China Crisis: threat to the global environment

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Mad Viking, one of the things you will quickly learn is that a certain poster is a troll in China threads. You can explain stuff in simple English to him, and he'll ignore everything you say and then claim that you said X instead of Y and that you haven't provided any facts right after you provide tons of facts. And he'll start insulting you and and say you said stuff you never did. Best to put him on the ignore list.

You? Because I've issued all these complaints when you were arguing with me.

[DaShi]

I take it the rest of my responses were satisfactory.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


Somehow, I knew when I quoted this, that would be your response.

Well, I've never hid the fact that I can't access BBC sites. So if you knew that, why didn't you post that response? Why so defensive over this?

I also found two sites, one from 2000 which listed 1000 steel making operations in China, and one from last year which said only 264 were making steel. But I know that is not clear enough to convince you.

I haven't seen the articles to comment on them. Since you are not presenting them, I don't know why you are bringing them up, other than as a small slight against me.

You do change your argument as you go along; and reword mine freely to suit yours. And misinterpret what the article says, and then subtly change your wording of your interpretation.

That's simply wrong. I've been very fair to you and have tried to make any misunderstandings clear. I've politely asked you questions to clarify or show some support for your argument. I've described my own opinion and where I believe you are mistaken, and tried to do so in a fair way without exaggeration or taking thinks out of context.

You have changed your argument about the article. You said it was "good and balanced". However, you did also say that it contained hyberbole. On the hyberbole issue you've remained constant, and I've said that the issue is semantics, which it is. We both view the terms differently. You later said: "It's using, frankly, ridiculous projections based on steady states for 25 years;" How is that "good and balanced"?

So before you start throwing accusations around, you should check the facts and at least provide some clear examples as I have done. Also, a little manners wouldn't hurt.

Here is one last opportunity to either admit error or redefine position.

You just said: "The Greenpeace report is suggesting that something should be done to curb illegal deforestation. The report is also claiming that China is engaging in illegal deforestation outside of its own country"


The article in fact said: "An ominous sign of the danger is given in a groundbreaking report from Greenpeace, published today, which maintains that China is now by far the world's biggest driver of rainforest destruction. The report documents the vast deforestation driven by the soaring demands of China's enormous timber trade - the world's largest - as the country's headlong economic development sucks in ever-more amounts of the earth's natural resources.

Citing figures from the International Tropical Timber Organisation, the Greenpeace study says that nearly five out of every 10 tropical hardwood logs shipped from the world's threatened rainforests are now heading for China - more than to any other destination."

China is not engaging in illegal deforestation outside its own country, and the article doesn't even imply this, but I guess its biased language, which you say isn't important, misled you/

What is, in fact, happening is that countries with poor forest management are selling their timber to China.

Just like they sell it to Japan.

But, China has 10x the number of people.

I see your point here. Yes, I was mistaken and misread the article such that it said that China was directly cutting down trees illegally outside of its own country. I had read through the end bit about Papua New Guinea too quickly while trying to finish my responses to you. You are right, China is buying illegally cut trees, but Greenpeace suggests that Europe or just Great Britain outlaw the import of illegal timber. It is asking for no such policy for China. So it is not asking China to give up it's. . .what was it?. . .water, electricity, and healthcare (but that's an exaggeration, isn't it?).

Of course, according to you, the number of people should make no difference in the impact on the environment...

Where did I say that population has no affect on resources? My argument has been the mismanagement of resources causes the biggest drain.

Now you claim that population is the biggest threat to natural resources, yes? Therefore it is reasonable to use adjectives that properly describe the enormous populations of these nations that consume natural resources, hence behemoth. You may think it is too strong, but that's a matter of opinion. As for indictment, is it right for any country to buy illegally cut timber?



Since you've thrown so many accusations at me, I need to ask you some things:

First: Insults, who wrote the following:

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

"It is so transparent its funny."

"Okay, for someone of your arrogance, perhaps you should learn to read."

"Do you even know what "prove" means?"

"Are you really that thick? I know your not, so don't pretend to be to further your arguments."

"You really can't read, can you?"

Second: Did this poster at any time change his argument?

1st statement: "I thought the article was good and balanced"
2nd statement: "What is the point of the article, other than hate and fear mongering?"
3rd statement: "It's [the article] using, frankly, ridiculous projections based on steady states for 25 years;"

Third: Has this poster's statements been grossly reworded by another poster?

