"Contrary to everyone’s belief, Mount Everest can actually be seen from Kathmandu. The Chandragiri hills in Kathmandu offer a panoramic view of the Himalayan ranges and Mount Everest on a clear day. There are also viewpoints and hill stations just outside Kathmandu – Daman, Nagarjun and Nagarkot where the mountains are visible."
The 'living memory' claim seems a bit far fetched, too. Let's pretend living memory means the last 100 years, that'd mean air pollution levels in 1920 wee so poor you couldn't see Everest from Kathmandu. I'm no expert, but I don't think Nepal and the surrounding area of China were industrialised at that time, and there definitely weren't many vehicles on the road at the time, so where would the air pollution have come from?
Been to Kathmandu several times and I wouldn't say Nepal is industrialised in general, but not even remotely at the level of China.
What makes the air really bad in Kathmandu is the amount of old trucks and buses on the very dusty streets of the city. It's a different kind of air pollution to what you might experience in an industrialised nation.
When I'm there I always wear a mask, otherwise a cough will develop almost for sure in a few hours. If you go a little bit outside of the city the air is very clean and the views are amazing.
Answering only your final question: the smoke of burning wood and coal for heat. Coal fire was the cause of the infamous London “pea souper” fogs, for instance. It’s hard to remember now but burning gasoline and natural gas were significant improvements in the levels of pollution (and other hygiene factors) in cities during the 20th century. Of course at that time the only air pollution people were thinking of was particulates.
Also it looks like Kathmandu is in a valley which can concentrate the issue so a smaller absolute amount of particulate pollution can have more impact than the same activity on a plain.
> so where would the air pollution have come from?
-An ignorant (as I have never been within 1,000 miles of Kathmandu) guess is loads of wood-burning stoves; they soot like mad and can make Woody Allen[0] trust the air.
[0] When asked about NYC air pollution, he allegedly quipped that he didn't trust air he couldn't see.
The surrounding area of China is Tibet, which is virtually empty, so I doubt there is much pollution over there.
I think the main issue in Kathmandu is that it is surrounded by mountains, which trap pollution in. This is a problem for all cities with similar geography.
I am from Kathmandu. Yes, technically, you could see Mt. Everest on a clear dawn from Fulchowki or Chandragiri.
But, seeing Mt. Everest sitting from my terrace at home in Kathmandu (theoretically as I am in Boston, but some of my folks in Nepal see Sagarmatha (Everest) now) would not have been possible without all this pollution throughout Nepal going away.
As far as I can tell this isn't true. Mount Everest can be seen from Kathmandu but not from the city center as it is obscured by Kang Nachugo see this image: https://i.imgur.com/4N3gs5V.jpg
If you got to the south of Kathmandu e.g. Chobar where this photo was taken, Everest is no longer obscured as seen from this image https://i.imgur.com/JCMmhTs.png where the line between the Everest summit and Chobar is seen passing Kang Nachugo.
Well whether or not true is another discussion. Important is , there definitely is a pattern in air quality increase in many places, and what seems to be contributing factor is the minimized human moment. I hope we find a sustainable solution to improve the air we breathe.
I've been to Chandragiri and I can attest to this. You can almost see the entire Himalayan range on a clear sunny day (including Mt. Everest). They even have powerful binoculars set up for better viewing.
> Many of our COPD patients who need regular follow-up haven’t shown up because their symptoms have eased. Some have called to say they don’t require oxygen therapy anymore.”
If this is at all similar to the experience in the US, while some people may have seen their symptoms improve, a lot of people are avoiding doctors and hospitals out of fear of getting COVID, and are skipping out on routine checkups and care.
I can't speak for COPD but I'm very familiar with a different chronic pulmonary disease (Cystic Fibrosis), and it seems to _strangely_ not be a huge risk factor for poor COVID outcomes.
No one really has a good story for why (and it may not hold) but it seems to be consistent with the idea that the most important variable is truly just age.
Lads, this happened for a single day, it was lovely but is not a regular event. The city still has pollution issues however many now agree that it's caused from burnings that occur in northern India.
I've lived here since the earthquake, have only seen Everest from my rooftop in the capital one single time.
There are about 99% fewer vehicles on the road as we are in complete lockdown however the brick kilns that are located in the valley are probably the bigger polluters. Local neighbourhood garbage pickup guys regularly burn plastic.
I've been to mexico city a lot of times. One day I had to take a taxi at 6 am sunday morning after a hard rain the night before.
The air have been cleaned by the rain and the sky was clear. And I noticed that the city was surrounded by these picturesqe mountain peaks (that I had never seen before, or since)
It's amazing and wonderful how much environmental damage seems to be recovering. Air pollution is down, carbon emissions are down as much as 17%, fish and sharks are repopulating shorelines and beaches - and to think, all it took was the most severe public health crisis in 100 years, a catastrophic global recession, and an overpowering wave of human misery and death
Another point to balance the "how much environmental damage seems to be recovering":
CO2 in the atmosphere has a long inertia. The (reduction of) emissions in the past few months will not have any effect on the global warming for a few decades.
