Grass Reinforcement Mesh,Turf Reinforcement Mesh,Lawn Reinforcement Mesh,Plastic Mesh Grass Reinforcement Hebei Yintop Technology Co.ltd , https://www.yintoptech.com
These days, the Chinese Academy of Sciences is a mess, and its “hot†is due to different assessments of the impact of motor vehicle pollution on haze.
First, on December 30, 2013, Zhang Renjian, a researcher at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, announced the conclusions of the research on the chemical composition of PM2.5 and seasonal changes in source analysis in Beijing. Among them, “Automobile Tail Gas and Waste Incineration†is effective for smog. The average contribution is only 4%. This result has caused the automotive industry's mood to be very unstable, and many insiders have issued "the automobile exhaust is 'top crime'", "have few cars and PM2.5 together," and "don't bother cars." Comments, public opinion reached a strong typhoon level.
I do not know if these arguments are too harsh, or whether the value of 4% is really problematic. After a lapse of three days, the Chinese Academy of Sciences urgently held a news briefing session and said that the relevant domestic research institutions, including the Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences Wang Yuesi and other research groups, have published their respective reports. The study concluded that the contribution of motor vehicles is generally considered to be between 10% and 50%, and the majority is considered to be between 20% and 30%. According to He Lan, the chief scientist of the “Environmental Haze Recovery and Control†of the Eco-environment Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, even this figure may be underestimated.
The same research object belongs to a scientific research institution and is the highest level organization in the country. However, different research results have appeared. It is difficult for such "mutual encounters" to take place. It is no wonder that when the media reported on this matter, they would use the words " The headline of the Chinese Academy of Sciences is "Oolong."
It's really oolong. Not to say whether 4% of the data is accurate, the only way that the Chinese Academy of Sciences uses to falsify 4% of the results is that it can only be regarded as a non-conclusive estimate because of the large range of data variables. We can understand that scientific research takes time, and it takes a lot of statistical analysis to come up with accurate numbers. But is it somewhat convincing to refute a conclusion that is not officially recognized by one or more groups of inaccurate data?
Of course, everyone knows that there is pollution in the automobile exhaust. Even if new automotive products are already doing a good job of controlling emissions, it is difficult to avoid the pollution of exhaust gas caused by the low quality of the oil. What's more, there is still a considerable part of the existing car ownership. Enough "antique", therefore, the responsibility of the car for the formation of haze is a reality that must be recognized.
However, how much is the contribution of automobile exhaust to smog? Since even the Chinese Academy of Sciences could not produce accurate data to prove that automobile pollution is the “first evil†of smog, then when local governments have introduced policies, almost without exception, the environmental protection banner to control air pollution will be used to guide the restriction of purchase restrictions. With the implementation of the order, one has to think of the “powerless†power juggling act.
Perhaps, as analysts put it, local governments have promoted the New Deal in the name of environmental protection and placed the automobile exhaust in the culprit of environmental pollution. Therefore, the starting point for the purchase restriction line will be morally justified, even more so. To a certain extent, people's dissatisfaction with the delay in public transportation and the construction of municipal roads can be weakened due to restrictions on purchase restrictions.
If you think about it, if the reason given by the government for restricting purchase restrictions is only to solve traffic congestion, public opinion will only criticize the government for problems in urban planning, road construction, and public transportation systems. After attaching the New Deal to environmental protection's people's livelihood values ​​and social values, the restriction of purchase restrictions meets the global consensus of environmental protection and can be actively responded to by environmentalists and supported by the majority of the people. As a result, the real subject of responsibility is successfully detached from the focus of people's attention. This is really a very smart idea.
What is certain is that no one will report any conflict with environmental protection measures. However, we hope that the government's decision-making will be truly successful. If reliable research results prove that the automobile exhaust gas is “incontestableâ€, then the government authorities should issue policies and regulations for pollution control, and provide more reasonable requirements for the research and development of automobile products and the higher quality of oil products. To promote the improvement of the environment. If the name is false and environmental protection evades responsibility, once the trick is performed, it is tantamount to losing faith in the people.