Slashdot Log In
Scientists Fear Impact of Asian Pollutants On US
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Sep 02, 2008 04:07 PM
from the please-cover-your-mouth-when-you-cough dept.
from the please-cover-your-mouth-when-you-cough dept.
During the Olympics we discussed the international monitoring effort as China shut down factories and curtailed automobile travel in an attempt to reduce pollution. Now reader Anti-Globalism sends in a story that reveals that monitoring effort to be ongoing, with a bigger mandate: assessing the impact of China's pollution on the US. In fact the problem is bigger still because, as one researcher put it, "It's one atmosphere." Scientists are finding that pollution from, for example, Europe can travel right around the globe in three weeks. "By some estimates more than 10 billion pounds of airborne pollutants from Asia — ranging from soot to mercury to carbon dioxide to ozone — reach the US annually. The problem is only expected to worsen: Some Chinese officials have warned that pollution in their country could quadruple in the next 15 years. While some scientists are less certain, others say the Asian pollution could destabilize weather patterns across the North Pacific, mask the effects of global warming, reduce rainfall in the American West and compromise efforts to meet air-pollution standards."
Related Stories
[+]
Watching China Turn Off the Pollution 427 comments
NewbieV points out coverage of the effort to assess Beijing's air pollution control efforts. Quote from one of the investigators: "This will be a very interesting experiment that can never happen again." Here's the main project scientist's site on the monitoring effort, and Newsweek coverage that brings out a paradoxical effect of reducing pollution on global warming. "Unmanned aerial vehicles are measuring emissions of soot and other forms of black carbon. The instruments are observing pollution transport patterns as Beijing enacts its 'great shutdown' for the Summer Olympic Games. Chinese officials have compelled reductions in industrial activity by as much as 30 percent and cuts in automobile use by half to safeguard the health of competing athletes immediately before and during the games."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
They're not that bad (Score:5, Funny)
Asian pollutants come to the US without a penny in their pocket. Within a year, they usually have a thriving business.
Re:They're not that bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, we in the US are victims of our own pollution. Its not that we don't realize it, its just that it costs a lot of money and political will to stop it and fix it. You can't blame all of us Americans for that. Some of us are trying really hard to turn that ship around, but it doesn't stop on a dime.
At least we recognize the problem and many of us are trying to do something about it. I'm not sure you can say the same about China - I don't know, I've never been there, but I'm sure there are plenty of Chinese citizens that don't like it one bit either. You also have to stipulate to the fact that when the US was in its major industrialization buildup, pollution wasn't recognized as a problem. The technology to be clean didn't exist, and we weren't fighting the world tooth and nail for our right to pollute - although we have our own problems with our government not having the balls to fix existing problems. China on the other hand seems to use developed nations as an excuse to pollute, even though it is globally irresponsible to do so, and the technology exists not to.
Finally, those scientists are not on a high horse, they ARE the high horse. It is more a fault of the executive leadership of the United States trying to bury the problem, being friendly to the oh-so-clean oil industry, than government scientists whose reports have been subject to review and even censorship by the President and his men. Its not our scientists fault that we pollute, and most of them (and especially the ones who research this particular field) really wish it wasn't a problem for you, for me, or the citizens of China. The purpose of the study was to show an effect, and if you want to do a study that shows the effects on your country by our pollutions you are free to do so.
Parent
Fortunately (Score:5, Insightful)
... the solution is simple. Just forbid imports from polluting Chinese factories.
Re:Fortunately (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Fortunately (Score:4, Insightful)
You can have one, but the US-manufactured saddle for it will cost you three times as much as the Chinese one.
Parent
Re:Fortunately (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
US is exporting pollution (Score:5, Insightful)
If you consider pollutants as a consumption issue, rather than as a production issue, then USA, being the largest consumers, should take some of the environmental responsibility too: That electronic gizzmo cost you $100 + your share of environmental "guilt".
Parent
Re:US is exporting pollution (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair to China, America had it's own "setting rivers on fire" stage during our industrial revolution, and that stage lasted decades, no doubt affecting China with our pollution. It's a bit of "pulling the ladder up after us" to insist that China take a harder path than we did during their industrial revolution.
Parent
Re:US is exporting pollution (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Environmentalism causes pollution (Score:4, Interesting)
Environmental over-regulation in the US drives up prices for manufacturers and other businesses. This leads them to move to China and other developing countries with very lax environmental standards. Pollution is increased a lot.
