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!

Pollution In China Could Be Driving Freak Weather In US

Unknown Lamer posted about 4 months ago | from the blame-canada dept.

China 158

Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Jonathan Kaiman reports at The Guardian that China's air pollution could be intensifying storms over the Pacific Ocean and altering weather patterns in North America leading to more ... warm air in the mid-Pacific moving towards the north pole. 'Mid-latitude storms develop off Asia and they track across the Pacific, coming in to the west coast of the U.S.,' says Ellie Highwood, a climate physicist at the University of Reading. 'The particles in this model are affecting how strong those storms are, how dense the clouds are, and how much rainfall comes out of those storms.' Fossil fuel burning and petrochemical processing in Asia's rapidly developing economies lead to a build-up of aerosols, fine particles suspended in the air. Typically, aerosol formation is thought of as the antithesis to global warming: it cools our Earth's climate. But researchers say, too much of any one thing is never good. 'Aerosols provide seeds for cloud formation. If you provide too many seeds, then you fundamentally change cloud patterns and storm patterns,' says co-author Renyi Zhang. China's leaders are aware of the extent of the problem and will soon revise China's environmental protection law for the first time since 1989 ... 'The provisions on transparency are probably the most positive step forward,' says Alex Wang, expert in Chinese environmental law at UCLA. 'These include the requirement that key polluters disclose real-time pollution data.'"

cancel ×

158 comments

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

Interesting times (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 4 months ago | (#46766255)

China? Tempests on the other side of the world?

It's clearly a quantum weather butterfly [lspace.org]

Or it could be (0, Troll)

rossdee (243626) | about 4 months ago | (#46766293)

Just global warming, caused by everyone, including US producing more CO2 than the plants absorb for the last 160 years.

Re:Or it could be (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766863)

I bet if you got any typical Climate Scientists drunk and just partied with them, it would eventually spill out that they have no fucking clue what they are doing.

Re:Or it could be (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766915)

I bet if you got any typical Climate Scientists drunk and just partied with them, it would eventually spill out that they have no fucking clue what they are doing.

Of course, because the Koch brothers have told us that the scientists are the side of this that are just in if for the money, sitting there in their big mansions with their bling, super sports cars and supermodels.

Re:Or it could be (1, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 4 months ago | (#46767095)

Man, I wish I was a scientist.

So I could be bought off by the Koch brothers.

Re:Or it could be (1)

roccomaglio (520780) | about 4 months ago | (#46767387)

If the Kock brothers truly want to have influence, they would buy a major network. Look how that worked for Comcast. Their is very little opposition to their merge in part because who wants negative coverage from a major network. With a major network you can exert tremendous influence on elections without having to worry about election laws. Do the Kock brothers spend more on elections than other billionaires? I suggest you educate yourself.

Re:Or it could be (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46767503)

"Do the Kock[sic] brothers spend more on elections than other billionaires?"

Yes, through many personal donation and other organization set up solely to fund more money.
They also get pundit to repeat whatever they want, regardless of truth. See Glenn beck thanking them for the information he says about Climate Change.

However, that's besides the point.
They pay a lot of money to organization who specifically fund global warming deniers.

Re:Or it could be (1)

simonreid (811410) | about 4 months ago | (#46769587)

They do pay a lot of money to organizations that question man made climate change yes. But then again, the flip side of that is the tens of billions of dollars that are invested in global warming being real and caused by man. Regardless of scientific merit I have always thought it odd that people think that 'climate deniers' are better funded than the groups supporting the idea.

Re:Or it could be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767007)

It just has to come down to being the US's fault doesn't it?

Polution tax (1)

jabuzz (182671) | about 4 months ago | (#46766299)

Simple; tax all goods on the amount of pollution used in their manufacture. Set the level so that it does not effect the U.S.A. (Europe and Japan use less energy anyway) and problem solved. Will have a nice side effect of making it less worth while off-shoring manufacturing to China where it is largely cheaper because they don't have to worry about pollution. So not only is it good for the environment it is good for jobs.

