Beijing Issues 'Red Alert' Over Smog (independent.co.uk) 145
An anonymous reader writes: The Chinese capital of Beijing has issued a "red alert" for air quality within the city, the first time the city has reached the level of caution where it's deemed "unhealthy" for all residents. Starting Tuesday morning, schools will be shut down, the production of smoke will be limited, and cars will be under an odd/even alternate day ban while the local government waits for air quality to improve. It's expected to last until mid-day on Thursday when the weather looks likely to blow it away. "Air pollution monitors showed that areas of Beijing had more than 256 micrograms per cubic metre of the poisonous particles. The World Health Organisation (WHO) says that anything over 25 micrograms is considered unsafe. The poisonous smog in Beijing is caused by the burning of coal for industry and heating, as well as huge amounts of dust from the city's many construction sites. The problem is being made yet worse by high humidity and low wind." The city has been in bad shape for a while now, and Greenpeace called for this very measure a week ago.
Just have a few red shirts die and sweep it under (Score:1)
Just have a few red shirts die and sweep it under the rug.
Re: (Score:2)
Well TFS did say:
the weather looks likely to blow it away
so you are not far off.
Um, so . . . where is it going to be blow away to . . . ? Maybe Shanghai . . . ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um, so . . . where is it going to be blow away to . . . ? Maybe Shanghai . . . ?
California [sacbee.com]!
"Red Alert"...commies...heh! (Score:4, Funny)
"Red Alert"...commies...heh!
Race to the bottom (Score:5, Interesting)
Let this be a reminder to those enamored with politicians who claim "we can compete with China by relaxing our regulations".
I believe we should tariff goods from countries who don't adhere to basic labor, pollution, and safety standards.
For those who claim that prevents such countries from "advancing", the country can instead encourage more local consumption. Asian countries have been slow to do this, largely because governments are afraid it will make their population pop-culture addicts, like those found in the USA. They don't like "work hard, play hard". They only want the first.
But if you want the benefits of pop culture (sales & profits), you have to take the downsides also. We make it too easy for them to have the good sides of globalization without the bad. We should put our foot down. Why do we always trade on THEIR terms?
Re: (Score:2)
Should everyone else cut off all trading with the US too since Los Angeles has the very same issues?
Re: (Score:3)
LA's problem isn't even 1/10th the problem in Bejing.
Re: (Score:1)
Los Angeles has the very same issues?
Yeah, they're breathing Chinese smog too [independent.co.uk]... And some of the bad weather can also be attributed [futurism.com] more to the smog than to climate change.. Chinese smog is a global issue, quite a mess...
Re: (Score:2)
LA hasn't had a stage 1 smog alert in over 12 years (2003), hasn't had a Stage 2 alert since 1988, and the last Stage 3 alert was in 1974.
Re: (Score:1)
Why do we always trade on THEIR terms?
Don't try to apply popular values to psychopathic corporate/political leaders. They are playing an entirely different game. *There are no nations. There are no peoples...*
Re: (Score:3)
But if you want the benefits of pop culture (sales & profits), you have to take the downsides also. We make it too easy for them to have the good sides of globalization without the bad. We should put our foot down. Why do we always trade on THEIR terms?
How about I trade or don't trade with them on my terms, and you trade or don't trade with them on your terms? Sure we have the same rulers, but there's no real such thing as "we."
Re: (Score:1)
You mean individual-to-individual? That's pretty much what we got now, and it has lead to pollution, de-facto slaves, rust-belt job-loss violence, and a plutocracy (in the USA).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't own the earth, you don't get to screw it up just because you want to. Get your own planet and do what you want, or accept that it's a shared resource and we all have a say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we always trade on THEIR terms?
Because, at the end of the day, most people only care about getting what they want as cheaply as possible. And Congress supports this view with their trade agreements, because they are afraid of not getting re-elected. This is why illegal immigration is really a manufactured problem in the US as well. Companies want the cheap labor more than the government cares about people breaking their immigration laws.
