution can be filtered or avoided without reducing the amount of burnt fuel, but not carbon dioxide, which increases global warming. I would not be surprised to see a much higher CO2:NO2 ratio over North America and Europe than over China and other developing countries.

Re:Take note (3, Insightful)

drmike0099 (625308) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497437)

Looks like it's largely spilling out from the major industrial areas, which doesn't jive with the article you quote, but does go along w/ the article that the picture is in. It's spilling largely from the Detroit/Chicago area in the USA (as well as Pittsburgh/south NJ), eastern China, and southern England on that map, which coincides nicely w/ industrial centers. There really wasn't anything on top of Canada, I grew up under the northern end of that big red blob, and I was in upstate NY.

One of the lower posters also raised a good point. Being a successful economy means you can use your sources of energy to create more money. The USA has mastered this, largely because we were one of the first nations to do this, and because we were blessed w/ huge amounts of wood, then coal, and then oil that allowed us to get so far ahead. This is grossly oversimplified, but a lot of our infrastructure is already paid for, so our energy is cheap. Contrast that w/ China, who is just now trying to create that "good living through more energy" that we've enjoyed for decades, and you realize that their costs are higher. If they did it in a environmental way, it would cost even more, and they wouldn't make it as far w/ the same amount of money. It's easy to see why they have a black cloud, cuz that's what their money dictates. They'll spend more money in the future on it, but not until their (newly wealthier) middle class starts demanding it, and then they'll pass the cost along.

Re:Take note (4, Interesting)

krlynch (158571) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497458)

This doesn't actually impact NO2 levels, but it does explain some of the pollution reduction.

The primary reason that you don't see this type of pollution in the US is that the federal and local governments have taken a very agressive stance on NOx and SOx reduction from transportation (cars, trucks, and trains) and power plant (coal) sources. Some here have complained that the attack on these pollutants (along with particulate emission) has a lot to do with our lower fuel economy standards, as the rules make it pretty difficult, for instance, to introduce diesel powered cars, and they mandate the use of catalytic converters.

It isn't hard to understand why this has happened, either. NOx and SOx are the primary drivers of acid rain and smog, both of which directly and visibly impact quality of life in densely populated areas, like cities. Fixing them isn't something we have fought against, since the vast majority of Americans work and live in or near major cities, even in the "sparsely populated" parts of the country.

Western Europe on the other hand has chosen to go after consumption, and driven up fuel efficiency at the cost of reducing these types of pollutants. Given that Europeans tend to live in smaller, more distributed communities than Americans, smog, while a problem in Urban areas, directly impacts fewer people on a day to day basis than it does here.

Re:Take note (4, Informative)

Specter (11099) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497465)

National Geographic had an article recently about pollution in China and it was just down-right frightening.

Excerpts from the March 2004 issue are available here: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0403/featu re4/index.html [nationalgeographic.com]

Re:Take note (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497469)

The blob over Canada is actually a bit surprising

Looks like it's the Michigan Lakes area. That's a heavy industrial area in the US (steel mostly I think).

Re:Take note (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497500)

For all the whining and complaining about how the US should have joined the Kyoto accord, it's very easy to see that China is the #1 offender, and that Europe is not doing so hot itself. What good would Kyoto have done if it exempted the country who needs it most?

Umm... what? That makes no sense. The #1 offender being exempted doesn't magically erase the good of all the other countries signing the treaty. It's like saying "what's the good of arresting lesser terrorists if we haven't arrested Bin Laden?"

(P.S. I know slashdotters have a penchant for insulting people, but please try to keep your replies civil. I don't know everything, so correct me in a polite manner. Thank you.)

For future reference, characterising other people as whiners is not a good idea if you want replies to be civil.

Re:Take note (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497549)

The #1 offender being exempted doesn't magically erase the good of all the other countries signing the treaty. It's like saying "what's the good of arresting lesser terrorists if we haven't arrested Bin Laden?"

