As we learn more about how global systems are connected, it's going to be fascinating to watch the geopolitics work themselves out.

So far a number of signs point to many effects of pollution occurring oceans away from the polluter. This won't be fun to work out, because much of international relations is based around well-defined borders in the proximity of the landmass of the country itself. But winds and waves know no limits.....

EDIT: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch, http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100809/full/news.2010.396.ht...

NOTE: 2010 article

There was a science fiction short story I read about someone who was an officer in the pollution control agency in some random city in the USA. This officer was tracking down an illegal vehicle (it was petrol powered, and being picked up by city-wide microphones). It turns out the owner of the vehicle was the head honcho of the pollution control agency, who had seen the pollution from China reaching the Eastern seaboard of the USA and decided it was game over: no point complying with pollution regulations when the pollution from China was going to kill everyone anyway.

From memory the story was called "The Breath of the Dragon". I think it was in an Isaac Asimov "Analog" magazine.

Flag this post, because HN is nowhere near mature enough to have an intelligent conversation about this topic.

This comment is not accurate. Both locations measured were in California. The correlation to Asia is the timing of the spikes and dust storms in Asia.

Not a climate scientist, so I don't know how good of an argument that is, but if you're going to post a strongly worded response you best characterize the opposing arguments correctly.

The correlation is the ratio of the lead isotopes, which is specific for that Asien region. Lead from other sources has a different isotope ratio. (Don't have data right now so I don't know how specific it is.) (Of course, mixing has to be taken into account when backtracking.)

It is actually a pretty good argument. However, it only applies to PM2.5 lead itself, since different materials can behave very differently (chemistry etc). Also, how and where the lead came from the metal ores and coal into the air is not part of the research.

The paper goes into greater detail; "a lot" ~ 29% in this case.

Using regionally specific isotope mixes to identify sources of pollution seems like a pretty good idea; why shouldn't it work?

Well, the article makes it sound like they're basing the research on the assumption that the 208Pb comes from Asia simply because it spikes in the spring. I would hope they have reason to believe in the specificity of that marker for Asian pollution, rather than actually engaging in such wild speculation, but if they do, the article skips over it.

Also, the non-sequitur about iPhones and iPads at the end is completely random and seemingly pointless.

Also needs "[2010]".

The article is wrong.

From the abstract:

'We tested whether Pb isotope ratios in airborne particles can be used to directly evaluate the Asian contribution to airborne particles of anthropogenic origin in western North America, using a time series of samples from a pair of sites upwind and downwind of the San Francisco Bay Area. Our results for airborne Pb at these sites indicate a median value of 29% Asian origin, based on mixing relations between distinct regional sample groups.'

If it was unfounded, the reviewers would have shot it down.

In other news - China Global Warming: Made in America?

How ironic that CA made such swift and strangling economic regulations that all the factories moved to china or shut down.

Now we have no control of the egregious pollution that China produces and the world (including CA) is far worse off because of it.

Why can't politicians and activists just have a little foresight for a change? This kind of thing always seems to happen. Unintended consequences will always happen, but when people warned of this years ago and the powers that be did not listen... SMH

I'm not sure how the situation you describe isn't a catch-22.

You state that if CA regulates their factories, for example: requiring that they meet strict pollution standards, they will move. When they move, CA no longer has jurisdiction over the excrement they shoot into the air.

So you state that CA should just not regulate their factories.

This doesn't sound like a solution at all.

I believe the argument the parent was making has to do with too strict controls. For instance, regulation of release of particle X can be 0%, limited to 25%, or 50%. CA regulates it at 50% so everyone moves to a 0% region. CA would have been better off if they regulated at the 25% and had them stay in CA.

The solution is to tax goods originating in places with inferior environmental (or labor, or human rights, or whatever you care about) standards to the degree that the difference in regulatory costs is moot.

An interesting addition to that would be any tax revenues originating from such country would be earmarked/donated to go back directly to that country to improve environmental, labor or human rights standards. By donating it back to the country, it becomes less of a protectionist tariff and would potentially improve conditions there, but at the same time would make companies in the US who are subject to stricter regulation more competitive.