Poster 1: "have China abide by the same restrictions as the rest of the world."

Poster 2: "What is your solution? Nuke Beijing? Trade embargo?"

Poster 1: "It seems to me that proper management of resources can absorb a larger population."

Poster 2: "Of course, according to you, the number of people should make no difference in the impact on the environment..."

Fourth: Is this poster misinterpreting the article?

Solution to logging problem suggested in the article: "Greenpeace wants the EU, and failing that, Britain alone, to outlaw the import of timber which has not clearly been legally logged."

Poster's interpretation: "It's [the article] suggesting that China is a problem to be solved."

Fifth: Is this poster engaging in hyberbole and judgemental language after condemning it?

Poster's admonishment of the language in the article: "The language describing China is a clear metaphor for a destructive monster." "The commentary, uses judgemental, hyperbolic language and claims this is an indictment of China"

Poster's own language:

"Population growth is ultimately the biggest threat to the environment."
"You are accusing them of terrible crimes against the environment."
"What is your solution? Nuke Beijing? Trade embargo?"
"I also found two sites, one from 2000 which listed 1000 steel making operations in China, and one from last year which said only 264 were making steel. But I know that is not clear enough to convince you."

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Mad Viking, one of the things you will quickly learn is that a certain poster is a troll in China threads. You can explain stuff in simple English to him, and he'll ignore everything you say and then claim that you said X instead of Y and that you haven't provided any facts right after you provide tons of facts. And he'll start insulting you and and say you said stuff you never did. Best to put him on the ignore list.

You can't put mods on your ignore list.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

China is not engaging in illegal deforestation outside its own country

Illegal logging by Chinese timber companies is devastating large stretches of Burma's forests

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4352042.stm

This was posted earlier in the thread.

Not that Global Witness bothered to name a company.

But worst of all, the BBC article exerpted very selectively the Global Witness article.

It was presumably in the best interests of journalism to leave out the following:

“A few Chinese businessmen, backed by the authorities in Yunnan Province, are completely undermining Chinese government initiatives to combat illegal logging. Not only are the activities of these loggers jeopardising the prospect of sustainable development in northern Burma they are also breaking Chinese law.” Said Buckrell.

Without that paragraph, it looks like the Chinese government is breaking Burmese laws.

Whereas, the Chinese government has passed laws in an attempt to help Burma, who is in fact responsible for managing their own resources.

As far as I can tell, the loggers are Burmese. The law being broken is smuggling the logs across the border.

I'm sure that many Chinese authorities have bigger fish to fry than cracking down on this smuggling; and I'm sure that many are being bribed.

Deforestation has historically caused the most severe impacts to civilizations.

What to do?
Stop buying Chinese products made with wood; insist on buying only products built of lumber certified by independent foreign monitoring agencies.
Provide foreign aid to Burma and Papau New Guinea to establish sustainable operations, and build mills in those nations so that they get more than just the 10% of the value that is the raw material.
Educate the governing bodies in such nations about the risks of deforestation.

Quit playing the blame game.

In the global marketplace, the educated consumer has the power. For example, the educated consumer changed the tuna fishing industry.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by DaShi
I take it the rest of my responses were satisfactory.

Not necessarily, there are limits to my time. But believe it or not, I am trying to work towards and understanding with you.

That's simply wrong. I've been very fair to you and have tried to make any misunderstandings clear.

We'll have to take this as a unresolvable difference of opinion.

I've politely asked you questions to clarify or show some support for your argument.

Then we have different ideas about politeness. What I read was not a polite request. What I read was an off-hand dismissal of my opinions, on the basis that I did not cite third party references for them.

I understand and completely accept that you do not have to take my word for anything. But its simply impossible to have a discussion with someone who dismisses everything you say.

You seem to think everything must be factual, but you don't abide by those rules yourself. Just one example:

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.

If I said this, your response would have been something like:
"Show me data that the pollution is higher than expected. Higher than whose expectations? What were the expectations based on? Maybe the expectations are wrong, and the pollution is actually lower than should be expected? Why do you assert that pollution is probably higher than reported? What evidence do you have for this?"

Doesn't really facilitate and exchange of ideas, does it. Individually, a request for support may be considered polite. But regardless of diction, when you respond to every statement I make with such a request, the actual position is anything but polite. It is a complete disrespect of my right to have an opinion that might be contrary to yours.



I've described my own opinion and where I believe you are mistaken, and tried to do so in a fair way without exaggeration or taking thinks out of context.

