China Crisis: threat to the global environment

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by DaShi

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?

Very few countries industrialize w/o major environmental problems. Big countries industrializing tend to have bigger problems. This is news how?

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?

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

at 14:54 I posted:

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"?

Remember I talked about the Greenpeace article and then the commentary.

Look closely. The original article, inside the quotation marks, speaks of a new economic model for the world, to save civilization. The commentary, uses judgemental, hyperbolic language and claims this is an indictment of China - the commentator says China is a lawbreaking monster causing the catastrophe.

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?

It's not SEMANTICS. It is language which pretends to be neutral, but is carries condemnation in the words. "Indictment" implies lawbreaking. Its like how a group of Arabs are often called a "mob" or even, a "swarm". Not say, a "delegation".

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:

Do you even know what "prove" means?

[/quote]
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. [/quote]

No, it's not "simply" trying to do this.

It's using, frankly, ridiculous projections based on steady states for 25 years; of a type that "leading environmental analysts" have screwed up over and over again, for the past 3 decades. Source- Jared Diamond, Collapse

It's characterizing China as a lawbreaking monster, not a group of humans who have the same rights to a decent life as every other human. Does the right to the pursuit of happiness only belong to Americans?

It's suggesting that China is a problem to be solved. China is a sovereign nation. China is a reality to be adjusted to.

The point simply is, China is greatly affecting the world environment, what should be done?

See above. Fix your own house, let your neighbour fix his.

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.

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

Every person consumes resources. More people means more resources.

Since the beginning of time, people have, on average, increased their consumption of resources.

This continues today.

It will be difficult enough to taper off this increasing curve, to get to a point where this trend stops. Extremely difficult.

But even if you achieve that, you will have a situation where resource consumption will continue to increase in direct proportion to population.

Japan and Europe actually have declining populations.

False!
Japan still grew last year, by about 64,000. "Japan's estimated population registered 0.05 percent growth in the year ended last Oct. 1"

I guess you don't read the Japan Times. (Feb. 22, 2005)

Much of Eastern Europe has significantly increasing populations, and immigration continues to swell the populations of Western European countries, even the ones who, like Canada and Japan, have lower birth rates than death rates.

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?

I note you don't comment on the fact that the Chinese birth rate is lower than the US birth rate...

Who is asking for this?

You are. You want underdeveloped nations to abide by the same rules as developed nations.

Although, you did say that the US should give up its resources to help China.

You really can't read, can you?

I said:

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.

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

Yes, Japan should be studied by all nations for their resource management. To be fair, however, they do the same thing as China - buy timber from other nations and refuse to cut their own forests.

Frankly, I'm beginning to doubt your understanding on this issue.

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

Yes, I remember: [quore]Probably to have China abide by the same restrictions as the rest of the world. I mean, if they can afford to send men into space, I think they can play on a level field. Maybe we should all whine about how they won't support Kyoto.[/quote]

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"?

[The Mad Viking]

Steel Industry Reform:

Groundwork, from back in 2001:
http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,2340,en_2649_34221_1880263_1_1_1_1,00.html
Excerpt:

took note of the developments of the Chinese steel industry in the late nineties and the reform targets established under the 10th Five Year Plan. There was agreement that restructuring of the steel industry remains an issue in most parts of the world. It was highlighted that successful restructuring puts an industry in a more competitive position and able to undertake the changes that are required without needing state support;
agreed that energy conservation, waste reduction, recycling and the move towards cleaner production technologies are priority objectives of the steel industries in China and the OECD area and voiced concern that future environmental improvements may only be achieved at a slower pace.

From May 2004

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/09/content_329014.htm

When asked about the impacts of the central government's macro policies on steel enterprises, Luo said they will greatly affect smaller enterprises, but not large-scale corporations.
"Many large-scale steel companies are building modern production lines to produce technology-intensive and high value-added steel products," Luo said.
"This is good and necessary for the industry's healthy growth.
"We should not adopt one-size-fits-all policies. The target is blind investment in redundant, low-level production capacity, which contributes to pollution and wastes resources

recently at the bbc website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4698853.stm

[DaShi]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Very few countries industrialize w/o major environmental problems. Big countries industrializing tend to have bigger problems. This is news how?

How is it not? You seem to be asking to ignore China's environmental problems. What can we do about it? I'm not entirely sure. I agree with your points that China's sovereignty must be respected, but when the problem begins to affect other countries, then sometime should be done, or at least said. That is my point on this particular issue.

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

Remember I talked about the Greenpeace article and then the commentary.

Look closely. The original article, inside the quotation marks, speaks of a new economic model for the world, to save civilization. The commentary, uses judgemental, hyperbolic language and claims this is an indictment of China - the commentator says China is a lawbreaking monster causing the catastrophe.

Yes, I addressed this issue, at the time you called it a non sequitur. But it is clear when you look at the article as a whole that the next paragraph is introducing a new point. Out of context, yes they do seem odd.

So...

It's not SEMANTICS. It is language which pretends to be neutral, but is carries condemnation in the words. "Indictment" implies lawbreaking. Its like how a group of Arabs are often called a "mob" or even, a "swarm". Not say, a "delegation".

