If cost is a primary concern, the kids can go to local school (just like Chinese kids who come to the US). The expat continuum goes from 'bubble' to 'going native'. Bubble is most expensive. Might as well stay home, no?
They can? Even local chinese kids without 户口 can't go to local schools, to hear them tell it. That was one of the primary reasons students came to the school where I worked in 2010-11.
You'll have to pay some bribes but its possible. Generally, expats with kids have packages that include private schooling. Expats without packages usually have to leave when they get kids, though that's probably for the better with this air (the better private schools have huge bubbles, by the way....)
No first hand experience, but from what I can tell, children of legitimate Z visa holders can send their kids to local schools for a reasonable fee. See shanghaiexpat.
It is also legal for expats to home school their kids (not legal for the locals).
There is a strong sense of entitlement present in American culture which leads to unrealistic expectations when living abroad. This manifests as the so-called 'ugly American'. China is a place where 'zero-tolerance' is literally a foreign concept, and anything is possible with persistence (and good connections). Which also implies the downside -- nothing is permanent or guaranteed, either.
Nah, the last job I had there would have paid for schooling. It wouldn't pay for a hermetically sealed bubble of fresh air and water (and clean food), though.
I've seen sci-fi depictions of over-industrialized mega-city scapes, but I never thought I'd actually get to see a picture of one. To call that surreal is an understatement.
Wasn't that the whole idea - for them to stop producing and polluting the planet? That giving them food would be cheaper. Of course it would threaten our dependence on cheap clothes and expensive gadgets.
People don't sit around on their bums for too long - it's just not in our nature. If they weren't slaving away in factories they might end up as a society that primarily produces cultural capital (huge social stability there) or they might develop a service-based economy. In the wider scheme, Chinese manufacturing is probably more important to the west than China.
What? But China ratified the Kyoto protocol and pledged to reduce their pollution. This can't be true! It's almost as if the country completely disregarded the treaty to grow their economy at any expense.
The Kyoto protocol has to do with CO2 emissions, which are very different from the sort of particulate and sulfur pollution described in the article. Also, I have no idea whether China is actually following that treaty, but the reason the US didn't sign was that it did actually allow China to drastically increase the amount of fossil fuels it burns.
Yes, China and India are considered "developing" countries by Kyoto and can produce all the CO2 they want under the treaty, so of course they signed it.
EDIT: and, of course, it was about CO2, not particulates. A country can make certain trade-offs about different types of pollution (particulates v. CO2 v. NOX).
That part doesn't seem too unfair to me, considering that China and India's per-capita emissions are still vastly below U.S. levels. It'd be one thing if they were being allowed higher-than-US-level emissions due to being classified as "developing" countries, but they aren't producing anywhere near that.
That's a silly metric, though, because it just depends on where you divide things up politically. If China split into two independent countries, suddenly it wouldn't lead the world anymore, but the environment would not be any better off. Similarly, if Europe merged into a United States of Europe, its emissions would be much higher-ranked (maybe the largest), but it would not actually emit more than currently. The environment does not care at what scale you draw your political borders.
Per-capita emissions are one way of accounting for the obvious fact that if Denmark (a nation of 5 million people) generated as much CO2 per year as Germany does (a nation of 80 million people), Denmark would in this hypothetical be more blameworthy, and it would be fair to ask Denmark to reduce its emissions more than Germany, as it would already be emitting far out of proportion to its size. Put differently, if every country reduced their per-capita emissions to China's level, we'd actually be in great shape. That suggests that China is not the main problem.
I know someone over in China at the moment and they said that the pollution was so bad this morning that looking out of a window you couldn't see the building next it. Scary thought of how much damage that'd do to your lungs.
EDIT: apparently my post below was predicated on a false assumption, please disregard.
That's Beijing, not Shanghai, and I think we can assume that Beijing is at least slightly cleaner than Shanghai, if not by much.
According this article[0], Shanghai's level reached 602.5, which, when compared to the data on the graph you linked, is about 75 points higher than Beijing.
Beijing is generally worse more often, partly because they get hit by dust carried from the increasingly large Gobi Desert in addition to all the man-made pollution.
Not really. Beijing definitely get dust, but the real problem is that Beijing is trapped in a bowl and gets some wicked inversions. And to think I could see the summer palace from my office just yesterday.
The firewall won't bother you (assuming you wish to get around it); it's there for the masses.
Any idiot with a US citizenship can get a tourist visa, lasting a year and having only the requirement "visit Hong Kong (or any other non-China location) every three months" (I was unambitious, and got a two-month one). Someone of my acquaintance says he paid a visa-help company $1000 and got a business visa, good for a year and imposing no requirements.
I have, in the past, had a working visa; if that's what you want, it's generally done by your employer, not you.
Your "I love China" kind of leads me to believe you'd be familiar with this already... what kind of complications have you experienced?
$1000! Crazy laowai. As a data point, my current F visa is 2 years, multi-entry, 90 days and cost the nominal fee plus about $100 for the visa company to drop it off at the consulate.
Apparently, the F visa has been re-purposed and there is a new M business visa. Any practical experience with that?
[of course, China habitually hassles journalists (Bloomberg) over visas]
Business visa Requirements:
1. One completely filled out “Visa Application Form, which you can down load from my attached PDF file. It needs to type with computer then print out. Don’t leave any blank, write “N/A” in any item which not suit for you.
2. One recently taken 2X2 in. photo showing entire face and without a hat on. Please affix the photo to the application form. Photo should be light background, and taken within 6 months.
3. Original passport with at least 2 blank visa pages and valid for at least 6 months beyond the date of application.
4. Invitation letter from the company or university in China
5. Your company or college in US's letter for proof.
6. Fee:
Embassy: $140/per person for single, double & multiple entry in one year
Service fee: $35.00
Postage: $22.00 for local people pick up by themselves, +$7.40 for others
Total: $197.00 for local/ $204.40 for others.
Make your check paid to: Chinese Service Center .
Lucy
Chinese Service Center of Greater Albany, LLC.
