Asian Pollution reaches US shores

What goes around comes around.

Remember America is not an island, where does it's rubbish go?

Hello Bricktop

Like it or not, we are all stuck here on this very small oblate spheroid until we leave in the only possible way.

The North Pacific Gyre has become a graveyard choked with plastic articles and particles, all from either Canada/US and/or China/Japan/Philippines.

I have been advised that even the are becoming worried.

Kind Regards....

Here Sparky, those penguins are sure dancing fast.............are they on "hot ice."

I've been watching them for ages............and they haven't even slowed down.............let alone take a breather.

You mean that the UK and Australia dont dump their garbage in the sea. What do they do with it all?

"We already have a Global economy, should we not have global pollution standards too?" Well we don't which is exactly why all the dirty, polluting industrial work gets outsourced to China, Mexico etc. How else can us capitalists turn a quick $ otherwise?

I agree totally that there should be a global standard for pollution ( especially smokestack emissions )............. but thinking that we have a true global economy is a big joke. There will not be a true global economy until we reach the point where one years wages for 40 hour work weeks allows the worker to live a similar lifestyle to us regardless of where he or she lives. Putting it another way the worker in North Viet Nam who works in the NIKE factory for probably well under $1US/hour will NEVER be able to afford the shoes he makes because they sell for at least $50 to $100 per pair. A lot of the companies who build off shore plants have eliminated domestic high paying jobs. So.... they make a lot more profit on the product because they have kept the price the same. They have also moved the pollution problem to someone else's backyard. The poor devil who works in a GM plant in Mexico will need several years worth of wages to buy the $15K car he produces. What we have here is just another flavor of COLONIALISM plain and simple. EdK

You say "make a lot of profit" like it's a bad thing.

Profit isn't a bad thing.

Travis

Because of globalization, every country uses another country's wealth of any form directly or indirectly. So, it is not a cause of any specific country.

The basic problem is every one wishes technological up gradation in all ways. Just think of the stone age, there's no pollution at all. But, see the population growth in every country make shortage in everything starts from food, fuel, .....etc.. Forest and cultivation land vanishes and become buildings and factory.

I would say, we got to find the basic root which cause this. And absolutely the reason is rapidly growing population and technology. And technology makes it's own advantage and disadvantage.

If we talk about global pollution standard, it needed in this age, but, how will you measure? Do you have any measuring on this?

Every one knows the pollution comes out of the earthmovers and aircrafts. And all of the engineering community knows how many tonnes of fuel we burn for an hour fly.

Quite ironic since the United States is the only developed country that has not ratified the Kyoto treaty (Green house gasses) so what hope is there for a global pollution standard to work - perhaps the rest of the world could agree on a standard and the United States ignore it !!

Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

Hello HoleInTheSnow

Point well made.

Kind Regards....

The US views the Kyoto treaty as flawed, because developing countries are exempt.

Bush said of the treaty:

"This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

I was under the impression that the top carbon emitter on the planet was the PRC. Is this inaccurate?

...............and pollution from Canada and the USA don't pollute the air over Europe.

I can recall, not that many years ago, when acid rain was starting to kill off large areas of forest in Northern Europe.................Where did it come from...........USA and Canada.

As you said HoleInTheSnow............the Kyoto protocol is at least a starting point.

Take as an example the 73/78 Marpol Convention.........this has improved over the years, the latest Annex, Annex VI instituted approx 2 years ago on air pollution at sea.

Basically Annex VI states restrictions on:-

Ozone depleting substances, Nitrogen oxides, Sulphur oxides, VOCs and shipboard incineration. Requirements for fuel oil (SECAs).

The world wide cap of sulphur in fuel oil is 4,5%

(SECAs) Sulphur Emission Control Areas.........max Sulphur content in the following areas is 1,5%......Baltic Sea, North Sea and English Channel. These areas will increase in time. There are some fairly rigid regulations regarding this.

Bush said there are WMDs in Iraq too.

German ambassador in Sri Lanka said Germany has double standards when they look into human rights violations. He in fact said they cannot impose trade sanctions against China though their hrv record is really because if they do 50% of their business will stop. On the other hand he said Germany will impose tax on Sri Lankan products from next year because Sri Lankan government could not solve the death of 17 French Aid workers who died in the hands of unknown. Why these double standards?

"17 French Aid workers who died in the hands of unknown"

Try Tamil Tigers of Elam.

Exactly....you hit the JACKPOT!

