One memorable example of overpopulation was the government’s reallocation of Beijing-area water for the 2008 Summer Olympics [...]]]> Introduced in 1979, China’s one-child policy was seen abroad as an overreach of communist government controlling the people, even though that nation has basic resource problems that should have brought environmental limits more gently into the public conversation.

One memorable example of overpopulation was the government’s reallocation of Beijing-area water for the 2008 Summer Olympics from agriculture and general use to the sports events and guests — since nothing screams “third world” like insufficient water for a big international celebration.

Beijing is known for its polluted air, but water supply may be a more pressing environmental problem.

Yet shrinking demographics may have persuaded Beijing to not only trash the one-child policy but to mandate two-kid families for economic reasons — it’s being seriously considered. Good luck with that.

Tucker Carlson recently analyzed the complicated China situation with expert Gordon Chang:

Spare Audio:

TUCKER CARLSON: Well, every day China edges closer to overtaking the United States as the world’s richest country, but just because they are getting stronger economically doesn’t mean the Chinese people are more free. They are not. China is still imprisoning its Muslim population in the west. Ordinary Chinese still lose access to travel or education if the government says they have poor social credit and now a hacker has discovered a bizarre Chinese database that evaluated millions of Chinese women on whether they were quote, “breed ready.”

Gordon Chang is a columnist and author of “The Coming Collapse of China,” can’t come too soon. He joins us tonight. Gordon, thanks very much for coming on. What does “breed-ready” mean, and why would the Chinese government be assessing that?

GORDON CHANG: Well, breed-ready means they are able to breed children. And the reason why is because China has declining demography.

You know, if you start to look at some of the statistics, they are really frightening. So for instance, last year, their birth rate fell about 12%. Perhaps to the lowest rate in the history of the People’s Republic going back to 1949.

And we are seeing that the workforce has already topped out. The population as a whole will top out soon. China’s officials are just in a panic.

CARLSON: So they are identifying women who are breed-ready but then what do they do with that information? Is there going to be a coercive breeding program in China?

CHANG: There very possibly could be because some Chinese officials are now talking about having a two-child policy which is not a maximum two children, but they are talking about requiring couples to have two children.

Now, of course, China is not there yet. But you can see where they are going largely because they have been taken by surprise by a collapsing demography. They shouldn’t have been. People have been warning Chinese officials about this for the last 15 years. But they have sort of sloughed off the warnings but, you know, a couple of years ago they really started to see the consequences of declining demography.

CARLSON: But I mean, I have been hearing from Democrats in this country who are very concerned about having any kids because of global warming, it sounds like the Chinese aren’t as concerned about global warming as we are.

CHANG: No, and largely because every social problem, every economic problem they have, almost all of them are made worse by declining demography and the Chinese leaders start to notice and that’s starting with their economy because, you know, they grew during what was called the demographic dividend years. That was expanding workforce. Now, the workforce since 2011 has started to get smaller and it’s gotten smaller fast.

CARLSON: So we have the same demographic problems here, obviously and so does Western Europe declining below replacement rate. We just import new people from the developing world. Has it occurred to the Chinese to do that?

CHANG: No, you know, the Chinese don’t want to do that because they have a system and then basically, it’s based on racial superiority where they do view the rest of the world in inferior terms.

And you know, Tucker, on demography, within maybe three years, for the first time in at least 300 years, maybe all of recorded history, China is not going to be the world’s most populous society.

The world’s most populous society will be India and the Chinese both disdain the Indians because of this racial superiority view but also, they fear India. So people are concerned that China is seeing a closing window of opportunity and will lash out on that Himalayan border.

CARLSON: So, very quick, you just said something that almost nobody ever says which is that China may be the most racist country in the world, maybe after North Korea, but certainly, it is right up there.

The country is based on racial superiority and yet liberals in this country suck up to China constantly. Why does no one ever point that out?

CHANG: You know, that, to me, is a mystery because this nation of Han superiority is bred into the Chinese political system and you see it, for instance, they put on a skit on the China Central Television’s program, 900 million people saw it that depicted Africans as primates and it is just incredible, Tucker.

