E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy Adrienne Mong and Bo Gu
BEIJING — If there were one place that is living proof that global carbon dioxide emissions in 2010 jumped the largest amount on record, it’s got to be the Middle Kingdom.
Emissions leapt 5.9 per cent last year, according to the Global Carbon Project.
And the world’s biggest emitter —yes, China — was a big contributor. It pumped 2.2 billion tons of carbon into the air, compared to the 1.5 billion tons of carbon by the U.S.
On days like Monday — and there have been way too many this year — it feels like Beijing is the receptacle.
'Hazardous' days
We’ve already written about it, but this time returning to the Chinese capital after a break, I found my hardy NBC News colleagues ordering air filter machines for their homes and air filter masks for cycling (to get around the traffic).
Adrienne Mong/NBC News
The NBC News Beijing bureau invests in air filter masks to combat the pollution.
Monday, while the @BeijingAir index — which comes from an air quality monitor housed atop the U.S. embassy in Beijing — tweeted hourly “hazardous” readings all day, we took a peek at readings back home to see how levels of air pollution were faring across the Pacific.
Across a map of the United States, it was a depressing monochromatic “green” color signifying “good” quality air — with only a few slashes of “yellow,” meaning “moderate.”
Bear in mind, according to the chart developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “hazardous” is the highest alert level, which would trigger “health warnings of emergency conditions. The entire population is more likely to be affected,” according to the site.
There were no readings from the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau’s (EPB) own air monitor until mid-afternoon Monday, when it acknowledged “slight pollution.”
Last month, the Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection suggested it was finally heeding growing concerns among Beijing residents’ about air pollution.
The ministry said it would begin publishing measurements for the smallest particulate matter or PM2.5, also considered the most dangerous to human health because they’re tiny enough to enter the lungs and cause damage to the respiratory system.
Courtesy of Daxian/Weibo
"I thought I was looking at a mirage!" said a Weibo user by the name of Daxian after posting a photo from Beijing Monday morning.
On Thursday, however, the Beijing EPB emphatically announced PM2.5 readings for the city would not be made public.
A 'mirage'
To add insult to health injury, officials have been quoted in local newspapers as saying they will set up a new air monitoring system for Beijing in … Tianjin — a metropolis 80 miles away from the capital.
Mind you, photos posted on the Shanghaiist blogsite suggest we in Beijing are not the only ones suffering.
(There’s been plenty of supporting visual evidence coming out of Beijing all day. One user of Weibo, the popular Chinese microblog, posted a photo of high-rises apparently floating above a cloud of pollution, calling it a “mirage.” And YouKu, a Chinese version of YouTube, posted a video of this morning’s commute.)
Soho property mogul Pan Shiyi, who led an online petition to get PM2.5 readings published by the EPB, has begun posting on his Weibo account screen shots from an iPhone app that compiles the U.S. embassy’s BeijingAir index.
In the meantime, Chinese authorities are still determined to call the smog by any other name.
Flight after flight on the Beijing Capital International airport website was shown to be cancelled — owing to “fog.” A Xinhua news agency report described it as “heavy fog.”
But an AFP report called it “smog,” tallying the airport casualties: 213 domestic and 15 international cancelled flights.
See Shanghaiist for more photos of the smog in Beijing and China
Update: Since this posting, a state-run newspaper, The Global Times, quoted meteorological officials as saying the “dense fog” enveloping Beijing and parts of the northeast will persist until Friday. One official described it as a “normal climate condition in Beijing.” Good thing we got our masks.
Leave a Comment:
I am not a big believer in the Co2 global warming theory as I believe it has too much of a religous,political and scam for profit {al gore} motivation,not to mention Obama's favorite ''redistribute the wealth" {cap and trade} but my god folks we need to breath! Common sense would tell us that the burning of coal that is not properly scrubbed of toxins and particulate matter will surely shorten our life expectancy,of this I believ we can all agree.
