
Four Years After Declaring War on Pollution, China Is Winning - keeganjw
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/upshot/china-pollution-environment-longer-lives.html
======
nneonneo
For some useless anecdata, I visited Beijing five times in the last year -
compared to my visits in years prior, the air was definitely cleaner. In years
past they’ve had entire months where the particulate level never dropped below
“very high” - visiting in that month was like suffocating in an airport
smoking room.

The authoritarian government has its pros - not having to worry about your
regulations, laws and work rolled back every four years is nice. It makes it
possible to have long-term plans and execute really aggressive, even
economically harmful policies in pursuit of a goal.

Of course, the negatives of such a government - the corruption, the abuses,
the drive to maintain power - are all too often the downfalls of such a
system, and I’m rather afraid that Xi has started down a bad road by trying to
cling to power there.

~~~
hristov
Then again if they had a democratic government it is very unlikely they would
get in the present state of pollution to begin with.

~~~
mazerackham
I find it hard to believe that if you truly sat down and thought about it from
first principles for an hour, that you would actually believe that

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
Or looking at historical pictures of a city with street lights on at mid-day
because of industrial smog ... [https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevintang/stunning-
photos-of-pittsb...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevintang/stunning-photos-of-
pittsburghs-air-pollution-in-the-1940s)

~~~
nneonneo
I live in Pittsburgh. The air is clean now and the water is clear - but
there's constant reminders that it wasn't always this way. Although most of
the historic buildings were cleaned of soot, a few chose to keep some parts
sooty and black as a reminder of what once was - a great example is the Mellon
Institute just a few blocks from my work
([https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/mellon-institute-
columns](https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/mellon-institute-columns)).

It did take Pittsburgh a long time to start fixing its environmental issues,
and it took the total collapse of the steel industry to fully clear the air.
Even back when I came here (~2011) people had an impression of Pittsburgh as a
polluted, industrial hell-hole - I'm so glad that it wasn't the case when I
came.

~~~
tinus_hn
Good thing you elected Trump to rebuild that industry!

------
Animats
It only took the US about 10 years to beat air pollution, and the technology
had to be developed. Now, all the needed technology is known; it just has to
be deployed.

The article writes of the US that "market-based regulations having proved the
most cost-effective." No, that's not how the Clean Air Act did the first 90%
of cleanup. It was done by mandating controls and fining polluters.

~~~
fullshark
Which lead to the actual US solution: outsourcing production to China.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
The USA had solved its pollution problem by the 80s, while the China outsource
boom started in the mid-late 90s.

~~~
coldtea
The USA had also lost lots of factories to Japan and Taiwan "by the 80s".

~~~
seanmcdirmid
I'm not sure what those two places have to do with China.

If you look at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_States),
you'll see the steep drop off in manufacturing jobs started around 2000-ish.
There was a peak in the 80s for sure, but its not like it came crashing down
that much.

~~~
coldtea
> _I 'm not sure what those two places have to do with China._

Who said they had? The comment is about how the US didn't just magically end
pollution by better laws, filters and factories, but also by dropping
factories.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Original comment:

> Which lead to the actual US solution: outsourcing production to China.

Reply:

> The USA had solved its pollution problem by the 80s, while the China
> outsource boom started in the mid-late 90s. reply

Your reply:

> The USA had also lost lots of factories to Japan and Taiwan "by the 80s".

Connection to grand parent implied.

~~~
coldtea
Connection to the parent though is explicit. Obviously I'm addressing the
parent's objection -- that outsourcing to China couldn't be the US solution,
since China outsource happened in mid-90s.

And I'm saying that, sure, it might not have been outsourced to China, but it
was to Japan/Taiwan and co.

Or, as another commenter wrote about my comment: "it’s clear that the other
commenter is addressing your question of how the US could “outsource
production” if not to China."

------
mmagin
Looking at the linked PDFs, all the data comes from "China National
Environmental Monitoring Center". Should we even trust this as much as we
trust the Chinese government's macroeconomic data?