The solution is for the Chinese to get serious about the environment, or just die off (or, if lucky, emigrate to Cali) as they've rendered their own country unlivable.

Good luck telling voters that everything at Walmart now costs twice as much. Our economy and infrastructure is now dependent on cheap goods from China. Peoples perceived standards of living have gone up because we buy all this cheap garbage.

What career politician is going to do this?

I'm not saying people would accept this. Most people are selfish, craven, and ignorant. What I am saying is it is immoral to require standards of production for your own citizens, but allow free trade with nations that lack such standards.

If you think voters would comprehend a debate about tariffs, on its own merits, you are vastly mistaken.

That is why I used the term "swift and strangling". They were too aggressive and now the planet has to pay. This is akin to vigilantes who end up killing innocents because they are overzealous. Unfortunately, these politicians don't have to answer to anyone. Imagine that, a group of "environmentalists" pushing stiff regulations actually caused more damage then they thought they would prevent. Idiots.

They could have done far more incremental regulating over a longer period of time and the world would have been a much better place because of it. How do these environmentalist planet wreckers sleep at night?

Please explain how CA regulations forced manufacturers to China, and not merely to Arizona.

>Please explain how CA regulations forced manufacturers to China, and not merely to Arizona.

Well more often not actually moving the factory to China, really it is just sending the designs to an existing factory there.

If you (as a factory owner or group of owners) were being forced to pay a huge amount of money and take a concerted amount of effort to relocate a factory because you cannot afford to make all the overly stringent environmental concessions that were placed on you (or alternatively go out of business). You would definitely sit down and consider all your options.

Do you (as a factory owner) want to uproot your family and move as well. Do you want to bet the company in an expensive and risky move? How do you know that Arizona won't pass the same law 5 years down the road?

The other alternative would be to take higher profits and less risk by beginning to incrementally phase in products made in china and eventually completely shut down your plant and leave only your administrative and engineering offices open?

What would any achievement/profit minded person do?

I think you're assuming your conclusion a bit too strongly.

How ironic CA actually gives a crap about the air their citizens breathe, wait, no, that's not ironic at all. Believe me china is beginning to give a crap also, in a major way. No one can live with sucky air, even the Chinese (and us expats who have to deal with crazy bad air quality...).

>How ironic CA actually gives a crap about the air their citizens breathe, wait, no, that's not ironic at all. Believe me china is beginning to give a crap also, in a major way. No one can live with sucky air, even the Chinese (and us expats who have to deal with crazy bad air quality...).

Even if they do eventually start cleaning up their act (which I doubt) the price has already been paid. The world now has to bear far greater amounts of global pollution (not just in the air either) than it would have if politicians and activists in the US had just taken a more incremental (and less stifling) approach.

Their blind and foolish over aggression in environmental policies resulted in worse consequences for the planet. That is plain to see now. Of course hind sight is 20/20, but there were plenty of people warning that this would happen so full blame is on the table IMO.

Did you know that 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world. These are the ships that transport these goods and raw materials to and from China http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-1...

Are you too young to know all the asthma kids that grew up in no and so cal in the 70s/80s? Pollution in California used to be bad, then the people got serious about it, and now California has clean air. Incremental my ass. I guess you would have settled for incrementally decreasing numbers of asthma kids?

Pollution has gotten so bad in china that it is seriously threatening the CCP's continued existence. They will eventually get their balls just like California did, because it's a life and death kind of situation. After living with shit air for the last two+ years! I'm convinced pansy solutions won't work.

Love the down-voted replies with no rebuttal. Shows the ignorance of HN viewers.

I didn't down vote, nor did I reply since I think your argument is a bit scattered. Obviously, we should consume less, but we should also push for better production methods. The argument that someone is willing to ruin their environment if we aren't isn't that useful; I know from first hand experience that it isn't viable in the long term....

If those 16 ships are carrying goods from most efficient source to most efficient consumer at a cleaner carbon-per-pound-per-mile rate than a fleet of smaller ships, then it's a net win.