Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: The 10 Most Air-Polluted Cities in the World

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like

    The 10 Most Air-Polluted Cities in the World

    [QUOTE]The 10 Most Air-Polluted Cities in the World

    TIME/CNN

    Environmentalists here in the U.S. are not happy with President Obama, in part because he pulled back on a promise to tighten ground-level ozone and smog standards for air pollution. But American greens should remember: much of the rest of the world has it far, far, far worse.

    That's one takeaway from a new report by the World Health Organization that looked at urban air pollution around the world. The most polluted cities tend to be found in developing countries. No surprise there—poorer countries tend to have dirtier cars, factories and power plants, and rarely have or enforce the kind of environmental regulations that have—over the course of decades—become common in the developed world. But what's interesting is that the urban areas with the worst air aren't the sort of Dickensian megacities one usually hears about: Beijing, Chongqing, Bangkok, Mexico City. The losers are smaller cities, many of them in Iran or South Asia, and none of them economic dynamos.


    Here's the top—or rather bottom—10:
    1. Ahwaz, Iran

    2. Ulan Bator, Mongolia

    3. Sanadaj, Iran

    4. Ludhiana, India

    5. Quetta, Pakistan

    6. Kermanshah, Iran

    7. Peshawar, Pakistan

    8. Gaberone, Botswana

    9. Yasouj, Iran

    10. Kanpor, India


    What do these cities all have in common, aside from the fact they're not likely to show up on a travel agent's ? They're all very poor For the most part, they're fairly poor—though the presence of a city from the African nation of Botswana on the list, where the per-capita income is over $8,000, shows that even middle-income countries can suffer from grievous air pollution. (Note: Thanks to my former colleague Simon Robinson for pointing out my mistake on Botswana.) Residents often burn heavy, polluting fuel for heat and energy—including firewood or even dung, which can produce heavy, thick smoke. Add in old, diesel-powered cars that belch black carbon and growing population density in urban slums—plus weather conditions like Ulan Bator's extreme cold, which worsens air pollution—and you have an ugly mess.


    But it's not just about looks. Air pollution—both indoor and outdoor—is a major health hazard. The WHO estimates that over 2 million people a year die prematurely from bad air—most of them in poor countries and cities. That's greater than the annual death toll from HIV/AIDS. And the more researchers learn about the effect of air pollution on the human body, the worse it seems to be. Pollution particles less than 10 microns in diameter—what the WHO calls PM10—are particularly nasty, penetrating deep into the lungs and the bloodstream, where they can help trigger heart attacks and other cardiovascular disease. In animal models, such pollution has even led to brain damage.

    The WHO air quality standards recommend 20 micrograms per cu m of PM10 or less. Just to give you an idea of how polluted the world's most polluted cities are, Ahvaz in Iran has 372 micrograms per cu m. Air pollution is a global health catastrophe, but because it's happening invisibly—and mostly in the developing world—it's one that doesn't get anywhere near the attention it deserves.

    Worst of all, there's little that residents of heavily polluted cities can do to protect themselves—after all, everyone needs to breathe. Your best bet might be to simply leave—in which case, let me recommend the beautiful Yukon city of Whitehorse in Canada, which has just 3 micrograms per cu. m of PM10, making it the cleanest city in the WHO rankings. Just keep in mind—winter temperatures can drop to -7 F (-22 C). But the air is amazing.


    Bryan Walsh is a senior writer at TIME. Find him on Twitter at @bryanrwalsh. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME

    [url]http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/09/27/the-10-most-air-polluted-cities-in-the-world/#ixzz1ZGbHOfV6[/url][/QUOTE]

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    Racists.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4164145]Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

    this is what happens when there's no regulation

    i also was angry at Obama for delaying the better ozone laws but I understand why he did it and can agree it is much worse in other parts of the world.

    at least we have the regulations that we do have, the clean air act was probably the only thing Jimmy Carter did right.

  4. #4
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4164169]this is what happens when there's no regulation[/QUOTE]

    [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGkI8/S9zckRHY3QI/AAAAAAAAHSU/UvuZeHfk_OE/s1600/obama-strawman.jpg[/IMG]

    No one running, as far as I know, is running on a "no regulation" platform Bit.

    No one.

    Less/different =/= none

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4164196]
    No one running, as far as I know, is running on a "no regulation" platform Bit.
    [/QUOTE]

    not even Ron Paul?

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4164273]not even Ron Paul?[/QUOTE]

    Is he still in the race? Who knew.

    If we're using fringe folks, can I claim Dennis Kucinich represents the Mainstream Liberal Straw Man for me to beat against, like you do on "no regulation"?

    I'll say it again, no one running is proposing "no regulation". Even Paul would retain regulation is some forms, and Paul is as fringe as they come with 0% chance of getting a nomination.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,316
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4164169]this is what happens when there's no regulation

    i also was angry at Obama for delaying the better ozone laws but I understand why he did it and can agree it is much worse in other parts of the world.

    at least we have the regulations that we do have, the clean air act was probably the only thing Jimmy Carter did right.[/QUOTE]

    The Clean Air Act was signed into law by President Johnson in 1963

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4164291]The Clean Air Act was signed into law by President Johnson in 1963[/QUOTE]

    See Carter didn't even do that right!

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,316
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4164273]not even Ron Paul?[/QUOTE]

    Clueless.

