Beijing? LA? NY?

[kristopher]

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/12/smog-photos-1970s-america

And 17 photo time sequence of LA from 1945 to 1984

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-air-pollution-0428-pictures,0,2118217.photogallery?index=la-smog1950#axzz2uaNNWNlH


Regulations like the Clean Air Act are terrible, aren't they? Reason 284 why I'm not a Republican.

[Systematic Chaos]

1. Because we all know that the passage of a "regulation"...

...will instantly and immediately make China's (and India's) pollution problems magically cease to exist, amirite?

[kristopher]

2. Am I detecting a trend?

Pronuclear, anti-regulation, antirenewable....

Want to make it a clean sweep and confirm the subtext where it looks distinctly like you're claiming we are superior to the Chinese?

[Systematic Chaos]

3. Because that's TOTALLY where I was going with this.

[kristopher]

4. Yes, it certainly seemed so.

Do you have another point besides saying that when a western government passes laws requiring reduced emissions it works, but when the Chinese or Indian governments do it, it doesn't work?

Isn't that a statement derived from some sense of superiority?

In point of fact we've seen the same trajectory time and time again. Nations industrialize without restriction, pollution rises, people hate it, they change the laws allowing it to happen. It's a classic "U curve of environmental quality" for industrializing nations. And when I say classic that means it is a staple lesson in the field of environmental economics.

[Systematic Chaos]

5. I'm going to ask this, and only once, okay? So pay attention.

Don't you fucking ever try to label me as some sort of bigot again, brah.

The Chinese are wonderful people with an amazing culture. Admittedly I don't fully understand our cultural differences, but I don't think I'd have ever lasted over ten years on this site if I thought Americans and American culture were "superior".

Do you fucking understand me? I hope so.

Now, let's get to my actual point. Try really, really hard to wrap your mind around this stuff, because it may save you a lot of bloviating, copy pasta, and otherwise looking like a big walking pile of derp.

Why do you suppose the air in the US is now so much cleaner than it was 40-50-60 years ago? Could it possibly have anything to do with regulations? Of course it could! But do you suppose that's the only reason?

I mean, is it even remotely possible that our air is cleaner because we hardly fucking manufacture anything in this country now, and instead have passed that filthy chore along to China and other nations because it was determined that it would be better for multinational corporations' bottom lines?

I'm sure you're aware of the horrible levels of smog encountered in major California shipping ports, caused by all those diesel ship engines spewing tons of soot and crap into the air, right? And that children and the elderly with respiratory problems are at risk of dying from that, right?

Oh, and we're getting more than our share of China's smog over here, too. And we'll never solar or windmill our way out of that little problem!

So anyway, all our manufacturing has been moved to China, and all that manufacturing requires huge amounts of power! And that power is being generated -- again! -- at the lowest possible economic cost. So of course they build almost one new coal plant per day to keep up!

Even if they "regulate" this problem, and demand that all of these coal plants and factories be retrofitted with scrubbers and other pollution controls (at huge cost in terms of expenses and profits), do you think that would make the air over there suddenly perfect? Oh, sure, maybe those fine particulate measurements might drop from the 500s down to, say, 200. So at best, what? Only 1/3 as many people will end up in the ER, or dying early?

Whoop-de-shit, Kris.

Furthermore, if they're over there building almost one coal plant per day, in a country with over a billion people, let's hear your realistic explanation as to how they could instead, not only replace all this new construction with solar and wind, but also go back and replace all the old? How do you realistically expect China to build enough roadway to allow all their new cars to travel without day-long traffic jams? How do you realistically expect them to replace all those internal combustion cars with electric ones? And where do you propose they set up all the wind and solar power for that additional power drain?

So there you have it. China is choking itself to death not because they're "inferior" to us, but because they're hungry -- at least for now -- to jump on the economic gravy train that never ever slows down or comes to a stop, and just farts out rainbows and glitter instead of yet more diesel fumes.

Who's going to manufacture the world's supply of cheap plastic shit when China can't grow its own food anymore and over a billion people are starving?

I know. You have all the answers. You and Mark Z. Motherfucking Jacobson. You precious geniuses, you.

[kristopher]

6. "our air is cleaner because we hardly fucking manufacture anything"

Nope. First, we didn't send even close to all of our manufacturing to China. A lot yes, but we still make a lot of stuff and we have waaaaay too many fossil fuel plants for electricity, AND we have a huge trucking (diesel) and light duty (gasoline) fleet.
Also, like i said we've seen the same thing time and again around the world - that U curve I mentioned.

