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.

Matthew McConaughey, Dazed and Confused, 90s movies, ted danson, ted danson podcast, woody harrelson, movies, pop culture

Matthew McConaughey in Dazed and Confused (1993)

One might not call David Wooderson from Dazed and Confused a wholesome character. Iconic? Timelessly quotable and effortlessly cool? Sure. But wholesome? That’s a stretch. And yet, the childhood memory that helped Matthew McConaughey create that star-making role is just that: wholesome.

While appearing on the Jan. 7 episode of the Where Everybody Knows Your Name podcast hosted by Ted Danson and Woody Harrelson, McConaughey shared how he actually landed the role, and it’s about as classic a Hollywood story as you can get.


Apparently, one of McConaughey's film school classmates worked as a bartender for the rooftop bar at the Hyatt. One night, McConaughey went to visit this friend, who informed him that casting director Don Phillips was sitting close by.

McConaughey went over to talk to Phillips, and the two hit it off. Perhaps a little too well, because, McConaughey recalls, “Three and half hours later, we get kicked out” after a conversation about golf led to Phillips hopping onto a table to demonstrate his swing.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

While sharing a cab home, Phillips asked McConaughey, “Hey, you ever done any acting?” to which he answered honestly: “I said, ‘Yeah, I was in a Miller Light commercial. I don't know if you consider that acting. Maybe it was more of a modeling job.’ ”

Still, Phillips thought he “might be right” for the role of Wooderson in a Richard Linklater coming-of-age film titled Dazed and Confused. Knowing only that the character was someone “out of high school, but he still likes the high school girls,” McConaughey showed up at 9:30 a.m. the next morning to a script and a handwritten note that read, “Hey, Matthew, great night last night. I read this part. You might be right for it.”

Skimming the script, McConaughey found that now-immortal words, “That's what I love about them high school girls, man. I get older, but they stay the same age.” He instantly knew that was a “launchpad line.”

During the two weeks leading up to the audition while McConaughey was “trying to figure” the true spirit of his character, he was struck by a memory of picking up his older brother Pat from school with his mom while his car was at the shop.

“We're driving through the campus and I'm looking out the back end of that wood-paneled station wagon. I'm looking for Pat. . . . And as we’re going by, about 200 yards away, I see this shadowed figure leaning against the shady wall in the smoking section,” McConaughey recalled.

He continued, “I can see the ember of this lazy finger cigarette hanging on these two hands. This guy's leaning against the wall with his left leg, boot heel up against the wall, smoking. And I went, it’s my brother.” Not wanting his big brother to get in trouble for smoking, little McConaughey let his mother keep driving. Somehow, Pat got home on his own.

“In my 10-year-old eyes, my 17-year-old brother, who was my hero, in that shot from 200 yards away, he was cooler than James Dean. He was 9 feet tall. He was the coolest man. Now, that's who I based Wooderson on,” McConaughey gushed. “That wasn't who my brother was, but that, in my 10-year-old eyes, that's who it was.”

Matthew McConaughey, Dazed and Confused, 90s movies, ted danson, ted danson podcast, woody harrelson, movies, pop culture Matthew McConaughey and Shawn Andrews in Dazed and Confused (1993)Facebook

From that point, McConaughey had a solid anchor. When he showed up for the audition, he was ready. He even improvised everyone’s favorite “Alright, alright, alright” line. When Harrelson and Danson asked if McConaughey ever tires of people saying it to him, he replied with an adamant, “Hell no.”

It’s always amazing to hear what tiny spark sets off someone’s creativity, isn’t it? What a great reminder that life provides an endless supply of inspiration.

Watch the full episode of Where Everybody Knows Your Name below:

- YouTube www.youtube.com

likable, likable person, likable people, conversation, conversation tips

Likable people say these things during conversations to build better relationships.

Making friends and developing deeper, stronger relationships starts with good conversation. Sometimes that means small talk at work, while other times it's the kind of conversation that really takes off at a party.

Some people are naturals when it comes to easy, flowing conversation—especially highly likable people, who tend to attract others and often hold the key to mastering genuine conversation. From their gestures to the way they articulate questions, there's a lot others can learn from them.


Communication experts who spoke to Upworthy say there are 10 things highly likable people do during conversations to build stronger relationships.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

1. They listen without distraction

Listeners often make the best conversationalists.

"That means not looking at your phone or scanning around the room to see who you want to talk to next," says Kerri Garbis, CEO and founder of Ovation Communication. "Focus on the person in front of you only. Make eye contact. This fosters a relationship because when you are fully present, it signals respect, interest, and helps others feel valued versus like they are competing for your attention."

2. They collect data

Being inquisitive about what people need during conversations is key to building stronger relationships.

"If you take a moment to ask your colleague or even friend, 'What are you worried about? What's the biggest concern facing you right now?' you can get great data on how you can help them - in a way that taps into something urgent and top of mind for them," says Kate Mason, PhD, an executive communications coach and author of Powerfully Likeable: A Woman's Guide to Effective Communication. "They'll remember your thoughtfulness and the actions you took."

3. They balance the conversation

Highly likable people never make it all about themselves.

"Sometimes conversations can be 'lopsided' where it's more about the other person than about you," says Rob Volpe, a communication expert and author of Tell Me More About That: Solving the Empathy Crisis One Conversation at a Time. "While that can be okay, you aren't there to be their therapist. Sometimes the context and topic may make it off balance, but if it continues and you aren't feeling seen yourself, feel free to say something like 'I'd love to share my thoughts on this' or 'May I share something I'm dealing with at the moment?'"

4. They mirror their conversation partner

Taking cues from body language can foster deeper relationships.

"It's a subtle way to make someone comfortable because they recognize themself in your actions," says Jennifer Anderson, a communication expert who works with entrepreneurs. "Your energy should match the energy of your counterpart. Think relaxing-in-lounge-chair energy vs. about-to-deliver-a-presentation energy. Those are two very different conversations. If you paired them up, there's definitely about to be some awkwardness."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

5. They skip pre-planned questions

While coming to conversations prepared with questions may help you feel less anxious, highly likable people usually don't use them.

"Often people have questions in their back pocket, like about the weather or sports, but the most likeable people in the room are those who can be present in conversations and ask follow-ups based on what someone is talking about," Garbis says. "This builds a relationship by making conversations feel relational and not transactional."

6. They are self-aware

Highly likable people are masters of self-awareness, especially during conversations.

"Self-awareness of your judgment is key to building relationships," Volpe says. "We all carry biases which can block our view of the person standing in front of us. When you catch yourself being judgmental, have some grace with yourself and get curious about the other person as well as where your judgment is coming from. This clears one of the biggest obstacles to having empathy with others."

7. They respond with affirmation

Highly likable people make others feel seen and heard.

"No matter what is coming out of the person's mouth, make it clear that you're not judging or competing with them," Garbis notes. "If they say: 'I went skiing this weekend,' don't jump in and say that you also went skiing. Say something like, 'Wow, that sounds exciting, tell me more about that.' You can respond with validating statements like: 'That makes sense, or I can see why you're so good at that, or I can see why that matters to you.' This reduces defensiveness and nervousness, and it makes people feel safe to be themselves and creates relationships faster."

@justaskjefferson

it’s been great catching up! #communicationtips #communicationskills

8. They remain calm

Bringing a sense of calm rather than chaos to a conversation can put everyone at ease.

"Calm is the most powerful communication flex you can do," Mason says. "If you can stay calm, especially in a heated conversation, you actually end up looking trustworthy, reliable and unruffled - all very powerful things to be remembered for."

9. They remember names

Highly likable people personalize conversations by using the other person's name.

"Never ever tell people you are terrible at remembering names," Garbis explains. "This will tank the conversation because it signals you don't matter, nothing you say matters, and that you aren't worth remembering. It makes a person mentally check out of the conversation. Use good tricks like repeating a person's name at the beginning and again at the end. If you forgot by the end, say something like, 'It was so fun to hear about your skiing adventure. By the way, I'm Kerri, it was so nice to meet you, and can you remind me of your name? I don't want to forget it?' They'll be so grateful you repeated your name too!"

10. They use humor where they can

Finally, highly likable people make sure to infuse conversations with laughter.

"It's a great connector," Anderson notes. "Don't try to be a standup comic, just find the lighthearted observations and details that you can share in conversations. Humor is never a weapon; judgy and mean-spirited comments convey weakness, not confidence. You'll risk alienating your conversation partner if you come in with a full roast of your friends or coworkers. If all else fails, everyone loves a Dad Joke."

biscuit, biscuits, british biscuit, cookie, american biscuit

British people call cookies "biscuits," which are different from what Americans call biscuits.