And our coal industry wonderswhy we don't want to burn coal. As long as you have a fire burning you produce CO2 . Can't be helped. There are a number of ways we can clean up coal and clean up the air of particulates . But industry will not do it because it hurts their bottom line. Also big oil companies will lose profit to coal companies . Atomic energy is not good because of the life span of spent fuel rods , and no where to go with them . It 's a catch 22 no matter which we turn.
bob
@peacelover,
There has not been any serious scientific debate over whether global warming is happening in over 40 years not. And there has been no serious scientific debate on whether it is man-made in about 20 years. And there has been no serious scientific debate on whether the tipping point has been reached in over 10 years. Now all the scientific debate is focused on the impact that methane, released by global warming and man's activities, will have on global warming. It is not like a religion where you can choose to believe something or now. Data are data. Science is decidedly not a belief system where one can choose to believe or not. Science is data based and theories have to explain all current data. Theories are not just something that scientists dreamed up but rather an attempt to explain what is happening and its implications for the future.
Gore has not made a dime from global warming or books and movies about it. Gore donates every dime from his environmental crusading to charities, mainly the ones that fund buying tracts of wetlands and forests to keep them from being destroyed. The right loves to demonize Gore because of the embarrassment from his winning the presidential race at the ballot box, but losing it in the Supreme Court.
Cap and Trade does not mean that everyone's electric bill would go up. In fact, under Cap and Trade my electricity bill would go down. This is because companies with Cap and Trade credits to spare (such as TVA) would sell them to "dirty" utilities (like Southern Companies). The money received from selling these credits would be required by law to be refunded to customers in the form of rate cuts. Each year the available credit pool would slowly shrink, incenting utilities to clean up their smokestacks.
Much of the anti-global warming sentiment comes from sheer ignorance. I made the remark to someone the other day that a gallon of gasoline, which weighs about six pounds, when burned in the average car produces 20-24 pounds of pollutants depending on the car. People were aghast and could not believe that it was possible true. If you burn something the "ashes" must weigh less than the item burned. In fact, of the six pounds, over 5.5 lbs are carbon. When burned, this carbon combines with oxygen from the air and the resulting byproducts --- water, sulfur, carbon (soot), carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide weigh 24-28 pounds. It is nothing more complicated than junior high science, but so many people simply grasp that it could be true.
bob: There's nothing wrong with nuclear power except you can't put it in cars. Fuel rods can be recycled, like they do in France, but we need to change our laws to do that. New reactor designs are smaller and quite literally failsafe. We could easily deploy them to power-poor areas of the country far more quickly than getting permission for a massive new coal plant, and it has the added advantage of making our power grid more distributed.
Eventually China will be forced to deal with environmental pollution in a responsible way. But first they may have to kill a few million people per year to notice the need.
AG99: Failsafe? Really? I have only one word to say to lunatics like you:
Fukushima.
My sister lives in Toyko, 50 miles from a complex of 6 reactors. Three of these suffered a partial meltdown, including Reactor One, which we know now was 12" away from a total meltdown. Molten Uranium fuel burned through 8' thick reinforced concrete, and was 3/4's of the way through the 2nd, and final, containment vessel.
As it was, the failure at Fukushima Diiachi released 165 times as much radiation as Hiroshima (this is a proven fact). Had molten fuel melted another 12" of containment vessel, it would have melted through the rock, dirt, and everything below it--until it hit the water table. Then it would have exploded in a massive plume of radioactive steam.
Meanwhile, 50 miles away, 38 million people are trapped (ever evacuate 38 million people--off of an island?), praying for the winds to blow offshore. During this crises, part of the time the wind was blowing directly towards Toyko, and with family members helpless, we spent many nervous days and nights hoping and praying...
I'm not dead set against nuclear energy. But failsafe? Do you still believe in the tooth fairy too?
rgh: Are you always this charming? Especially about a technology you know nothing about. Fukushima was an old reactor about to be decommissioned anyway. New designs are smaller and use different cooling methods and even different fuel configurations. They can't meltdown. Educate yourself before throwing the insults around.