2394 Parkville Place
Schenectady, NY 12309
Tel:(518)346-0555
Email:CSCAlbany@yahoo.com
I only know what he told me, which is that his visa allows him to enter and leave as he pleases, but, unlike my 60-day multi-entry, does not need to be renewed (much like a residence permit). $1000 isn't an unreasonable price for not having to leave every few months.
Well, food contamination is an issue with even the nominal food supply, so one must be very careful. The culture is more fluid with the truth then some other places. Lots of vegetable markets, though, so you could buy and prepare your own food.
I lived in Hong Kong 2010 to 2013, but actually ended up living in Shenzhen for most of 2011. 18 pages of my passport are taken up with visas and stamps from the mainland (plus several more from HK and Taiwan)
As a Hong Kong resident I had a 6 month visa and then a 1 year China visa. Notably, though, both times it was a 30 day maximum stay, and as a UK citizen they still always just give me 30 days per entry.
I know all about the sneaky 1 year business visa I could get. (there's some guy who sits in a hotel in TST and sorts it out for you)
But I still frequently hear stories of people who've been living there for a year or so, but when it comes to renewing they turn up in HK, apply for a new visa, and end up being granted just 15 days.
Usually they fix this, and pay someone a few thousand dollars, and they get another one year visa. But this is a hassle.
The internet thing is easily overcome with a vpn, but it's just annoying, especially as latency to western services is already pretty high.
So my choice, is "go live in Taiwan", China without some of the hassle.
Notably when I say "I love China", I frequently mean "I love Greater China".
VPNs around the firewall are getting less reliable everymonth.
The visa changes made in July are much more strict than before, getting a one year non work visa is only possible if you have Chinese family. The visa companies from before no longer exist. But I have a working visa so I don't care.
The stricter rules took effect on July 31st. But are you referring to validity or length of stay? I've never heard of a tourist visa that allowed you to stay for a year even before the crackdown.
Is there a level of public outcry regarding the pollution?
I realize that criticism may be somewhat muted given the nature of the PRC government, but I can't imagine a city as large and cosmopolitan as Shanghai merely accepting this level of environmental mismanagement. Unfortunately, articles regarding Beijing/Shanghai pollution usually fail to mention public sentiment above the level of brief individual anecdote ("It's hard to breath on the way to the office" - Chinese citizen, etc.).
I mean, the problem is that there's a bit of a cultural difference between Americans circa-Industrial Revolution, and the Chinese now. So saying that the Chinese will stand up and protest isn't necessarily true. I don't want to speak for all Chinese, but from what I've read -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- is that there is more of a culture of deference to authority in China. Compare this to Americans, who have a history and pride in rebelling against authority. Now, you might point to China's communist revolution, but realize that with this government came the need for them to propagandize and popularize a love and respect for the government in control, much more so than in the U.S. So back to my original point, protest culture isn't as much of a thing there as it is here, because there's more of a sense of working for the collective good (economic growth of China).
So I'm hoping that there will by outcry, but I think it is unfortunately less likely than it would be in the U.S. due to Chinese culture. I'd also like to here some local insight as well, and I hope I'm proved wrong because it would be awesome if there was a public outcry.
My impression is that it has to do with Tiananmen Square (been there, tried that, didn't work) and being complicit in trading off economic advancement for maintaining Communist party rule. Also many government officials directly benefit from economic advancement via bribery/corruption.
> being complicit in trading off economic advancement for maintaining Communist party rule.
I think 'complicit' might be an overstatement here; it's not like you can just go vote for the Democrats in China right?
I really doubt Barack Obama would be the American president today if the real penalties for advocating for the replacement of the Republican Party regime of 2000 had included death, life in a torture camp, similar things for your family, etc.
There is constant outcry especially since last year. And protest happens daily in China. It's just that normally people stay on particular issues at hand rather than nebular banners such as "small government" etc, for cultural reasons and the protestors' own safety.
There are astonishing numbers of protests in China every year.[1][2] I also think the culture for factory workers during the industrial revolution was one of deference to authority, and that it took extreme conditions to spur them to protest their conditions.
That's good to hear. My only point about protesting in America was that it's very ingrained in our culture to protest, even for small issues. I didn't really know much about Chinese protesting culture, but it's good to hear they do it in large numbers.
As far as I understand, public unrest is one of the greatest fears of Chinese leadership, hence tight control and censorship. That may speak volumes about the willingness of their public to take control along with protesting (as opposed to the West where protest is seen as a safety valve and therefore encouraged in proscribed forms).
Well, I hope that's true, but I don't know if I necessarily agree with the idea "they have an oppressive government thus they must be able to take control with protesting". It could be that the government feels the need to be this way because they know just how screwed up everything (pollution, persecution, etc.) is, and are oppressive as a safety measure.
...think that's what I said - the oppression is a response to perception of a greater evil of instability. Scratch any country's leadership and you'll get the same kind of result. The question is whether that is justified, and historically seems to be more usually a case of paranoia, micro-management, and control freakery.
Agree.There have been some complains and disscussions about air pollution recently. They can easily be found online, whereas you won't find people talking about it or worry about it very much. The way of how Chinese expressing their feelings is far more different than a public outcry. Hence, people are certainly waiting for the action of their government. And, what about those who are so confident and think they will not be the next victim of the air pollution? Was Shanghai one of them who have this thought?
This is a common (and racist) but incorrect generalization about Chinese culture. Look up the history of China and you will find millennia of successful rebellions against authority percieved as having lost a "mandate." Contrast that to Europe or America.
The thing I think is really important but often falsely confused with a lack of willingness to protest is a general distaste for the sort of personalized politics prevalent in the West. Chinese political participation in the US is lower than average. It seems like the culture in that sense is more focused on success economically and academically.
It's important to remember that the only reason the Communists have managed to last so long is because of their "support" from the start of the farmers, i.e., not killing and stealing from them like the KMT. As soon as that support is lost en masse, we will see another percieved experation of a mandate and another revolution in a long series of revolutions. What that will mean for the Chinese or whether that will mean more democracy we will have to wait and see.