Re:Polution tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766361)

That's really the answer. Not a "carbon tax", so the right wing doesn't go apeshit; you can tie it to particulates and assuage the protectionist right wing and the protectionist left wing.

Re:Polution tax (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 4 months ago | (#46766393)

Simple; tax all goods on the amount of pollution used in their manufacture.

So that every american has either:
- less things.
- a higher salary.

Oh, but the money goes to the government, so you can lower general taxes! which gets:
  - A little less money for those who must buy cheap Chinese products.
  - A little more things for those who buy more expensive products.

Great result.

Taxes are a funny toy.

Wut? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767355)

A little less things that contribute to pollution. Yes, that is the point isn't it?

Care to explain how a revenue neutral shift in tax base changes who gets government assistance?

You can't just throw out Libertarian delusions of the sky falling without even a rudimentary explanation of your reasoning.

Re:Wut? (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 4 months ago | (#46767617)

Care to explain how a revenue neutral shift in tax base changes who gets government assistance?

Of course:

1 - Tax Chinese items. -> Chinese items go up in price.
2 - Lower general tax with the benefits generated by (1) -> everyone has more money.

[However one must take into account that the money distributed by (2) is the same as the one generated by (1). Therefore]

3 - If an individual buys Chinese items for an exact value such as the tax (1) of those items equals the increase (2) of that individual's money, he ends just as rich as before both (1) and (2).

[However]

4 - If an individual buys more than those exact balance Chinese items, he'll be poorer, and if he buys less, he'll be richer. (as they'll pay for, respectively, a greater/smaller share of the the tax production while getting the same reduction)

[Also]

5 - Chinese items are cheaper than local items, otherwise the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
6 - Poorer people will have a tendency to buy cheaper (both in price and quality) items because they are poor.

[In conclusion]

Poorer people will have a tendency to buy more Chinese items (6) and will thus become even poorer because of (4).
Richer people will have no need to buy Chinese items (6) and will thus become even richer because of (4).

Of course they'd both be only microscopically richer or poorer, but it's the accumulation of microscopic differences that create the gigantic gap.

Re:Wut? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46768709)

epic bro. +2

Re:Polution tax (1)

colin_faber (1083673) | about 4 months ago | (#46767357)

Except that

  • Taxes never go down
  • The government can't and won't live within it's means.

Re:Polution tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767465)

But the tea party assures me that once we rid the world of gays and abortion, the deficits will right themselves!!1!

Re:Polution tax (1)

laie_techie (883464) | about 4 months ago | (#46768177)

But the tea party assures me that once we rid the world of gays and abortion, the deficits will right themselves!!1!

Another case of spreading lies about your adversaries. Many (not all) within the Tea Party are against homosexuality and elective abortions, but these perceived evils will not / do not have an economic impact. The Tea Party is about local governments having more control than the federal government (all powers not given explicitly to the federal government in the Constitution is reserved for the States or the Individuals). Being Pro-life and Pro-Traditional Marriage is not core to the Tea Party.

The deficits will right themselves when the government learns to live within its means. No more multibillion dollar programs without some way of funding them. Our loans incur millions of dollars of interest every day. Consolidate government entities when it makes sense. Off-load social programs to the state and local levels when it makes sense. Have the President pay a larger portion of his vacations (how many times has Obama flown to Hawaii to play golf?). Fix Senate and Congress pay to a multiple of minimum wage or the cost of living.

Factually wrong (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46767575)

"Taxes never go down"
False. The tax rate for those who made a million dollars a year used to be 90%, now it's 33%
Every income brackets federal taxes has dropped. The richer you are the more they dropped.

"The government can't and won't live within it's means."
Nearly all agency in the Federal government live with in their means. The others are usually dictated by citizens or external factors in unexpected ways during a fiscal year. War, 9/11. natural disaster, etc...

