Yes, smog in India is bad, and they better do something about it, but that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread which is about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
Actually, I personally think it has a lot to do with greenhouse gas emissions and the 'scare' about climate change.
Let's consider what we know (that is what sensible people know) with a high degree of certainty, that merits serious action and planning be taken in order to prevent further harm to a significant percentage of the population in many countries.
Emissions from the burning of fossils fuels, such as coal, oil and gas, and also forest burn-off, or Slash and Burn practices for agriculture purposes in many undeveloped countries, such as Indonesia, Northern Thailand, Myanmar, South America and so on,
can cause serious health problems. There's no doubt about that. This can be verified medically and scientifically, without reliance on computer models. The health consequences of these emissions of various Sulphates and Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, traces of heavy metals such as Mercury and Lead, and in particular, small particles of carbon, have been known for many years.
As countries in the West developed industrially, the populations in the cities and urban areas frequently became exposed to soot, smog and haze, but as a result of an awareness of the health consequences, such countries gradually reduced the problem through government regulation of emission controls on power stations and vehicles.
What I find revealing is that, despite this medical knowledge and certainty about the health consequences of the burning of fossil fuels without adequate emission controls, that has been known in developed countries for many decades, undeveloped countries such as China and India seem to have ignored, or at least downplayed such knowledge in the interests of economic development.
So, I'll repeat that notorious election slogan from Bill Clinton, which I find very relevant. "It's the economy, stupid."
And I admit I can sympathize with this attitude. Is it better for a population to languish in poverty, and sometimes starvation, and suffer the effects of untreated diseases due to a lack of hospitals and a general lack of economic development, but have a relatively clean atmosphere with little pollution from fossil fuels?
Or is it better to give priority to economic development and deal later with the air pollution problem, as we did in the West (and are still doing of course), and as China is currently doing?
As I see it, there are two basic approaches to dealing with air pollution. One is to develop better ways of burning fossil fuels that have better emission controls. The other is to develop alternative and renewable sources of energy which don't have any direct emissions.
Smart countries like China and Japan are combining both approaches. The following article addresses the issue quite comprehensively.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/05/15/432141/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/"Beijing’s solution is to move full speed ahead with renewables while simultaneously investing in what may become the most efficient, least polluting coal fleet the world has ever seen."[/b]
I've attached a graph from the article showing the massive decline in the number of polluting 'Subcritical' coal-fired power plants during the past couple of decades in China, and the significant increase in the much-less-polluting Supercritical and Ultra-supercritical coal-fired plants.
For the benefit of those who don't have the time to read the article, the following quote describes the terms, Subcritical, Supercritical and Ultra-supercritical.
"Subcritical: In these conventional power plants, coal is ignited to boil water, the water creates steam, and the steam rotates a turbine to generate electricity.3 The term “subcritical” indicates that internal steam pressure and temperature do not exceed the critical point of water—705 degrees Fahrenheit and 3,208 pounds per square inch.
Supercritical: These plants use high-tech materials to achieve internal steam temperatures in the 1,000–1,050 degrees Fahrenheit range and internal pressure levels that are higher than the critical point of water, thus spinning the turbines much faster and generating more electricity with less coal.
Ultra-supercritical: These plants use additional technology innovations to bring temperatures to more than 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit and pressure levels to more than 5,000 pounds per square inch, thus further improving efficiency."
However, these modern, low-polluting, Ultra-Supercritical power plants still emit CO2, although at a reduced level. If CO2 were a pollutant, this would be a problem. However, I think the Chinese are smart enough to understand that it's not CO2 which is causing smog in their cities and which affects their health.
The Chinese also have the historical records which show that their civilization flourished during warm periods in the past. Could it be a mere coincidence that they are now beginning to flourish again during the current warm period?
The scare about 'catastrophic climate change' due to CO2 emissions, is a
psychological and political ploy which is used to encourage and motivate societies to pay more attention to the harmful effects of the 'real' pollution from fossil fuels. We don't want a continuous repetition of undeveloped societies, like China and India, struggling to develop their economies by burning fossil fuels as cheaply as possible, without regard to the polluting emissions. There has to be a better way.
China is showing that better way. Countries such as Australia that accept the dubious claim that CO2 is a pollutant and refuse to build new, Ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants, are at risk of falling behind economically. Rising energy prices, static wage growth, and unaffordable housing for young people, are current problems in Australia that are due, at least in part, to the uneconomic shift towards more expensive and less reliable renewable sources of energy. It's very sad to see such incompetence in my own country.
