It’s sort of taken for granted that things are moving east (money, cars, fashion, disaffected young men). From VoxEU, preliminary analysis suggests that this is true of pollution:

… projections of the world’s polluting centre of gravity from 1970 to 2005. Starting off the coast of Norway, its movement towards Asia is regular and accelerating (420 km in the 70s, 530km in the 80s, 460km in the 90s and 1000km from 2000 to 2005).

There’s a correlation issue with movements in income, however. From the variables analyzed, the change cannot be entirely attributed to moves in industrial production / income growth; utilizing estimates from Danny Quah for rigorous definitions of ‘Center of Gravity’ for economic activity (current draft of paper here):

- First, on average, both projections are located on similar latitude, but the polluting centre is more than 20 degrees further east than the world’s economic centre of gravity. This suggests that Asia has higher pollution content than America and Europe in terms of average CO2 emissions per PPP dollar.

- Second, over the 1990s, the polluting centre of gravity moved 1200km to the East while its economic counterpart remained along the Greenwich Meridian.

Although one should remain careful as the number of years is limited, this suggests that the pollution-intensity differential between Asia and America is getting more severe over time.

Asia (esp. SE Asia) also faces more potential downside risks from higher levels of political instability and greater susceptibility to natural disasters than were previous centers of economic gravity (Western Europe / the American rustbelt). Both of these types of problems stand to worsen if pressures from environmental degradation continue. This suggests that insurance / re-insurance / risk mitigation will be very remunerative sectors in the coming decades.

This has been puzzling: I’m really quite healthy in China (aside from the occasional instance of General Tso’s Revenge). Many more health problems were present in recent years living in the US. The differences seem to be primarily attributable to: a) in the US I suffer from seasonal allergies. As I understand it these result from pollens that come from plants. Since there are few living things (aside from Chinese people) in Chinese cities, there are no monthly sinus infections. b) Diet and general exercise routines are certainly more beneficial here (cheap fruits and vegetables, lots of walking). c) normal medicine is much more easily obtained here for someone in my position (though the jig is up if I have a serious health problem here). You pay and get antibiotics. Also I never did quite figure out how to use insurance in the US. It’s very complex.

So. Very healthy here, in the cities, in spite of a lot of pollution. As long as the important things keep coming (food, some energy, some space) I suspect people will continue adapting the environment to their purposes, and live mostly normal lives, even if they can’t see the sun for weeks at a time. Can still watch TV. Via NASA, a big cloud of blegh that’s been hanging out over northern China:

Current weather conditions are “smoke.” I’ve seen ‘haze’ plenty of times before, but this is pretty thick. Fascinating.

Dingel (who’s been blogging a lot lately – finals must be over, and I’m not complaining) points to a report at Vox EU in which Judith Dean and Mary Lovely argue that increased trade throughout the last decade can’t be blamed for China’s pollution. Sort of: 

… as China’s trade has grown, the pollution intensity of almost all sectors has fallen in terms of water pollution (measured by chemical oxygen demand (COD)) and air pollution (measured by SO2, smoke or dust) in 2004…

… Moreover, both Chinese exports and imports are becoming cleaner over time. Part of this trend reflects changes in the composition of the trade bundle, as noted above. However, our evidence suggests that most of the fall in the pollution content of China’s trade is due to changes in industrial pollution intensities (how China produces), rather than in trade patterns (what China exports and imports)… 

Finally… We find strong evidence that Chinese processing exports are cleaner than Chinese ordinary exports. Statistical testing suggests that processing trade has played a key role in explaining the drop in the pollution intensity of Chinese exports over time and that FDI inflows have contributed significantly to this decline, even controlling for the processing trade share.

It would be pretty easy to fall prey to the opposite conclusion, since trade has increased throughout a period of rapid growth in China. One might even say that there is bilateral causality – but let’s not be too bold with our jargon.

With this in mind, more activity means more pollution, even if those activities are less polluting on average. On the plus side, it has helped lift millions (safe to say “billion” yet?) out of poverty. That seems like a good trade; others will disagree.