Kyoto is aimed straight at the US economy and capitalism while exempting China, India and others.

Both China and India have stated under no uncerten terms that they will not be "denied" energy and growth.

Too often the answer of raising everyone's boat is to sink that of the US. Dragging the US economy down is BAD for everyone. Just look what happens when the US Dollar Index drops. Oil goes up as well as every other commodoty.

When the US dollar fell below parity with the Canadian dollar, for a week or so the Canadians were thrilled, then began to complain about how US dollars were not flowing into their economy.

The same goes for Mexico. The number one import into Mexico is US dollars. Without the US dollar Mexico would be a third world country or worse.

Travis

What about gases emmited by billions of American automobiles.Does it not result in green house gasses and Global Warming and melting of the polar snows which in turn is causing flooding through out the world.So everyone of us is responsible for the pollution around the world.

Suresh Sharma.

Hi Suresh Shama,

As HoleInTheSnow has already stated lets not "America bash" this issue, I agree that the fault lies with ALL engines whether they be marine, automotive, traction, stationary, aircraft, etc engines....................world wide...............then we maybe talking "billions"............if it is only the USA, it is only hundreds of millions.............let's get it right..........okay!!!!

A rise of 20cm in the last 200 years could hardly be called flooding.

What about gases emmited by billions of American automobiles.Does it not result in green house gasses and Global Warming and melting of the polar snows which in turn is causing flooding through out the world.So everyone of us is responsible for the pollution around the world.

>>>>>>

It only does if you accept the premis of Man Made Global Warming. I don't accept it.

Explain to me how it was that there once was glaciers below the US Northern Border that are no longer there and vanished several million years ago. They left in their wake many glacier lakes and deposited huge bolders in the middle of nowhere.

What human activity caused those glaciers to recede?

Explain to me how it is that marine fossiles are found as far North as Kansas. Explain to me what human activity caused the waters to get there and then recede?

If a volcano was a factory it would be shut down by the EPA. If oil was an industrial byproduct the EPA would not let you put it back in the ground from where it came. (You just try to spill a quart of motor oil on the ground in a city park and see what happens.)

Yes, the global climate is changing, but I don't agree that it's due to human activity. Who's to say the climate the earth has had is optimum? Who's to say the climate the earth is headed toward won't be better? In all likelyhood the climate in the future will be better for some, worse for some and neutral for most (just like it is now - the good, bad and neutral regions will just shift around).

Travis

Open your eyes.............and your mind sunshine.

Read a little as well, it might help.............and don't delve into what MAY have happened hundreds of years ago, thousands of years ago, hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago.

By the way I tried to google the weather maps around those periods of time............I think that are still looking in the archives for them.

You know what the weather was (accurately not using words in the subjunctive mood) last year, five years ago, twenty five years ago................see what has happened.

Read an article in BBC NEWS/Science/Nature/Major ice-shelf loss for Canada.Also read about ice-melts in Greenland and Antarctica, read about severe droughts in many countries, etc,etc.

Above all, my friend, do not be an Ostrich.

It won't go away, unless the world of mankind get together on this as one, on this issue, it will soon be too late. It's not for me, I'll probably be pushing up daises in the not too distant future, if they will grow that is, but for the lives of our children and their children.

and vanished several million years ago

Dude, read a geology book. The "late Wisconsin glaciation stage" occurred a mere 15,000 years ago. This stuff is cyclical. The controversy is centered around the burning of fossel fuels which did not occur in prior cycles so it is being considered as a new variable whose impact is not yet known.

You gotta stop talking bout stuff you know nothing about!

The fact that there have always been and will always be shifts in the global climate due to non-human factors is undeniable. Clearly there were huge swings in climate long before humans existed. And just as clearly there have been changes since humans appeared on the scene that had nothing to do with our activities. There are many plausible theories out there based on factors such as variations in solar output, plate tectonics, volcanic activity, oceanic circulation, astronomical collisions, and atmospheric composition. Maybe all these theories will turn out to be valid.

So if I understand correctly, you have concluded that since there are many other plausible explanations for the current bout of climate change, we don't need to consider any other theories. You also seem to have concluded that we can only attribute the current episode of global climate change to human activity if we can establish the it was also the cause of all previous episodes. Is this your position?