Realistically, even if everyone wanted to pay more for locally made goods, manufacturers would stil
Re: (Score:1)
Not necessarily. Lopsided trade has been slipped in by the rich without asking, for the most part.
Consumers may agree to tariffs, and higher prices, if "forced" to weigh it against the downsides such as pollution and inequality. When one is shopping, they are focused on shopping, not geopolitical issues.
Re: (Score:2)
expect more government regulation and better treatment.
They may expect it, but it obviously isn't happening if you read even the headline of the summary. That's pretty crucial to quality of life.
Re: (Score:2)
You think American pop culture is worse than the air in China? Ok...
Re: (Score:2)
Who are you quoting here? I can't remember, ever, hearing a politician say that.
LOL! (Score:3)
Almost ALL of this is caused by coal burning, both in large electrical generation stations, and locally by individuals cooking and heating.
China is at least building at an accelerated rate the largest number of nuclear reactors, and some of the most advanced ones at that, in a direct response, however it does take time. They are doing something about the situation, only they are a bit hogtied in the here in now.
How many nuclear reactors are being built or are planning to be built in the US? How quickly is t
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you jest. Coal is a dead man walking in the US. Even before Obama's recent draconian EPA policy, coal plants were closing en masse for several years now.
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:4, Insightful)
blah blah blah, you'd put over half the U.S. population into poverty since they wouldn't be able to buy things to meet their basic needs, as they are made in China. You point of view is not actionable, it is stupid
Perhaps the richest 1% of the US population could provide the half that lives under the poverty limit with bread and games? That worked out pretty well for the Rom.... oh... never mind....
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:4, Informative)
Rome had gladatorial contests from 216 BC to 354 AD with smaller contests continuing into the late 400's, possibly early 500's.
Most (99.999%) nations fall faster than that, so bread and circuses was a solution more than a problem.
So it did work out pretty well for the Romans.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought we already had SNAP and broadcast television.
That worked out pretty well for the Rom
Romney administration?
Re: (Score:1)
blah blah blah, you'd put over half the U.S. population into poverty since they wouldn't be able to buy things to meet their basic needs, as they are made in China. You point of view is not actionable, it is stupid
Yeah, because over half the population of the U.S. was in poverty before we started importing cheap goods from overseas. Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
in point of fact in 1980 when trade started with China there was massive unemployment and inflation in the USA. You could say we were on the path to poverty. Your turn, moron
Re: (Score:2)
in point of fact in 1980 when trade started with China there was massive unemployment and inflation in the USA. You could say we were on the path to poverty. Your turn, moron
The unemployment rate was 7.1% in 1980, which then rose and fell in waves [bls.gov]. Unemployment is actually worse today than then, due to the way the government now skews its numbers. And, despite the inflation of the 1970s, salaries and wages did reasonably keep pace. Not like today where wages and salaries are pretty much flat. Try using actual facts instead of right-wing talking points. Also, kindly go fuck yourself in the ass with a rusty hand blender until you bleed to death. The world will be better wi
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:4, Insightful)
blah blah blah, you'd put over half the U.S. population into poverty since they wouldn't be able to buy things to meet their basic needs, as they are made in China. You point of view is not actionable, it is stupid
Basic needs?
Just about all of our food is US grown and some fruits come from Latin and South America.
Clothing is made Mexico, Latin and South America and in Southeast Asian countries.
Medical and education is 100% US.
Also, China is investing heavily in green energy because they do in fact know that their reliance on coal is killing them. Most likely in the near future if one wants a solar panel, it's gonna be Chinese designed and made.
Anyway, right now if we did what the GPP says would be wonderful and may help bring some of those jobs back. And it wouldn't anything to put people into poverty - global trade is doing that quite well. See, Econ 101 teaches us that with global trade, local company expands, hires more people at all levels, makes more money, and people experience more prosperity.
