6 ms·

Doesn't this simply remove some of the symptoms instead of working with the root cause?

beachstartup 11y ago
yes, it would appear that's exactly what it's designed to do.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Autocratic governments aren't exactly known for their forward seeking vision. Problems come up and half assed solutions come down. There's no democratic element to demand a higher level of service, say with how the US had its environment movement which led to many laws protecting the land, air, and water and ultimately culminated into several state agencies, federal guidelines, the EPA, etc. These are large holistic changes brought about by the democratic process in Western states. Autocratic states don't have this mechanism so its a lot of basic face saving moves because politically this issue isn't that important and/or interferes with the CCP's ability to grow its economy. This creates a real victimization of innocents who don't have a voice because they're governed without consent. Birth defects have increased about 70 percent in China over the past two decades, now reaching about 900,000 per year, according to the country's Ministry of Health. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soot-and-smog-put-chinas-babies-at-risk/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soot-and-smog-put-... Study Links Polluted Air in China to 1.6 Million Deaths a Year http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/asia/study-links-polluted-air-in-china-to-1-6-million-deaths-a-year.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/asia/study-links-pol... Air pollution is killing about 4,000 people in China a day, accounting for 1 in 6 premature deaths in the world's most populous country, a new study finds. http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/air-pollution-killing-4-000-china-day-us-study-finds-n409516 http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/air-pollution-kill... A "mist cannon" isn't helping with this. edit: I have made fair cites and laid out my argument. Driveby downvotes just show how biased HN is towards China.
- goldenkey 11y ago
  Pretty easy for you to say that considering the U.S. economy was already developed/grown (as you say) when this environmental discussion came to the forefront. It's always easier to forfeit when your whole hand is not on the table..
- seivan 11y ago
  You're totally underestimating the Chinese government but you don't fail to see the trade off they have decided to go for. As you said China has decided that financial growth beats the consequences of pollution. You can discuss that direction as much as you want but that's the direction of overall Asia. It has nothing to do with forward vision or full-assed solution.
- vkou 11y ago
  You realize that the level of environmental protection that we currently have in the US is only possible at the current level of consumption because we exported most of our polluting industry to China, right?
  - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
    This is absolutely untrue. Even in the US's manufacturing heyday we had strict environment laws. In fact, this all happened because people were seeing what industry was doing the environment in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. Some light reading here: http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-history-1970-1985 http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-history-1970-1985 China isn't doing much of the above, if any. Excerpt: During this period a great many new environmental laws were passed and some old ones resurrected and refurbished as well as energy legislation that impacted on the environment. Other environmental type laws were enacted, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act (1972), the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (1972), the Endangered Species Act (1973), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1976), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), the Deepwater Ports and Waterways Safety Act (1974), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1974), the Water Resources Planning Act (1977), the Water Resources Research Act (1977), the Environmental Quality Improvement Act (1970), several amendments to the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act, and the Environmental Education Act. There was renewed enforcement of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The Rules and Regulations issued under these laws numbered into many thousands. In its early years EPA alone placed about 1500 rulemaking notices in the Federal Register annually.
    - cgriswald 11y ago
      >> You realize that the level of environmental protection that we currently have in the US is only possible at the current level of consumption because we exported most of our polluting industry to China, right? > This is absolutely untrue. Even in the US's manufacturing heyday we had strict environment laws. Which, combined with wage laws, resulted in the offshoring of dirty industry. We still produce nearly as much as China, but our industries of choice are generally cleaner industries. It is cheaper to pollute China than to adhere to US manufacturing laws. We could not produce the same quantity of "dirty" goods here for prices that would allow for current levels of consumption. Arguing otherwise is a bit like saying manufacturing moved to China for no reason.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Per capita the US is still pretty lousy. http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world%E2%80%99s-top-10-emitters http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world%E2%80... The US is still in the top "energy use per capita" countries.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    I don't think per capita is a valuable number here. China's got a twofold problem: They pollute a lot, and that pollution happens over a much smaller area of land, while the USA has it spread out a lot more. Per capita emissions doesn't tell us if the air in the largest cities is going to be the consistency of pea soup...
    - DanBC 11y ago
      My link gives a bunch of other measures, and the US is lousy on most of those too. I'm not saying the US is worse than China. Parent poster said that the US's democracy meant that it wasn't a big polluter, but that's clearly bollocks, the US has been, and is, a huge polluter.
      - hyperliner 11y ago
        Excuse me but I have to go downstairs where half of my 4000 sqft house is, as my coal-powered heat source is better there, and then I need to get in one third of my vehicles to drive, by myself, an hour to work. I will read your "research" later while sipping on my latte. I will google "polluter" later so I understand better your article. sigh
  - refurb 11y ago
    The US is still in the top "energy use per capita" countries. Of course it is, the US is responsible for a huge percent of the world's output. How could you create things without energy?
    - DanBC 11y ago
      But that's not what parent claimed; parent claimed that US democracy mean the US wasn't a passive polluter. But since you're here: what's the US GDP per capita, compared to other less polluting countries?
krallja 11y ago
Yes. Sometimes alleviating symptoms is necessary to give you breathing room (heh) to work on the actual solution.
sjbase 11y ago
Yeah, it does seem like an "out of the air, into the groundwater" solution. But sometimes you have to stop the bleeding before the injury can heal, and China is making progress [1] on the root cause also. [1]: https://e360.yale.edu/digest/china_anti-pollution_efforts__lead_to_steep_drop_in_sulfur_dioxide_levels/4611/ https://e360.yale.edu/digest/china_anti-pollution_efforts__l...
anthony_romeo 11y ago
Yes. Notably, this doesn't preclude the ability to both alleviate symptoms and work on the root cause simultaneously.
seanmcdirmid 11y ago
When the root cause is bad government that can't enforce environmental laws due to corruption...and you are the government who doesn't want to change (say by more accountability via elections and a free press), looking for something that instead treats the symptoms is attractive. Make no mistake, China's pollution problem is very much a political one.
- fspeech 11y ago
  India's pollution is as bad, if not worse: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/india-v-china http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/india-v...
  - mahranch 11y ago
    The biggest relevant fact on that page is half hidden. China pumps out 10 gigatonnes of CO2 every year. India? Just 2 gigatonnes tons. In fact, you could combine the U.S, E.U and India's C02 annual output, and it still wouldn't be as much as China. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... Why does that matter? Because India has roughly the same population size as China, but pumps significantly less C02 into the atmosphere.
    - dageshi 11y ago
      Doesn't India have a generally warmer climate than China, as in no need to burn fossil fuels to keep warm?
      - r00fus 11y ago
        It probably has more to do with the fact that China is the worlds factory (Foxconn?), while India has a lower portion of their economy in heavy industry. As to why that's the case - again, this could be attributed to a political issue - government looks aside as BigCo craps on the country's environment, as long as it fuels the massive economy, keeping everyone optimistic.
chapium 11y ago
Why does there have to be a difference? Clearly not having smog in the first place would prevent this, but how does that help Beijing right now? If you have an open wound the doctor does not prescribe staying away from sharp things, they treat the wound.