~~~
Analemma_
The US embassy in Beijing does their own monitoring of air quality and has a
public feed for it (this was the source of the "crazy bad" description from a
couple years ago). Presumably their numbers agree with these, or the author
would've pointed it out.

~~~
fenwick67
That is a big assumption to make

~~~
dudus
Only if you didn't read the article since the author straight up says he
checked against US embassy numbers.

"Using data from almost 250 government monitors throughout the country, which
closely matches monitors maintained by the United States embassy in Beijing
and consulates around the country, I found major improvements."

------
seanmcdirmid
It is a bit ironic that we were told in 2010 that the government could take as
long as five years to the solve the pollution problem. I think its a bit
disingenuous to say they declared war on pollution in 2014, they declared war
on it much earlier than that; it would be more accurate to say that they
really meant it this time. Still, I was curious, so I looked at Beijing's
current AQI at the time of this comment:

[http://aqicn.org/city/beijing/](http://aqicn.org/city/beijing/)

260, in the purple zone (very unhealthy, vs. just unhealthy for the red zone),
so still a long ways to go.

~~~
marcosdumay
They have always been at war with Eurasia.

It's already great that the overall direction of what they say and what they
do coincides. And cleaning one's air is always an achievement, let's not
debase their work just because somebody else made it faster.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
I think you misunderstood my comment: I was living in Beijing at the time
(from 2007-2016) and was suffering from the pollution. So those promises and
failures were more than just a pissing contest for me personally, it was a
direct problem with my quality of life (to the point that my wife and I had
arguments about staying/leaving). The baby finally forced us to leave, even
260 is way too high for a newborn's lungs, I hope that is obvious!

Many of my friends left similarly or were effected by the pollution in
seriously adverse ways (one of my Chinese coworker's wife as particularly
serverely negatively effected). Let's not debase their suffering just to play
up China's achievements here. There were costs, and there will be continued
costs until they can breathe fresh air reliably. Progress is great, but it
came way too late for most of us!

------
gonvaled
How is the electricity used by the ev produced?

Electricity is not clean or dirty per se, as it is only a method of energy
transport (well, it is a bit dirty per se, since it has losses - which can
obviously be discarded if it is used to connect clean production facilities
and replace dirty energy production)

~~~
NickM
It doesn't matter. One big power plant is so much more efficient than a
million little ICE cars that you typically end up with lower emissions and
less pollution from EVs even if 100% of your electricity is from coal.

That said, China - and most of the world - is on an exponential growth curve
for renewables right now. It will take a long time for the world to switch
over to EVs, so we're better off starting now, regardless of the current
emission profiles for electricity generation.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Beijing has a separate lottery for EVs also, so if you want a car now, you can
wait for a few years for a typical ICE one, or you can get one tomorrow if you
don't mind EV. Tesla S's are selling like hotcakes accordingly.

~~~
twoodfin
Out of curiousity, how high up in the party would I have to be to get an ICE
tomorrow instead of in a few years?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Who knows. Since almost everyone has party connections in Beijing, it has
become difficult to game the system that way (it would be useless otherwise).

------
alottafunchata
I travel quarterly to China and the air is disgusting. To say they are
"winning" is fake news.

~~~
perlwle
You better name the part of China you visited. Because China is too big to
draw a broad conclusion.

When the gov announced their war on pollution, I was very much skeptical and
wasn't expecting to see a big improvement in such a short time. Lots articles
circulated in wechat were talking about moving to the south and immigrating to
foreign countries two years ago, the high of the air pollution. Everyone was
complaining. I think the Air pollution was on the verge of becoming a bigger
problem that could harm the country stability and the party ruling.

Then, We see the pros of authoritarian government in play, to echo another
poster.

From what I have heard, lot of factories got shutdown, or gone through
mandated facility upgrades to meet the standard, cities are shamed by
publishing the the worst polluted list in the national news. Air pollution
became one of the local official KPIs.

Beijing's air quality has dramatically improved this year. There were way more
blue sky days than I expected.

Granted, there are bad days like the passed few days in Beijing.

