We have been discussing for years how China has allowed pollution contaminate the soil, water, and air of its country to a shocking degree. That is no more apparent (literally) than the air in Beijing (here and here and here and here). Now the city is being called “unliveable.” That is nothing new except this is Beijing’s own mayor, Wang Anshun.
Wang told a group this month that “[a]t the present time, however, Beijing is not a liveable city.”
Wang knows something about runaway pollution. He is a former official in the state-controlled petroleum sector. Tourism has decreased in recent years as people read about the harmful levels of air pollution, food contamination scandals, and other environmental issues. On a recent ranking of the most popular tourist destinations, Beijing now ranks just before Sofia, Bulgaria and 34th out of 100 top cities.
I have written about how Beijing seems to defy imagination on the levels of pollution every time I visit. The city has 21.5 million residents and is growing at a rate of more than 350,000 a year.
However, China is acting to reduce the problem of pollution. It has moved to block the App giving access to the widely used pollution readings from the U.S. Embassy. Those readings are reliable and accurate, which is precisely why the Chinese government has moved to shutdown access.
Source: Guardian
Isaac:
“Once up and running the pollution stops with solar panels. Once up and running the fossil fuel powered energy sources never stop.” Yes, that is partly true. The PV cells production produces toxic waste, so of COURSE China is happy to mass produce them. And when those panels wear out, they need to be disposed of properly to avoid further contamination. That toxic waste is a serious problem that needs to be faced and rectified. If it was any other product, that created carcinogenic toxic sludge and contaminated ground water, would it get a similar green light, pardon the pun? As I have stated many times before, addressing water contamination is a high priority for me.
But, absolutely, the energy itself is produced cleanly. That’s why I’ve wanted to go solar for so long. I merely point out its down side to underscore that it is not a panacea…yet. On another note, the concentrated solar array in the dessert is literally frying birds, so that, too, needs to be fixed.
In general, I am cautious about jumping in to green energy until we’ve worked out all the bugs. That was what got Scotland and the Netherlands in so much trouble with their wind energy. I was surprised to find that I dislike wind energy as it is currently produced, and that has made me more cautious in having green energy take over before it is ready. That is the ultimate goal, but if we aren’t careful, we could just trade one set of problems for another.
issac, So does this mean you are against a group like EPA? I never voted for them and yet they get to make rules, laws and regulations that effect me directly. Where in the constitution is the EPA laid out? Also, since you seem to think that the majority should have a say, why aren’t you angry that gay marriage has been voted down by the people and yet judges overturn what the people want?
Lastly, don’t blame the Koch brothers. Blame the politician who has his for sale sign out.
Schulte:
Had you lived in LA in 1952, you would say that LA has no smog now. I had to walk to school in that soup and your eyes burned all the way there, not to mention the breathing stress it caused. LA has come a long way since then.
Wang would not have said what he did without the imprimatur of the people senior to him who placed him in his position. Wang did not “go rogue”. His statement could be a prelude to swift and sure investigations, trials, and jail time for the most egregious polluters and their abettors within provincial and local governments.
davidm2575
The essence of a democracy, from before the time of Plato, has been that the majority of well informed, adult individuals, less and less selective as time has moved us along, should decide how that society should be governed.
Earlier versions of democracy, including ours, were selective in choosing who could vote and who could not. Typically the voter had to be someone who had already contributed to society, i.e. soldier, merchant, statesman, philosopher etc. in the Greek period and male, white, property owner in the early American experiment.
Even in the time of Plato the experiment was warned against the special interest, the individual or group that could influence the formula disproportionately due to wealth and or military rank.
Democracy is an ideal. There is no true democracy in force in this world as no country that elects its leaders has a completely informed and educated population of voters. Most, more evolved democracies are parliamentary structured to one degree of another. The leader of the country is the leader of the party that gets the most votes. In a country with more than two parties the winning party may have to cooperate with one of the other parties in order to make a majority. The more successful democracies, those that represent more closely and specifically the disparate groups of voters have at least four parties: center left, center right, far left, and far right. The US has, unfortunately two parties, one more than a dictatorship.