Look at the map. The NO2 levels in all other areas of the world don't even begin to compare to those of China.

For future reference, characterising other people as whiners is not a good idea if you want replies to be civil.

My apologies:

s/whining and complaining/loud vocal complaints/g

One step China has taken - (5, Informative)

Tristan7 (222645) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497502)

China has prohibitted the burning of wood by anybody, and has undertaken a massive reforestation project across the nation. Wood fires produce incredible amounts of pollutants, especially open cooking fires. By reforesting wherever they can, various types of pollution will be reduced. Of course, all this takes time, but it is a good step.

Re:Take note (1)

ILL Clinton (734169) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497509)

If you look closely you can see that the U.S. has some hot-spots, concentrated over the northeast and the west coast. Which include New York and L.A. respectively.

That's similar to how the electoral map looks.

ILL Clinton
Maker of Machinima movies. [illclan.com]

Re:Take note (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497523)

Well, also take note that the "red zones" across northern/central US also coorespond very well with the large concentration of coal burning power plants that exist in that area (mainly due to the easily availability of coal in that region).

So, I while car may be the primary producer, the amounts created are able to be dissapated/reduced/reused/stored by the environment/local areas. While coal power plants and coal fires produce a dramatic spike that can not be absorbed by the surrounding environment.

good start (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497526)

With or without Kyoto, China would be pumping pollution into the air. But with Kyoto, the rest of us would be pumping less, so that alone is reason enough to comply. The other, more subtle, reason is diplomatic. It's impossible for the US to pressure China into even minimal Kyoto compliance when the US hasn't signed it. Signing it would help us pressure them. Kyoto is a good start, which is better than nothing. The perfect is the enemy of the merely good. Even humans have to take baby steps towards big changes, walking before we run. Giant polluting countries are even more disposed towards incremental progress.

Re:Take note (5, Insightful)

halftrack (454203) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497545)

I'm a bit confused by the angle of your post. It seems to me that you would want China to reduce its emmissions too. However according to wikipedia China emits 2.3 tons per capita of CO2 while the U.S. 20.1 tons per capita (Europe at 8.5 tons per capita.) and isn't this the way to look at emissions? I believe that there is a base energy requirement to support one person and that for most of the world this - sadly - means burning fossil fuels. (At least at present time.) Thus shouldn't China really be allowed to release 5 times (gross product) as much as the U.S?

Now there aren't AFAIK any restrictions on China or other developing countries, but China has ratified the agreement and when they really step up as an industrialized country they will have restrictions imposed thus it is in their interest to stay within the future requirements.

Had there been placed restrictions on China or other developing countries they probably never would have signed the agreement because it might have inhibited their growth. (Now what is the real reason the U.S. isn't signing?)

Furthermore I don't think the true objective is reduced emissions, we're far to spoiled to let that happen. The point is getting a situation under control before it gets out of hand.

(P.S. I know slashdotters have a penchant for insulting people, but please try to keep your replies civil. I don't know everything, so correct me in a polite manner. Thank you.)
Ditto

Re:Take note (1)

Specter (11099) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497612)

Well if per capita is how we're going to measure it then pollution reduction is going to get a lot more popular in the US! Just think all we have to to is bump the population up to bring our per capita numbers down!

Just think: "Save the environment, have sex TODAY!"

Woo hoo!

huh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497286)

wtf?

I KNOW A FROSTY POST WHEN I SEE ONE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497287)

FROST TO YOUR MOTHER, BITCHES! KEEPING IT REAL.

# e try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) # If you want replies to your comments s# e try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) # If you want replies to your comments s

I'm not suprised, because I have a clue (5, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497288)

The submitter is suprised, but I'm not. Wealthy nations can AFFORD the luxury of enviromentalism, unlike poor ones like the former Soviet block and the third world. The solution is obvious, encourage more nations to become wealthy by helping them become free.

