Choked By Smog, Beijing Creates A New Environmental Police Force (csmonitor.com) 95
An anonymous reader quotes the Christian Science Monitor:
A new police force will crack down on environmental offenders in Beijing, city officials announced Saturday, marking the Chinese government's latest attempt to reduce smog... Other measures included cutting coal use by 30 percent in 2017, shutting down 500 higher-polluting factories and upgrading 2,500 others, phasing out 300,000 higher-polluting older vehicles, and supplying cleaner gas and diesel at fuel stations starting February 15. The announcement came one day after municipal authorities in Beijing announced they would install air purifiers in the city's schools and kindergartens.
Beijing's mayor said that smoke from trash burning and open-air barbecues and even dust from roads "are actually the result of lax supervision and weak law enforcement."
Beijing's mayor said that smoke from trash burning and open-air barbecues and even dust from roads "are actually the result of lax supervision and weak law enforcement."
the EPF (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
His nominated director for the EPA, Rick (uh, I forgot the third one) Perry, has said he will eliminate the EPA.
Re: (Score:3)
Like so many other US politicians they say a whole bunch of crap, one lot of crap to get major campaign donor cash and another load to get votes so they can continue to get campaign donor cash, incidentally they spend as little as possible on advertisements and as much as possible on inflated insider campaign salaries and management fees (not to forget the off balance sheet tax haven 'er' bonuses).
China has more environmental regulations than the US, they are simply far more corrupt at a regulatory level a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is what Trump is going to do. He is going to force the politicians to actually do all the things they say. I hate Trump but kind of executed by the prospect that all the horrible ideas republicans have are finally going to be put to the test. Wipe out Obamacare. Wipe out Medicare wipe out social security wipe out the EPA wipe out those pesky regulations that only existsed because some company was screwing people over.
Just look at the Obamacare talks. 6 friggin years of complaining and only now are th
Re: (Score:2)
That is what Trump is going to do. He is going to force the politicians to actually do all the things they say.
I wouldn't get your hopes up. Trump has already said they'll probably just get rid of the parts of Obamacare they don't like and keep the ones they do. That wall is never getting built just because of the engineering issues and costs involved. He's not deporting all the undocumented people for the same reason they haven't already been deported, the sheer scale and cost of doing so prevents it from happening. Thing is, his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. They expect him to do something abou
Re: (Score:3)
Trump nominated Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. He nominated Perry for Department of Energy.
Re: the EPF (Score:3)
Oops... I guess I forgot also.
Pruitt has been suing the EPA to prevent clean air regulations. He should be able to cripple the EPA.
Re: (Score:1)
If he can keep them from overstepping their boundaries thats all well and good.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not but if you want something to thrive you don't appoint someone to head it who is known to be against some of it's core ideals, like Jeremy Hunt and the N.H.S or closer to your question, Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general suing EPA on climate change who Trump picked to head the EPA.
Re: (Score:2)
And why shouldn't you? Given the content of Twitter, I'd say that's pretty much what everyone does.
Just, please, be so kind and be that person that starts the trend of flushing your turd instead of sending it.
Re: (Score:2)
No?
Then stand back from the rhetorical precipice; see problem; and stop making straw men.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, can we export all our climate change activists - from the Leo di Caprios, the Algores, the Hollywood climate activists and so on - to Beijing, so that they can help the Chinese regime crack down on any and every violation of environmental standards?
It's really like we are destined as a species to go the way of the lemmings. Here is someone who just admitted that the climate in China is a problem. His apparent solution is to suggest sarcastically that we should give them our environmental regulations, so, what, so we can have killer smog?
16 of the last 17 years have been records, yet we as a species seemed determined to plug our ears and flip on Faux News where we can learn the real and correct truth. I supposed worst comes to worst, if we do manage
Re: (Score:2)
uhh. i dont see where he said give them the US' regulations. he said give them the US' climate snobs. You know. The idiot that thought a Chinook in Alberta was caused by climate change and chastised the people of alberta for it ?
Here's a hint, police detectives! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's your fucking coal plants. You have a ton of them and no emission regulations. Either clean their output or get rid of them.
