Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)

pubs.acs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)

#31

Post by salmonellaeater »

ars wrote: post #14
Uchikoma wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The low hanging fruit is always getting others doing something. I for myself see the low hanging fruits with the things I can do or influence.

Honestly there isn't much you can do. Most pollution is industrial, and most industrial pollution is not in the US. Recycling just causes more pollution, so that doesn't help. You can turn lights off and install CFL's, but the difference is tiny. Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]. Coal burning in…

> Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding].

Can you explain or provide a reference? Are you suggesting that because you consume more calories if you exercise, and your food comes from farms, the extra farm pollution is worse than what your car would have produced?

Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)

#32

Post by crocowhile »

ars wrote: post #14
Uchikoma wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The low hanging fruit is always getting others doing something. I for myself see the low hanging fruits with the things I can do or influence.

Honestly there isn't much you can do. Most pollution is industrial, and most industrial pollution is not in the US. Recycling just causes more pollution, so that doesn't help. You can turn lights off and install CFL's, but the difference is tiny. Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]. Coal burning in…

What kind of silly propaganda made you read where biking causes more pollution than driving?! btw, if you look at CO2 emission and greenhouse gas emission, you'll find that USA and CHINA are pretty much tete a tete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse...

Obviously, emission pro-capita is quite different. So, yes, the low hanging fruit it in your living room pretty much.

Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)

#33

Post by forgottenpaswrd »

ars wrote: post #14
Uchikoma wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The low hanging fruit is always getting others doing something. I for myself see the low hanging fruits with the things I can do or influence.

Honestly there isn't much you can do. Most pollution is industrial, and most industrial pollution is not in the US. Recycling just causes more pollution, so that doesn't help. You can turn lights off and install CFL's, but the difference is tiny. Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]. Coal burning in…

"Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]."

That is totally nonsense. You simply invented that nonsense.

Let's put some numbers in : My bike weights 15kg, my body 85. So I move around 100kg with my bike. My small Toyota weights naked 1500kg, so I am moving 1700kg around(including my weight and gas or fuel as we call it).

1700/100 = 17 times more weight.

I move around at 30km/h max speed with my bike, normally around 15 or so. With my car it is over 80km/h.

The resistance f the air is proportional to the square of the velocity so we are using over 28 times more energy per kg(as velocity resistance surpasses rolling resistance by far).

So that's it :28x17 = 476 times more energy

So let's consider half of that because velocity resistance is going to be similar to rolling resistance somewhere in the middle, that's over 200 times more energy, but then you have to add the car shape that exposes way more than 5 times my surface on the bike to wind.

Farms don't make lots of pollution, and their pollution is natural, My grandpas had a farm. Dung is not the same kind of pollution than mercury or exotic organic compounds in the car's paint, or in the car's polymers, or in diesel exhaust.

Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)

#34

Post by dredmorbius »

abm82 wrote: post #24
ars wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly there isn't much you can do. Most pollution is industrial, and most industrial pollution is not in the US. Recycling just causes more pollution, so that doesn't help. You can turn lights off and install CFL's, but the difference is tiny. Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]. Coal burning in…

Emissions per capita in China are well under half of those in the US so something doesn't add up about your post.

C02 per capita, China: 5.77 tons

CO2 per capita, US: 17.28 tons

Population, China: 1,334 million

Population, US: 313 million

Total CO2 emissions, China: 7.754 million tons

Total CO2 emissions, US: 5.408 million tons

(Source: Google queries).

Note that this is CO2 emissions, where the article is discussion particulates. Given emissions controls (or lack thereof), China's going to be emitting far more particulate matter than the US. Factor in prevailing westerly winds and the lack of coal-burning facilities in California, and most particulate matter will come from elsewhere. Note too that long-range particulates are more likely to be small, which is to say, more harmful to health.

China's coal consumption has been growing dramatically (it's roughly paralleled, and I'd argue, fed, its industrial and GDP growth), so that China has surpassed the US within recent years on total (though not per-capita) emissions. It's on track for the latter. You can also argue that China uses much of its coal (about 40%) for industrial uses, and exports much of that manufacture, so that the US and other importers of Chinese products have essentially outsourced not only jobs but carbon emissions and pollution.