But what happens in real life is that Big Corp builds overseas "to be closer to their market", hires folks over there for pennies on the dollar, keeps the profits over there (tax inversion) and the gains go into the CEO's and the stockholder's pockets - which is nothing for us peons who own only a few shares and does nothing to compensate for our reduced standard of living.
So, I'm all for chilling China trade.
Re: (Score:2)
because people don't need clothing, shoes, cooking appliances and light bulbs? guess again
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because we really need cheap Chinese made gadgets in order to live...
Re: (Score:2)
yes you do. you need the textiles and tools and motors and generators and HVAC and fasteners and electronics and valves
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, their income will improve when there are manufacturing jobs to be had in the U.S. Meanwhile, the collected tariffs can go towards poverty relief.
Re: (Score:2)
no, the manufacturing is never coming back. If we closed relations with China we'd only import more from other countries at more cost than China.
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:4, Interesting)
blah blah blah, you'd put over half the U.S. population into poverty since they wouldn't be able to buy things to meet their basic needs, as they are made in China.
Right because China completely cut off trade with us if we put reasonable tariffs in place and turned the heat up (tariff size slowly) until they either adopted similar labor and environmental standards.
No they won't do that because we are the biggest market and if they had to stop selling into our market in large quantity their own economy would completely collapse. The time to end free-trade and use access to our market as a lever to affect Chinese policy is NOW not later after they have expanded their domestic market. If we force China to reform today they won't be able to roll back those reforms in the future even if we are no longer as large a trade partner as a percentage of their overall economy. Its not like you can get a workforce accustom to safe conditions and fair wages and than take it away without revolts.
No it would not plunge the US into poverty. Poverty is about not meeting ones basic needs, food, heat, shelter. Those things for the most part don't come from China. Its electronics gadgets nobody really needs that would shoot up in price. Now that might also mean some medical equipment and less elastic goods as well. Provide we don't completely shut down trade overnight the effects could be controlled. The quality of life might fall a little bit for the upper middle class and the well healed, that is alright. It will be short while domestic industry pops up to provide a source of the cheap goods we are no longer bringing in from China, it should also create jobs and push wages up here, which will help close down the wage gap everyone is so worried about.
'Free' Trade with China, while they don't play by the rules and are permitted to play games with their currency, bring labor to market in ways our sensibilities would never allow, and operate excessively dirty industry rather than investing in cleaner improved processes is dumb. Its bad policy that has been hurting us for the last 30 years and it should be stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
My are you confused, shelter and clothing do come from China. I'd suggest you learn where construction materials and tools and fasteners and plumbing and motors orignate
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Clothing, aside there are still plenty of domestic source of most construction materials. It does not a huge amount of investment to expand the production facility for most of those things either. We are not talking about high si chip manufacturing or even automobile assembly. If prices rise even a little and there is more margin to capture, getting the financing store more gypsum and rollers to press a little more dry wall should not be problem; if you can show unmet demand to the bank.
Re: (Score:2)
the main production facilities and machinery are gone, those won't spring back in the USA if china trade closed. just other countries will get the business. manufacturing is not coming back
Re: (Score:2)
The stuff is already made by other countries too, cutting out china just means importing from elsewhere at higher cost but the manufacturing for that won't come back
Re: (Score:2)
When Europe introduced ROHS people said it would mean China pulling out our massively increasing prices. Of course what actually happened is that they became ROHS compliant and prices continued to be low.
Re: (Score:2)
There is very little "basic needs" stuff that comes from China. Construction labor/materials and food really aren't what China is known for.
Trust me the world can live quite well without $5 blenders and $0.50 HDMI cables from China. The average American could probably SAVE money by avoiding "junk" purchases anyways and buying quality items to begin with, but sadly the average person is too stupid to understand that a $25 item that lats a lifetime is a better deal than a $5 version of that item that breaks
Re: (Score:3)
clothing and shoes and tools and light bulbs and fasteners and tools and motors....you really don't know, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
the average person is too stupid to understand that a $25 item that lats a lifetime is a better deal than a $5 version of that item that breaks and needs to be replaced every 2 years.
