A breath of fresh air is hard to come by these days in Beijing and that fact was further realized this past weekend when Chinese officials were forced to shut down Beijing International airport because of a blinding smog that choked the areas airspace.

The world’s second busiest hub was forced to shut down after state-run media in China finally stopped called the smog “fog” and instead began talking about increased threats of smog based pollution.

Realizing the risks posed by the bad air residents around the country quickly began buying up all the masks and air filter machines they coulda get their hands on.

The smog, some of the worst witnessed to date by the world’s largest carbon emitter comes at a time when Chinese officials are attending the Durban summit to discuss ways they can reduce emissions throughout their country.

Thankfully for residents in the area a cold front began moving in on Tuesday, helping slow the spread of bad air.

Speaking about the pollution issue in the country the Global Times (a publication owned by the Communist Party’s People’s Daily) has begun telling citizens that they must “face the reality” of the countries pollution problem.

In an unsigned editorial the paper writes:

“Our pollution has become severe,” and “It is time for us to shift our focus from development to protection.”

The unsigned editorial adds that government protection for the environment is “hardly a functional system.”

In monitoring air pollution in Beijing the US embassy’s only pollution monitor was down to a “moderate” rating on Tuesday from a level of “very unhealthy” the day prior. On Sunday the air pollution monitor at the US Embassy was not able to measure air pollution because it was so far beyond the monitors technological ability to measure the air.

Flights Grounded In Beijing Because Of Extreme Smog, Chinese Officials Admit It’s Not Fog is a post from: The Inquisitr

There was a “belief” that as a result of the global financial crisis we would see a drastic cut in carbon emissions. I say “belief” because a new report out shows that instead of there being a reduction there is evidence that emissions in 2010 soared past anything expected by scientists.

In fact both scientists and economists are worried that we are entering a terrifying “lose-lose” spiral where the increasing financial instability is linked – very closely – to climate instability.

The report, which was published today in Nature and says  that the impact of the 2008-2009 global financial crisis was short lived because of strong emissions growth from the emerging economies to the point we experienced some of the highest total annual growth ever recorded.

It is believed that last year we pumped some 9 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere and emissions were up in all the countries that the study’s researchers looked at. This included the U.S. who jumped over 4 percent while China jumped 10.4 percent. Even the normally carbon emissions conscious Europe saw a jump of 2.2 percent.

Julie Steinberger, a University of Leeds ecological economist and contributor to the reports said this:

The economic crisis should have been an opportunity to invest in low-carbon infrastructure for the 21st century.  Instead, we fostered a lose-lose situation: carbon emissions rocketing to unprecedented levels, alongside increases in joblessness, energy costs and income disparities.  Surely the transition to a green economy has never seemed more appealing.

Appealing yes but appealing means nothing to companies that can continue to maximize their profits.

via io9

Report finds ecological collapse and economic collapse go hand-in-hand is a post from: The Inquisitr

When London was seeking the 2012 Olympics, they offered up a plan that would ensure an environmentally friendly world event. London promised to balance carbon emissions from the games with clean energy investments around the world. But man was that expensive. London organizers announced today that they were ditching the green promise, saying that they want to keep the focus on Britain, not the world.

The London Olympics website said:

Olympic organizers will “no longer pursue formal offsetting procedures”

David Stubbs, the head of sustainability at the London Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympics Games, or LOCOG, said:

“Officially, if you want to go down certified carbon- offsetting all projects have to be overseas, so if we plant a lot of trees in Essex that just doesn’t count. Because the Games are in the U.K., we wanted to maximize the Games locally. Doing formal offsetting would be diverting things.”

Bloomberg reports that more than 3.4 million metric tons of greenhouse-gas emissions will be generated by the 2012 Olympic Games, from transporting athletes, to constructing facilities, to staging the event. By ditching its promise to offset those greenhouse-gas emissions, LOCOG will save an estimated $4.4 million.

Darren Johnson, a Green Party member of the London Assembly,was upset about the change of heart. Johnson said:

“Obviously we want the Olympics to benefit London, but environmentally they should be a green Olympics to benefit the whole world as well.”

LOCOG will still work to offset emissions, but they will not be able to completely offset the footprint left by the 2012 Olympic Games.

Adrian Bassett, a LOCOG spokesman, told Bloomberg:

“We did look at offsetting but as the program progressed and we better understood our carbon footprint, we felt our effort and resources should be focused on managing direct impacts within our control, avoiding and reducing emissions.”

Do you think the Olympic organizers lied about their green promise? Or were they really caught off guard by the size of the carbon footprint that would be left by the games?

London Ditches Its Promise for a Green Olympics is a post from: The Inquisitr

This particular study is interesting, if not just for the various ways it has been spun depending on which source you consult.

While some outlets point to a 2008-2009 dip, others highlight the “record levels” carbon emissions are expected to reach in 2010. The reduction in global Co2 emissions was 1.3% in 2009, the first reduction in those numbers in a decade, but one of the head researchers on the study told the BBC that the drop amounts to “peanuts” in the grand scheme of things:

“What we find is a drop in emissions from fossil fuels in 2009 of 1.3%, which is not dramatic,” said lead researcher Pierre Friedlingstein from the UK’s University of Exeter.

“Based on GDP projections last year, we were expecting much more.

“If you think about it, it’s like four days’ worth of emissions; it’s peanuts,” he told BBC News.

Developed nations saw the greatest declines, with Japan and the UK at nearly 12 and 9% respectively, and Germany at a 7% drop. China and India saw marked increases, at 8 and nearly 7%. In 2010, the increase is set to be on track with previous years at about 3% worldwide.

So, upside? Global financial ruin appears to have cut CO2 emissions for a bit is a post from: The Inquisitr

In both the environmental circles and city planning circles the idea of doing everything possible to increase the livability of city, and primarily the city core, has become a major discussion point.

A new study out from the Chicago-based nonprofit Center for Neighborhood Technology suggests that city dwellers emit up to 70% less carbon than people living in the suburbs. They concluded this by examining the emissions of carbon dioxide that resulted from household vehicle travel in 55 metropolitan areas in the United States.

"Cities are more location efficient – meaning key destinations are closer to where people live and work," said Scott Bernstein, president of the Center for Neighborhood Technology.

"They require less time, money, fuel and greenhouse gas emissions for residents to meet their everyday travel needs. People can walk, bike, car-share, take public transit," he said. "So residents of cities and compact communities generate less CO2 per household than people who live in more dispersed communities, like many suburbs and outlying areas."

Source: Environment News Service :: Study: City Living Helps Limit CO2 Emissions

Additionally they found that the transportation cost go from a low 14% of area household median income in the city centers to 28% in the outlying suburban areas. As Brian Merchant on Treehugger pointed out

So if you’re looking into a move, consider moving to an urban area–you’ll save $5,000 on gas annually, emit less carbon, and spend less time in transit. Cheaper, less environmentally taxing transportation is one of the primary reasons that urban areas are the more sustainable communities

I’ve never been a suburb type of guy myself. It has always been either live right out in the country or live as close as is comfortable to the downtown core.

photo courtesy of Seathttp://www.seattlechannel.org/issues/downtownGrowth.asptle Channel

The case for city living gets better is a post from: The Inquisitr