yes, it would appear that's exactly what it's designed to do.

Autocratic governments aren't exactly known for their forward seeking vision. Problems come up and half assed solutions come down. There's no democratic element to demand a higher level of service, say with how the US had its environment movement which led to many laws protecting the land, air, and water and ultimately culminated into several state agencies, federal guidelines, the EPA, etc. These are large holistic changes brought about by the democratic process in Western states. Autocratic states don't have this mechanism so its a lot of basic face saving moves because politically this issue isn't that important and/or interferes with the CCP's ability to grow its economy. This creates a real victimization of innocents who don't have a voice because they're governed without consent. Birth defects have increased about 70 percent in China over the past two decades, now reaching about 900,000 per year, according to the country's Ministry of Health. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soot-and-smog-put-chinas-babies-at-risk/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soot-and-smog-put-... Study Links Polluted Air in China to 1.6 Million Deaths a Year http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/asia/study-links-polluted-air-in-china-to-1-6-million-deaths-a-year.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/asia/study-links-pol... Air pollution is killing about 4,000 people in China a day, accounting for 1 in 6 premature deaths in the world's most populous country, a new study finds. http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/air-pollution-killing-4-000-china-day-us-study-finds-n409516 http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/air-pollution-kill... A "mist cannon" isn't helping with this. edit: I have made fair cites and laid out my argument. Driveby downvotes just show how biased HN is towards China.