With planned obsolescence, lasting more than 2 years just leaves you with an unsupported, abandoned relic.
Re: (Score:2)
I know we're on a tech site, but don't fixate on computers so much. There is a TON of stuff out there that as far as technology simply isn't evolving that much.
A good waffle iron from 40 years ago will still work perfectly and will probably still be working long after whatever junk you can buy from Walmart today gives out.
On my fishing rod I've got an Abu Garcia Ambassadeur reel that I bought USED about 12 years ago - still working fine. They still make them (the real Made in Sweden ones cost around $100-
Re: (Score:2)
You used to be able to say most of the same things about cars. It's only a matter of time. They'll find a way to force you to keep buying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most things needed for basic needs are still made in the USA. The US still manufactures more things than China, the vast majority of which are related to agriculture, building materials and petroleum items (gasoline, natural gas, etc.) We'd get along just fine. Electronics would take a hit.
Re: (Score:1)
That's a common claim of conservatives, but it's only a theory. Other countries have put in place forms of "protectionism" without causing more poor, and even do better in that arena than we do.
Plus, most of the basics do NOT come from China: food, water, housing, medical care. Plastic lawn-chairs are not a "necessity".
Re: (Score:2)
You already got marked troll but I figure you should know that goods use to be made here and people survived. Moving our manufacturing to China removed accountability (hence the poor quality of some products) and increased wastage. Over consumption is a real problem and it stems from low cost goods.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This "race to the bottom" is a rejection of two and a half billion people raising themselves out of literal dirt floor poverty, proving, again, economic freedom works the miracles central planning cannot.
What you call "the bottom" is something they aspire to. They find the idea of an apartment and a smart phone and TV intoxicatingly attractive and will work for it.
There can be too much pollution, but regulations need to consider actual advancement. People live longer and healthier in a modern, polluted so
Re: (Score:1)
And air they can't breathe and horrendous work conditions. Yeah it's a great situation they are in.
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty sure the U.S. economy still grew like gangbusters after the formation of the EPA and cleaning up of the lakes and rivers catching on fire.
I really despise this attitude that environmental regulations put people out of business. While it may make the cost of business too expensive for some it creates new industry over and over. People said the same thing about the catalytic converter with cars. Pretty sure they are still around in abundance.
If an industry relies on being out to pollute the crap out of the area then I would ask do we really want it? Do we need another tv manufacturer that much?
Probably the worst assumption out of all of this is that these stricter regulations would all happen at once rather than setting goals and timelines which has been in every proposal. Its just like the minimum wage proposals, none of them put it at $15 right away, it about setting it higher and setting a goal. Goal setting isn't a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
wrong, those things only will be imported from another country at higher cost. the manufacturing isn't coming back
How does their current level compare to 1970's LA? (Score:1)
I remember cresting the grapevine highway going into the LA valley in the the back of my parent's car. Sometimes, the air was PURPLE!
After the majority of it cars had catalytic converters, it greatly improved (although the air does sometimes have a kind of "gritty" feel to it even to this day.)
Re:How does their current level compare to 1970's (Score:4, Interesting)
...or London in 1952?
http://history1900s.about.com/... [about.com]
Re: (Score:1)
How about horse shit dust covering everything pre-awful-cars days?
Re: (Score:2)
It was worse in Pittsburgh, PA around 1900.
Re:How does their current level compare to 1970's (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of insanity? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Starting Tuesday morning, schools will be shut down, the production of smoke will be limited, and cars will be under an odd/even alternate day ban while the local government waits for air quality to improve"
At which point, it is presumed, the entire system will go back to what it was doing before the red alert. That strikes me as counterproductive - as if maybe, next time, all that pollution won't lead to smog.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If you start every morning staring at yourself in the mirror like that, you may want to consult a therapist.
