Only Seven Countries Worldwide Meet WHO Dirty Air Guidelines, Study Shows (theguardian.com) 34
Nearly every country on Earth has dirtier air than doctors recommend breathing, a report has found. From a report: Only seven countries met the World Health Organization's guidelines for tiny toxic particles known as PM2.5 last year, according to analysis from the Swiss air quality technology company IQAir. Australia, New Zealand and Estonia were among the handful of countries with a yearly average of no more than 5ug of PM2.5 per cubic metre, along with Iceland and some small island states.
The most polluted countries were Chad, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and India. PM2.5 levels in all five countries were at least 10 times higher than guideline limits in 2024, the report found, stretching as much as 18 times higher than recommended levels in Chad. Doctors say there are no safe levels of PM2.5, which is small enough to slip into the bloodstream and damage organs throughout the body, but have estimated millions of lives could be saved each year by following their guidelines. Dirty air is the second-biggest risk factor for dying after high blood pressure.
The most polluted countries were Chad, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and India. PM2.5 levels in all five countries were at least 10 times higher than guideline limits in 2024, the report found, stretching as much as 18 times higher than recommended levels in Chad. Doctors say there are no safe levels of PM2.5, which is small enough to slip into the bloodstream and damage organs throughout the body, but have estimated millions of lives could be saved each year by following their guidelines. Dirty air is the second-biggest risk factor for dying after high blood pressure.
Non-binding (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK there are legally binding targets and they have had tangible results. For example London recently increases the size of its ultra-low emission zone, despite some vocal protests. It's not actually all that ultra low emission, a lot of polluting is still allowed there, but none the less it has had a measurable impact on air quality.
It also opened the way for legal challenges if governments were not doing enough about air quality. Not for huge pay-outs, but to force them to act.
It's not perfect and w
Re: Non-binding (Score:4, Interesting)
If it were binding, California would have some splainin to do.
Meanwhile the cities with the worst pollution in North America were all in California.
https://www.mercurynews.com/20... [mercurynews.com]
Though this state is currently busy spray painting swastikas on electric cars, so obviously not its top priority.
Sources (Score:5, Interesting)
Our (Iceland) leading source of PM pollution,æ is, weirdly, a dam (KÃrahnjÃkavirkjun). The water is full of rock flour and fine subglacial volcanic ash, which normally would have just gone out to sea. Instead, a lot slowly settles out in the reservoir, and then when the water level drops, dries out and blows away.
Focused approach. (Score:4, Insightful)
Looking at the map, and how distributed air pollution is, it is clear that tightening ecological norms in countries with are already on the clean-ish side is going to achieve nothing more than annoy their residents. We've got to focus and start fighting the biggest offenders instead of further punishing and frustrating those who already have made tremendous effort and sacrifices to be cleaner and healthier.
Re: (Score:2)
We've got to focus and start fighting the biggest offenders
I don't think any necessarily disagrees with this but it's easy to say; how do you suggest we do that? How does one sovereign nation state enforce a demand against another?
History has shown that answer to be "through the barrel of a gun" but if you don't like that idea then you are left with diplomacy and soft-power politics; trade, sanctions, alliances, multinational agreements and the like. What helps in all that is your reputation on the world stage and your ability to pull multiple parties with differ
Re:Focused approach. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually the US has no *direct* interest in PM 2.5 problems in other countries, except possibly Mexico and Canada. If particulates are bad in Pakistan, we don't have to breathe that. That kind of air pollution problem more of an indicator, a red flag, of a system in which the welfare of most people doesn't matter. China may claim to be socialist, but if they have high levels of pollution that tells you how important people are in the People's Republic.
I am old enough to remember what things were like in the US before the Clean Air Act. f you were driving in a car you could see even small cities over the horizon as a orange-brown stain in the sky. In late 60s/early 70s, taking NYC as an example, it wasn't uncommon to have as many as 200 days per year where air quality was bad enough that today the public would be warn to stay inside and avoid activity. By 2000 that had been reduced to 10-20 days/year, and these would have been mild events by 1970 standards, where pollution was sometimes so bad you could only see about 500 feet. That would be unthinkable bow.
The fact that we changed this shows how robust our democracy was back then. Politicians didn't crack down on polluters out of the goodness of their hearts, people got mad and the politicians actually did something productive about the problem.
In that sense I do think it matters to Americans if air quality in most of the world is a low priority, not because the air quality itself matters to us, but because it shows what a corrupt and undemocratic world we live in.
WHO Limits (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the US has no *direct* interest in PM 2.5 problems in other countries
Sure, that's taking a step back which is a good idea, my post was really in regards to if say we do in fact say we care about those things, that is a choice we can make (Back when America wanted to consider itself a world leader then it would be in America's long term benefit to improve this, we benefit indirectly). If we declare we don't care then no need to discuss anything related to solutions.
remember what things were like in the US before the Clean Air Act.
