World Health Organization: U.S. one of cleanest countries in the world

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussion Board' started by WVPATX, Jun 5, 2017.

  1. WVPATX

    WVPATX All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,161
    Likes Received:
    5,528
    Uh oh! This can't be good for the alarmists.

    WHO: United States Among Least Polluting Nations on the Planet
    18

    [​IMG]
    Getty

    by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.5 Jun 20171746


    SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

    report on air pollution, the United States was listed as one of the countries with the cleanest air in the world, significantly cleaner in fact than the air in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the UK, Japan, Austria and France.

    While France and other G7 countries lamented the U.S. exit from the Paris climate accord, America’s air is already cleaner than that of any other country in the G7.

    Following standard practice, the WHO measures air pollution by the mean annual concentration of fine suspended particles of less than 2.5 microns in diameter. These are the particles that cause diseases of all sorts and are responsible for most deaths by air pollution.

    According to the WHO, exposure to particulate matter increases the risk of acute lower respiratory infection, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, stroke and lung cancer.

    The report, which analyzed the “annual median concentration of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 μm or less (PM2.5) for both urban population and rural and urban population” found that the United States was one of the most pollution-free nations in the world.

    The annual mean concentrations of particulate matter in the air range from less than 10 to over 100 µg/m3, the report states. At the very low end of the spectrum, the United States has a concentration of just 8, while China has a concentration more than seven times higher at 59, India at 66, Egypt at 101 and Saudi Arabia with the worst air pollution at 127.

    “The mean annual concentration of fine suspended particles of less than 2.5 microns in diameter is a common measure of air pollution,” the WHO states.

    The WHO report is corroborated by a series of other such studies on air and water pollution.

    In a recent list of the 25 cleanest cities in the world, the only country to boast three cities among the cleanest on the planet was the United States of America, with Chicago coming in second place, Honolulu coming in fourth, and Portland, OR, coming in sixteenth. Unsurprisingly, no cities from China, Russia or India made the list at all.

    Similarly, another list of the 15 most polluted cities in the world featured three cities from China, three cities from Saudi Arabia, and a whopping seven cities from India. No U.S. city made the list.

    A third list, ranking the ten cleanest and ten most polluted cities in the world, placed two U.S. cities on the list of cleanest cities on the planet. The list of the most polluted cities in the world was led by two cities from China followed by two more cities from India. Two Russian cities also made the list. Again, no U.S. cities were found here.

    With such relatively clean air throughout America, how can even reputable news agencies like Reuters continue spreading the well-worn lie that the United States is one of the “biggest polluters” in the world?

    Rather than follow the time-tested practice used by the World Health Organization, which measures levels of disease-causing pollutants that get into people’s lungs, some have played a shell game, swapping a new measure of “pollution” based solely on emissions of carbon dioxide.

    The problem with this ploy is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and it is dishonest to say it is. CO2 is colorless, odorless and completely non-toxic. Plants depend on it to live and grow, and human beings draw some into their lungs with every breath they take to no ill effect whatsoever.

    Growers regularly pump CO2 into greenhouses, raising levels to three times that of the natural environment, to produce stronger, greener, healthier plants.

    Current levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the environment are substantially lower than they have been during earlier periods in the planet’s history. Without human intervention, the concentration of CO2 has climbed as high as 7,000 parts per million (ppm) in prior eras, whereas at present the concentration is just over 400 ppm.

    Some experts, such as UN climate scientist Dr. Indur Goklany, have defended rising CO2 levels as a good thing for humanity. Goklany has argued that the rising level of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere “is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally.”

    “The benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain,” he said.

    While the United States must remain vigilant to keep the level of real, dangerous pollutants to a minimum, it may take some consolation in the fact that among G7 nations, it has the cleanest air of all.
     
  2. DvlDog4WVU

    DvlDog4WVU All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    17,039
    Per capita
     
  3. WVUCOOPER

    WVUCOOPER Heisman Winner
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    52,295
    Likes Received:
    6,678
    USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
     
  4. Op2

    Op2 All-Conference
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    902
    Yes, it does mean the equivalent of per capita (per cubic meter). It would be pretty damn stupid to say the US is a dirtier country than a country 5% of its size just because it's total amount of pollution was larger, wouldn't it? The general idea is called "standardization," which allows comparisons of apples vs apples.