Being able to halt climate change such as global warming might be debatable, but it's for certain that air polution can be substantially reduced with current technology. There is no good excuse for not making this happen.
AG and RDH --
Pebble bed reactors.
Well, maybe the Chinese will pollute themselves to death and we won't have to worry about them anymore, and with no one to work their factories, we'll just have to bring those jobs back home. In all seriousness, if they don't change, they will be incurring increasingly greater medical care costs, and reduced productivity from an increasingly unhealthy work force. A lot of these problems may not show up for a while, but when they do, it could hit with a real big bang!
There is no good excuse for not making this happen.
Tell it to the Chinese. It's not CO2 but the particulates of burning. Two different problems.
And nuclear energy is the only way to make the quantity of clean energy they, and we, need. Until then, people will burn coal - and lots of it. Simple as that. Those who believe man-made climate change will kill us all might just want to look at the new nuclear designs. Or we could just sit around and pretend solar and wind are viable - then we will see if those climate change fear mongers were right because nothing could be done.
rdh333, while I agree that nothing is certain, do you think that had they not located those reactors in low lying areas so close to the coast where they could be damaged by nature that this problem could have been avoided?
We can continue to put policy in place in the US that reduces CO2, but until China and the rest of the world gets on board it will have the effect of asking row 42 on an all smoking plane to abstain and proudly calling it progress.
And without a tariff in place, it reduces the competitiveness of the US to manufacture and sell goods to our own country.
rdh333 - AG is right; well almost. I can't say anything is 100% fail safe but there are newer designs that pretty much are. At least so much so that if these newer design were in place in Japan, there wouldn't of been an issue like what happened. The newer designs are smaller, produce much less waste (some can reuse the waste from older rectors), don't rely on liquid cooling or other means that could be shut down like what happened in Japan, and have other control measures that kick in or don't rely on power or human intervention. The mainstream media has clearly been irresponsible when it comes to reporting facts about nuclear energy but that is no surprise; pretty much reporting 101 these days, facts are no longer number one. As far as waste and pollution goes, nuclear is much much more controlled (and if we would stop stalling and get a centralized storage facility done; Yucca mtn) when compared to coal and oil. Pound for pound how much pollution and wide spread is a coal plant's pollution really? Slow release over several years is not better in my book.
I don't feel nuclear is the long term answer, but neither is building more coal plants that are based on a resource that is limited. The goal will be fusion but until that time fission can help bridge the gap and we need to use all options and do so much more responsibly.
Jk and PL both made the point that who cares if the planet is warming or not? That should not be the main reason we switch to clean(er) and renewable forms of energy. The fact that we need clean air to breath, water to drink and grow food, land to live on and grow food, is reason enough alone. I rather be dead now then face the slow death from a daily does of pollution like what is shown in the photos above.
As to the article at hand the Chinese government's response is no surprise. They are still driven by money. Same story we see here from the big polluters. Instead of doing what is right, and probably giving up a little profit, they rather ignore the problem or just dance around it and distract everyone from the problem. Best of luck to those living in Beijing.
It it time we as a spiecies wise up and really start considering some of the long term consequences of our actions now before it is too late.
industrial hemp...
The science behind global warming is simple and conclusive. CO-2 traps heat in the atmosphere. We have known this for over a 100 years. The CO-2 levels have increased by 40% since the Industrial Revolution.
A 5% increase would be alarming. This is a 40% increase.
Think about it.
We know CO-2 traps heat. We know CO-2 levels have soared since billions of tons of carbon dioxide are produced each year by burning fossil fuels. And everywhere you look, there are signs of the planet warming exactly as scientists predicted.