CARLSON: It’s unbelievable. But Jerry Brown is happy to call them wonderful, and so is Dianne Feinstein. Unbelievable. Gordon Chang, it is great to see you. I hope we will see you again soon, thanks.

Few reports mention that in 1990 the state population was around 30 million, while today [...]]]> On Thursday, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill into law that will force reductions of carbon emissions in the name of global warming prevention. The legislation requires a massive 40 percent cut of CO2 emissions from 1990 levels by 2030.

Few reports mention that in 1990 the state population was around 30 million, while today it is estimated to be 39 million. The Census Bureau may be hesitant to declare the scary 40 million number, an increase driven by immigration. Maybe the head-counters will go there after the election.

Plus, it should be mentioned that the self-appointed super-environmentalist Jerry Brown thinks open borders are a swell idea. In fact, he once welcomed ALL of Mexico to move here, an invitation he made astoundingly during a historic drought when there wasn’t enough water for California’s current residents, much less an additional hundred million or so.

And Third Worlders searching for a better life aren’t looking for better recycling opportunities; they come to get lots more stuff, like a bigger fancier car. Any true environmentalist understands that mass immigration to America of whatever legality is a big drain on scarce resources like water, and it increases worldwide pollution. That was essentially the argument of the Sierra Club reformers a decade ago who wanted the organization to return to its earlier stance of immigration restriction, but it turned out that the club was bought out for $100 million in donations with open-borders strings attached.

Meanwhile the manufacturing powerhouse of Red China remains the world’s top gross CO2 emitter by far. America’s outsourcing of industry has increased global pollution, because China finds it cheaper to manufacture without such regulation. Beijing has recently been promising some environmental clean-up of its factories, but talk is cheap.

Below a China steel factory in 2014 with attendant air you can see, because of its CO2 then being more than 45 percent above the global average.

So Jerry’s plan is lots more regulation, taxation and social control for California residents. Driving is about to become even more expensive, because Jerry wants to reduce petroleum use in cars and trucks by 50 percent. Even more businesses will be driven out by the unfriendly atmosphere of costs and regulation with accompanying job loss. California has been voted the worst state for business 12 years running, and it is now about to get worse.

La Times at least had the honesty to mention California population growth and how it makes the emission goals more difficult.

Gov. Brown signs sweeping legislation to combat climate change, Los Angeles Times, September 8, 2016

California will become a petri dish for international efforts to slow global warming under legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday, forcing one of the world’s largest economies to squeeze into a dramatically smaller carbon footprint.

“What we’re doing here is farsighted, as well as far-reaching,” Brown said at a signing ceremony at Vista Hermosa Natural Park in downtown Los Angeles. “California is doing something that no other state has done.”

The legislation, SB 32, requires the state to slash greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a much more ambitious target than the previous goal of hitting 1990 levels by 2020.

Cutting emissions will affect nearly all aspects of life in the state — where people live, how they get to work, how their food is produced and where their electricity comes from.

“We’re going to have to make the change about three times as fast as we’ve done so far,” said James Sweeney, director of the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center at Stanford University.

The state has already been ramping up solar power generation, handing out subsidies for drivers to buy electric cars and prodding developers to create denser communities connected to mass transit.

But research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory shows that current policies may get the state only about halfway to the 2030 goal. Right now the state is inching closer to 1990 emissions levels, a target set a decade ago by an earlier law.

That means Californians can expect to feel more of what Brown has called the “coercive power of government.” Businesses will likely face more restrictive rules, and taxpayer and ratepayer money will be needed to subsidize cleaner technologies.

“You name it, we’re going to need it,” said Snuller Price, senior partner at E3, an energy efficiency consulting firm that has worked with state regulators.

Reaching the goal set by SB 32 could be a difficult task in a growing state. California has 38 million people now, with a gross domestic product of almost $2.5 trillion, making it the sixth-largest economy in the world.

By 2030, estimates from the Public Policy Institute of California and the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy show, the state could have 44 million people and an economy of nearly $3.5 trillion, but carbon emissions would need to be dramatically reduced.

The effort will require not only policies and innovations to make clean technology more available and affordable, but political acumen to prevent a public backlash to those policies.

