
Pollution cover-ups exposed in Chinese provinces - Ultramanoid
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01661-1
======
jammygit
As a Canadian, I wish my country was better about energy use per capita. In
Alberta, a lot of that comes from coal too. China does pollute a lot, but per
capita they are far from the worst

~~~
ltbarcly3
You are conflating CO2 and all forms of pollution.

~~~
jordanbeiber
But, also remember that a lot of pollution in China subventions our life-style
in the west.

If someone is able to build factories and produce basically any piece of
plastic, electronic device or clothing we use, far cheaper than over here,
there’s bound to be trade-offs.

These trade-offs concern human rights and the environment.

If we were to, say, halve our consumption of “stuff”, this would have a
massive effect on pollution in China.

(But what about the holy growth?! :))

~~~
simonh
There's no inevitability about economic growth in China and reduction in human
rights. That's entirely a political decision. By themselves, economic growth
and increasing standards of living provide more opportunities and freedoms.

Environmental impact is trickier, less economically developed nations struggle
to contain the environmental impacts of growth due to the costs involved.

~~~
jordanbeiber
There’s no denying they have taken it upon themselves.

I see it as a highly conscious longish term strategy for them, as now they
have become a player to count on.

I also believe it’s been stupidly greedy, not to mention short sighted, of us
(or “the market”) in the west.

You seem to be implying that moral and ethical considerations doesn’t really
exist in our economy, which is exactly what I’m sorta’ trying to get across in
my point.

Edit: I wasn’t referring to Chinas growth, I was actually thinking about BNP
etc “over here”. And while expanding on the topic - using BNP as a sole metric
of success is just such a bad idea.

------
tepidandroid
Looks like the central environment ministry is doing its job discovering and
cracking down on these offenders.

Good.

------
baybal2
Reminds me of story how "desert greening" was run in Hebei.

Trees were planted, counted by officials, and then uprooted and the same
plants were replanted again the next day.

~~~
UberofXplsgo
Yes, this is a significant problem because of the strange irony that for a
communist country, the Chinese government is run like a business. There are
targeted metrics and goals and promotions and pay increases tied to them.
They've had a long documented history in the past with suspected gdp reporting
fraud. Every time they add a new metric to monitor as a target there is the
possibility of potential fraud or gaming the metric in an unproductive way
such as planting and unplanting trees.

------
kerng
I think the West solved some of its pollution problems by outsourcing them to
China...

~~~
mieses
and we should stop.

------
zwaps
Interesting point made in other threads is whether the trade war would reduce
pollution.

There is, theoretically, an opportunity. As supply lines move away from China
to other SE Asian countries, Western countries could make environmental
standards a requirement for trade.

In new facilities, say in Vietnam, one could try to start with a blank slate.
Since its new, prices likely would not rise much more than they would anyway.

But of course, Trump.

~~~
makomk
It wouldn't matter how sensible the environmental standards were, because the
Trump administration was making them.

For instance, a year or so ago the EPA placed heavy new restrictions on
asbestos, all-but-banning most of the previously legal uses by requiring
manufacturers and importers to prove their safety to the EPA's satisfaction
and indicating that wouldn't be possible. (They couldn't just outright ban
them.) This is how you'd have seen this action described if you found out
about it from HN: "EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing".

Now, this was of course completely untrue. Prior to the rule, companies were
allowed to import, manufacture and sell every asbestos-containing product
covered by it whenever they liked, without any EPA approval. The new rule
replaced that free-for-all with an intentionally hostile approval process
where companies had to convince a skeptical EPA that actually, asbestos was
safe before they started manufacture or import and wait for them to complete
their risk assessment (which they've indicated will probably be "fuck no" in
all circumstances). Anyone who read the notice or researched the status quo
should've know that. It also wasn't particularly suprising; it was the
culmination of a years-long process that started under the previous
administration, and it ended in about the toughest restrictions they could
legally place.

It didn't matter, though, because it fitted into the correct narrative about
the current administration - and this was a restriction on a really unsafe
substance that was in the pipeline for years and didn't even have anything to
with Trump or his trade war.

~~~
HillaryBriss
i'm against the use of asbestos and have been for years, but my understanding
has been that the fear of lawsuit has been an effective force preventing
companies from introducing additional uses of asbestos in recent decades. most
manufacturers were already avoiding the use of asbestos in their products like
the plague. in any case, i don't think federal regulators had sufficient legal
authority to actually ban it.

but, I think the way the press is handling this is interesting and I'm glad
you highlighted it. when I searched for "epa asbestos rule" I found about 10
articles stating that the EPA was ignoring its own scientists in issuing its
latest ruling about the use of asbestos in products.

but I also found this recent headline on CNN: "EPA announces nearly complete
ban on asbestos," which seems to have happened in response to earlier
criticism. or something: [https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/17/politics/epa-
asbestos/index.h...](https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/17/politics/epa-
asbestos/index.html)

it does make it a bit difficult to figure out what is going on and whether or
not this administration is actually pro or con. IDK.

------
fovc
The EU is based on the free movement of goods, capital, and people. America
has essentially open borders for the first 2 but not the third. I wonder if it
had picked a different 2, what would've happened?

~~~
officialchicken
Know when you are reading whataboutism[0].

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)