Grinspoon97 - solar and wind are viable - though for power generation as a utility sees it solar is the better option and wind turbines are a bit of an eyesore. Solar is getting better and will continue to drop in price and improve, this is what technology does everyday in all forms. I agree that for the average homeowner on a fixed billing rate (residential is almost always a fixed rate regardless of time of day; only goes up once you consume so much power), it isn't cheap enough yet, however for a large commercial or industrial business that has several different rates that it can be charged, it typically makes very good financial sense. Only way it really doesn't is if for some reason they get really cheap electricity but more and more that seems to be few and far between. That means overall with all fees and charges the per watt price is $.7-6 or less. It still can be done, but usually at those prices ROI is so long it doesn't make financial sense.
let me add that solar and wind are viable as an add on to a base power source like nuclear, coal, gas, ect. They are not nor will they ever be a sole base power source, but can help supplement power, and solar especially, can do so during peak times reducing the load on the grid and pollution produced by other sources.
It is time - I don't see wind power generation as viable. Mechanical failure, maintenence costs, land usage, construction costs, combine to make wind a poor adjuct to other power generation methods.
The forms of solar might be supplemental for peak - but why? Why not just build more nuclear. If there was a reason to build any nuclear - why build other less efficient generation? If some other form has sufficient advantages, then why not go with that? If solar were more efficient in producing low cost energy, then I could see the day/night dual system. Nuclear is cheapest and new designs seem adequate. The spent fuel problem is just a cold-war remnent - we can now reprocess fuel and the waste and storage problem goes away.
GS - you are right, wind produces but is not really viable for utility power production. Actually, here is where a flat rate billing might have a benefit, like a house, but still needs to be connected to grid, and if not have a (at the moment) expensive battery to store energy, or other form of generation like propane/natural gas generator to make up the difference. This assuming a small system for a house and you just want to offset some power. The other items you mention are a factor as well if one is considering this system. On a large scale I don't think they are that bad but you are right and they still have to be looked at.
As for the solar, the tech is getting better everyday and we will soon to be reaching a point that the cost per watt will rival fossil fuel power production. It does make financial sense now on larger scales but not home sized for the average person. Once you have that reached you are looking at a fuel source that is free and unlimited with zero pollution to create that energy. And like we both said it passively follows the peak times so there is nothing else that needs done nor do you have all the inbetween; ie. power lines ect, it is at the source where it is needed (this not counting a utility solar farm). Plus it puts a little bit of control into the owners hands. Yes the process to make the panels isn't the most friendly but when done right can be controlled and monitored just like the nuclear plants and its getting better too. I agree with nuclear (fission) and it needs used more to bridge the gap till we get to something like fusion but if we have the option for something that is truly renewable we should be looking at it to make up part of the power production, especially if it does make sense financially as we have not been the best stewards of our environment.
As for the waste, I agree mostly, reprocess and reuse. I believe some of the design may even be able to use the rods in there current state but my understanding you still get something at the end of the day though not near as much or as bad as what we have now. Doing the reprocessing would help with reducing the storage pile no doubt but you would still ultimately have that material that needs to go somewhere unless an even better reprocessing methods comes up I suppose. Eitherway we have some options right now that we are not using.
Chris Forbes magazine states Al Gore lifelong politician is worth over $100 million.
Al Gore Getting Rich Spreading Global Warming Hysteria With ...
newsbusters.org › Blogs › Noel Sheppard's blog - Isalin ang pahinang ito
3 Oct 2007 – December 03, 2011 ... In fact, just two months ago, ABC News.com estimated soon-to-be-Nobel Laureate Al Gore's net worth at $100 million, ... For the record I am for ''clean energy'' but sorry don't have much faith in the C02 global warming data? Chris I am glad to see your FAITH is strong. We are actually on the same side as I am for govt.regulations that are reasonable in protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink.
What is your profit making angle in your call for breathable air ? Since you are making money, I don't believe this need is real.
It's a problem that's too big to fix.
No problem is too big to fix, it just takes more time and money.