Basically in the short/mid-term, CO2 emissions are accumulated to previous emissions, not replacing them
This only shows that, while CO₂ concentrations are the dominant control variable in the question of our long-term survival, the overall health of the environment is influenced by many, many more things, especially short-term. Now it is especially clear that protecting the environment and mitigating the climate crisis are two different, and only partially aligned efforts. Frequently, they're in opposition - which is why it's extra important not to confuse them.
The example I tend to use is plastic pollution. Interventions like switching from single-use plastic bags and bottles to reusable woven bags and glass bottles may very well help with the amount of plastics (and microplastics) present in the environment, but they're also a climate disaster, because plastic bags and bottles are ridiculously efficient to make at scale. And so here, I also worry that despite the environment taking a break from us during COVID-19, this will turn out to be a huge step back climate-wise - as soon we'll have to start rebuilding, and there will be less money and will around to fund R&D and deployment of less carbon-intensive solutions.
Imagine - what will happen when next big virus/bacteria pandemic hits the earth...Other species will stand a chance when human population makes some room ...it probably sounds bad but unfortunately the humans are the problem - not the CO2 or something else (they are just consequence) - proof is how nature thrives around Chernobyl
And the bad news is that, to reach our climate goals, we need to do much more. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30797/...: “the required cuts in emissions are now 2.7 per cent per year from 2020 to year- 2030 for the 2°C goal and 7.6 per cent per year on average for the 1.5°C goal.”
With the help of this year’s crisis, that 2°C goal seems in sight, but 1.027¹⁰ is about 1.3, so even if that “as much as” is globally, we would need about 10% more, so we still would have to find new ways to decrease emissions. I don’t even see us keep our current gains.
That 1.5°C goal certainly is way out of sight, IMO.
A month or so back I thought I was going crazy because I began to notice just how clear the NYC skyline appeared from where I live. It's always been visible, but the clarity is what struck me.
Well, the day that humans manage to wipe themselves off the face of the planet will be a day of rejoicing for all species other than rats, raccoons, and cockroaches.
I like how the car industry is hoping based on a once-in-a-hundred-year pandemic response. Gives me no confidence for their long term future.
If people are getting by without a car now, I wouldn't think this situation would make them rush back into owning one. For one thing, if you don't have a job to go to, then you don't need one and probably have better things to spend your money on. And for another, and as a member of a 4-person, 2-car family, a car is expensive to buy, expensive to run day-to-day, and expensive to maintain, which is a reason some people have re-arranged their lives around not needing one. Thirdly, the purchase of a new (to the person, not necessarily brand new off the production line / ship) car, where I'm from anyway, is announcement-worthy; it's a date-on-the-calendar circling in red pen event. There's an excitement about the new 'you' that you're going to be seen as on the road. This gives the act of the purchase of a new car some intrinsic value and a bump in personal 'brand'; a dopamine hit. That whole schtick doesn't exist when you have to buy a fucking car to avoid a virus. It's a begrudging purchase, and all the expense that goes along with it will only increase the resentment of the requirement; the reminders of dealing with traffic, the hassle of getting petrol (not even necessarily the paying for it). All these will be reminders of why they avoided car ownership and will see them re-pursuing that option ASAFP.
If there is a bump in car ownership, as that article states is the case in China, then I'd be tipping there'll be a bump in second-hand car sales within 12 - 18 months.
I've been saying for the last five years that my next car will be electric. The last couple of years I'm questioning how I can arrange things so my next car is a bike, or my feet, or a scooter, or anything smaller, cheaper, and less hassle.
Something else to file under obvious, but not until you think about it: I donate plasma once a month or so, and in chatting to the people that work at the blood donation centre, they were saying that they now have too much blood, too many donors. With less traffic, there are far fewer major trauma incidents as a result of car crashes. Normally blood donation centres always need more. It's a good situation to be in, but also unfortunate because it's going to eventually settle back to where it was before. Traffic where I am is almost back to normal.
Oh, that's good. In Germany the blood supply is very low because most is sourced event-style in small places all over the country, and this is shut down.
We are just starting up nonessential procedures again, but are limited by the low blood reserves (~3days of use only).
Fairly certain the "visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory" is false. Nagarkot village has been a well known tourist attraction for viewing the Everest clearly forever.
> It is known for a sunrise view of the Himalayas including Mount Everest as well as other peaks of the Himalayan range of eastern Nepal. Nagarkot also offers a panoramic view of the Kathmandu Valley.
Readit News
"Contrary to everyone’s belief, Mount Everest can actually be seen from Kathmandu. The Chandragiri hills in Kathmandu offer a panoramic view of the Himalayan ranges and Mount Everest on a clear day. There are also viewpoints and hill stations just outside Kathmandu – Daman, Nagarjun and Nagarkot where the mountains are visible."
Also it looks like Kathmandu is in a valley which can concentrate the issue so a smaller absolute amount of particulate pollution can have more impact than the same activity on a plain.
I also question the “living memory” assertion.
-An ignorant (as I have never been within 1,000 miles of Kathmandu) guess is loads of wood-burning stoves; they soot like mad and can make Woody Allen[0] trust the air.
[0] When asked about NYC air pollution, he allegedly quipped that he didn't trust air he couldn't see.