As to your assertion that 'the good, bad and neutral regious will just shift around', that is a possible outcome, but even this fairly benign scenario will cause massive human suffering. The climate zones may move, but will we allow the people currently living in the areas that become uninhabitable to move freely about the planet in search of a better life? If Mexico becomes a desert will you welcome the waves of desperate refugees? If large parts of the US become unihabitable do you think that the Canadians will welcome us?

Before this turns into an Americian bashing session (which is not the purpose of this discussion) it should be noted that America is not the only polluter in the world. All the countries that we live in are responsible to some degree.

My point in my previous post was that it was ironic that a person from the US would post such an article when the US government would not sign upto Kyoto (I am not suggesting that Kyoto was going to solve all the problems).

Of course the US has "Billions" of cars, so does Europe and Asia-- so in that respect we are all guilty as charged.

It is very easy to look at the US, China, Russia etc and blame them for all the pollution problems in the world, it is often quite hard to look at our own countries and make the same assessment.

Regards

Mr W.A. Snow

Well said, thank you

I agree that this is not about America, nor is it about Europe, or China, Japan, Australia, The Middle East, Africa, Russia, or India. It's about all of us. Wherever productivity and income increase above the subsistence level, people buy into consumerism. Perhaps some cultures have higher resistance and some lower, but over time all seem to succumb to the lure of cool new stuff. Religion doesn't seem to matter: Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists and Pagans all buy into the consumer culture, in spite of the fact that all these religions champion the simple spiritual life, uncluttered by worldly possessions. Capitalists, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Liberals, Conservatives, all rush to spend their new found wealth on the latest products and services. (with apologies to members of any geographic, religious or ideological groups that were not mentioned)

It appears that none of the cultural systems, attitudes, traditions, or superstitions that we have developed over the millennia offer us much defense from this. It seems clear that what we call consumerism is rooted deeply in our human nature.

But a lot of the cool new stuff is messy to produce, and the trash pile is getting bigger. The planet is not. So we are caught in a conflict between our irrational (but very real) desire for ever more creature comforts, and our rational but imperfect understanding that the hidden costs for all of our goodies includes increasing levels of world-wide pollution. I'm not very confident that our understanding will prevail against our nature.

If you look into the details of the Kyoto accord it is clearly writtren to discriminate against the U.S. in particular while excusing the worst of the worlds polluters, realizing that the U.S. rate of pollution is headed towards a decline while the large developing countries are increasing their output exponentially with no incentive or intention the curb that trend. Bush would be a fool to sign it and he knows it. The U.S. is always the first to be critisized and the last to be praised for their positive contributions. Afterall they are the world leader in wind power and research in alternate energy forms. I'm sure the Chinese have no intention of curbing their noxious output especially with the blessings of Kyoto

With or without Kyoto Protocol, in the US is an ongoing process of cutting all the pollutants emissions anywise, so I don't see any reason of criticism from the said "militants for a cleaner environment". I would rather watch the Asian "old tech" acquisitions along with the already accelerated population's expansions/chaotic congestions per square meter who tends to have each at least a motorized bike in their home. So please don't kill the pianist because the bride doesn't know how to dance!!!

In the 70's, Eastern Canada was flooded with acid rain that was coming from the industrial region around the great lakes. Some of the factories were inside the Canadian border but the majority were in the USA. It took some time but the problem has been reduced with the introduction of various scrubber technologies to remove most of the NOx going out of the stack. It is still a work in progress but shows how proper collaboration between countries can help solve these problems. An open mind and some patience can solve large problems. Europe has add similar inter-border pollution problems for years and hace done a good job at correcting it.

The technology developed can now be used to to help Asia to reduce their pollution problem. All they need is some incentive, political, financial and a good example. The Asian are not happy about pollution either, they just need encouragement to improve their priorities.

Well it looks like the present discussion has deviated a lot from the original post and seems to be concentrating only on the green house gases (GHG)and the Kyoto protocol. But the original article refers to particulates such as dust and soot, along with heavy metals, pesticides, PCBs, mercury, ozone, carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide so green house gases are only one factor.

I read most of the posts with interest and as a whole except Mr.Travis who made a very irresponsible comment (of course this is my personal opinion and I trust and hope he would have changed his thinking by now after reading excellent responses from others) understands our obligations to the environment.

Anyway I wish to draw attention of all to the article once gain. In my opinion it has no credibility and comments therein are not backed by any solid Scientific evidence. It is written by a journalist based in US and goes on Asia/China bashing. I invite you to read it again with an independent mind..

