I was sitting in a cafe, reading the latest edition of the Sunday Times Travel Guide when I noticed an article that mentioned how the world’s biggest city, New York, has the worst air pollution in the world.
As it happens, I’d only been there a week, and my initial reaction was, well, it’s probably not as bad as some of the cities that have been named.
But I then remembered that I was travelling to New York from a small coastal town in South Africa, where air quality was even worse.
In fact, the country that hosts the US presidential inauguration on January 20, 2024, is also the country where the worst pollution was measured last year, in the capital of Pretoria, which, according to a study published last month in the Lancet, was the worst city in the South African capital.
The US’s pollution is also ranked as the most dangerous in the entire world.
The world’s worst pollution city is also, surprisingly, the second most polluted city in South America, with more than twice as much particulate matter as the continent’s poorest country.
South America’s cities are particularly bad when it comes to CO2 emissions.
In Argentina, the capital city, CO2 levels have reached a new all-time high of over 4,000 parts per million, with a peak of over 13,000 in 2013, according a new report by the Environment Ministry.
In Brazil, pollution levels hit a peak in December, but are now down to below 1,000.
Meanwhile, in Paraguay, the highest level of particulate pollution has been recorded in the northern city of Manaus, which has the world record for the world most polluted capital city.
In the UK, the worst polluted city, Oxford, is just over 20 times more polluted than New York.
The list goes on and on, and it’s impossible to escape the fact that these countries are the most polluted in the developed world.
They are, after all, home to some of humanity’s most dangerous pollutants, including the largest concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in the planet.
But why are they so bad?
What’s causing these countries’ smoggy skies?
And are they actually bad?
In fact it’s hard to find any conclusive evidence that these nations are doing any worse than the rest of the world, but one theory is that the government and the media deliberately ignore the real problems, instead focusing on the good.
The problem is, that’s not true.
It’s possible that the media and governments in some countries are intentionally ignoring the reality of their pollution, but I doubt that the public would ever trust a government or the media with the truth about its pollution levels.
In this series of blog posts, I’ll try to find out what the scientific evidence is, what countries are doing to address the real problem, and how the public can get involved.
It might be that, when we’re looking at our own lives, we’re less likely to trust the public health information that governments and journalists produce, and more likely to be swayed by a propaganda campaign.
It could also be that the governments and the public in the countries I’ll be visiting are actually doing a great job.
They’re all in it for the money, after it all.
But if they do, we’ll probably learn a lot about how to avoid our own pollution.
As a result, I’m hoping that we’ll be able to learn a little more about why our governments and media keep producing propaganda and how to prevent it.
If we don’t, we won’t be able ever to avoid the effects of our own governments and press, and we’ll only continue to be in the grip of the same pollution that has made us sick and poor in the first place.
The science of climate change The idea that we’re being exposed to a dangerous and dangerous climate change is an old one, but it’s becoming more and more relevant.
It has been around since the late 1990s, and has been shown repeatedly to be true for some of these countries.
In 2009, the US National Academy of Sciences released a report entitled How the World Can Stop Pollution: Lessons from the Past 20 Years.
It warned that climate change was the most likely factor behind the “polar vortex”, a period of extreme weather and heatwaves that occurred in the past two decades.
In addition, the report pointed out that the planet is becoming warmer and more acidic, and that extreme weather patterns such as heatwaves and floods are becoming more frequent.
The report also concluded that “our reliance on fossil fuels is increasing, and the effects will be felt for centuries”.
The report was followed up in 2016 by a paper by a group of scientists called The Arctic Climate and Ice Report, which was published in January 2017.
The authors, led by James Hansen, an MIT professor and former NASA scientist, had been working on climate models for decades, and they wrote that climate models are “the foundation of climate