No serious student of current events can escape the reality that political freedom and economic prosperity are linked. The old soviet empire attempted to foster economic openness to gain it's productivity benefits while keeping political freedom in the hands of the Party. They failed. China is making the same attempt and the signs are they are also going to fail. Freedom is the natural state of affairs and you can't supress it in one sphere while keeping it in the others.

Rising standards of living solve most of the pressing problems facing the world today. Birth rates are lowest in the free/wealthy nations and highest in the poor/oppressed ones. Wealthy/Free nations don't tend to make war on each other. Wealthy nations don't tend to produce terrorists either.

Re:I'm not suprised, because I have a clue (1)

aeroegnr (806702) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497428)

Wow seems like some people don't like your opinion. (being modded straight down to hell) I definitely agree with what you just said.

Re:I'm not suprised, because I have a clue (-1, Troll)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497468)

Plenty of whack jobs who would use any chance they would get to incite terror in the USA.

And the USA made war on another country recently..

Too bad somebody with such a low UID is also a troll.

Re:I'm not suprised, because I have a clue (1)

aeroegnr (806702) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497530)

Yeah, and afghan females just voted for the first time--ever--thanks to U.S. involvement.

Re:I'm not suprised, because I have a clue (1)

cephyn (461066) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497571)

Yeah but what percentage of all afghans couldn't vote because the US can't control the guerilla insurgencies and warlord violence in certain areas of the country?

Doing something poorly or half-assed isn't always better. I'm sure that most afghans would prefer to be alive than the ability to vote. Taking the time to do something right is important, especially when lives are on the line.

Re:I'm not suprised, because I have a clue (0, Flamebait)

Capitalist1 (127579) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497529)

Actually, the wealthy nations pretty much *are* responsible for modern terrorism, but only because our universities have become such cesspools of the comfortably reality-deficient.

The basic pattern is: 1) guy from some backwards country wants an education 2) guy goes to a Western university, where he find that the Marxist and Multiculturalist professors teach him that the West is evil and everything the savages back home tell him is superior to the West 3) guy believes them, goes home, and becomes the most savage of the savages, because he believed what the Western professors taught him.

Terrorists don't usually come from the poorer strata. They come from the people who are affluent enough to find their way into our intellectual death camps.

Mod parent funny (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497558)

Don't read this, just do it!

Re:I'm not suprised, because I have a clue (2, Insightful)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497573)

I believe in your first statement, that wealthy nations can afford the luxury of environmentalism and that goes a long way in curbing pollution from industrial sources. However, I think that as a developing nation becomes wealthy and enacts pollution controls on industry, any environmentalism is offset by sheer numbers of individuals. This is a very complicated subject, but to take just one example... Currently, 1 in 3,000 Chinese people owns a car (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0 628_040628_chinacars.html). This small number has many reasons not the least of which is that they just can't afford them. As average wealth increase, so too will the number of cars on the road. As stated, this is a very complicated subject with lots of variables, but I would expect that as China becomes wealthier that they would definitely not see any decreases in the amount of pollution they emit.

Re:I'm not suprised, because I have a clue (2, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497579)

"The solution is obvious, encourage more nations to become wealthy by helping them become free."

So, BushCo should just keep trucking the troops into every non-democratic country to enforce democracy at gunpoint? I mean, Iraq and Afghanistan are such "Cataclysmic Successes" [Bush, 2004] and we all know that our humanitarian efforts are applauded by the international community.

I'm sure most non-G8 countries are lining up to be the next ,a href="http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Ce ntralAmerica.html">El Salvador, Columbia, Honduras, Nicauragua et al. I mean America is only acting in everyones best interest when they assisinate DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADERS who happen to be communist or socialist and surplant them with their own corporate owned "Democratic" puppet.

I'm sorry to sound trite, but your notion of a "simple solution" is so utterly niave and devoid of a clue that if you were in front of me at this moment, I'd be laughing hysterically while back handing you. Your statement is so stupid as to be both laughable and violently aggravating.