.

Re:Polution tax (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about 4 months ago | (#46767901)

What were the tax rates in 1970? What are the tax rates now? What direction did they go?

Re:Polution tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46768665)

Great result.

Well since we cannot tell companies operating in China "hey, you need to do something about all that pollution you're spewing into the air", taxing imports seems like the next best alternative. I admit that it is dangerous to let the government invent new taxes, but I don't see a better alternative. But if you have a better solution to the problem of the cost of an object not reflecting its true cost, we'd love to hear it.

Re:Polution tax (2)

gweilo8888 (921799) | about 4 months ago | (#46766413)

"Set the level so that it does not effect [sic] the U.S.A." -- you do realize that China's pollution is, in large part, there because US companies moved or contracted most of their manufacturing there, right? This is a nice example of reaping what you sow -- America avoids pollution itself by offshoring, but the process of offshoring trades the pollution for severe weather instead.

Re:Polution tax (0)

beefoot (2250164) | about 4 months ago | (#46766527)

ahem ahem .... next time you go to walmart, the cheapest microwave oven is going to be $800 ... ahem ahem, next time you go to buy a light bulb, the cheapest is going to be 3 for $25 ... ahem ahem .... next time you buy an iphone, it is going to be $0 which comes with 15 years contract ... ahem ahem ... just saying.

Re:Polution tax (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 4 months ago | (#46766701)

My answer is to put a 500% tax on all US companies that do not manufacture their products in the USA.

Re:Polution tax (1)

operagost (62405) | about 4 months ago | (#46766837)

I'll ignore your stupid 500% for now.

What about the foreign companies that do not manufacture their products here? Are you also going to impose a... *sigh* ... 500% tariff?

Re:Polution tax (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46767255)

Hey! That's a good idea. Put a 500% tariff on everything that's not made here. Who care who makes it?

Re:Polution tax (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#46768213)

Hey! That's a good idea. Put a 500% tariff on everything that's not made here. Who care who makes it?

Brazil does this. Since Nikes cost $300 a pair, the local manufacturers can get away with charging $165 for a pair of sneakers. That's just under a week's median wages.

All these policies do is keep the people poor. It's a non-zero-sum game with losses on all sides.

Re:Polution tax (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46767623)

You should explain why you think that's a bad thing.

Re:Polution tax (4, Insightful)

fuzznutz (789413) | about 4 months ago | (#46766713)

ahem ahem .... next time you go to walmart, the cheapest microwave oven is going to be $800 ... ahem ahem, next time you go to buy a light bulb, the cheapest is going to be 3 for $25 ... ahem ahem .... next time you buy an iphone, it is going to be $0 which comes with 15 years contract ... ahem ahem ... just saying.

And since the prices go up and replacement is not something you want to have to do very often. Maybe we stop buying based upon what is cheapest and stop getting something that cannot be repaired and is essentially disposable after one use, and we start buying on quality and repairability. Everything is designed for the landfill these days. it didn't use to be that way before we started importing "cheap" junk.

Re:Polution tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767049)

Not everyone can afford an $800 microwave.

Re:Polution tax (1)

Ubi_NL (313657) | about 4 months ago | (#46768299)

Not everyone can afford a car either. Or a helicopter. Are you the one thats going to decide what is a necessity and what is not? Mind you, 20years ago nobody head microwaves.

Re:Polution tax (1)

Ubi_NL (313657) | about 4 months ago | (#46768329)

Also it increases demand for local labour, as you won't be sending that microwave to china to get repaired

Re:Polution tax (2)

nblender (741424) | about 4 months ago | (#46768639)

Because the 'Product of USA' things I can buy have still been manufactured in China, but final assembly and packaging was done in the US and the price was marked up accordingly...

Re:Polution tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766761)

Who cares about the world we live in, PLEASE KEEP OUR ELECTRONIC APPLIANCES CHEAP OH GOD PLEASE.

