4 ms·

I lived there in '08 and '09. You cannot believe it until you have seen it. The difference during the Olympics was stark. For example, my apartment in Shijingsh

I lived there in '08 and '09. You cannot believe it until you have seen it. The difference during the Olympics was stark. For example, my apartment in Shijingshan had a view of a mountain (~5 mi) and a comm tower (~1 mi). I lived in that apartment for a month before I ever saw either of them. The 'Jing rarely gets full sunlight, rather there is this kind of yellowish lambertian light source in the white-ish gray sky. People who espouse environmental deregulation should go check it out.

fatbird 14y ago
I heard that the change during the Olympics was remarkable. How come the actions they took to clean up didn't stick? You would think that when everyone saw the difference, there'd be a lot of support for fixing the underlying problems.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  It required them to shut down a lot of industrial production. A temporary pause in production was a reasonable sacrifice for the Olympics. After the games were over, they worked overtime to catch up. Beijingers have lived with it their whole lives, it is normal for them.
- tellarin 14y ago
  They even shutdown many factories temporarily before the games. Guess many are back on. Also, the city (an many others) grew a lot since 2008. Lots more traffic, heating, etc. Not defending the government, but the problem has also grown bigger.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  They had the Olympics in August, which normally isn't that bad. If you ever want to visit Beijing, come in fall, and avoid winter.
cryptoz 14y ago
> People who espouse environmental deregulation should go check it out. This is a very interesting comment. Right now in Canada, we have a Conservative majority government that is absolutely hell-bent on environmental deregulation. Their supporters almost exclusively bring up China as the primary reason why environmental deregulation is so important to them ("if we kept our existing regulations, our economy would tank since China would make so much more money"). I very much doubt seeing the skies in Beijing would change anything, but I wonder. Perhaps a campaign in Canada to show images of what China is like would make a difference; on the other hand, the supporters of the environmental deregulation are not the type of people to care about air quality. They value a "strong economy" and money above absolutely everything else, and think that Canada needs to pollute more and more, as much as it can in fact, in order to be a reasonable country in the future.
- MichaelSalib 14y ago
  Air pollution control tends to be extremely cost effective. The benefits from reducing childhood asthma and friends tend to more than pay for remediation technology. Also, people are weird. In the last few decades, there was a huge push to reduce American coal burning plants SOx emissions because of acid rain. It was surprising how much people responded to lakes dying.
  - chii 14y ago
    > Air pollution control tends to be extremely cost effective. The benefits from reducing childhood asthma and friends tend to more than pay for remediation technology. that is only true if it is taxpayers who foot the bill for the technology/equipment. If you were a plant operator, you wouldnt want to install expensive air scrubbers to reduce polution, but which won't actually net you any extra profit. The gov't has to create incentive schemes - otherwise, the rational actor will use the path of least resistance to profit, and i suspect that path won't include pollution reduction measures.
  - corporalagumbo 14y ago
    The cost-benefit ratio changes hugely depending upon the economic development of the country. In a country where individuals are highly-educated and produce a lot of economic value, sure, better health outcomes can be very prudent investments. In a country like China where educational levels are lower, economic value produced by individuals lower, then the numbers are completely different. Lives are unfortunately cheaper there.
newbie12 14y ago
This isn't a case of regulation or no regulation-- most of the worst polluters in China are state-owned enterprises. Just cutting off national and local government subsidies for industry would do a great deal to stop the pollution.
- archgoon 14y ago
  How does privatizing the companies make them more inclined to use more expensive, cleaner technologies?
  - bcoates 14y ago
    It causes the factories that are operating at a loss but being supported by subsidies to shut down, the cleanest technology of all. Getting rid of the agricultural price supports in the US would probably help the runoff situation in the Gulf of Mexico, too.
    - ars 14y ago
      And this is the problem with analyzing things in isolation. Tell me, what do you think the next step will be after they shutdown? People need that energy after all - it's not like people will just shrug and go "oh well, no heat for me". You will actually end up making things worse, under the guise of making things better. Just like a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, an analysis in isolation is worse than useless - it can actually cause you to promote actions that result in the diametric opposite of what you want. You have good company: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5051285 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5051285 did the same as you and was rightly skewered for it.
      - Retric 14y ago
        Efficient power plants produce less pollution for the same energy output. So replacing old power plants often reduces pollution even when that's not the goal.
orangecat 14y ago
As should people who believe that strong central governments are likely to make wise long-term decisions. See also: Chernobyl.
seanmcdirmid 14y ago
Hum, late summer/fall in Beijing is usually pretty good, so there wasn't much risk during the Olympics (it was easy to mitigate). Now winter is an entirely different problem, I'm just waiting for spring to come.
Tichy 14y ago
Why do people move there?
- corporalagumbo 14y ago
  Because it's better than the place they left?

fatbird 14y ago

I heard that the change during the Olympics was remarkable. How come the actions they took to clean up didn't stick? You would think that when everyone saw the difference, there'd be a lot of support for fixing the underlying problems.

