Smog is more toxic in Europe than in China

[UM-Bot]

Air pollution in Europe and North America may be 27 times more toxic than the smog over Chinese cities.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/303724/smog-is-more-toxic-in-europe-than-in-china

[sees]

Very worrying for those living in Europe and North America if this is true.  Unlike many air pollutants, e.g. nitrogen oxide (from diesel fumes) which is invisible, smog CAN be seen!  So this makes me question the findings in this link i.e. the evidence should be visible! Admittedly there are days, here in London, that the smog can be seen (and there are official warnings given) but China seems to have this smog much more frequently.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/17/beijing-smog-pollution-red-alert-declared-in-china-capital-and-21-other-cities

[preacherman76]

I don't know. Sounds like justification as to why China can pollute as much as they want, while shutting down industry in Europe, and North America.

[Essan]

The story has been spun in one direction, but could easily be spun right around

ie:  "A study shows that smog in many smaller Chinese cities is not as deadly as it is in major cities in China, and elsewhere in the world, because it contains more natural dust and a lower concentration of industrial pollutants."

[danielost]

0this is just another way toget money from the rich countries and give it to the poor ones.

[+and-then]

20 hours ago, danielost said:

0this is just another way toget money from the rich countries and give it to the poor ones.

Yeah, but only after deducting a "handling fee".  I've experienced the smog of Beijing in December and it is well and truly horrible.  Burning eyes, nasal passages and even making me cough.  I can imagine how many people would get sick or die from it.

[danielost]

15 hours ago, and then said:

Yeah, but only after deducting a "handling fee".  I've experienced the smog of Beijing in December and it is well and truly horrible.  Burning eyes, nasal passages and even making me cough.  I can imagine how many people would get sick or die from it.

you understand that they count china as a poor country.

[Doug1029]

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 3:19 AM, danielost said:

0this is just another way toget money from the rich countries and give it to the poor ones.

Exactly which country asked for money based on this and which country gave them some?

A few countries, particularly African ones, have tried to blackmail the rest of the world with threats of high levels of pollution.  It didn't work - nobody felt that guilty.  That was back in the 90s.  Since then, they've pretty much given up.

But there is a risk here:  if Third World countries start installing the new, more efficient technologies before we do, we could find ourselves at a disadvantage in trying to compete with them.  This is particularly worrisome in the case of China which is already starting to compete with us.

Doug

 

[danielost]

15 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Exactly which country asked for money based on this and which country gave them some?

A few countries, particularly African ones, have tried to blackmail the rest of the world with threats of high levels of pollution.  It didn't work - nobody felt that guilty.  That was back in the 90s.  Since then, they've pretty much given up.

But there is a risk here:  if Third World countries start installing the new, more efficient technologies before we do, we could find ourselves at a disadvantage in trying to compete with them.  This is particularly worrisome in the case of China which is already starting to compete with us.

Doug

 

i believe its called green credits.

Edited February 12, 2017 by danielost

[Doug1029]

47 minutes ago, danielost said:

in believe its called green credits.

Carbon credits.  You do realize that landowners in the US are selling carbon credits right now, even though the US has no such program?  That's because a polluter in Spain or Germany or wherever can buy credits anywhere in the world as a way to offset their pollution.  You can even exchange carbon credits on the Chicago Board of Trade.

The problem is that carbon credits don't work.  They don't reduce pollution.  All they do is move it around.  It does little good to control pollution in Portugal if the US is going to raise its pollution levels to take up Portugal's slack.  So what to do?

Most "green" technologies now coming on the market are cheaper than coal or oil.  Wind is already there.  The new passive solar systems have just pulled ahead of coal and may be pulling ahead of oil in a year or two.  The idea is to clean up our act, not shut down the economy as the deniers would have us believe.  Do it the cheap way - wind and conservation and maybe in a few years solar.  By then some other technologies may be approaching market.  I'm waiting for back-yard wind and solar systems.

It is argued that clean energy is expensive - it is if you use stuff that isn't ready, like bio-diesel or switchgrass gasoline.  That's like trying to compete against a Ferrari with a Model A.  Wait until research brings the cost down, then adopt it.  In the case of switchgrass, that may be never.

It looks like we're going to have efficient batteries on the market shortly (maybe already).  Tesla is already making them.  As soon as they're readily available, auto makers will start producing electric cars that can compete with gas-powered cars.  There are some rather-inefficient electric cars already on the road.  Their problems are that they have a short range and are slow to recharge.  Solve those problems first, then switch to electric cars.

