# Beijing's non-polluting automobiles

**URL:** <https://community.cartalk.com/t/beijings-non-polluting-automobiles/92609>\
**Category:** General Discussion\
**Created:** [February 24, 2016, 12:15am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/beijings-non-polluting-automobiles/92609 "2016-02-24T00:15:22Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RandomTroll](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/randomtroll/32/12184_2.png) [@RandomTroll](https://community.cartalk.com/u/RandomTroll)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 12:15am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/beijings-non-polluting-automobiles/92609/1 "2016-02-24T00:15:22Z")

</div>

‘It also attacked the widely held view that smog comes from automobile exhaust, coal burning and industrial emissions, labeling such beliefs “ridiculous.”’  
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/world/asia/beijing-smog-alerts.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/world/asia/beijing-smog-alerts.html)  
We ought to import them.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![texases](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/texases/32/862_2.png) [@texases](https://community.cartalk.com/u/texases)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 12:50am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/beijings-non-polluting-automobiles/92609/2 "2016-02-24T00:50:52Z")

</div>

?? don’t see a reference to ‘non-polluting cars’ in the article.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BillRussell](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/billrussell/32/3179_2.png) [@BillRussell](https://community.cartalk.com/u/BillRussell)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 1:02am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/beijings-non-polluting-automobiles/92609/3 "2016-02-24T01:02:30Z")

</div>

Neither do I…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![texases](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/texases/32/862_2.png) [@texases](https://community.cartalk.com/u/texases)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 1:06am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/beijings-non-polluting-automobiles/92609/4 "2016-02-24T01:06:05Z")

</div>

Now I found it. What a crazy idea, that planting trees is causing the record pollution in Beijing:

“The announcement followed the publishing last week of an opinion piece on the website of the government-controlled China Science Daily, officially called Science Times in English. It said the root cause of the smog in Beijing was declining wind power, which it said was the result of an increased planting of trees where none had been before, lower atmospheric pressure and desertification in Inner Mongolia, a province north of Beijing.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mustangman](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/mustangman/32/44130_2.png) [@Mustangman](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Mustangman)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 1:40am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/beijings-non-polluting-automobiles/92609/5 "2016-02-24T01:40:04Z")

</div>

You got this from the Onion, Right? Right? LOL pretty funny…

No Wait, it says New York Times. Interesting that the article didn’t argue the Chinese’s opinion that smog doesn’t come from cars. Wonder if they’d have refrained from comments if the article denied man-made climate change? Since it came out of the Bejing news office, I wonder if it was “government approved” first.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jtsanders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c2a13f/32.png) [@jtsanders](https://community.cartalk.com/u/jtsanders)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2016, 5:39am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/beijings-non-polluting-automobiles/92609/6 "2016-02-24T05:39:01Z")

</div>

The quote from the article that @texases provided teaches us the meaning of “political science”.