Someday you might decide to turn off Fox, pick up a book on US Foriegn policy in developing countries and realize that most countries hate us. Not for our freedom or SUV driving big Mac eating way of life, but for our policy of expolitation, assasination, political subversion and hypocritical support of biological warfare and terrorism where and when it serves out needs.

Actually, my simple plan would be for the US to get the fuck out of everyones face and go back to it's pre-WWI stance of isolationism and work on our domestic policy and our own problems instead of creating new ones for everyone else.
Hahaha -- Like that will ever happen.

Re:I'm not suprised, because I have a clue (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497583)

The solution is obvious, encourage more nations to become wealthy by helping them become free.

Unfortunately, the entire world cannot be free, because it simply isn't big enough. Imagine cramming 100 people in a 12' by 10' cell and telling them "Now, be free and happy!" What's going to happen?

Inevitably, some of the people who are stronger, more intelligent, or more persuasive than the others will end up shoving the "undesirables" into a cage in the corner of the room in order to give themselves "breathing space."

With 6 billion people on this planet, global freedom is a luxury we cannot afford.

Re:I'm not suprised, because I have a clue (1)

Aglassis (10161) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497636)

You said: "Rising standards of living solve most of the pressing problems facing the world today. Birth rates are lowest in the free/wealthy nations and highest in the poor/oppressed ones. Wealthy/Free nations don't tend to make war on each other. Wealthy nations don't tend to produce terrorists either."

Nothing new sadly enough. George C. Marshall said in his 1953 Nobel Peace Prize lecture [nobelprize.org] :
The third area I would like to discuss has to do with the problem of the millions who live under subnormal conditions and who have now come to a realization that they may aspire to a fair share of the God-given rights of human beings. Their aspirations present a challenge to the more favored nations to lend assistance in bettering the lot of the poorer. This is a special problem in the present crisis, but it is of basic importance to any successful effort toward an enduring peace. The question is not merely one of self-interest arising from the fact that these people present a situation which is a seed bed for either one or the other of two greatly differing ways of life. Ours is democracy, according to our interpretation of the meaning of that word. If we act with wisdom and magnanimity, we can guide these yearnings of the poor to a richer and better life through democracy.

Of course Marshall wasn't the first to say this (general idea), and was not the last either. If you look through the lectures in the Nobel archives, you will see this point stated over again many times. Its probably the most overlooked item by most people for achieving world peace because it is also one of the most difficult to accomplish.

Johannesburg glowing (2, Insightful)

Splinton (528692) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497291)

I see Johannesburg is the bright spot in Africa - probably has much to do with Sasol [sasol.com] oil-from-coal.

China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497292)

Stange one? You mean China? Yea just wait 10 years when their output increases.

too late! (1)

TheAxeMaster (762000) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497294)

already killed it!

anyway russia's regulations probably aren't as strict as they are here. I know that's an odd thing to say, that someone else is worse than us but it's true in a lot of places.

Pushed aside by hot air (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497297)

scnr

red blob over east russia (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497304)

that is likely due to some forest fires that have been burning in siberia

A quick mirror (2, Informative)

Exocet (3998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497306)

Since this site will probably get slashdotted ...I went ahead and made a quick PDF mirror [exocet.ca] of the article.

I don't normally make mirrors so if someone has a better method (somehow using wget?) lemme know.

PS: this is off've my 1.5Mb/768Kb DSL line, so don't expect any miracles.

Re:A quick mirror - I'm an idiot (5, Informative)

Exocet (3998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497327)

It's here [exocet.ca] . Sorry for the bad link, should have checked it in the preview.

Re:A quick mirror - I'm an idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497424)

post bad link, then a good one, great way to get modded informative for 2 posts aint it!

woah, take it easy, i'm just kidding.