goldenkey 11y ago
Pretty easy for you to say that considering the U.S. economy was already developed/grown (as you say) when this environmental discussion came to the forefront. It's always easier to forfeit when your whole hand is not on the table..
seivan 11y ago
You're totally underestimating the Chinese government but you don't fail to see the trade off they have decided to go for. As you said China has decided that financial growth beats the consequences of pollution. You can discuss that direction as much as you want but that's the direction of overall Asia. It has nothing to do with forward vision or full-assed solution.
vkou 11y ago
You realize that the level of environmental protection that we currently have in the US is only possible at the current level of consumption because we exported most of our polluting industry to China, right?
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  This is absolutely untrue. Even in the US's manufacturing heyday we had strict environment laws. In fact, this all happened because people were seeing what industry was doing the environment in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. Some light reading here: http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-history-1970-1985 http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-history-1970-1985 China isn't doing much of the above, if any. Excerpt: During this period a great many new environmental laws were passed and some old ones resurrected and refurbished as well as energy legislation that impacted on the environment. Other environmental type laws were enacted, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act (1972), the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (1972), the Endangered Species Act (1973), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1976), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), the Deepwater Ports and Waterways Safety Act (1974), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1974), the Water Resources Planning Act (1977), the Water Resources Research Act (1977), the Environmental Quality Improvement Act (1970), several amendments to the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act, and the Environmental Education Act. There was renewed enforcement of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The Rules and Regulations issued under these laws numbered into many thousands. In its early years EPA alone placed about 1500 rulemaking notices in the Federal Register annually.
  - cgriswald 11y ago
    >> You realize that the level of environmental protection that we currently have in the US is only possible at the current level of consumption because we exported most of our polluting industry to China, right? > This is absolutely untrue. Even in the US's manufacturing heyday we had strict environment laws. Which, combined with wage laws, resulted in the offshoring of dirty industry. We still produce nearly as much as China, but our industries of choice are generally cleaner industries. It is cheaper to pollute China than to adhere to US manufacturing laws. We could not produce the same quantity of "dirty" goods here for prices that would allow for current levels of consumption. Arguing otherwise is a bit like saying manufacturing moved to China for no reason.
DanBC 11y ago
Per capita the US is still pretty lousy. http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world%E2%80%99s-top-10-emitters http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world%E2%80... The US is still in the top "energy use per capita" countries.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  I don't think per capita is a valuable number here. China's got a twofold problem: They pollute a lot, and that pollution happens over a much smaller area of land, while the USA has it spread out a lot more. Per capita emissions doesn't tell us if the air in the largest cities is going to be the consistency of pea soup...
  - DanBC 11y ago
    My link gives a bunch of other measures, and the US is lousy on most of those too. I'm not saying the US is worse than China. Parent poster said that the US's democracy meant that it wasn't a big polluter, but that's clearly bollocks, the US has been, and is, a huge polluter.
    - hyperliner 11y ago
      Excuse me but I have to go downstairs where half of my 4000 sqft house is, as my coal-powered heat source is better there, and then I need to get in one third of my vehicles to drive, by myself, an hour to work. I will read your "research" later while sipping on my latte. I will google "polluter" later so I understand better your article. sigh
- refurb 11y ago
  The US is still in the top "energy use per capita" countries. Of course it is, the US is responsible for a huge percent of the world's output. How could you create things without energy?
  - DanBC 11y ago
    But that's not what parent claimed; parent claimed that US democracy mean the US wasn't a passive polluter. But since you're here: what's the US GDP per capita, compared to other less polluting countries?

krallja 11y ago

Yes. Sometimes alleviating symptoms is necessary to give you breathing room (heh) to work on the actual solution.

sjbase 11y ago

Yeah, it does seem like an "out of the air, into the groundwater" solution. But sometimes you have to stop the bleeding before the injury can heal, and China is making progress [1] on the root cause also. [1]: https://e360.yale.edu/digest/china_anti-pollution_efforts__lead_to_steep_drop_in_sulfur_dioxide_levels/4611/ https://e360.yale.edu/digest/china_anti-pollution_efforts__l...

anthony_romeo 11y ago

Yes. Notably, this doesn't preclude the ability to both alleviate symptoms and work on the root cause simultaneously.

seanmcdirmid 11y ago

When the root cause is bad government that can't enforce environmental laws due to corruption...and you are the government who doesn't want to change (say by more accountability via elections and a free press), looking for something that instead treats the symptoms is attractive. Make no mistake, China's pollution problem is very much a political one.

fspeech 11y ago
India's pollution is as bad, if not worse: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/india-v-china http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/india-v...
- mahranch 11y ago
  The biggest relevant fact on that page is half hidden. China pumps out 10 gigatonnes of CO2 every year. India? Just 2 gigatonnes tons. In fact, you could combine the U.S, E.U and India's C02 annual output, and it still wouldn't be as much as China. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... Why does that matter? Because India has roughly the same population size as China, but pumps significantly less C02 into the atmosphere.
  - dageshi 11y ago
    Doesn't India have a generally warmer climate than China, as in no need to burn fossil fuels to keep warm?
    - r00fus 11y ago
      It probably has more to do with the fact that China is the worlds factory (Foxconn?), while India has a lower portion of their economy in heavy industry. As to why that's the case - again, this could be attributed to a political issue - government looks aside as BigCo craps on the country's environment, as long as it fuels the massive economy, keeping everyone optimistic.

chapium 11y ago

Why does there have to be a difference? Clearly not having smog in the first place would prevent this, but how does that help Beijing right now? If you have an open wound the doctor does not prescribe staying away from sharp things, they treat the wound.