You have changed your argument about the article. You said it was "good and balanced". However, you did also say that it contained hyberbole. On the hyberbole issue you've remained constant, and I've said that the issue is semantics, which it is. We both view the terms differently. You later said: "It's using, frankly, ridiculous projections based on steady states for 25 years;" How is that "good and balanced"?

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

This should have been more clear. The "article" I was referring to was the Greenpeace report, which was the portions in quotations.
The "commentary" was the portion outside the quotations, written by McCarthy.
The Greenpeace report called for a new global order.
The McCarthy spin was that it was an indictment of the Chinese monster.

My bad. If I had written this more clearly, I think a lot of misunderstanding would have been avoided.

So before you start throwing accusations around, you should check the facts and at least provide some clear examples as I have done. Also, a little manners wouldn't hurt.

Well, you are much better than me at being rude in a polite way. My manners did slip.

I see your point here. Yes, I was mistaken and misread the article such that it said that China was directly cutting down trees illegally outside of its own country. I had read through the end bit about Papua New Guinea too quickly while trying to finish my responses to you. You are right, China is buying illegally cut trees, but Greenpeace suggests that Europe or just Great Britain outlaw the import of illegal timber.

Thank you.

It is asking for no such policy for China. So it is not asking China to give up it's. . .what was it?. . .water, electricity, and healthcare (but that's an exaggeration, isn't it?).

Had to get a dig in, didn't you?

Where did I say that population has no affect on resources?

You rarely say anything clearly enough that you can't retreat from it. What you said was:
"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."

Your question certainly states that you are not convinced that population growth is a drain on resources.









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

You dismissed my position as anti-west sentiment.

"It is so transparent its funny."
Description of the McCarthy spin on the Greenpeace report. Comment directed at Japher, actually.

"Okay, for someone of your arrogance, perhaps you should learn to read."
Rude on my part. Sorry.

"Do you even know what "prove" means?"
Just a polite question.

"Are you really that thick? I know your not, so don't pretend to be to further your arguments."
My frustration at arguing with a shape-shifter.

"You really can't read, can you?"
I'm still not sure... j/k

Second: Did this poster at any time change his argument?

1st statement: "I thought the article was good and balanced"
2nd statement: "What is the point of the article, other than hate and fear mongering?"
3rd statement: "It's [the article] using, frankly, ridiculous projections based on steady states for 25 years;"

Dealt with above. My bad writing to blame.

Third: Has this poster's statements been grossly reworded by another poster?


Poster 1: "have China abide by the same restrictions as the rest of the world."

Poster 2: "What is your solution? Nuke Beijing? Trade embargo?"

I still haven't heard how you plan to "have China abide". At least I posed two possible scenarios. You have posed none.



Fourth: Is this poster misinterpreting the article?

Solution to logging problem suggested in the article: "Greenpeace wants the EU, and failing that, Britain alone, to outlaw the import of timber which has not clearly been legally logged."

Poster's interpretation: "It's [the article] suggesting that China is a problem to be solved."

here we go again. Greenpeace report seemed fair and balanced. McCarthy suggests China is a problem to be solved.

Fifth: Is this poster engaging in hyberbole and judgemental language after condemning it?

Poster's admonishment of the language in the article: "The language describing China is a clear metaphor for a destructive monster." "The commentary, uses judgemental, hyperbolic language and claims this is an indictment of China"

Poster's own language:

"Population growth is ultimately the biggest threat to the environment."

Biggest is not hyperbolic.

"You are accusing them of terrible crimes against the environment."

This is an entirely reasonable rewording of "indictment" and "catastrophic", word which you continue to defend.

"What is your solution? Nuke Beijing? Trade embargo?"
Yes, this is hyperbole. However, I did not publish it in magazine, we are having a spirited discussion. I am making a point that the McCarthy and you are essentially saying "Chinese are bad. Throw rocks at them." There is a glaring lack of proposed action. There is no attempt to understand, let alone accept, the factors which are causing the problems. Just playing the blame game.

Overall, I would say that at times I was rude and may have over-reacted to your posts. And certainly my statement about the the dual nature of the McCarthy/Greenpeace was ambiguously written and contributed to the confusion.

I would like to move past this. I am very interested in how the world can best deal with China joining the ranks of the developed world. Because like it or not, she is.

Do you have any Made in China in your house?

