Is this based on raw numbers or effects on the environment? Do the two necessarily overlap?
What about the Asian pollution cloud?
I am not an atmospheric researcher, but I understand that the air pollution we create is much less than this Asian cloud if viewed by satellite. China is more “industrialized” than we or Russia are, IMO. Everything is manufactured (PDF) there, it seems. Why should Russia or the US work on emissions with this Chinese cloud the largest single stink cloud I am aware of?
Because the Chinese are actually reducing their emissions through modernizing their industrial infrastructure. The US, on the other hand, rather installs tarriffs and scraps emission standards in order to let outdated technologies survive.
The original idea was that 3rd world countries needed to quickly run through a dirty industrial phase to acquire enough capital to afford buying new systems. Since the predominant contribution to atmospheric pollution stemmed from Europe and the US/Canada, and since they tend to be the richest nations, it seems reasonable to ask that those countries begin to address the issue first. To my mind, it seems we’re best placed to start addressing the problem and then sell the solutions to the 3rd world.
As to China, if China failed to update it plants it would need at least 10 times as many to simply achieve a rough equivalency to European/NA electrical consumption patterns. That’s a lot of coal to burn. In fact, given that China is second in CO2 production now (2.8 billion tons vs. the US’ 5.8 billion and Japan’s 1.2 billion) a ten fold increase would have them producing 5 times as much pollutant as the US alone. It’s hardly a dewy eyed desire for a clean environment.
Also, I believe Kyoto deals with CO2. The cloud in your link seems to be particulate matter, which I’m not sure is covered.
Strangely, I’m more concerned about the actual environment than the Kyoto Treaty.
OliverH,
First, care to back any of that up?
Second, the US has very clean air despite your wild accusations, please reconcile.
Beagle, here’s one cite about China setting higher fuel economy standards than the U.S.
Also, Kyoto deals primarily with greenhouses gases like CO2 and methane, which are not visible, as opposed to the particulate cloud released by China. That is a different topic. Yes, the U.S. is actually the #1 emitter of greenhouse gases:
I’m not sure where you live, but U.S. air quality is an issue. Air pollution contributes to 300,000 untimely deaths in the U.S., according to the book When Smoke Ran Like Water.
Please, feel free to research these things on your own before starting a thread, accusing others of making wild accusations, etc.
CIA world book puts the death rate at 8.4 per thousand for the US. Given 290 million people that’s about 2.4 million dead a year. 300,000 would represent 12% of all deaths? I find that difficult to believe, do you have another cite?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Beagle *
**Strangely, I’m more concerned about the actual environment than the Kyoto Treaty.
OliverH,
First, care to back any of that up? **
[/quote9
Environ Sci Technol. 2001 Sep 1;35(17):3416-21.
A systems evaluation on the effectiveness of a catalyst retrofit program in China.
Jones M, Wilson R, Norbeck JM, Han W, Hurley R, Schuetzle D.
(Though it shows that the effect has been less than anticipated)
Environ Sci Technol. 2002 Nov 15;36(22):4707-13. Related Articles, Links
Changing trends in sulfur emissions in Asia: implications for acid deposition, air pollution, and climate.
Carmichael GR, Streets DG, Calori G, Amann M, Jacobson MZ, Hansen J, Ueda H.
(From the abstract: In the early 1990s, it was projected that annual SO2 emissions in Asia might grow to 80-110 Tg yr(-1) by 2020. Based on new high-resolution estimates from 1975 to 2000, we calculate that SO2 emissions in Asia might grow only to 40-45 Tg yr(-1) by 2020. The main reason for this lower estimate is a decline of SO2 emissions from 1995 to 2000 in China, which emits about two-thirds of Asian SO2. The decline was due to a reduction in industrial coal use, a slowdown of the Chinese economy, and the closure of small and inefficient plants, among other reasons. )
Streets DG, Jiang K, Hu X, Sinton JE, Zhang XQ, Xu D, Jacobson MZ, Hansen JE.
Climate change. Recent reductions in China’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Science. 2001 Nov 30;294(5548):1835-7.