He talks of ....By some estimates .......While some scientists are less certain, others say..may be etc (and finally cat is out of the bag) he says..... compromise efforts (of US) to meet air-pollution standards.

If you just wonder... I am not Chinese, Indian or American or not even European but I am a Global citizen currently residing in Sri Lanka, a tiny island in the Indian Ocean.. my eldest son living in London and youngest studying in Singapore!

As regards to the GHG there is a lot of scientific facts based on solid facts and/or theories by UN and international experts which I wish to share with all of you and I will be doing so by a separate post..

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/6770/Scientists-Fear-Impact-of-Asian-Pollutants-On-US

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0210_030210_TVdust.html

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/pollution_measure.html

"In my opinion it has no credibility and comments therein are not backed by any solid Scientific evidence. It is written by a journalist based in US and goes on Asia/China bashing. I invite you to read it again with an independent mind.."

You should do a little Google before you post. I found many articles on this subject.

"Well it looks like the present discussion has deviated a lot from the original post and seems to be concentrating only on the green house gases (GHG)and the Kyoto protocol. But the original article refers to particulates such as dust and soot, along with heavy metals, pesticides, PCBs, mercury, ozone, carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide so green house gases are only one factor."

I agree completely.

I don't wish to bash any country in particular, I wish to bash all country's involved, including the US. Is this the legacy we wish to pass on to our children and grand kids?

I have to work with the EPA and OSHA everyday. They are the 800lb gorilla in the room.

In the US, we have the EPA and OSHA because the people demanded clean air and a safe work environment. Politicians backed these demands because they wanted to get re-elected.

There are no such pressures on appointed politicians in many manufacturing countries of the world. But I guarantee that their population will someday rise up and demand the same.

Sisira, very well put. GA from me.

Don't worry about hurting Bricktops feelings, he/she did not show you that courtesy.

I think you may, however, have told one small lie :

"I am not very fluent in English" - I don't believe this to be true .

Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

Bricktop is an American so it is ok to bash him. You will find many from Europe to support you in bashing Bricktop and other Americans.

Bash him more, it is good!

Dear Guest, No one is bashing Bricktop because he is an Americian. Perhaps you see a slight difference of opinion as bashing but I and many others on this forum do not.

Bricktop (among others) gives some very useful and valid advice to people on this forum and for that I thank him - however, this does not mean that I or others need to agree with everything that he says.

I am sure Bricktop understands this and has not taken any of this personally.

Kind Regards

Mr. W.A. Snow

Bash away my friends! I'm a big boy and can take it.

Hole wrote: "Don't worry about hurting Bricktops feelings, he/she did not show you that courtesy."

I don't believe I insulted anyone. Discussion, and even criticism, should be expected in a forum such as this.

Dear Bricktop,

Intention (as Mr.W.A.Snow quite correctly pointed out) was certainly not to bash you or bash Americans. Having being to the US many a times and having done business with a lot of companies there, such as Barrick Goldstrike and Newmont (in fact having seen how environment is being polluted with Heap Leaching of Gold!) I have many Amercan friends whose friendship, I treasure a lot.

But I wanted to politely convey the message to you that your assumption that I did not google before I made comments was wrong. I also wanted to stress you the fact that in this community we who have been privileged to have become professionals should not believe the blogs and news stories of parties with self interest if not backed by solid facts, rather we should more focus on facts and argue our points based on facts & figures leading logical arguments.

The fact is United States of America is ( note NOT WAS) the biggest culprit contributing to over 25% Green House Gases generated. Think of the size of the U.S.population as against the rest of the world. I kindly request someone knowledgeble to tell this forum exact figures!

We should not be misguided by the opinions of politicians who says if US economy collapses the rest of the world will suffer and/or that a lot of people will lose jobs making them poor if the U.S follows Kyoto protocol. After all engineers are supposed to be logical thinkers!

As I said I am glad both you and I and for that matter most of the contributors here understand that there is a problem and that it need to be addressed. From here on wards as professionals we should see what we can do as individuals, as a group.

Finally criticism is not only accepted but will be highly appreciated in this forum, specially if it is constructive criticism.

I've read one more time the title: "Asian Pollution reaches US shores" ... which means to me, the circle of pollution is closed around the globe, so lets go and eliminate him together.

Wow!

A lot said much of which I agree with.

But, let me be the nice guy with the solution although some may not read it that way.

How much pollution do automobiles create?