Yep, I grew up in NYC and my parents talked about how bad the air was and how disgusting the East and Hudson ri
Re: (Score:2)
In the past the USA's improvement had be driven by politics where as now that is no longer true, it's biggest hope now is that some of the most cost effective technologies are the green technologies and their adoption for commercial reasons is the biggest hope for improvement there. Far from ideal.
China's pollution problems have been driven by its explosive growth the consumer life style of it population and becoming the main factory for the world.
Re: (Score:2)
This is offset by growth in demand meaning they still roll out dirty solutions when needed.
Thank you for mentioning this because it's very important is that is the demand we are kinda making of the post-WWII industrializing nations. The US and Europe already went through this phase so we look better now but we burned a fuckload of coal and oil and performed several other environmental catastrophes in the name of industrial growth and it's a big part of why we are so rich today.
Asking other countries trying to develop to slow themselves from doing the same is gonna get some rightful sideways look
Re: (Score:3)
The US and Europe already went through this phase so we look better now but we burned a fuckload of coal and oil and performed several other environmental catastrophes in the name of industrial growth and it's a big part of why we are so rich today.
That is a popular claim, but I'm not sure it's true. Renewable power exists at a relatively low cost. It did not exist when the US and Europe were having industrial revolutions. Similarly, we know more about preventing environmental harm, though I'm not an expert on this. Thus, to forego greenhouse gas release and pollution a century ago would have meant the stymie of progress. Foregoing them now means a slightly higher cost of energy and industrial processes.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant the implication is not true, not the basic claim itself. The false part is that less developed economies will get screwed if they are asked not to pollute because it's a necessary part of the evolution of an economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Ehh, I would agree it's definitely much more feasible today and you see nations like China and India and many others definitely deploying it at a quick pace but there's still an uphill battle in logistics in other factors, we refer to these places as developing for a reason, they can be missing a lot of the stuff that makes it so cheap to deploy today. Coal is cheap and everywhere, oil has a gigantic global infrastructure in place and have done the work in these environments already.
A alot rides on the me
Re: (Score:2)
" the US has no *direct* interest in PM 2.5 problems in other countries, except possibly Mexico and Canada"
the US has been a direct cause, for example:
https://www.ontario.ca/documen... [ontario.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
How does one sovereign nation state enforce a demand against another? History has shown that answer to be "through the barrel of a gun"
History also suggests that war does little or nothing to improve air quality. Vast clouds of smoke from burning fuel and ammunition dumps all the way down the diesel smoke belched by almost all military vehicles...
Aren't made of dirt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Good point. Mostly sand and coral for 6 out of the 7.
And most have winds that blow fine particulates over past there extensive coastlines before they settle lower.
And no neighbors nearby sending over their fine particulates - just ocean.
Estonia is the exception.
Re: (Score:1)
there —> their
(dammit)
Re: (Score:2)
Are these the 7 countries that aren't made of dirt?
Dirt objectively is not the source of PM2.5 pollution. This kind of particulate matter is man made at the concentrations blowing around. Dirt is far coarser.
Not Dirt (Score:2)
Are these the 7 countries that aren't made of dirt?
Well since the list includes Australia and New Zealand I'm guessing they are like the UK which unlike the US is not made of "dirt" but earth or soil. Of course Canada is a bit different since it is made of Rocks and Trees [youtube.com]...and water.
All seven (Score:1)
The article only mentions the top 3.
1. Australia
2. New Zealand
3. Estonia
4. Iceland
5. Grenada
6. Bahamas
7. Barbados
See the pattern?
That list isn’t helpful in illustrating how to fix the problem in most of the world.
See the pattern? (Score:2)
Well most of them are islands (Australia counts as an island, it isnt connected to any other continent. When I was in school it had the title of the worlds biggest island)
Poor metric (Score:2)
Note that these seven are countries with very small populations and/or are remote. And yet, the most polluted countries refuse to do anything themselves unless someone else pays for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that these seven are countries with very small populations and/or are remote.
Only when you don't understand the measurements. Australia can't remotely be considered small population or remote. IAQ tests are done in populated areas and Australia has a very high urbanisation rates. They objectively measure well in pollution even in the middle of a city of 5 million people.
Iceland would fit the list, but also worth mentioning that all IAQ's air measurements stations bar 1 are in the one capital city. Though the population is only 250000
Get a GOOD air purifer (Score:2)
dirty air, (Score:1)
Surprised about Estonia (Score:2)
Considering they have the largest oil shale power stations in the world.