Re: (Score:2)
schools will be shut down
"What is it, Ben?"
"I felt a great swelling in the Force, as if millions of small, youthful beings held their breath, and suddenly cried out in joy. I fear something unusual has happened."
Re: (Score:2)
It's a practical, rather than ideological approach. Sometimes the weather conflates with pollution to make the situation worse. Sometimes, international event planning predicates a necessity to be extra clean on some particular date. This is when China intervenes. They are addressing practical problems without becoming ideologically driven about them. America has had some more years of political development for its leadership to realize the need for ideology to drive practical change. That's why we ha
Re: (Score:2)
One may generalize but there is progress made at political levels. It's often easier to make changes when everybody agrees. Events like this one in China as they occur more often will cause businesses and individuals to pressure governments for a solution. After all it's human nature. Look at how much pressure has been put to get pot legalized in the US and Canada and it's now happening.
I haven't been on this earth for that long and I've seen significant progress in many areas including the closure of gas p
Re: (Score:2)
as if maybe, next time, all that pollution won't lead to smog.
Yes well maybe it won't. The formation of smog in places like Beijing is highly dependent on the weather at the time. Let the dust settle, wait for a windy day and then start polluting again. Pollution levels in China are quite constant, but some days you have a beautiful clear day with good visibility, others you're not sure if it's sunny our cloudy and if you can see the sun it'll be a glowing deep red ball you can look at with the naked eye.
In 20 years the population will go down.... (Score:2, Informative)
When a billion people die of congestive lung failure all around the same period. Of course, given our current state of continuous war, combined with a ever growing lack of resources, we should lose a billion even sooner after we have fished the oceans dry. You can't feed 8 Billion with a drought and empty oceans at the same time.
Re: (Score:1)
There is no lack of resources, only a disagreement over the price.
Red alert! Red alert! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, I was thinking:
"An ill wind comes arising
Across the cities of the plain
There's no swimming in the heavy water
No singing in the acid rain
Red alert
Red alert"
Once visited Beijing airport in 2010 (Score:3)
Was only on the way to HK, but the air quality was so bad even in the airport that my daughter (who has situational asthma) was coughing ceaselessly and we had to use her nebulizer while in the lounge - luckily we were only laying over for 3h.
I had no interest in leaving the airport to visit the city proper even if I could.
It's the media!!!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
A Brontosaurus fart is equivalent to the exhaust of 500 SUV's ;-)
I blame solar panels (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's some truth to that, but more important is that a lot of heavy industry is now in China, More than half the world's cement and steel are made there. Almost all nuclear plants being built are there, I read once that half the building cranes are there. So yeah it's easy to have clean air here if you put the factories in China.
The threat level is "orange" (Score:2)
If you like "red alerts", get ready for the "the threat level is orange; the threat level has always been and will always be orange" 3.0: DHS just announced a new threat level alert system.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us... [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
If you like "red alerts", get ready for the "the threat level is orange; the threat level has always been and will always be orange" 3.0: DHS just announced a new threat level alert system.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us... [nbcnews.com]
Odd, how I first read that as "theatre level alert system"
Re: (Score:2)
If you like "red alerts", get ready for the "the threat level is orange; the threat level has always been and will always be orange" 3.0: DHS just announced a new threat level alert system.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us... [nbcnews.com]
I still think the Ron White system is the most clearly articulated threat alert system. It consists of 2 levels: 1.(low level)Find a helmet; 2. (high level) Put on the damn helmet.
Posting from Beijing... (Score:2, Interesting)
Confused (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL
I am imagining post-beard Riker, complete with "manual control" joystick.
Greenpeace called for this very measure (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Do you seriously think China listen to Greenpeace?