“Whatever it’s going to take, it’s going to take battle, it’s going to take wisdom and it will take some balance that we don’t overdo it,” Brown said. “But I’m not afraid that we’re going to get to that point.”

Some business groups have already raised concerns. Allan Zaremberg, president of the state’s Chamber of Commerce, said the law doesn’t require “regulatory agencies to give any consideration to the impacts on our economy, disruptions in everyone’s daily lives or the fact that California’s population will grow.”

Perhaps the biggest challenge is getting more clean cars on the roads, a key issue in a sprawling state where residents can face long commutes to work.

Despite subsidies, Californians aren’t buying electric cars fast enough to help the state meet its target of reducing emissions to 40% below 1990 levels. And every gasoline-powered car purchased today could remain on the road for years to come, further undermining climate goals.

Chris Busch, research director at Energy Innovation, a San Francisco-based think tank, said more charging stations could help drivers feel more confident about ditching gasoline.

“We need to be rolling out the infrastructure quickly,” he said.

Shawn Yadon, CEO of the California Trucking Assn., said businesses are spending heavily to comply with existing emissions regulations, and the new law will only exacerbate their costs.

“It’s very clear that it’s going to require new tech and new fuels,” he said.

The agricultural industry could also feel the pinch of new regulations, and the state probably will need to slash methane emissions from dairy production and landfills. Methane is about 80 times more powerful a climate pollutant in the long term than carbon dioxide.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) said the state won’t be able to rely on easy fixes to make more progress. “It’s no longer the low-hanging fruit,” Rendon said of the state making progress toward its goal. “We’re going to have to attack it more vigorously.”

The deep changes needed to hit the new emissions goal have prompted Sweeney to question whether it will be possible.

“I frankly doubt whether California is going to meet those targets,” he said. “But I hope that they can.”

It’s an effort that will be closely watched around the U.S. and the world. California has often set benchmarks for environmental programs, and environmental leaders said they hope other places will follow suit.

“California is becoming the world’s leader in the reduction of climate pollution,” said Daniel Weiss, a clean energy consultant in Washington, D.C. “Its aggressive stance will help drive innovation and adoption of clean energy policies in other places.”

A second measure signed Thursday by the governor, AB 197, shifts the trajectory of the state’s environmental policies. It creates a legislative committee to oversee regulators, giving lawmakers more say in how climate goals are met. It pushes the state to take stronger steps to curb local pollution, rather than simply seeking a statewide reduction in emissions.

“Our climate change policies, I think today and by the signing of these two bills, represent a turning of the page as it relates to focusing on people,” said Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia (D-Coachella), who wrote the measure.

The legislation does not specifically address the future of the cap-and-trade program, the centerpiece of California’s climate agenda. The program requires companies to buy permits to release emissions into the atmosphere, creating a financial incentive to clean up operations.

Cap and trade has raised billions of dollars in recent years, but revenue from the program has slowed to a trickle, and it’s facing legal uncertainty from a years-long legal battle over whether the program amounts to an unconstitutional tax.

After the new legislation was approved by lawmakers last month, Brown said he would have additional leverage to persuade businesses to support an extension of cap and trade. Otherwise, he said, the state would have to rely on less flexible policies to reach its emissions goals.

Brown said Thursday that he hoped California’s efforts would help change the minds of Republicans and businesses that have resisted climate policies.

“I don’t want to be partisan, but these guys deny science,” he said. “Anybody who lies like that should not be listened to. That’s all.”

The chart goes with a news article about the struggle of Chinese people to convince their government to tackle cleaning up their nation’s air, a [...]]]> The Los Angeles Times had an interesting front page graphic on Wednesday, showing that Beijing’s air pollution is many times that of the famously smoggy City of the Angels.

The chart goes with a news article about the struggle of Chinese people to convince their government to tackle cleaning up their nation’s air, a hugely expensive project, as we know from our own environmental regulations. We shall see whether reform happens, iffy given the stubbornness of the ChiCom leadership and the dependence of industry on old-fashioned coal-fueled energy.

