Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Breathing Beijing's air pollution when the PM 2.5 reaches 550 inflicts the equivalent in damage to the human body as smoking 25 cigarettes, according to a memo released by Berkeley Earth.
Although the European Transport & Environment association published a report Friday (Aug. 10) on air pollution and cigarette equivalence stating that spending a weekend in Paris was the equivalent to two cigarettes, the same period in Beijing is 16 cigarettes.
Whether you use Berkeley's number, or the European number - it's bad.
What's the daily number for the US and other nations?
According to an earlier memo released by non-profit climate organization Berkeley Earth, the equivalent in cigarettes per day for the air pollution in the US is 0.4, while the daily average in Europe is 1.6. However, China overall is far worse at 2.4 and Beijing at 4.0.
We are doing better than the zealots from around the world - and they want to point the finger at us and take our money.
We produce and consume many times over the amounts in Europe - and their air is worse than ours.
Get your own house in order.
You're comparing apples, to oranges, to avocadoes here. Those air quality numbers have little to do with greenhouse gases and climate change. Also, air quality is worse in urban areas and Europe is quite a bit more urban than the U.S.
China is a perfect example of what happens when little to no environmental protection laws happen. Absolutely awful air pollution, awful water pollution, trash heaps, etc.
Years ago I used to follow the conservative thought that the EPA should be eliminated or made much smaller, and environmental protection laws were hindering US production. The first time I went to China I saw first hand what happens when those things don’t exist and it’s awful. It was a wake up call for me and I did a complete 180 on environmental protection laws. I don’t necessarily believe the laws should be stricter then they are now, but the laws that exist in the US are overall good.
China realizes they have major pollution problems and they are correcting this. The pollution in Beijing gets so bad they occasionally have to have mandatory factory shutdowns and days when they ban cars from driving. They do this on a huge scale. They shut down power plants. This really hurts their economy. The average Chinese persons lifespan actually decreased from 1980 to 2000, and it’s just now starting to increase again.
Let me ask you a question. If the EPA could get all US entities to cut pollution by 100%, do you think that would result in a cleaner, greener earth?
Hint: How does the EPA regulate manufacturing that gets outsourced to another country?
Years ago I used to follow the conservative thought that the EPA should be eliminated or made much smaller, and environmental protection laws were hindering US production.
I've never advocated for eliminating the EPA however there is practical limits to what you can do.
Quote:
China realizes they have major pollution problems and they are correcting this....
There is severe limitations on what they can do, they burn about 5 billion tons a year. Roughly about half the worlds consumption and 5 times more than what we burn here in the US. Replacing all that energy is not going to happen with another source is an impossible task short term and when I say short term I'm talking many decades.
Also, air quality is worse in urban areas and Europe is quite a bit more urban than the U.S.
Air quality issues in European cities is because they have opted for vehicles that can have immediate health impacts to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Diesels produce lower CO2 emission than gas cars and Europe has incentivized their use with lower fuel taxes on diesel. PM and other emissions that can directly affect your health are much higher.
Air quality issues in European cities is because they have opted for vehicles that can have immediate health impacts to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Diesels produce lower CO2 emission than gas cars and Europe has incentivized their use with lower fuel taxes on diesel. PM and other emissions that can directly affect your health are much higher.
You're right, more particulates from diesel, which would worsen that sort of common air pollution measurement.
Let me ask you a question. If the EPA could get all US entities to cut pollution by 100%, do you think that would result in a cleaner, greener earth?
Overall a 67% reduction of the six most common air pollutants since the 80's. At some point this needs to flatline and even start increasing. It's impossible for it to keep going down without an adequate replacement for fossil fuels. There is only so much you can with efficiency and pollution controls. In fact if the economy keeps rolling along you will likely see that flat line or increase.
I've never advocated for eliminating the EPA however there is practical limits to what you can do.
There is severe limitations on what they can do, they burn about 5 billion tons a year. Roughly about half the worlds consumption and 5 times more than what we burn here in the US. Replacing all that energy is not going to happen with another source is an impossible task short term and when I say short term I'm talking many decades.
I assume you are conservative and there are some conservatives who acknowledge that the EPA is useful and I agree that there are practical limits.
China is going nuts building alternative power sources, nuclear plants, and creating more efficient systems. Residential coal use is dropping drastically as boiler systems are switching to other sources. China has banned 2 stroke engines and unregulated small size gas engines. They are making large sweeping changings. They have these little 3 wheeled trucks that used to be unregulated and that is changing. They are installing filtration systems on factory smoke stacks.
In southern China air pollution has already seemed to peak, and the same is true most of the way up to Shanghai. The serious problems are Beijing and the surrounding provinces and inland to Henan province. But, those handful of provinces probably have 300-400 million people.
But yeah, I’m guessing China is 50 years behind the US in pollution quality, and some places are going to take longer then that.
You're comparing apples, to oranges, to avocadoes here. Those air quality numbers have little to do with greenhouse gases and climate change. Also, air quality is worse in urban areas and Europe is quite a bit more urban than the U.S.
Breathing Beijing's air pollution when the PM 2.5 reaches 550 inflicts the equivalent in damage to the human body as smoking 25 cigarettes, according to a memo released by Berkeley Earth.
Although the European Transport & Environment association published a report Friday (Aug. 10) on air pollution and cigarette equivalence stating that spending a weekend in Paris was the equivalent to two cigarettes, the same period in Beijing is 16 cigarettes.
Whether you use Berkeley's number, or the European number - it's bad.
What's the daily number for the US and other nations?
According to an earlier memo released by non-profit climate organization Berkeley Earth, the equivalent in cigarettes per day for the air pollution in the US is 0.4, while the daily average in Europe is 1.6. However, China overall is far worse at 2.4 and Beijing at 4.0.
We are doing better than the zealots from around the world - and they want to point the finger at us and take our money.
We produce and consume many times over the amounts in Europe - and their air is worse than ours.
Get your own house in order.
Funny you say "Get your own house in order" yet say the US shouldn't act until other countries do so.
Care to actually take a position?
True leaders don't wait for others to act before they do, I guess America is willing to abandon its former leadership position.
Let me ask you a question. If the EPA could get all US entities to cut pollution by 100%, do you think that would result in a cleaner, greener earth?
Hint: How does the EPA regulate manufacturing that gets outsourced to another country?
You missed my point and that’s why I said the EPA should limit what it does. I happen to think where we are right now is a good halfway point, I’m not saying we should expand the EPA, so don’t put words in my mouth. Everyone understands that manufacturing will outsource if over regulated, and that happened to an extent, but we can also look at US air pollution the last few decades and see major improvements. People often forget that a lot of Pennsylvania used to have pollution levels equal to what is now found in Beijing. US air and water pollution regulations definitely contributed to that. Very few places in modern America have air or water pollution problems and people are so quick to forget it wasn’t always like that.
People in other countries are not idiots and don’t want to live in filth either. We don’t need to regulate them because they will regulate themselves. China is spending big bucks on their pollution problems and it’s creating a lot of instability and health problems throughout their country. The same thing is happening in Vietnam, Thailand, S Korea, Taiwan, etc. Hong Kong and S korea have already majorly cleaned up and the other countries will follow suit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