I'm not local but I have friends there. The Chinese were accepting of the pollution at first because of the success they were experiencing on a world stage. They figured that if the politicians and the higher ups could deal with it, then the ordinary citizen can too. Then the average citizen started realizing that the elite didn't actually have to deal with it because they would buy expensive air purifiers for their homes, cars, and work places. There has been more of an outcry against the pollution that is now causing all forms of health problems as of late and despite the heavily authoritarian rule of the regime, the Chinese government is prudent enough to know that a largely dissatisfied citizenry is always a risk. So the various local and national governments are moving, albeit slowly, to try and reduce their pollution levels.
My impression here in Beijing is that people are highly dissatisfied with the pollution situation. They don't want lung cancer and they don't want their kids breathing this crap.
That being said, the government is taking steps to address the issue. Specifically, due to an outcry on Weibo last year about having to get PM2.5 numbers from the US embassy's twitter feed and iPhone app (twitter is blocked, but screenshots of the iPhone app were pasted on weibo), the government here has started reporting pollution numbers in major cities around the country. So there's reporting now.
Second, they've forced the state-owned oil companies to retool to start outputting cleaner gasoline, moved big polluting industry out of the cities (steel plants, etc.), closed down barbecue pits, ended the sale of some of the more polluting coal briquettes that used to be common, and are trying to get construction sites to keep the dust down.
All of those steps are helping, but not reversing the trend (so far as I can tell or have heard). There is a push to move from coal-burning power plants to gas-powered power plants, but they need to find the gas (via fracking or other means).
Is there an outcry? There are certainly people posting about the pollution on Weibo, which is China's twitter. There are also plenty of people emigrating to the US, if they can afford it (voting with their feet, even if they can't vote here). But I think for people to do more than that, they'd need to see the government just not giving a damn. So perhaps the attitude is 'wait and see'?
Hope this helps.
By the way, one of my Beijing buddies said of the Shanghai smog: "In Beijing, we call this Tuesday."
Yes, I guess 'barbecue pit' isn't a good choice of words. I was referring to the street vendors who sell barbecue meat, etc. The ones near my home seem to be shut down.
I also think I read that more than 50% of the nuclear plants currently being built are in China. That is a big way that they will eventually combat this problem.
How does that 50% stack up against how much power they use compared to all other countries that have nuclear power available to them? Wikipedia has China's power usage in 2008 as just below the US's, but growing much faster. It also has much more of their power coming from coal in 2011 (46%, to 13%). It makes sense to me that China would be expanding their nuclear power faster than anybody else right now. Of course it would be nice if we would pick up the pace too...
> I also think I read that more than 50% of the nuclear plants currently being built are in China. That is a big way that they will eventually combat this problem.
Yes, China has 40 GWe of nuclear power coming on-line in the next 5 years. The United States currently has 97 GWe of nuclear capacity, and China currently has 13 GWe.
But China is also building 40 GWe of coal plants each year.
This is what happens when you take 500 million peasants and turn them into urban factory workers within a period of 30 years. Demand grows so quickly that even the world's largest nuclear plant construction program will only account for a fraction of demand growth.
So, not that that matters for the absolute pollution, but if that >50% is correct, their mix will improve.
Also, they try to build those plants far away from cities. That, hopefully, will spread pollution.
That PDF also states that those plans may not be implemented, as a) coal companies lose money in China because the government fixed electricity prices and b) the public doesn't want their pollution.
On the negative side, their absolute pollution will likely go up, and the gap with the western world will go up even more (elsewhere, new coal plants will often replace older, more polluting ones)
> I realize that criticism may be somewhat muted given the nature of the PRC government
There's no shame in calling a spade a spade. You correctly perceive that the brutally authoritarian PRC government both suppresses criticism and whitewashes press coverage of environmental problems in the country.
As an aside, discussions with other westerners about China feels to me like having brunch with a couple where everyone knows the husband is cheating on the wife. The natural inclination is to engage in heroic effort to make things seem normal--to map the dysfunctional couple's relationship dynamics to that of a normal couple, all in order to preserve the all-important pretense.
80% of my classmates are in China. There are constant messages about PM level in Shanghai, Beijing in all my classmates' social networks in wechat, renren.
Not yet an outcry, definitively discussions, humors, etc.
I remember visiting Shanghai about 10 years ago. It was very vibrant and exciting, and there were cranes everywhere. I thought, "This is like being on the ground floor of a great new metropolis. Wouldn't it be awesome to work here?" I'm glad that things didn't work out that way. There are health consequences for such massive pollution.
I wonder how this compares to the worst smogs experienced in London and elsewhere before the West got its act together with regard to particulate pollution. Apparently the Great Smog of 1952 killed on the order of 10000 people in just a few days. I'm not sure many young people nowadays realize how horrible the situation was just half a century ago.
Certainly, when I was a kid, a trip into London was an adventure. You knew when you were near the centre of town because the buildings were all coal black.
I'm not sure many young people nowadays realize how horrible the situation was just half a century ago.
This is a great point. We've made so much progress in this area that "pollution" can seem like an abstraction. This is something we should be impressing upon our children, in a more serious way than stories about walking to school uphill in the snow both ways, etc.
I was two years old when this picture was taken in my home-town. I remember summer days in the following years that looked like this, with the brown air leaching colors from the sunlight itself.
That isn't brown air; it's a brown print. That's a sepia print of a black and white photo of white steam coming out of chimneys artificially crowded together by a long telephoto lens, taken at sunset, and excluding the sky as much as possible. Imagine another photo taken from the same spot, with a wide-angle lens that shows mostly sky and a bridge going off for miles, even the distant cars clearly visible through clear air shining in the mid-day sun as if on their way to the beach, printed blue-and-white instead of brown-and-white. Dramatically different emotional impact from the same scene. It's almost as if The Atlantic had some sort of agenda.
Those images of Shanghai (and London 1952, and Beijing and Hong Kong and, occasionally, Singapore) are the real thing, looking like scenes from a forest fire but downtown in a major city.
That isn't brown air; it's a brown print ... chimneys artificially crowded ... taken at sunset.
You may be right, it may be a sepia print. I don't know that much about sepia. GIMP shows 26K unique colors, and plenty of information in all three layers when decomposed to HSV or LAB. I would have thought a sepia print would be closer to monochrome.