I would GLADLY pay 800 for a microwave if it meant real change was going to happen. Hell, 25 for 3 lightbulbs isn't even too bad, considering how long the new ones last.

Re:Polution tax (1)

Black LED (1957016) | about 4 months ago | (#46767091)

I paid about $15 per 12W LED lightbulb (800 lumens, 60W incandescent replacement) and that was well worth it. Each bulb has a 5 year warranty and estimated lifespan of 21 years.

Re:Polution tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767117)

Most families IN THE US live on $1000/month, and would punch you in the face until you die for such an attitude.

Re:Polution tax (0)

bws111 (1216812) | about 4 months ago | (#46768815)

Say what? Median household income in the US is $51K. The poverty line for a family is about $2K/month, and 15% of the people are below that. There is no support at all for your claim that 'most families' in the US live on $1000/month.

Re:Polution tax (1)

bjwest (14070) | about 4 months ago | (#46766987)

ahem ahem .... next time you go to walmart, the cheapest microwave oven is going to be $800

This will move us back from the throw away mentality we're at now by making it more economical to repair than replace. It will also create jobs, as now we need the repair shops we once had. Maybe it'll bring back quality to the products as well, who knows? It'll be a good thing, at any rate, for both the environment and us.

Re:Polution tax (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 4 months ago | (#46767643)

Actually, I think my microwave oven cost me closer to $1000. But that's because I bought it long before cheap crap from China. Unlike the cheap crap, it still works fine. Amortized over the years, it's been cheaper than the Wal-Mart junk.

Re:Polution tax (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 4 months ago | (#46767109)

Labour costs on a microwave are $700? Wow we need to outsource to the USA at once!

Re:Polution tax (4, Insightful)

mlts (1038732) | about 4 months ago | (#46767515)

If the microwave was repairable/servicable with magnetron parts available for example, there wouldn't be anything wrong with an $800 unit. In fact, going back to appliances that are designed to be repaired rather than replaced is probably one of the best ideas that can happen in the market.

One example of this are portable generators. I can buy a no-name Chinese model inverter on the cheap. However, if I need to find a carb, jets, brushes, or other parts, I -might- be able to adapt something, or I might just be SOL and have to buy a new one. Or, I can pay the price premium for a Honda, Yamaha, or Champion make, and be able to find parts almost anywhere.

If LED light bulbs mature enough so they have a long MTBF, then three for $25 is a good deal. That isn't a bad thing either.

Similar with a phone. If it were made somewhat modular where RAM, flash storage, and other parts were upgradable, with the antenna being easily swapped out, then paying twice as much for the device wouldn't be a bad thing.

It would be nice to see something other than the absolute race to the bottom when it comes to materials, fit/finish, customer support, and overall quality.

Re:Polution tax (1)

Simon Brooke (45012) | about 4 months ago | (#46767953)

Similar with a phone. If it were made somewhat modular where RAM, flash storage, and other parts were upgradable, with the antenna being easily swapped out, then paying twice as much for the device wouldn't be a bad thing.

What, like this [theguardian.com] , you mean?

Re:Polution tax (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46767613)

It wouldn't be nearly that much, also..so what? you argument is people would by less shit, keep what they have longer, and give a trong market incentive to find cleaner ways to manufacture goods.
To which I say: Good.

"Ahem ahem" makes you sound like a non-thinking jack ass.

Re:Polution tax (0)

Lumpy (12016) | about 4 months ago | (#46766681)

That is not how the USA works.

The proper USA response is....

WAR ON CHINA!!!!!

and it will be really good for our economy, it will bring back manufacturing to the USA as well.

Fucking Daily KOS... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766923)

...and the Democrat Underground have both infested Slashdot.

You want to see economic ignorance incarnate? Just come to Slashdot where a bunch of unemployed college students will vomit back all manner of Marxist, Stalinist, Leninist and Maoists economic theory poured into their giant, empty heads by their professors.

