This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The World's Most Polluted Countries
Much has been said in the past year about China's unprecedented pollution problem. So much, in fact, that both China and Goldman Sachs have noticed, because it goes without saying that it is not easy to conduct a healthy investment climate in a city in which one needs a mask just to go outside and enjoy the lack of sun. Which is why we were amused to see the latest gimmick conceived by the Goldman reality adjustment wizards who have come up with a new metric: pollution per unit of GDP.
This is how they explain it:
As part of the efforts to reduce China’s carbon footprint, the Chinese government announced in 2011 its goal to reduce carbon intensity (CO2 emission per unit GDP) by 17% in 2015 from 2010 levels. Based on IEA’s estimate of China’s CO2 emission in 2010, we estimate that China’s 2015 carbon intensity target could be around 149g/Rmb, compared to 179g/Rmb in 2010. If China is successful in reducing its carbon intensity not only would it be more comparable with the rest of the world, but it may also serve as a strong catalyst for other countries to taper their emissions
In other words, while you may be drowning in unbearable smog (don't believe us? just check @BeijingAir), all those unknown toxic particles you are inhaling are actually not that bad when one divides them by the epic housing bubble and ghost cities you call GDP. Visullay this looks as follows:
Taken to its absurd extreme, should China build an infinite amount of empty cities in the Gobi desert, or break enough windows and thus push its GDP to somewhere just why of positive Keynesian infinity, China's GDP problem should melt away.
Joking aside, if one were to measure pollution in its conventional way, in terms of PM2.5 concentration per volume of air, China is really not all that bad. According to the WHO there are at least 6 countries that will need to take some pointers from Goldman on how best to fudge their GDP so their Pollution/GDP ratio also gradually drifts away to zero.
Presenting: the most polluted countries in the world.
Source: WHO and Goldman Sachs
- 41514 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -




Humans are cockroaches.
We are raping this planet.
http://www.planbeconomics.com/2013/06/ugo-bardi-on-plundering-planet.html
baron rothschild? is that you?
It's clear that colder is cleaner....or it just looks that way covered in ice or snow.
Happy EPA
So we are supposed to believe this shit from WHO & Goldman?
Seriously, why are we still having this moot conversation? CO2 is NOT pollution, it comes out of every breathing creature on the planet, and has gushed out of volcanoes/vents since the beginning of time.
Atmospheric CO2 levels reached a saturation plateau and ceased to cause measurable warming for an increase in concentration back 10s of 1000s of years ago.
Not to mention that every green plant on the planet sort of likes CO2, and is willing to trade us for the 02 that we die without. Why are we even engaging in dialog with these climate scare clowns? They aren't listening because even they don't believe what they're saying, it is just a means to an end.
Someone in the past made the prophetic statement that the PTB would tax the very air we breathe at some point in the future and was laughed at. Guess what?
I wonder why no one talks about planting trees?
I was reading about the 'Little Ice Age', between roughly 1550-1750 (interestingly we largely only have data from the Northern Hemisphere, for that period). Of course it was preceded by a 'warm period', in which the populations of Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia would have experienced a boom.
So the author suggests the 'Little Ice Age' may have been contributed to by HUMANS stopping their methods of 'slash and burn' farming in North America. Stopping their farming because they were dead. From disease. All in the effort to link any change in the climate back to human actions. Any way... What I thought was interesting was the author was completely glossing over the fact: "the population decreased due to increased mortality rates, which in turn had an impact on the extent of slash and burn farming... which (supposedly) had an impact on the climate."
The choices then are:
Decrease the planet's population, or
Plant more trees (and burn fewer).
I just found it interesting the author (Charles C Mann) didn't follow his conjecture to its logical conclusion.
Japan #18 what a joke!
did they forget the F word?
i don't think co2 has much to do with the graph above comparing countries, the crux of the headline. nor are the top half dozen or so countries particularly volcanic.
you may ask what is PM2.5?
Particulate matter, or PM, is the term for particles found in the air, including dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. Particles can be suspended in the air for long periods of time. Some particles are large or dark enough to be seen as soot or smoke. Others are so small that individually they can only be detected with an electron microscope.
Many manmade and natural sources emit PM directly or emit other pollutants that react in the atmosphere to form PM. These solid and liquid particles come in a wide range of sizes.
Particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) pose a health concern because they can be inhaled into and accumulate in the respiratory system. Particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) are referred to as "fine" particles and are believed to pose the greatest health risks. Because of their small size (approximately 1/30th the average width of a human hair), fine particles can lodge deeply into the lungs.
this seems, to me, a reasonable measure of pollution. there are certainly others.
We also might want to add: water pollution, soil pollution, radiation pollution, indoor pollution from off gasing and food pollution from chemical treatments and genetic modification. Finally, one of my favorites: mind pollution from media, religion, education, politicians and propaganda, false science and societal destructon.
Oh my, a denialati using discredited nonsense, i.e. Making up shit about saturation and twisting factoids to suit an otherwise intellectually bankrupt agenda....
Hahahahahahahahaha, inflation solves all probelms, even polution.
me? no, I was just thinking of how you could get a cupcake out of a cube of plastic in the next 50 years.
Have you considered dousing yourself in Raid? Just a thought, I don't intend to.
Nah, I only spray people named Fred.
Waste of time since Fred is already Dead
Issac Hayes where the fck you been? Or was the Curtis Mayfield?
Mayfield. His "Best Of" album has some really good stuff on it.
One less human roach.
I truly feel the same. No, I don't want to kill off all the masses for the elite, I'd like to reduce them all across the board. Imagine another 100 years of this -- will we run out of landfills for all our non-biodegradable trash? Hell, we can still find earthen artifacts from thousands of years ago.
Dr. Ehrlich, paging Dr. Ehrlich your wanted in the Soylent Green peace and passing room. Your first asshole..
Then ban disposable diapers, that filthy convenience accounts for more than 30 percent of landfill volume.
Well what's stopping you? You have it within your power to reduce world population by one.
But methinks you were being coy above - you want other people to die so as to cause you less of an inconvenience.
Sounds a little elitist, like something a Rockefeller or Rothschild would say, don'tcha think?
maybe. in any case world population growth is slowing, many countries such as china, iran, much of europe, russia are already under replacement rate.
as women gain a little education, money and power (freedom from male control) they choose to have fewer children, nearly universally.
the above is baked in the cake. as for the economic growth/pollution increase which will accompany each of these increasingly rarer additional humans, the kondratieff winter is more of a maybe. but it certainly looks like the leaves are changing color.
I think we should reduce very specific populations, such as bankers and CFR members. I have this gut feeling that with 0,01% less humans we might do a lot better in general. But what do I know, I'm just a roach...
speak for yourself - can the hyperbole too
Did you forget your sarc on/ tag or are you just another HuffPuff prole? Just askin :)
As opposed to a run-of-the-mill Hedgetard?
cockroaches...how did you even get one down arrow for that
OH MY GOD! IT'S CO2! It's turrible!
Fukushima? New Mexico? Hanford? That's just progress.
I still find it interesting we talk about overpopulation, when the results of corporate activity in support of consumerism are more extensive and destructive.
Stop giving cockroaches a bad wrap. They are at least useful to the ecosystem.
Japan might leapfrog every country what with the hairbrained Fukushima dealings. Hear the latest?
Fukushima: Japan Building Giant Ice Wall As TEPCO Gets Go Ahead
http://thenewsdoctors.com/?p=160257
Climate change = Ice wall melting
CO2 isn't pollution and it doesn't cause sky-darkening smog. That's other pollutants like NOx and sulfur compounds that do that (think: 1970s Los Angeles).
Correct. Amazing difference between 1970's Los Angeles and today. That soup was horrific.
I remember it well ... cough!
And this whole CO2 as pollutant nonsense must be stopped... Sure, if it was a huge percentage of the atmosphere maybe we'd fairly call it a pollutant. But at 0.4%? The US EPA needs to take its head out of its ass and stop acting as a captured regulatory agency for the neo-environmental movement. Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where astroturf public relations "science" didn't substitute for real science?
If any of you are in the Southern Oregon area and want to learn more about the "neo-environmental" movement, I'll be hosting a free screening of the outstanding documentary "BLUE." J.D. King, the film maker, will be joining me. Click here to learn more, and here if you have a Facebook account. If you're not in the area but have friends that live in Southern Oregon, send them the info. This whole "war on carbon" is not based on science but only the precautionary principle. Climate change is not settled science, no mater what some people say. The trailer for the movie makes for informative 2 minute viewing: BlueBeatsGreen.com
The climate WILL change.