Read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
Screw Greenpeace, this is their fault... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is the persistent anti-nuclear campaigning of Greenpeace and other "environmental" organizations which has left the world with a dwindling complement of 1950s era reactors, and prevented the development and adoption of better nuclear technologies. If they hadn't killed the first nuclear renaissance, the world would be off of coal by now. Places like France, Sweden, and Ontario have proven that nuclear can eliminate coal use while providing clean energy on a large scale, even with old technology. Even so, the limited amounts of conventional nuclear remaining are responsible for a large majority of the clean energy produced today.
Meanwhile, those most vigorously pursuing Greenpeace's dear wind and solar have only demonstrated how ineffective those technologies are at displacing coal or other fossil fuels. Excepting the large contribution of biomass to renewable energy production reveals an even more hopeless situation. As if it weren't bad enough, the "green" solution to the intermittency of those technologies is to burn biomass or biofuels, which are worse yet than coal. At the end of the day, the rise of coal consumption continues unabated. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Environmental groups may have influenced public opinion, but I don't think they have had a huge effect on actual policies which are basically set by the elites. I mean, seriously, look at the world. Does it resemble at all what environmentalists are asking for?
OHHH HEYY! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering much of the manufacturing in China isn't for themselves it's hard to say whether or not their carbon footprint is larger than ours. I'm pretty sure the carbon footprint/capital is smaller in China than it is in North America but that's only because their population is poor and living in lower standards than ours.
I think our rules and regulations are probably tighter than theirs but I'm honestly ill informed about China's pollution regulations.
There is no "Away" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Particles do settle to the ground, get absorbed by the vegetation or ends up in our water. The issue is the same regardless. Airborne particles toxic or not are toxic when present in large enough volumes. There's two kids that died in Canada no long ago from exposure to dust from a type of grain. Just tells you how fragile the repertory system can be.
They are not serious about it. (Score:2)
They are not serious about it.
A red alert is never serious, unless there's also a "Bridge Lurch, left" accompanying it.
Strange numbers and interpretation (Score:2)
I have lived in Shenyang for about two years.
I don't get this whole metric anymore, and the numbers seems to be either wrong or being manipulated, as well as their interpretation.
The numbers and conclusions are not consistent with the past history. My Android App is currently showing 310 for Beijing, and 267 for Shenyang. On November 10 this year there was an article on BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl... [bbc.co.uk] claiming that the 1400 measured in Shenyang were the worst one ever. But to be honest, the Hallo
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Why don't you and everyone else with this line of thought do the right thing then and kill yourself?
Re:We need to lose about 80% of the population, st (Score:4, Insightful)
smog is not climate. you are a moron
Re: (Score:2)
Why in the world is this modded +5 Insightful? Climate scientists have drawn a link between climate change and smog [washington.edu]. And last I checked, "climate" referred to long term weather patterns. When the government has to issue several dozen smog alerts for a single city within a single year, that's climate.
Re: (Score:3)
There are cooling climate effects of aerosols(so pollution can have a cooling effect), but the main point worth making here is that there is an important distinction between pollution from coal and climate warming that people constantly overlook. China uses a lot of coal this produces a lot of carbon dioxide as well as a lot of pollution. They can fix the pollution (or alleviate it a lot) while still keeping using coal.
China has invested a huge amount in coal based power plants in the last 15 years, and th
Re: (Score:3)
It is also influenced by geography, maybe they should just flatten all the mountains around Beijing to prevent this issue.
Re: (Score:1)
It would be slightly cheaper to just hand out hazmat suits to everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
How about going towards greener energy, greener manufacturing...?
Labour is so cheap I'm sure they can get a few million people peddling to generate power :)
Re: (Score:2)
No the smog around Beijing says exactly nothing about the earth's climate. Percent of CO2 in air and ocean, on the other hand, graphed over the last 250 years, would show a carbon pollution problem
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, as long as YOU are NOT one of the branches trimmed.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as there's someone worse to compare yourself to, you're OK.