Re:Fucking Daily KOS... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767177)

Hey now! Don't forget about us students who watch Fox News...we vomit too, you know!

Re:Fucking Daily KOS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767391)

Yes, the ones who work and pay taxes. Those evil doers.

Re:Polution tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767453)

That is a cool idea. However, companies would spec the polluting parts, have them made in China (where the polluting parts would be considered a trade secret), then ship them, laundered of any taxable pollution.

If that doesn't work, the parts would come from a "factory" in a tax haven country with assurance that they were made without pollution... although the only difference would be the "made in Elbonia" would be changed to "made in Latveria" before being imported.

Re:Polution tax (1)

Simon Brooke (45012) | about 4 months ago | (#46767893)

Given that the US is (as you correctly point out) among the most profligate and inefficient economies in the world, setting the tax so that it didn't affect the US would mean setting it so that it didn't affect anyone anywhere. which would be entirely pointless.

china has smog, so its clearly chinas fault. (-1, Flamebait)

nimbius (983462) | about 4 months ago | (#46766303)

Americans constitute 5% of the worlds population, yet we consume 24% of its energy. Even if the pollution is coming from china, and thats a seriously tentative argument, I find it difficult if not impossible to discount the fact that we as americans drive that pollution. A more reasonable article (and one that drives far less click cash) would be 'man made climate change causing weather problems'

Re:china has smog, so its clearly chinas fault. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766475)

Well, you clearly refused to RTFA. They used high-fidelity models and derived at the conclusion that an amazing increase in particulate has affected weather patterns by increasing cloud formation. This is not complext like the 3rd order effects of CO2 which cause AGW, this is a first order affect. It's not complex. You apparently are just as irrationally religious about AGW as the deniers are.

And oh by the way, the western world has rigorous particulate limits that continue to be advanced because we're aware of this.

Re:china has smog, so its clearly chinas fault. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766765)

+1

Thank you

Re:china has smog, so its clearly chinas fault. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766503)

True, however, this is talking about how the pollution in china changing the weather patterns in the Pacific, which in turn changes the weather patterns for the U.S.

I am sure if they looked at the data, they would also find that pollution in the U.S. is changing weather patterns in the Atlantic, which in turn changes the weather patterns in Europe.

The article is not saying that China is to blame for global warming, it is just saying that China is to blame for the intense weather swings. For instance, here in Michigan, on Monday, it was 70 degrees F. On Tuesday, it dropped to 29 F and we got a couple inches of snow. That can be traced back to cold air pushed out of the arctic, to warm air pushed into the arctic from the Pacific, to a storm caused by the pollution in china in the Pacific.

Re:china has smog, so its clearly chinas fault. (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | about 4 months ago | (#46766581)

This particular effect is not attributed to global pollution levels, but specifically to the northern Pacific zone. Given the known, prevailing wind patterns, it's pretty clear that China has the greatest impact on this particular area.

Of course, AGW is also a huge part of the overall problem, and the USA is a major contributor (the major contributor per capita), but TFA article is not really about AGW per se, it's about a a regional weather trend which happens to affect a neighboring region, North America.

Re:china has smog, so its clearly chinas fault. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766711)

herpa derp china defense squad

Re:china has smog, so its clearly chinas fault. (2, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | about 4 months ago | (#46766861)

Americans constitute 5% of the worlds population, yet we consume 24% of its energy.

Per capita statistics on energy use aren't very useful. Americans are also productive. If your method of measuring efficiency is per capita usage, then places like the favorite Marxist straw man of Somalia (and favorite neocon straw man of North Korea) would rate very highly.

Umm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767731)

The difference between the two "straw men" is that there is only one possible form of no government. Somalia is an example. There are many possible permutations of a socialist/Communist government, of which North Korea is only one. Just because there are two sides to an argument doesn't mean each side is equally wrong/correct, or even that one side is slightly wrong/correct.