But that's not why you created this force, is it? You'd rather use this PR stunt to blame random Chinese people grilling out in their yard.
Re:Here's a hint, police detectives! (Score:5, Informative)
You could have at least read the summary, where they say they're going to cut coal use by 30% this year alone.
And Spend $360 billion on Renewables (Score:5, Insightful)
The bigger story is that they are investing $360 billion on renewable energy [csmonitor.com] over the next 4 years.
That's a plan that will not only pay dividends in pollution reduction, it will keep them on the cutting edge of energy technology. An industry that is obviously a growth market because India and Africa both have tons of unmet demand for energy and Chinese companies are going to own that market.
Meanwhile, the US has just voted for more coal. Maybe, if we are lucky, some more fracking too.
The future is bright! (for china)
Re: (Score:3)
Game over for whom, though?
Where do you think your economy is going to be heading without cheap computers, TV, appliances and gadgets from China? You might want to ask your dad or grandpa what they had to put down for a TV set. They'll probably tell you an amount not far from what you have to pay for one today. With the difference, though, that this was what they made in wages in a month or maybe two.
Hmm... thinking about it, considering how the "generation internship" is working, that's not too different t
Re: (Score:2)
causalities
You keep using that word. I think you meant to use "casualties" instead.
Re: (Score:2)
The US may even gain a few low-pay, low-education jobs, but that isn't going to solve much. The problem will be that consumer electronics and appliances become more expensive. That in turn will eliminate about as many low-education jobs in distribution and sales of goods as it created in production, because sales will plummet.
In the end, the net result is that jobs will stay about the same, stuff gets more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Have a look at Ontario Canada's Hydro rates. They have a ton of Wind "Green energy" and our hydro rates are the highest in north america and still slated to rise close to 300% in the next 3 years. (1400sqft house, all compact florescent's, only use dishwasher and washer and dryer after 7 (when time of use kicks in) and my hydro per month is close to 200 a month. All because of Wynne's Green energy act, and Cap and trade Carbon taxes.
Re: (Score:1)
...
Meanwhile, the US has just voted for more coal. Maybe, if we are lucky, some more fracking too.
The future is bright! (for china)
While I would never ever recommend voting for Trump or any derivatives thereof, and while many voters may have believed they were voting for more coal they also liked his line about mexico paying for his monument to racism. As with many things Trump, just because he says it, doesn't mean he will do it, or even try to do it. Hillary ain't going to jail either. He flat out admitted he only said that to get votes. Surprise surprise..
I just don't think coal is going to happen that much. Natural gas is pret
Re: (Score:2)
You know Clinton was the fracking candidate [wikileaks.org], right? (it's in the attachment of the email).
From an article about the subject [ibtimes.com]:
In one excerpt of a speech to Deutsche Bank in April 2013, according to the document, Clinton boasted about the federal government’s support for fracking and her own work to promote the process across the globe.
“Fracking was developed at the Department of Energy,” the document shows Clinton saying. “I mean, the whole idea of how fracking came to be available in the marketplace is because of research done by our government. And I've promoted fracking in other places around the world.”
In another excerpt of the same speech, Clinton outlines why she supports a continued push for fracking.
“The ability to extract both gas and oil from previously used places that didn't seem to have much more to offer, but now the technology gives us the chance to go in and recover oil and gas,” the document shows her saying. “Or with the new technology known as fracking, we are truly on a path -- and it's not just United States; it's all of North America -- that will be net energy exporters assuming we do it right."
I don't mean, in any way, that Trump might be good for the environment. Just that he probably isn't going to be worst (frackingwise) than Hillary would have been.
Re: (Score:2)
Im pretty sure that's why fracking was mentioned as an "if we're lucky".
Every step of it is far better than coal, and it's cheaper.
In general for new production green > gas > coal
Re: (Score:2)
They do say that the coal use will be reduced, because they have to reduce it anyway, but they use the opportunity to also blame the open-air barbecues and attack them. That is part of Beijing's dream of becoming a "clean", modern city like Shanghai; to take the poor and the muslins from the streets/city.
