China's Hydroelectric Response to Kyoto

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asmodean
For all their People's Repuclic rhetoric, China are not a hair better for the South-East Asian countries then France or the US was in the 20th century.

China hasn't killed millions of SEA people like the US did.

Let's not forget that one of the dams being proposed will be buitl in Laos by the Laos government. You can argue the about the merits of hydrodams along the Mekong, but to blame it all on China is ridiculous.

[Mr. Harley]

Che - minor error. Actually Mexico is getting more than it's share, however they defined that so many years ago, or Rio Grande water. They are quite happy with it now. Turns out the amounts were set during a wet period, and now that it's dry Mexico's amount is still unchanged. So the US is going to take a major hit, which is having repercussions all through the American SW. That's what happens when poliiticians instead of climatologists and lawyers (i.e. good provisional clauses) write the treaties.

[Drake Tungsten]

China hasn't killed millions of SEA people like the US did.

In defense of the Chinese, they have been quite busy over the past decades killing their own people. I'm sure they're capable of matching or exceeding the US body count in Southeast Asia, once they get around to it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi
The government does have a say in what happens to the land. It determines what is farmland and what isn't. Therefore, it has responsbility. But I said that before. Never did mention individual people. Where did that come from?

Governments have laws, but laws are broken, and corruption is rampant. If you see land use corruption in the richest and most advanced states, it should not be a surprise nor a shock that such corruption be rampant in devopling states with weak legal systems. Your individual peasant farmer, if they can suplant their income with some illegal wood harvesting, will do it, becuase their concern for the environment is far bellow that of thier concenr for their income.

How is the same in method and scale? The Sahara was once not a desert. Does it apply equally as well?

The Sahara being a desert is a natural phenomenon- gradual change over millenia. What you see in China, Panama, and in the Sahel region thought is the result of bad farming practices that deposit way too much salt in the ground. The mehotd is universal- use the same unsustainable farming practices anywhere and you create a salty mess were there once was soil. Certainly scale is not the same, but that's irrelevant to the causes and process being the same.

So when does it stop? And which developing countries should we favor over others? Is America justified in its actions? It may be developed, but it could develop some more and why should their be restrictions on that? Shouldn't it also have every opportunity to maintain its development?

States have the right to exploit those natural resources that happen to be in their territory, and this included harnessing hydro-eletric potential. Is it fair to those downstream? Of course not, but its totally legal, just as it mayb e unfair and selfish for one land owner to install a nuicense in thier property that negatively affect their neighbors. Unless we institute some sort of global environmental standard and a means to enforce it, there is nothing that can be done, and it would be hypocratical for a third party to take sides in disuptes over water, specially since any third party out there either has done the same, or would do the same if they could.

I have no problem with setting up some grand group of global environmental enforceable regulations, but that ain't going to happen.

Otherwise, it's a you're screwed, deal with it approach. I guess you can apply that to Iraq as well. What can they do about it? No one cares what happens to them.

Not really. People and states are selfish. Turkey needs electricitiy and wants water for its farmers. They happen to control the headwaters of the Euphrates and Tigris. So they exploit it. That Syria and Iraq lose out unfortuntately might be caused by Turkey, but Turkey bears no responsiblity, nor is there any legal way for either Syria of Iraq to complain. Think it unfair? Fine. Go out there and demand the end of the soverign state system. Heck, I'll send you a small donation once you set up.

I do have a solution to China's energy needs. Slow down growth in certain areas. Invest in better energy program, rather than polluting factories. Deal with poverty, instead of outerspace. It might not catch up to the US as quickly as its wants, but it can spend its money on building a better infrastructure for when it does. Unless you truly believe that there is only one way to do things.

You are asking them (and by extension other developing coutries) to play by new rules that those that are already rich never followed. The basic question becomes, why should they? Why shopuld those that are poor today pay any more attention to the planet that those who are now rich did when getting there?

If rich states are willing to finance the new rules, great, lets do so. BUt its untenable to demand the poor today to follow a whole new set of rules and mores designed by the rich, who themselves never followed them.

I support fair treatment.

Really? What is fair about asking the developing world to follow rules the developed world never did?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap


Governments have laws, but laws are broken, and corruption is rampant. If you see land use corruption in the richest and most advanced states, it should not be a surprise nor a shock that such corruption be rampant in devopling states with weak legal systems. Your individual peasant farmer, if they can suplant their income with some illegal wood harvesting, will do it, becuase their concern for the environment is far bellow that of thier concenr for their income.

My prior statements still apply.

The Sahara being a desert is a natural phenomenon- gradual change over millenia. What you see in China, Panama, and in the Sahel region thought is the result of bad farming practices that deposit way too much salt in the ground. The mehotd is universal- use the same unsustainable farming practices anywhere and you create a salty mess were there once was soil. Certainly scale is not the same, but that's irrelevant to the causes and process being the same.

Scale isn't irrelevant when it begins affecting neighbors. It can't be ignored.

States have the right to exploit those natural resources that happen to be in their territory, and this included harnessing hydro-eletric potential. Is it fair to those downstream? Of course not, but its totally legal, just as it mayb e unfair and selfish for one land owner to install a nuicense in thier property that negatively affect their neighbors. Unless we institute some sort of global environmental standard and a means to enforce it, there is nothing that can be done, and it would be hypocratical for a third party to take sides in disuptes over water, specially since any third party out there either has done the same, or would do the same if they could.

I have no problem with setting up some grand group of global environmental enforceable regulations, but that ain't going to happen.

Not really. People and states are selfish. Turkey needs electricitiy and wants water for its farmers. They happen to control the headwaters of the Euphrates and Tigris. So they exploit it. That Syria and Iraq lose out unfortuntately might be caused by Turkey, but Turkey bears no responsiblity, nor is there any legal way for either Syria of Iraq to complain. Think it unfair? Fine. Go out there and demand the end of the soverign state system. Heck, I'll send you a small donation once you set up.

Then this article is a good example to cite in support of one. Of course, there are region banks and other such organizations such as the World Bank to help combat this, but as the article mentions they are susceptle to corruption.

You are asking them (and by extension other developing coutries) to play by new rules that those that are already rich never followed. The basic question becomes, why should they? Why shopuld those that are poor today pay any more attention to the planet that those who are now rich did when getting there?

Actually, I'm asking them to run a smarter system that fairer to other developing nations. Just less greedy.

If rich states are willing to finance the new rules, great, lets do so. BUt its untenable to demand the poor today to follow a whole new set of rules and mores designed by the rich, who themselves never followed them.

Really? What is fair about asking the developing world to follow rules the developed world never did?

So we can let the Japanese off for their invasion of and atrocities in China, because they didn't have a chance to do it during European colonialization, when it was ok.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi

Scale isn't irrelevant when it begins affecting neighbors. It can't be ignored.

Nor should the problem be ignored- I doubt it is. BUt I doubt the resources to combat it are available either.

Actually, I'm asking them to run a smarter system that fairer to other developing nations. Just less greedy.

Which is fine and dandy but ain;t going to happen, because people will not voluntarily do things to limit thier potential for the goodness of others, unless they might get compensated, and money for such things is not there.

So we can let the Japanese off for their invasion of and atrocities in China, because they didn't have a chance to do it during European colonialization, when it was ok.

These comparisons are invalid- desertification and mass murder are not comparable, nor do building damns equate to mass murder.

And yes, precedent matters- developed nations did not begin to clean up their act until they had the resources to do so. Developing state won;t either until either until they get the resources, either as a result of their own growth, or get them from the outside.