China faces bleak environmental future

[Brian the Snail]

Explain to me again why the U.S. is being a Bad Country because it's not signing on to the Kyoto Treaty, while China gets a Get-Out-Of-Kyoto-Free card.

Perhaps partly because of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was signed and ratified by the U.S in 1992 (i.e. under the presidency of Bush Sr.):

Noting that the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries, that per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low and that the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs,

.....

Acknowledging that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions,

.....

Recognizing the special difficulties of those countries, especially developing countries, whose economies are particularly dependent on fossil fuel production, use and exportation, as a consequence of action taken on limiting greenhouse gas emissions,

.....

Recognizing that all countries, especially developing countries, need access to resources required to achieve sustainable social and economic development and that, in order for developing countries to progress towards that goal, their energy consumption will need to grow taking into account the possibilities for achieving greater energy efficiency and for controlling greenhouse gas emissions in general, including through the application of new technologies on terms which make such an application economically and socially beneficial

Though I agree that China could be doing more.

 

[Brian the Snail]

And for very good reason; it will NOT effect a significant reduction in the warming and will cost a great deal of resources. Why shouldn't the US be very publically against it? Why aren't you?

From the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change:

The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

The Kyoto protocol is meant to be the first step towards this goal.

 

[Zep]

And for very good reason; it will NOT effect a significant reduction in the warming and will cost a great deal of resources. Why shouldn't the US be very publically against it? Why aren't you?

What WILL make any effect?

 

[Rob Lister]

What WILL make any effect?

That's a darn good question but it does detract, don't you think, from the original implication that we (we as in the U.S. and we as in the world as a whole) should sign onto Kyoto even though it won't work.

What will work? Maybe something, maybe nothing. But even if nothing then there's still no sense in wasting resources on something that nobody (in the know) even claims will work.

 

[Zep]

Can I humbly suggest that STARTING to cut down on KNOWN air pollutions might be a good start. Which is all that the Kyoto Protocol is agreeing...a start before it's too late (see above).

While I agree that some countries are far more heavily polluting than the USA generally, I don't see that it excuses anyone particularly from starting at some time. It just seems that there's a game of "You first! No, YOU first!" being played here.

 

[Rob Lister]

Can I humbly suggest that STARTING to cut down on KNOWN air pollutions might be a good start. Which is all that the Kyoto Protocol is agreeing...a start before it's too late (see above).

You can suggest that but, as far as CO2 is concerned (and that's pretty much all Kyoto is concerned with), it isn't going to cut it. You might as well suggest we send a man to mars to stop the warming (assuming, as I almost do, that CO2 is the problem). It will work pretty much as well and won't be nearly as expensive.

Want a starting place? Find a solution that does not gut/deplete/burden economic resources but in fact has a greater potential of increasing them, regardless of whether or not 1) global warming is occuring and 2) CO2 is the cause.

Shoot everyone opposed to Nuclear Power is but one starting place. Sure, it's drastic, but if you look at the numbers it is probably no more drastic than Kyoto. A heck of a lot cheaper (in fact it will yield a huge return if the safety measures are afforded the same benefit of the doubt as is coal) and as an extra-added bonus, you get rid a roughly have the coal lobbiest. <---said somewhat in jest because I suspect they are, more than any other, the money source behind the anti-nuke movement.

 

[Elind]

You know what? I almost, sarcastically, referred to that part of my post as if it were a foregone conclusion that the PETA comment was what you were referring to!

Okay, so now I know you were just playin' with me but still you deserve a serious answer; I will provide one.

If PETA becomes in China what PETA has become in the U.S., then things are indeed very well in China. It takes a certain kind of social/economic/governmental 'comfort' for such a silly, silly, group to have such a powerful media presence, dontchathink?

I've got nothing against PETA. Heck, their homeoffice is in the city* in which I live and love. I find them very amusing and sometimes I even find them right on an issue(a rare occasion).

Not really playing, just tongue in cheek. My main thought was that it could be a long time yet before China reaches that stage.

I agree with your sentiments, but as to PETA, wouldn't it be nice if they were actually considered right on most issues. Personally I think they are flakes who should get real jobs.

 

[Drooper]

Re: Re: Re: China faces bleak environmental future

What's eating you this morning dear?

Is there some point to this banal statement?

Well, it is hardly banal when it put's ino context the comments made on this forum by individuals much more wealthy than the overwhelming majority of Chinese. They don't need us to save themselves from themselves - when they want less pollution they will deliver it, jus the way we did in the developed world.

As any sane society would. I'm a bit surprised you acknowledge this, though.

I'm surprised you even comprehend. Scratch that, I don't think you did. It means people on this forum have no place to waggle fingers about pollution levels in Shanghai.

Why-ever not? Perhaps you are feeling a bit outgunned?

That really put me in my place.

 

[Rob Lister]

Not really playing, just tongue in cheek. My main thought was that it could be a long time yet before China reaches that stage.

I agree with your sentiments, but as to PETA, wouldn't it be nice if they were actually considered right on most issues. Personally I think they are flakes who should get real jobs.

Para1: It might be a long time and then again it might not. No two countries/cultures are exactly alike but comparisons can be made. China is experiencing an industrial revolution. They are somewhere within that revolution. That somewhere relates, at least somewhat, to where we were at some given time. What point is that? What have they in their favor that we did not? Likewise, the opposite.

Para2: They think they have real jobs. At least most of them. Silly jobs for silly people: who could ask for anything more. ETA: for silly people they have an top-notch apitude for marketing. We may not take them seriously but, by golly, we hear them.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: China faces bleak environmental future

What's eating you this morning dear?

The need, at the time, for a bit of exciting dialog. Oh, and though I'll grant it was technically morning, the time in question is usually referred to as "late at night".

Well, it is hardly banal when it put's ino context the comments made on this forum by individuals much more wealthy than the overwhelming majority of Chinese. They don't need us to save themselves from themselves - when they want less pollution they will deliver it, jus the way we did in the developed world.

It is banal because not only is your comparison of the low level of environmental awareness in China today compared with the UK a hundred years ago, obviously true, the comparison is irrelevant (to boot).

In addition, its not a question of saving the Chinese from themselves, but saving all of us.

I'm surprised you even comprehend. Scratch that, I don't think you did. It means people on this forum have no place to waggle fingers about pollution levels in Shanghai.

This statement...

As China becomes wealthier people will want to trade of material gain for environmental gain.

...means people on this forum have no place to waggle fingers about pollution levels in Shanghai?

Gotta admit I didn't catch that. Did anyone else?

That really put me in my place.

By no means. I was just offering a challenge.

I'd prefer is you didn't take me up on it though. Real life work has suddenly taken an upturn.