China tells you, personally, to go #### off, calls your mother ugly

[Blake]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why should we bother to save the planet, when cutting our emissions won't change a thing.

Whatever you do may seem insignificant to you, but it is most important that you do it.
-- Mohandas Gandhi


It's applicable to Global Warming at every level, individual, business, nation, etc.

[Dinner]

The solution is simple. Have the west plus industrialized Asian countries agree to binding reductions then declare that any nation which refuses to sign and actually make those binding reductions, like China, shall have all of its exports hit with a 10,000% tariff. Watch the Chinese change their minds once faced with complete economic collapse.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's applicable to Global Warming at every level, individual, business, nation, etc.

Then we should insist the same for China. If it is moral to reduce emissions, then it's no different for China then for the West.

[Ben Kenobi]

Maybe it's because citizens in the West are trying to influence politics in the West?

Maybe you should address your government to ram it down the throat of the Chinese instead.

I have a real problem with the double standard. If emissions are such an environmental hazard, then it applies to everyone not just the 'west'. As it is, we turn a blind eye to the real problems.

It's not really about the emissions after all. I'm still waiting for any of those who are concerned about emissions to take China to task.

[Vesayen]

That is absurd, how the hell can I as an American change Chinas emissions policy, other then boycotting their products as much as possible?

Of course it is about the enviroment, what, you think those in the west compared about our planet are lying and secretly part of some vast conspiracy to aid the west and hurt China?

[Ben Kenobi]

Why don't any of the environmentalists here criticise china for their stance?

They should be all over this like butter on sourdough.

[Vesayen]

I can't tell if your serious or being sarcastic. I am going to assume your serious.

Er..... it sort of goes without saying.

Every enviromentalist, or ALMOST every enviromentalist is pissed at China for it's irresponsible policies.

A few might make allowances for it developing, I don't think most do.

It is something they take for granted. Of COURSE it is bad what China is doing, what is there to say or discuss about it?

1. It's bad
2. The chinese govmt does not care
3. See above.

It is a simple issue and so apparent and one sided that unless you believe it is neccesary to develop, there is nothing else to discuss. We all KNOW it is bad and the Chinese govmt does not care, what else is there to say?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'll bet you they are.

I guess it's drowned out over the protests against SUVs.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Vesayen
I can't tell if your serious or being sarcastic. I am going to assume your serious.

Er..... it sort of goes without saying.

Every enviromentalist, or ALMOST every enviromentalist is pissed at China for it's irresponsible policies.

A few might make allowances for it developing, I don't think most do.

It is something they take for granted. Of COURSE it is bad what China is doing, what is there to say or discuss about it?

1. It's bad
2. The chinese govmt does not care
3. See above.

It is a simple issue and so apparent and one sided that unless you believe it is neccesary to develop, there is nothing else to discuss. We all KNOW it is bad and the Chinese govmt does not care, what else is there to say?

But the US government doesn't care much more than the Chinese government. And if they did, shouldn't they be praised for it?

[Blake]

Here's a relevant article from the Green Party of New Zealand

http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/pr11462.html

The Green Party is urging the Government to stop obfuscating and join the rapidly growing group of countries that have committed to keeping global warming under two degrees.

“Yesterday, while Climate Change Minister David Parker was avoiding my parliamentary question on whether New Zealand would commit to a target to keep global warming under two degrees, Iceland’s Environment Minister was joining the 27 countries of the European Union and Norway and committing to that very same target,” Climate Change Spokesperson Jeanette Fitzsimons says.

Today the Greens have put forward the following points as the most important objectives the New Zealand Government must work for next week in order to prevent dangerous climate change:

An agreement that the goal of the next climate treaty will be to keep the global average temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees centigrade. This is the level above which the IPCC says there is serious risk of unstoppable climate change.

An agreement on a global cap on emissions which will limit temperature rise to this level, with all countries contributing and wealthy countries contributing more than poorer countries.

Targets for countries to be related to population size and based on per capita emissions, rather than targets based on current emissions which entrench inequalities between rich and poor nations. This approach has the best chance of encouraging China and India to accept targets.

International sectoral agreements where industries such as cement and steel take responsibility for their emissions globally.

Improvement in the measurement, verification and certification of “Clean Development Mechanism” credits in developing countries to prevent fraud and double counting - as happens at present.

Support for a mechanism whereby developed countries can pay for the protection of tropical forests which are being clear felled, such as the proposal put forward at Bali yesterday.

Information on why these points are so crucial will be available on the Green Party website later today. http://www.greens.org.nz/

I do think the NZ green party is one of the "best", because it does wield some political power (if not much).

I think most environmentalists will tend to agree with per-capita caps, equal regardless of country.
Meet in the middle.

It's the only fair way.

[Ben Kenobi]

Targets for countries to be related to population size and based on per capita emissions

So it's worse to have a small population with fewer emissions, then a large one with much greater total emissions?

By this measure it would be a new benefit to increase your population as that would lower your per capita rate.

[chequita guevara]

You never fail to amaze me, BK.

[DaShi]

A country of 1 billion people emitting 100 tons of pollution is still polluting more than a country of 50 people emitting 90 tons of pollution as far as global impact is concerned.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The solution is simple. Have the west plus industrialized Asian countries agree to binding reductions then declare that any nation which refuses to sign and actually make those binding reductions, like China, shall have all of its exports hit with a 10,000% tariff. Watch the Chinese change their minds once faced with complete economic collapse.

that is pretty complicated.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So it's worse to have a small population with fewer emissions, then a large one with much greater total emissions?

By this measure it would be a new benefit to increase your population as that would lower your per capita rate.

In other words, China should split up into multiple smaller countries, each individually could then emit a heap more (per capita) without causing problems. It's logic, people!