I think the main issue in Kathmandu is that it is surrounded by mountains, which trap pollution in. This is a problem for all cities with similar geography.
But, seeing Mt. Everest sitting from my terrace at home in Kathmandu (theoretically as I am in Boston, but some of my folks in Nepal see Sagarmatha (Everest) now) would not have been possible without all this pollution throughout Nepal going away.
If you got to the south of Kathmandu e.g. Chobar where this photo was taken, Everest is no longer obscured as seen from this image https://i.imgur.com/JCMmhTs.png where the line between the Everest summit and Chobar is seen passing Kang Nachugo.
If this is at all similar to the experience in the US, while some people may have seen their symptoms improve, a lot of people are avoiding doctors and hospitals out of fear of getting COVID, and are skipping out on routine checkups and care.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S156919932...
No one really has a good story for why (and it may not hold) but it seems to be consistent with the idea that the most important variable is truly just age.
I've lived here since the earthquake, have only seen Everest from my rooftop in the capital one single time.
There are about 99% fewer vehicles on the road as we are in complete lockdown however the brick kilns that are located in the valley are probably the bigger polluters. Local neighbourhood garbage pickup guys regularly burn plastic.
The air have been cleaned by the rain and the sky was clear. And I noticed that the city was surrounded by these picturesqe mountain peaks (that I had never seen before, or since)
I imagine you seeing the same thing.
CO2 in the atmosphere has a long inertia. The (reduction of) emissions in the past few months will not have any effect on the global warming for a few decades.
Basically in the short/mid-term, CO2 emissions are accumulated to previous emissions, not replacing them
The example I tend to use is plastic pollution. Interventions like switching from single-use plastic bags and bottles to reusable woven bags and glass bottles may very well help with the amount of plastics (and microplastics) present in the environment, but they're also a climate disaster, because plastic bags and bottles are ridiculously efficient to make at scale. And so here, I also worry that despite the environment taking a break from us during COVID-19, this will turn out to be a huge step back climate-wise - as soon we'll have to start rebuilding, and there will be less money and will around to fund R&D and deployment of less carbon-intensive solutions.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-...
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
With the help of this year’s crisis, that 2°C goal seems in sight, but 1.027¹⁰ is about 1.3, so even if that “as much as” is globally, we would need about 10% more, so we still would have to find new ways to decrease emissions. I don’t even see us keep our current gains.
That 1.5°C goal certainly is way out of sight, IMO.
Is it catastrophic though? Market doesn’t seem to think so.
Time to buy a car? Industry hopes for coronavirus silver lining | Free to read https://www.ft.com/content/488d5886-c6af-4e80-a479-36aca26ed...
If you’re sufficiently worried about COVID to switch from public transport to a car, why would you use it to travel into an office every day?
If people are getting by without a car now, I wouldn't think this situation would make them rush back into owning one. For one thing, if you don't have a job to go to, then you don't need one and probably have better things to spend your money on. And for another, and as a member of a 4-person, 2-car family, a car is expensive to buy, expensive to run day-to-day, and expensive to maintain, which is a reason some people have re-arranged their lives around not needing one. Thirdly, the purchase of a new (to the person, not necessarily brand new off the production line / ship) car, where I'm from anyway, is announcement-worthy; it's a date-on-the-calendar circling in red pen event. There's an excitement about the new 'you' that you're going to be seen as on the road. This gives the act of the purchase of a new car some intrinsic value and a bump in personal 'brand'; a dopamine hit. That whole schtick doesn't exist when you have to buy a fucking car to avoid a virus. It's a begrudging purchase, and all the expense that goes along with it will only increase the resentment of the requirement; the reminders of dealing with traffic, the hassle of getting petrol (not even necessarily the paying for it). All these will be reminders of why they avoided car ownership and will see them re-pursuing that option ASAFP.
If there is a bump in car ownership, as that article states is the case in China, then I'd be tipping there'll be a bump in second-hand car sales within 12 - 18 months.
I've been saying for the last five years that my next car will be electric. The last couple of years I'm questioning how I can arrange things so my next car is a bike, or my feet, or a scooter, or anything smaller, cheaper, and less hassle.
Something else to file under obvious, but not until you think about it: I donate plasma once a month or so, and in chatting to the people that work at the blood donation centre, they were saying that they now have too much blood, too many donors. With less traffic, there are far fewer major trauma incidents as a result of car crashes. Normally blood donation centres always need more. It's a good situation to be in, but also unfortunate because it's going to eventually settle back to where it was before. Traffic where I am is almost back to normal.
We are just starting up nonessential procedures again, but are limited by the low blood reserves (~3days of use only).
> It is known for a sunrise view of the Himalayas including Mount Everest as well as other peaks of the Himalayan range of eastern Nepal. Nagarkot also offers a panoramic view of the Kathmandu Valley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarkot
From Chobhar in March 2019, facing Everest: https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6541403,85.2796492,3a,75y,78...
Elsewhere in Kathmandu in April 2020, facing Everest: https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6745306,85.3249687,3a,75y,59...
There's no hope of seeing that far through the haze.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1016837.shtml