I can assure you the brown skies were real, and that there's not much "artificial" about the crowding of the smokestacks. I still live nearby; the difference between the air quality then and now is pronounced.
It's really an odd thing to do, to approach a stranger on the internet and suggest that their memories are false and any evidence that might support them is effectively fake. How does that go over at dinner parties?
I commented on the photo, not your memories. I didn't comment on your memories, because I had nothing to say about them. They sounded right to me, which wasn't worth a comment.
As a photographer, there were some things that jumped out at me immediately about that photo, though. I commented on it and stand by those comments.
Since you apparently thought I was talking about you and not the spin techniques of The Atlantic--a faux pas I've probably committed at dinner parties--I should have prefaced my comments with, "I think you're right. That photo, on the other hand, ...."
That's a really narrow construction of what you said. I said "I remember brown skies just like this" and you suggested that 1) The color is fake 2) I might imagine that scene with blue skies 3) the Atlantic has an axe to grind and 4) other cities have "the real thing." What am I supposed to think?
The photos were part of an EPA project specifically conceived to "document subjects of environmental concern." There was editorial intent, certainly, but nobody at The Atlantic had anything to do with it. This is all explained on The Atlantic's page.
I'm trying to find out if the photo is in color or not. Certainly most of the DOCUMERICA project was in color, certainly every other photo chosen for this Atlantic feature was color, and certainly the photographer seems to have worked almost entirely with color at the time:
It would not surprise me, at this point, to learn that the photo was in color. I don't think there is anything artificial-looking about it, it matches my memories pretty well. Yes, it has a nearly monochromatic look to it, but some scenes are really like that. Unfortunately the National Archives record doesn't seem to indicate whether the photo was in color or not:
Do you have any information about scans of sepia photos? How many unique colors might be expected? I have tried doing a color count on several old photos that I'm confident started as real sepia-tint, and found color counts in the 6K-13K range, significantly fewer than the 26K that appear in the Clark Avenue Bridge photo. But I don't think that's conclusive.
There is one clue: Sepia (AFAIK) is a process applied to silver-based prints, but the National Archives record for the photo lists its media type as a slide. If that's right, it's not sepia. And since the brown color wouldn't be from a black-and-white slide either, I think the most likely explanation is that it's a color photo.
The difference with China is that much of the entire country is covered by a blanket of smog & dust. Not just the cities, but much of the countryside as well for hundreds of km. China does things big in a way that's hard to grasp without visiting.
Has there been any long-term research done on the health effects of particulate pollution?
I was in Beijing last winter when the air pollution was nearing record highs, and every time I blew my nose after returning from being outside, it would be full of black mucus. That has to be a wakeup call.
In addition, when I returned to the states (Chicago), even the air around O'Hare Airport - probably one of the more polluted areas in the city - felt so clean to me!
I usually get my fair bit of black mucus in Central London. Not sure what that means but some places don't smell that good. For example, Queen's Gate road in Kensington has a very strong smell of gas.
That's your nose doing its job. The whole point of the nasal passages and mucus is to filter the air, the good thing about this filter is that it's easy to replace.
Great smog of 1952 had a measured peak daily average of 1620 ug/m^3 of total suspended matter (TSM) [1].
Reported levels in Shanghai of up to 602.5 ug/m^3 PM2.5 (suspended particles < 2.5 microns).
We can convert from TSM to PM2.5 using ballpark conversion given by:
PM10 = 0.6TSM [1; notes to table 3]
PM2.5 = 0.75PM10 [2].
So according to these rough calculations the great smog of 1952 probably had a PM2.5 of about 700 ug/m^3, quite similar to the current Shanghai smog, and lower than levels regularly reported in other Chinese cities.
It really irks me whenever there's a talk about nuclear energy. Nuclear power may have its own set of challenges, but coming from the baseline of coal it's hard to do worse.
Agreed. A recent Stuttgart University report (commissioned by Greenpeace) estimated 22,000 premature deaths per year in the EU alone from coal-fired power stations. [1]
I've seen estimates in the US of 10-20,000 annually depending on the source. e.g. [2], [3].
As someone who lives in a city state so small that the coal-fired power stations are literally next door to housing, I too wish there was more attention given to this.
This is where the marketing of various energy options comes into play. The discussion might be different if it was "burning uranium laced coal" vs "controlled nuclear generation"
That could actually be low. This paper estimates 90,000-380,000 deaths/year in the US from combustion, with 23,000-98,000 attributed to power plants (coal):
It's especially dour when people celebrate getting nuclear plants shut down or blocked, and you know the unspoken result will be more coal plants. How is that a victory?
That's the thing, though. They have many Chernobyls worth of effect over the long term, and will continue to do so. Meanwhile, Chernobyl helped nuclear facilities become far safer.
Surprising that nobody here acknowledges the black swan nature of nuclear power. The comparative average is precisely not the point.
FWIW I once had dinner with an architect of one of the early nuclear plants. They had been lied to about the prospects of a solution to waste disposal and no longer considered it a sensible approach.
Yeah, anytime someone says "once in a million years" and isn't an astronomer I would doubt those numbers. My money would be on "the number we need so people don't freak out".
On the other hand, it's also easy to overstate the magnitude of a disaster. To the best of my knowledge, no one actually died of radiation exposure from the accident (and probably no one will at this point). There are expected to be a number of deaths (somewhere between 15 and 1100) from increased cancer rates in the larger population. I would hope these weren't included in the "one in a million" claim.
Can you say what effect you want comparison with? For example, acid rain has created huge problems in watersheds far away from the original power plants.
I'm talking about a sudden catastrophic global effect. To some extent we got lucky with Chernobyl and it was contained, have yet to see with Fukushima.
You lost me, how can a nuclear power plant create a catastrophic global effect? As far as I can tell there isn't any way for Chernobyl to have been worse than it was but would love to hear your thoughts. Email is in my profile.
Better or worse, it is difficult to get public support for moving from with terrible results that trickle out nearly invisibly over time to a system that still has disasters but whose disasters appear as a few big booms.
Clearly, the public is more motivated by a move to solar, which actually appears safe whatever its real overall costs would be.