Just setting environmental standards at a rational level in the US might allow these companies to stay here. They could run a clean operation. It might not be perfect or "sustainable", but it would be clean and suitable by any rational standard.
Environmental over-regulation and utopianism actually results in greater pollution in these cases. Carbon cap-and-trade schemes will just increase this phenomenon. And it shifts pollution to poorer, less-empowered populations.
Parent
Re:Environmentalism causes pollution (Score:5, Interesting)
Overregulation is mostly the doing of companies
1)Pollute
2)New regulation
3)Hire lawyer to fight new regulation
4)Lawyer find a loophole in the regulation so one can continue polluting while respecting the
letter of the regulation.
5)Regulators close the loophole, increasing the word count of the regulation.
6)Repeat 4 and 5 100 times
7) Regulations are now 10000 pages long.
8) Complain about the red tape you contributed creating by not obeying the spirit of the regulations in the first place.
Parent
What is already happening (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course this is nothing new. Not long ago, Japan was "the place that produced cheap crap". Now Japanese labor is relatively expensive and Japan offshore their work. Same thing is happening in Korea and many other places too.
What really has to change to ward of fear of diminished resources is for people to stop linking quality of life with material consumption. When you're starving then it makes sense, but right now obese people outnumber starving people so there is no food shortage, there is a consumption problem. It really needs people to stop using excessive consumption as a pill for their social ills. Getting a new cellphone every year != a high quality of life.
Parent
Course... (Score:4, Insightful)
America only pumps pure clean oxygen into the atmosphere.
Re:Course... (Score:5, Insightful)
When the Olympics were in Atlanta did they have to shut down every factory for dozens of miles just go go from 100, to 10 times acceptable particulate levels?
Parent
Re:Course... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Course... (Score:5, Informative)
That study had such crap methodology it should be dismissed offhand..
1) Not a year over study, they compared two three back to back to back 4 week periods (not year over)
2) The study covered the five counties around Atlanta which as a whole saw little change in traffic patterns not just the county in which traffic was actually effected.
3) It measured the decrease of 1.8 cases per day via medicade accounting not hospital records
--
None of this is not to say that we don't pollute and that car pollution is noxious but to compare what goes on in Beijing to Atlanta is like comparing locking your kid is his basement with giving them a midnight curfew.
Parent
Pot, meet... (Score:5, Insightful)
kettle.
One Atmosphere, but multiple markets? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is our pollution. If you outsource industry, you outsource the concomitant waste. So do we wash our hands (in increasingly filthy water), or step up to the plate and deal? (A rhetorical question, I know....)
Tax us more (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just China's pollution. It's the world's pollution. We consume the product, and we should be responsible for the process waste.
Some portion of the purchase price should be allocated to r&d for minimising process waste. Whether taxed by manufacturers directly, or by participating governments.
China (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't the US still number one polluter or did China overtake recently? Either way the per capita pollution is still worse in the states by a hefty margin. Talk about being hypocritical.
Re:China (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:China (Score:5, Interesting)
GDP is meaningless... Tell me about industrial output and then we can talk.
Not that I doubt China's industrial environmental standards are very lenient, but considering that much of their industrial output is willfully imported by the US and Europe, it's hard to criticize them without getting quite hypocritical.
Parent
please stop the blame game (Score:5, Insightful)
partisans on the left, partisans on the right, nationalists of every nationality...
please shut the fuck up
the earth is our planet, and we must steward it
this applies to you on the left: a hands off attitude to mother gaia is complete bullshit in a world of 6 billion technologically inclined homo sapiens
this applies to you on the right: yes, human activity actually has an impact on our planet's climate, and yes, we must do something about it. we are sorry you are in denial on this subject. please learn to adapt to reality
furthermore, it does not matter who fucked up our environment, it simply matters that we must manage it, all of us. talking about blame is simply a desire to avoid responsibility. we all have the responsibility for our planet
we must must find ways to turn up the thermostat, we must find ways to turn down the thermostat, and then, we must actively do this. we have plenty of time to adjust and anticipate and counteradjust our manipulations. the scaremongers wish to talk about run away processes, but we are very much in the middle of a fluid and forgiving climate model. no atmosphere would have survived this long on earth were it so fragile and susceptile to runaway change. millenia of abuse from volcanoes and sun cycles and life processes has proven our atmosphere to be quite rugged
but not invulnerable, and certainly totally indifferent to our well-being and our need to grow crops. the earth has no problem turning into tundra or desert. but we have a problem with that. so let us actively manage the atmosphere to stay within comfortable parameters. this is of course completely artificial. the natural evolution OR human-made greenhouse gases migth dictate that the atmosphere go to a hellish extreme at some point. who cares WHY it might drift to an uncomfortable fringe state, natural or man-made, are we to simply sit back and suffer and wait for things to get comfortable again in a couple of thousand years?