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
It required them to shut down a lot of industrial production. A temporary pause in production was a reasonable sacrifice for the Olympics. After the games were over, they worked overtime to catch up. Beijingers have lived with it their whole lives, it is normal for them.
tellarin 14y ago
They even shutdown many factories temporarily before the games. Guess many are back on. Also, the city (an many others) grew a lot since 2008. Lots more traffic, heating, etc. Not defending the government, but the problem has also grown bigger.
seanmcdirmid 14y ago
They had the Olympics in August, which normally isn't that bad. If you ever want to visit Beijing, come in fall, and avoid winter.

cryptoz 14y ago

> People who espouse environmental deregulation should go check it out. This is a very interesting comment. Right now in Canada, we have a Conservative majority government that is absolutely hell-bent on environmental deregulation. Their supporters almost exclusively bring up China as the primary reason why environmental deregulation is so important to them ("if we kept our existing regulations, our economy would tank since China would make so much more money"). I very much doubt seeing the skies in Beijing would change anything, but I wonder. Perhaps a campaign in Canada to show images of what China is like would make a difference; on the other hand, the supporters of the environmental deregulation are not the type of people to care about air quality. They value a "strong economy" and money above absolutely everything else, and think that Canada needs to pollute more and more, as much as it can in fact, in order to be a reasonable country in the future.

MichaelSalib 14y ago
Air pollution control tends to be extremely cost effective. The benefits from reducing childhood asthma and friends tend to more than pay for remediation technology. Also, people are weird. In the last few decades, there was a huge push to reduce American coal burning plants SOx emissions because of acid rain. It was surprising how much people responded to lakes dying.
- chii 14y ago
  > Air pollution control tends to be extremely cost effective. The benefits from reducing childhood asthma and friends tend to more than pay for remediation technology. that is only true if it is taxpayers who foot the bill for the technology/equipment. If you were a plant operator, you wouldnt want to install expensive air scrubbers to reduce polution, but which won't actually net you any extra profit. The gov't has to create incentive schemes - otherwise, the rational actor will use the path of least resistance to profit, and i suspect that path won't include pollution reduction measures.
- corporalagumbo 14y ago
  The cost-benefit ratio changes hugely depending upon the economic development of the country. In a country where individuals are highly-educated and produce a lot of economic value, sure, better health outcomes can be very prudent investments. In a country like China where educational levels are lower, economic value produced by individuals lower, then the numbers are completely different. Lives are unfortunately cheaper there.

newbie12 14y ago

This isn't a case of regulation or no regulation-- most of the worst polluters in China are state-owned enterprises. Just cutting off national and local government subsidies for industry would do a great deal to stop the pollution.

archgoon 14y ago
How does privatizing the companies make them more inclined to use more expensive, cleaner technologies?
- bcoates 14y ago
  It causes the factories that are operating at a loss but being supported by subsidies to shut down, the cleanest technology of all. Getting rid of the agricultural price supports in the US would probably help the runoff situation in the Gulf of Mexico, too.
  - ars 14y ago
    And this is the problem with analyzing things in isolation. Tell me, what do you think the next step will be after they shutdown? People need that energy after all - it's not like people will just shrug and go "oh well, no heat for me". You will actually end up making things worse, under the guise of making things better. Just like a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, an analysis in isolation is worse than useless - it can actually cause you to promote actions that result in the diametric opposite of what you want. You have good company: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5051285 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5051285 did the same as you and was rightly skewered for it.
    - Retric 14y ago
      Efficient power plants produce less pollution for the same energy output. So replacing old power plants often reduces pollution even when that's not the goal.

orangecat 14y ago

As should people who believe that strong central governments are likely to make wise long-term decisions. See also: Chernobyl.

seanmcdirmid 14y ago

Hum, late summer/fall in Beijing is usually pretty good, so there wasn't much risk during the Olympics (it was easy to mitigate). Now winter is an entirely different problem, I'm just waiting for spring to come.

Tichy 14y ago

Why do people move there?

corporalagumbo 14y ago
Because it's better than the place they left?