No other country spends as much money on political campaigns as in the US. In Canada, Great Britain, and other democracies, political campaigns are funded primarily by the government based on voter support. In Canada the party that received the most votes in the previous election gets so much per vote to advertise its points in the upcoming election. The greater the percentage of the voting public represented by the party, the greater the medium for the message. This may not be perfect and can be viewed as restrictive but when compared to the US system it is vastly more representative of the democratic ideal.
In the US special interest groups such as the NRA, a group with less than five million members, have successfully swayed elected representatives away from voting per the wishes of their constituents. The NRA has threatened representatives with ruin if they voted for more gun regulation, in spite of polls showing their constituents in favor of increased regulation anywhere from 65% to 90%. Billionaires like the Koch brothers have funded political campaigns of politicians such as Governor Walker of Wisconsin to victory primarily because Walker was in favor of taking the right of arbitration away from unions in his state. The Koch brothers employ hundreds of thousands in and out of unions and wanted the precedent they achieved in Wisconsin. This is big money buying big government, for big advantages in their part of the private sector. The health insurance industry has metastasized over the past fifty years to now control enough politicians to thwart moves to transition to a single payer government administered system. Nixon was inches away from implementing the necessary moves with the support of both the Republicans as well as the Democrats, at a time when the insurance lobby was not yet enough of a player in Washington. I could go on and on, however, the point is that the direction in which we are going is away from the ideal of democracy towards the oligarchical structure at which we point fingers at in Russia, China, and other countries above which we so quickly place ourselves.
It seems that you agree that the power of the oligarchs and special interests does exist. You seem to think that this is acceptable. I do not. I view this travesty or perversion of democracy as far, far, more serious than what is happening with the alleged over reaching by the executive branch.
issac, from my perspective, you simply rely too much on opinion rather than objective consideration. You present an opinion and treat it as fact. Such as perceiving the Koch brothers as big money buying big government, when the truth is the Koch brothers are free individuals using money voluntarily given to them fighting a big government that takes money by force from free people. The Koch brothers are leading democracy and using their money and influence to do it in a humanitarian way. The Koch brothers are teaching others that everyone can be successful and make money just like them. The obstacle to individual freedom and earning a good living is government. It will be difficult for you to see any of this because the mainstream liberals have brainwashed you to see facts only from a certain angle that does not represent the truth.
Governor Walker is a good man and has done a lot of good things for Wisconsin, despite overbearing obstacles from liberals. He has saved the State from going the way of Detroit. You imply he stole votes or elections using big money, but that is simply not true. What he is doing is agreeable with the people, so the people vote for him. He rules with the consent of the governed.
In regards to Canada, they already bit into the liberal apple long ago, while we are still fighting against it. However, since 2004, the liberals are losing big time and the conservative party is taking over. Nothing stops three or four parties from forming in the U.S. It looked almost like we were going to get another party when Ross Perot ran in the 1990’s as the Reformed Party. The problem is that people saw that doing this only split the vote, so they shifted back toward the two party system that we have. Until we become closer to agreement about whether or not government should be big or small, and until the parties do not split so dramatically on moral issues like abortion and homosexuality, we will likely continue a two party system because the stakes are too high to most people to allow a split vote to put someone like Clinton or Obama into office.
As for oligarchy, every government other than a dictatorship leads to an oligarchy. True democracy always fails, which is why there is not one at the present time. The nature of organizational activity is such that a few lead and make decisions while the masses go along with it. That is just the way that human relations work. Try starting your own organization and see what happens when you try to involve everyone in leadership, decisions, voting, etc. It is impractical and does not work. Some in the group will destroy what the group is trying to do. Others are apathetic and don’t care enough. Ultimately, the ruling of that group will evolve into putting power in the hands of a few, and the group consents with the decisions made by that small group of leaders. That is called organization. Of course, nothing is wrong with it.
The problem with oligarchy that is pointed out in history concerns the temptation of the leaders. They may lean toward being selfish and making decisions that are in their own best interest rather than in the interest of the people. One way to deal with that is to have their service temporary. That is why we have term limits on the President. Leaders control money and power, and that has a tendency to corrupt even those with the best intentions. You can’t stop it by complaining about the existence of an oligarch. Rather, true statesmen must be put into service who will not succomb to those temptations. Corrupt politicians need to be voted out. The problem with democracy, however, is that as the corrupt politicians give away more free stuff to the people, they effectively are buying their votes. Giving a person a check every month for food and living expenses is a much bigger example of buying votes and buying a place in government than your illustration of the Koch brothers running media ads to educate people about the value of small government with less regulations.
