pollution in China

[Slraep]

Here's something new:

Pollution in China is actually helping drive the value of the freshwater pearl UP! What a twist. The environment will do that to you...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUKSHA14717920080910

"Now, local Chinese governments, concerned about environmental damage to lakes and reservoirs from pearl cultivation, are beginning to rein in production.

And what's healthy for the environment may end up being healthy for the industry as well."

 

[Slraep]

I didn't know exactly where to post this mind blowing news. Seems a good parking spot for it here.

Yes, the pollution problem is easily solved! We just need another planet by 2030. No problemo! Congratulations, China! You are now on par with the USA with pollution.

http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_2417789,00.html

'We'll need 2 planets by 2030'
29/10/2008 14:16 - (SA)

Cape Town - The recent downturn in the global economy is a stark reminder of the consequences of living beyond our means. But the possibility of financial recession pales in comparison to the looming ecological credit crunch.

"If we continue with business as usual, we will need two planets by 2030 to keep up with humanity's demand for goods and services," cautions Dr Morn? du Plessis, CEO of WWF South Africa, speaking at the launch of the Living Planet Report 2008.

The report, published every two years since 1998, has become widely accepted as an accurate statement of Earth's ability to retain its functional integrity as a "living planet".

The Ecological Footprint analysis shows that while global biocapacity - the area available to produce our resources and capture our emissions - is 2.1 global hectares per person, the average individual footprint worldwide is 2.7 global ha.

Thus, we are exceeding the Earth's carrying capacity by about 30% on average.

The report finds that the USA and China have the largest national footprints, each in total about 21% of global biocapacity (the productive area of the earth), but US citizens each require an average of 9.4 global ha (or nearly 4.5 Planet Earths if the global population had US consumption patterns), while Chinese citizens use on average 2.1 global ha per person.

Biocapacity is unevenly distributed, with eight nations - the United States, Brazil, Russia, China, India, Canada, Argentina and Australia - containing more than half the world total.

Population and consumption patterns make three of these countries ecological debtors, with footprints greater than their national biocapacity - the United States (footprint 1.8 times national biocapacity), China (2.3 times) and India ( 2.2 times).

Average individual footprints

According to Du Plessis, the average individual footprints of South Africans sits at 2.1 global hectares per person slightly below the world average of 2.7gha.

"While this seems very positive," says Du Plessis, "We must bear in mind that this does not indicate that you and I are necessarily living sustainable lifestyles.

"There is still a large gap between rich and poor in our nation and the reality is that this creates a biased perception of individual footprints."

The report also looks at the Living Planet Index (LPI) which reflects the state of the world's ecosystems.

The LPI of global biodiversity, as measured by populations of almost 2 000 species of mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian and fish from around the globe, has declined nearly 30% over the period from 1970 -2005.

To give some perspective: the 2006 Living Planet Report showed a decline of greater than 20% in the Global LPI for 1970-2003.

Dramatic losses

A closer focus shows much more vividly where the losses are occurring with the LPI for terrestrial species generally down by 33%, the Freshwater LPI down 35% and the Marine LPI down 14%.

Dramatic losses in our natural wealth are being driven primarily by deforestation and land conversion in the tropics (50% decline in Tropical LPI) and the impact of dams, over abstraction and climate change on freshwater species (35% decline).

Pollution, over-fishing and destructive fishing in marine and coastal environments are also taking a considerable toll.

Globally, the Grasslands LPI is down 36%.

"In South Africa, grasslands sustain major economic, agricultural, industrial and urban centres," says Du Plessis.

"The grasslands in South Africa have an indigenous species diversity which is second only to the Cape Floristic Region."

"A decrease in the LPI of grasslands can be attributed to a number of reasons. In South Africa they are one of the most threatened biomes, due to the pressure of unsustainable development and coal mining in particular," explains Du Plessis.

The water footprint

The water footprint of a country is the total volume of water used globally to produce the goods and services consumed by its inhabitants.

The new water footprint measures in the report illustrate the significance of water traded in the form of commodities with, for example, a cotton T-shirt requiring 2 900 litres of water in its production.

On average, each person consumes, through direct and indirect means, 1.24 million litres of water per year (about half the volume of an Olympic size swimming pool or nearly 3400 litres per day).

"Around 50 countries are currently facing moderate or severe water stress and the number of people suffering from year-round or seasonal water shortages is expected to increase as a result of climate change," says Dr Deon Nel, WWF Sanlam Living Waters Partnership Manager.

