I truely hope a virus mutates the DNA of human sperm, or eggs; making the world population decline.
29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)
41–50 of 67 posts
Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)
#42Earlier 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.
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 matte…
Who cares about CO2? (There is a serious obsession with CO2 in the world right now.)
Pollution is the problem here. And it's a real bad problem.
> And especially air travel. Huge contributor there.
Sigh. OK, lets talk about CO2: http://www.travelmatters.org/calculator/individual/methodolo...
Airplanes produce less CO2 per passenger mile than buses. And far less than cars.
And if you do want to talk about CO2, how about CO2 per GDP? After all we can't keep the entire world in poverty in order to reduce CO2. In that measure the US is much better than China.
As I've said elsewhere, the only reason China has low numbers is because of the human misery of their poor population.
Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Nope. China.
The only reason China has reasonably good numbers is that most of their population lives in miserable poverty.
Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)
#44If we want to do anything about CO2 and pollution in the atmosphere, the low hanging fruit is China. Every country has stuff it can do, but China is on the 80% side of the 80/20 rule.
Even lower hanging fruit is the stupid fires in Indonesia (both wildfires and to clear land). We could pay to either employ those farmers in something else, or to upgrade how they manage their land, for cheaper than CO2/pollution savings in US industry.
CO2 from concrete manufacture is a big issue. Considering that all the buildings being built here are concrete construction, I think China is significantly higher output than a few measly brush fires
Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
This assumes that you will eat more from the exercise--many Americans eat more than they need to, and doing something for your health makes you more conscious of that.
Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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, M…
If both of those were correct, it would cost more to cycle 10 miles every day than it would cost to drive 10 miles every day. It doesn't, therefore your points are wrong.
Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and because your body is much less efficient at converting that energy into motion than a car is.
This assumes that you will eat more from the exercise--many Americans eat more than they need to, and doing something for your health makes you more conscious of that.
I know. I said that explicitly in my original message - if you are bicycling as your form of exercise then this doesn't apply.
It's only if you are bicycling extra - then you end up eating more.
Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, M…
If both of those were correct, it would cost more to cycle 10 miles every day than it would cost to drive 10 miles every day. It doesn't, therefore your points are wrong.
Except it does actually cost more to cycle. You just don't notice because when you buy food it doesn't have a label saying where you used those calories.
It does depend on what you choose to eat though. If you eat beans vs burgers. The cheap food comes close enough to driving to not matter, but most people eat nicer food and then it's more expensive to bicycle.
Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)
#49I would like to see some numbers which tell which places in US are least affected by this kind of external pollution. As pollution from Asia is going to increase, it might make sense to look at these places especially for ppl with breathing issues.
Re: 29% of Bay Area's particulate air pollution comes from across the Pacific (2010)
#50I truely hope a virus mutates the DNA of human sperm, or eggs; making the world population decline.
I'm getting a serious Poe's law vibe from this comment and username.