Re:Umm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46769271)

Somalia does not have "no government". They're a member of a HUGE number of government based organizations. Spend a few minutes on wikipedia.

The closest example we've ever had to having no government were perhaps native tribes. But even then, they still had their own forms of highly localized government.

Not trying to be on one side or the other, but it's important to recognize there's basically no instance to point at where people had no government.

Re:china has smog, so its clearly chinas fault. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 4 months ago | (#46767769)

We also invent half the shit that's invented every year. Other nations need to be more like us, not the other way around...if concern for the comman man is your standard.

Re:china has smog, so its clearly chinas fault. (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 4 months ago | (#46766997)

You provided a population-energy ratio. I would love to know what pollution-energy ratio, and a GDP per capita/energy ratio. Do you have a source I can peruse?

Re:china has smog, so its clearly chinas fault. (4, Informative)

jdschulteis (689834) | about 4 months ago | (#46767259)

Americans constitute 5% of the worlds population, yet we consume 24% of its energy.

Please stop using this bogus comparison to imply that Americans use more than "their share" of the world's energy. The correct comparison is between inputs and outputs. The USA produces nearly 20% of the world's GDP. [quandl.com] If your 24% is correct, we have room for improvements in energy efficiency, but we're not nearly the energy gluttons that you're suggesting. The low ratio of population to energy use is largely due to our high productivity. [wikipedia.org]

Re:china has smog, so its clearly chinas fault. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46768199)

Americans constitute 5% of the worlds population, yet we consume 24% of its energy.

Please stop using this bogus comparison to imply that Americans use more than "their share" of the world's energy. The correct comparison is between inputs and outputs. The USA produces nearly 20% of the world's GDP. [quandl.com] If your 24% is correct, we have room for improvements in energy efficiency, but we're not nearly the energy gluttons that you're suggesting. The low ratio of population to energy use is largely due to our high productivity. [wikipedia.org]

Maybe so ( I'm doubtful. Given my experiences in interactions with US companies, efficiency isn't the word that jumps to the front...), but how much of your GDP is 'real things' and how much is overvalued ones and zeroes (ie IP) and 'services', which really doesn't require very much energy to produce?

Re:china has smog: LA has chinas smog. (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | about 4 months ago | (#46767303)

It is widely reported in So. Cal. media that 25% of Los Angeles County's smog comes from Asia/China.

Re:china has smog, so its clearly chinas fault. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767403)

"Americans constitute 5% of the worlds population, yet we consume 24% of its energy."

Why dont you also mention what percentage we are of the worlds energy ~production~?

If we produce more than 24% of the worlds energy, than using 24% is nothing to be ashamed of.

Re:china has smog, so its clearly chinas fault. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46768303)

"Americans constitute 5% of the worlds population, yet we consume 24% of its energy."

Why dont you also mention what percentage we are of the worlds energy ~production~?

If we produce more than 24% of the worlds energy, than using 24% is nothing to be ashamed of.

Except that a) most countries cope on rather much less, making it seem rather wasteful, consuming resources and generating pollution and b) the pollution doesn't stay in the US (just like China's doesn't stay in China...

Re:china has smog, so its clearly chinas fault. (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46767755)

You also need to find out, on average, how much pollution is generated per million KWh.
If I use more energy then you do, but it's all solar, then I will emit far less gasses and particulates in to the atmosphere.
That example was only to illustrated my point.

China per capita Energy usage includes a lot of people who have little or no electricity.
China use more coal the any other country, and there coal emission standards are very, very low.
So, the amount of crap the put in the air is substantial, and more the what the US puts in the air.

Twist the research (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766321)

I suspect that this research will quickly be twisted around to a "blame the Chinese!" story in popular media.