I read somewhere, and cannot cite you a source, that Walmart imports more Chinese goods than the rest of the US combined. Sounds like an exageration, but the west's demand for cheap consumer goods seems to me to be driving this "behemoth".

[DaShi]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Then we have different ideas about politeness. What I read was not a polite request. What I read was an off-hand dismissal of my opinions, on the basis that I did not cite third party references for them.

"What I asked for: 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."

What wrong with that?

I understand and completely accept that you do not have to take my word for anything. But its simply impossible to have a discussion with someone who dismisses everything you say.

That's why we're discussing it. I've even conceded where I've made a mistake. I've also pointed out where I think your wrong. In most cases, I say that it is a matter of my opinion that you're and give you proper chance to defend yourself. In additions, I have also defended myself from your accusations, which are unsupported, false, and insulting.

You seem to think everything must be factual, but you don't abide by those rules yourself. Just one example:

If I said this, your response would have been something like:
"Show me data that the pollution is higher than expected. Higher than whose expectations? What were the expectations based on? Maybe the expectations are wrong, and the pollution is actually lower than should be expected? Why do you assert that pollution is probably higher than reported? What evidence do you have for this?"

Doesn't really facilitate and exchange of ideas, does it. Individually, a request for support may be considered polite. But regardless of diction, when you respond to every statement I make with such a request, the actual position is anything but polite. It is a complete disrespect of my right to have an opinion that might be contrary to yours.

This is direct putting words into my mouth. My response would be something like? If there is a problem point it out. Quote me. Don't make up what my response would be. That's not polite, nor is it a fair example.

But I think the example of this case is more along the lines of this:

Your solution is to have China abide by the same restrictions as the rest of the world.

So what are those "restrictions" that the "rest of the world" abides by?

And how does one "have China abide"?

Is that right? None of that is made up quotes as to what someone would have said. You actually posted that to me.

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

Yes, I quoted you accurrately.

This should have been more clear. The "article" I was referring to was the Greenpeace report, which was the portions in quotations.
The "commentary" was the portion outside the quotations, written by McCarthy.
The Greenpeace report called for a new global order.
The McCarthy spin was that it was an indictment of the Chinese monster.

My bad. If I had written this more clearly, I think a lot of misunderstanding would have been avoided.

You can understand why one would assume a statement concerning an article posted in a thread would be the top article and another article mentioned in that article. Calling it a report would have made it clearer, like the article itself does.

Well, you are much better than me at being rude in a polite way. My manners did slip.

This is an argument. So I suppose it is natural that you would be offended if someone challenges your position. Look at Tingkai, he blows up nearly everytime someone responds to him and he doesn't agree with the response. But I didn't throw any insults at you. I simply asked for more information and some clarification. I'm sorry if I didn't complement you're brilliant writing or use flowery language. I really don't know what you're expecting.

Thank you.


Had to get a dig in, didn't you?

Well, we were on misinterpreting the article.

You rarely say anything clearly enough that you can't retreat from it. What you said was:
"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."

Your question certainly states that you are not convinced that population growth is a drain on resources.

I realized later that wasn't so clear, and readdressed it later. I was hoping the "I'm not convinced that it is so simple" would make it understandable that I'm not saying that population growth doesn't cause a drain on resources. I'm saying that it isn't the biggest drain, which I place on mismanagement of resources.

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

You dismissed my position as anti-west sentiment.

"It is so transparent its funny."
Description of the McCarthy spin on the Greenpeace report. Comment directed at Japher, actually.

"Okay, for someone of your arrogance, perhaps you should learn to read."
Rude on my part. Sorry.

"Do you even know what "prove" means?"
Just a polite question.

"Are you really that thick? I know your not, so don't pretend to be to further your arguments."
My frustration at arguing with a shape-shifter.

"You really can't read, can you?"
I'm still not sure... j/k

Thank you for admitting the errors. But I was really most upset about the accusations made against me.

Third: Has this poster's statements been grossly reworded by another poster?


Poster 1: "have China abide by the same restrictions as the rest of the world."

Poster 2: "What is your solution? Nuke Beijing? Trade embargo?"

I still haven't heard how you plan to "have China abide". At least I posed two possible scenarios. You have posed none.

Classify China as a developed nation, of course, putting it on par with the developed nations that it does so much business with. Then if it does the same nasty things that other developed nations do, they all have to come to terms with it. And I'll admit, there's only so much that can be done, look at the US, which pretty much does whatever it wants, good or bad.