no. we are mankind. unlike other animals, we do not adapt to our environment. we wear clothes, build huts: we adapt our environment to us. in this way, we conquer the taiga, and conquer the sahara. therefore, we must begin to actively engineer and manage our atmosphere to our liking, to homo sapiens comfort level. which is, pretty much as the climate is right now globally. freeze the status quo for all eternity
who CARES who is to blame, if anyone. active management is simply what we must begin to do. obviously, this should be a world body, something attached to the un. meanwhile, if we simply sit around passing the buck, blaming something else, nothing gets done, and we all go to hell. literally, in the case of climate change
it's not asian pollution (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I frankly think that pollution wafting its way from the PRC to the USA only serves the Americans right, and they I think the chinese should can all their pollution and send it to the states (or whoever else hired them to make te crap in te first place) and be done with it. This is not Chinese pollution. It is american pollution coming home where it belongs.
Everything is outsourced (Score:4, Funny)
Don't single out China/Asia (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't single out China/Asia. Countries have a massive effect upon each other. I live in far north Texas, and have seen haze/smoke from fires in central Mexico. I've always felt a large part of Texas's pollution problem is pollutants coming North. I've heard engineers talk about offering sulfer scrubbers to Eastern european coal-power plants to reduce smog here in the US.
Part of the problem is different countries worry about different types of pollution. In the US, we are more concerned about visible/long-term pollutants than invisible/short-term ones. Some other countries are completely unconcerned about things like leaded gasoline, which is still used in many countries but has been out of the US for decades. America has a bad record, but has gotten some things right in the end. Europeans make a big deal about CO2, but many European
beaches have incredibly toxic water, or land which is unfarmable. Thanks to American pollution reforms, life is even returning to New York's harbor [nytimes.com].
Everything is a give/take. People are worrying about energy inefficient bulbs, replacing them with their more efficient fluorescent cousins, but are ignoring the problems those bulbs have with mercury. Or with LED bulbs, gallium aresenide. For example, the life returning to New York's harbor happens to be devouring all of the wooden structures built since they last died off.
We've been saying this all along (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, the scary unit trick... (Score:5, Informative)
Here we go again, 10 billion POUNDS. I would say that I just farted, injecting nearly 10 gatrillion nano-ounces into the precious atmosphere.
But let's put 10 billion POUNDS into perspective. That's 20 million tons, or, roughly 2E7 / 5000 teratons or 2E7 / 5E15 or really 0.0000005% of the atmosphere.
It's NOTHING.
Re:not just their pollutants (Score:5, Insightful)
Unsafe cost-cutting isn't just a Chinese thing, you know.
Parent
Re:not just their pollutants (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:not just their pollutants (Score:5, Informative)
Unsafe cost-cutting isn't just a Chinese thing, you know.
It's not cost cutting, it's just ignoring externalities [wikipedia.org].
If you don't care about pollution, then pollution controls are unrelated to costs.
China & other developing countries literally don't care, though China may be coming around.
Parent
Re:not just their pollutants (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah because we all know how very willing USA is to sacrifice anything for a cleaner environment / better world.
Stupid chinese people! Trying to catch up, teh horrorz!
Parent
Re:not just their pollutants (Score:4, Insightful)
So fine. You want to talk about us? Here's some information for you. The fact is (yes, fact) that America has spent one metric fuckton of hard-earned taxpayer cash on environmental cleanup and maintenance, and has some of the strictest regulations on the books. I know, I work in the petroleum industry and I have a pretty damn good idea what U.S. environmental requirements cost our industrial base. A HELL of a lot more than it costs China, which has nothing comparable.
