500,000 - 750,000 dying every year...!

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Tingkai
And again, you still don't get it.

No, you don't.

I provided information that put the World Bank numbers into perspective. If you disagree with that information, then feel free to post information that says otherwise.

Back to reality. You provided information that had no sources. You specifically mentioned 2 studies. You could have just as easily made them up. You've been caught with fudged numbers in the past.

The second sentence is exactly what I told you to do. It's like your trying to project your faults onto me. Hell, why are you asking me for sources about India then? Just post information that says otherwise.

For now, I'll just say that I provided that information about India to put China's handling of pollution into perspective.

Seriously, I you can't be that thick.

You, however, do not provide information. You just throw out anti-Chinese insults and distort what other people say.

Nonsense, I back up most of my arguments with sources and do provide them when asked. You're simply trying to pin something that you're guilty of on me. How many times have you been asked for sources and not given them? Twice today.

Also, please point out where I have insulted China. You'd made claims like this before but always tried to weasle out of proving. Back up your slander or admit that you're delusional.

Now if you have information to post, great. But if you do not add anything meaningful to the discussion then don't be surprised when people say that you are a troll.

I believe I have posted my information. And by your crazy rules alone it's meaningful and pertinent to the topic at hand. So what is your problem? Is it just because it doesn't agree with your version of the facts?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Patroklos
MOBIUS, there is a 33% difference between your high and low end figure, that hardly smacks of accuracy.

Given the nature of the matter, it's a whole lot more credible than say a 500k-505k range.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I provided information that put the World Bank numbers into perspective. If you disagree with that information, then feel free to post information that says otherwise.

After rereading your post more carefully, I see better what you are saying here. However, that does not excuse your behavior. Don't be so quick to fly off the handle. I've been very patient with you, you could do the same favor for me.

Anyway, here are some articles as you requested:

Here's an article addresses both China's and India's pollution problem. It's hard to believe that only a few months after this article was published China had already beat the 2009 emissions predictions. But the general message is that both countries are in bad shape but India just edges out China. http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles.../10108254.html

Here we see India working with the US to build an emissions-free power plant:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=aBDx6BzoRJJk&refer=asia

Here we have India tackling its dire water pollution problem by actually spending a lot of money. Something you claim that China is either unable or unwilling to do. (see how nicely I put that).

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,493033,00.html

Now Tingkai. You can disagree that's fine. But please try to do so in a mature and thoughtful way. If you believe that I'm wrong. Please prove it and show it. Show us how China is in fact ahead of India in anti-pollution efforts or at least on par. I'll gladly reconsider my opinion, if you provide compelling evidence to the contrary. Slander and insults just sully you and give the impression that you're more than a bit biased on this subject.

[Tingkai]

None of those links show that India is doing more than China. The lack of evidence speaks for itself.

And that's your claim, not mine.

As for me, I never said China was doing a better job. Again, you distort my comments. I would say there is not much difference.

Regarding the emmission-free power plants, that is likely a reference to nuclear power. China is building these plants, I think about 30 are planned, which is quite scary given construction standards in both coutnries.

Now, since you haven't offered any methods for reducing pollution, I'll give you one that can apply in all counties -- raise the price of gasoline and electricity.

If the price of gas goes up, people will buy more fuel efficient vehicles. They'll drive less. They'll be more careful about using electricity.

But what do you think the odds of this happening in your country?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Tingkai
None of those links show that India is doing more than China. The lack of evidence speaks for itself.

The first one shows that India has done more and is more efficient energy. Preventing the problem from getting worse is the important things that both countries can do right now.

And that's your claim, not mine.

As for me, I never said China was doing a better job. Again, you distort my comments. I would say there is not much difference.

You're distorting mine. I never said that you said that China was doing a better job. I only said that if you disagreed with me, you could show how China was doing better or at least as well.

Now, since you haven't offered any methods for reducing pollution, I'll give you one that can apply in all counties -- raise the price of gasoline and electricity.

If the price of gas goes up, people will buy more fuel efficient vehicles. They'll drive less. They'll be more careful about using electricity.

But what do you think the odds of this happening in your country?

The prices of gas and electricity have been rising steadily in the US. Such to the point where people are changing their habits to conserve money. So I'd say the odds are pretty good.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I know, it is part of the age of exaggeration, and it is stupid.