The problem is that while nuclear power may be potentially have the best cost-benefit of any power source, economics and human psychology seem to imply that nuclear power as it will appear is going to be visibly dangerous something human psychology finds less desirable than the poisonous and costly status quo (see evolutionary game theory etc).
Engineers ... love to solve logistical problems and push their solutions on humans, whether these solve the human's problems or not.
Oh yeah, given the choices I'd way favor a pure solar/wind economy, with pumped hydro storage. But if we need a power plant to keep us going until then, I'd rather it be nuclear than coal.
Honestly, I'm getting optimistic enough these days to think solar may be ramping up fast enough that we couldn't kill coal any faster with nuclear; by the time we built up our nuclear capacity significantly the solar would already be ready to replace it.
(Ignoring the fact that natural gas has already been stabbing coal furiously in the chest for several years now.)
> The problem is that while nuclear power may be potentially have the best cost-benefit of any power source...
Over what time horizon?
The problem with Nuclear Fission is that it leaves behind waste that is no longer be put to any constructive use but...
1) Must be stored securely for decades, since it can be used in dirty bombs.
2) Must be stored safely for centuries/millennia, since it can leak in the environment an make a large area unsuitable for human dwelling over time frames way longer than any (most) of our current institutions have been around (and thus there is no guarantee that knowledge about the risks will be preserved).
This pretty much rules out any private, for-profit entity. The risk of their owners realizing the commercial benefits upfront and then disbanding the corporation without assuming the cost of cleanup is simply too high for this to be even considered from the point of view of the public good.
I am willing to give governments the benefit of doubt concerning requirement #1. They already have to deal with this type of problems and have the know how to do it, but the legal framework must be defined very clearly to prevent some demagogue from abjuring of commitments taken 20 years ago in the name of some pie-in-the-sky scheme. For requirement #2, it is impossible to be certain. Changes of regime do happen, and it would be unwise to expect any particular government to stay around for more than a couple of centuries.
There is only one institution known to me to have a proven record of muddling through and even waxing during uncertain times, (more or less) committing to a mission over millennia. And you can add knowledge preservation over dark ages as the cherry on top of the cake. So I guess you can have your nuclear power plan, and enjoy a relative certainty that it will continue to be taken care of, for as long as it needs to be, if you are willing to let the Catholic Church manage and operate it.
Do you guys think this will spur china to jump ahead in greening/pollution reduction? It would be incredibly costly to do so ($$$), but incredibly costly not to (people).
I lived in Utah which can get very smoggy due to winter inversions. PM2.5 levels sometimes hit 80 mcg in the winter, often the highest in the country and utterly depressing to live in.
I grew up in Hong Kong. It didn't have the cleanest air in the world but I lived in relative good health. After I left for university I heard things were getting worse and worse although I remained sceptical.
When I returned for work, the air was nowhere near as bad as it is on the mainland now but I simply couldn't survive it. Every day my lungs constricted within minutes (I have asthma.) I realised I could never return to live in my home city as I had intended to.
I was not angered by the existence of the pollution. Things change and China grows on the mainland. What I was angered by was the fact that after the handover, the government was so cowed by their new CCP masters that they wouldn't even tell the truth about the air pollution. You will never hear an HK official admit that the pollution comes from China, yet every single adult citizen who grew up in the city remembers what life was like 15-20 years ago.
China ostensibly has anti-pollution laws. The CCP's colossal corruption keeps them from ever being enforced and entire cities, my hometown amongst them, are now literally poisonous to live in.
There's a big "movement" by CCP to control this thing. It's mentioned in major party conferences. I heard there's going to be 10 Billion RMB poured into this, and pollution would be considered as evaluation parameter for "party leaders".
However I seriously doubt most of the money will end up in vein or simply stolen.
So "enforcement" is to happen but I have little trust in them.
Last time I was back in April of this year, Lantau was a little better but realistically still not good enough to consider living there, much less bringing up kids. I ended up feeling out of breath crossing the road.
I haven't been back to Macau since I was a kid though, so it looks very different now (Thanks to Mr Ho.)
My grandfather grew up in HK too. He passed away last summer, struck down by a rather horrible respiratory based cancer. However, I'm wary of too much confirmation bias in attributing that to the pollution too. It'll be interesting to see what the respiratory disease numbers are like in the coming decades.
Yeah, I live in Japan, roughly 3000km from China, but we also have to deal with China's pollution.
Although not that common, we sometimes get an alert with the weather report that the levels of PM 2.5 particulate matter (overwhelmingly blown over from China) are exceeding government safety standards, and that we may want to consider keeping kids indoors.
I remember we had similar 'smog alerts' a few days a year when I was a little kid in Los Angeles in wthe 1980s, and we couldn't go out to recess. But I think that's like what we are getting here in Japan, at a great distance separated by ocean -- nothing compared to what the Chinese people in Shanghai and Beijing are suffering.
What's surprising is Shanghai's life expectancy being really hight (over 82). Would like to have someone with some knowledge about the subject expand a bit on the pollution/life expectancy/statictics subject (there will be consequences later? etc)
It's a good guess but we probably won't see the impact for a a little while. Before Deng's reforms in the 80s industry was limited and the growth in the past 10 years has been incredible. My own grandfather's health was only really significantly affected by the pollution floating over to HK in the past 3-5 years.
I'd say wait another 10 years before the true consequences start to become apparent.
Kind of unfortunate too -- move away, and leave the problem behind. Of course there's no problem with getting out of the polluted area, but there's a problem with just giving up and moving elsewhere, forgetting the pollution exists and not trying to solve it from abroad.
Having just come back, this week, from a three weeklong trip visiting a large portion of the country (Beijing, Xi'an, Chengdu, Guilin, Shanghai, Nanjing and Shijiazjuang [along with a number of minor cities]) the pollution was by far the worse in Shijiazjuang, though not on the level seen in Shanghai this week. Shanghai was polluted, but the wind was generally blowing most of the pollution away from the city.