    "The annual mean concentrations of particulate matter in the air range from less than 10 to over 100 µg/m3, the report states."
     
  5. Op2

    Op2 All-Conference
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    902
    First of all, again you're quoting on of these world govt-type orgainziations like the WHO? That's interesting. I thought you disliked such groups.

    Secondly, what the hell doesn't this have to do with Paris? Nothing.

    You don't need a WHO report to tell you that the US is a clean country.
     
  6. WVPATX

    WVPATX All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,161
    Likes Received:
    5,528
    We are told by libs all the time that the U.S. is the biggest emitter of pollution in the world or perhaps the second biggest behind China. We are cleaning our air and water without the Paris Accord. We are one of the cleanest countries on the planet. I suspect if you polled libs, they would strongly suspect the opposite, because that is all they have been told.
     
  7. TarHeelEer

    TarHeelEer Administrator
    Moderator
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    81,578
    Likes Received:
    6,044
    WHAT?
     
  8. Op2

    Op2 All-Conference
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    902
    Since the US is a large country in terms of land, if the ranking used the total amount of suspended particles in the air then the US would be farther down the list. But the point isn't how much suspended particles the US has in the air but rather how much per cubic meter, or whatever metric you want to use. After all, the point is how many a person will breath in when they take a breath, not how many are within the official political borders of the country they're in.
     
  9. TarHeelEer

    TarHeelEer Administrator
    Moderator
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    81,578
    Likes Received:
    6,044
    Per capita is per person. Per capita would be how many particles per person. You're whack on this one.
     
  10. Op2

    Op2 All-Conference
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    902
    Per capita is per person but my point is that making whatever measure you're talking about be "per relevant unit" is what matters.

    If you're talking about wealth then you use per capita.

    If you're talking about how much pollution a country spews then you use per capita since pollution is a function of how many people you have and it doesn't make sense to say a country with 10 times as many people is a worse polluter since maybe the only reason they pollute more is because of how many people they have.

    If you're talking about how clean the air is then you talk about per cubic meter or whatever volume measure you like since what matters is how much people are breathing in when they breathe.
     
  11. WVPATX

    WVPATX All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,161
    Likes Received:
    5,528
    You're logic is fatally flawed. Pollution is not measured by person. In fact, the number of people is almost irrelevant. Pollution is measured by parts per ? (million) in the atmosphere. You can have a hugely populated country but if it is not industrialized, it likely pollute less than a much smaller country that is industrialized. I have yet to see stats on pollution per capita. It is an irrelevant measure.
     
  12. TarHeelEer

    TarHeelEer Administrator
    Moderator
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    81,578
    Likes Received:
    6,044
    I haven't gotten in on your per capita discussion yet. How can we have among the cleanest air if we're one of the biggest 3 polluters? Sorry, biggest polluters per capita. Or whatever the hubbub was about.
     
  13. Op2

    Op2 All-Conference
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    902
    As far as how clean your air is, yes, you measure by volume. But as far as how much you're polluting it makes sense to measure by person because all pollution (of the kind we're talking about I mean) comes from people.

    On one hand countries with little industrialization pollute less per capita because they don't have much industry. But OTOH, industrializing countries like China and India pollute more per capita because they have industry and they're getting more of it but they're too poor to have industry and do it cleanly. When you're poor your priority is changing the fact that you're poor rather than worrying about the environment. Only when countries become wealthier do they have the luxury of worrying about the environment.
     
  14. WVPATX

    WVPATX All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,161
    Likes Received:
    5,528
    I give up. You per capita nonsense will not change even when it makes not sense to measure on a per capita basis.
     
  15. Op2

    Op2 All-Conference
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    902
    Maybe you'll evolve into seeing it.
     
  16. TarHeelEer

    TarHeelEer Administrator
    Moderator
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    81,578
    Likes Received:
    6,044
    Not sure I'd agree that I'm wealthy. But worldly standards, yes, I have a car and a home. But take away any of my purchasing power of my income away, and that will as well.
     
  17. WVPATX

    WVPATX All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,161
    Likes Received:
    5,528
    Most polluted cities in the U.S. NYC should be first, right? They have by far the most people.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/most-polluted-cities-in-us-2017-4/#2-bakersfield-california-24

    "If you're talking about how much pollution a country spews then you use per capita since pollution is a function of how many people you have and it doesn't make sense to say a country with 10 times as many people is a worse polluter since maybe the only reason they pollute more is because of how many people they have."
     
  18. Op2

    Op2 All-Conference
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    902
    Yes, I mean in comparison to the rest of the world. You're not wealthy compared to Bill Gates.

    In historical terms a middle class American today is wealthier than 90some% of people in all of human history.
     
  19. TarHeelEer

    TarHeelEer Administrator
    Moderator
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    81,578
    Likes Received:
    6,044
    That goes back to the question, how can we be a biggest polluter but have the cleanest air?
     
  20. Op2

    Op2 All-Conference
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    902
    No, NYC shouldn't necessarily be the most polluted city. Just because you have a lot of people doesn't mean you pollute a lot (in standardized terms). That was my point.
     
  21. TarHeelEer

    TarHeelEer Administrator
    Moderator
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    81,578
    Likes Received:
    6,044
    But if you limit my purchasing power by giving away our wealth to other countries, then we're no better off (if not worse: riots, food shortages) than the currently "developing" countries.
     
  22. WVPATX

    WVPATX All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,161
    Likes Received:
    5,528
    These are your words, not mine:

    "If you're talking about how much pollution a country spews then you use per capita since pollution is a function of how many people you have and it doesn't make sense to say a country with 10 times as many people is a worse polluter since maybe the only reason they pollute more is because of how many people they have."
     
  23. Op2

    Op2 All-Conference
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    902
    First you're assuming we're the biggest polluter, which we're not.

    Next you ignoring the fact that pollution can be cleaned up or not cleaned up.

    And lastly you're assuming that pollution and clean air are being measured the same way. For example, the Paris thing was about CO2 because it warms the climate, and yet it's not a pollutant in that sense.
     
  24. Op2

    Op2 All-Conference
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    902
    Yes. And if you use per capita then you're figuring out much pollution is generated PER PERSON. So even if a town is big like NYC or small like some small town it doesn't tell us whether they're polluting a lot on a per capita basis.
     
  25. Op2

    Op2 All-Conference
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    902
    I'm not limiting your purchasing power by giving away your wealth to other countries.

    And more generally, putting money towards something doesn't necessarily mean you're out that money. What matters is how much you get back. An investment is putting money towards something. It can be profitable or unprofitable. The US gives foreign aid, which is simply giving money away, yet most agree that in the long run we end up making more from it than we give away.
     
  26. WVPATX

    WVPATX All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,161
    Likes Received:
    5,528
    Per capita with respect to pollution is a meaningless statistic.
     
  27. Op2

    Op2 All-Conference
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    902
    No it isn't. But if it was and you insisted on using total pollution instead the US would be one of the worst countries in the world if not the worst because it has a large population. But it would be dumb to just say "The US pollutes a lot, thus it's bad." Instead the question should be "Given that the US has 325 million people, does it pollute a lot?" In other words, it makes sense to take into account how many people are in the US, which means you measure it per capita instead of overall.
     
  28. WVPATX

    WVPATX All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,161
    Likes Received:
    5,528
    It makes sense to measure pollutants in the atmosphere regardless of population. Population is irrelevant. Pollutants in parts per million are the correct measure. Do you know of any agency that measure and reports pollutants per person?
     
  29. Op2

    Op2 All-Conference
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    902
    You're talking about two different things.

    If you're talking about how dirty the air is then you talk about parts per million or parts per cubic meter or whatever. That tells how dirty the air is.

    OTOH if you're talking about how much dirt people put into the air then you talk about pollution per capita.

    Agencies that measure how dirty the air is report pollutants per volume of air. But agencies that measure how much a country pollutes report pollution per person. If two countries had the same number of people and created the same amount of pollution nobody would say the one with the larger land mass is polluting less because they're polluting less per cubic meter of land.
     
  30. DvlDog4WVU

    DvlDog4WVU All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    17,039
    You really should, that is, if you want to laugh at someone and their ridiculous spin against Pruitt's fact based reasoning for pulling out of the climate accords.
     

Share This Page