I don't think this is true for particulate pollution. You may only be talking about carbon dioxide.
Also, "Somewhere else is worse" isn't a good defense, especially when it may not even be true; it's just deflection. India has a real problem here with air pollution, and pointing fingers at other nations won't fix it.
The person I replied to was saying that India's PM2.5 pollution is equatable to CO2 pollution done by the US. Which is really not true, plus he saw that opinion in a documentary about climate change. Which would be a valid opinion.
In my opinion, particulate matter is a problem that will be solved with a small amount of effort. And now in India it will be, we had similar scare in 1998 and Delhi became the first city in the world to convert entire public transportation plus all the for-hire auto-rickshaws to CNG.
On the other hand, an entire political party in USA denies climate change is even real. Plus, it's not a problem that will be fixed at all, we can merely contain it's effects.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
US emissions are 6 times bigger than India in terms of population
<sarcasm>Everything is awesomeeee</sarcasm>
Plus the BRICS (atleast India), are willing to settle with some financial and technological help in moving to renewables. But of course, that's not happening.
I am not saying that developing countries should just pollute as they wish. But the developed world have not been saints in this regard.
1. Do you?
2. America doesn't make all the cars in the world.
According to wikipedia, America made just over 12 million vehicles in FY2015, and India made just over 4 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_motor_veh...
I would also point out that India made MORE steel than the USA in the same period. Another polluting industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_steel_pro...
3. The US has gone through similar stages of growth. Pollution in cities dropped as measures were taken to improve the quality of life over there, and as technology improved.
http://www.businessinsider.in/This-Old-Picture-Of-Manhattan-... .
4. None of the above matters.
That's the wrong metric you're looking at. If the US and India both stopped making cars or invested in lower pollution manufacturing methods, that would reduce the pollutant output. It would also reduce GDP.
Neither country is willing to sacrifice their growth and industry, and so the whole world chooses to keep boiling the frog.
Until very recently (in historic terms), America was the consumer of a large share of goods produced in those markets.
So I don't think you can say technology improvements are a prime reason for mfg pollution dropping in America. It is A reason, but not the only.
Sulphates, DDT, particulates and other toxins represent immediate health hazards that we all need to work on, some more than others.
What does that mean and how is it relevant?
CO2 is not causing the smog and elevated PM 2.5/10 levels in Delhi.
Global warming on the other hand. CO2 has ruined the planet permanently.
And then not an hour later, you imply that there would be no point in trying to "educate" people like myself because it is too late and the planet is now ruined. Go figure.
Just curious, what is your opinion on nuclear fission as a large-scale energy source?
Nuclear is the cleanest energy as per records, and causes far less deaths/cancer than coal etc. However, I don't expect a country like India to implement all the precautions and take care of maintenance, when even Japan didn't do due procedures. I would take wind and solar over any other form of energy.
I believe this is your error in a nutshell. The American environmentalist movement alone has pro- and anti-vaccine factions, pro- and anti-GMO factions, and pro- and anti-nuclear factions. If you lump these people together with various other political and religious groups, just about any sweeping judgement you make is going to be wrong.
I don't want to get any more confrontational about this, but the world is much more complicated than you seem to think it is, and most people don't fit into your stereotypes. The current wisdom is just that, it is not the only position that will ever make any sense, and carrying on as if it is will only make you look foolish in the long term.
About nuclear power, those are good points. I'd point out that at least Japan did build passive-safe reactors, and at least to our knowledge no one has been hurt yet by the Fukushima incident. Any community without effective building codes is definitely not the place for that kind of project, though. I like wind and solar as useful tools, but I question some of our current policies which can incentivize using them even where engineering would suggest better options. In any case this is the kind of stuff I'm actually interested in talking about.
I'm not sure what is the best way to address this air problem in Indian and Chinese cities, but the status quo is horrible (burning wood and coal, and running unfiltered diesel engines). Using energy in more efficient and prudent ways might be their best bet in the short term, but that kind of progress is very hard to manage at scale.
You do realise there's 300 million people in the US, yes?
Education seems to be wasted on maybe 30% of the US population. That seems all right to you? Or maybe I should conduct a study?
No offense to you, but I think all those "experts" arguing on TV about this should just go and live in Delhi for a week.
How?
The French built 1960's style reactors and have a perfect safety record, 85% of electricity comes from Nuclear.
With i) modern designs and ii) re-investment in the tech, which hasn't seen advancement in 20 years, we'd solve the problem quickly.
Fukishima is avoidable, and Chenobyl ... was insanity, not even really a 'nuclear accident' (they were running reactors out in the open, without any containment or safety measures - like making sarin gas on a campfire).
Obviously it comes along with other complexities and challenges, but most of them - even long term storage of used fuel - can be addressed.
There's enough known Uranium deposits to power us for the next few hundred years - and that's even when we have not been looking for more deposits for 40 years.
Even without any 'new ideas' - we could be CO2 free within 10 years. The entire world.
We could even build CO2 'scrubbers' to pull CO2 out of the air.
Nuclear reactors are not actually as complicated as they seem, they are actually quite basic.
We have the solution in front of its, it just takes the political will, and intelligent information campaigns.
The slope isn't nearly the same.
PM2.5 and PM10 corruption are dangerous only for people in the region and are not responsible for global warming, which affects everyone. In essence, India is killing its own people and US is killing everyone.