China Crisis: threat to the global environment

[DaShi]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


You are accusing them of terrible crimes against the environment. Where is your evidence? A few generic quotations from a Greenpeace article?

China's poor environmental record has been well established before this article. There have been several threads on it before. Where were you then? Are you denying China's environmental problems?

I did. Twice. Here it is a third time.
"The Greenpeace report is one of the first major indictments of the {b]catastrophic[/b] environmental effects the great Chinese industrial behemoth is starting to have on the rest of the world."

Twice? Where? You quoted part of the article in one other post and then attacked it on spurious claims out of context. When this was pointed out, you didn't say a word. Now you want us to accept what you said before as true, although it has been shown to be incorrect?

behemoth: Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin, from Hebrew behEmOth
1 often capitalized : a mighty animal described in Job
2 something of monstrous size or power

It's a fair ananlogy given the size and impact of China and its economy. China is an industrial behemoth, are you denying this? The article then goes on to post China's own deputy environmental minister's opinions, which support the articles discussion of China's environmental problems. Why do you ignore this part, and focus on semantics?

You are really starting to piss me off.

I can hardly be responsible for that.

It is not in any way a strawman. Nobody proves everything they say. "Proving" this is likely impossible. It is certainly beyond the scope of a post on an internet forum.

If it takes that much of an effort to prove, then how can you automatically assume it to be true? You did say the "biggest threat." That requires some backing up:

"Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan

But if you want, try reading "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. I balanced approach that does nothing to understate the great risks to the earth posed by China joining the developed world, without blaming them for a desire to do so.

I don't think anyone is claiming that China wants to destroy the environment. This article is simply making people aware of the great risks to the earth posed by China joining the developed world. It's seems you are trying to abdicate China's responsibility for its own actions. The article is demonstrating just how big an impact China is having, if you disagree with that then present us with some examples and evidence. The point simply is, China is greatly affecting the world environment, what should be done?

The fact is that the demand on the environment is a product of the number of people x the average consumption per person.

It is pretty reasonable to limit population growth, thus limiting the the demand on the environment.

Please show some evidence where population growth alone is a drain of resources on a global scale. I'm not convinced that it is so simple.

Japan and Europe actually have declining populations. In Chinese culture, there is a desire to have a lot of children and have big families. Are you saying that Chinese culture is a big threat to the environment?

It is not reasonable to tell people they must live without electricty, potable water, and healthcare.

Who is asking for this? I don't even see protest groups demanding that China join Kyoto. Although, you did say that the US should give up its resources to help China. Are you willing to give up electricty, potable water, and healthcare that you wish to deny others.

And I doubt people in Japan or Canada are lining up to give their resources away.

No, but Japan has made great strides to fight its resource and pollution problems. Canada...

Like it or not, the third world is catching up.

We must control global population.

It's a simple solution to solve a complex problem. Like growing more food to stop starvation. Frankly, I'm beginning to doubt your understanding on this issue. Anyway, I'm still not convinced that it is the sole issue here. You've provided no evidence.

China's population growth is far lower than India, Pakistan, and many other third world and developing countries. Their policies are draconion, and selectively enforced, but they are working.

So you suggest this policy for the rest of the world? Or do you suggest that countries look after themselves? Which is it?

As far as a reasonable approach - I would suggest that China look after its own. Show me how China's environmental problems are hurting the West?

"Oil

On current trends, China will by 2031 be consuming 99 million barrels of oil per day. Total world production today is only 84 million bpd

Forestry

China is already the biggest driver of rainforest destruction, says Greenpeace. Half of all rainforest logs head for China

Global warming

By 2025, China will overtake the US as the top emitter of the greenhouse gases causing global warming"

What is the point of the article, other than hate and fear mongering? What does it suggest we DO?

How can anything be done, if the problems are not identified?

Of couse this is a far cry from your original statement:

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

I'll agree that you still think the commentary was hyberbole.

As far as the steel issue, this was in an article I read about 1.5 years ago, in a trade journal. When the construction industry in North America was facing huge steel shortages and cost increases. Sorry, I don't have links for every magazine article I read.

Then perhaps the article was wrong. Did it specificly state they have restructured the whole steel industry, eliminating the small, highly polluting "mom and pop" operations? I can't find anymore support on this, other than a few articles talking about specific steel companys. But nothing to that scale.

Does China complain about US oil exploration in the Alaskan Nature Preserve, or cyanide leaching from abandoned mines that were not properly decommisioned?

You don't read China Daily, do you?

What is your solution? Nuke Beijing? Trade embargo?

I made my suggestion in my first post. Nothing so horrible as killing people or forcing them to live under selectively enforced draconian rules.

[Tingkai]

The question remains of how can a lesser developed economy, be it India or China, grow without increasing pollution.