DetroitGuy, something else you should think about is that when political opponents constantly disparage successful businessmen, those businessmen may just feel that much more inclined to put more of their money into getting the right people into office. It’s a kind of payback for all the lies being told about them.
davidm2575,
The Koch Bros. intend to spend $1 Billion during the 2016 elections. Eventually things will get to a point where elections will no longer be necessary. Highest bidder wins.
DetroitGuy, I think the figure is closer to $889 million, but what’s $11 million dollars when talking about elections, right?
So are you saying that your mind and everybody else’s mind is for sale to the highest bidder?
There is no doubt that the wealthy have always exerted a greater influence in our society. But it doesn’t matter it they spent $3 trillion, I don’t think it would affect my vote or the vote of many rational thinking people. The problem is that Democrats have opened pandoras box with universal and equal suffrage, so the people now who sway elections are the plethora of idiots controlled by the media. Our whole voting system is messed up because one idiot’s vote cancels out another’s intelligent vote. Unfortunately, when someone starts to talk about the need for a weighted voting system based upon education, knowledge, ownership of property, etc., the liberal Democrats go crazy and refuse to talk about it. Now they want to complain that wealthy successful people should be forbidden by law from influencing elections. Well, I say, let them influence people all they like. If Warren Buffet can do it through Media Matters, then so can the Koch brothers. The savior in this would be educating people how to think about principles that would make voting actually mean something. Rather than focusing on issues, the Democrats prefer to make spurious charges about the wealthy tainting elections or about voters being disenfranchised. They have a virtual monopoly on the media, but never do you hear them complain about that.
davidm2575
I am against the pursuit of power and the influencing of our supposedly democratic institutions by single private enterprise entities whether they be supporting the Democrats or the Republicans. Regardless of whether or not an entity such as the Koch brothers gives money to charities or benevolent institutions, medical, cultural, or educational, theirs is not a check on runaway government. Theirs is an unAmerican purchasing of government for their own beliefs and benefits. That a two guys can orchestrate the moves they orchestrate by wielding the influence of their ‘free enterprise’ is not only contradictory to the freedoms intended through democracy but hypocritical at the same time. This applies to those on the other side of our political divide who purchase politicians of a Democratic bent.
The Koch brothers take our money through the formula of market control and ‘what the market will bear’. Left unchecked by the people through their only resource of expression, their elected government, we would be paying what they dictate.
China has its own problems that are fast being addressed through a change in direction from an autocratic state controlled system to a free market system. This transition carries with it all the negative baggage of where they came from as well as the baggage of corruption resulting from the chaos of this rapid change. China is history in the making. Leaving behind the us and them routine, China is perhaps the most positive thing that has happened since the dissolution of the USSR.
None of this has anything directly to do with our problems. Turley is engaged in one facet of our ideological make up. It is dwarfed by larger inequities in the American way. Ideals are goals which create directions. The US has been going in the wrong direction for some time. The increasing erosion of the middle class is mirrored by the increasing control of our politicians by those few in control of most of the wealth of America. This very structure is what the founding fathers fought against in the beginning. The Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and all the other foundation stones of this country are based primarily on the words ‘the people’. I take it to mean the majority of all the people, informed, educated, and not influenced by a very few at the top. That to some this is a ‘benevolent dictatorship’ of sorts, it is still antithetical to what it means to be American.
Lots of oligarchs in Russia, China, and other countries we look down on, fund all the stuff the Koch brothers fund and more. It seems that they are moving in the right direction albeit closer to the beginning of their journeys and further behind America. It also seems that when the Supreme Court determines that money should be no obstacle in the private sector control of government, the US is moving in the wrong direction.
issac, the primary problem I have with your perspective is defining when it is that a person is so successful that he should no longer be allowed to use his money and influence. Please tell me. When does a person reach a level of success that is too successful? When should his rights to vote with his money and influence be taken away?