Preparing for it has to be sensible, whatever the cause.
The Americans are complaining about Canada's dirty oil and Canada did not even make the list.
Wall•e Official Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alIq_wG9FNk (2:20)
WALL-E Spacewalk (Define Dancing)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsQFuesfaoI (2:39)
Last I heard plants needed CO2 to breath, so they could fart O. Maybe its O thats the poison not the CO2 but: then that seems a tough sell with O breathers making the calls.
Cant have O without plants doing the hard labor of making somthing sweet, and Us living on plant farts. Umm the sweet smell of plant farts.
"Plants require oxygen during the day as well, because respiration doesn't stop. But they produce more oxygen during the day than they use up, so an excess of oxygen exists. At night, plants do not photosynthesise, but their respiration produces carbon dioxide (not monoxide). Plants require little oxygen during the night"
The squid won't stop short stroking the agw angle. CO2 is not pollution. Lead, arsenic, mercury, sulphur, that's pollution. CO2 is harmless. Nobody pollutes moar than China.
So basically the right side of the chart is consuming what the left side produces.
canada's not on the radar probably because some of the
cities can register as low as 4 for pm2.5
what about depleted uranium and iraq?
what about thorium, cesium...etc.. and japan?
entirely different discussion i guess.
I call bullshit. I'd think any country the US has gone to war against would definitley make the top 5 considering we dump our nuclear waste all over them. And Japan should be number 1 considering they have a nuclear reactor spewing cancer causing radiation into both ground and air....which is (assuming that is considered a pollutant) making it's way to the West Coast of the USSA.
Cannnnn youuuu smelllll what Barackkkk is coookinggg? (obscure reference to The Rock via his WWF career)
Let's ask a simple question....
Are humans fucking up the planet?
??????????
Many people just wildly speculate based on egoism, ignorance and fear. Everything is perfect. Just link up with the Almighty One.
yes we are, but so is everything else on the planet.
volcanoes, earthquakes, ice sheets, waterfalls,
tornadoes, tsunamis, elephants, sharks, geese,
rats, bamboo, ivy league schools, dirty restaurants,
dirty water dogs, ultra violet light, opium,
did you know there have been found over 3000 different
strains of bacteria, never mind the virus particles
and trace narcotics, on a single one dollar bill?
meteors, lightning, solar flares, gamma rays from deep space,
poison ivy, and more.
the danger in adopting the idea that man is destroying
the planet is that it leads directly to the conclusion
that mass murder is a public service, you must appreciate
that logistical trap, no? how fragile is our morality?
.
we are f..ing up our environment/s, the planet does both,
create and destroy those environments in both dramatic
and subtle ways. the thing called life works in wondrous
and disturbing ways, apparently fucking up is a huge part
of it. what happened to the wise men? weren't they supposed
to offer something of value to the whole banquet?
If someone built a giant dome over D.C. that would solve about 75% of the global polution problem...
Global Climate Chill would commence. The oceans would start to freeze and the sun would blow up.
Who the fuck cares about CO2? Global warming seems one of those things I can adapt to. Thick air with tons of particulates is not.
considering that the biggest killer of mankind is , without exception, starvation and plague-----both of them at times exacerbated by the anarchy induced by war, or even at times both as a direct byproduct of it---------pollution is truly low on the list .
evne if you are a jared diamond type worried about resource depeletion, it's not so much the pollution that kills as the lack of those resources necessary for creating that formerly toxic pollution.
i'm not 'downplaying' pollution per se, just prioritizing it in the hierarchy of catastrophes. it's still quite low.
look at chernobyl. chernobyl was so bad that in japan they simply decided that they could ignore a nuclear catastrophe worse than chernobyl and go on as if mostly nothing had happened.
and gues what, the japanese are still far more at risk from social breakdown resulting from a financial catastrophe than from the obvious current and future sky high rates of cancer in japan that will result from fukushima.
thing is when you kill people ever so slowly, it's generally not a problem for 'society' because the social order is premised upon a structure of political military and logistic pressures that all build up to the margin threatening catastrophic release.
even with chernobyl, gorbachov commented that it was not the radiation, but the cost of the cleanup that helped put moscow and the soviet union over the financial edge and into catstrophic political prolapse. fortunately, they were able to push the prolapse back in and putin is cleaning up the mess. but the radiation is still there and the wildlife refuge around chernobyl is apparantly filled with wildlife.
pollution be damned. seems that there is an awful lot of landmass to pollute before we have to worry about it killing everything and everyone.