The smog in big cities is unimaginable, and is obviously a hazard to human health. One report warned that in some areas, air pollution is now impeding photosynthesis and creating possible damage to country’s food supply. Water and farmland are polluted also, but the thick grey air is unavoidable.

A potential clean-up of Chinese air filth should be welcomed by environmentalists, if the greenies could unhinge briefly from their globalist perspective and celebrate an instance of national responsibility.

Unfortunately, what happens in China doesn’t stay in China. Airborne crud floats across the jet stream directly to the west coast of the United States.

Pollution From China Is Hitting America’s West Coast, Reuters, January 21, 2014

BEIJING (Reuters) – Pollution from China travels in large quantities across the Pacific Ocean to the United States, a new study has found, making environmental and health problems unexpected side effects of U.S. demand for cheap China-manufactured goods.

On some days, acid rain-inducing sulfate from burning of fossil fuels in China can account for as much as a quarter of sulfate pollution in the western United States, a team of Chinese and American researchers said in the report published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, a non-profit society of scholars.

So the “cheap” manufactured products from Red China come with a hidden cost to Americans’ health and environmental safety.

China’s prolific pollution production makes another argument for returning outsourced industry to the United States, where manufacturing will be kinder to the planet.

And why is planet-fouling Red China a member of the World Trade Association where it is given a level playing field with environmentally responsible nations? China deserves a big pollution tariff, which would be good for all concerned, particularly the ChiCom leaders who need a strong reality check to get their act together.

Here’s the LA Times article, which doesn’t mention the effects of Chinese pollution on others, but focuses on the efforts of Chinese citizens to knock some sense into politicians, which is very laudable in an authoritarian state.

China’s battle plans in war on air pollution under scrutiny, Los Angeles Times, September 10, 2014

Last fall, 29-year-old Fang Da, an entrepreneur and cycling enthusiast, suddenly found himself in the midst of a coughing fit after biking near his home in Hangzhou, in eastern China.

So he went to the Internet and started learning just how serious the air pollution problem was. Fang’s curiosity quickly turned into an obsession. He created an environmental awareness group called the Survival Guide to Haze on the Chinese social media site WeChat; more than 50,000 people now subscribe. He engaged in a high-profile battle with a Chinese smog mask manufacturer, calling out the company’s products as useless.

“We need citizens to get involved with the environment,” said Fang. “People … think it’s just the government’s responsibility to clean up the air. But to be honest, it’s the government that made it this way.”

The growing anger from citizens such as Fang has garnered the government’s attention.

In March, Premier Li Keqiang said China would “declare war” on pollution, acknowledging growing public anger over unchecked industrialization that has defiled the country’s skies, water and soil. The government has outlined plans to spend $275 billion on efforts to reduce air pollution between 2013 and 2017.

But as the effort gets underway, a key question facing Communist Party leaders is whether imposing strict anti-pollution measures from the top down will be enough. Cities and nations that have made the greatest progress in tackling environmental crises have been open, pluralistic systems responsive to citizen demands for change.

The countries that have been successful “have all been democratic, constitution-based societies,” said Donald Worster, an environmental historian at the University of Kansas who is now helping establish an ecological history center at People’s University in Beijing.

Environmental advocates are closely watching to see whether China can become the first authoritarian country to make significant progress on a cleanup, or whether environmental degradation might become a formidable driver of political change.

China’s leaders, said Worster, seem to be demonstrating a sincere intention of making progress, knowing that they must respond to the increasing public frustration to maintain their legitimacy.

“The Chinese are caught … between their political institutions and the rising demands and concerns of a rising middle class,” Worster said. One of the factors in the collapse of the Soviet Union, he added, was growing dissatisfaction among satellite states in Eastern Europe with widespread environmental pollution.

The problems are vast: All 74 cities surveyed by the government last year exceeded World Health Organization air standards. A report released by the Ministry of Environmental Protection this spring said 19.4% of China’s arable land is contaminated. And a 2013 study by the Ministry of Land and Resources found that nearly 60% of China had “very poor” or “relatively poor” groundwater quality.

Such problems have elsewhere led to growing public activism similar to Fang’s.