Although we both speak English, British people and American people have different words for certain things. One major difference is the word "biscuit."

For British people, "biscuit" is used to describe what Americans call "cookies." One curious American on Reddit posed the question: "what do British people call biscuits?"


The simple question led to an entire discourse on British baked goods, and Brits offered their best explanation on how they define them.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

First things first: the Brits on Reddit made it clear that they also have cookies.

"All cookies are biscuits, but not all biscuits are cookies. To British people, a cookie is a specific type of biscuit," one Redditor explained.

Another Brit broke down the difference between what they consider a "biscuit" and "cookie": "We have shaped, mostly flatter, slightly harder biscuits (like nice biscuits, tea biscuits, and things like custard creams that are two biscuits with a sweet filling), but we do also have cookies that are what comes to mind when you think of cookies," they shared. "The softer, not form shaped, irregular circular cookies with chocolate chips etc."

@british_ash_

Cookie vs Biscuit 🍪 In the UK a cookie is a particular type of biscuit with a high butter and sugar content so the dough melts during cooking giving a crispy edge with a softer centre. All cookies are biscuits BUT not all biscuits are cookies 🍪 In America, biscuits are sinilar to UK scones 🍪 #learnenglish #englishteacher #studyenglish #visituk #london #biscuit #cookie

British 'biscuits' vs. American 'biscuits'

So, what do Brits call those flaky biscuits Americans douse with gravy? Unfortunately, these type of biscuits don't really exist in Great Britain.

"We actually don't have a version of the American biscuits here, nor (as far as I am aware) the white gravy with the sausage meat. We have some white sauces, but we don't do white gravy as a standard, nationwide thing," one British Redditor explained. Another added, "American biscuits are unknown outside of North America. Most Britons have likely never eaten one."

However, British scones are very close to American biscuits. "People are saying scones and the biggest difference between the two is texture and ratio of ingredients. Scones have less butter and are usually more dense. Biscuits have more butter and have buttermilk creating more levity," one Redditor explained.

Another added, "I had a classmate who came from Britain and he once called them 'butter/cheese scones'. And I was like these things are nothing like scones. And he was like, 'It's a quick bread using baking powder as the leavening. The difference is it's savory'. And I was like........ Okay fine."

However, another Brit argued that American biscuits are more like British dumplings.

"The nearest thing to the US biscuits are savoury British dumplings which are often made from suet and used in casseroles," they shared.


@seasonedbf

It’s been years and we still can’t get “IT’S BISCUITS” out of our head @VICTOR KUNDA #seasoned #ukvsusa #popeyes #onthisday

So what do British people call biscuits?

It may be underwhelming, but the consensus is: "American biscuits."

"'American biscuits' … 'they really eat them with gravy?' Most Brits who have heard of American style biscuits are aware that they aren’t scones but unless they’ve actually tasted them tend to have difficulty conceptualizing the difference," one British Redditor explained.

Another added, "I lived in England for 13 years. They have no idea what an American biscuit is. It simply does not exist over there. I looked. It’s like asking an American what we call Haggis."

This commenter clarified: "We probably call American biscuits - 'American biscuits' because we don’t have an equivalent here. Like how we do with American football."

blind, visually impaired, eyesight, vision loss, glasses, AI, ai glasses, technology, accessibility, meta glasses

An elderly woman driving a car.

When actress Kat Conner Sterling isn't in front of the camera, she often finds herself behind it. With a social media following of hundreds of thousands to appease, Sterling has found a surprising star: her mother.

Sterling's mother, Charlotte, has been the focal point of many hit reels and posts, partly due to her colorful personality and partly because she has been blind since she was a teenager.


According to Newsweek, Charlotte, 64, began losing her sight when she was just 17 due to a rare genetic disease. Her vision quickly deteriorated and she became legally blind before her eyesight worsened further with the onset of glaucoma and retinitis pigmentosa. Charlotte says she can only see shades of light and dark and sometimes make out the shapes of common objects, but otherwise, she is "totally blind." Despite having many decades to adapt, it's challenging for Charlotte to do many everyday tasks independently.

