upworthy
Add Upworthy to your Google News feed.
Google News Button
Heroes

See it here: exclusive English translation of powerful viral Chinese documentary 'Under the Dome'

Investigative journalist Chai Jing's self-funded documentary "Under the Dome" about the long-term effects of air pollution in China went massively viral in early March 2015, racking up over 150 million views in its first weekend. Read the English translation here.

Retired investigative journalist Chai Jing's self-funded documentary "Under the Dome" about the long-term effects of air pollution in China went massively viral in early March 2015, racking up over 150 million views in its first weekend.

We at Upworthy felt it was so important to share the documentary with non-Mandarin speakers that we commissioned exclusive translations of the first and last 10 minutes of the documentary.


To fill in the middle, however, we called on Upworthy Head of Product Mike Su, who grew up in Taiwan and speaks fluent Mandarin, to provide a summarized play-by-play.

(Update 7/11/2016: The original documentary has since added complete English-language captioning, and that version now appears below.)

You can watch the documentary (with captions) in its entirety here or scroll down to read our time-stamped highlights:

[10:02-12:30]

The first 10 minutes of the documentary segue into a short animation that breaks down the science behind how harmful "PM2.5" is. PM2.5 means particulate matter (aka pollution!) that is 2.5 micrometers and smaller. People in China have been told that exposure to pollution helps the body adapt to it. But this is scientifically untrue.

Jing's animation shows PM2.5 and its gang of toxins as playing a video game to get into the body, slipping through each layer of defense the body puts up and why they are insufficient to stop the almighty PM2.5.

Exposing the human body to PM2.5 does not help it adapt. Long-term exposure to PM2.5 will ultimately compromise your immune system, and at worst, the particles will enter directly into the bloodstream, which can be fatal.

Scariest. Animation. Evar.

[12:30]


Here Jing shows a chart displaying the close correlation between death rates and elevated PM2.5 levels. The most vulnerable members of the community are children and parents.

[13:20]

Parents allowed Jing to photograph their children who were born with respiratory problems. Just a few months into their young lives, they had already contracted pneumonia. It is suspected that this is the result of not properly protecting them when heavy haze (made up of the dreaded PM2.5) rolled in.

The parents tell Jing that doctors explained to them that they cannot officially tie the pneumonia and respiratory problems to the haze just yet. But! What they can say is that in January 2013, during a period of particularly heavy haze, 27 cities in China reported 10%-150% increases in emergency room visits for children and the elderly.

[13:47]

Around the time that Jing gave birth to her daughter, she found herself speaking to other mothers, asking whether it's true that exposing children to pollution helps them adapt. She introduces a clip of a University of Southern California professor who rebuts that theory.

Dr. Avol points to the massive amounts of evidence showing that children breathing clean air grow faster than children in polluted areas, and that poor lung function early in life is a predictor of poor lung function later in life. In other words, says Dr. Avol, "[When you do] something about the air while the child is still growing, you can make a change in that child's life."

[15:00]

It's heartbreaking, but Jing explains coming to the realization that she cannot protect her child forever. She cannot prevent her daughter from breathing.

[15:30]

(If you're squeamish, scroll past this next image, OK?)

A lung cancer patient allows Jing to tape her having surgery. The patient doesn't smoke, is generally healthy, and is in her 50s. The doctors take out giant freaking chunks of black stuff anyway.


Gross.

[17:00]

A doctor says he cannot officially pin the cancer on pollution, but based on his experience he strongly suspects it to be the cause. But, Jing says, it makes her wonder ... she knows lung cancer needs years to develop, not just the past few years. So she requests aerial pictures of China from NASA for the past 10 years. And holy crap, has China been polluted.

2005

2011

[18:00]

An expert shows the intense pollution that's been spread across China since at least 2004. Jing says she's puzzled because she doesn't remember bad haze being a thing back then.

But then the expert sends her this picture from the Beijing airport and asks her what she sees.

She thinks to herself, "That's haze, right?" It seems so obvious.

But then the expert shows her the newspaper headline from that day. It reads, "Fog causes record delays at Beijing airport" ... and it hits her like a ton of bricks.

She says she immediately felt guilty as a reporter. When she was covering pollution stories, she only thought of pollution as what happens when you see factory smokestacks blowing pollutants in the air, not when you're living in a metropolitan place like Beijing.

"At the time, I was no longer a reporter, but an eyewitness," Jing says.

[19:00]

But what about pollution while Jing was growing up? People in China all grew up on coal stoves to stay warm, so why didn't they all have cancer?

Her friend showed her a survey from 1976-1981 that proved the correlation between coal pollution and death. But this report remained internal.

[21:11]

Here Jing shows a series of pictures of each season. And what she has to say is so powerful that I'm going to literally translate here:

"A person, any living thing should live as such:

When spring comes, the doors are left open, welcoming the cool breeze, the smell of fresh flowers, the colors of spring. Sometimes when you encounter fresh rain, or fog, you find it hard to resist the temptation to breathe deeply and feel the crisp air and refreshing moisture enter your lungs.

In the fall, you want to just find a loved one, and do nothing but laze around all day under the clear autumn sunlight.

Come winter time, you want to run outside and watch your kid stick their tongue out to catch the falling snow, and you'd tell them about the wonder of nature and life.

But today, every day I wake up, first thing I do is look at the Air Quality Index app on my phone. Use it to arrange my day. I wear my mask shopping, buying groceries, meeting with friends. I use tape to cover every window frame. When I take my kid out to get vaccines, I get scared when she so much as giggles for fear she's breathing in more pollution.











Honestly, I am not afraid of dying. I just don't want to live this way anymore.


So whenever someone asks me, 'Why are you doing all of this anyway?' I tell them this is personal beef between me and the haze. I want to know where it's coming from. I want to get to the bottom of this."


Wow.

[23:00-25:00]

Jing turns her attention to finding out where all the pollution comes from. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority comes from human activity. PM2.5 has existed since the dawn of time, but it has accelerated as a result of human activity.

60% of PM2.5 in China comes from burning coal and oil. As nations like Germany and England industrialized, they faced dire consequences from the pollution they produced. Eventually, the United States and Japan faced similar crises. And today, developing countries such as India, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are all wrestling with it.

China, with its massive scale and rapid development, has created massive consumption of oil and coal. Worse still, the combination of burning BOTH oil and coal has created unprecedented levels of toxicity.

[25:00-28:00]

If the whole world has to burn coal, Jing asks, why is China's particular pollution problem special? It turns out China has burned AS MUCH COAL AS THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED.

The last time a nation burned this much coal, it was England. Here Jing goes through the history of the prosperity England enjoyed as it industrialized on the back of its coal consumption. But, she reminds her audience, the English paid a heavy, heavy price for doing so. In 1952, a short 63 years ago, a confluence of events created London's Great Smog, which ultimately killed 12,000 people and sickened about 100,000 others. The images of England from that time are not unlike China today.

[27:46]

After the crisis in 1952, Jing explains, Western countries cut back on their coal consumption significantly and were able to begin improving the air. But this happened just as China began the gradual process of opening itself up again. China had closed itself off for so long and had become so poor, it desperately needed something to catapult itself back into the global economy. China chose coal.

Where is all this coal being used? The vast majority is in Hebei province, a leading producer of steel in China.

Jing went to visit Tangshan, a large industrial city in Hebei, in October of last year. She went first with representatives from the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) and tried to get some drone footage to catch illegal activity ... but the haze was too heavy to get an actual view:

So they resorted to making some surprise visits. What they got on tape was shocking, to say the least:

Seriously, those flames are just straight-up burning, with fumes trapped under the ceiling.

[31:00]

After Jing got all this footage and evidence of illegal activity, none of these factories faced any discipline whatsoever. When she asked the MEP representative why, he referred her to their boss. She sits down with him for an interview where she asks him why nothing was done.

The reason he gives her? The factories have gotten too big to fail. He asks her if she could make the decision to shut them down and eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, essentially destroying the economy of the entire province in the process.

[33:00]

While this was happening in northern China, Jing would often talk to her friend in the south who would claim to be relatively unscathed from the crisis. But Jing quickly points out that while the south didn't have to deal with coal, per se, if you look at a map of all of the steel plants (red), power plants (green), and concrete plants (blue) in the eastern coastal region of China, you see a different story. In Jiangsu province, for example, there's a power plant every 30 km.

[33:42]

Then she shows this map of which factories were emitting pollution above the legal limit.


Yiiiiiiiiiikes.

[34:00]

What are some other consequences of this massive coal consumption? What happens when you use up all of the cleaner coal? You burn the cheap stuff. And what does that cheap stuff, known as "lignite," look like? Check this out:


Getting coal in your stocking is bad enough. Imagine if you got a lump of this crap.

Lignite doesn't look anything like coal. But the real problem with it is that it burns so inefficiently that almost 50% of it burns up into ashes without producing any usable energy.

So what's the big deal with crappy coal? Well, in 2013, a factory opened in Harbin. On its first day of operation, the PM2.5 index hit 1,000.

This was a scene from Harbin that day:



At the time, there were no limits and no regulations. Factories just burned that crappy coal and set the fumes into the air. The 12 million people of Harbin were blanketed in haze, like a big concrete ceiling locking them in.

[35:39]

Jing points out that China isn't alone in using lignite. Germany is also a big user of it. The big difference is that coal, unlike lignite, can be cleaned. England washes 95% of its coal, while in China, less than half of the coal burned is washed, which produces all kinds of inefficient crap (to use a technical term). And it's killing people.

A lot of the coal in China is burned by individuals. In Beijing, the PM2.5 index is 25 times higher during the winter because of coal burning. She talks about a woman suffering from lung cancer who was coughing up blood. The woman was so weak she could not even shoo the flies that flew around her. So she asked people to put fly paper on her stomach.

Here Jing shares a photo of a man standing with pictures of all the family members he's lost to lung cancer:

And a photo showing that many houses simply have nobody left to live in them:

Cobwebs. Cobwebs everywhere.

We often hear that China is a developing country and protecting the environment is a luxury it can't afford right now. But those in China who are the most vulnerable are the poor and voiceless, and they need the rest of the country to stand up for them and protect them.

[37:00]

She then speaks with some experts who tell her that if China can reduce its coal consumption or clean its coal, that will massively reduce its pollution problem. If China simply properly enforced EXISTING standards, there would be a massive 60% drop in carbon emissions. The respect of the laws and regulations always comes down to execution.

[39:00]

If the coal pollution is taken care of, what else is exacerbating the problem? Oil.

The vast majority of oil usage is in automobiles. In 2010, Beijing added 800,000 cars in a SINGLE YEAR. So it makes sense that Beijing's #1 pollutant is emissions from automobiles.

Is it simply a matter of lots of cars equals lots of pollution? Not necessarily, Jing says. Tokyo has just as many cars but doesn't suffer from the same pollution. That's because Tokyo has great public transportation and only 6% of people drive. Compare that to 40% of people in Beijing ... and sitting in that traffic makes the 405 in L.A. look like the autobahn.

[41:30]

Chai Jing and her family agreed to only drive their car in a limited number of situations. Her husband commutes to work on his bike. But this is what the bike lane in their neighborhood looks like:

She makes a good point here, though: This is not an issue about Chinese people being particularly law-breaking — this is an issue of enforcement. Human nature is all pretty similar, she says; it's just whether the actions have consequences.

Next, she shows a picture of London before and after it regulated parking:

The left is before regulations, the middle is after introducing metered parking with penalties, and the image on the right? That's when they increased fees.

[42:27]

But car lovers have another question. If cars really drive the most pollution, why is it still so polluted in the middle of the night? Chai says she had the same question until officials gave her data that showed consistent spikes in pollution around midnight each night. Curious, she set out with a camera crew to get some answers.