    Ron Paul argues that pollution is a crime. Read this excerpt from his book:

    [url]http://books.google.com/books?id=MuATfqcjS5QC&pg=PT64&lpg=PT64&dq=ron+paul+revolution+pollution&source=bl&ots=r4C4kXD6AU&sig=UOLYTyowwWRFsa9-VHsDnMm-xH4&hl=en&ei=v16DTvq3Ms2fOuP3pB8&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false[/url]

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4164287]Is he still in the race? Who knew.
    [/QUOTE]

    not only is he in the race his warchest is in the millions

    we can play semantics but endless opposition of new regulation isn't great. it's not the same as "NO regulation" but it's not great.

  11. #11
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4164316]we can play semantics[/QUOTE]

    It's not semantics.

    No one is running on a "no regulation" platform.

    [QUOTE]endless opposition of new regulation isn't great[/QUOTE]

    No one running opposes all "new regulation" Bit.

    Your straw man is looking a little shabby.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4164333]
    No one running opposes all "new regulation" Bit.

    Your straw man is looking a little shabby.[/QUOTE]

    ok mr grammar police which political party does more to protect the air we breathe?

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,316
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4164345]ok mr grammar police which political party does more to protect the air we breathe?[/QUOTE]

    Well, if this isn't right out of the liberal propaganda playbook, I don't know what is.

  14. #14
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4164345]ok mr grammar police which political party does more to protect the air we breathe?[/QUOTE]

    The Democrat Party is generally stronger/more proactive/more aggressive in terms of "air we breathe" regulation in regards to pollutants and industrial biproducts.

    Since neither party is running on a "no regulation" or "Repeal the Clean Air Act" platform, this ties into your original post:

    [QUOTE]this is what happens when there's no regulation[/QUOTE]

    How again? :confused:

    And perhaps more importantly to the greater issue of World Climate, how does our (US) efforts to curb our pollution (at potentially economic/quality-of-life cost) get minimized or even overrun by other developing nations continuing to pollute in great grimy masses?
    Last edited by Warfish; 09-28-2011 at 02:18 PM.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4164381]
    And perhaps more importantly to the greater issue of World Climate, how does our (US) efforts to curb our pollution (at potentially economic/quality-of-life cost) get minimized or even overrun by other developing nations continuing to pollute in great grimy masses?[/QUOTE]

    well there's several issues here. this article speaks about pollution, which is not necessarily the same as talking about climate change.

    note the article spoke about a town in the Yukon with the best air in the world. some dude burning dung in Iran doesn't change the Yukon air quality. Pollution is (often) local, bu climate change isn't...

    and they are often different chemical situations.

    for example diesel fuel actually acts as a cooler to the temperature but it is murder on the lungs. burning dung might have no climate change effect but a huge pollution effect. I don't know all the cause/effects and truthfully no one really does at this stage of the game. but we all breathe air, asthma and other lung ailments are on the rise (even in the relatively clean USA) and I support clean air.

    As for climate change I don't know that there is a fix. But there is a fix for pollution. and if you listen to the tea party and other GOP candidates they are not pushing for more regulation they are pushing for less.

    Heck there are GOP congressmen trying to open up wilderness to logging and mining interests, that's our national parks being given away to big business. What's the effect on pollution or climate change, i don't know, but I don't like it either way.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,316
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4164426]well there's several issues here. this article speaks about pollution, which is not necessarily the same as talking about climate change.

    note the article spoke about a town in the Yukon with the best air in the world. some dude burning dung in Iran doesn't change the Yukon air quality. Pollution is (often) local, bu climate change isn't...

    and they are often different chemical situations.

    for example diesel fuel actually acts as a cooler to the temperature but it is murder on the lungs. burning dung might have no climate change effect but a huge pollution effect. I don't know all the cause/effects and truthfully no one really does at this stage of the game. but we all breathe air, asthma and other lung ailments are on the rise (even in the relatively clean USA) and I support clean air.

    As for climate change I don't know that there is a fix. But there is a fix for pollution. and if you listen to the tea party and other GOP candidates they are not pushing for more regulation they are pushing for less.

    Heck there are GOP congressmen trying to open up wilderness to logging and mining interests, that's our national parks being given away to big business. What's the effect on pollution or climate change, i don't know, but I don't like it either way.[/QUOTE]

    Like I said, clueless :rolleyes:

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4164471]Like I said, clueless :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    why do you even make a post like that? clearly in violation of the rules of this forum.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,316
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4164507]why do you even make a post like that? clearly in violation of the rules of this forum.[/QUOTE]

    I don't know any easier way to reiterate that you once again have no idea what you're talking about.

    Did you bother to read the excerpt I posted from Paul's book?

    Don't answer. We know you didn't. If you did, you wouldn't be able to make the claims you make in your above posts about GOP/Tea Party candidates. At least not without knowingly lying.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    742 Evergreen Terrace
    Posts
    10,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4164345]ok mr grammar police which political party does more to protect the air we breathe?[/QUOTE]

    I'd say the democratic party does more to protect the air we breath. Unless we're talking about an alternative energy source that might interfere with a democrat's view of the Atlantic Ocean from Cape Cod. Then all bets are off.

  20. #20
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4164345]ok mr grammar police which political party does more to protect the air we breathe?[/QUOTE]

    I honest to god, literally just LOL'ed.

    You can't hug your children with nuclear arms!!!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us