But it is semantics. Unless you're arguing that China doesn't have major environmental issues. Where our opinions seem to primarily differ is the use of language in the article. I find the language to be fine, and you find it to be hyberbole. It;s seems that you're just upset that China is being criticized. Well, it's going to happen a lot as China continues to rise in the world. Look at the regular vitriol the US gets for its policies. They aren't able to please everyone.

Do you even know what "prove" means?

Are we arguing semantics here as well? How are you using 'prove'?

No, it's not "simply" trying to do this.

It's using, frankly, ridiculous projections based on steady states for 25 years; of a type that "leading environmental analysts" have screwed up over and over again, for the past 3 decades. Source- Jared Diamond, Collapse

Actually, I agree that the numbers at the end the aren't accurate for such longterm predictions. But they try to put into perspective the rapid growth of China's economy. Those numbers are simply an addition to their main point dealing with deforestation.

Now I prefer Colon's method of pointing out the direct flaws in the predictions rather arguing that discussion of China's environmental policy should be ignored because they deserve to have the same things the West does. I find that to be a non sequitur (see your next quote). I've been arguing for the open discussion of the topic.

It's characterizing China as a lawbreaking monster, not a group of humans who have the same rights to a decent life as every other human. Does the right to the pursuit of happiness only belong to Americans?

Where is it denying rights to the Chinese? Again, you ask the US to reduce its own consumption of resources, but not China. And the point of the Greenpeace report is that China is illegally logging the rainforest or at least involved in it.

It's suggesting that China is a problem to be solved. China is a sovereign nation. China is a reality to be adjusted to.

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, which certainly affects the world, hence the term indictment. Is this not a problem to be solved? Or should we adjust to rainforest that are now deserts so that China can build more uncomfortable funiture. Actually, there is no outcry to bring China to call for this. Just to ask other countries to stop buying illegal timber. That fits well into your policy of letting China have it's sovereignty, unless you are arguing that by not buying Chinese goods we are violating China's sovereignty.

See above. Fix your own house, let your neighbour fix his.

This is your response to my argument that it is a world problem. When the US attacked Iraq, was France violating US sovereignty by protesting against it? Or closer to the issue, if US CO2 emissions are causing global warming, is it a violation of US sovereignty to request that they reduce those emissions, or even discuss the US's role in global warming?

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

Every person consumes resources. More people means more resources.

Since the beginning of time, people have, on average, increased their consumption of resources.

This continues today.

It will be difficult enough to taper off this increasing curve, to get to a point where this trend stops. Extremely difficult.

But even if you achieve that, you will have a situation where resource consumption will continue to increase in direct proportion to population.

It seems I didn't word my request well enough to address your point. You claimed that growth in population is the primary (biggest) cause of resource drain, and hence needs to be addressed before anything else. You argue that limiting population growth will cause immediate effects on resource availability ("It is pretty reasonable to limit population growth, thus limiting the the demand on the environment."). My argument from the beginning has been that mismanagement is the greater drain and the current population of the world has yet to reach the point where it affects the drain on resources. Hence, I'm not convinced that population is yet the biggest factor in resource drain.

False!
Japan still grew last year, by about 64,000. "Japan's estimated population registered 0.05 percent growth in the year ended last Oct. 1"

I guess you don't read the Japan Times. (Feb. 22, 2005)

Much of Eastern Europe has significantly increasing populations, and immigration continues to swell the populations of Western European countries, even the ones who, like Canada and Japan, have lower birth rates than death rates.

No, I didn't read the Japan Times of Feb. 22, 2005. I read the New York Times, which I believe was refering to the birth rates. My mistake. However, I think that birth rates have more relation to your claim that population is the bigger drain on resources. Immigration is just the movement of people with no net loss or gain in the world population.

I note you don't comment on the fact that the Chinese birth rate is lower than the US birth rate...

No, I don't know where that fits in. I stated that Chinese culture prefers big families. You say that a high population is the biggest drain on resources. Hence, the logical conclusion is that Chinese culture is against the environment. You could apply it to any country or group of people where large families are desired. I disagree with that line of thinking, and I think you do to. But it logically follows from your population claim. It's something to think about, that's all.

You are. You want underdeveloped nations to abide by the same rules as developed nations.

I said that if China can afford to send people into space, then they probably should be put on a level playing field. You're free to disagree with me. I never said that they should live without water, electricity, and healthcare as you are now claiming I did. That's not polite.

You really can't read, can you?

I said: "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."

Actually, I was expecting this when I wrote that. My statement: "Although, you did say that the US should give up its resources to help China."

It really is just a simple rewording. Let me explain it to. You ask the US to cut (give up) its consumption (of resources) by 2%, so that there are more resources left for developing countries (such as China).

Yes, Japan should be studied by all nations for their resource management. To be fair, however, they do the same thing as China - buy timber from other nations and refuse to cut their own forests.

Frankly, I'm beginning to doubt your understanding on this issue.

How so, if you are agreeing with me?

