Asian "Brown Cloud" Accounts for much of Global Warming

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mad Hatter @ Aug 8 2007, 03:37 PM) [snapback]492654[/snapback]</div>

Can't be help responsible for what?

The early 80's is when we finally got off of asses and did something. Granted it wasn't revolutionary but I believe that's when scrubbers had to be added to stacks on coal plants, etc. The SOx reductions have been pretty significant.

That's my whole point. We don't need to make ANY technological strides to make MASSIVE improvements in China's situation. Huge strides would be made by simply using existing technology. The Chinese economy would benefit in the short/mid term.

I agree that we can't make them do anything and approaching it that way would be stupid, arrogant, and counter productive. The Chinese need to wake up and smell the fetid stench of their progress and do something about it. Hopefully the Olympics will help. I wonder if it went really badly it might be an even more powerful incentive.

 

Why do WE (the U.S.) have to pay for China to modernize its pollution control systems?? They have like a trillion dollars you think they could pay for it if they wanted to!
You have to read this report, hidden around the last third of it are recomendations that seem to indicate that the U.S. should either pay for China's pollution controls or do the research to develop more controls and then GIVE them to China. Wth

http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2007hearings/...o_statement.php

 

Walmart.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Aug 9 2007, 11:13 AM) [snapback]493059[/snapback]</div>

Well, we can't exactly tax their exports to us. Getting into a pissing contest won't help our economy any, since they're our proxy mfg center now.

I agree that we don't need to be funding their cleanup either, but we are incurring costs as the result of their pollution (a lot of CA air quality problems are the result of Asian pollution).

I think the Olympics may embarrass them into reforms. When the outside world sees athletes performing wearing activated carbon masks to protect them from the air China's gonna have mud on its face. They won't like that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Aug 9 2007, 12:13 PM) [snapback]493059[/snapback]</div>

This ain't all bad. It speaks of exporting knowledge to China concerning the cost benefits of implementing more efficient pollution control standards. I think this can be very effective as we'd be providing them with hard data as to how it can be profitable for them to be green. Hopefully we'll glean additional knowledge from this process.

Also, concerning the international financing of the upgrades, it appears that they think we'll regain this money via trade practices. I've no knowledge of economics to comment on this, and maybe I'm not even digesting the data correctly, but if this is the case, it could be a win/win for all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Aug 9 2007, 09:29 AM) [snapback]493028[/snapback]</div>

Sorry - that wasn't clear. My point was that the argument about China gets used as a reason why the US shouldn't continue developing technology and cleaning up our own emissions. Yes, China is worse in many types of pollution, and on track to pass us up on CO2 as well. However, we can't make them fix their problems, and we should continue to develop technology to fix our own emmisions. My theory is that by driving the tech, and using our clean-up to promote economies of scale in manufacturing these new technologies, we will make it cheaper and more likely for China to adopt them when the do pull their head out....

And the US can sell them the equipment later, for a profit...

(takes off rose colored glasses on loan from Donald Rumsfeld)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mad Hatter @ Aug 9 2007, 03:20 PM) [snapback]493216[/snapback]</div>

Oh, yes, I completely agree.

Actually, I think China has already surpassed us in CO2 emissions. If they're economy keeps growing at the rate it has been in another 10 years it'll be crushing us in emissions. That's not a good thing. Of course, at that point they'll have run out of coal. The "party" won't last very long if economies keep growing like they are.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Aug 8 2007, 12:50 PM) [snapback]492578[/snapback]</div>

I hope this doesn't sound contrarian but your comment instantly brought to mind an interview I heard with Chinese nationals in Shanghai recently on the radio. They were very morose about global warming and felt as if they could not have an impact. Interestingly, the one topic they were in uniform agreement about was that it was the West's responsibility to take the lead. Regardless of whether you agree with that, they cited their own statistic to prove their point, much as you did - GDP per capita. For the US this is currently about $43000 while China is $7600. They knew the numbers as well. It's always surprising to me how rational human beings are capable of so vastly different perspectives on the same issue.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tballx @ Aug 9 2007, 08:34 PM) [snapback]493343[/snapback]</div>

GHGs are one thing. Implementing 1980's pollution controls is another. We've done a pathetic job of leadership to be sure. We can't be arsed to change our habits, yet we piss and moan about all sorts of things that others are doing. We can do better and I think after 2008 we will regardless of who become the next chief executive. That, at least, is encouraging.