My impression was that most people have a rather nonchalant attitude towards the pollution. They know it is bad, but don't really know what to do about it. This includes my American brother who has been living in Shijiazjuang for the last year. Whenever the topic of pollution came up, he didn't really seem to have any strong feelings about the pollution, either way and explained that seems to be most people's attitude too.
Air pollution is one thing the leadership suffers as well. Everyone has to breathe. If the people are poor or suffering in some other way but the leadership is living large then they can ignore the issues. But everyone needs air. At some point they have to deal with it.
213 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 300 ms ] threadIt is also legal for expats to home school their kids (not legal for the locals).
There is a strong sense of entitlement present in American culture which leads to unrealistic expectations when living abroad. This manifests as the so-called 'ugly American'. China is a place where 'zero-tolerance' is literally a foreign concept, and anything is possible with persistence (and good connections). Which also implies the downside -- nothing is permanent or guaranteed, either.
Great Smog of London documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkx-2mT1-q4
But at least we have "cheap" consumer goods!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China#Poverty_reduct...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/09/americans-want-to-b...
"Market exchange is a pathetically inadequate substitute for love, but it scales better."
It's an observed phenomenon in Africa.
Also from an ethical point of view, it's not very fair to deny them the chance to become a developed nation.
Here I was expecting.. "in the western world" ;D
EDIT: and, of course, it was about CO2, not particulates. A country can make certain trade-offs about different types of pollution (particulates v. CO2 v. NOX).
Per-capita emissions are one way of accounting for the obvious fact that if Denmark (a nation of 5 million people) generated as much CO2 per year as Germany does (a nation of 80 million people), Denmark would in this hypothetical be more blameworthy, and it would be fair to ask Denmark to reduce its emissions more than Germany, as it would already be emitting far out of proportion to its size. Put differently, if every country reduced their per-capita emissions to China's level, we'd actually be in great shape. That suggests that China is not the main problem.
In 2012 they emission of carbon dioxide raised by 3%, but that increase was at least lower than in previous years, where it oscillated around 10% (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770)
29 of 71 nuclear reactors that under currently under construction are being built in China (http://world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-and-Figures/World-Nuclea...), they also have similar numbers for hydropower (see the previous link).
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-30/beijing-air-akin-to...
That's Beijing, not Shanghai, and I think we can assume that Beijing is at least slightly cleaner than Shanghai, if not by much.
According this article[0], Shanghai's level reached 602.5, which, when compared to the data on the graph you linked, is about 75 points higher than Beijing.
[0]: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/smog-extremely...
The firewall won't bother you (assuming you wish to get around it); it's there for the masses.
Any idiot with a US citizenship can get a tourist visa, lasting a year and having only the requirement "visit Hong Kong (or any other non-China location) every three months" (I was unambitious, and got a two-month one). Someone of my acquaintance says he paid a visa-help company $1000 and got a business visa, good for a year and imposing no requirements.
I have, in the past, had a working visa; if that's what you want, it's generally done by your employer, not you.
Your "I love China" kind of leads me to believe you'd be familiar with this already... what kind of complications have you experienced?
[of course, China habitually hassles journalists (Bloomberg) over visas]
Make your check paid to: Chinese Service Center .
Lucy Chinese Service Center of Greater Albany, LLC. 2394 Parkville Place Schenectady, NY 12309 Tel:(518)346-0555 Email:CSCAlbany@yahoo.com
EDIT: formatting
I have no knowledge of M visas; I just use Ls.
As a Hong Kong resident I had a 6 month visa and then a 1 year China visa. Notably, though, both times it was a 30 day maximum stay, and as a UK citizen they still always just give me 30 days per entry.
I know all about the sneaky 1 year business visa I could get. (there's some guy who sits in a hotel in TST and sorts it out for you)
But I still frequently hear stories of people who've been living there for a year or so, but when it comes to renewing they turn up in HK, apply for a new visa, and end up being granted just 15 days.
Usually they fix this, and pay someone a few thousand dollars, and they get another one year visa. But this is a hassle.
The internet thing is easily overcome with a vpn, but it's just annoying, especially as latency to western services is already pretty high.
So my choice, is "go live in Taiwan", China without some of the hassle.
Notably when I say "I love China", I frequently mean "I love Greater China".
"Taiwan - THE Greater China"
The visa changes made in July are much more strict than before, getting a one year non work visa is only possible if you have Chinese family. The visa companies from before no longer exist. But I have a working visa so I don't care.
I realize that criticism may be somewhat muted given the nature of the PRC government, but I can't imagine a city as large and cosmopolitan as Shanghai merely accepting this level of environmental mismanagement. Unfortunately, articles regarding Beijing/Shanghai pollution usually fail to mention public sentiment above the level of brief individual anecdote ("It's hard to breath on the way to the office" - Chinese citizen, etc.).
Perhaps someone local could provide some insight?
So I'm hoping that there will by outcry, but I think it is unfortunately less likely than it would be in the U.S. due to Chinese culture. I'd also like to here some local insight as well, and I hope I'm proved wrong because it would be awesome if there was a public outcry.
I think 'complicit' might be an overstatement here; it's not like you can just go vote for the Democrats in China right?
I really doubt Barack Obama would be the American president today if the real penalties for advocating for the replacement of the Republican Party regime of 2000 had included death, life in a torture camp, similar things for your family, etc.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_and_dissent_in_the_Peop...
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/02/rising-protests-i...
The thing I think is really important but often falsely confused with a lack of willingness to protest is a general distaste for the sort of personalized politics prevalent in the West. Chinese political participation in the US is lower than average. It seems like the culture in that sense is more focused on success economically and academically.
It's important to remember that the only reason the Communists have managed to last so long is because of their "support" from the start of the farmers, i.e., not killing and stealing from them like the KMT. As soon as that support is lost en masse, we will see another percieved experation of a mandate and another revolution in a long series of revolutions. What that will mean for the Chinese or whether that will mean more democracy we will have to wait and see.
My impression here in Beijing is that people are highly dissatisfied with the pollution situation. They don't want lung cancer and they don't want their kids breathing this crap.
That being said, the government is taking steps to address the issue. Specifically, due to an outcry on Weibo last year about having to get PM2.5 numbers from the US embassy's twitter feed and iPhone app (twitter is blocked, but screenshots of the iPhone app were pasted on weibo), the government here has started reporting pollution numbers in major cities around the country. So there's reporting now.