Fifth: Is this poster engaging in hyberbole and judgemental language after condemning it?

Poster's admonishment of the language in the article: "The language describing China is a clear metaphor for a destructive monster." "The commentary, uses judgemental, hyperbolic language and claims this is an indictment of China"

Poster's own language:

"Population growth is ultimately the biggest threat to the environment."

Biggest is not hyperbolic.

Can't get much bigger than biggest.

"What is your solution? Nuke Beijing? Trade embargo?"


Yes, this is hyperbole. However, I did not publish it in magazine, we are having a spirited discussion. I am making a point that the McCarthy and you are essentially saying "Chinese are bad. Throw rocks at them." There is a glaring lack of proposed action. There is no attempt to understand, let alone accept, the factors which are causing the problems. Just playing the blame game.

I'm not saying that the Chinese are bad and that's all. Neither is the article. We're both saying that the Chinese are bad environmentalists. The issue I seem to come across so often is that whenever someone criticizes China, he/she is bombarded by others saying, "You hate China!" "You hate the Chinese, you racist!" I'm just wondering why China is off-limits to criticism.

Overall, I would say that at times I was rude and may have over-reacted to your posts. And certainly my statement about the the dual nature of the McCarthy/Greenpeace was ambiguously written and contributed to the confusion.

I would like to move past this. I am very interested in how the world can best deal with China joining the ranks of the developed world. Because like it or not, she is.

Agreed.

Do you have any Made in China in your house?

I read somewhere, and cannot cite you a source, that Walmart imports more Chinese goods than the rest of the US combined. Sounds like an exageration, but the west's demand for cheap consumer goods seems to me to be driving this "behemoth".

Of course, that's also how the US is able to hold some much ecominic sway and get away with so much. So many other countries become dependent on it. China is wisely doing the same thing. In the end, if China surpasses the US, the US will only have itself to blame. Not because it didn't undermine China enough, but because it didn't work hard enough to stay ahead and solve it's own problems.

[The Mad Viking]

Okay, Dashi, that's close enough for me.

Thanks, sorry it became so much work, but I'm happy now. I respect your position.

I don't like how McCarthy writes, but it seems to pass for journalism these days. I think it is a big problem, personally.

You don't seem to mind. Thats fine.

I don't agree that China is ready to be classified as a developed nation, and feel that the existence of a space program is rather anecdotal evidence. Given the millions who still live without electricty, piped water and phones.

But, I think it is a valid argument you are making, and that it is an approach that would set the bar higher on environmental management.

peace

[DaShi]

Peace bro'!

[MOBIUS]

Wow, what a huge argument - shame I wasn't around to see it...

Anyway, 18 months later and remember the OP?

Global warming

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

Well apparently China won't be overtaking the US as the top emitter in 2025 - but later this year!!!

And it's not as if the US has been reducing theirs to help China catch up...

The Great Pall of China

Explosive growth means China will overtake America this year as world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases
By Michael McCarthy and Clifford Coonan
Published: 25 April 2007

In a seismic shift for the world, China will overtake the United States as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases this year, far earlier than thought - and present the problem of tackling climate change in even more difficult terms.

The Chinese economy, which is now growing at the unprecedented rate of 11 per cent annually, is sending carbon emissions from China's mushrooming coal-fired power stations beyond those of the whole of the US, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said yesterday.

Less than three years ago the Paris-based IEA forecast that China would overtake the US as the world's biggest polluter - but not before 2025. More recently it said that China would be first by 2010.

Now, however, the growth of its economy (10 per cent annually for the past three years and now higher) and its underlying power sector are such, said the Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist, that the Chinese are expected to overtake the Americans this year.

IEA estimates that the Chinese, who in 2006 are thought to have emitted about 5,600 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the Americans' 5,900, will this year emit about 6,020 million tonnes of CO2 to about 5,910 from the US. (Britain by contrast emits about 550 million tonnes.) It is these emissions from around the world which are causing the atmosphere to warm, with potentially disastrous consequences.

The development underlines the critical importance of this June's G8 summit at Heiligendamm in Germany, where the world's rich nations will meet with the five leading developing countries led by China and India - and attempt to build the framework of a new international climate change agreement. The future emissions of China, India and their fellows are increasingly recognised as the key to the future in preventing global warming. As Mr Birol said yesterday, their growth will swamp any cuts that the industrialised countries can make in emissions of their own; developed country cuts would have a "minimal" effect on the future C02 position compared to Chinese growth. "There is an order of magnitude of difference," he said.