In the case of California’s battle against smog in the 20th century, a noisy citizens movement that began with groups such as Stamp Out Smog, feisty news media and a strong legal system were instrumental in encouraging governmental air pollution efforts — and in agitating when authorities’ actions fell short.

Shifts in China’s system are starting to materialize. The nation this year overhauled its basic Environmental Protection Law, adopting changes that Wang Yan of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s China program said will probably “emerge as a historic moment for environmental protection in China.”

The revisions, which take effect in 2015, will give a limited number of “approved” nongovernmental organizations — about 300 — the right to sue polluters in court (though international groups such as Greenpeace would not be eligible). New provisions also call for daily fines for polluters who break the law, and the possible detention of company managers for offenses, including falsifying emissions data, discharging pollutants without a permit or refusing to stop construction on a facility when ordered because of a lack of environmental reviews.

China has set up more than 130 local environmental courts; this summer, the Supreme Court established an Environmental and Resources Tribunal and has appointed a senior judge to handle cases in an effort to improve law enforcement and guide lower courts.

Ran Ran, an assistant professor of political science at People’s University, said the special courts are “definitely a big step forward…. But whether it will actually change conditions in China is unclear — enforcement is key.”

Ran said bureaucrats still are rewarded primarily for economic development and “social stability,” which can mean silencing anyone who dares to mount an environmental protest.

Such demonstrations frequently erupt in China, but authorities usually disperse them quickly. Fang, the activist, noted that residents near his offices in Hangzhou this year took to the streets in opposition to a trash-burning facility approved by the government.

“They need to sit down and talk with the government, but the government won’t talk,” he said. “The villagers then talk with their feet.”

China does not yet regard environmental groups as partners who deserve a seat at the decision-making table, said Angel Hsu, director of the Environmental Performance Index, a joint project of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and the Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University.

“They still don’t come to NGOs and say we want your help or input, we want to brief you on policy,” she said. “Plus, every NGO has to have a government sponsor, so until you really have a system of independent channels, it’s not clear how much can change.”

Information is crucial for dialogue, and China has long been hesitant to release any environmental data that might cause alarm. Still, there have been limited moves toward greater transparency.

For example, the government this year started to require about 15,000 of the country’s largest factories to publicly report emissions and wastewater discharges. And an official report in the spring on soil contamination, a subject previously deemed a state secret, was hailed by many observers.

Recently, even state-run news outlets have begun to ask sharper questions about how the government is implementing environmental regulations.

In February, when a blanket of smog covered Beijing for nearly a week, the business channel of state-run China Central Television asked why the city government failed to initiate a more intensive emergency response. Local leaders raised the pollution alert level to yellow instead of orange or red, the most serious designation, which would have mandated closing schools, restricting driving, and suspending operations at industrial plants.

“Beijing municipal government, don’t pretend to be blind in the fog,” the channel said via the Twitter-like service Weibo. “The government should not shun its responsibility or turn a blind eye to the smog.”

Eugene Leong, an air pollution expert and former executive director of the Assn. of Bay Area Governments who has been a visiting professor at Peking University, believes China has much to learn from California’s experience.

But so far, he says, he’s underwhelmed by Beijing’s actions.

“They pay lip service by saying they’re going to attack this and attack that,” said Leong. But Chinese regulators, he said, have only a “rudimentary” understanding of the individual sources of the nation’s pollution. They have not taken relatively simple steps like oxygenating gasoline to reduce emissions.

“They don’t want to spend the money to clean up the coal, the diesel, the gasoline,” he said.

Leong also takes issue with China’s campaign to go after small sources of pollution, such as outdoor barbecue stands in Beijing, before getting a handle on larger emitters.

“You lose public credibility when you start going after the little guy and they see big sources uncontrolled,” he said.

Chip Jacobs, coauthor of the Southern California pollution history “Smogtown,” who has a book coming soon on China’s environmental woes, said the nation is in only the beginning stages of truly tackling smog. “The court system is lacking, people don’t really have a right to assemble and organize freely, and the 1st Amendment doesn’t really exist there,” he said.

But Jacobs sees flickers of hope.

“In L.A., really after about five or 10 years of smog, citizens got riled up,” he said, “and I think that’s kind of what’s going on in China now too.”