Re:A quick mirror - I'm an idiot (1)

Exocet (3998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497491)

Haha yeah, I thought about that. The public humiliation is enough to keep me from doing it again, rest assured. :P

Re:A quick mirror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497331)

Umm... I'm getting a 404. Thats what you get for karmawhoring.

Are you crazy? (1)

Imidazole (775082) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497442)

Dude, you posted a link to a file your your puny little broadband connection is hosting? Jesus... On Slashdot?! Thats... insane. You /do/ know that major web hosting companies get something called SLASHDOTTED, right?

Re:Are you crazy? (1)

Exocet (3998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497560)

Well, it's a just a mirror and I clearly stated it was a PDF which I think Slashdot's denizens don't like for some reason. So I figure I'm safe and if not, oh well.

It's not like the article points directly to a 245KB PDF right off've my web server. :P

BTW: I fixed it so both links work, so no more 404 off've the "bad" initial link.

Red blob (4, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497307)

I'm a bit surprised not to see that many red blobs above US and the strange one is on the east of Russia.

That's the "Red menace", we've known about that since the '50s

That blob... (5, Funny)

drivers (45076) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497309)

on the east side of Russian is called "China."

Re:That blob... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497317)

Try Mongolia.

On the east coast of the United Gulags of America: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497421)


is none other than the world's most dangerous and inarticulate "leader" [whitehouse.org] .

Defend America: De-select George W. Bush

Thanks in advance,
Kilgore Trout .

Re:On the east coast of the United Gulags of Ameri (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497569)

I agree, sir, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Not Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497316)

It looks more like Northern China, which would make more sense.

night map (5, Interesting)

Coneasfast (690509) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497319)

note how the red areas are somewhat similar to the light areas on the nasa night map [sourceforge.net]

not so surprising (2, Informative)

uujjj (752925) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497321)

The US does have fairly strict emmisions laws (hence the small number of diesels). Any Americans who have traveled to Europe in the summer months will notice that they often have higher smog. London and Rome are especially nasty.

Re:not so surprising (1)

uujjj (752925) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497363)

emissions. lo siento

you are exactly right (-1, Redundant)

JeffSh (71237) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497324)

you are exactly right

but, not to take away from any of your statements at all, there is a gigantic underground coal fire in china that emits enough CO2 in one year to equal and surpass all exhaust from all cars in the US.

and that's just the coal fire burning coal, not counting all of the industrial development in china. it's no wonder things must be insane over there.

here's the first site i could find with info, there are better:
http://www.itc.nl/personal/coalfire/problem/china_ coalfire.html [www.itc.nl]

Re:you are exactly right (-1)

JeffSh (71237) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497373)

mod this down please, meant to reply to another post, my bad!

Re:you are exactly right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497630)

Not that I was going to email you, but if I wanted to I couldn't figure out how.

hmm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497328)

ok it's down... can someone please post an updated pic of it with the red blob included over where the server is located.. thanks..

all the pollution activist in the US are pointless (-1, Troll)

spacerodent (790183) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497333)

the rest of the world pollutes far more than the US nowdays and they don't really care that Johnny Q Hippy dosn't like it. They'll happily continue strip mining and using mercery to strip out copper from ore while they eat a tiger mcmuffin. All the eco freaks do is help ensure the US can't compete as well in the global market.

Re:all the pollution activist in the US are pointl (2, Insightful)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497414)

the rest of the world pollutes far more than the US nowdays and they don't really care that Johnny Q Hippy dosn't like it. They'll happily continue strip mining and using mercery to strip out copper from ore while they eat a tiger mcmuffin. All the eco freaks do is help ensure the US can't compete as well in the global market.
Read my lips. The US contains 5% of the world's population but consumes 25% of the world's resources.

Re:all the pollution activist in the US are pointl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497548)

It's just a crying shame that the rest of the 75% are consumed by nations that could care less about emission regulations....

