Is China's "cheap" manufacturing worth all that?

Back in 1987, when I joined graduate school at Los Angeles, I could not understand why the "natives" were complaining about the air quality there--the lack of it.  They thought the air was dirty and, to me, it seemed just fine, thank you.

Soon, I, too, started complaining about the smoggy haze.  The creepy color that enveloped the region was visible to one's eyes even as planes descended over the airspace in the daytime.  And then going to foothill communities like Glendora and Azusa and feeling the muck in the air was not what I liked to do.  (So, why did I keep going there? Long story!)

Over the years, Los Angeles has cleaned up a lot.  But, then my frame of reference has changed, and changed dramatically thanks to breathing remarkably clean Oregon air for more than ten years now.  (Well, except during those horrible grass seed season weeks!)

Intellectually, I understand there is an element of the inverted-U-curve relationship that seems to be the pattern as countries develop--development is accompanied by a rise in environmental degradation, and then after a level of affluence, there appears to be enough resources to clean up the air, water, and soil.  Emotionally, it is easy to question the need for the degradation in the first place, and the intellectual answer is equally easy: the degradation can be avoided if we are willing to pay for it.


We consumers all over the world are not willing to pay anything towards maintaining the environment, leave alone improving its quality.  Simultaneously, we seem to be addicted to inexpensive goods that come from China.  Even from a simple economic understanding, we can hypothesize that somebody is paying a price that we are not.  And, yes, there is a price being paid:

Readings from both official and unofficial monitoring stations suggested that Saturday's pollution has soared past danger levels outlined by the World Health Organization (WHO).
The air tastes of coal dust and car fumes, two of the main sources of pollution, says a BBC correspondent.
Economic growth has left air quality in many cities notoriously poor.
A heavy smog has smothered Beijing for many days, says the BBC's Damian Grammaticas, in the capital.

 How bad is the air quality?

WHO guidelines say average concentrations of the tiniest pollution particles - called PM2.5 - should be no more than 25 microgrammes per cubic metre.
Air is unhealthy above 100 microgrammes. At 300, all children and elderly people should remain indoors.
Official Beijing city readings on Saturday suggested pollution levels over 400. Unofficial reading from a monitor at the US embassy recorded 800.

How are the PM2.5 numbers for Los Angeles?

Source: US EPA

Let us see.  In 1987, the natives complained about the horrible air quality in Los Angeles when the average PM2.5 concentrations recorded a little higher than about 30 micrograms.  (When the average was only about 30, I can't imagine the high extreme to be way higher.)  In today's Beijing, even the government reports readings as high as 400, and the US embassy there has recorded levels of 800!  Even now we complain about the air in Los Angeles because the readings are a tad higher than the WHO recommended maximum of 25.  Twenty-five versus 400!

What is wrong with us people that we do not want to pay even a nickel more, even if we know that might go towards making the air more breathable, the water more potable, and the soil more arable?  To what extreme would we take this selfishness even when after presented with such data?

We are seriously messed up!