6 ms·

Even on absolute levels, India's pollution is a fraction of US. US also still gets 60% electricity from fossil fuels. It is time US fixes their science and educ

Even on absolute levels, India's pollution is a fraction of US. US also still gets 60% electricity from fossil fuels. It is time US fixes their science and education when a major political candidate and half of their population are climate change deniers. Oh, and they are the most polluting in the world, even in per capita numbers. PM2.5 and PM10 corruption are dangerous only for people in the region and are not responsible for global warming, which affects everyone. In essence, India is killing its own people and US is killing everyone.

CydeWeys 10y ago
> Even on absolute levels, India's pollution is a fraction of US. I don't think this is true for particulate pollution. You may only be talking about carbon dioxide. Also, "Somewhere else is worse" isn't a good defense, especially when it may not even be true; it's just deflection. India has a real problem here with air pollution, and pointing fingers at other nations won't fix it.
- legolas2412 10y ago
  No denying there is a problem and that we should work on a solution, it is just getting media attention now. Politicians now are under public pressure to fix it. The person I replied to was saying that India's PM2.5 pollution is equatable to CO2 pollution done by the US. Which is really not true, plus he saw that opinion in a documentary about climate change. Which would be a valid opinion.
  - rm2889 10y ago
    Carbon footprint and particulate matter are two different issues. The US has an enormous carbon footprint, but the air quality in the US is much better than India's. This also includes densely populated places like Manhattan. Increase in PM2.5, PM10, NO2 and SO2 directly affects and damages the lungs of healthy individuals. Yes the US has a carbon footprint problem, and yes they're atleast trying to solve it. But their citizens aren't choking. People in New Delhi are. Stop trying to conflate the two issues. Long term climate change != particulate matter in the air we breathe, though they're both important.
    - legolas2412 10y ago
      I didn't conflate the issues, he equated them. In my opinion, particulate matter is a problem that will be solved with a small amount of effort. And now in India it will be, we had similar scare in 1998 and Delhi became the first city in the world to convert entire public transportation plus all the for-hire auto-rickshaws to CNG. On the other hand, an entire political party in USA denies climate change is even real. Plus, it's not a problem that will be fixed at all, we can merely contain it's effects.
nodesocket 10y ago
Fact check. Total US CO2 emissions as of 2014 was 5.3 million, India's was 2.3 million. That's not a huge difference. Also, China produces twice the amount of CO2 as the US [see 1]. India has 700M people who use cow dung as their source of fire. Once India progresses in terms of fuels they will overtake the US and potentially China. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- edblarney 10y ago
  CO2 does not directl affects people's health - and so it's a different matter entirely. Sulphates, DDT, particulates and other toxins represent immediate health hazards that we all need to work on, some more than others.
- ignoramous 10y ago
  Since when is any unit of '3 million' not a huge difference?
  - falcor84 10y ago
    At least since the invention of SI prefixes
    - Brig303 10y ago
      With 4x the population of US, per capita comparisons might make more sense. No?
- victornomad 10y ago
  So basically you are saying that the US emissions are more than 2x India's. Taking into account that India has 3x the population of the US then it means that US emissions are 6 times bigger than India in terms of population <sarcasm>Everything is awesomeeee</sarcasm>
  - refurb 10y ago
imjustsaying 10y ago
"climate change deniers" What does that mean and how is it relevant? CO2 is not causing the smog and elevated PM 2.5/10 levels in Delhi.
- legolas2412 10y ago
  Ahh but the smog problem can be fixed. Our politicians are just not motivated to solve it. Global warming on the other hand. CO2 has ruined the planet permanently.
  - guscost 10y ago
    I downvoted your other comment, because as someone who doesn't often agree with mainstream environmentalism, I've been called a "problem" or a "denier" or whatever many times in the past, usually by people who seem to think that I don't understand or care to learn some indisputable truth. I'm constantly seeking out information about this and other science from all manner of sources, and constantly trying to re-evaluate my beliefs and stay rational. You call for America to "fix education" but your own tone is overwhelmingly condescending. You must realize that rhetoric like yours alienates precisely those who want to hear new perspectives. And then not an hour later, you imply that there would be no point in trying to "educate" people like myself because it is too late and the planet is now ruined. Go figure. Just curious, what is your opinion on nuclear fission as a large-scale energy source?
    - LargeCompanies 10y ago
      Do you not know that in these circles you must believe in.. 1. Climate change 2. Vote for Clinton It's America and Silly Valley says you must think like they do otherwise your a deplorable! Please come back when you have learned how to be a good silly valley robot! It's America after all...
    - legolas2412 10y ago
      Well, with all the scientific knowledge and education you can get in USA, you guys still believe that GMO are harmful (while they can solve world hunger), have tons of anti-vaccers, flat-earthers, young earth creationist and climate change deniers. You are welcome to question the current wisdom, but to take a non sensical position not supported by any scientific reasoning is not seeking out information. Nuclear is the cleanest energy as per records, and causes far less deaths/cancer than coal etc. However, I don't expect a country like India to implement all the precautions and take care of maintenance, when even Japan didn't do due procedures. I would take wind and solar over any other form of energy.
revelation 10y ago
Unchecked smog will kill people earlier than a mere rise in temperatures by what, 3°C? The slope isn't nearly the same.
- legolas2412 10y ago
  Unchecked smog will be fixed with enough political incentive. Unlike global warming, It's a problem that can be fixed in a year
cb18 10y ago
>US is killing everyone How?
- legolas2412 10y ago
  GLOBAL WARMING is permanent.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    Then build Nuclear plants immediately. The French built 1960's style reactors and have a perfect safety record, 85% of electricity comes from Nuclear. With i) modern designs and ii) re-investment in the tech, which hasn't seen advancement in 20 years, we'd solve the problem quickly. Fukishima is avoidable, and Chenobyl ... was insanity, not even really a 'nuclear accident' (they were running reactors out in the open, without any containment or safety measures - like making sarin gas on a campfire). Obviously it comes along with other complexities and challenges, but most of them - even long term storage of used fuel - can be addressed. There's enough known Uranium deposits to power us for the next few hundred years - and that's even when we have not been looking for more deposits for 40 years. Even without any 'new ideas' - we could be CO2 free within 10 years. The entire world. We could even build CO2 'scrubbers' to pull CO2 out of the air. Nuclear reactors are not actually as complicated as they seem, they are actually quite basic. We have the solution in front of its, it just takes the political will, and intelligent information campaigns.
    - legolas2412 10y ago
      I agree
rdsubhas 10y ago
What's the point of PM2.5, PM10, per-capita emission and so on if you can't live in a city with your kids anymore? No offense to you, but I think all those "experts" arguing on TV about this should just go and live in Delhi for a week.