As she joined the police in inspections, truck after 18-wheeler truck had stickers certifying approved levels of emissions filtering for diesel fuel, but none of them actually had the filters.



A single diesel truck with no filtering pollutes 500 times as much as trucks that meet regulatory standards. While diesel trucks account for only 17% of overall oil consumption, they produce about 70% of the pollution. And the exhaust from diesel pipes is even more toxic.

There are no greater victims here than the truck drivers themselves, who have among the highest rates of cancer. It seems cruel and unusual to go after the drivers for not having the filters, considering they used their hard-earned money to buy the trucks — trucks that have officially certified filtering stickers on them.

Jing concludes: Perhaps it's more reasonable to go after the car manufacturers.

[45:00]

Jing calls up one of these car manufacturers and presents her evidence that there are filter-certified stickers on trucks that don't have filters. He fumbles around without explanation until she finally gets him to outright admit that he's saying they put on the wrong stickers, and if someone wants the car, well, ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯.

Industries always have their own excuses, Jing says, but if everyone knows this and we have the laws, why can't we go after them? She cites several laws and explains various technical loopholes that, unfortunately, allow this behavior to continue.

Her next step is figuring out which enforcing body should close the loopholes. And, again, each of the ministries passes the buck.

Everyone she talked to basically said, ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯.

She interviews a guy from the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) and goes hard after him to get an explanation for why they don't prosecute people under these regulations.

He dances around the answer a bit, explaining that each group basically does its duty but the real enforcement falls in the middle. Jing is totally flabbergasted and tells him straight, "So all these years you guys have not used teeth at all in enforcing the law!" This is a Chinese phrase used to describe tough talk but no ability to follow through. His comeback? "Forget not using teeth. I don't want to even open my mouth for fear that people will see I don't have any teeth at all!"

Her face kinda says it all.

She then calls the truck manufacturer back, and he explains: "If the MEP were to enforce the laws, I guarantee you I'd meet regulations by tomorrow. But if they aren't coming after me, I would never meet requirements. Otherwise, if I were the only one meeting regulations, and the next guy is selling fraudulent cars, then I'd go out of business!" After that, when she asked the MEP if this was reasonable, he agreed.

Worse still, she says, they tested the quality of the diesel fuel at the truck stops. Chinese oil measured 25 times worse than European counterparts. Her friends sent her a complicated chart that basically said China's oil is routinely 3-4 times lower in quality. If China could bring it up even one level, it would drop emissions by 10%.

So what's the big deal with crappy oil? Fumes from evaporation. Evaporation? Is that a big deal? Well, her friend sent her this infrared video:

According to her, there's more pollution in Beijing from evaporated fumes than there is from car exhaust pipes. Worse still, the fumes are a big contributor of PM2.5 pollutants.

So why doesn't China raise its oil quality?

When Jing asked people in the oil industry, they told her it's because the government standards are so low that there's no incentive to improve.

When Jing went after the government, what answer did she get back? Over 67% of one of the standards committees is OIL INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES. One of the other committees is over 90%.

This is dizzying. No wonder things haven't gotten better. Nobody is taking responsibility, and there are so many loopholes in this thing.

[53:22]

Being the investigative reporter that she is, Jing went to China's director of oil standards, who, oh by the way, also used to be the chief engineer for the state-owned oil monopoly Sinopec:

Jing gets right to it and asks him why there are so many oil industry insiders setting the standards.

He claims that standards shouldn't be set by industry outsiders who don't understand the details.

Incredulous, she asks, "You're saying the Ministry of Environmental Protection doesn't understand?!" No, he says, he doesn't think they do.

Again, her face really says it all:

Who should set the standards? Jing tells him: "If you guys set the standards, and then when it comes time to talk about raising the quality, you guys say the national standards (that you set) are too low, and then you give all these excuses. People will no longer believe you."

She goes on to explain how other countries have transparent debate, thorough interaction between governing bodies and the oil industry, and bring these decisions to a vote. She wants to know if he would be open to that sort of a process. He claims to be.

Jing challenges him further — she asks if he would be more transparent with China's process. This is where he says something truly ridiculous: He thinks that the public already mistrusts the oil industry, so if he were to be more transparent, they would only see what they would want to see. So they're better off not having the discussion in the first place.

Why not go ahead and raise standards then? He claims there may be too many unknown ramifications and too much potential economic impact. He isn't ready to bear such responsibility.

Jing's reaction is spot-on:

Then she lists the incredible revenue and profits of Sinopec and asks him, "For such a large and profitable state-owned enterprise, why can't it step up to take more responsibility to society?"

(Are you sitting down?) He says: "Sinopec is big. Really big. Just like a person, it's very fat. Excessively fat."

(What does that even mean?!?!?!)

Jing concludes that all businesses optimize for their self-interests. That makes sense. That's the nature of industry, after all.

[56:25]

Jing was still curious about how other countries set their standards.

Environmental regulatory bodies set most countries' standards (although, yes, perhaps with input and conversation with industry).

So why are China's so heavily controlled by industry? Jing points to some historical reasons.

In the 1960s, gas was so rare that you'd see buses with giant bags of propane tied to the top:

When oil was first imported to China, the MEP didn't even exist, so standards were set by a subsidiary of Sinopec. Over the years, as things evolved, the heavy influence of Sinopec always remained.

But as the public awareness for environmental issues has grown, more and more pressure has been put on Sinopec and the MEP to raise standards. In the past couple of years, the mix has gotten better. Every country declares their values by which they strike that balance. Jing strikes a hopeful note, pointing out that the trends are starting to move in the right direction.

[58:32]

Another shocking thing Jing didn't realize when she started her research was that harbors and waterways were completely unregulated:

Boats like this one use the worst-of-the-worst oil — completely unfiltered. In the worst places in the harbors, you can actually reach your hand into the water and scoop out pollutants. Yuck.