Your backward-looking shortterm view just occupied a lot of space on Zero Hedge. Thats a waste of energy, and causes pollution.
In 30 years, Fukushima will still be spewing, and the bioaccumulation of harmful radionuclides will have driven Japan, Canada and the US to the top three spots of the chart.
Starvation and disease have nothing on genetic passports issued to entire nations preventing them from childbearing.
Think of all the contaminated fish.
i've spent a hell of a lot of time reading up on radiation diseases and cancers.
i understand full well the true long term scope of radiation. it is for lack of a better word, horrific. perhaps even worse is the notion that this 'invisible' killer is real and everywhere slowly working its magic . betwtixt arnie gunderson and the history of cover ups of nuclear disasters in america specifically, and japans notoriously propogandistic and hierarchechal neofuedalist culture, it's obvious that fukushima is probably orders of magnitutde worse than hiroshima and is STILL spewing radiation and will continue to spew radiation for a long time to come. --the ice wall idea sounded liek a joke at the time, but now that th ejapanese are pursuing, they reall do seem like a mad house death cult embracing suicidal self deception.
and here is the tough part------but so what? history does not care about any country or any civlization or any culture or language.
i do just think you are having a hard time digesting my perspective because it is based on a more john-lock malthusian view of the social contract and the biggest threats to it. we probably don't disagree on many of the udnerlying points.
historically starvation and plague are well known to be the true killers.--not only in pure numbers but in the sheer destablizing velocity of their sweeping spread. that velocity causes panic in society and helps contribute to the ferocious socially destablizing effects of both plague and starvation. while few regimes are known to have deployed plague to their advantage in anything but routine warfare, mao tse tung was well known to have deployed mass starvation tactics on his own country men in order to use the chaos and depopulation to his advantage consolidating power.
evil yes, masterful social darwinism combined with real politique, quite possible. i suspec the u.s. military harbours many a 'planner' who have described exactly how to deploy these strategies against foreign nations, as well as our own. after all, what is the difference. a human meat sack is a human meat sack. it's the mentality underlying such planning that defines reckless disregard for human life; playing god, the angel of death, shiva.
but as to your quip about nuclear being the 'real threat' ------ consider that the forest surrounding chernobyl can rebound and thrive with life in less than a century ( in fact demonstrating through the 'refuge effect' that it is human commercial development that is the most prevalent factor in dneuding and enervating the growth of life in a forest) ,
do you really think that fukushima will destroy japan, let alone civilization. ?
it's an unpleasant fact but rates of cancer cna easily skyrocket and it wouldn't make a difference. for millenia average life expenctancy of mankind was well below 60 years of age, and infant mortality sky high. huamn being can breed very prolifically, and it is our capacity to do so, in the most animalistic manner, along with our great genetic diversity , that nearly guarantess the proliferation of the species no matter the vast array of threats we could possibly face ---from massive asteroid , to nuclear war, to other threats.
it is quite possibly these capacities that allowed us to outcompete, or succesfully interprede hybridized and then dominate other subspecies like ....the neandertals. our very biological core as a species is HYPER competitive , and this means that as a species we can tolerate enormous amounts of individual deaths, and lots of genetic bottlenecking. we are highly diverse as a species, and there is plenty of reserve left in us for millions of years to come perhaps. we can and will evolve in the long run.
and this is another way of saying that man could easily go back to the stoneage and survive. and rebuild civlizations ten times over. and have them destroyed. again and again and again.
for fuck sake---humanity has survived multiple ice ages WITHOUT ANY OF THE MODERN AMENITIES OR TECHNOLOGIES OF CIVILIZATION, POSSIBLY WITHOUT FIRE FOR MUCH OF THAT TIME AS WELL.
think on that......surviving ice ages without fire.
human beings are truly survivors. we need precious little to survive and procreate. civilization, well, that is another matter altogether.
CO2 is not pollution. Fuck the socialist nonsense!
the cross country chart is about PM2.5. Particulate matter, or PM, is the term for particles found in the air, including dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. Particles can be suspended in the air for long periods of time. Some particles are large or dark enough to be seen as soot or smoke. Others are so small that individually they can only be detected with an electron microscope.
