Should luxuries be allowed?

This week arguments have been highlighted within a BBC news report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7347638.stm), whereby in China they believe they should not need to reduce pollution, as pollution shouldn’t be counted per nation but per head. As China has a large population their argument is that they do not need to cut back on luxuries as although the west is producing less pollution and emissions, their emissions per head are 3 times that of Chinas.

So should China be allowed to indulge in ‘luxuries’ such as washing machines because of their population size? Personally I think no. Yes it sounds mean not allowing other countries to have the same amenities as us, but they’re the ones adding to this ever increasing environmental problem. Why should the Chinese population be allowed to wash their clothes in a washing machine and have air conditioning units when the whole world are then suffering from the air pollution caused. I don’t see why their ambitions are changing our world and if they live as we do, it could potentially result in the world heating up and the spread of air pollution related health problems.

I no its easy for me to say sat here in my clothes that have been washed and dried in a machine and using a laptop which together aren’t exactly helping the environment, but as a country England is, as well as many other nations, reducing its emissions in other ways such as using natural energy. This is unlike China, who despite setting targets and implementing long term methods are still opening 2 coal powered power stations every two weeks to provide its luxuries resulting inbeing the top polluters globally.

Therefore I’m not saying that we are a better, greener nation therefore we should be allowed luxuries, I’m saying that something needs to be done in China, and if it’s them not having luxuries then so be it.

References
BBC (2008) The extent of China's smog problem. News report. BBC news.

‘Top carbon polluter’

A BBC report by Roger Harrabin on 14th April 2008, states that China is in fact the top carbon polluter in the world. It has been found that China’s emissions have been underestimated, and the carbon entering the atmosphere and adding to the pollution is actually how US levels in 2006-2007 were. This status is also highlighted in an animated map created by the University of Sheffield and used within the report, as the emissions by nation show that China’s size significantly increases, indicating that as a country it allows high levels of carbon emission.

An animated map of the worlds carbon emissions (BBC news, 14th April 2008)

These significantly high levels are adding to the ever increasing air pollution and it has been reported that unless China radically changes its energy policies, its increases in greenhouse gases will be several times larger than the cuts in emissions being made by rich nations under the Kyoto Protocol. Despite this china is adamant that any negotiated emission reductions should not be absolute, but relative to a ‘business as usual’ scenario of projected growth. Therefore it is become accepted that any future global climate agreement will have to be factored to China’s high future emissions if the Chinese are to be persuaded to take part.

So should China be proud of this status they have in some ways achieved and be allowed to keep it through negotiations within global climate agreements? I personally think no. Why should a country be proud of this status and want to keep it? And why should global climate agreements try to be nice to China so that it joins agreements. Surely China should have realised by now that their environmental problem is currently uncontrollable and is affecting numerous people worldwide so desperate action and collaboration with global climate agreements is a must. Equally I think this all comes back to China’s greed, as officials know that as soon as they sign anything agreeing to cut down on emissions, industries and their economy will most likely suffer.

References

Harrabin. R. 2008 'China now 'top air polluter'' BBC news. 14th April 2008

How do you solve a problem like China’s?

Many ‘solutions’ have been implemented within china to help prevent and decrease its air pollution and its associated impacts. These solutions have involved short term methods such as those used in the lead up to the Olympics, and long term solutions. These long term solutions have included; afforestation, coal cleaning, converting gas stoves to use clean energy sources and alterations in car use.

The scale at which China is implementing its air pollution reduction methods are large in relation to other countries and the government has been praised for its determination to tackle the problem. Despite this the long term methods appear to be slowly changing the emissions and pollution and time seems to be rapidly running out, so does China need to put into action methods which will reduce this problem at a faster rate or should methods be left as they are? For the Olympics short term methods including; the closure of factories, taking old buses off the road and banning cars on certain days are being used in a desperate hope to increase the air quality over Beijing before their big event, but should these types of methods become long term solutions if they have such a large and quick impact on the air pollution? If factories were to be closed down completely there would be a major impact on the economy, but would this maybe be a small price to pay especially in the long run?

Overall it appears that China is in a difficult situation, as whatever route they take they will be scrutinised. Either their efforts will slowly reduce the pollution and the amount of deaths will be decreasing at such a slow rate it will appear as though nothing is being done despite Chinas determination, or they take drastic measures such as the closure of all factories, which would have a significant impact on the economy and general running of the country.

References

Bai. J (2008) China steps up efforts to fight pollution. Reuters. 12th February 2008.

Pomfret. J. (2008) China factories move inland to avoid green scrutiny. Reuters. 20th February 2008.

Schmollinger. C., and Shen. I. (2008) China to shut factories to cut air pollution before the Olympics. Bloomberg. 9th Fenruary 2008.

Is it our fault?