Still, the debate here is about basic pollution control. American GDP is irrelevant to that discussion. The Chinese need to get their arse in gear and fix their problem. The leadership issue is really just an excuse. The fear is that implementing renewables/efficiency/conservation (read tax) will give other countries a competitive edge. It's a big game theory exercise, really. That's everyone's excuse. The US has flat out stated it that way. Europe has at least paid lip service to GHG, but they haven't really got a handle on the issue either. Everyone's got their excuses.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Aug 9 2007, 08:15 PM) [snapback]493360[/snapback]</div>

The relevance of American GDP was not my point. The surprising variability in perspectives on the responsibility for leadership in developing solutions was. I'm not sure how one could claim that isn't relevant. Especially since any lasting solution will likely not be unilateral.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tballx @ Aug 9 2007, 10:06 PM) [snapback]493379[/snapback]</div>

I agree. Obviously with the US contributions and the rapidly increasing Asian ones the solution can't be unilateral. China alone has the capacity to make the rest of the World's GHG reductions irrelevant.

I don't think it's surprising at all. Everyone wants to blame somebody else. They don't want to look themselves in the mirror and own up to their own contributions to the problem. We're quite good at it. The Chinese are too, apparently.

I'm hoping that we (the US) will start setting a better example. The signs are pointing to it. As States with RPS's show that those programs don't adversely affect the rate payers pocket books (which is likely to be the case) the conservative business types will get on board. Once that's happened it's all but mainstream. Corporations are paving the way forward with efficiency measures. Folks like Armory Lovins have shown them that it makes good business sense. It's only a matter of time before the political risk is so low that most politicians will be comfortable with GHG reduction. I hope we take a more active "leadership" role, but really until the technology is there to remove the "prisoners' dilemma" from the equation it's going to be tricky from a global economic perspective to make much headway.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Aug 7 2007, 01:09 PM) [snapback]491992[/snapback]</div>

Bejing suffers from "natural" pollution too; they have horrible dust storms that kick a lot of particulate matter up into the air. Some of the pictures are of that dust.

They have a pollution law, and they have been steadily increasing the standards. Their growth is just so explosive that even halving the output from all sources doesn't seem to make a dent in it as growth outstrips the reductions. American companies are exporting the technology to China now (part of our gamble that a more affluent Chinese population will want higher technology American goods just as our affluent American consumers want cheaper goods from them).

 

I believe pollution finds its way around the globe sooner or later. Doesn't matter if it's volcanic ash & gasses or radiation from Chernoble.

In India & China life is cheap. Maybe cheaper than cleaning up pollution.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Aug 7 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]491847[/snapback]</div>

I spent a semester in Athens and can confirm your impression of brown air. The day I got off the plane I thought I was going to die, the air was so bad. Nearly barfed in the cab. That experience really made me appreciate emissions controls on modern automobiles. (They also have the same problem as LA, which is that the city is in sort of a basin and the bad air tends to get trapped while it bakes in the sun.) Walking down the street it can get to the point that you are timing your breaths to avoid clouds from various passing smog machines. You get used to the smell after the first couple of weeks but not the un-treated diesel exhaust.

Another related anecdote about Athens: While I was there starting in late summer, the weather pattern involved a daily thunderstorm at 3PM on the nose. Well, guess what? That's not a late summer weather pattern for Athens. It's not supposed to rain at all from late spring through late fall. Apparently that crap started sometime last decade and it's been doing it ever since. The locals think it's weird. Local climate change, much?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 7 2007, 03:00 AM) [snapback]491741[/snapback]</div>

An interesting discussion, but just to get a comment on the record about your initial post, it is utterly incorrect. The Asian Brown Cloud study discussed deals ONLY with local phenomenon (glacial retreat in the Himalayas) and is not a significant impact on global climate change, as stated by the study's author:

""The conventional thinking is that brown clouds have masked as much as 50 percent of the global warming by greenhouse gases through the so-called global dimming," said Dr Ramanathan.

"While this is true globally, this study reveals that over southern and eastern Asia, the soot particles in the brown clouds are intensifying the atmospheric warming rend caused by greenhouse gases by as much as 50 percent.""

To say the Brown Cloud "Accounts for much of Global Warming" is incorrect, and the study's own authors clearly point out it is a localized effect that has little impact on global temperature calculations. Want to hear more actual opinions from Dr Ramanathan?

"The net effect of the two forces remains uncertain, but other research by Ramanathan has suggested that the surface dimming might serve to mask global warming, leading scientists and the public to under-appreciate the full magnitude of climate change."

Just for the record, are you consciously lying, or are you sincerely this bad at interpreting scientific data?