It is like someone telling you that you can spend $5 on that political sign you put in your yard, but you cannot spend $10. That is too influential! You can talk to your neighbor about how you think they should vote in the upcoming election, but you are not allowed to talk on television! That reaches too many people. All of this kind of thinking is irrational and smacks of envy.
issac, if the Koch brothers is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of tyranny, you must be reading an awful lot of propaganda by government worshippers. Unlike government, Koch industries does not take our money by force. People pay them voluntarily because they want what they offer. Furthermore, the Koch’s have contributed to great organizations to further freedom in the marketplace. They have donated millions to medical and cultural institutions. They have provided an invaluable check on runaway government. It might be argued that we would be under a much more oppressive and tyrannical government had it not been for the Koch brothers.
The problem in China is that they have a political system that liberals would love. The government owns the means of production. China is basically the utopia preached by liberals, democrats, socialists, and communists, where government can do whatever it wants without some wealthy private group like Koch Industries objecting.
Nick,
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least, though, he may have some immunity since he’s a mayor.
Remember that poor farmer Prof. Turley wrote about? He wasn’t so lucky: 🙁
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/27/chinese-farmer-who-asked-officials-to-swim-in-polluted-river-is-beaten-by-baton-wielding-thugs/
Kevin
China’s main problem lies in their rapid manufacturing development. China has two electrical grids. One is being built to link existing wind farms and solar farms in the North, Gobi Desert, and other outlying areas to link up with the main grid to offset the need for coal. The other is the existing or main grid which links the thousands of fossil fuel energy generating stations to the manufacturing bases. China’s goal is to establish an energy source based on renewable energy and fossil fuels and then move some industry base to the North. This will lighten up the existing Southern areas of population and congestion. That they haven’t accomplished this already is due to the rapidity of their growth and consumption; the technological evolution of renewable energy is simply slower. However, it is their strong central government that first made the mess and that is cleaning it up. Thirty years ago they were importing GE heavy wind turbines from the US. Their 70% built in China mandate required GE to export not only the turbine but the technology. Today Chinese heavy wind turbines, evolved from those early GE heavy wind turbines that were manufactured in China, are being exported to other countries such as the US, specifically Texas. Ironic in a way that those same guys that thwart wind energy in Texas to protect their fossil fuel status quo will be paying their electric bills in part to China.
I grew up reading about the London ‘Pea Soup’ Fog. People occasionally died from it. When I first visited London in 1967 the air was very clear, much more so than Paris. In Paris one could too often smell auto exhaust. When I returned to live in Europe in 1976 the air in Paris was as clear as could be. These two countries have strong central governments and can offset the private sector to advance living conditions for the people.
This also can be seen in Los Angeles but to a lesser degree. In the sixties, LA smog residue showed up in China, the Grand Canyon, and points as far East as Kentucky. California has some of the world’s most stringent emissions control standards. The problem with LA is that it lies in a basin between the mountains and the sea. When the Spanish first arrived in the 1700s they wrote of the smoke from fires lingering for days in the basin. Beijing has a similar topographical condition.
London, Paris, Tokyo, LA, and other places have all cleaned up over decades of changing technology and government mandates. China seems to be the paradigm to watch and perhaps learn from in some respects. The inescapable irony is that the technology is often created in the US but evolved to a practical level elsewhere.
Personally I blame the part private money has to play in electing our so called people’s representatives. This is by far the greatest threat to the American ideal. When the word tyranny is bandied about the first thing that comes to my mind is the likes of the Koch brothers, Democratic and Republican money sources/pacs. This is something that those originators of the country, so often quoted, would take up arms against. There is the sanctity of the synchronism of the various branches of government to address from time to time but the control of these branches by one percent of the population is the real tyranny.
issac – LA’s smog still gets to the Grand Canyon.
Karen
Once up and running the pollution stops with solar panels. Once up and running the fossil fuel powered energy sources never stop.
Take a peek at the big picture, including the necessary lead up time to something that ends up working. Well over a hundred years ago mankind started making conveyances powered by machines. Through Stanley Steamers, 427 muscle cars, diesel, and hybrid, we are now perfecting the electric car. A Tesla originates after creating a certain degree of pollution but then runs up to 400 miles between charges, using no fossil fuels. They cost upwards to $100k but so do lots of gas guzzlers. If you power them up at Tesla charging stations you can run for free, forever.
