After ten years in orbit, the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on NASA's Aura satellite has been in orbit sufficiently long to show that people in major U.S. cities are breathing less nitrogen dioxide - a yellow-brown gas that can cause respiratory problems.
Nitrogen dioxide is one of the six common pollutants regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect human health. Alone it can impact the respiratory system, but it also contributes to the formation of other pollutants including ground-level ozone and particulates, which also carry adverse health effects. The gas is produced primarily during the combustion of gasoline in vehicle engines and coal in power plants. It's also a good proxy for the presence of air pollution in general.
Air pollution has decreased even though population and the number of cars on the roads have increased. The shift is the result of regulations, technology improvements and economic changes, scientists say.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday June 30 2014, @10:14AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by lx on Monday June 30 2014, @10:30AM
Anyone know what's happening just north of Madagascar?
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Monday June 30 2014, @11:55AM
The location seems to correspond to Aldabra Atoll, which is supposed to be:
Maybe those tortoises keep on racing 24/7 with the rabbits... and to get an upper hand they are using dragsters.
Also puzzling: what happens on Macquarie Island? That red dot below Australia and NZ. It is supposed to be a World Heritage Site, doesn't have any active volcanoes, it is inhabited by antarctic birds, some seals and 16-40 people in 30 buildings [antarctica.gov.au]?
Could a significant population of birds be causing both of the hot spots? (I don't know, like some guano/nitrates [wikipedia.org] deposits or something)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Monday June 30 2014, @10:36AM
It's interesting how it works. When we have a profound demonstration that we can and did greatly reduce air pollution in a considerable part of the world, then immediately the claim is put forth that the pollution merely moved elsewhere. This ignores both that those other places would be heavily polluting anyway *and* that they'll clean up their acts in turn as they build up enough wealth to care.
But I guess the narrative is more important than reality.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @11:28AM
Yes, you did a great job, congrats/kudos, a pat on the back and lollies/peanuts on the house... also a "keep up the good job", seems like some of you start slacking lately [trib.com].
You feel better now?
They are doing something [blouinnews.com] before reaching the wealth USA had when they "did something" (yeah, regulations and penalties as a motivational factor... typical USian).
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday June 30 2014, @11:48AM
Interesting how some people just go to pieces when faced with modest disagreement. I'm not satisfied with your answer because it's clear you aren't thinking.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @01:14PM
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday July 01 2014, @03:31PM
More of the same. We're done here unless you happen to have a coherent argument in there somewhere.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday June 30 2014, @12:33PM
Ok, feel free to construct your narrative based on the reality of that map I linked to.
Just don't pretend that US has absolutely nothing to do with the pollution in China.
Note: I do not say US is responsible for the pollution in China, I only say that US offers a big incentive to China to put its own pollution as secondary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday June 30 2014, @12:49PM
Here's yet more confirmation for my observation. There's always an incentive to pollute - otherwise there wouldn't be pollution.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday June 30 2014, @01:19PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @03:09PM
> there's always an incentive to push people to suicide - otherwise there would be none.
Suicides happen across all groups in society, even the idle rich.
To say "there would be none" shows that you don't understand the original point and are arguing a strawman.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday July 01 2014, @03:40PM
Well, people do get pushed to suicide on rare occasion and the incentives are present such as the feeling of being responsible for taking a human life. Not everyone gets off on that, but some people do. And for those that do, that in itself is ample incentive for driving people to suicide.
I guess you're new to this argument thing. Of course, there are incentives to lock factory doors. It does help keep people from sneaking out for a smoke break or stealing stuff. There's your incentive again.
I don't get what you thought was going to happen here. These are easy to figure out. People occasionally do things for no reason that benefits them, mental illness being a common example. But pollution doesn't fall in that category. For someone to go out of their way to cause pollution in a way that actually costs them? That doesn't happen.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday June 30 2014, @08:44PM
funny enough, china is directly responsible for some of the pollution in the US [washingtonpost.com].
we need to stop thinking that everybody is isolated from one another, and recognize the world for the intricately linked system that it is. weather in africa does affect the americas (african lightning causes hurricanes [nature.com], saharan wind causes dust clouds in the carribean and south america [huffingtonpost.com]), chinese pollution pollutes across the ocean, etc.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday June 30 2014, @12:46PM
Meaningless without a map of how it was before.
It might have come down in the Far East as well, for all that map tells me.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @10:20AM
US exported all its pollution overseas, and now the world ruling class can live cleanly on their elite continent. Poor street trash can't afford cars anymore, so they won't ruin the fresh clean air. Lock up the gated communities and check for ID at every place of employment to keep the perpetually jobless hooligan scum out. God Bless the American Dream!
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday June 30 2014, @03:27PM
Was there a time when "poor street trash" could afford a car? Doubtful in any Country.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Monday June 30 2014, @11:30AM
"Air pollution has decreased even though .... the number of cars on the roads have increased."
The count of cars doesn't matter. A parking lot doesn't pollute very much, at least compared to a busy stop and go street. Go to images.google.com and search for something along the lines of "vehicle miles traveled per capita 2014" and you can see a permanent long term decline since 2008, mirroring the decline in the economy. We're back down to mid 90s levels now.
The cause is (real) unemployment rates and (real) declines in GDP. Unemployed people don't have much of a commute and can't pay for it anyway. There is also a more or less permanent long term increase in gas prices, permanent long term increase in insurance costs, permanent long term increase in car costs, colliding with permanent long term decline in employment and income and its not looking good.
Unlike real estate which you can profitably financialize multiple times, once you sell and burn gasoline, its all done.
Here's a typical Washington Post article although the statistics speak for themselves. The focus of the article is on youth (of course) but it applies to everyone pretty well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/22/why-arent-younger-americans-driving-anymore/ [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Monday June 30 2014, @11:50AM
So you're saying that a sixty year old problem reversed itself due to a recession that started six or seven years ago?
(Score: 3, Informative) by TK on Monday June 30 2014, @01:36PM
I don't know if that's what he's saying, but that's what the article is saying is one of the contributing factors, along with new tech and regulations.
Take this example of New York in 2005-2007 compared to 2009-2011 [nasa.gov]. This has been a fairly drastic change over the course of 4-6 years.
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum