Original Message: ----------------- From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 22:53:51 +1000 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 381, Issue 3
>China has, weirdly, tougher emissions legislation than Oz. Well, I don't know what Oz's rules are, but I know that the air pollution in Beijing is far worse than anything seen in London, LA, Tokyo, etc. I've had many friends who have commented on it. The stories they tell remind me of the London "fogs" that existed in the first half of the 20th century. I also know that the oil industry is owned by the Communist Party....which gives it a lot of sway. >It's just the sheer numbers and density of people that's the issue >there... I don't think that's true for smog...because places like Tokyo and NYC have population densities that are comparable to Beijing. There are many developed countries with far higher population densities than China. To give a few, we have: Twain: 636 Japan: 339 UK: 246 Germany: 232 China: 138 So, I'd argue that the overwhelming air pollution one sees in Beijing (I have heard from credible sources they will take a real GDP hit for 2008 when they shut down a lot of industry this summer for the Olympics games....because if they didn't there would be a good change that long distance events could result in severe illness or even death) is a function of where China is on the industrialization curve, not determined by population density. Developed countries have significantly reduced virtually every type of pollution. CO2 is different for two reasons. First, it's not a dangerous chemical; its a natural part of the environment. So if, say, London had twice the pre-industrial CO2 level, it would not be a health risk. But, changing the atmospheric concentration worldwide has, well, worldwide effects: global warming. Second, pollution control equipment cannot be used to mitigate the problem. One can do all sorts of things to cut the noxious chemicals released by industry, but one cannot burn paper, wood, coal, oil, etc. without creating CO2. Which leads to your next statement: >even if their emissions per capita only get to 1/3 of USA or >Oz, it's a Big Big Issue... Well, unless the wheels fall off the Chinese economy, this should happen next year. From 2000 to 2006, China's CO2 output has increased by about 13% per year. In 2006, it's per capita emission was about 24% of Oz's and the US's. Since then, not counting the expected Olympic hiccup, every indication is that their coal consumption and cement production is still increasing exponentially .so were just about there. FWIW, the per capita CO2 production in the US has gone down very slightly between 1990 and 2006. That seems to indicate that the post-industrial US economy is now able to grow reasonable well without an increase in per capita energy consumption. It is probable the US is rich enough so that, when Bush is out of office we will see the start of a more significant drop in this number. But, I think we agree that making it cheap enough for China and India to expand their economies without doublea blowup in CO2 emissions is the key. If the US drops it's per capita emissions of CO2 25% in the next 10 years, it will less than a tithe of China's increase over that time (even if China cuts their growth rate by a third). Dan M. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