Make it international law that no person, no government, no entity of any sort can operate or own anything but a publicly provided automobile.

Make it law that every governmental entity shall provide free electrically powered automobiles by locating them around various areas where they will be needed. Limit those automobiles to something like a hundred miles when recharge will be needed.

Provide free public transport, buses, trains, air, as appropriate to individual users.

All this to be provided for free.

Extend this schema as seems appropriate to the problem of pollution.

Now let's see the effect at least as far as automobiles.

Electric cars by nature and range are very simple light machines, mostly plastic. By their use we eliminate much of the heavy industries that are at the center of pollution, i.e., the steel industry, the gasoline and diesel industry, the automobile industry, etc.

I think you should by now get my drift.

We also have to consider workers no longer needed and how they will live, but that is another issue for which there are answers. One of those answers is reduction of everybody's work hours with no reduction in pay.

How much polluting emission would be eliminated? How much cost of manufacturing would be eliminated? How much fuel production would be eliminated? How much cost of regulation would be eliminated? How much cost of engineering would be eliminated? Etc., Etc.,

You all know the thing that will consequently be eliminated that will raise a major hew and cry from a very small section of society. Nonetheless, if we want to eliminate the destruction of our planet we will have to deal with that too.

j.

"All this to be provided for free."

Who's going to pay for it then, the tooth fairy?

I don't think socialism is the answer.

Are we to assume you are as old as you look in your photo? (Just joking!)

If you read JJ's comment he says FREE everything. Then who pays for it. Obviously the government. So who pays the government. That it us, people.. It is as simple as that. Come on you are in an engineering forum and as an engineer you are expected to think logically.

If I caught the drift of JJ he was brain storming. Of course that is what we should do in this forum. Then we should try to sort out best ideas out of the lot.

In my response to JJ just after this I will try to do that

Bricktop,

I could make the point that you pay for it now in aces because you also pay for the problem of pollution.

Nonetheless, I did not spell it out because I thought it was obvious, i.e., the savings in costs of dealing with pollution and its creation, would be equal too or greater than the costs of those services.

Therefore in practice, no cost or even net savings.

The problem is that given the historic path we have taken to get to here, the problems could not be avoided. But having got here and with the technology of here, we have choices that we previously did not have.

Changing our mode of functioning to eliminate the problems should carry a positive value over and above what it now costs us to live with the problems.

What I am pointing to is just a little twist in how we see. The material possibility of all I pointed to now exists where before it did not.

j.

Format "we" = "String"

If "we" = "US"

Then

GOTO #47

ELSE IF

"we" = "ASIA"

GOTO #OP

ENDIF

CONTINUE

Nice dream JJ (note that I said NICE)!

Now my constructive criticism for your ideas.

When everything is run on Electricity how are we going to generate it? By burning fossil fuels?

Now my alternative proposals for transportation.

Give more subsidy to clean energy vehicles. Let those who pollute by burning fossil fuels pay for the subsidy.

Ban production of Cars and SUVs above 2000cc (at least for a start)

If banning is undemocratic then may be impose heavy taxes on higher capacity vehicles. Singapore has successfully followed this method to limit the number of cars. Let us learn from them.

Make Mass Rapid Transport popular by making owning of private vehicles costly and having efficient and cheap (government/people subsidized) MRT.

Keep dreaming ..I will too... One day some of them may come true!

Sisra,

We are on the same page.

Consider just the savings incurred just by not producing the monsters we now use for transporation.

Consider, this is something that I think will get to Brictop, the costs of such production and operation of the product on the environment and its medical presentation.

I would bet, just in savings on medical costs, a large part of the bill of changeover and new infrastructure would be covered.

As far as power generation? Put enough money into the problem of nuclear fusion and solve it. It really is just an engineering problem. The concept is proven.

The problem is political.

j.

Thanks Jack.. you backed up your concept very logically.You get a GA from me for that.

Nuclear power never crossed my mind.. I certainly agree you on that. People are afraid of nuclear power as long as we replay Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

But as engineers we know it is a power which can be tamed.

So one positive point comes out of this the world is not putting enough effort on clean energy development. But as long as people with vested interest in Oil companies yield power we may not see much progress in this front.

Sisira,

Just one careful note. I would not back fission plants which produce huge amounts of radioactive waste with half-lives out the yazoo.

I was speaking of fusion which runs much cleaner and would provide a means, relatively high temperatures, to produce clean hydrogen fuel in massive amounts.

j.