In a recent TikTok post, however, Kat shared how her mother's life was about to change in a big way thanks to a new pair of AI-powered glasses. In one video clip, Charlotte is shown getting dressed and visiting an eye doctor to have the glasses fitted and tested.

"They never said blind people can't be cute," Charlotte says, as Kat helps her apply makeup.

In the optometrist's chair, Charlotte puts on the glasses and asks them to access the menu for the restaurant the women are planning to visit for lunch. She then asks the glasses to recommend the "best food to get there."

Meta's AI glasses, along with other AI-powered eyewear, don't enhance a person's eyesight, per se. Instead, they feature a small camera that can take in images and videos from the outside world and translate those visuals into spoken text that only the wearer can hear. The glasses are also Bluetooth-enabled, allowing them to connect to a smartphone's data connection to access the internet.

In the next clip, mother and daughter visit a grocery store, where Charlotte holds a bag of chocolate chips and asks the glasses to read the packaging aloud. In the caption, Kat explains that her mom hasn't been able to grocery shop independently in decades.

"I was excited to think there might finally be something that could give me a slice of independence, rather than constantly relying on friends and family to help me understand what I'm seeing," Charlotte tells Newsweek.

After testing the technology on a few more items, Charlotte gives an enthusiastic thumbs-up. "Yay, yay, yay!" she says.

@katconnersterling_

#ai #disability #accessibility #mom #artificialintelligence

Kat's videos of her mother testing out the glasses have received millions of views and thousands of supportive comments. In a world where AI is polarizing at best and harmful at worst, many viewers found the footage incredible:

"I despise AI for nonessential use, but I will always support AI usage for good. This is amazing!"

"This is what AI should be used for. Not as a search engine but as medical assistance and medical research."

"My opinion on ai just changed"

"This is the only use of ai i'll accept, we should advocate for this more it really does have the potential to help so many people"

"The only AI in our society should be helping us make life easier not harder. this is an amazing use for AI glasses"

In another clip, Charlotte uses the glasses to get a description of the food served to her at a restaurant. She then has the glasses help her find the Diet Coke dispenser on a soda machine.

She's still getting used to the device and the technology, and so far is only scratching the surface of what's possible.


@katconnersterling_

something cool. We did not expect this response. The messages, the stories, the encouragement… it’s been overwhelming in the best way. People working in disability programs want to share this with their teams. Others are reaching out hoping this could help them or someone they love. It’s reached way more people than we ever imagined. Definitely inspiring us to make more content! Stay tuned #momsoftiktok #ai #technology #disability #accessibility

An essay in Ability Magazine shares another blind user's experience with Meta's AI Ray-Ban glasses. Writer Gina Velasquez describes how the glasses help her orient herself in public, physical spaces:

"Sitting in a waiting room at the massive Mount Sinai Hospital, the Meta glasses not only accurately identified the location as a hospital waiting room, it also described the furniture, the reception area and the patients sitting in chairs. When I asked for the location address, it answered and went on to tell me about the hospital wing I was in and other departments it contained. The Ray-Bans gave me more information about where I was than I've ever received from the companions who've helped me attend my appointments."

She also shares an anecdote from podcaster Ed Fischler, who uses AI glasses to "read" non-braille books to his three-year-old grandson—something that wouldn't have been possible without the technology.

Velasquez also notes that using a service called Be My Eyes, a real human volunteer can tap into the camera on her glasses to add a human touch by offering descriptions, assisting with visual tasks, and more.

There are downsides, of course, as with any technology. AI has many limitations, including inaccuracies and hallucinations, so it may not be safe to rely on AI glasses to read prescription labels or help you cross a busy street, for example. Some users also have privacy concerns with companies like Meta having access to a camera they wear for several hours a day.

But overall, AI glasses have received positive marks from the accessibility community.

As for Kat, she's thrilled for her mom. The two are extremely close, and it's been incredibly fulfilling for Kat to see her mother regain even the slightest bit of independence in her daily life.

Of their trip to the grocery store, Kat says, "It felt strange not standing right beside her reading everything, but it was such a meaningful and welcome change for both of us. I even left her in an aisle for a few minutes while she browsed on her own, with the glasses reading everything to her."

They hope the technology will continue to improve, becoming less clunky and more accurate over time. But for many people like Charlotte, the glasses are already making a positive difference.