CydeWeys 10y ago

> Even on absolute levels, India's pollution is a fraction of US. I don't think this is true for particulate pollution. You may only be talking about carbon dioxide. Also, "Somewhere else is worse" isn't a good defense, especially when it may not even be true; it's just deflection. India has a real problem here with air pollution, and pointing fingers at other nations won't fix it.

legolas2412 10y ago
No denying there is a problem and that we should work on a solution, it is just getting media attention now. Politicians now are under public pressure to fix it. The person I replied to was saying that India's PM2.5 pollution is equatable to CO2 pollution done by the US. Which is really not true, plus he saw that opinion in a documentary about climate change. Which would be a valid opinion.
- rm2889 10y ago
  Carbon footprint and particulate matter are two different issues. The US has an enormous carbon footprint, but the air quality in the US is much better than India's. This also includes densely populated places like Manhattan. Increase in PM2.5, PM10, NO2 and SO2 directly affects and damages the lungs of healthy individuals. Yes the US has a carbon footprint problem, and yes they're atleast trying to solve it. But their citizens aren't choking. People in New Delhi are. Stop trying to conflate the two issues. Long term climate change != particulate matter in the air we breathe, though they're both important.
  - legolas2412 10y ago
    I didn't conflate the issues, he equated them. In my opinion, particulate matter is a problem that will be solved with a small amount of effort. And now in India it will be, we had similar scare in 1998 and Delhi became the first city in the world to convert entire public transportation plus all the for-hire auto-rickshaws to CNG. On the other hand, an entire political party in USA denies climate change is even real. Plus, it's not a problem that will be fixed at all, we can merely contain it's effects.