So far as the U.S. being the greatest polluter
Parent
Re:not just their pollutants (Score:5, Insightful)
There has to be a huge disconnect from reality to think that our environmental policy is equivalent to the total disregard that the Chinese government shows. <sarcasm>I'm sure that you can walk into any Chinese factory and see their MSDSs, I'm sure that if 5 gallons of fuel is spilled at a Chinese gas station they have to go through the same remediation steps as in the U.S., and I'm sure that there are toys and everyfuckingthing else made with lead in the States.</sarcasm>
I been all over the world and, aside from Western Europe, Canada, Australia and the U.S., the disregard for pollution in the rest of the world is so bad that when you get home your fucking clothes smell like diesel or sulphur. The people who posted that shit above have obviously never been to China or any other developing nation.
Parent
Re:greatest producer of ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Kyoto.. LOL.. Your one of those people.
Well, tell me, what country has made it's goal in meeting the guidelines of Kyoto? Hmm? Well, you only have 37-38 countries to pick from, so tell me. Oh, I know there is something like 157 or 187 some shit like that who have signed on, but only 35-40 have caps on their Co2 so pick one and tell me which one has made progress. I'll tell you what, Germany is the closes and their progress is a combination of an accounting error that inflated their 1990 standards and almost a negative population growth. In fact, Germany's progressive and expensive solar plan hasn't even made a dent in their over all production of Co2.
So while the word is that Kyoto is the wholly grain of environmental activism, it has achieved almost nothing to date. And the achievements it has produced is by exporting industry which is the reason that 130 or more countries who had no intention of limiting emissions signed on. Kyoto is flawed from the start. It is little more then a redistribution of wealth scheme that has only worked at redistributing wealth. We were right to not get involved in it and we are still right to date to not have been involved in it. In fact, we have limited Co2 production more from a private market giving the people what they want then the Kyoto accord have in any given country.
And no, I don't consider shipping industry off to India and China (the current biggest polluter) as a reduction in emissions. It is only putting it somewhere else in the world. It is either a problem in the world or it isn't. Moving emissions from Europe to India or China isn't reducing anything regardless of calling it Kyoto or not. You should actually look into the shit before just assuming a fancy name and Al Gore means everything in the world.
Parent
Re:not just their pollutants (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:not just their pollutants (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:not just their pollutants (Score:5, Informative)
First off, the US is the greatest polluter in the world
And lastly, they are not.
By far they are not.
Support your points, troll.
"By far"? We were only overtaken in Co2 emissions this year. Before that, we were "by far" the leader.
In other areas (there's more to pollution than Co2), we are still the leader.
Be my guest and look it up.
Hell, why not listen to George Bush? He seems pretty proud of us being the world's biggest polluter: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2277298/President-George-Bush-'Goodbye-from-the-world's-biggest-polluter'.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Parent
Re:not just their pollutants (Score:5, Insightful)
You wrote a lot of words, made a lot of false assumptions, and attempted to perpetuate misinformation about human impact on the environment (aka global warming).
In all that, you still reinforced my point by saying "So to recap, Sure the US pollutes more. That's because it does more."
Thank you.
Efficiency, restriction, and your other elaborate reasonings, have no actual impact on the REAL end result: We pollute more than those we complain about. The reasoning you provided are only diversion of focus from one topic to another. We could be talking about efficiency, but we aren't. We are talking about pollution production and whether one country ought point fingers at another country of equivalent pollution production.
If you want to change the subject to your ballpark, just say "I'm going to argue about efficiency, not real pollution."
Parent
Re:not just their pollutants (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you sure it's smaller?
Also some other idiot pointed out that they made less money in china and how they at the same income level (and therefor raising productivity if you want to look at it that way) would polute even more and much more than the US. But if they had more money I'm very confident they would invest more money in keeping things clean. But it's hard to do when you don't have large margins I guess.
Anyway the polution per capita in the western world will lead a hell of a lot over china, even more if you considering THEY ARE POLUTING FOR US, IT'S WE WHO BUY THEIR PRODUCTS.
In the end it's the consumers and how we live which affect things.
Parent
Re:not just their pollutants (Score:5, Interesting)
I recall a documentary (BBC?) on a Icelandic volcano named Laki some 200 years back which blighted Europe. The show focused on a cloud of volcanic gas and the resultant illness that occurred among rural peasants. The speculation was that this was probably the result of silica in the cloud being breathed by those who worked outside. Similarly the 1815 eruption of Tambora caused the "Year without Summer" with famine among the Swiss, and unique weather reported in Pennsylvania. Pollutants are not in this league, but, they can indeed have world ranging effect.
Parent
Re:not just their pollutants (Score:4, Insightful)
Their exports are pretty skunky, too. Would you care for some lead paint with your toy, junior?