So unless you are saying that all of those countries also shipped their manufacturing to China as a follow on to Their pollution legislation And that the vehicle fleets have no bearing on the matter, it's pretty clear your point simply... isn't.

Now about your statements on bigotry. I can't read your mind over the internet. If you want someone to understand you, it's helpful to explain yourself instead of making snarky comments that are essentially devoid of actual meaning. It might make you feel good to follow me around and snipe at me with cryptic and snide one liners that you know can't form a basis for a rebuttal, but that also means you have only yourself to blame if those cryptic and snide one liners are interpreted in ways you don't intend - and I do accept that you didn't have that intent.

Finally about your desire to break bad with me on the internet. One thing I can guarantee is that if, I repeat if, we were talking face to face I doubt seriously you'd have to resort to that kind of belligerence because our dialog would probably be more polite, what with people being what they are.

BUT. IF. YOU. WERE. TO. CURSE. AT. ME. LIKE. THAT. FACE. TO. FACE. I Guarantee that I'd just smile at you, pat you on the shoulder and offer to buy you a cup of coffee.

Then I'd explain again what it was you must have missed the first go round.


ETA: If they want they can clean up the air quickly - everyone else has already developed the technology. The really good thing about it that it drives motivation in both the government and the people to abandon coal entirely and in case you haven't noticed they are growing their renewables at breakneck speed. Every year for the past 4 years (including 2014) they've installed more solar than NREL's 2000 forecast said the world would be able to install by 2020. This year alone, China alone, will install 4.3 times that 2020 global forecast amount. And the price keeps dropping.

Thank you for the compliment. I'll certainly take it as a positive anytime anyone compares me to Jacobson.

[joshcryer]

8. Haven't seen that faux sincerity from you in awhile.

It still pisses me off because of the two faced nature of it.

[kristopher]

10. Sorry to shake you up.

I buried my best friend of 48 years today. Let's just say I'm in a somewhat philosophical mood.

[joshcryer]

12. Sorry to hear that.

[bananas]

26. Condolences. nt

[Systematic Chaos]

14. What I would say to you face-to-face would vary very little from most of my posts.

Especially my recent ones. I'm not trolling you, believe it or not; I'm just responding to what I personally see as a bunch of ridiculous pipe dream assertions with the frustration they deserve. I think many here are capable of reading between the lines of what I say, if they've been following these arguments for any length of time. So there you go.

If you really are a liberal in other areas, then yes, I'd probably enjoy some hobnobbing over lunch and discussing other issues.

But the bottom line is, I don't know how you can continue to believe so much of what you say here. It honestly makes no sense given that in all these years all of the problems many of us here have predicted have come to fruition, and are worsening much like we said they would.

And all the breakneck solar they can implement over there will never solve the air quality problems. The corporations calling all the shots aren't going to pay to fix this shit, either, since it's less expensive just to move it somewhere else if and when the time comes for China when the average person is making a truly decent wage.

All their solar isn't going to allow their crops to grow properly this year, next year, or any of the next 25 without incredible drastic change.

Coal is on the menu for them at present, and TPTB aren't about to change that.

[kristopher]

16. How can I believe it?

because most of the prediction "you" etal have made have NOT been correct and nearly all of the things I told you were coming down the pike are happening as we make this exchange.

Let me repeat this for you again. I'm not talking out of my ass or building a case on reading SciAm and bloggers - I spent most of the last decade in INTENSIVE study of the issue of moving us away from carbon and I was fortunate enough to have had the guidance of top flight people in the effort.

[NickB79]

18. Once costs rise on manufacturing, Chinese manufacturers move on

Rising labor and regulatory costs in China are ALREADY making them eye sites outside their borders.

For example: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323798104578453073103566416

China Manufacturers Survive by Moving to Asian Neighbors

And: http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/opinion/africa-manufacturing-hub/

Washington D.C. (CNN) -- With domestic labor costs rising, many Asian manufacturing producers are now looking to relocate their factories in other regions of the world. Could Africa replace Asia and/or China as the world's next manufacturing hub?

And if you thought corruption in China was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. Good luck getting strong environmental regulations enacted anytime soon in places like Nigeria, if Nigeria embraced Chinese manufacturing practices.