- There is no climate change
- Oops, there is.. but it's not us.
- Okay, it's us, but we can't do anything about it.
- Wait, it's The Chinese! Let's force them to clean up their act (and slow the economic growth they're gaining - through the same means we (US/EU) we employed - while we're at it. But that's totally just a side-effect, promise!) See? We CAN do something about it after all! *resumes fracking, burning own coal, and driving soccermomvehicles*

So stop buying (so much) chinese stuff (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766421)

Its easy to blame China for massive pollution, but it's industry is merely trying to satisfy massive demand, mostly western.

They cannot be expected to adopt first world environmental standards that took decades for the west to develop. Also US/Euro companies outsourcing manufacturing, are dodging domestic environmental regulations to save on costs. So here at least, no one to blame but the west.

In a way, this reminds me of the financial crisis when it was brewing. We could blame the property developers for profiteering, the real estate agents for overselling, the banks for over-lending, the regulator its for 'light-touch' approach, the politicians for not legislating appropriately and the central banks for not raising interest rates to cool the whole thing down.

But...

Everyone has a share of the responsibility, everyone has little (but many) choices to make daily.

And just as the financial crisis, everyone will be held accountable with the exception of the elites.

Re:So stop buying (so much) chinese stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766819)

it's means it is. every extra character you use for no reason uses more electricity. That also pollutes.

Re:So stop buying (so much) chinese stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767395)

Its easy to blame China for massive pollution, but it's industry is merely trying to satisfy massive demand, mostly western.

They cannot be expected to adopt first world environmental standards that took decades for the west to develop.

Why the fuck not? The world cannot afford for China to make the same mistakes that were made in the US and much of Europe. (The same applies to every developing country, it's just magnified because China is so large and developing so rapidly.)

Re:So stop buying (so much) chinese stuff (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 4 months ago | (#46767679)

They cannot be expected to adopt first world environmental standards that took decades for the west to develop.

Why not? We developed the products and now they make them. Why can't they employ the pollution-control technology we developed?

Re:So stop buying (so much) chinese stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46768573)

Why can't they employ the pollution-control technology we developed?

Yeah, about that, the primary method of pollution control in the US has been to move manufacturing to places like China.

Actual attempts to curb pollution lead to massive push-back and lobbying who say if they had to pollute less they couldn't compete with China.

And you have large segments of both your populace and your government who don't believe government should be regulating pollution because it would interfere with corporate profits.

Because, as we now know, America is an oligarchy. (Well, some of us have know that for decades.)

In short, douchebags.

Re:So stop buying (so much) chinese stuff (2)

jabuzz (182671) | about 4 months ago | (#46768785)

Because if they did it would probably be no cheaper than manufacturing them in North America or Europe, and shipping them over. A large part of what makes manufacturing in China cheaper is that you can pollute like crazy. It is also not just smog from air pollution, but pouring toxic waste into rivers etc.

Butterfly (1)

cgfsd (1238866) | about 4 months ago | (#46766459)

So it is true, if a butterfly flaps its wings in China .... The Butterfly Effect

Re:Butterfly (3, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | about 4 months ago | (#46766717)

except it's a butterfly dropping dead from the lack of breathable air.

Re:Butterfly (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46767343)

So, when it hits the ground, it will cause an earthquake in Wyoming? Damn Chinese, even trying to mess with our fracking...

Re:Butterfly (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 4 months ago | (#46767701)

except it's a butterfly dropping dead from the lack of breathable air.

"Let a thousand butterflies drop dead".

Mao. Or maybe not.

Chinese Environmental Law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766565)

Sounds like the easiest job in the world.

Re:Chinese Environmental Law? (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 4 months ago | (#46767757)

next to Chinese Journalist

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766583)

1.35 billion farting Chinese people could contribute to global warming.

"Could be" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766667)

Wake me up when it's "Proven through scientific method without using experimental models generated by computers with data from humans who do not fully understand Earth's climate system."

Re:"Could be" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766991)

Well, it's good to know you derived your opinion while sleeping. Go back to sleep and let the adults discuss important matters.