Being able to breathe had better not be too big to fix!
Solutions? Wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, nuclear are solutions. The "Clean Coal" advertising campaign of the American coal industry is a big lie. It makes my blood boil. The coal industry has fought pollution controls on coal fired power plants since the EPA was founded. Every few years there comes another publicity driven showpiece pilot plant that will clean up these emissions. It generates the basis for some feel good press releases to placate the public and then quietly fades out of existence. Liars.
The short term problems with coal, oil, etc. are the immediate health issues and pollutants. The long term issue is they are limited resources.
As Illinois said above, the long term perspective needs to be renewable resources such as wind, thermal, tidal, solar (especially solar because it doesn't interfere with earth's natural movements).
This is what the deregulation republicans want america to look like.
Clean coal is possible, but it costs a fortune and the big power producers don't want to spend the money. The real answer is nuclear.
The nuclear haters need to get over it, nuclear is safe, if they would quit being such anti-nuke nuts we could get these 40 year old plants retired with new plants that are much more safe and efficient. They can churn out power using the nuclear waste from the old nuke plants and old bombs, they recycle old fuel and use up so much of the radioactivity the fuel can be safe in 100 years!
We can't put the Genie back in the bottle but we can sure as heck move forward and make progress and improve things instead of keeping the status quo which sure as heck isn't making things better!
I'm not a tree-hugger but I sure don't want to asphyxiate!
I think the main problem with nuclear plants is the idea that a single large plant is needed to serve a huge area. Instead a greater number of small, even tiny, plants servicing a small town or a section of a city would go a long way to addressing safety concerns. Think about the nuclear reactors used on submarines as an example.
However the eco-hippies wouldn't stand for that either. I remember when the Saturn probe Cassini was launched, a bunch of nutballs turned out to protest it because it was nuclear powered - they were launching radioactive material into space where it would never return to Earth, you'd think the hippies would be happy about that! But no, just because it involved nuclear power they were against it.
I'm a tree hugger and I support nuclear power. Enough with the generalizations. It's right up there with saying the GOP wants the world to die in a sea of pollutants because it's too expensive to breathe. What nonsense.
Yeah, lets deregulate big buissiness so they can do as they please! I think people need to start worrying less about the debt that their children might inherit and start hoping they have a planet to live on!
Yea, because if China were to regulate their businesses, their problem would go away? Give me a break. In one of the most densely populated countries in the world, you're going to specifically lay blame to their business and economical scheme? Ever seen what their roadways look like? Unfortunately, what you liberals don't understand, by deregulation, republicans don't want *FULL* deregulation, but a deregulation of our monetary system and financial industry. Hasn't got a thing to do with pollutants and government controls over pollution allowances.
Up next: India
Choke on it commies!
1957 - Los Angeles - Everything looks hazy, buildings 10 blocks away are blurred, the eyes are stinging, SMOG has made this afternoon miserable. 2011 - Los Angeles - The sky is almost clear, the population and the number of cars and trucks on the highways, has nearly doubled since 1957, my eyes haven't suffered a smog attack in over 25 years (cars emit nitrous-oxide which merges with the water in the eye to form Nitric-acid (nasty stuff)). The American auto industry complained about the requirements for reduced emissions, but governmental demands for clean air cars were heard. Complain about the EPA if you must, but just look at the sky over Beijing.
Trucks and Autos has more then doubled since then, Pit. But Great Point!
Pitman is correct. The air in southern california 20 years ago was disgusting. Smog alerts all summer long. My lungs hurt so bad after swimming all day. There has been a definite improvement in the air quality of Southern Cal, even though the autos have increased. Traffic is just as bad, but clean air standards have worked here.
Best part of the whole article is the seamless segway from CO2 to smog. Nicely done. Completely misleading, but nicely done.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/overview/definitions.htm
Eventually China will be forced to deal with environmental pollution in a responsible way. But first they may have to kill a few million people per year to notice the need.
