Bad Earth: the human cost of pollution in China – in pictures

[ScienceRocks]

Bad Earth: the human cost of pollution in China – in pictures

Tuesday 12 April 2016

This series of images shows the extent of China’s pollution problems and the human toll of exponential growth on local communities in China’s vast and severely damaged northern region.



http://www.theguardi...ges-toxic-lakes

This is how unregulated capitalism looks like. I thank god we have the epa, clean air standards and treat our environment with a element of respect in this country.

 

[ScienceRocks]

In reality we do need the epa and regulations to demand that shit like the above never happens in our country again!!! It will effect you and it doesn't end at your goddamn door step.

 

[Bleipriester]

The price of cheap mass industrialization...

 

[Unkotare]

Look at the history of the US, or any other country, at their stage of development. We weren't too preoccupied with the environment, child labor, or safe working conditions during the Second Industrial Revolution.

 

[waltky]

Granny says it's from the smoke o' all dem Chinese fireworks...

Study: Air Pollution Kills Millions, Hurts Economies
September 08, 2016 | WASHINGTON — Air pollution has emerged as the deadliest form of pollutant, causing 5.5 million premature deaths globally in 2013 - four times the toll from HIV/AIDS and six times the lives lost to malaria.

The data comes from a joint study by the World Bank and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, published Thursday. Young children and the elderly are hardest hit, with tiny airborne dust-like particulates doing the most damage, the study finds.

Indoor air pollution comes from burning solid fuels like coal, wood or dung for cooking and heating, and it is also taking a steady toll. Outdoor air pollution from vehicles, industry and other sources has gotten worse since 1990.

People jog past the Pudong Financial District shrouded in fog and pollution at the Shanghai Bund in Shanghai, China, Thursday, April 14, 2016. Air pollution has caused 5.5 million premature deaths globally in 2013, outpacing disease, a new study has found.​

The economic cost in lost wages alone was $225 billion, with an overall impact many times higher. Air pollution is estimated to cut eight-tenths of a percent of GDP in South Asia, and six-tenths of a percent in sub-Saharan Africa. Losses in East Asia and the Pacific were lower but still significant.

The report’s authors say quantifying the death toll and financial losses strengthens the case for using scarce resources to cut pollution. They urge "more ambitious action” and say health officials should take air pollution as seriously as they take deadly diseases. The study says about 87 percent of the world’s population lives in areas affected by air pollution.

Study: Air Pollution Kills Millions, Hurts Economies

 

[Old Rocks]

Look at the history of the US, or any other country, at their stage of development. We weren't too preoccupied with the environment, child labor, or safe working conditions during the Second Industrial Revolution.

And Trump and our 'Conservatives' would take us back to those conditions.

 

[Unkotare]

Look at the history of the US, or any other country, at their stage of development. We weren't too preoccupied with the environment, child labor, or safe working conditions during the Second Industrial Revolution.

And Trump and our 'Conservatives' would take us back to those conditions.

Hyperbolic nonsense.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fucking bullshit on your part. He has stated his opposition to all the EPA rules, period. And many of the 'Conservatives' on this board have stated that they want to see the EPA abolished, and let the companies do whatever they want. We have been down that road before, we don't need any more rivers on fire, or towns with the citizens smothering from air pollution.

 

[Unkotare]

Partisan hysteria, with a big dose of disingenuous garbage.

 

[Crick]

Unkotare, do you deny that the RNC and American conservatives have opposed environmental legislation for the past 50 years? The republican party would like to eliminate the EPA and roll back every piece of environmental legislation passed since Kennedy.

From Wikipedia, Political Positions of the Republican Party

Environmental policies
Main article: Environmental policy of the United States
Historically, more progressive leaders in the Republican party supported environmental protection. For example, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt was a prominentconservationist whose policies eventually led to the creation of the modern National Park Service.[21] Republican President Richard Nixon was responsible for establishing theEnvironmental Protection Agency in 1970.[22]

In 2006, Arnold Schwarzenegger, then the Republican Governor of California, signed into law a set of carbon emission regulations that were the country's first cap on greenhouse gases, and included vehicle emissions standards higher than those of the Federal Government. These regulations were opposed by the Bush administration.[23] PresidentGeorge W. Bush publicly opposed ratification of the Kyoto Protocols on the grounds that they unfairly targeted Western industrialized nations such as the United States while favoring major polluters such as China and India.[24]

In 2000, the Republican Party adopted as part of its platform support for the development of market-based solutions to environmental problems. According to the platform, "economic prosperity and environmental protection must advance together, environmental regulations should be based on science, the government's role should be to provide market-based incentives to develop the technologies to meet environmental standards, we should ensure that environmental policy meets the needs of localities, and environmental policy should focus on achieving results processes."[25]

The Bush administration,[26] along with several of the candidates that sought the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008,[27][28][29] supported increased Federal investment into the development of clean alternative fuels, increased nuclear power, as well as fuels such as ethanol, as a way of helping the U.S. achieve energy independence, as opposed to supporting less use of carbon dioxide-producing methods of generating energy. The Republican party rejects cap-and-trade policy.[30] Some Republicans support increased oil drilling in protected areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,[31] a position that has drawn sharp criticism from some activists. Republicans are deeply divided over the human causes of climate change and global warming.[32]

Green conservatism manifested itself as a movement in groups such as ConservAmerica, which seeks to strengthen the Republican Party's stance on environmental issues and support efforts to conserve natural resources and protect human and environmental health.[33]

 

[Unkotare]

Unkotare, do you deny that the RNC and American conservatives have opposed environmental legislation for the past 50 years? ....

Yes, I do deny that.