The Chinese and the others are fiercely resistant to the idea of CO2 cuts being imposed on them, as they feel they should be entirely free to pursue economic growth, just as western countries have done for 200 years. They also still have much lower carbon emissions in per capita terms than do western nations.

Under the Kyoto protocol, the international climate change treaty which runs out in 2012, only the developed nations have to make emissions cuts. China has its own targets for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, but it has no targets for emissions, although this week it was due to unveil its first plan for dealing with climate change. This appears to have been delayed.

Mr Birol emphasised the scale of the problem yesterday by pointing out that in the next eight years alone, the Chinese would install, as new, as much energy generating plant as currently exists today in all of the 25 countries of the expanded European Union- a total of 800 gigawatts.

Ninety per cent of this would be coal-fired, that is, producing the most C02, and most of this, he said, would last for 50 to 60 years - "you can't shut down a power station after five or 10 years as that would be economic suicide". He said: "If we can't influence China and India in their coming energy business decisions, we will be locked in, and we will have to live with the consequences for half a century or more."

The next few years will be crucial in trying to divert China and India's runaway growth, which cannot be stopped, down a low-carbon path. This will involve transferring to them technology such as carbon capture and storage, where CO2 from power stations is liquefied and buried deep underground, and developing new markets in carbon trading and low-carbon goods and services. "We're going to have to figure out pretty quickly how Europe and China can work together to come up with a carbon-neutral coal option," said Tom Burke, a leading environmentalist.

Britain has led the way in recognising the urgency of an agreement to this effect, having begun the "Gleneagles dialogue" about it with the developing nations at the G8 summit in Scotland inn 2005. The climate section of the Heiligendamm meeting, the "G8 plus 5", where Britain is giving strong support to the German G8 presidency, will attempt to sketch out such an agreement.

It has five proposed headings: a long-term stabilisation goal for the climate; the development of a global carbon market; the development and scaling-up of new technology; the reduction of deforestation; and assisting countries already threatened by climate change, such as low-lying islands threatened by sea-level rise, to take preventative action.

Tony Blair will be working with the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to get the eight heads of state to agree, and a new climate pact would one of the crowning achievements of his time in office.

But a pact is made much more difficult by the fact that the US, which could be the international leader in switching the world economy on to a low-carbon growth path, has taken no such lead, and has withdrawn from Kyoto. The Chinese and Indians are much less likely to come on board if the US remains outside.

Britain's special representative for climate change, John Ashton flew to China last night on a mission to explore how trade policy could influence the development of markets in low-carbon technology. He said of the news that China would overtake the US as the leading greenhouse gas emitter: "I think what this does is increase even more than we understood hitherto the urgency of the process and the scale of the response needed. It is about a structural transformation of the global economy, from high-carbon to low-carbon, that we need to make together. It is even more urgent than we thought it was."

A booming nation

* THE ECONOMY

China's economy continues to grow at a staggering rate, rarely dipping below 10 per cent over the past four years. Growth in the first quarter of this year was 11.1 per cent compared with 10.4 per cent in the final three months of 2006. The government had said it was aiming for an annual growth rate of 8 per cent to curb development which harms the environment

* THE ENVIRONMENT

China is the world's biggest coal producer, burning over 2 billion tonnes of coal per year. Sulphur dioxide and soot caused by coal combustion result in acid rain,

which now falls on approximately 30 per cent of China's total land area. Oil consumption in China has doubled in the past 20 years. Sixteen of the world's most air-polluted cities are in China.

I'll just return to that last bolded bit shall I:

Mr Birol emphasised the scale of the problem yesterday by pointing out that in the next eight years alone, the Chinese would install, as new, as much energy generating plant as currently exists today in all of the 25 countries of the expanded European Union- a total of 800 gigawatts.

Ninety per cent of this would be coal-fired, that is, producing the most C02, and most of this, he said, would last for 50 to 60 years - "you can't shut down a power station after five or 10 years as that would be economic suicide". He said: "If we can't influence China and India in their coming energy business decisions, we will be locked in, and we will have to live with the consequences for half a century or more."

THE GENERATING POWER OF THE ENTIRE EU - IN COAL POWER STATIONS!!!

If left unchecked, China is the biggest threat to civilisation as we know it - we cannot continue to bury our heads in the sand and pretend it's not happening any more...