Yes, I remember:

Probably to have China abide by the same restrictions as the rest of the world. I mean, if they can afford to send men into space, I think they can play on a level field. Maybe we should all whine about how they won't support Kyoto.

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"?

Yes, I want China to play on the same field. Do developing countries need extra help? Yes. Does China? I'm not so sure. China has reached the point where it can compete quite strongly in international markets. It's buying up foriegn businesses, it's becoming a major player in international resource trade (or at least the import aspect of it), it even has begun a space program the likes of which only two other countries have been able to do. Seems to me that China is ready to play with the big boys. You're free to disagree, but I think this is another issue entirely.

Oy that was a lot of insults and misunderstandings to sort through. I hope I made things clearer.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Steel Industry Reform:

Groundwork, from back in 2001:
http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,2340,en_2649_34221_1880263_1_1_1_1,00.html
Excerpt:

From May 2004

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/09/content_329014.htm

recently at the bbc website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4698853.stm

I wish you quoted the bcc article, because it is the only one that I can't link to. The problem with the 2001 is that it states what was planned to be done, not what actually happened. China Daily is a propaganda paper that always portrays China and its policies in a positive light.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DaShi


I wish you quoted the bcc article, because it is the only one that I can't link to.

China plans steel industry revamp

China is planning a major overhaul of its steel industry as it tries to meet domestic demand and cut pollution.
By 2010, China wants to have two major domestic firms with an annual capacity of 30 million tonnes each, with a limited number of smaller producers.

Currently China has more than 800 steel firms, with only the biggest, Baosteel, coming close to the required output.

China plans to force mergers and closures after supply outstripped demand and prompted a price slump.

The country is the world's biggest producer and consumer of steel and the dip in demand has reverberated around global markets.

Firms including Mittal Steel, Arcelor and Thyssenkrupp have all announced production cuts.

Too many players

Steel mills sprung up to meet a surge in demand as China's economy boomed.

Since those heady days, growth has been reined in to stop the economy from overheating and this had led to a glut of steel on the domestic market.

Prices have dropped by as much as 30% as a result, and planning agency the National Development and Reform Commission has decided it is time to take action.

The government "will encourage some big companies to compete with international mills," said Luo Bingsheng, vice chairman of the China Iron and Steel Association.

By 2020, some 10 firms are expected to account for 70% of domestic production.

At the same time, the commission will raise the minimum investment required for a new mill and shut those that burn too much coal or are based in city centres.

China also mentioned plans to limit the role of foreign companies in its home market and aims to prevent them from controlling any single mill.

A number of firms including France's Arcelor and South Korea's Posco have been considering buying into a Chinese firm.

[DaShi]

Thanks Dinodoc.

So they haven't eliminated small "mom and pop" operations. At best, they plan to make it more difficult for new ones to be opened. I suppose that's a start.

How come foreigner companies can't control any mills? Can't China buy mills in other countries, if it wanted to? Is it ok, if those countries don't allow China to do that?

[:) Smiley]

picture time

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


A lot of foreign capital.

Yes, but a lot of the investment is internal rather than foreign investment these days.

[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.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by aneeshm
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 .

The average Mainland Chinese are a lot better off than people in India

GDP per capita (PPP) for India: $3,100

Indian population below poverty line: 25%

GDP per capita (PPP) for China: $5,600

Chinese population below poverty line: 10%

So if the free market capitalism and democracy of India is so conducive to economic growth, how come India is so far behind?

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by DaShi


I wish you quoted the bcc article, because it is the only one that I can't link to. The problem with the 2001 is that it states what was planned to be done, not what actually happened. China Daily is a propaganda paper that always portrays China and its policies in a positive light.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

[pchang]

Originally posted by Tingkai


The average Mainland Chinese are a lot better off than people in India

GDP per capita (PPP) for India: $3,100

Indian population below poverty line: 25%

GDP per capita (PPP) for China: $5,600

Chinese population below poverty line: 10%

So if the free market capitalism and democracy of India is so conducive to economic growth, how come India is so far behind?

what exactly is the poverty line? is it defined for both countries? In other countries, the $5,600 would be well below the poverty line.

[:) Smiley]

Those numbers are far enough apart to be more than just statistical irregularities.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by pchang


what exactly is the poverty line? is it defined for both countries? In other countries, the $5,600 would be well below the poverty line.

A good question, although GDP per capita represents what a country produces per person, not the income per person.

The factbook says this about the poverty line: "National estimates of the percentage of the population falling below the poverty line are based on surveys of sub-groups, with the results weighted by the number of people in each group. Definitions of poverty vary considerably among nations. For example, rich nations generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations."

So the GDP per capita is better comparison of the economic strengths of the two countries.

And other stats show India far behind:

China
Infant mortality
total: 24.18 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 21.21 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 27.5 deaths/1,000 live births

India
total: 56.29 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 56.86 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 55.69 deaths/1,000 live births (2005 est.)

Literacy
China
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 90.9%
male: 95.1%
female: 86.5% (2002)

India
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 59.5%
male: 70.2%
female: 48.3% (2003 est.)

[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.