In the Dictionary of Physical geography air pollution is defined as;

‘If people had never evolved on this planet, the composition of the earth’s atmosphere would be different from what it is today. Therefore air pollution can be defined as the presence in the atmosphere of natural or human caused contaminates in a given quantity’.

With this definition, is the implication therefore that it is somewhat our faults as humans that the air pollution, especially that present in China, is such an environmental problem?

When looking at the main pollutants in china; car emissions, dust and dirt, energy consumption and industrial emissions, are the main contributors. All of these have one thing in common which is humans. If it wasn’t for humans, cars wouldn’t be used, energy wouldn’t be requires and goods would not need to be produced so industrial activities would not be occurring. So it is just since the industrial revolution that air pollution has been a problem resulting from humans?

From looking at a global ancient timeline of environmental problems at www.runet.edu, it can be seen that globally air pollution was present in ancient civilisations in large towns long before the industrial revolution. The air pollution here was caused by dust, wood smoke, tanneries and animal manure. Although this occurred a long time ago the same major contributor is present, which is humans.

Despite this, natural factors contributing to air pollution include; volcanic eruptions and dust storms (www.lenntech.com). These natural factors would occur even if humans were not present, but the impacts on air pollution are not as significant, long term or harmful as the impacts us as humans are causing.

Therefore air pollution would still be present even if we did not populate the earth, but the air pollution would not be anywhere near the extent it is today, especially the extent it is in China. So in mine, and most probably numerous other peoples opinion, it is our fault air pollution is the way it is, which means it is our responsibility, and China's, to reduce the air pollution.

References:
www.lenntech.com What causes air pollution www.lenntech.com/FAQ-air-pollution.htm. Viewed 26th March 2008

www.runet.edu. Environmental history timeline. BC to 1200AD. www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/envhist/ Viewed 26th March 2008

Thomas. D. G., and Goudie. A. (2004) The dictionary of physical geography. 3rd edition. Blackwell publishing.

Could the 2008 Olympics be the first Olympic Games to be cancelled due to air pollution?

Recently the numerous newspaper articles and news reports about the Olympics have all included or focused on Beijing’s air pollution problem and as a result of its environmental problem whether or not the Olympics should still occur.

In a ‘World news Australia’ report it states that numerous methods are being implemented to help reduce the air pollution over the duration of the Olympics. These methods include; the closure of coal burning factories, the shifting of factories, tree planting programmes, banning cars from the streets and to scatter overhead clouds so that the skies are blue. Even with all these methods in place, should the Olympics still be given the go-ahead?

From a health point of view, the telegraph reports that the WHO believes the air pollution levels are so high, Olympic spectator’s health could be at risk especially those with asthma or heart problems. Additionally, Baker 24.08.2007 states in the Telegraph, some of the games may not be able to occur if the pollution levels are too high as performance could be significantly reduced. So although health problems may occur with the current air pollution, surely if reduction methods are in place when the Olympics actually take place, the air pollution levels will be at such a level that health problems may not occur?

In the telegraph, Baker 24.08.2007 states that with a trial car banning programme this was not the case. It had been thought that if cars were taken off of the road air pollution would decrease and the smog would be reduced. In fact congestion was slightly reduced but the smog layers were not lifted. Therefore are any of this short term reduction methods actually going to have a significant impact on the air pollution?

So far there has not been a trial period with all the short term methods in place. In my opinion this could therefore mean that once all the methods are in place there is a possibility that the smog will be lifted and air pollution will be reduced, as the different methods may work in cooperation with each other. If this is the case then the Olympics should be able to occur and health problems won’t be as much of a problem. Equally there is a high chance that even with all the numerous methods in place air pollution and smog will be insignificantly reduced and both the athletes and spectators will be at risk of health problems, which could result in some of the games being cancelled. So yes the 2008 Olympics could be the first games cancelled as a result of air pollution.

References:
Baker. G. 2007. Olympic spectators warned over air in Beijing. The Daily Telegraph. 24th August. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/17/wchina117.xml. Viewed 18th March 2008

Poor air quality may cause trouble to Beijing Olympic Games (News report). October 28th 2007. World news Australia news report. Report by Rena Sarumpaet.

'In rural areas the air and water are cleaner'.

In China daily on 10th March 2008 it was quoted that ‘in rural areas the air and water are cleaner’. Through research I have found that this is not the general case within china.

It is a general misconception that within China it is just the road transport and factories which cause the air pollution and that if factories and car numbers were to be reduced within urban areas China’s problem would be significantly reduced, and that cleaner air can be found in rural china. This is a definite misconception as rural areas contribute to the air pollution problem. In fact Chan 2000 states that rural air pollution is much worse and poses a much greater risk than urban pollution. Despite no factories being present within the rural areas, Yang et al 2008 in Atmospheric Environment, states that the burning of crop residue in the field is a significant contributor to air pollution and Chan 2000 states the use of cook stoves increases indoor air pollution.