The real reason we aren't switching already (except in the case of wind) is that we haven't developed the technology.  You can't really blame industry for that.  As fuel-efficient cars and generators become available, they are being installed.  OSU has a fleet of gas-powered vehicles, a gift from T. Boone Pickens.  Mr. Big Oil has seen the hand-writing on the wall and is urging us to switch to gas.  He even owns two wind farms.

We're already converting to combinations of wind and natural gas.  The US will convert at least 20% of its power to wind by 2030.  We could make that 50%.  We could be completely converted by 2050.

Conversion is moving ahead and Trmp and the deniers can move over or get run over.

Doug

P.S.:  Some Republican Senators and Congressmen have approached Trmp about setting up a fee-and-dividend program.  More power to them.  I'd turn conservative to get that program going.  I don't know what Trmp told them.

Doug

The Plains and Eastern Clean Line has just signed contracts with General Electric to supply its converter equipment.  The Arkansas lawsuit has been defeated and construction has resumed.  I don't know where you're from, Daniel, but if its Arkansas, Tennessee or Florida, you could well be running your computer on Oklahoma wind by this time next year.

Doug

Edited February 12, 2017 by Doug1029

[danielost]

On 2/12/2017 at 4:23 PM, Doug1o29 said:

Carbon credits.  You do realize that landowners in the US are selling carbon credits right now, even though the US has no such program?  That's because a polluter in Spain or Germany or wherever can buy credits anywhere in the world as a way to offset their pollution.  You can even exchange carbon credits on the Chicago Board of Trade.

The problem is that carbon credits don't work.  They don't reduce pollution.  All they do is move it around.  It does little good to control pollution in Portugal if the US is going to raise its pollution levels to take up Portugal's slack.  So what to do?

Most "green" technologies now coming on the market are cheaper than coal or oil.  Wind is already there.  The new passive solar systems have just pulled ahead of coal and may be pulling ahead of oil in a year or two.  The idea is to clean up our act, not shut down the economy as the deniers would have us believe.  Do it the cheap way - wind and conservation and maybe in a few years solar.  By then some other technologies may be approaching market.  I'm waiting for back-yard wind and solar systems.

It is argued that clean energy is expensive - it is if you use stuff that isn't ready, like bio-diesel or switchgrass gasoline.  That's like trying to compete against a Ferrari with a Model A.  Wait until research brings the cost down, then adopt it.  In the case of switchgrass, that may be never.

It looks like we're going to have efficient batteries on the market shortly (maybe already).  Tesla is already making them.  As soon as they're readily available, auto makers will start producing electric cars that can compete with gas-powered cars.  There are some rather-inefficient electric cars already on the road.  Their problems are that they have a short range and are slow to recharge.  Solve those problems first, then switch to electric cars.

The real reason we aren't switching already (except in the case of wind) is that we haven't developed the technology.  You can't really blame industry for that.  As fuel-efficient cars and generators become available, they are being installed.  OSU has a fleet of gas-powered vehicles, a gift from T. Boone Pickens.  Mr. Big Oil has seen the hand-writing on the wall and is urging us to switch to gas.  He even owns two wind farms.

We're already converting to combinations of wind and natural gas.  The US will convert at least 20% of its power to wind by 2030.  We could make that 50%.  We could be completely converted by 2050.

Conversion is moving ahead and Trmp and the deniers can move over or get run over.

Doug

P.S.:  Some Republican Senators and Congressmen have approached Trmp about setting up a fee-and-dividend program.  More power to them.  I'd turn conservative to get that program going.  I don't know what Trmp told them.

Doug

The Plains and Eastern Clean Line has just signed contracts with General Electric to supply its converter equipment.  The Arkansas lawsuit has been defeated and construction has resumed.  I don't know where you're from, Daniel, but if its Arkansas, Tennessee or Florida, you could well be running your computer on Oklahoma wind by this time next year.

Doug

its worse than that germany buys the credits and keeps on polluting in their own backyard.   the pollution goes no place.  just the money does.

[Doug1029]

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 11:44 PM, danielost said:

its worse than that germany buys the credits and keeps on polluting in their own backyard.   the pollution goes no place.  just the money does.

You're right.  The only good thing to be said about that is that  a lot of the money is coming here - to private landowners who keep their land in trees.

Doug