nodesocket 10y ago

Fact check. Total US CO2 emissions as of 2014 was 5.3 million, India's was 2.3 million. That's not a huge difference. Also, China produces twice the amount of CO2 as the US [see 1]. India has 700M people who use cow dung as their source of fire. Once India progresses in terms of fuels they will overtake the US and potentially China. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

edblarney 10y ago
CO2 does not directl affects people's health - and so it's a different matter entirely. Sulphates, DDT, particulates and other toxins represent immediate health hazards that we all need to work on, some more than others.
ignoramous 10y ago
Since when is any unit of '3 million' not a huge difference?
- falcor84 10y ago
  At least since the invention of SI prefixes
  - Brig303 10y ago
    With 4x the population of US, per capita comparisons might make more sense. No?
victornomad 10y ago
So basically you are saying that the US emissions are more than 2x India's. Taking into account that India has 3x the population of the US then it means that US emissions are 6 times bigger than India in terms of population <sarcasm>Everything is awesomeeee</sarcasm>
- refurb 10y ago

imjustsaying 10y ago

"climate change deniers" What does that mean and how is it relevant? CO2 is not causing the smog and elevated PM 2.5/10 levels in Delhi.

legolas2412 10y ago
Ahh but the smog problem can be fixed. Our politicians are just not motivated to solve it. Global warming on the other hand. CO2 has ruined the planet permanently.
- guscost 10y ago
  I downvoted your other comment, because as someone who doesn't often agree with mainstream environmentalism, I've been called a "problem" or a "denier" or whatever many times in the past, usually by people who seem to think that I don't understand or care to learn some indisputable truth. I'm constantly seeking out information about this and other science from all manner of sources, and constantly trying to re-evaluate my beliefs and stay rational. You call for America to "fix education" but your own tone is overwhelmingly condescending. You must realize that rhetoric like yours alienates precisely those who want to hear new perspectives. And then not an hour later, you imply that there would be no point in trying to "educate" people like myself because it is too late and the planet is now ruined. Go figure. Just curious, what is your opinion on nuclear fission as a large-scale energy source?
  - LargeCompanies 10y ago
    Do you not know that in these circles you must believe in.. 1. Climate change 2. Vote for Clinton It's America and Silly Valley says you must think like they do otherwise your a deplorable! Please come back when you have learned how to be a good silly valley robot! It's America after all...
  - legolas2412 10y ago
    Well, with all the scientific knowledge and education you can get in USA, you guys still believe that GMO are harmful (while they can solve world hunger), have tons of anti-vaccers, flat-earthers, young earth creationist and climate change deniers. You are welcome to question the current wisdom, but to take a non sensical position not supported by any scientific reasoning is not seeking out information. Nuclear is the cleanest energy as per records, and causes far less deaths/cancer than coal etc. However, I don't expect a country like India to implement all the precautions and take care of maintenance, when even Japan didn't do due procedures. I would take wind and solar over any other form of energy.

revelation 10y ago

Unchecked smog will kill people earlier than a mere rise in temperatures by what, 3°C? The slope isn't nearly the same.

legolas2412 10y ago
Unchecked smog will be fixed with enough political incentive. Unlike global warming, It's a problem that can be fixed in a year

cb18 10y ago

>US is killing everyone How?

legolas2412 10y ago
GLOBAL WARMING is permanent.
- edblarney 10y ago
  Then build Nuclear plants immediately. The French built 1960's style reactors and have a perfect safety record, 85% of electricity comes from Nuclear. With i) modern designs and ii) re-investment in the tech, which hasn't seen advancement in 20 years, we'd solve the problem quickly. Fukishima is avoidable, and Chenobyl ... was insanity, not even really a 'nuclear accident' (they were running reactors out in the open, without any containment or safety measures - like making sarin gas on a campfire). Obviously it comes along with other complexities and challenges, but most of them - even long term storage of used fuel - can be addressed. There's enough known Uranium deposits to power us for the next few hundred years - and that's even when we have not been looking for more deposits for 40 years. Even without any 'new ideas' - we could be CO2 free within 10 years. The entire world. We could even build CO2 'scrubbers' to pull CO2 out of the air. Nuclear reactors are not actually as complicated as they seem, they are actually quite basic. We have the solution in front of its, it just takes the political will, and intelligent information campaigns.
  - legolas2412 10y ago
    I agree

rdsubhas 10y ago

What's the point of PM2.5, PM10, per-capita emission and so on if you can't live in a city with your kids anymore? No offense to you, but I think all those "experts" arguing on TV about this should just go and live in Delhi for a week.