Re:all the pollution activist in the US are pointl (0, Flamebait)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497594)

I entirely agree, the rest of the world could care less because they care a lot more than the US. The US, however, couldn't care less.

Re:all the pollution activist in the US are pointl (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497596)

Yet according to this map the US isn't producing 25% of the pollution...

Re:all the pollution activist in the US are pointl (1)

TheSync (5291) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497633)

The US contains 5% of the world's population but consumes 25% of the world's resources.

Not sure what your exact definition of "resources" is, but one should remember that the US produces 25% of global GDP - that is, 25% of the worlds goods and services.

Looking at pollution, CO2 emmissions per dollar of US GDP have been steadilly decreasing for 50 years. On the other hand, CO2 emmissions per capita in the US (and the UK) have held pretty steady, despite significant increases in GDP per capita.

The Oxbridge CO2/GDP Analysis [oxfordenergy.org] has some more data.

Re:all the pollution activist in the US are pointl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497515)

Pollution, by it's very nature, is a problem that transcends boundaries and political lines. It is a problem that all nations have to fight together. American manufacturing continues to exist, and it is because of the environmental laws that we are finding new ways to manufacture without the same amount of waste. It has become a problem of finding the most efficient way to utilize limited resources available. It's also an effect of the position of the united states as a post-industrial economy. Yes, manufacturing is still important to America. Yes, other countries are polluting more than we are. Does that mean that we should increase our greenhouse gas outputs to match? No. As a global leader, it is the responsibility of the United States to show that it is possible to continue manufacturing without the waste and pollution of generations past.

Re:all the pollution activist in the US are pointl (2, Insightful)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497604)

Among the larger nations, the US has the highest per-capita emissions in many things. But I think there's something more complex here. For example:

How many nations produce automobiles? US vehicles are used around the world.

How many nations produce aluminum? This is an extremely power-intensive procedure. (Anyone know what fraction of the US grid goes to these plants?)

I'm not sure about worldwide aluminum production, so I may be off there, but it's something to consider.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497336)

Red blobs pollute YOU!

Political (0, Troll)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497364)

Remember - if you do not vote with Slashdot, you are killing this planet on purpose. You are lower than Holocaust perpetrator. Kill yourself now, if you don't totally agree with scientific Slashdot proof that you are a EARTH MURDERER.

Re:Political (-1, Troll)

ddelrio (749862) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497499)

Kill yourself now if a map hurts your feelings.

Dihydrogen Monoxide is at fault (2, Funny)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497365)

I didn't see anything in the article about DHMO.

I'm sure that DHMO has something to with this since it is far worse for the environment.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide is at fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497460)

Hahahahahah, not! This joke was funny the first time around, not so funny the second time, not at all funny the third time, and it's definitely not funny now the 978th time around. For once, I wish jokes were patentable so that lazy boring nerds with absolutely no creativity would stop regurgitating them at every little opportunity.

Anyway, please mod parent redundant and put it out of its misery.

Russia? (4, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497371)

Um, no, that's largely China and maybe the Korean peninsula, although it does extend far enough to the North to encompass Vladivostok I think. Still, I suppose they have a better excuse than we do here Europe... That big red blob is mainly over the lowlands of Holland and surrounding areas, so it's either tulips or the output from the "coffee" shops of Amsterdam. I'm thinking it's probably not the tulips. ;)

Coral cache of mirror (4, Informative)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497386)

I have a Coral cache [nyud.net] of the pollution image map.

I am not a biologist (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10497404)

But since when is pollutions of this kind (along with acid rains) that localized? For example acid rains and excess nitrogen in the northern part of europe is mostly caused by industry in the southern and eastern part of europe. So I wouldn't go as far to start blaming the countries that have red blobs over them... And absolutley not a justification for the US' lack of ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

Where are the third world offenders? (3, Insightful)

Sheepdot (211478) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497483)

One of the biggest reasons why global warmning proponents have had issues in third world countries is not because their facts are inherently in err, but because the developers cannot understand why "Americans want us to make them a building" and "Other Americans want us to make it the 'wrong way'". They know how to make a building, the same way they always have, yet some foreigner comes in and says they are doing it 'wrong'. It's like telling them, "You're not doing it the way God wants you to".