The idea that India or China should be kept poor is foolish.

Is India doing a better job than China at environmental protection?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I find it somewhat strange that even without UR entering the thread we seem to be continually bogged down by people stealing his usual line "LOOK AT THE US! IGNORE CHINA (even though it is the topic of the thread)." Why does that happen so often?

It's not about ignoring China.

It simply hypocritical for Americans to complain about pollution created by a developing country when the U.S. is doing little to control its pollution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I was of the belief that Mobius is a Brit, and a more 'green' one than the current government there . Please tell me which US city he inhabits.

[mrmitchell]

Forestry is a pretty easy industry and resource (tree products - wood, paper, so on) to maintain and keep sustainable.

We can only be thankful that it isn't another industry we have lost to the Chinese...may their bungling and misled planning continue.

[Tingkai]

The reponse of "ignore us, look at them" is not confined to the U.S. or China. It's common everywhere.

That's what has to change. People need to start saying "forget about them, what can we do."

One simple step that all countries could do is to impose a large tax on cars that get less than 30 mpg, say a 20%, with higher tax rates for car that get worse mileage.

[DaShi]

"forget about them, what can we do."

That's fine until what another country is doing affects us. Why do you think there are so many protests against US pollution? China gets a few bad articles and people are crying foulplay over it. I don't think China syncophants will be able to handle the country becoming a superpower.

[DaShi]

One simple step that all countries could do is to impose a large tax on cars that get less than 30 mpg, say a 20%, with higher tax rates for car that get worse mileage.

Doesn't this suggestion conflict with your "forget about them, what can we do." philosophy. There is a nice thread about Canada's pollution for you.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


What does that have to do with PRC's economic growth? Are you saying that it's the communist model that's driving such a spectacular growth?

That's not what you have been saying before.

The makers of Civ are wise - for they gave commies the ability to rush-build things using citizens ( IIRC ) .

How did Russia achieve such spectacular growth during its "five year plans" during Stalin'r rule ? It whipped its people , and used them as slaves ( worked them to death ) .

What do you think China's growth just now is based on ? The same thing , only that they don't work you to death , only to half-death .

[Sandman]

If they were working to 'half-death' you'd expect their life expectancy to be a bit lower than it is: 72.

India's is 64 (which is also the global average).

[Colon™]

Those statistics are pretty lame:

"China - growing at nearly 10% a year - already consumes more grain, meat, coal and steel than the United States"

Even if it wouldn't grow at 10%/year, it would consume more grain and meat than the US. That's because the population is 4 times as large. (DUH) Of course, one might desire Chinese eat 4 times as less as the USians. Grain and meat consumption won't graw at the same pace as GDP growth either.

"China's population will grow from 1.3 billion to 1.45 billion in 26 years - when per capita income will be equal to that of the US today"

A growth of 150 million in 26 years isn't much. Or to put it differently, China's population growth is estimated to be 0.58% in 2005. (CIA factbook) China's population is also projected to fall after its peak of 1.5 billion. India's population is projected to peak at 2 billion IIRC.

"On current trends, China will by 2031 be consuming 99 million barrels of oil per day. Total world production today is only 84 million bpd"

On current trends. There's no chance in hell oil consumption will keep on growing at current pace. Oil production is not going to remain constant either.

"China is already the biggest driver of rainforest destruction, says Greenpeace. Half of all rainforest logs head for China"

Might just as well be that the logs are rediverted to China from other countries. China is stealing everyone's jobs remember.

"By 2031, China would have 1.1 billion cars if it matches current US trends - bigger than the current world fleet of 800 million"

And they assume the rest of the world's fleet will remain constant?

What's next? Predict that China will consume more electricity than the US by 2050? Shocking.

Seriously, it would be fairer to compare on a per capita base to see if they're using natural resources more inefficiently, and look at their actual environmental efforts.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by child of Thor
who's funding all the recent investments in china's economy? is it all home grown capital, or are other countries doing thier bit to help fund the potential enviromental disaster?

A lot of foreign capital.

[Urban Ranger]

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

Absolutely. Look at some of these claims:

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?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


A lot of foreign capital.

So we can expect to hear a lot more of how the Chinese brought their country out of poverty all on their own.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Absolutely. Look at some of these claims:

Is this what you're doing now? Attacking my posts by proxy? Have I really frightened you so much that you can't respond to me directly? That question there was address to you after all. It's only polite, which I'm painstakely trying to be now. :forced smile:

Anyway, the reason I mentioned those is because they have all been thoroughly discussed in other threads, where I provided sources. Some as recent as last month.

But if you want more sources to back them up, I'll be happy to provide them , otherwise, I'll consider your point conceded.

Of course, this begs:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
A lot of foreign capital.

Source?