But If the Gov keeps at it, I am hopeful that clean air is coming soon.

------
r00fus
Given the gains are mainly in cities - I wonder if the elecrification of the
vehicle fleet and electric bike startups are having a big impact.

Really wish the article provided actual info on how China is beating pollution
other than banning coal in certain regions.

~~~
adventured
They're still consuming more coal than the rest of the world combined. That's
going to continue indefinitely with their current policies. The amount of
other energy they're going to need to substantially dent their coal
consumption, is truly enormous. It's going to take decades to bring their CO2
output down by a lot. Every time China so much as blinks about cleaning up
their disastrous environmental policies, the NYTimes and others write a story
about how they're winning. It's absurd.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
China is much more worried about their pollution problem than their CO2
problem. The latter is more abstract in that it leads to eventual global
warming, the former is a much more concrete and immediate QOL problem.
Hopefully, solving the former will help with the latter, but not necessarily.

------
vadimberman
One thing I could not find anywhere in the net - maybe someone here knows.

Does the Chinese government offer incentives for hybrids, EVs, and cleaner
public transit? While it may not have a significant short-term effect, it
should work in the long term.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Many Chinese cities offer a tax rebate for EVs, but only Chinese-made ones;
the Tesla S doesn't qualify.

More importantly, they get a separate allocation in the "right to car" lottery
in some cities (Beijing), or a reduced plate tax rate, or can even drive
everyday instead of 2 out of 3 days.

Electric (battery, not overhead trolly-style) and natural gas buses are
increasingly common, though I'm not aware what the current status is here.
There was one that passed in front of our apartment building in Beijing.

------
kerng
I always found it interesting that somehow the western world solved this
problem by outsourcing manufacturing to countries like China. Wonder where
China is this outsourcing to?

------
baybal2
China can fix the issue overnight if they were to mandate filters on coal
fired heat and powerplants, yet that never happened on my memory.

CCP interest in fixing the smog issue is not than genuine. The smog, and
efforts fighting it serve as a potent detractor of public opinion from real
problems. I believe, CCP is happy to keep things as they are just for that.

------
mlb_hn
Just putting this into context, NYT has an article "How China Is Challenging
American Dominance in Asia" on their front page. Not saying it's intentional
on their part, but it may be useful to understand how the title "China is
Winning" impacts the publication's larger narrative and how that can shape
peoples' perspectives.

~~~
sharpercoder
There's a radio program in my country featuring two country-famous
(war|geopolitical)-strategists. They discuss worldnews every week. Lately,
China's dominance was the topic, and the phrase "USA only has two things: a
nice weapons industry and Silicon Valley" stuck with me. As I thought about it
the days after, I could not really find anything to beat the quote with. Only
the dollar can maybe come in as a third; but even that has significant
competition from the euro and increasingly the yuan.

~~~
deesun108
How about US

1.) having the biggest economy in the world, and growing 3% per year

2.) having the biggest worldly influential movie business

3.) having the biggest worldly influential video game business

4.) having 40% of assets in the world

5.) having most of the innovations in technology

6.) having most of the biggest corporations

7.) having the most brands

8.)......etcetcetc

~~~
astrodust
Like many external observers I'm astonished at how many Americans take their
position for granted.

This is a list of things that can go away in a heartbeat. Someone living in
Victorian England couldn't possibly imagine a world where Britain wasn't at
the absolute centre and on in charge of everything, yet within two generations
that power had all but faded.

~~~
pishpash
It took two wars for Britain to slink back. But Britain is also inherently
limited by its size. The US has a rather stronger foundation and unlikely to
really go anywhere even if no longer absolutely dominant at some future time.

~~~
astrodust
The current political entity that is the "United States of America" is
geographically larger, but it's not as assured in its dominance as you think.

What if Texas splits off and takes a few states with it? What if California
decides to bail as well? That'd put a lot of pressure on New England, which
might just call it quits, too, rather than be saddled with the South.

A single thing could lead to the complete erosion of the United States as we
know it, and politically it would never recover.