Oh, but there I go being all liberal and gay and shit. Really, we should let the free markets decide what an acceptable level of poisoning should be for our children. "But they're using asbestos as a padding for the cushion in this crib!" The free market decided it was cheaper than foam. I'm sorry, but the market's decision is final, you'll just have to accept that.
That's just ridiculous.
Really, if the facts were known about asbestos, people wouldn't buy something asbestos-lined, and there would be demand for another product.
Buying an asbestos-lined crib in that case is just irresponsible. Build your own!
Seriously, arguments like that can be (and sadly, frequently are) used to justify the most egregious nanny-state abuses.
How about a little personal responsibility? Oh, I'm sorry, I suppose it's for the government to decide what your responsibility is, as well?
Que statist vs. libertarian flamewar in 3, 2, 1....
Parent
Re:not just their pollutants (Score:4, Insightful)
That sounds like a pretty naive statement. The consumer in general is very nearly powerless compared with the corporation when it comes to actually finding out the facts. It's not like the company is going to say, "Buy our new product---now with more asbestos and lead paint." That's why we have product safety laws. The consumer generally isn't in a position to judge whether a product is safe because the consumer is not and cannot reasonably be expected to be an expert in every possible field (chemistry, metallurgy, etc.).
The consumer similarly can't reasonably be expected to keep mental track of every possible dangerous substance that might be in a product. Human memory covers the big two or three---lead, asbestos, mercury---but when you're buying toothpaste, do you know to look in the ingredients list and avoid buy products that contain diethylene glycol? Tetrachlorobiphenyl? Methyl tertiary butyl ether? For that matter, without consumer protection laws, do you honestly expect that the manufacturers would continue to list ingredients at all? After all, if you don't list the ingredients, you can get away with cutting corners. And lest you believe that one business would rat out the other to gain a market advantage if they caught them doing something unsafe, that business will just rat out the other one (whether truthfully or not), and nobody will know who to believe, so they'll just keep buying what they've always bought.
I agree that consumers should take personal responsibility for egregious abuse---somebody suing for injury because he stuck his hand into a toaster, for example---but that doesn't mean it's acceptable for a company to build a lawnmower with no cover over the blades and "let the market decide". A reasonable degree of protection from egregious abuse by companies is just as important as having a reasonable degree of protection from frivolous suits by complete idiots. You really have to draw a line somewhere or the corporations will walk all over you.
Parent
Re:This surpises anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:This surpises anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ethnocentric? The fact that pollution from europe can reach the US in 3 weeks is just illustrating that pollution travels. Presumably, thats just based on a study that found that. No one is saying pollution from the US never goes to china, it's just likely that hasn't been specifically tested and would therefore be illogical to use to support the argument.
Why is it you're so anxious to see ethnocentrism? You really had to distort things to come away with that conclusion. Are you a lawyer who has found a way to sue scientists for ethnocentrism?
Parent
Re:masks? really? (Score:5, Informative)
Or, alternatively, you could understand that different pollutants do different things. Just throwing that out there, you know. Sorta like CO2 absorbing EM waves in the IR band, and particles reflecting light back into space. Not that anyone would know anything about this.
Parent
Re:What we really need. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well said, it all pretty much started with Nixon when he opened trade and continued through Clinton and Bush. Everyone couldn't resist the money that China had to offer so they'd do anything and accept anything despite the human rights abuses as well as pollution. China never had to compromise their position even in the slightest. At least as far as I'm aware.
A tax or tariff based on pollution involved would encourage people to buy goods from places which are more neighbor friendly and would be fair since it's based on something tangible. The money could be used to help fund energy research or perhaps even more importantly cleanup efforts. This wouldn't be a bad idea per company instead of per country as some items produce less pollution than others during manufacturing.
The problem with taxing like this is that it wouldn't really have to stop at pollution as other causes could easily be picked up as well which could start a downward spiral so I'm not exactly sure what the correct course of action is beyond my own purchasing habits.
Parent
Re:And what about the USA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your point would be fair if the Kyoto treaty was actually being met by member nations. Most every nation is improving but they are falling far short of their goals which is the stated reason why the U.S. didn't get involved because they knew the standards were too high and could not be reasonably met without serious compromises to profitability.
Before Bush came into office the U.S. had tough emissions controls on manufacturing and power generation facilities. Things have gotten worse since Bush rolled back the regs but they still aren't near as bad as they were in the 50's and 60's when entire lakes were being rendered toxic.