Second, they've forced the state-owned oil companies to retool to start outputting cleaner gasoline, moved big polluting industry out of the cities (steel plants, etc.), closed down barbecue pits, ended the sale of some of the more polluting coal briquettes that used to be common, and are trying to get construction sites to keep the dust down.
All of those steps are helping, but not reversing the trend (so far as I can tell or have heard). There is a push to move from coal-burning power plants to gas-powered power plants, but they need to find the gas (via fracking or other means).
Is there an outcry? There are certainly people posting about the pollution on Weibo, which is China's twitter. There are also plenty of people emigrating to the US, if they can afford it (voting with their feet, even if they can't vote here). But I think for people to do more than that, they'd need to see the government just not giving a damn. So perhaps the attitude is 'wait and see'?
Hope this helps.
By the way, one of my Beijing buddies said of the Shanghai smog: "In Beijing, we call this Tuesday."
Mind explaining what those are?
http://inhabitat.com/chinese-government-bans-outdoor-bbqs-in...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
Yes, China has 40 GWe of nuclear power coming on-line in the next 5 years. The United States currently has 97 GWe of nuclear capacity, and China currently has 13 GWe.
But China is also building 40 GWe of coal plants each year.
This is what happens when you take 500 million peasants and turn them into urban factory workers within a period of 30 years. Demand grows so quickly that even the world's largest nuclear plant construction program will only account for a fraction of demand growth.
So, not that that matters for the absolute pollution, but if that >50% is correct, their mix will improve.
Also, they try to build those plants far away from cities. That, hopefully, will spread pollution.
That PDF also states that those plans may not be implemented, as a) coal companies lose money in China because the government fixed electricity prices and b) the public doesn't want their pollution.
On the negative side, their absolute pollution will likely go up, and the gap with the western world will go up even more (elsewhere, new coal plants will often replace older, more polluting ones)
There's no shame in calling a spade a spade. You correctly perceive that the brutally authoritarian PRC government both suppresses criticism and whitewashes press coverage of environmental problems in the country.
As an aside, discussions with other westerners about China feels to me like having brunch with a couple where everyone knows the husband is cheating on the wife. The natural inclination is to engage in heroic effort to make things seem normal--to map the dysfunctional couple's relationship dynamics to that of a normal couple, all in order to preserve the all-important pretense.
Not yet an outcry, definitively discussions, humors, etc.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_1952
Certainly, when I was a kid, a trip into London was an adventure. You knew when you were near the centre of town because the buildings were all coal black.
This is a great point. We've made so much progress in this area that "pollution" can seem like an abstraction. This is something we should be impressing upon our children, in a more serious way than stories about walking to school uphill in the snow both ways, etc.
I was two years old when this picture was taken in my home-town. I remember summer days in the following years that looked like this, with the brown air leaching colors from the sunlight itself.
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/documerica111611/s...
From here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/11/documerica-images...
It didn't compare to the Great Smog, of course, but for Americans, it's closer to home and of course also closer to the present.
Those images of Shanghai (and London 1952, and Beijing and Hong Kong and, occasionally, Singapore) are the real thing, looking like scenes from a forest fire but downtown in a major city.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/06/...
(The Atlantic again!)
This qualifies as "the real thing". It's well-known local lore that local stonework was turned black by the soot. ("Black" is not an exaggeration.)
You may be right, it may be a sepia print. I don't know that much about sepia. GIMP shows 26K unique colors, and plenty of information in all three layers when decomposed to HSV or LAB. I would have thought a sepia print would be closer to monochrome.
I can assure you the brown skies were real, and that there's not much "artificial" about the crowding of the smokestacks. I still live nearby; the difference between the air quality then and now is pronounced.
It's really an odd thing to do, to approach a stranger on the internet and suggest that their memories are false and any evidence that might support them is effectively fake. How does that go over at dinner parties?
As a photographer, there were some things that jumped out at me immediately about that photo, though. I commented on it and stand by those comments.
Since you apparently thought I was talking about you and not the spin techniques of The Atlantic--a faux pas I've probably committed at dinner parties--I should have prefaced my comments with, "I think you're right. That photo, on the other hand, ...."
That's a really narrow construction of what you said. I said "I remember brown skies just like this" and you suggested that 1) The color is fake 2) I might imagine that scene with blue skies 3) the Atlantic has an axe to grind and 4) other cities have "the real thing." What am I supposed to think?
The photos were part of an EPA project specifically conceived to "document subjects of environmental concern." There was editorial intent, certainly, but nobody at The Atlantic had anything to do with it. This is all explained on The Atlantic's page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCUMERICA
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/11/documerica-images...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/collections/...
I'm trying to find out if the photo is in color or not. Certainly most of the DOCUMERICA project was in color, certainly every other photo chosen for this Atlantic feature was color, and certainly the photographer seems to have worked almost entirely with color at the time:
http://research.archives.gov/search?expression=Aleksandrowic...
It would not surprise me, at this point, to learn that the photo was in color. I don't think there is anything artificial-looking about it, it matches my memories pretty well. Yes, it has a nearly monochromatic look to it, but some scenes are really like that. Unfortunately the National Archives record doesn't seem to indicate whether the photo was in color or not:
http://research.archives.gov/description/550175
Do you have any information about scans of sepia photos? How many unique colors might be expected? I have tried doing a color count on several old photos that I'm confident started as real sepia-tint, and found color counts in the 6K-13K range, significantly fewer than the 26K that appear in the Clark Avenue Bridge photo. But I don't think that's conclusive.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2478300/Pictu...
I was in Beijing last winter when the air pollution was nearing record highs, and every time I blew my nose after returning from being outside, it would be full of black mucus. That has to be a wakeup call.
In addition, when I returned to the states (Chicago), even the air around O'Hare Airport - probably one of the more polluted areas in the city - felt so clean to me!
Yes. The 2013 WHO report "Health Effects of Particulate Matter" [1] provides a reasonable summary.
Primary long term impacts are increased mortality from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and from lung cancer.