It's like a fucking game of whack-a-mole. Hammer polluting industries in one part of the planet, and they pop up in another.

Of course, the ultimate answer is to attack the demand end of the problem, but that would mean we would have to (gasp!) alter our lifestyles to do without so much CRAP that we fill our homes up with on a daily basis.

[Systematic Chaos]

19. Thank you!

[kristopher]

20. It's not, but if true, so what? Is it some kind of failure for China to clean up their act?

Are we supposed to wait for a perfect solution that fixes every problem on Earth before we pursue or are happy about others pursuing anything less than perfection?

By Du member 'razzled' Sat Mar 1, 2014
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4584941

[NickB79]

28. If true? I provided verifiable, fact-filled links

You provided a link to another DU thread that had no bearing on the OP at hand.

And no, it wouldn't be a failure for China if they succeeded in cleaning up their act. But if the dirty manufacturing simply moves to another country with piss-poor environmental laws, it's a failure for humanity as we fail to stem the pollution that is killing a good portion of our biosphere.

Nature doesn't give a fuck where the CO2 is emitted from, be it America, China, Vietnam, or Nigeria.

[joshcryer]

7. Getting rid of smog is easy as fuck.

The problem is that it's fucking costly. It wasn't until 2005 that it was cheaper to emit SO2 than it was to simply trade for that allowance of emissions.

[kristopher]

9. And that's a bad thing?

The people are fed up and want it stopped and that IS what gets it stopped.
Increase the price of coal while the price of renewables is already at parity and what's bound to happen?

[joshcryer]

11. I'm with you.

Fee and dividend. Or fuck it, even cap and trade, for CO2.

Then maybe they'll start producing wind turbine designs that don't use neodymium.

[kristopher]

13. They already do produce wind turbines without REEs

But you already know that, so you were just Joshing me, weren't you?

[Systematic Chaos]

15. Hardee har fucking har har.

[joshcryer]

24. Link?

[NNadir]

17. Look who's pretending to care about air pollution.

It kills more than six million people per year.

The Lancet, Volume 380, Issue 9859, Pages 2224 - 2260, 15 December 2012: More than six million deaths per year from air pollution

That would be something like 700 people an hour.

The world's largest system of preventing air pollution deaths, according to irrefutable calculations published in the most widely read paper over the last twelve months in one of the world's preeminent scientific environmental journals, is nuclear energy.

Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895

The publication indicates that accounting for every nuclear reactor failure in the more than half a century of nuclear operations, on balance nuclear energy saved 1.8 million lives. It might have saved many more - many of the 180 million who died in the last 30 years from air pollution, were it not for fear and ignorance. These 180 million air pollution deaths took place while nuclear energy, which produced hundreds of exajoules of energy over five decades without killing as many people as will die in the next half a day from air pollution, was under constant attack by fossil fuel interests that fund dirtbags like say, Amory Lovins. Much of this fear and ignorance comes from people who like to pretend that the failed wind and solar industries, which sucked 1.27 trillion dollars out of the world economy in the last decade to produce next to nothing in terms of energy or wealth.

Neither of these facts have prevented morally vapid people who know no science, who thrive on fear and ignorance, from burning lots of coal and gas to prattle on endlessly about their irrational fear that radiation from a failed reactor might kill 5 or 10 people someday.

I have never met a single anti-nuke who does anything more than pay lip service to the dangerous fossil fuel waste that is routinely dumped into the planetary atmosphere, killing continuously and broadly, with no hope of ending in the lifetime of anyone now living.

Not one.

Have a great weekend.

[kristopher]

21. Your facts are wrong

First, renewable energy provides far more final energy than nuclear globally.



Next, renewable energy is growing far more rapidly than nuclear.



When you proclaim the health benefits of nuclear relative to renewables, and when we consider that globally nuclear has been heavily subsidized for more than 50 years to achieve that trivial 2.7% level of contribution, it is extremely difficult to consider your vituperative attack on renewables - which are contributing about 3X as much - as rational. In fact, it is a distinctly irrational argument for anyone to make.

[NNadir]

22. Um...um...um...the liars and frauds in the unsustainable and useless so called "renewable energy"...

...industry continually assume that everyone else on the planet is as bad at math as they are.

First of all "growth rates" mean nothing. If I have a penny and increase my funds by 1000%, I'm not likely to appear on the cover of "Forbes" as a grand financial wizard. I'll have ten dollars and still will be poor and unable to accomplish anything more.