Regarding solar cells, their production cause far less damage today than they did earlier on and technology is hugely focused on harnessing the sun’s power without the cost of solar cells and their various toxic results.
There are really only two impediments to the transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable fuels. One is the status quo. There are billions of investor dollars waiting to develop wind and solar farms in out of the way non intrusive areas. However, the grid usage and connections to the grid is the main reason these investors won’t enter the market. Solar Thermal plants in the deserts around the world are proven to be cost effective. But the link to the grid and space on the grid is the problem. This is the same with wind in West Texas. Those that have used the grid, paid for the grid, control the grid, the fossil fuel, hydro, and nuclear industries or the status quo. It takes a strong central government to move against this, something we don’t have, structurally. Or, those industries might transition into renewables.
The second impediment is that the evolution of anything like this does not produce fruit for a while but must be kept alive and vigorous or it will not produce fruit. Again a strong central government is necessary to keep things moving along.
I would like to see a separate renewable energy system of hydrogen producing stations linked between thermal solar and wind sources. It takes energy to creat hydrogen. After that the exhaust is potable water. Right now Honda is leasing cars in California, and has been for the past few years, testing out the system. Electricity to motor or electricity to hydrogen to motor. It is not simply the evolution of technology that is holding us back. Guys like the Koch brothers and other oligarchs are the real problem. Look at the portfolios of the major contributors.
I think we will be seeing headlines soon about FORMER Mayor Wang Anshun, INCARCERATED Mayor Wang Anshun, or DECEASED Mayor Wang Anshun, in the near future.
I keep avoiding going to China because of the pollution. However, they have a lot more problems than just pollution to keep them busy.
I have to say these public statements by the mayor are in many ways bold given the suppressive acts by the Chinese Government to hide the issue. He deserves credit in this regard alone, and it would be certainly welcoming to see if he is able to further his advocacy and lead to some positive changes.
Ah, but wait, isn’t Communism best for society and the environment???
Some friends lived in Hong Kong until recently, in the drift zone of Chinese pollution. This is the greatest contributor of poor air quality there, although there are other sources, as well. They used to post the daily Air Quality measurement, which always seemed to be in the red zone.
This is what I’m talking about when I express frustration that all of our money, efforts, and time seem to go towards combating carbon. We have a real and present danger of toxic water contamination and air pollution. Redressing these would make the Earth more livable for all life forms TODAY.
Kevin – Solar panels are produced using toxic materials, producing toxic sludge and contaminated water. So, this is surprisingly a net negative for China’s environment, because they have no real environmental protections, and do not seem to value the health of its citizens. I say, “surprisingly” because I have my heart set on going solar one day, but I cannot ignore the cost to the environment of producing them.
http://www.businessinsider.com/solar-panel-makers-grappling-with-waste-2013-2
Yet, China is shutting down their shale oil business in favor of building more solar panel factories. That’s more than the US can say. Plus, much of the pollution in China was outsourced by America. All US steel mills were dismantled and shipped off to China, and so was most of the US manufacturing base.
Therefore, most of the pollution in China is the fault of the US.
“However, China is acting to reduce the problem of pollution. It has moved to block the App giving access to the widely used pollution readings from the U.S. Embassy. Those readings are reliable and accurate, which is precisely why the Chinese government has moved to shutdown access.”
Predictable and sad.
Here’s another solution:
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-27/chinas-pollution-solution-move-factories-abroad
“Now authorities say they have come up with a way to address the industrial pollution that accounts for as much as three-quarters of dangerous particulates in the air: Move polluting factories overseas.
Hebei authorities have announced plans to relocate some of the province’s steel, cement, and glass production to Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and other parts of Asia.”
The poor people of Beijing. The Chinese government would rather block access to information about pollution that do something about it. My goodness, that sounds familiar.
Every time I see something about the pollution in China I wonder if our corproate overlords think that pollution in China is cause by “over regulation”. As corporate lobbyists work hard to destroy the EPA and billionaires spend billions to take over the levers of government, this is what we or our children will be “enjoying” at some point. But then, of course, I’m one of those nasty humans who likes clean air and water.
Turn your head and cough.