Recent findings indicate no real safe level, with increased mortality observed at even very low levels (as seen in "clean" developed cities).
[1] http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/189051/H...
Source: Open access journal article linked from the wikipedia page you cited ;) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241116/pdf/ehp0...
Great smog of 1952 had a measured peak daily average of 1620 ug/m^3 of total suspended matter (TSM) [1].
Reported levels in Shanghai of up to 602.5 ug/m^3 PM2.5 (suspended particles < 2.5 microns).
We can convert from TSM to PM2.5 using ballpark conversion given by: PM10 = 0.6TSM [1; notes to table 3] PM2.5 = 0.75PM10 [2].
So according to these rough calculations the great smog of 1952 probably had a PM2.5 of about 700 ug/m^3, quite similar to the current Shanghai smog, and lower than levels regularly reported in other Chinese cities.
Open access sources: [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240556/pdf/ehp1... (Table 3 reports total particulate during the great fog of 1620ug/m^3, and estimates PM10 as 60% of that number = 972)
[2] http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/guide_...
I've seen estimates in the US of 10-20,000 annually depending on the source. e.g. [2], [3].
As someone who lives in a city state so small that the coal-fired power stations are literally next door to housing, I too wish there was more attention given to this.
[1] http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international...
[2] http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/coal-p...
[3] http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/study-air-pollution-cause...
PDF paper: http://lae.mit.edu/wordpress2/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/US-...
(Agreeing, needless to say)
FWIW I once had dinner with an architect of one of the early nuclear plants. They had been lied to about the prospects of a solution to waste disposal and no longer considered it a sensible approach.
On the other hand, it's also easy to overstate the magnitude of a disaster. To the best of my knowledge, no one actually died of radiation exposure from the accident (and probably no one will at this point). There are expected to be a number of deaths (somewhere between 15 and 1100) from increased cancer rates in the larger population. I would hope these weren't included in the "one in a million" claim.
Coal power plants kill ten times as many people every year when functioning as designed.
Clearly, the public is more motivated by a move to solar, which actually appears safe whatever its real overall costs would be.
The problem is that while nuclear power may be potentially have the best cost-benefit of any power source, economics and human psychology seem to imply that nuclear power as it will appear is going to be visibly dangerous something human psychology finds less desirable than the poisonous and costly status quo (see evolutionary game theory etc).
Engineers ... love to solve logistical problems and push their solutions on humans, whether these solve the human's problems or not.
Honestly, I'm getting optimistic enough these days to think solar may be ramping up fast enough that we couldn't kill coal any faster with nuclear; by the time we built up our nuclear capacity significantly the solar would already be ready to replace it.
(Ignoring the fact that natural gas has already been stabbing coal furiously in the chest for several years now.)
Over what time horizon?
The problem with Nuclear Fission is that it leaves behind waste that is no longer be put to any constructive use but...
1) Must be stored securely for decades, since it can be used in dirty bombs. 2) Must be stored safely for centuries/millennia, since it can leak in the environment an make a large area unsuitable for human dwelling over time frames way longer than any (most) of our current institutions have been around (and thus there is no guarantee that knowledge about the risks will be preserved).
This pretty much rules out any private, for-profit entity. The risk of their owners realizing the commercial benefits upfront and then disbanding the corporation without assuming the cost of cleanup is simply too high for this to be even considered from the point of view of the public good.
I am willing to give governments the benefit of doubt concerning requirement #1. They already have to deal with this type of problems and have the know how to do it, but the legal framework must be defined very clearly to prevent some demagogue from abjuring of commitments taken 20 years ago in the name of some pie-in-the-sky scheme. For requirement #2, it is impossible to be certain. Changes of regime do happen, and it would be unwise to expect any particular government to stay around for more than a couple of centuries.
There is only one institution known to me to have a proven record of muddling through and even waxing during uncertain times, (more or less) committing to a mission over millennia. And you can add knowledge preservation over dark ages as the cherry on top of the cake. So I guess you can have your nuclear power plan, and enjoy a relative certainty that it will continue to be taken care of, for as long as it needs to be, if you are willing to let the Catholic Church manage and operate it.
When I returned for work, the air was nowhere near as bad as it is on the mainland now but I simply couldn't survive it. Every day my lungs constricted within minutes (I have asthma.) I realised I could never return to live in my home city as I had intended to.
I was not angered by the existence of the pollution. Things change and China grows on the mainland. What I was angered by was the fact that after the handover, the government was so cowed by their new CCP masters that they wouldn't even tell the truth about the air pollution. You will never hear an HK official admit that the pollution comes from China, yet every single adult citizen who grew up in the city remembers what life was like 15-20 years ago.
China ostensibly has anti-pollution laws. The CCP's colossal corruption keeps them from ever being enforced and entire cities, my hometown amongst them, are now literally poisonous to live in.
However I seriously doubt most of the money will end up in vein or simply stolen.
So "enforcement" is to happen but I have little trust in them.
I haven't been back to Macau since I was a kid though, so it looks very different now (Thanks to Mr Ho.)
My grandfather grew up in HK too. He passed away last summer, struck down by a rather horrible respiratory based cancer. However, I'm wary of too much confirmation bias in attributing that to the pollution too. It'll be interesting to see what the respiratory disease numbers are like in the coming decades.
Although not that common, we sometimes get an alert with the weather report that the levels of PM 2.5 particulate matter (overwhelmingly blown over from China) are exceeding government safety standards, and that we may want to consider keeping kids indoors.
I remember we had similar 'smog alerts' a few days a year when I was a little kid in Los Angeles in wthe 1980s, and we couldn't go out to recess. But I think that's like what we are getting here in Japan, at a great distance separated by ocean -- nothing compared to what the Chinese people in Shanghai and Beijing are suffering.
I'd say wait another 10 years before the true consequences start to become apparent.
My impression was that most people have a rather nonchalant attitude towards the pollution. They know it is bad, but don't really know what to do about it. This includes my American brother who has been living in Shijiazjuang for the last year. Whenever the topic of pollution came up, he didn't really seem to have any strong feelings about the pollution, either way and explained that seems to be most people's attitude too.