Even if you're not near waterways or airports, another threat exists: construction vehicles. Jing and her crew followed a billowing truck. The truck stopped by a gas station, if you could call it that:

Jing went in after the driver, and when they encountered the manager, he refused to produce any permits. They kept arguing with him, she explains, and he kept giving ridiculous excuses. She kept countering before finally declaring that they were with MEP officials, and therefore had the right to demand this of him.

He counters, "You have the obligation, but you don't have the right." Jing and her crew were so stunned, they had no comeback for him.

From coal to oil, there is massive consumption. The quality is low. China doesn't clean it. When Chinese citizens emit, she says, they don't have the proper controls in place. She doesn't understand why. But, she says, the manager's crazy response suddenly brought it home.

[1:02:00]

(Mike's note: This part of the documentary features a bunch of interview scenes in which Jing calls all these guys out. They're all mansplaining and trying to talk down to this "little girl" with their political talking points, and she basically cuts through all their B.S., catches them way off guard, and connects all the ludicrous dots of what they say. They have weird, embarrassed faces the whole time. It's a really fun segment.)

When Jing interviewed this guy, she asked him if he would dare do construction without the proper permit. "No way," he says.

"If you had no operating license or tax ID, would you dare operate?" She asks. "No way. No way," he answers.

"Then why do you proceed with emissions without the proper permitting from the MEP?" she asks.

"Um, well, we're working on it. We'll have it eventually."

In perhaps the crowning interview, she shows a bunch of scenes of the utterly disgusting crap outside and talks about the reeking odors before sitting down with another guy, who she asks about the horrendous odors from outside.

Gross.

His answer?

To which the audience is all LOLZ:

She then breaks down how much you can save by not getting up to standards on steel, coal, diesel, and imported oil:


The graphic shows that it costs 100 yuan per ton to produce steel that meets standards. It costs 156 yuan to wash coal and 20,000 yuan to get trucks that are actually filtered.

10 years ago, Jing says, she'd wonder what that smell was floating through the air ... now she knows it's the smell of money.

[1:05:08]

Everyone's talking about environmental protection, but who wants to destroy our economy?

This chart shows GDP growth in China since 1980.

Jing returned to the steel plants that she first visited 10 years ago and was shocked to find that piles of steel that had been there for a long time were rusty.

She asked a worker how business was. He pointed around and asked her whether she saw anyone coming in to pick up goods. Nope. These businesses are selling the lowest end of products and competing entirely on volume.

[1:05:51]

Here, Jing shows what goes into producing one ton of steel:

It requires 600 kg of coal and 3-6 tons of water. The process produces 1.53 kg of sulfur dioxide and 1 kg of soot. Yiiiiiiiikes.

The profit from that one ton of steel? It's not even enough to buy an egg from a street vendor.

Yet all of these industries are still massively subsidized by the government. One company was receiving 2 billion yuan (~$318 million USD) every other year. So these zombie businesses are voraciously consuming resources while creating massive risk for the economy. Still, they continue to expand.

[1:07:49]

Jing recently received a letter from a young girl asking for her help. The nearby plant was threatening to tear down her home in order to expand. Her dad refused and was beat up.

That girl? She's the little girl Jing interviewed 10 years ago (as seen in the first 10 minutes of the documentary) who had never seen stars or clouds.

Jing asked her how her health was. She said: "I don't have the time to care about my health right now. I just want me and my family to have a place to live." Luckily, when Jing checked back with her, the boss of the plant had gotten arrested. So that particular disaster was averted.

But these industries continue to expand and receive support. The reason? Growth. Simply put, when urbanization increases by just 1%, it justifies all the production.

But a Tsinghua University professor told her that cities in China have also reached a tipping point. She thought of to her personal life and the continued urbanization around her. That expansion must be continuing...

Her friend encouraged her to return home and take a look.

[1:09:57]

What she found when she returned to Shanxi was construction site after construction site, real estate ad after real estate ad, and lots of empty buildings.


She stayed in what was billed as a five-star hotel — in the presidential suite, no less. But when she arrived, she was greeted by a flashlight in the unlit garage and led throughout the hallways of an unlit hotel to her room. It was so deserted that the hotel did not even have power.

When she returned to Beijing and discussed this, she learned that Shanxi was a microcosm of what was going on around the country.

China has 1.3 billion people, but if you added up all of the occupancies of all of these buildings, it would equal 3.4 billion.

Jing speaks romantically about the positive impact urbanization has had in her own life — she was able to leave small-town Shanxi and come to Beijing to study and start a career. If it weren't for urbanization, she says, she'd probably still be in Shanxi flipping an abacus and eking out a life.

Cities gave us freedom and gave China 30 years of incredible prosperity. But if we don't change our model, she says, experts predict China will be consuming such large amounts of resources and producing so much pollution that it will run out of capacity to absorb the emissions before it runs out of the resources.

The haze is just getting started. Traffic is just getting started.

[1:14:49]

During the APEC summit (during which the government underwent massive efforts to clean the air), Jing's husband brought her to a place where, in his youth, his father often took him to go ice skating, swimming, and fishing.

He felt the beauty and elegance of this proud, historic city. They sat there soaking it in like young kids looking at the last piece of candy, she says, knowing that if they didn't eat it, it would melt ... but if they ate it, it would be no more. It's that mixed feeling of excitement, hesitation, and wistfulness.

She shows a powerful, nostalgic sequence of people recalling the Beijing of old, the Beijing where they grew up:


Beautiful.

[1:15:53]

She asked an expert, "What would it take to maintain the blue skies we enjoyed during the APEC summit?" He said that relative to 2013, China would need to reduce sulfur dioxide by 47%, nitrogen oxides by 52%, and PM2.5 by 44% — basically, remove over 50% of the pollutants.

[1:17:30]

As dire as the situation in China seems, Jing turns to history to find hope. With all of its traffic and its geographical layout, she realizes that the Beijing of today is not dissimilar to the Los Angeles of old.

She shows a picture of a gag gift from back in the day that jokingly captures its former reality:

But, she points out, while the number of cars in L.A. has tripled since 1970, emissions have dropped by 75%.