What wild accusations? I said that China is reducing its emissions. As for the clean air, thanks, I lived in Dallas for over three years, I know what ‘clean air’ looks like. The important issue concerning the Kyoto treaty is greenhouse gas emissions, and not only is the US world leader here, the US emissions are increasing at quite a rapid pace.
Grey, here is some more info. Direct deaths from air pollution are fairly rare, but cancer (not just lung cancer) and pneumonia are very significant causes of death in America. Its just that the ultimate causes of these illnesses are hard to trace (aside from smoking).
My grandmother died of lung cancer, and never smoked a single cig in her life. Of course, the cause of death was given as lung cancer, rather than pollution.
And here again we see the problem of the “sample size of one” fallacy. Dallas != the United States.
I’d love to see some cites as to exactly which emissions standards the US has “scrapped”, before I comment further on that issue.
Estimates of air pollution deaths vary wildly and depend on who you believe. Here, one source says that it’s 70,000 annually.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm
Here, the number is 50,000 to 100,000 due to fine particulates alone:
Weather Underground cites source saying from 20,000 to 100,000 per year in the US, to “200,000 to 570,000” worldwide. Hmmm…
http://www.wunderground.com/health/airpollution.asp
Who’s correct? Who has the least axe to grind for one side or the other? Here’s a hint - any cite that starts out talking about how the report has been ignored by the mainstream or suppressed by “the industry” is likely one that has some issues with its facts.
Oh, and if anyone wants a more comprehensive cite on China and its emissions, which can actually be read, try here first:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html
It does say that China is making some very large efforts in the areas of renewables implementation, tightening emissions controls, and reducing pollution from various sources. It also says that China’s carbon emissions are still, with all that effort, headed to eclipse those of the US in our lifetimes. Well, most of ours, perhaps.
I’m against the Kyoto Treaty, but we should work to reduce our own pollution because:
Our own air pollution has a more immediate and sizeable impact on our own country (i.e., smog, respiratory illnesses, etc.);
We need not totally eradicate all air pollution to realize a positive effect. In other words, even if China continues to spew tons of pollutants into the air every year, we can still improve the situation by reducing the amount of our own pollutants; and
What Grey said re: burning through a dirty phase to build up sufficient capital to be able to afford cleaner production facilities. We’re better able to absorb the costs of producing less air pollution.
I’m sorry for your loss, but maybe her cause of death was lung cancer, and not pollution.
We rather see the problem with people having some problem with reading comprehension.
It speaks volumes that you have no problem with me being falsely accused of wild accusation at a stage in the discussion where all I said was that China is reducing its emissions.
As for the cite you requested, e.g. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031127/ap_on_go_ot/pollution_feud_3
AQA: Yes, as I said, she died of cancer. What caused the cancer? Can’t say, but they did live near many paper mills.
Also, I think China’s emissions are rising, but they are reducing the rate of increase in emission.
That’s not all you said:
The “wild” part of the accusation wasn’t claiming that China is attempting to lower emissions, I should note. One of the articles I cited, IIRC, mentioned that also. What’s wild is claiming that the US is going on a spiral downwards in terms of air quality. The only places I’ve been in the US with what I would call “bad” are Denver and LA. I didn’t choke. OTOH, seeing smog is disturbing. Given the size of Denver and LA, it’s hardly surprising. I think LA varies from day-to-day, as does Denver.
The general trend for air quality in the US, I thought, is improvement. It’s not as if clean air standards are new in the United States. In fact, the CAA is about 30.
Oh, give it up. Your words are right up there, to be read by anyone on this message board. You threw out Dallas and its air as a strawman argument to make an unfounded political point. All anyone has to do is scroll up…
Talk about reading comprehension. I posted a link in support of your own point. You know, those little underlined things can be clicked on…
:rolleyes: Sorry, a quick Google Search isn’t going to save you. I debunked and argued that NSR point in two different threads here, over several thousand words of posts with jshore and others. If you want to discuss “scrap(ing)” emissions standards, get your facts straight, and don’t link to any more mass media web-bites, OK? I deal with CAA compliance and power plants for a living. Start with the CAA and the Amendments of 1990, and work your way up from there. Then look at the Federal Circuit Court Decision in favour of the TVA on this issue. Then look at the EPA request for comments. Then look at Clear Skies.
