China - Food for Thought

Read this commentary over at Reuters and it raises some interesting points, but the most interesting point IMNSHO was raised by a commenter who said:

Population control takes many forms, does it not? Every government is guilty and bloody handed. Do they care? Unlikely.

As I was reading that commentary, that very thought was going through my head. I simply do not think that China cares about its population*, and if a number of them die so that China can progress economically, then they died for a good cause. It's a horribly shortsighted position to take, considering the long term effects that pollution will have, but at least to me it appears a route that China is willing to take. I don't think anything will happen in the near future unless the people demand it, and that can't happen or won't be allowed to happen.

*We already know China has stringent population control measures in place, so we know they consider themselves overpopulated to begin with.

Think about it

Stewardship

Companies have an obligation to the people who surround their holdings. The government has an obligation to the people to make sure the company honors its obligations. Unshackle the EPA.

Thousands of the nation’s largest water polluters are outside the Clean Water Act’s reach because the Supreme Court has left uncertain which waterways are protected by that law, according to interviews with regulators.

Totally unacceptable.

How did this happen?

The court rulings causing these problems focused on language in the Clean Water Act that limited it to “the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters” of the United States. For decades, “navigable waters” was broadly interpreted by regulators to include many large wetlands and streams that connected to major rivers.

However it's being argued that ...

But the two decisions suggested that waterways that are entirely within one state, creeks that sometimes go dry, and lakes unconnected to larger water systems may not be “navigable waters” and are therefore not covered by the act — even though pollution from such waterways can make its way into sources of drinking water.

Bold emphasis mine. This pollution will still make its way into sources of drinking water.

If this event ...

... occurs, you'll have read about it here first. Well, actually you can read the whole story here, but at least credit me with pointing you in the right direction.

Beneath the shimmering surface of Africa's Lake Kivu, a deadly time bomb awaits. A "gold rush" to extract valuable methane from the lake's depths might trigger an outburst of gas that could wash a deadly, suffocating blanket over the 2 million people who live around Kivu's shores.

For some reason, I get the feeling that the Rwandan government probably doesn't care. All around, it's an environmental nightmare, which should be of great concern for all of us. We can clean up our neck of the woods as well as we can (and desire), but what are we to do with every other country (especially those that are developing) that wants to pollute their environment?

Unfortunately, there's an economic incentive for companies to pump waste water into the shallows, says Finn Hirslund of COWI, a Danish environmental and engineering consultancy. This nutrient-rich water triggers algal blooms that then die and sink, helping to form even more methane. "If companies mess around with the lake's density structures and accidentally trigger an entirely avoidable and deadly gas outburst, it will be a crime against humanity," he says.

Crime against humanity indeed.