Jing went to L.A. to find out how this was possible. She observed the lack of public transportation, much like Beijing, and the heavy reliance on cars. And, of course, the L.A. traffic:

But look at those clear skies!

Then she witnessed checkpoint inspections, much like back in China. All the trucks are required to install filters that reduce particle emissions by 99%.

Jing witnessed them catching a driver who did not have the filter installed — he was fined $1,000. She found out the driver takes home about $4,000 per month. He was fined a quarter of his income for not having the filter installed. If a driver has multiple offenses, the driver is not able to renew the truck's tags, eliminating his or her income. The miracle of law enforcement!

A California official tells her that 45% of the people want to be good citizens and comply, 45% do it because they don't want to get caught and fined, and 10% say: "I don't care. Catch me if you can."

She cites the high number of citations and fines for non-compliance:

Jing reiterates that human nature is the same everywhere. No matter where you go, there are going to be those who want to cut corners. But if proper enforcement can bring 90% of the people into line, there is hope. And just like they said at the car factories in China, if there's no enforcement, 90% of the cars coming off the factory line will be out of compliance.

[1:22:40]

Jing explains that back when the U.S. was raising emission standards, the old industry complained. Car manufacturers said it would destroy their business and threaten the economy. They sued the EPA and fought the change.

But! In the meantime, foreign manufacturers raised their hands and said they could meet those higher standards. Once the U.S. companies heard this, they quickly got in line with the changes, even though they ceded a large chunk of the market share along the way.

Jing went to the EPA and asked if it faced accusations and pressure for destroying domestic industries. The EPA rep's answer: "Environmental protection is not a burden, but an opportunity for innovation. If you're merely trying to protect your losses, you will not be able to innovate. Government's role is to set the standard and a level playing field. If you create competition, it will win the market."

[1:23:28]

Next, Jing asks, "If China is such a mass consumer of coal, how will we ever wean ourselves off it?"

People say it took London 40-50 years to recover from the Great Smog of '52. So will it take China as long? Jing says she points those people to this chart showing that ACTUALLY the most significant drop in pollution came immediately after the crisis:

She went to London to find out more.

With strict regulations and aggressive enforcement, London was able to turn a massive tragedy around.

Jing shows provocative footage of coal plants being blown up and destroyed, plants that once offered the same tens of thousands of jobs that the plants in China offer today.

The percentage of GDP that the coal industry was responsible for shrunk massively as well. She talks to officials who explain that 100 years ago, London was a place that had a million miners, compared to tens of thousands in China. An industry on its way out was replaced by new industries coming in. And in doing so, London reclaimed its blue skies.

[1:26:14]

Interestingly, on her trip to London, the most compelling artifact she found was a video made by the Gas Council called "Guilty Chimneys."

Amazing what a little competition will do.

In London, Jing was told that one of the keys to turning the corner is for the government to not subsidize those old, crumbling industries that are on their way out, but to instead invest in innovation in new opportunities and a competitive playing field that will create the next wave of jobs and industries.

Jing also wondered why China wasn't more aggressively pursuing natural gas as an energy source. In her research, she found that there's high potential for natural gas, but it's not being drilled for.

Curious, she asked an expert why that is. He explained that the largest natural gas producing country, the United States, has 6,300 natural gas and petroleum companies. China has only three, and 70% of production comes from one company. The U.S. has 160 natural gas pipeline companies. China, again, only has three, and 70% of natural gas production lives in, you guessed it, a single company: Sinapec.

If China opens those markets, it could create competition and flip the script.

[1:30:22]

As Jing reflects on her investigative process, she says that China's reform and opening back up after being choked off from the global economy for so long wasn't what she originally envisioned as a solution. She pictured it as a small bird hatching from an egg, immediately becoming a marvelous new life.

But through her research, she learned it's more like a cicada shedding its old skin, inching out bit by bit, and energy is the last bit of skin to shed, the last part being particularly difficult.

She says energy is an area that's been rife with corruption. She shows this chart of recently deposed corrupt officials in the energy sector:

That is ... a lot of corruption.

To change it, she says, requires a shift in how the government views the environment and potential energy opportunities, as well as the systemic changes needed to make a difference.

But the government can't turn this thing around all on its own.It relies on each and every one of us. Our choices. Our will.

[1:31:38]

Jing says she has learned the power of transparency and has been encouraged in recent years with the government's investment and transparency in reporting air quality indexes. But, she says, we should not waste that money.

She brings up a downloadable app that shows factories that are exceeding emissions standards and encourages people to report these by calling a hotline or calling them out on social media.

Last year, Jing joined some community meetings where they challenged officials to require these companies to self-report emissions levels. Finally, officials conceded and companies were required to self-report or face a fine. And citizens had the right to submit an information request to compel them to report.

Tides are shifting, momentum is building.

[1:33:40]

Jing then shares an animation that demonstrates what everyday citizens can do to live greener lives and report offensive behavior through hotlines, or even @-replying to the department directly.

Jing shares a recent story of when she walked by a construction site in her neighborhood and noticed a giant pile of unsecured dirt.

She knew that as the wind blew, it would kick up particles in the air. So she approached the construction workers and spoke to the boss, and they immediately covered it up. From start to finish, just a few minutes.

The worker later told her that his boss saw she had a camera phone and feared getting exposed online, so he reacted quickly.

Chai Jing finishes her story on a really strong and bold note, rallying people into action. This truly is a remarkable piece of filmmaking by a remarkable woman.

Gen Z; Millennials; technology; cell phones; social media; teens and technology; teens social media

Gen Z is the first generation less cognitively capable than their parents. Denmark has the solution.

Nearly every parent hopes their child will be better off than they are: smarter, more secure, and more well-adjusted. Many parents see this as a stamp of successful parenting, but something has changed for children growing up today. While younger generations are known for their empathy, their cognitive capabilities seem to be lagging behind those of previous generations for the first time in history.

Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath, a teacher turned cognitive neuroscientist who focuses on human learning, appeared before Congress to discuss concerns about cognitive development in children. In his address to the members of Congress, he says, "A sad fact that our generation has to face is this: our kids are less cognitively capable than we were at their age. Since we've been standardizing and measuring cognitive development since the late 1800s, every generation has outperformed their parents, and that's exactly what we want. We want sharper kids."


kids, intelligence, sharp kids, generations, education, cognitive abilities Student smiling in a classroom, working on a laptop.Photo credit: Canva

Horvath explains that the reason this happens is that each generation has gone to school longer than the previous generation. Gen Z is no exception to the longer duration of time spent in school, but they're the first ones who aren't meeting this normal increase in cognitive development. According to the cognitive neuroscientist, the decline is due to the introduction of screens in the classroom, which started around 2010.

"Across 80 countries, as Jean was just saying, if you look at the data, once countries adopt digital technology widely in schools, performance goes down significantly. To the point where kids who use computers about five hours per day in school for learning purposes will score over two-thirds of a standard deviation less than kids who rarely or never touch tech at school," Horvath reveals.

In most cases, the decline in performance doesn't result in better strategies. The neuroscientist shares that the standardized testing has been adjusted to accommodate lower expectations and shorter attention spans. This is an approach that educators, scientists, and researchers went to Capitol Hill to express wasn't working. But not every country is taking the approach of lowering standards to meet lowered cognitive ability. Denmark went in the opposite direction when it realized their students were slipping behind.

France24 recently interviewed educators in Denmark following their seemingly novel approach to students struggling with cognitive development. Since the beginning of the 2025/2026 school year, Denmark has not only been having students turn in their cellphones, but they've also taken tablets, laptops, and computers out of the classroom. No more digital learning for the majority of the school day. Danes went old school by bringing back physical textbooks, workbooks, and writing assignments. The results have been undeniable. Even the students can't seem to deny the success of the countrywide shift in educational approach.

"I think the biggest issue has been that, because we kind of got rid of the books and started using screens instead, that we've noticed that a lot of the kids have trouble concentrating, so it's pretty easy to swipe with three fingers over to a different screen and have a video game going, for example, in class," Copenhagen English teacher, Islam Dijab tells France24.

Now, instead of computers being part of every lesson, Denmark uses computers very sparingly and with strict supervision. One student says that it has been nice not having screen time at school because she loves to read and write. But it wasn't just the lack of attention span children were developing, they were also developing low self-esteem and poor mental health due to the amount of time spent on devices.

kids, intelligence, sharp kids, generations, education, cognitive abilities Students focused and ready to learn in the classroom.Photo credit: Canva

The data showing the negative impact of screens on teens' brains has prompted a nationwide change in Denmark that extends outside of the classroom. Afterschool activities are eliminating or extremely limiting electronic use. There is also a national No Phone Day that encourages everyone to put away their devices for the day, and Imran Rashid, a physician and digital health expert, is petitioning parliament to ban social media use for children under the age of 15. The no phone movement in Denmark is a nationwide effort that hopes to right the ship before another generation feels the effects.

discussion tips, debate, arguments, communication tips, psychology

Get conversations focused on solutions.

It can be deeply frustrating when an argument, debate, complaint, or negotiation goes off the rails. The fallout can include hurt feelings, mental exhaustion, and even damaged relationships, whether the disagreement happens in a business meeting or around the kitchen table. But one CEO and corporate communication expert suggests three questions he says can help bring a positive conclusion to almost any argument.

Steven Gaffney has worked for more than 30 years as an advisor and communicator for Fortune 500 companies, helping leaders communicate plans and negotiate deals. He said that conversations inside and outside the boardroom can be disrupted and steered toward solutions when one person asks the other party three simple questions.


- YouTube youtu.be

1. What would you suggest?

Instead of trying to convince another person of your point, it may be more fruitful to give them the opportunity to suggest a solution to the shared problem or propose the plan they prefer. This can surface an option they already support, one the two of you can agree on or negotiate further. It can also redirect the conversation toward solution-finding, or help them realize they do not have a clear alternative and may be more open to yours.

2. What would it take for you to agree?

Gaffney said that when this question is asked enough times, the conversation naturally shifts toward finding a solution. It helps clarify what the other person wants, what concerns they have with a proposal, and what they ultimately want the outcome to look like. This provides direct insight into their priorities and allows those concerns to be addressed, which can reduce resistance by helping them feel heard.

3. Can you live with it?

There are times when one or neither person gets 100 percent of what they want. That is simply part of life. Asking this question aloud can surface minor hang-ups that may be blocking an agreement or compromise by encouraging self-reflection, both for the other party and for yourself. If you can "live with it," you have reached a point of agreement. If they can live with it, that is a success as well.

The worst case is that someone cannot live with it, and that is fine. If that happens, Gaffney recommends starting the questioning over with "What would you suggest?" to move past a stopping point in the conversation and explore what other options might be available to both of you.

@collegehumor

Seriously, why can’t we just say the number out loud? #parody #comedy #sketch #collegehumor #business

Professionals chime in

Communication professionals told Upworthy that they largely agree with the themes and intent behind Gaffney's three questions.

"Gaffney's three questions provide a framework that encourages contribution and ensures commitment," said Joel Simon, attorney at Simon Perdue Law Firm. "They create a structured path from uncertainty to clarity and action. I agree these questions work because they redirect dialogue from blame or debate toward collaboration and problem-solving. Each question encourages ownership, transparency, and commitment which aligns with negotiation principles I use daily, where resolving conflicts efficiently while preserving relationships is paramount."

However, while Gaffney has a proven track record and the intent behind his questions is sound, not all of his contemporaries agree that his style of questioning is one-size-fits-all. Jennifer Martin, a communications expert and business consultant with 25 years of experience, said that while she appreciates Gaffney's direct approach, it may not be effective for everyone.

"Just like the world is not filled with only tech gurus and accountants, as leaders we have to be prepared to style-flex and communicate in the language of creatives, salespeople, people pleasers, and the just-the-facts types among others," said Martin. "This is why personality tests are so popular in business."

Communication and workplace culture expert Dallin Cooper largely agreed with the broader intent of Gaffney's questions, saying they place people in an "outcome-focused mindset" that "creates introspection." That said, he also noted that the approach is not foolproof, particularly the final question.

"The key to de-escalating a conversation is to avoid defensiveness, and if you exasperatedly ask someone 'Can you just live with it?,' that often isn't going to end well," explained Cooper. "The delivery, the tone, and the wording of a question like that can make a huge difference in making it feel non-combative."

@kyleinspires

People who practice conversations predict social outcomes 44% more accurately #socialanxiety #introvert #communication #neuroscience #brain

Like Cooper, Martin was also concerned with how the questions are asked. She suggested that, depending on the other person's personality, communicators may need to tailor their message in a way the audience can best receive. Some people respond well to direct bluntness, while others may require more finesse.

Martin recommended approaching the other party with the intention of allowing them to express their point of view, while keeping the focus on understanding what they want in order to find a solution that fits.

"As all any of us really want is to be seen, heard, respected, and considered," she said.

"One thing these questions all have in common is that they are undeniably good questions to ask yourself," concluded Cooper. "They will help you understand why you're having the conversation, whether it's worth having, and keep you focused on a solution. All great things to ask yourself. And all good things to ask someone else if you ask them at the right time, and in the right way."

Science

Helicopters dump 6,000 logs into rivers in the Pacific Northwest, fixing a decades-old mistake

Forty years ago, restoration workers thought logs were the problem. They were wrong.

river restoration, washington, river fish, restoration, Yakama Nation, indigenous land, indigenoues tribes, salmon, trout, pacific northwest

Restoration workers now see how "critical" wood is to the natural habitat.

For decades, river restoration in the Northwestern United States followed a simple rule: if you saw logs in the water, take them out. Clean streams were seen as healthy streams, fast-moving water was seen as optimal, and wood was treated like a "barrier" to natural processes, particularly those of the local fish.

Now, helicopters are flying thousands of tree trunks back into rivers to undo that thinking.


In central Washington, one of the largest river restoration efforts ever attempted in the region is underway. More than 6,000 logs are being placed along roughly 38 kilometers, or 24 miles, of rivers and streams across the Yakama Reservation and surrounding ceded lands.

Nearly 40 years ago, Scott Nicolai was doing the opposite kind of work, all in the name of restoration.

"(Back then) the fish heads — what I call the fisheries folks — we stood on the banks, and we looked at the stream," Nicolai, a Yakama Nation habitat biologist, told Oregon Public Broadcasting. "If we saw a big log jam, we thought, 'Oh, that's a barrier to fish. We want the stream to flow.'"

river restoration, washington, river fish, restoration, Yakama Nation, indigenous land, indigenoues tribes, salmon, trout, pacific northwest Fish find shelter for spawning in the nooks and crannies of wood. Photo credit: Canva

At the time, logs were removed in an effort to simplify the habitat. However, it soon became clear that wood provided vital "complexity," creating sheltered pockets for salmon and bull trout to spawn and supporting algae that feed aquatic insects. Logs also slow water, spread it across floodplains, and allow it to soak into the groundwater. That water is then slowly released back into streams, helping keep them flowing and cooler during hot, dry periods.

The consequences of removing this "critical part of the system" (in addition to overgrazing, railroad construction, and splash dam logging) were made all too clear over the years as the rivers dried up and wildlife populations declined.

"We're trying to learn from our mistakes and find a better way to manage," said Phil Rigdon, director of the Yakama Nation Department of Natural Resources.

That's why Nicolai is now helping lead a project for the Yakama Nation aimed at rebuilding river complexity by returning logs to their rightful place. Many of these streams are now unreachable by road, which is why helicopters are used. Logs are flown from staging areas and carefully placed at precise drop locations marked with pink and blue flagging tape.

river restoration, washington, river fish, restoration, Yakama Nation, indigenous land, indigenoues tribes, salmon, trout, pacific northwest Many of these streams are now unreachable by road, which is why helicopters are used.Photo credit: Canva

The wood comes from forest-thinning projects led by The Nature Conservancy and includes species such as Douglas fir, grand fir, and cedar. Although some of the timber could have been sold, it is instead being used as river infrastructure.

For tribal leaders, the work carries even deeper meaning. During the helicopter flights, they gathered along the Little Naches River for a ceremony and prayer.

river restoration, washington, river fish, restoration, Yakama Nation, indigenous land, indigenoues tribes, salmon, trout, pacific northwest Tribal leaders gathered by the Little Naches River for a ceremony and prayer.Photo credit: Canva

"It was very simple: to bring what was rightfully part of this land back to us," said former tribal chairman Jerry Meninick.

The aftermath of the original restoration project illustrates how human concepts, such as the belief in the superiority of "cleanliness," can be limited and sometimes cause more harm than good. The miracle of nature, however, is that when left to her own devices, she can heal herself.

Joy

Gen X women were asked how they reinvented their lives in middle age. Here are the 7 best responses.

"Never in my wildest punk rock dreams did I think this would be something I'd want, much less do."

Gen X, generation X, gen x women, fresh start, photography, dogs
Photo Credit: Canva

A woman takes a photo. A woman walks a dog.

It's never too late to start over, even as one enters their second and, dare we say, "third" acts of life. If something can be dreamed, it quite often can be achieved no matter how many obstacles and circumstances stand in the way. If nothing else, it certainly doesn't hurt to try.

A user on Threads named Kari Bliss (@kari.bliss) posted, "Please show me the Gen X women who hit their 40s and 50s and decided to re-invent everything. Bonus points if you have a dog, a career, a hobby you take too seriously, or opinions about wellness."