Now, tell me exactly which emissions standards are being scrapped. Exactly, how will the SO2, NOx, HAP, or particulate limits be worsened in the US? I want actual emissions rate reduction figures, with cites.
As others have stated and I’ll just re-iterate, the phrase “world’s biggest single polluter” in that article may be a bit ambiguous but I think it is clear in context that they are talking about greenhouse gas emissions.
I’ll try to walk a middle ground on these issues here. For OliverH’s benefit, here is a link to a recent discussion of Clear Skies Initiative. I don’t recall what thread Una and I discussed NSR (New Source Review) in, but perhaps she can find it.
Here are the facts as I see them, although Una may have a slightly different take:
(1) NSR: The Administration has proposed clarifications of the NSR rules that have the net effect of allowing more upgrades of plants to be done while still staying within the “grandfathering clause” that exempts these plants from meeting the standards that new plants must meet (relative to how these rules were being enforced under the Clinton Administration). Una and folks in the industry have argued that such clarifications are needed because the enforcement was arbitrary and bizarre and even perhaps prevented plants from making some efficiency upgrades that could reduce emissions (for fear of triggering the NSR). I think a report by the Congressional Budget Office or General Accounting Office said that the EPA’s determination on this last point was based basically on anecdotal evidence supplied by the industry rather than any firm data. As Una notes there is a federal court ruling in a case involving TVA that seems to throw the previous enforcement rules under Clinton into question although I believe there was another federal ruling in another case that upheld the government’s position against another company (Ohio Edison?). I would also argue that the rules could have been clarified in ways that were not simply a relaxation. Even Una noted that it might be worth considering a phase-out of the grandfathering clause so that old plants can’t escape the modern pollution control standards forever.
(2) Clear Skies: This Bush proposal would replace certain aspects of the Clean Air Act governing power plant emissions with a cap-and-trade system for control of certain pollutants (SO2, NOx, mercury). It is complicated to calculate how much emissions would be reduced under the Clean Air Act if it were not amended in this way. It is easier but still not trivial to calculate how much emissions would be reduced under this cap-and-trade system. The Administration has been claiming that Clear Skies will reduce emissions faster but this is based on a “Rip Van Winkle” scenario under which the current specific regulations in the Clean Air Act don’t change from the laws currently on the books. Most everyone, as near as I can tell, believes that the regulations will have to change in order to get air standards in compliance with what the Clean Air Act stipulates although it is complicated and could involve litigation and so forth. The EPA floated a “straw man” cap-and-trade proposal that they estimated would reduce emissions just as much or even slightly more than under the business-as-usual scenario of enforcing the Clean Air Act (but at an estimated lower cost to industry because of the market-based cap-and-trade scheme). However, the final caps that were proposed by the Bush Administration in the Clear Skies Initiative were significantly higher than in this straw-man proposal leading environmental groups to argue that this initiative will do significantly less to reduce emissions than simply enforcing the Clean Air Act. It seems hard to deny that this is the case, unless one can produce evidence that the EPA was wildly optimistic about how much emissions would need to be reduced under the Clean Air Act.
Obviously, there are a wide variety of interpretations to what is being done here by the Bush Administration. However, in my opinion the industry can barely hide their glee at both of these proposals, and while some of this glee might be due to efficiencies that will be realized through having less cumbersome regulations, lower litigation costs and the like, it seems quite naively optimistic (and going against other evidence) to believe that these changes in the law are win-win situations that will result in both lower costs to industry (undoubtedly true) and lower emissions of pollutants than would have occurred in the absence of these changes.
Or, I can not be lazy and do a search, especially since the hamsters are running fast right now…Here it is.
Another note is that the attorneys general of several states, especially ones in the Northeast and including ones with Republican governors like here in New York, have filed suit to block enforcement of the Bush Administrration changes to NSR enforcement. [Note that states are free to enforce tighter air pollution standards than the federal government mandates but only for plants within their borders and a lot of the fight hinges, for example, on dirty coal plants in the Midwest whose pollutants cause an acid rain problem in Adirondack lakes.]
Just to clarify, this proposal was floated in September 2001…i.e., it was the EPA under the Bush Administration. The Clear Skies Initiative with the new, higher caps was publicly announced a few month later (February 2002, I believe).