China Crisis: threat to the global environment

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's an excellent idea. I guess that would come a bit later, after they get a grip with the peasant problem.

"peasant problem"? Sounds like Mao Tse-tung. What peasant problem are you refering to actually? The theft of their land? The rule of cruel party supported warlords or other corrupt party supported officials? The toxic waste dumps that their homes have become for nearby factories? The complete neglect for their needs while the cities become bourgeois paradises?

Or is it that they are just ignorant whiners who don't know what best for them and best for China?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by aneeshm
The communist model has to collapse sooner or later .

Won't be good for China if it does. Better to let these capitalist bubbles form and control them. A transition to capitalism would create millions of people who won't have food to eat me thinks. Or if this is done it better be in stages transitional not one coup out.

[The Mad Viking]

Communist and capitalist terms have little use in China.

This is a strong, centrally planned economy. Very similar to how existing First World countries governed during their booms, post industrial revolution. The names have been changed for spin/ideological reasons.

I thought the article was good and balanced, but the commentary was hyperbole.

China is reducing pollution in many ways - for example, they have restructured the whole steel industry, eliminating the small, highly polluting "mom and pop" operations.

It is simply unreasonable to suggest that China cannot aspire to and achieve the same standard of living as the USA. Obviously a lot of work in enviroment and resource management will be required, but you know, as recently as the 60s and 70s, how did the US do in these areas?

It may or may not be "sustainable", with the USA retaining the current standard. But explain why the USA should be permitted a 3% annual increase, and the Chinese should not be permitted to catch up?

Perhap the article should be about the USA starting to cut its consumption by 2% a year, so there are more resources left for the developing countries that actually need them.

[Japher]

Perhap the article should be about the USA starting to cut its consumption by 2% a year, so there are more resources left for the developing countries that actually need them.

lame

[DaShi]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

China is reducing pollution in many ways - for example, they have restructured the whole steel industry, eliminating the small, highly polluting "mom and pop" operations.

Do you have a link for this? I tried to find some articles about it, but can't find anything to the scale that you're describing or any describing any true improvement environmentally.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
This is a strong, centrally planned economy. Very similar to how existing First World countries governed during their booms, post industrial revolution. The names have been changed for spin/ideological reasons.

What names have been changed for spin/ideological reasons?

[The Mad Viking]

How is this lame?

Who has the grand design for what is yours and what is mine?

Why is China being criticized?

Look at the what the original quoted article says, and the comment paragraph immediately following. Total non-sequiter.

"The bottom line of this analysis is that we're going to have to develop a new economic model. Instead of a fossil-fuel based, automobile-centred, throw-away economy we will have to have a renewable-energy based, diversified transport system, and comprehensive reuse and recycle economies. "If we want civilisation to survive, we will have to have that. Otherwise civilisation will collapse."

The Greenpeace report is one of the first major indictments of the catastrophic environmental effects the great Chinese industrial behemoth is starting to have on the rest of the world.

So who has the fossil fuel based, automobile centered throwaway economy that we need to change?

How did this get spun into a "major indictment of the catastrophic effects of the Chinese behemoth"?

It is so transparent its funny.

The Chinese people, and the Chinese nation, are no less deserving of the benefits of industrialization than we are.

Blaming them is counterproductive to finding solutions to the limits of the earth's resources.

China has taken great pains, literally to limit population growth. While Dubya has gone out of his way to keep birth control out of third world countries.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
How is this lame?

Who has the grand design for what is yours and what is mine?

Why is China being criticized?

Because in a rather short amount of time it is consuming more resources than other developed nations and creating levels of pollution higher than expected, and probably higher than are being reported.

Look at the what the original quoted article says, and the comment paragraph immediately following. Total non-sequiter.

It's only non-sequitur if you take it out of context of the rest of the article, which you just did. The article is about the Greenpeace report and using quotes from a leading environmental analysist, which seems pretty normal for an article like this. Now you could argue that Mr. Brown's statements are wrong, but you'd have to back that up somehow.

So who has the fossil fuel based, automobile centered throwaway economy that we need to change?

How did this get spun into a "major indictment of the catastrophic effects of the Chinese behemoth"?

It's primarily a caution of China's rapidly growing industry and environmental problems. I don't see how it is spun. Mr. Brown is discussing a need for a new economic model for globalization given the results of rising nations like China and India. The only spin here is how you're trying to take these statements out of context.

It is so transparent its funny.

The Chinese people, and the Chinese nation, are no less deserving of the benefits of industrialization than we are.