Many manmade and natural sources emit PM directly or emit other pollutants that react in the atmosphere to form PM. These solid and liquid particles come in a wide range of sizes.
Particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) pose a health concern because they can be inhaled into and accumulate in the respiratory system. Particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) are referred to as "fine" particles and are believed to pose the greatest health risks. Because of their small size (approximately 1/30th the average width of a human hair), fine particles can lodge deeply into the lungs.
so . . . real pollution.
with the co2 per gdp there is a positive correlation between man-made co2 emissions and other more clearly polluting emissions such as mercury, arsenic, pm1-10, hydrocarbons, etc. not 1 but closer to it than is comforting, imo.
Tremble in fear of dirty air, but the fact remains that the residents of Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong live longer than Americans. The women in HK outlive everybody, and the men are running a close second to Japanese men. There's more to health and longevity than air.
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/china-health-miracle
Just one of many sources that back up my statement.
Humans can shut down ALL manufacturing, extinguish all fires, and kill all the plankton and trees and farting animals, but they cannot stop CO2. One volcano in one day will produce more CO2 than all of these combined. There are about 1550 active volcanoes at preseent. These Carbon-Fearing Cretins remind me of the story of King Canute trying to stop the tide by royal edict.
with the way the US manipulates its GDP, i'm surprised it has any pollution at all. these charts are super suspect. the US has less pollution than Switzerland. give me a brake. charts are BS.
if you can imagine earth without humans and their trash it would be very beautiful.
You and John Lennon. Why don't you do your bit, and go join him.
If you want to make yourself cry and nauseated at the same time just Google or Bing "Pollution in China" and look at the images. That is real pollution. Pollution is stuff that is directly toxic to life and China, India, Russia and many others have it in spades. I would trade all their pollution for some extra CO2 as it would be a huge net gain.
CO2 is not a pollutant by any traditional meaning of the word. It is natural and you can argue what the effects of more or less CO2 is but we are already losing when we call it a pollutant. It dinimishes the real meaning of the term...but it does advance the arguments for more government power and that is the real purpose, right?
I agree with you about CO2 to some extent, because it is small on the scale of pollutants and environmemental spoilers generally, but it is indicative of everything else going on, like Caesium emissions from Fukushima are indicative of many other radioactive nuclides like Strontium and Plutonium.
OK Fukushima can never be fixed, but the regular pollution in China can be easily fixed by "clean fuel".
Back in about 1962 I experienced the last Great Smog in the London area, when I literally could not see my own feet in "day light".
Meanwhile the Clean Air Act had been introduced and it very soon ended smogs.
No reason why China cannot do the same in short order.
How come it just looks like the biggest polluters moved their manufactoring somewhere else so they can say It's not me, it's you.
It's the same amount of pollution, it's just coming out somewhere else.
Exactly what I observe too, since Western manufacture got moved off-shore.
What was one produced in the US by largely American workers was produced with much lower environmental impact than the countries where the goods are now produced. The latter countries rarely enforce what little environmental standards they do have. Further, the goods were previously produced at better living wages that produced tax revenues for state and local governments who can't print their own, and kept more of our money at home. Producing off-shore lowers the value of our US dollar, which also seems to be part of the plan.
So now, Americans think they are getting a great deal at WalShart, whereas they are only brought into participation in the planned dissolution of our economy and our country for the enrichment and empowerment of global interests.
That is only a small part of the story. Try to open new manufacturing facilities in the USA, especially in liberal states. It can take years and you never know how you will get treated. We have the highest business tax rates in the world. When taxes go up something else must go down.
There are lots of extra risks in foreign countries and you have to move the stuff across oceans and through customs. It is not just about someone working for a fraction of a Western wage. It goes much farther and deeper. I actually suspect most companies would prefer to stay local but it is difficult to compete and you never know when the latest elected leftists will go hostile on your business or industry.
If you mix bullshit statistics with bullshit statistics, they're still just statistics.
Here are a couple guys who don't think CO2 is the problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPRdb5x3yi8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R26PXRrgds
Finland looks great this time of year!
stopped reading the article and started laughing as soon as I saw it was just a big CO2 chart.
correlation, causation...people seem to have trouble with that one.
especially those that subscribe to bad statistics.