The AC assessment that this is a PR stunt to blame random people grilling is correct. You don't even have to know the Chinese government well to see it through their BS. He read the summary and pointed the
Re: (Score:2)
It's your fucking coal plants. You have a ton of them and no emission regulations. Either clean their output or get rid of them.
But that's not why you created this force, is it? You'd rather use this PR stunt to blame random Chinese people grilling out in their yard.
They are investing very heavily in renewable energy, so they are hardly likely to be blind to the issue with coal. And if you have been to Beijing (you haven't, have you?) then you'll know that:
1) Next to nobody in Beijing has a 'yard' or garden in which to barbecue anything, and I have never seen people having barbecues in the parks and communal spaces around where they live. What the mayor is referring to is the enormous number of more or less illegal street vendors who offer various foods, very often thi
Beijing is big. (Score:2)
11.5 million people. It is also dense: 11,500 people / km^2. That's roughly six times as dense as New York City. It has a street food scene on a scale that is unimaginable in a US city. A lot of those stands are powered by charcoal.
So yes, cooking is a real air pollution problem there. It may not be their worst problem, but it may well be their toughest.
Lax Supervision (Score:4, Insightful)
In related news, Beijing announces the creation of a pollution enforcement squad. You'll see them driving up and down the streets in big vans, looking for violators.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
More likely in a black or dark blue Audi A4/A6 with government/army plates and a hooker or er nai (mistress) inside.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, driving anything that makes the smog worse.
Re: (Score:2)
They are targeting industry, which is quite easy to enforce because it's really hard to hide chimneys belching out pollution. Granted, it's a little easier to hide the faked emissions data for the cars that roll off your production line, but since the VW scandal even that got a lot worse. And regular emissions testing for existing vehicles is also pretty common and effective.
Re: (Score:2)
China has had tough-sounding pollution laws for years. The problem with those laws is that nobody was in charge of enforcing them. For example cars and trucks are suppose to have emissions equipment like US cars do, but nobody checks to see that the equipment is actually installed.
Two years ago the Journalist Chai Jing released a blockbuster film about air pollution in China; you can watch it on youtube [youtube.com]. The format is Chai presenting data and video segments to an audience in an auditorium. At one point s
Road Dust (Score:2)
MCGA ... (Score:2)
... stop this forward-progress shit.
Re: (Score:2)
But the parts that are seen worldwide and mocked are the problem.
I mean, be honest: Do you give a shit whether a million Chinese people have asthma? See? Why should they?
Outdoor BBQs (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, it couldn't be all those coal burning plants they are building and bringing online faster than the rest of the world can reduce pollution. Definitely the outdoor bbqs.
Re: (Score:2)
They're already slashing construction of new plants and cancelling constructions of a lot of what isn't done yet. Not much more they can do there.
Re: (Score:2)
Those non Beijing coal plants? The ones they are reducing this year? Are those the ones you're talking about? The ones that don't exist in one of the most densely populated mega cities? Yeah they are totally the problem exclusively and there's nothing else contributing to high levels of smog. I guess all those non existent coal plants in Paris contribute to its smog too.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary points out that they are reducing coal use by 30% this year.
It's the same as those nonsense stories about Germany building more coal power. Germany was building new, more efficient, cleaner coal plants that were better able to follow load and support renewables, while closing even more older plants. The same is happening in China.
A little low. (Score:1)
I'm sure they will start walking the beat immediately, searching at street level for the cause of pollution that is in the troposphere..
Name suggestion (Score:2)
I hope they call it karma police.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a fair trade -- to pollute while rising out of peasantry.
Only when it becomes more harmful than helpful is it worth it to fix.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that's what we've all done in different decades and centuries. Hopefully the biggest part of the harm won't be reserved for those who get the smallest part of the helpfulness..
Re: (Score:3)
Whoop whoop (Score:2)
Cough, splutter, that's the sound of the police.
Conspiracy (Score:2, Funny)
I say it is all a conspiracy by crooked scientists who are just trying to scare people so that they can all get rich doing climate research. There's no way that man can affect the environment. The smoke must be part of a natural cycle. Or maybe god taking vengeance against those godless communists!