If you think this is impossible, that it will never happen, the Austro-
Hungarian empire was once like this, geographically and economically dominant,
yet it fell apart surprisingly quickly.

Consider: The United States has only fought only a handful of wars on its own
soil and a few of those went really badly. A large country is harder to
defend, and if the entire might of the US military can't keep a lid on a place
like Afghanistan or Iraq what hope does it have holding together half a
continent?

~~~
pishpash
Austria-Hungry was cobbled together in a "personal union," and ended when the
notion of how states are built shifted to nationalities. Barring such a large
shift in statecraft which would affect every country, I don't see the US
breaking apart, and it wouldn't be because the military could/could not keep
it so, but because there is no real secessionist movement in the US today.

There are good reasons for this, one is unity of culture compared to most
other countries in the world, and another is federalism to tide over the
differences. Things could change if say, cloning started happening and the
South couldn't handle it, or Trump became a dictator-for-life and
institutional means didn't stop him, but somebody would have to change their
way of life for secession to be seriously on the table again. Why would
California or Texas break away today? Internal economic dynamics are
beneficial enough to keep them in. Things like language differences that might
break apart other centralized countries simply aren't issues (some localities
print their official stuff in Spanish, Vietnamese, whatever, others don't;
ethnic radio stations and TV stations exist if you want to have them, nobody
cares; you can incorporate your own cities if there are enough of "you" living
together, whatever "you" are, and you can elect one of your own as mayor, it's
a big country). During the Civil War there was still a strong notion of
states' rights, today there is not and the country is a lot more similar than
different.

Also Texas _was_ independent. It chose to _join_ and wasn't forced in. Texas
seceding is just a joke. There is a lot to be said for a country built on
strong institutional legitimacy (even the re-organized South after the Civil
War was re-admitted state by state through local votes): people don't jump for
the exits at the first sign of trouble.

~~~
astrodust
The reason the US is a single country is because the Union fought a war to
bring the South back into line. It has already split, and it could split
again.

California could quit if a dictator arises, a threat that was unthinkable a
decade ago but is now unnervingly probable. Other states like Vermont would
likely cut loose as well, they don't have time for that.

> During the Civil War there was still a strong notion of states' rights,
> today there is not and the country is a lot more similar than different.

I'd argue that people more strongly identify with their home state than with
some vague concept of "America", especially when it comes to states like
California, Texas and Florida that have their own identity. The more these
states differentiate, the more likely they are to disagree, and from there,
eventually split.

Europe's had a long time to end up in its current state, and it's still
shifting wildly. Belgium might split in half. Spain might rip apart. England
might lose Scotland. Ireland might get unified. Nothing stays static for long.

Consider the United States in its current form only really came about in 1912.
That's basically yesterday in terms of history. To think that will remain
static for another hundred years is ridiculous.

------
FruityFarm
China's killing it.

------
onetimemanytime
\- Comrade, you must close your factory tonight at 12.01 am.

\- (a millisecond later) Yes sir.

It's that simple. No matter how much money you invested in it, or what
contracts you have signed. Countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the
likes have, let's just say, "efficient" systems. The government wants it done
and so it is.

~~~
Kluny
Every government is a democracy. Monarchies, fascist dictators, republicans,
all of them are democracies. They function by the consent of the people. The
people may be sheep, brainwashed, terrorized or whatever, but in every case
there are more of them then there are government enforcers. If you push them
too hard or ask them to do the impossible, it will not work. Dictatorship is
not as easy as you seem to think - it still takes effective management to get
anywhere.

~~~
sarabande
In cases of brainwashing and terrorism, it's important to acknowledge that is
no longer what we commonly mean by democracy, because free consent of the
people is impaired. Majorities who do not give their consent can and are being
subjugated.

Here's a simple thought experiment:

Me to a group of five people: "Everyone, give me a dollar." Group: "No."

Then, I pull out a gun. Let's repeat the conversation:

Me to a group of five people: "Everyone, give me a dollar." Group: "OK."

I'd call that coercion, not a reasonable use of the word democracy just
because they all technically gave their consent.