Before China’s rapid economic development the rural population used biofuel as a major energy source, but now there is an increase in rural access to commercial energy so biofuel demand has decreased. Although this appears a benefit as biofuel is not being burned in the rural homes theoretically it would mean that air pollution would decrease. In fact Yang et al 2008 state that this is not the case as the biofuel still needs to be burned as it is waste so is burned in the fields. This therefore means that commercial energy and biofuel are both being burned and contributing to the rural areas air pollution.
As air pollution is now higher environmental consequences are also increasing as smog levels become higher, resulting in temporary closures of highways and airports.
Now the government is beginning to implement regulations and laws concerning the burning of biofuel within its desperate bid to save China from its ever increasing levels of air pollution.

Additionally the use of cook stoves within rural homes has resulted in poor indoor air quality which therefore means that the pollution has more of a direct affect on people than industrial activities, so health problems as a direct result of air pollution are higher in rural areas.

So it can be seen that every area within China is adding to their environmental problem, and the general misconception that rural living provides a better quality of life is definitely not the case in China, especially as rural air pollution has a higher impact on humans the urban air pollution.

References:
Baoxing, Q (2008) Balanced integration for a new countryside. China daily. 10-3-2008

Chan. M (2000) Air pollution from cookstoves: Energy alternatives and policy in rural China.
Carnegie Mellon University.

Yang. S., He. H., Lu. S., Chen. D., and Zhu. J. (2008) Quantification of crop residue burning in the field and its influence on ambient air quality in Suqian, China. Atmospheric environment. 42. 1961-1969.

Is Beijing the most polluted city within China?

Despite presumptions being made due to its capital city status and location of this year’s Olympics, Beijing is in fact not the most polluted city within China. Regardless of its high level of air pollutants, mean annual TSP in Baldasano et al 2003 paper in The science of the total environment, indicate that Lanzhou in North-west china is actually the city with the highest air pollution of 732 µg/m3, 355 µg/m3 higher than Beijing. Xia et al 2008 in Atmospheric environment, states that as with Beijing and other cities within China, air pollution is a result of rapid industrialisation and urban growth, with factories producing petroleum, undergoing chemical combination and machine building.


A graph of the mean annual TSP in the world’s highest polluted cities (Baldasano et al 2003).


So how come if the processes in which pollutants are added to the atmosphere are the same, Lanzhou has higher air pollution? Is it due to the population size? No, as Lanzhou has a population below 2 million compared to Beijing’s population of over 10 million. Is it due to the fuel burned within the factories? In some ways it is as a different type of coal is used which contains high levels of sulphur which adds to environmental impacts, but this is not the main contributor to the high levels of air pollution. So what is the main contributor?

The main contributor to the high air pollution is its geographic location. Numerous scientists including Chu et al 2008 in Environment international, Chu et al 2008 in Environment international and Xia et al 2008 in Atmospheric environment attribute the high levels of air pollution to Lanzhou’s geographic location. Xia et al 2008 attributes the high levels to Lanzhou’s trough shaped topography and Chu et al 2008 in Environment international develop this idea by stating that the topographic characteristics blocks the air streams which due to large frictional forces encourage weak winds which inhibit the diffusion and dispersion of the pollutants. Additionally its location gives rise to large variations in temperature diurnally and seasonally, which adds to the air pollution problem.

As the geographic location of Lanzhou cannot be altered, it appears that little can be done to alter the increased impacts of the areas urban lifestyle apart from stopping or significantly decreasing the industrial activities. This assumption is just that, as Chu et al 2008 in Environment international states how the local government has encouraged afforestation which generates downward mountain winds in winter or at night which weakens the mountain valley circulation and destabilises the atmosphere leading to enhancing the diffusion rate of pollutants.

It can therefore be seen that the industrial activity and population size is a small contributing factor when compared to geographic location, and in some respect China is lucky that its capital city is not situated in a geographic location like Lanzhou, otherwise air pollution would be an even bigger environmental problem.

References:
Baldasano. J. M., Valera. E., and Jimenez. P.(2003) Air quality data from large cities. The science of the Total Environment. 307.141-165.

Chu. P. C., Chen. Y., and Shihua. L. (2008) Afforestation for reduction of NOx concentrations in Lanzhou, China. Environment International. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2007.12.014

Chu. P. C., Chen. Y., Shihua. L., Zhenchao. L., and Yaqiong. L. (2008) Particulate air pollution in Lanzhou, China. Environment International. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2007.12.013.

Xia. D. S., Chen. F. H., Bloemendal. J., Liu. X.M., Yu. Y., and Yang. L. P. (2008) Magnetic properties of urban dustfall in Lanzhou, China, and its environmental implications. Atmospheric environment. 42. 2198-2207.