Of course with the US refusing to do anything about its own emissions, it is difficult to encourage a developing country like China into curbing its rampant grab for power.

We have to lead by example (well Europe is anyway) and do as much as we possibly can by trying to get China to put environmental concerns at the top of its growth priorities, however I fear as a global market we are already too addicted to cheap mass-produced Chinese goods...

Kyoto is dead in the water without the US signing up, and gives countries like China and India no incentive to curb their own emissions. A new treaty, addressing the inherent errors of Kyoto needs to be ratified as soon as possible, and certainly before Kyoto coughs out in 2012...

As for us as individuals, we can reduce our dependency on Chinese goods - or even stop buying them completely (though that might be rather difficult these days!).

Anyway, as someone has already noted - if China's growth is allowed to continue unchecked, global oil consumption is simply going to implode in the next couple of decades if not earlier.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DaShi
So basically, it's modern Europe?

[Referencing The Mad Viking labelling the Chinese economic model a form of facism.]

Apparently my threads do have latent impact.

[Jon Miller]

We have went up fro 5900 to 5910. That is a pretty limited increase, and while I do agree we could be doing more, I don't think that some parts of Kyoto is reasonable.

It is true that the Wests development isn't something the whole world can do, we have known this for a while. Perhaps we should pay to build nuclear power plants in China/India/Developing world.

Jon Miller

[Pekka]

Tricky situation, not sure if someone brought this up but I think one of the main issues in here is that the party will not allow any hindering of the development and economic growth. It is their only claim to power today, they have long rejected communist ideals, and are communist only by name.

So, to justify their position, they are taking all the credit for the growth now and will continue to do so. It is only a question of time, when others emerge to challenge that leadership more, outside the party. The party itself has been divided for a long time now, the question is, how free the market should be.

But basically the only thing that is keeping the party's position alive is the growth we see, so it's not only that the country wants to prosper and make things now when they're hot, but it's also a question of power inside the country, a question of one party leadership. When the growth starts to slow down and should their be mistakes, the party will be challenged more and their sole power will crumble another bit more. This is their #1 priority and their only goal, because it will keep them in power.

So no, any ratifications won't be accepted by the leadership or the country, at least anything that would put a stop to the growth as of now.

So what we need is measures that have extra-territorial powers, like unified corporate compliances, where the foreign corporates agree to the environmental issues IN China, perhaps that they only deal with such and such subcontractors etc.

But this is definitely not enough, I think the only thing that can turn this development into more positive on.. is basically to either enforce global business rules about the environment and should you decide to stay out, you'll be out of all the market places outside your own, but this seems unrealistic. SO the only thing left IMO is to come up with realistic alternative energy solutions FAST, and make a business out of it.

[Ned]

Mobius, what is the EU's alternative to coal plants? Nuclear?

Relying on nuclear power may make a lot of sense from the environmental point of view, but it does lead to problems of nuclear weapons proliferation. For China and India, though, this is not a problem.

So, does the green movement advocate nuclear power for China and India? What is the alternative?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pekka
So what we need is measures that have extra-territorial powers, like unified corporate compliances, where the foreign corporates agree to the environmental issues IN China, perhaps that they only deal with such and such subcontractors etc.

But this is definitely not enough, I think the only thing that can turn this development into more positive on.. is basically to either enforce global business rules about the environment and should you decide to stay out, you'll be out of all the market places outside your own, but this seems unrealistic. SO the only thing left IMO is to come up with realistic alternative energy solutions FAST, and make a business out of it.

Re: point 1. Easily avoided by using sophisticated corporate structures.

Re: point 2. Nuclear already exists. Why not go that way?

[Arcite]

China has the most polluted cities in the world. Cancer rates are projected to soar 50% or more in the coming decade. What about HIV rates? The Chinese government has put a lid on that for now, but it is primed to explode.

Added to this that they already have severe water shortages in parts of the country, the possibility of increase crop failures in the near future is assured.

Both China and India are having unequal growth. A small 'elite' are benefiting while the vast majority of the population remain in squalor.

Of course, its not really fair just to single out China, the whole of south east asia, and Asia for that matter is an environmental time bomb.

IMO the US should put tariffs and trade embargoes on China, its the only way that has a chance of forcing change.

One random quote:

"In the global marketplace, the educated consumer has the power. For example, the educated consumer changed the tuna fishing industry"

Yea nice thought, too bad that Japan overshot their quota yet again. Fact is, giant tuna are going extinct faster than ever.