You can't tell someone that the world is dying when it is right in front of them, unchanged for years. They are trying to make a living, they get offered an opportunity to improve their environment, and don't change. Yet for some reason, even with *this* atmospheric data you can see who the "big offenders" supposedly are.

Why then, do global warmning advocates expend so much time and effort making third world countries try to adhere to restrictions even the US and China don't want to?

GLOBAL AIR POLLUTION PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS (3, Informative)

Mstrgeek (820200) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497484)

a well done site dealing with air pollution

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/onlcourse/chm110/outl ines/topic9.html

Global Pollution and Climate Change http://www.jri.org.uk/brief/climatechange.htm

this is a great write up with good information

You're kidding, right? (3, Interesting)

Delusional (574271) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497504)

Are we looking at different images, or are the commenters just as ignorant of geography as the average slashdot reader is ignorant, of, say, the mating rituals of the human species? Or have we been overrun by neocons?

The single biggest blot, other than the one over everybody's favorite red menace, is square over the northeastern US. The richest country pollutes more than anyone except the country that does all of the richest country's dirty work (and has more people than everyone else combined, to boot).

LATFI! (look at the _ucking image!)

Obligatory (0)

sokoban (142301) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497537)

In Eastern Soviet Russia, Nitrogen dioxide pollutes you.

That's where the Arctic haze comes from (4, Insightful)

RealAlaskan (576404) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497559)

I'm not surprised about the concentrations of pollution in Northern China and Siberia. The Soviets put quite a lot of industry in Siberia (why?) and it pollutes a lot. After all, the folks in Moscow were never going to smell it.

In Alaska, we often see a hazy [alaska.edu] sky [nsidc.org] , caused by pollution from Siberia and points east.

For the long term, we should probably be more worried about the Soviet nuclear waste [atimes.com] the Soviets and now the Russians have accumulated in the Arctic and Pacific Oceans. Then there's the nuclear plants [rosatom.ru] , two of them in Siberia, that we're down wind of. They were built by the same government which brought us Chernobyl [kiddofspeed.com] .

If you're looking for things to worry about, you'll never run out.

Rivers ? (1)

uebermts (323725) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497563)

from looking at the european map, it seems like, that most red parts are over rivers (Thames, Rhine, Po). Is that a coincidence (most cities where founded near rivers) or has it a direct reason with water ?

Opening our eyes (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497565)

The article's maps show an example of how "human activities impact air quality". But of course Greenhouse deniers will whine that there's no evidence that puny humans can affect the big, wide world. There's ample evidence that we are locked in a vital interaction with our atmosphere, affecting it for better or worse with our industrial activities. When you hear people denying even the possibilities that are demonstrated simply and graphically as this, you can discredit any further comments. Or let them draw you into their denial to your mutual detriment.

You know... (0, Troll)

disbaldman (804041) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497575)

With all the regulation in the U.S. (worst in California), we're lucky our cars even move!!

I don't believe it (3, Insightful)

bigtangringo (800328) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497603)

I'm sorry but I don't believe anything scientists say about the climate.

If you read http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/environment/ [newscientist.com] it's quite obvious climatologists have no idea what the hell they're talking about as almost every article contains something about "this new information radically changes the way scientists think about xyz."

Don't get me wrong, we do need to stop burning fossil fuels, stop driving SUVs and shoot trash into the sun. Climatologist is still synonymous with quack in my book.

Re:I don't believe it (2, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 9 years ago | (#10497628)

You "don't believe it?" How can you "not believe" a map? Do you think the satellite is biased? Tell me, do you think the satellite will vote for Nader?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...