South Africa is an example of a water scarce country and through projects like WWF's Water Neutral Scheme (in partnership with SAB and the Working for Water Programme) which allows participants to quantitatively balance their water-usage accounts through a three-step process of reviewing, reducing and replenishing water supplies, WWF is actively working to address this issue.

The energy challenge

"Energy production from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas accounted for nearly 45 per cent of the global Ecological Footprint in 2005," adds Richard Worthington, Climate Change Programme Manager for WWF South Africa.

The report suggests some key strategies, represented as "sustainability wedges" which, if combined, could stabilise and reverse the slide into ecological debt and enduring damage to global support systems, by reducing the gap between humanity's footprint and available biocapacity.

"For the single most important challenge - climate change - the report shows that a range of renewable and low emissions 'wedges' could meet projected energy demands to 2050 with reductions in carbon emissions of 60 to 80%," says Worthington.

"These 'wedges' could include, for example, technological innovations and measures to reduce individual consumption."

"We have only one planet. Its capacity to support a thriving diversity of species, humans included, is large but fundamentally limited," says Du Plessis.

"When human demand on this capacity exceeds what is available - when we surpass ecological limits - we erode the health of the Earth's living systems. Ultimately, this loss threatens human well-being."

 

[pearlescence]

too many people.

 

[Valeria101]

'We'll need 2 planets by 2030'
29/10/2008 14:16 - (SA)

....

The report, published every two years since 1998, has become widely accepted as an accurate statement of Earth's ability to retain its functional integrity as a "living planet".

....

They'd wish! Anybody would.. it's only human.

'Kept hearing this two-planet argument since at least '99 (and it's been around since at least the 60s anyway). Nice elevator speech. The record kept playing to old tune all the way while WWF came of age as a highly successful foreign policy schmoozing aid.

Funny that it isn't the Chinese (and just about anybody else, for that matter) that cry out for space on another planet.

Too many people, too many pearls...

 

[Slraep]

The record kept playing to old tune all the way while WWF came of age as a highly successful foreign policy schmoozing aid.

Yeah, I'm not crazy about anything the WWF comes up with either. One has to wonder at some of their past and present board of directors. Conflict of interest galore.

Nevertheless, I don't even think the WWF need waste their money on any further studies as the population keeps on growing, resources keep on dwindling and pollution keeps on killing. So what if the WWF is a few years off the mark? So we'll need that other planet in 2040 or 2045

Slraep

 

[Valeria101]

So we'll need that other planet in 2040 or 2045

Slraep

N'ah... it isn't the numbers I'm skeptical about, but the whole accounting thing. The same reasoning could predict the end of civilization at any time. And, of course, apocalypse sells rather too well for credibility. Not to mention that the peddlers of doom are often closely involved with the 'solution' - if it isn't costly, then at least the prattle gives them free pass to some coveted stage, or some cushy career, even fancy media martyrdom at times

'enough with that. I am ready to admit that I wouldn't ever move as much as a straw to 'save the planet' the whales, coral reefs, bald eagles or just about anything else of the natural world, and be done with it. Doh! If anyone needs my charity, better ask in person. Can't speak? Not close enough? Too bad... Not much loss anyway.

Feel free to scorn the position... Indeed, Stalin would be 'green' by comparison, red as he was. As for the 'too many people' stance, I am way uncomfortable with the instances of history when action was / is sold with that sort of discourse. So... skeptical, again. To say the least.

 

[pearlescence]

A population should be of a size which has enough food, water and life resources (shelter, activities, education, work, healthcare etc) to sustain it.
At present there is not enough food and safe water (at least in the right places)

 

[Valeria101]

Sure enough... still, it remains to see whether availability of labour demand, healthcare and education services or water availability are now being bounded by inherent lack of 'vital space'. If anyone is ready to blame EU unemployment and US rickety healthcare or the historic decline of birth rates (and inter-generational transfers, if we're on to it) with welfare gains, it should make nicer conversation... perhaps...

It's kind'a funny that of all kinds of scientists, demographers have barely been included in the end-of-days discourse of late. It's a bit odd to hear one's 'species' discussed like any other foul, but what the Hell - the rest is pathetic enough to allow a bit more awkwardness.

May you good folk never meet the 'save the planet' scarecrows that made me this freakin' angry... It's a ghastly sight

[last on this thread, really]

 

[pearlescence]

no, I'm not. (for one thing I teach European law!)I'm not thinking of political arguments about 5% unemployment I am talking about basics- no food, no clean water.
Birth rates go down once parents know that children will survive - so basic healthcare is vital (ie clean water, basic immunisations etc).