Blaming them is counterproductive to finding solutions to the limits of the earth's resources.

There is nothing calling for taking away the benefits of industrialization for China. However, it is cautioning the unbridled rise of it and the result if other developing nations follow the same model. The blame you are applying to article is simply an identification of the problem.

China has taken great pains, literally to limit population growth. While Dubya has gone out of his way to keep birth control out of third world countries.

That's a strawman, and inaccurate as well. It seems your issue has more to do with anti-Americanism than with China.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by DaShi

What names have been changed for spin/ideological reasons?

In 1870, they didn't call it communism with capitalist bubbles. But it operated very similarly. Strong Government regulation, with elite private corporation operating on a for profit basis.

In 1930 they called it Fascism.

Same thing as what China is doing today. And it has NOTHING to do with Marx.

[DaShi]

So basically, it's modern Europe?

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by DaShi


Because in a rather short amount of time it is consuming more resources than other developed nations and creating levels of pollution higher than expected, and probably higher than are being reported.



It's only non-sequitur if you take it out of context of the rest of the article, which you just did. The article is about the Greenpeace report and using quotes from a leading environmental analysist, which seems pretty normal for an article like this. Now you could argue that Mr. Brown's statements are wrong, but you'd have to back that up somehow.



It's primarily a caution of China's rapidly growing industry and environmental problems. I don't see how it is spun. Mr. Brown is discussing a need for a new economic model for globalization given the results of rising nations like China and India. The only spin here is how you're trying to take these statements out of context.



There is nothing calling for taking away the benefits of industrialization for China. However, it is cautioning the unbridled rise of it and the result if other developing nations follow the same model. The blame you are applying to article is simply an identification of the problem.



That's a strawman, and inaccurate as well. It seems your issue has more to do with anti-Americanism than with China.

Rubbish and claptrap. It seems your issue has more to do with anti-Chinese sentiment than logic.

The language describing China is a clear metaphor for a destructive monster.

Population growth is ultimately the biggest threat to the environment. China is tackling this hard, the current US policy is a detriment to the problem.

Complaining about a third world country developing an infrastructure for power, transportation, communications, and public health is not a reasonable approach.

The subtext is really a fear of the power that China is gaining, and a fear that the remaining resources will become less available and affordable for us.

A real fear. Lets talk about what to do without demonizing a people for wanting to work to obtain what we acquired by birthright.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


Rubbish and claptrap. It seems your issue has more to do with anti-Chinese sentiment than logic.

How so? Where is there anti-Chinese sentiment in my post? That's a big claim, so please back it up. Thanks for the insults, but I'm used to them when discussing China with irrational people. You wouldn't happen to be one of those people, would you?

The language describing China is a clear metaphor for a destructive monster.

How so? If it's so clear, please show us an example.

Population growth is ultimately the biggest threat to the environment. China is tackling this hard, the current US policy is a detriment to the problem.

First, strawman again, since you aren't proving that population growth is the main cause. It seems to me that proper management of resources can absorb a larger population. Modern Japan is an ideal example. As for China tackling this hard, please describe. Are you refering to the barely enforced single-child policy, in a country that still has a rapidly rising population despite it? Or are you refering to Mao's purges during his reign, or the many industrial accidents that occur in China? If it's the latter, I'd say Bush is doing quite a good job.

Complaining about a third world country developing an infrastructure for power, transportation, communications, and public health is not a reasonable approach.

What is a reasonable approach? One that doesn't identify a problem and not make suggestions to improve it?

The subtext is really a fear of the power that China is gaining, and a fear that the remaining resources will become less available and affordable for us.

Where? I think you're reading more into this than there is. But please show us, if you truly believe this.

A real fear. Lets talk about what to do without demonizing a people for wanting to work to obtain what we acquired by birthright.

Where's the demonizing? All I see in your post are unsupported claims bordering on paranoia, ignorance, and a dislike for the West, especially the US, which you have deliberately (and out of place) demonized and admonished.

[DaShi]

And you still haven't provided a source for your steel claims. I'd think it'd be easy, since you clearly are aware of it occurring. That is, of course, you just took a small bit of information and falsified and exagerrated it, but I'm not saying you did.

[Japher]

Blaming them is counterproductive to finding solutions to the limits of the earth's resources.

IMO, giving those resources over to a 3rd world country who is going to do nothing new with those resources, only play catchup, is very counterproductive.

[DinoDoc]

It'd be easier to take this thread seriously if certain people would take the time to support their claims.