On the other hand, if I have a billion dollars, and increase it by 2%, well then that's impressive.

The solar industry and wind industry produce next to nothing, not even 5 of the 540 exajoules of energy that humanity consumes each year, not that this has stopped them from raiding the strained budgets of countries around the world, this on a planet where more than 2 billion people lack basic sanitation, never mind

We've been hearing this "percentage" shit from the renewable Ponzi schemers for decades, and still the world burns more coal then ever before, burns more oil than ever before, and burns more gas than ever before.

The solar industry sucked up 609.9 billion dollars between 2004 and 2012, a period of 8 years, without managing to even one of the 540 exajoules that humanity consumes. (Source: Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2013, UNEP)

What do we have to show for it? "Traditional Biomass," the dung and wood that poor people have been burning and dying with for tens of thousands of years?

The failed and toxic solar industry has never ever not once, in sixty years of faith based cheering for it, grown in energy terms, the only terms that actually matter to a scientifically literate person, as opposed to a bourgeois "bait and switch" wind and solar advocate, as the coal industry has grown, as the oil industry has grown, and the gas industry has grown, all of which kill indiscriminately without producing a whimper of protest from anti-nukes, who couldn't fucking care less about these deaths.

The stupid graphic on the top of your post shows how little so called renewable advocates care for human health, since every fucking person on the planet who cares a whit about human health will understand that roughly one half of the deaths from air pollution each year derive from the combustion of "traditional biomass." That's clear from the Lancet article I posted in my previous post, which I link once again - although I know that there are zero anti-nukes who have ever bothered, or every will bother to open a scientific paper - that indoor solid fuels, dominated by "traditional biomass" killed more than 3.4 million people in 2010 alone.

The Lancet, Volume 380, Issue 9859, Pages 2224 - 2260, 15 December 2012: More than six million deaths per year from air pollution This fact is clearly and unambiguously shown in table 3 on page 2228 of the paper, which has more than 100 authors from medical and academic health centers around the world. The exact number of deaths given in the table is 3,478,773 for indoor solid fuels for the year 2010.

Congratulations on promoting an industry dominated by "traditional biomass". I'm hardly surprised that you would do this.

Tell me again, in case I missed it, how many people died from all nuclear operations in the last 60 years of commercial operations?

As usual, you give no references for your graphics, which probably come from the horseshit marketing departments of the dangerous fossil fuel funded "renewables will save us" propaganda arms. But I note that for the 609.9 billion dollars taken out of programs that might have actually saved human lives, installing toilets or water purification units in regions that lack them, for instance, to fund the toxic and useless solar industry, the result, according to the telling first graphic in your post, is 0.9% (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal power generation) of 16.7% for all renewables, into which you telling lump "traditional biomass."

So when the wind isn't blowing on a cold night in February, your suggestion is to burn straw and dung? How, um, interesting.

Now there are zero anti-nukes who can do math. They hate math as much as they hate the science of Seaborg, Weinberg, Fermi, Wigner, et al, nuclear science. But for those who give a rat's ass about numbers and what they mean, 0.9% of 16.7% is, to 2 significant figures, 0.15%.

For this humanity blew 1.27 trillion dollars in eight years? For 0.15%???

I am reminded of Joseph Welch's famous retort to Joseph McCarthy, when he said, in another context, "You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Enjoy the rest of the weekend!

[kristopher]

23. There is "bad at math" and there is "spinning BS"

You've been shown so many time to engage in both that this is where it ends:


Nuclear produces a trivial 2.7% of the energy consumed in the world.

2.7 < 16.7

2.7 < 8.2

Trivial

[Nihil]

29. I love that graph ...

... even to the point of enjoying every repeat spamming of it in any subthread
you are attempting to shut down.

Do you know why?

It's because your own graph is proving the lie to your own words.

Nuclear only generates electricity.

Not end user hot water, not home heating, not cooking for the household.
Just electricity.

I totally agree that 2.7% of the total energy consumed in the world is
pretty damn small (even though it would be better to be even smaller and
this will happen in time) but when you actually compare apples to apples,
anyone who is not a complete hypocrite has to recognise that this very graph
shows that wind/solar/biomass/geothermal only produces a "trivial" 0.9% of
the global power generation.