 

[Slraep]

'enough with that. I am ready to admit that I wouldn't ever move as much as a straw to 'save the planet' the whales, coral reefs, bald eagles or just about anything else of the natural world, and be done with it. Doh! If anyone needs my charity, better ask in person. Can't speak? Not close enough? Too bad... Not much loss anyway.
[/I]

I find this pretty funny! And luckily, I have an unusual sense of humour. The paragraph above is now my scary Halloween thought for the day, and probably for a lot of other people too! A LOT of other people! Since the beginning of this thread, it has had over 57,000 hits. This is THE most popular thread on P-G. And LOADS more people are going to read his new addition. Cool.

So your concern over the poached mussels in Scotland was just an act then?

Slraep

 

[Slraep]

At the beginning of this thread, it was said that China still had a long way to go to beat the US as the no.1 global polluter. Well, China is now the no.1 global polluter, and it didn't take very long for them to get there either.

Read more about it.

http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_content/3600.htm

"The pollution leader was China, followed by the United States, which past data show is the leader in emissions per person in carbon dioxide output. And while several developed countries slightly cut their CO2 output in 2007, the United States churned out more.

Still, it was large increases in China, India and other developing countries that spurred the growth of carbon dioxide pollution to a record high of 9.34 billion tons of carbon. Figures released by science agencies in the United States, Great Britain and Australia show that China?s added emissions accounted for more than half of the worldwide increase. China passed the United States as the No. 1 carbon dioxide polluter in 2006."

Slraep

 

[Valeria101]

...I am talking about basics- no food, no clean water.

... not that the places where those lack come with a perfect record of administration...

...Birth rates go down once parents know that children will survive

... then, they overshot a bit, didn't they.

How do numbers look for the US (aside emigration)? I've been told there are similarities, but never checked.

 

[Valeria101]

The paragraph above is now my scary Halloween thought for the day...

What's scary about it? ... I'm just one person trying for readable opposition. No risk of becoming popular (fingers crossed!).

The popularity of discussions such as this scares me to death...it's too easily preyed upon.

 

[Slraep]

An interesting interview with the Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich.

http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2008/11/sustainability-interviews-paul-ehrlich.html

"We've all got to get together and demand something better out of our government and out of each other. We've got a system that's making us working harder, and isn't giving us satisfaction. We've got to sit down and decide what the hell we really want to be as human beings."


Slreap

 

[Valeria101]

An interesting interview with the Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich.

"We've all got to get together and demand something better ...."


Slreap

Yep... collective action. The subject comes easier for biologists (and hard science folk in general) who can assume it of their subjects... His is an old question.

Good one.

 

[Slraep]

[last on this thread, really]

This one is good too.

 

[Valeria101]

Very agreed.

 

[Slraep]

A very interesting article along with a video clip.

--- from "What Matters" looks at degradation of China's Huai River Basin

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/27/what.matters.huai/


"For all their wealth, China's cities have yet to conquer the challenge of clean water. Among all of China's 660-odd cities, only one small city of 200,000, Lianyuan in Hunan Province, can claim to provide clean drinking water straight from the tap. In the rest of the country -- even the country's capital, Beijing -- residents boil their water or buy it in bottles.

Even then, they have no real assurance that the water is safe to drink. And in this desperately water-scarce country, the urban infrastructure does little to conserve. Urban China loses up to 20 percent of its water through leaky pipes. Cities such as Shanghai and Tianjin have sunk six feet over the past decade and a half as precious underground water reserves are drawn down, causing skyscrapers to tilt and encouraging coastal flooding."


Slraep

 

[Raisondetre]

Well, tap water in most major cities taste like drainwater to be honest. I don't think the boiling does much apart from getting rid of the volatile dissolved gases. Bottled water from reputable sources is the way to go. If there is no immediate benefit to be reaped, they aren't going to do anything about the leaky pipes either. Then some bigshot building collapses, and they put up a big show about investigating how it happened, like the bridges which collapsed in the past, execute someone and it happens over and over again.

Did you guys hear about the melamine in milk, now eggs, and them passing off deep fried lab rats as roast pigeons?

 

[Slraep]

Did you guys hear about the melamine in milk, now eggs, and them passing off deep fried lab rats as roast pigeons?

The milk and eggs, sadly yes. The lab rats, NO!!! Can you find an article about it?

Slraep