A few million is not enough. They killed 40 millions Chinese over 10 years with some obviously flawed economic policy and no Chinese complained.
This will be America some day, if the Republicans and libertarians have their way.
There is no such thing as climate change, there is no such thing as climate change... just repeat after the deniers. Now send 'em to Beijing to see what they're denying!
And this is the shining model that is constantly held up as good?
They have a "robust" economy and we "should learn from them?"
Our economy would be robust if we didn't have the regulations that do give some protection from this.... I was there when Lake Erie was written off as "dead" and the Rouge River in Detroit caught fire from the pollution....
China and the Chinese are disgusting... They are just like the air... Polluted.
It's time we unleashed the EPA on these guys...
Willy read the article? EPA is already doing what they can threw the US Embassy. Remember we don't own China. China owns US!
China's new government policy "hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil"
I thought that was Penn State's policy.
just like america, that's where the ideas originated from, hahaha...
That's where the idea originated from ? Did US started 2,000 years ago ? That's was copied by Confucius from America 2000 years ago ?
correction its not a new policy thats been there policy for as long as can be
Not as long as can be. It started during the Spring Autumn period of China, during the Zhou dynasty.
Those who smoke cigarettes need to stop the grotesque habit also...
Is that sarcasm, or do you just want to determine how people live their lives?
I hope he/she's not sarcastic- I want to live my life smoke-free, so when some idiot who doesn't care about themselves or is a nicotine drug addict is blowing the dirty air from their lungs into the air that me and my family are breathing, that's not "allowing us to live our lives" the way we want to. Is that clear enough ?
As I understand it, BeiJing's geography plays a role in the local air quality. In addition to the man-made element they're also getting dust blowing in from China's western deserts. That problem is reportedly growing worse due to desertification of those area, in part driven by their land use patterns.
It's also my understanding - superficial though that may be - that the CO2 factor is not at all unrelated to their pollution problem, but it's not a significant factor with respect to how healthy or unhealthy the air is to breathe. What we're "seeing" in these pics is the particulates from the more-natural sources like dust as well as the burgeoning auto and industrial pollution.
The reason "air quality" readings are better in the west are because of our air pollution control measures, which again, is not synonymous with curbing CO2 output. As a political talking point people may equate them as one and the same but that's obviously not the case.
In terms of environmental threats to mankind I think everyone can agree that problems involving air quality, water quality as well as water availability are far more proximate than the nebulous threat of climate change. We already know how to resolve these types of threats without breaking the bank, whereas I don't think anyone has any realistic hopes of solving the climate change problem in our lifetimes.
My vote is to direct our resources to those problems we can readily solve, and which threaten our well being more directly.
You were brain washed by the great big brain washing machine.
The Republicans HAVE called for an end to the EPA. It does cost money to prevent pollution in manufacturing. L.A. is the best example in America of a success story. Strong regulations cleaned the air. Keeping our air clean SHOULD BE a no brainer. Why is it such a burden to expect Corporations to behave in a responsible manner??
china is a nation without Ethics.. a nation without orders ..
don't belive me just check out those chinese tourist in you neighborhood .. or simpley take a trip to china .. it's a fxxked up country.
this dirty air will last forever !!
China has ethics, the ethics of make money first, everything, including health, moral, honesty are all distant secondary to money. It may not be the ethics you want, but it is theirs. They have orders too, orders from the Politburo, which overrides everything, including court orders or resolution of the People's Council (Their congress).
I hear Phillip Morris has these new filtered breathing sticks. I think we should send a bunch of them to China as a token of good will.
Aren't those filter sticks made in China ? They just have to export them to avoid local taxes.
what is it going to take for you to believe that the air from CO2 is coming from vehicles and needs to stop? so many of you and your children have ashama, i wonder why ? early american industries before the EPA was doing the same practices, don't act like america is onnocent, please...
art -
CO2 is not a particulate pollutant.