I am sure the 500,000 is fine, but if there is only evidence it might be more then say 500,000+.

7,500,000 is included to make an OMFG headline.

That said, I don't want the thread jack over a technicality, I will go with "a **** ton of people" and consider the rest of the article just a relevant.

Ahem, 750,000 - not 7,500,000...

No wonder you're so skeptical.

[lord of the mark]

1. Im not sure that comparing deaths from pollution to deaths deliberately inflicted by states makes sense. As deplorable as pollution is, its a result of economic development. China, I presume, has a lower death rate now than it did before large scale industrialization started.

2. The best way to begin to make real progress on pollution in China will be political change. There are already protests related to pollution problems in different parts of China. China is probably just about at the point economically where large parts of the population are motivated to do something about the worst pollution. However Chinas one party system, and unfree press limit what they can do. Democratization will do the most wrt pollution.

[Patroklos]

No wonder you're so skeptical.

That's right, but the oil and car companies are the ones getting representation, not us.

You realize the "oil/car companies" are you and me and everyone else. I love how people talk about corporations like they are evil sorcerors living in a dark tower over yonder

[Lancer]

Funny, I don't recall ever making a single decision regarding oil/car cos. I specificly never decided to take the electric car off the road, or make cars with such horrible mpg or such a short usable life. I particularly didn't decide to make all these roads everywhere that brought about the demise of the RRs.

[Patroklos]

Denial is an ugly thing Lancer. How many times have you willingly gone to the pump this year? How many times did you conciously decide your car is more convinient than the bus? Or to live in a more affordable/nicer place not within a bike ride from work?

Or better yet, think about all the other facets of society you love and enjoy that are only possible because of oil. I could name some, but I want you to think about it.

[DinoDoc]

I might have maybe built one or two extra refineries so I don't screw everyone when regular maintenence requires a shutdown.

[Patroklos]

True,

And on a more direct note how many Americans work for an oil/energy interest, own stock in one of the companies, or have money invested in a fund that uses the oil/energy industry as an investment?

This "those guys" mentality is stupid.

[lord of the mark]

If I have a diversified holdings, and I own, say, a small holding in a sugar company, and a large holding in a candy company, I'll be damned if Im going to support say, sugar import quotas. The holding of a small amount of stock in company X doesnt imply that my overall interest matches company X's political agenda. even IF the managers of company X are faithfully advocating for maximization of shareholder value. In that sense "they" makes perfect sense. Company managers will advocate policies that support share value, while I as both diversified shareholder and citizen must consider that the value of my shares in any one company or industry may be offset by my other interests.

As for decisions made as consumers, thats not relevant. Of course we make decisions to maximize our interests, given the price signals we face. But pollution is an externality, and is not adequately reflected in price signals. I may well want to change policy so that it IS adequately reflected in price signals, even while I act selfishly as a consumer. And I may, on that basis, oppose the lobbying of firms that want to avoid that full pricing of that externality, even IF I own shares in them.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Lancer
The west is in no position to compain about poluting. Are we pouring money into solar? Legislating mpg? Forcing the car companies to make electric cars? Taxing cars that drive down the road in order to get people to use trains? ...

None of those things has a major effect on pollution. You can have a high mpg vehicle that pollutes heavily per unit of fuel that is worse than a low mpg vehicle with lots of anti-pollution measures. The extreme example would be an electric car that is charged by current coming from an old coal-burning power plant.

I particularly didn't decide to make all these roads everywhere that brought about the demise of the RRs.

The rising cost of labor is more responsible than the mere presence of roads. If labor costs were lower then it would be economical to truck to a rail head, move by rail, then transfer back to truck for local/short range delivery to end user.

On the other hand, you do decide to make roads every time you drive the roads yourself or use a product shipped by road. You should walk to your farmer's market instead of driving to Krogers. And then convince the farmers to get a mule and carry their produce to market that way.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
As deplorable as pollution is, its a result of economic development. China, I presume, has a lower death rate now than it did before large scale industrialization started.

This is an interesting point. I'd like to see estimates of poverty-related deaths in pre-industrial China.

When has industrialisation ever been painless?