In just a couple of days, there were over a thousand likes on this post and nearly 700 comments. Gen X women were ready to share and many of their stories were beautifully hopeful. Of course, the idea of positive reinvention is unique for everyone, but just the mere fact that so many came forward to relay their inspiration was a win. So much so that the OP made a separate post to thank everyone. "The honesty, the pivots, the late starts, the second chapters… it was a gift to read. I’m really honored people showed up with their stories."

Gen X, Generation X, photography, art, fresh start, gen x women A black and white photo by Anna Mullins.Photo Credit: Anna Mullins Via Threads

Anna Mullins (@a_mullinsphotography) became a photographer. "Turned 55 and decided to fill my shoes with being a black and white photographer. A longing since I was a teenager. I’m 60 now and it was the best decision I’ve ever made. My work feeds my soul like nothing ever has. I’m working on a series called The Menopause Effect. Interviews and photography of Appalachian women who want to tell their stories. It’s been incredible."

Some people have used roaring into a new life to effect change in terms of volunteering. "Never in a million years did I think I would move to Ukraine at 50 to spend my spare time delivering trucks to front-line units. But here I am." ~ @wolfpartyofone

Hollie Rogain (@hrogin), along those lines, wanted to make a difference more locally. "Decided to run for local office in 2020. Became a mayor in 2022. Never in my wildest punk rock dreams did I think this would be something I’d want, much less do. Also, dogs."

mayor, Gen X, Generation X, fresh start, Hollie Rogin A Gen X woman becomes mayor of a town.Photo Credit: Threads, Hollie Rogin

Yet another, (@wren.artcher) on the older end of Gen X, seems to feel super seen by the question. "I think the algo (algorithm) called me to your post. Older Gen X-er here who some might say that I reinvented myself. I decided to change from a boy into a girl. That's pretty much changed everything. Oh... and I have a dog in my life. She's pretty awesome."

This Threader simply began appreciating themselves: "56th year just began… finally started living for myself unapologetically messy and magnificent. Terrified about the future but ready to conquer. Choosing myself with conviction."

One Gen X had a calling from the art world. Sandra Ebejer (@sandra_ebejer_author) writes, "I’m 50. Just started painting last year. On a whim, I submitted one of my paintings to an art gallery and last week I got to see it hanging on their walls. (No dog, but I do have a cat who follows me around like he’s a dog…)"

Gen X, Generation X, art, fresh start, art gallery, painting Sandra Ebejer's art hangs in a gallery.Photo Credit: Threads, Sandra Ebejer

Alison Corey (@fearlessforfiction) went from teaching kindergarten to writing novels, both extremely admirable careers. "Yep, that’s me! I’m 46. I was a kindergarten teacher for 15 years, then left my job after I started a blog. Now my blog is sold and I’m writing my first novel. Not sure where it’s all going to go but I get to write every day, and it’s such a joy! I love my pup, and taught myself to crochet this year."

And another (@devaney_camburn) is Madrid-bound! "I’m moving abroad in about 10 weeks. Sold my house and belongings and leaving my 20-year career. I’m anxious and scared and nervous and overwhelmed but I also know I got this."

Education

Behavior expert shares the one powerful habit that makes you more likable

You can subconsciously change how people feel about you.

woman talking, woman tells story, woman's group, coffee, conversation,

A woman sharing a positive story with her group.

There are two statements kids often make that decades of scientific research suggest are actually true: "It takes one to know one" and "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." The big takeaway is that the things you say about other people are often seen as a reflection of you, too.

Dr. Shadé Zahrai—an award-winning leadership strategist, Harvard-trained coach, and member of the Forbes Coaches Council—explained the phenomenon in a viral TikTok post that focuses on how to be more likable and seen as a good person by others. Her lesson, however, is a double-edged sword.


@shadezahrai

This habit makes you more likable (and a better human). #psychology #socialpsychology #socialintelligence #conversations #emotionalintelligence #leadership

How to be more likable

"Ever notice how people who speak kindly about others seem naturally likable?" Zahrai asked in the video. "There is something called the social transference phenomenon, and it is pretty fascinating. Research shows that when you describe someone's traits, people who hear unconsciously associate those same traits with you."

(Note: Research dating back to 1998 refers to this phenomenon as Spontaneous Trait Transference, or STT.)

"So when you highlight someone's optimism or compliment their trustworthiness, you're not just uplifting them, you're building your own reputation as optimistic and trustworthy," she continued. "And if you gossip or speak badly about others, those listening can't help but link those same traits back to you. Your words shape how other people see you."

woman speaking, female storyteller, audience, coffee, public speaking, A woman sharing her ideas with friends.via Canva/Photos

If you're hearing about STT for the first time, you might cringe when thinking about past gossip sessions at work or over drinks with friends. But it's also an invitation to be more mindful of how you talk about others. When you voice negative opinions out loud, they can reflect back on you. Conversely, it's the perfect excuse to start looking for the good in others and bringing it up as much as possible.

What is Spontaneous Trait Transference?

Research suggests that the human brain associates a communicator with the traits they assign to others, whether those traits are positive or negative, such as brilliant, rude, selfish, thoughtful, or trustworthy. For example, if you tell a story about your friend Stacey being disrespectful to a waiter, listeners are likely to view Stacey as rude and also associate that same trait with you, even if they know you are not typically that kind of person.

In this way, the brain can be somewhat sloppy when assigning traits. As the listener processes the story, the idea of "rude" becomes top of mind and is quickly attached not only to Stacey, but also to you, simply because of your proximity.

woman, man, beer, story, connection, man woman talking A man and woman enjoying a pitcher of beer.via Canva/Photos

"The takeaway? Authentic compliments allow you to express admiration for others, with the positive traits you cite also being attributed to you," writes Wendy L. Patrick in Psychology Today. "The opposite, of course, is true as well."

The big lessons

Talking positively about people makes you seem positive. Talking negatively about people makes you seem negative.

Spontaneous Trait Transference is a reminder that the brain often makes hasty associations that are not always rooted in reason. The good news is that, when used to your advantage, it can be a win-win. You can focus on uplifting others rather than bringing them down, which will make you more likable, too.