As for personal action to reduce CO2 emissions: lighting is actually pretty good low-hanging fruit. Dittos reducing your transportation usage (or sharing rides). And especially air travel. Huge contributor there.

Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)

#35

Post by Volpe »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #20
hkmurakami wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I experienced a dust storm in Japan that started in China back in 2009 or 2010 so I think problems still do exist post-olympics (but perhaps greatly diminished from before? you'd know better than me on this) But I totally agree that the coal residues are the major issue at hand.

When I lived in China in 2002, we had more than a few dust storms where the sky would turn completely yellow...it is a bizarre surreal experience. On my recent tour of duty starting in late 2007, I only experienced one dust storm in the spring of 2008, then nothing. I haven't seen one for a very long time, but it could be that they've just solved the problem for Beijing (doubtful, since we are right smack next to Inn…

> This is like the only thing...the only thing...that has gotten better in China while I've been here!

Slightly off topic, but what are the things that have gotten much worse?

Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)

#36

Post by Volpe »

ars wrote: post #25
abm82 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emissions per capita in China are well under half of those in the US so something doesn't add up about your post.

Emissions of pollution or emissions of CO2? Plus China has a LOT of people, and a TON of them are rural and very poor - it's not exactly the preferred way to reduce emissions (of any kind).

I think the point is, China isn't the one that needs to reduce, it is the US.

Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)

#37

Post by gtani »

2nd or 3rd order related :

    How much could a growing supply of airborne wildfire soot be contributing 
    to the decline of Greenland's ice reflectivity? How important is soot 
    to amplifying Greenland's melt?
http://www.outsideonline.com/adventure-travel/adventure-ethi...

Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)

#38

Post by ars »

salmonellaeater wrote: post #31
ars wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly there isn't much you can do. Most pollution is industrial, and most industrial pollution is not in the US. Recycling just causes more pollution, so that doesn't help. You can turn lights off and install CFL's, but the difference is tiny. Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]. Coal burning in…

> Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]. Can you explain or provide a reference? Are you suggesting that because you consume more calories if you exercise, and your food comes from farms, the extra farm pollution is worse than what your car would have produced?

Yes, and because your body is much less efficient at converting that energy into motion than a car is.

Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)

#39

Post by ars »

forgottenpaswrd wrote: post #33
ars wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly there isn't much you can do. Most pollution is industrial, and most industrial pollution is not in the US. Recycling just causes more pollution, so that doesn't help. You can turn lights off and install CFL's, but the difference is tiny. Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]. Coal burning in…

"Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]." That is totally nonsense. You simply invented that nonsense. Let's put some numbers in : My bike weights 15kg, my body 85. So I move around 100kg with my bike. My small Toyota weights naked 1500kg, so I am moving 1700kg around(including my weight and gas or fue…

Lots of numbers and you ignored the only two important ones because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notion.

1: The efficiency of converting that energy into motion. A car is MUCH MUCH more efficient than a person.

2: The amount of energy from diesel needed to grow those food calories in the first place. Again, a car comes out way way ahead.

> Farms don't make lots of pollution, and their pollution is natural, My grandpas had a farm .... not the same kind of pollution .... in diesel exhaust.

A farm with no tractor. Interesting. Maybe in your grandpas day, but certainly not today. Farms use a TON of diesel to grow that food.

Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)

#40

Post by ars »

crocowhile wrote: post #32
ars wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly there isn't much you can do. Most pollution is industrial, and most industrial pollution is not in the US. Recycling just causes more pollution, so that doesn't help. You can turn lights off and install CFL's, but the difference is tiny. Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]. Coal burning in…

What kind of silly propaganda made you read where biking causes more pollution than driving?! btw, if you look at CO2 emission and greenhouse gas emission, you'll find that USA and CHINA are pretty much tete a tete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse... Obviously, emission pro-capita is quite different. So, yes, the low hanging…

> What kind of silly propaganda made you read where biking causes more pollution than driving?

Do the math. It's quite clear. You don't realize just how much fuel (diesel) farms use to grow that food, and then your body is not as efficient at converting the food into motion. It's a double whammy and you end up with cars being more efficient than bicycles.

> Obviously, emission pro-capita is quite different.

Yes. Obviously. And since this article is talking about pollution why would you even look at CO2 numbers?

Post reply on HN