As you say:
2.7 < 16.7
2.7 < 8.2

"Trivial" indeed but only from comparing "electricity only vs electricity + heat + hot water + ..."
i.e., an "apples < oranges" comparison.

Apples vs apples from the same graph:

2.7 > 0.9

Add hydro into the mix and yes, 2.7 < 4.2 ... but that's never the figure you use is it?

So, for all of the widely touted world saving ability of wind/solar/biomass/geothermal, all of
that put together can't even match the primary renewable electricity source (hydro) and not
even the nasty evil unwanted (but non-fossil) nuclear.

How do you describe something that is only a third of "trivial"?

"Hopeful"? Yes

"A good start"? Yes

"Currently pretty fucking trivial in the grand scheme of things"? Yes

[kristopher]

30. That is some confused thinking you are engaging in.

Electricity is an energy carrier. Energy is the potential to do work. One of the types of work we do with electricity is to heat things - hot water, homes etc. If we don't heat with renewables, we are going to heat with fossil fuels directly or with electricity derived from fossil.nuclear generation. Your rant - as rants tend to be - is irrational at best.

What you are doing is engaging in the most common tactic for distortion I've found within the nuclear industry - data trimming. The chart is pretty clear. All of those items are in the category of renewable energy sources that the world uses to do work and that are part of the system that will move us away from the nuclear/fossil paradigm that now dominates our lives.

Pretending they are not relevant is an exercise in deception, nothing more, nothing less.

In fact, the entire chart is based on correcting another point of misdirection that is promoted by the nuclear/fossil fuel industry - the use of primary energy instead of final energy consumption in virtually all discussions of how much energy we need to replace. Why do they do it? For two reasons. First, using primary energy for discussions completely obscures the huge potential for energy efficiency (and the tremendous waste) inherent in centralized thermal generation. Second, the centralized thermal utility model functions to promote growth in energy consumption, not conservation or efficient use in final applications; in other words, a sloppy wasteful system is, for coal/nuclear, a profitable system.





You are also getting into the habit of personally attacking me - again. Please stop.

[Nihil]

31. Ditto

> You are also getting into the habit of personally attacking me - again. Please stop.

[madokie]

25. Due to the fact that radiation poisoning takes years to manifest in death

its really hard to come up with a number especially with an industry that claims there has been no deaths due to their very dangerous process of producing electricity. As far as the deaths due to air pollution most of those are due to open fires or poorly designed fire places and stoves that are used for cooking and heating inside of homes, mostly in third world countries
You can bet your sweet ass there's been many deaths due to the use of nuclear energy, all the way from the testing of the bombs that made it all possible to the mining of the ore used to make the fuel to the discharged from nuclear power plants. Due to the fact that radiation is invisible and no one has Geiger counters and you can't feel it it goes unnoticed. Its there and its happening whether you want to admit it or not. Just because you say it isn't does not the truth make.
I've been paying attention to the nuclear power industry for years and obfuscation and out right lies is their Modus operandi.

I've noticed you've drug this quote out on a couple occasions lately and it fits you to a tee, not us mind you, but you. I'm surprised you even mention it. I suspect if it wasn't for the ETOH fueled fog you live in you'd see the stupidity in your using it.

"I am reminded of Joseph Welch's famous retort to Joseph McCarthy, when he said, in another context, "You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

This sums it up pretty good for you and your spiels here and over there at dko where they really don't have much use for your anger derived rants any longer

You make no attempt to discuss nuclear energy because you believe in that small mind of yours you know it all and nothing anyone else has anything to say of any worth on the subject. You come here with what I suspect is largely ETOH fueled rants putting down anyone who even tries to have a civil discussion of nuclear energy.
The nuclear energy industry has enjoyed some of the largest subsidies of all the different ways of making electricity. Without the governments handouts to the nuclear power industry we wouldn't have that worry to worry with today. If not for the false claim of cheap, clean and safe we'd be well on our way to getting most of our electricity from renewables at this very moment. Some where along the way we were tripped up by being sold a pig in a poke. After all these years there still is no concrete plan as to what to do with the waste product. DU weapons are not a viable way of disposal either, damn sure isn't safe. There's been more long term harm done to our planet by the very thing you support.

Which leaves the only logical reason you're here is to attempt to stop any discussion of your pet peeve, 'nuclear energy.'

[hunter]

27. Brawndo, it has electrolytes.

And gas, it's NATURAL!!!