Re: (Score:1)
Beijing city can't fix its pollution itself (Score:5, Informative)
Beijing itself is fairly clean for a developing economy capital. Most of the cars are pretty new, there are not too many two-stroke tuktuks or scooters, etc. There aren't that many factories within city limits, as most were all closed or moved for the 2008 Olympics. The pollution isn't generated in the city. That's why you see the dramatic video online of "smog sweeping in" [twitter.com] - it arrives from elsewhere, you can see it at higher levels in the air already, it doesnt'tcome from the street level. It's actually uncanny being in Beijing when the smog is bad because you can't see any source, no "that truck is belching smoke" or "that chimney is putting out smoke". It arrives from out of sight.
The problem is the surrounding Hebei province which has many of the coal and iron ore mines of China, and much heavy industry and processing of the ores using coal. Beiing can't enforce pollution controls in Hebei and the industrialists in Hebei don't care at all while they make money. For a USA equivalent, imagine if if Connecticut, Long Island and New Jersey were covered in dirty industrial plant while New York City was trying to improve its air quality. They wouldn't succeed.
It's nice to see Beijing trying to clean up its air, but it won't improve anything until Hebei province has a similar enforcement and it is effective.
Re: (Score:2)
For a USA equivalent, imagine if if Connecticut, Long Island and New Jersey were covered in dirty industrial plant while New York City was trying to improve its air quality. They wouldn't succeed.
Cities in California's central valley get upset when the EPA blames them for smog that blows out of the Bay Area, actually.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, Beijing is not the worst. Ranked by PM2.5 concentrations, it's only the 57th worst. The worst is Zabol, Iran, although that is in fact a natural phenomenon caused by persistent winds carrying in fine desert particulates. The worst man-made pollution is the Indian city of Gwalior which hits PM 2.5 concentrations of 325 micrograms / m^3, roughly 3x the levels of Beijing's nightmarish.
While it's true that Beijing's problems won't be fixed until Heibei gets its act in order, I suspect Beijing co
Frightening (Score:2)
Not expecting many caught aside from unconnected (Score:2)
Given that offenses are largely based on on having enough familiarity with those enforcing them, I'd not expect this to affect anyone significant.
Re: (Score:3)
It will affect those who haven't "cultivated their political connections" adequately. Follow the money.
It will take a major dye off to wake us up. (Score:4, Interesting)
We are not going to act effectively to curb our misuse of the environment until there is a major human die off that makes the second world war look like a school yard tussle. When you have a world wide economy that is based almost solely upon the consumption of fossil fuels and this economy would tank if we started to quickly reduce consumption, the only way we will change our ways is when we have no other choice and accept a radical reduction in our consumption. The pruning of the human race is not far off and those who can get by without burning up carbon will survive. If ocean circulation patterns change radically because of what we are doing, it is quite possible that major smog events will start to happen more frequently.
It is also possible that the shedding of the ice shelves of Antarctica and Greenland will cause radical local ocean cooling and boost the speed of a radical change in ocean currents. If the ocean currents change over night then it is quite possible that the jet stream will temporarily stop as well. With the known aspects climate change science being a taboo subject in Washington and other world capitols like Moscow we will not see these events coming. I am sure we will go on to blame only Chinese backyard BBQ's and coal generation industry and ignore other important sources like the current move to smogify the US by Trump.The world wide and American coal and the petro chemical industry is just as much to blame here as are we all, when we pave and abuse the shit out of our shared environment with abandon. The outlook for the human race is bleak primarily because we ignore things that we don't like to admit are our fault in the first place. I am sure that as the current crop of Right wing nutjobs is let loose to do a Joseph Goebbels on the American public "Chinese state sponsored pollution" will become one of the most terrible "villain du jour"! Right up there with the evil "Liberal Democrats" who brought affordable health care to millions.
Yin/Yang (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing. That a country (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Windup Girl (Score:2)
I just read a book called "The Windup Girl" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] by Paolo Bacigalupi where local environmental police was a major component of the plot.
I enjoyed the book enough to get "Pump Six and Other Stories", a collection of his short stories where I believe he will introduce some of the ideas fleshed out in "The Windup Girl."
Emission standards (Score:1)