That also said, cars in the U.S. have stricter regulations than in Europe in terms of emissions which is why all the people with truly fast cars have to import them. Of course America has a lot more cars so that is probably why you feel the way you do about our output.
You are right in that acknowledging and investigating global effects of all things we do is a worthy endeavor.
Of course with that said, what about the U.S. energy policy has been hypocritical? Or are you just trolling about an obviously failed foreign policy which is widely condemned inside the country?
The last thing I'll add is that measures are already being taken to improve matters in the U.S. China is not budging on its position and quite clearly sees no need to. I know my home town is cleaner today than it was in the 80's. Here in Arizona Phoenix is getting worse as more and more people move here but outside the valley the air is quite clear and quite healthy which is more than 75% of the state. Arizona is also going to build a rather large solar array just north of here hopefully becoming one of the largest.
A lot of research is being done right here in the valley to help improve conditions, our malls have recharge stations for electric vehicles. The U.S. is hardly standing still, more can and should be done but why agree to benchmarks you know you can't meet?
Parent
Personally... (Score:4, Interesting)
...I'm less interested in pointing fingers. Besides, the US has a habit of shooting at fingers with hellfire missiles. Instead of "naming names", it would seem better to have a close to global tracking and monitoring of pollution in general, to show WHERE different types of pollution are a problem (regardless of source). You could then add in solar-powered UAVs to collect air samples at random points, where the isotope ratios are calculated and the pollutant sources (not necessarily the factories, just the sources) are derived. The factories can be inferred from plotting the pollution clouds, if anyone is genuinely concerned, but frankly I'd have thought that cleaning fuels and raw materials would have a bigger impact, as there are likely far fewer sources than factories, factories see cleaning as expensive, but higher grade fuels and materials are worth more to their producers. Ergo, cleaning at source will be seen as making money, cleaning at point of use will be seen as spending money, even though the end result (in terms of pollution, money-flow, profits, etc) should be absolutely identical.
Industrialists are, by and large, not very bright and highly prejudiced towards green-stuff feel-good factors. Which means that something that is good won't be accepted no matter how good it actually is, unless it is presented as something that'll feel good to their accountants. Being honest isn't worth a damn thing, but it isn't necessary to be honest to be accurate. This is why politics is a scam. Politicians don't sell you what you want, they sell you what they want dressed up to look like it's something you want. But you're quite capable of giving as good as you get.
Honest environmentalists go nowhere, although they usually get some recognition AFTER the disaster they predicted has swept through. Why? Because their phrasing makes it sound like people have to put in hard work and money for something that isn't 100% predictable anyway. Completely the wrong move. Think like Dogbert, not Dilbert, on this one. Dilbert always gets ignored, Dogbert always gets things done. The difference is not in what they're doing, but in the psychology. Dilbert assumes people are basically bright, compassionate and thoughtful. Dogbert assumes people are manipulative, deceitful, corrupt and 100% gullible. Environmentalists need to listen to Dogbert. Dilbert is correct, but will never go anywhere. In mythological terms, he represents the Wise Fool - he knows a lot but his attempts to explain make him sound like a complete fool.
Saving money has never worked, any better than saving the planet, but if the first part of the "food chain" decides cleanliness is next to richness, it gets imposed on everyone else regardless. They have no choice but to go green. They won't even be aware they've done so. Things'll cost more, but as gas prices have demonstrated, customers ignore that until the last possible moment, and then blame it on anyone they happen to dislike at the time. Use that self-inflicted blindness to make consumers green, and the world will be cleaner within a year without the consumers ever noticing what you're doing. If they say anything, it'll be to flame the environmentalists for doom-saying about pollution and greenhouse gasses, same as they did with Y2K after several trillion dollars were spent in fixing flaws across the world.
(And, yes, for those who care, Y2K did strike older electronic credit-card readers, older banking systems, and many home and office products - including many of Microsoft's. If they'd done nothing, the world might well have ended. Instead, the fixes were imposed on an unwilling and ignorant population in such a way that they remained unwilling and ignorant. And that is the SOLE reason you are still breathing today.)
What Y2K demonstrated was that the masses are dumb, but that really doesn't matter. You can fix what does matter without ever concerning yourself with the widespread ignorance in the world. In this case, you can fix mines, quarries, power stations, oil, coal, and all kinds of other resources, with the help of a handful of executives who can make a mint off the deal. Do that, and national follies will be of no importance whatsoever.
Parent