More transparency is always a good thing (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about 4 months ago | (#46766755)

Especially when it's in reference to the air like substance that surrounds most large Chinese cities.

ABC Anywhere But China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766891)

China has pollution, so it is CLEARLY America's fault.
WTF? IF you care about clean air and planet, do not buy crap made in China.
They have a long history of making things as cheaply as possible.
They have no care for the dangers they produce and that are produces as by products.
See lead in toys, sheet rock with mold etc, etc.
ABC - Anywhere But China.

Re:ABC Anywhere But China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46769799)

Please supply a list of what products you bought from a Chinese company.

Looking at the lead painted toys as an example.

Thomas the train is a premium brand, their stuff is expensive and probably could have been made domestically at the prices they charge.

Regardless, it was "RC2 Corp" that sold the products. They had it made in China, they didnt do the QA they should have and attempted to maximize profits by having it manufactured as cheaply as possible and sell for as much as possible.

In the is example, no chinese company sold you any goods did they?

Apple (like many companies) makes all their stuff in china, but they have a decent QA process and seem to be doing well with their products.

Surprise!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46766949)

Surprise!! The pollution don't know about frontiers.

This should be a point of reflection. USA is one of the most polluters per capita of the planet. China is polluter in raw numbers but not per capital.
It is hypocrite to ask for chineses to reduce pollution where USA and Europe pollute even more per capita.

The solution is to reduce pollution all, so we could ask for everyone to avoid innecesary pollution of our common world.

So that's who to blame... (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 4 months ago | (#46767015)

I slipped and busted my ass on a patch of ice outside of my apartment this morning.

That's who's to blame!

Impossible! (-1, Troll)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 4 months ago | (#46767067)

Weather cannot be affected by human activity. Fox News and posters on the internet have comprehensively debunked the lies of these so-called "scientists" and "experts".

Re:Impossible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767423)

You mean "climate" don't you? Go home Kos troll, you're drunk.

Re:Impossible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767659)

No, he means weather. Clouds don't last very long.

Re:Impossible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46768601)

Really? So cloud-seeding doesn't work?

I'm so relieved! (1)

some old guy (674482) | about 4 months ago | (#46767069)

Thank goodness for transparency. I mean, we all know how honest and forthcoming Chinese and Chinese-American businesses are. They're just like Western corporations now.

Surely they wouldn't lie, would they?

Chem Trails (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767085)

How we put some blame on the fleets of planes deploying chemtrails all at the same time and in a pattern? I see it everytime there is a clear day.

"Chinese environmental law"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46767309)

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Smog is an easy problem to solve (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 4 months ago | (#46767333)

FIlters on coal fired power stations and industrial chimneys, catalysts and DPFs on vehicles and a ban on coal heating in cities. Why China can't manage these simple tasks is anyones guess. Its not like they don't have the money.

Not to worry... (1)

MrEdofCourse (2670081) | about 4 months ago | (#46767541)

"China's leaders are aware of the extent of the problem and will soon revise China's environmental protection law for the first time since 1989"

Whew! Nice to know they're on top of this now.

No shit guys ... (3, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 months ago | (#46768077)

That's why climate change is a global thing.

Are people laboring under the belief that this will result in purely localized effects?

There is only one atmosphere, and if you screw it up, it's screwed up everywhere.

But Never Fukushima (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46768315)

Or DU in the Southern Mediterranean over Europe. Perish the thought. Only (about 45?) gigatons of chemically and heat active dust particles that circle the globe. Everyone knows weather has nothing to do with chemical activity and charged partticles (UV, alpha, beta, gamma, etc.).

The most important question. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46769287)

Isn't how much the crap we buy now will cost.

Its the eventual destination this type of thinking will bring us. Our bad weather will be used as a justification for war with another nation.
Its just the new version of blaming our problems on foreigners.

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>