China's greenhouse emissions to swamp all Kyoto reductions

[Wild Bill]

Apparently, within 2 years China's greenhouse gas emissions are expected to totally swamp out the entire reductions of ALL of the other countries COMBINED!

Could some Dion supporter now please explain to me why we should even bother?

Here's the link: http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...ns-by-2010.html

[Borg]

Well, we really need to take our hard earned dollars - send those dollars to china - so the chinese can further develop their technology and reduce pollution in their own country - all the while making lots of money and high quality goods to sell back to us.

Seems completely fair and reasonable to most people who have faith in suzuki and dion.

Borg

[eyeball]

I'd rather keep our money here and make China send us more. We should slap stiff duty's on the imports of manufactured goods from China and the export of natural resources to China to force China to respect human right's and stop abusing them. The only way to get China to take its environment seriously is to empower its people so they can apply the same kind of grass-roots pressure we've used to motivate our government to act on our environmental concerns.

Perhaps we could use the money from these duties to advance human rights in places like Afghanistan.

What I'm expecting though is that our government will allow the economy to continue trumping virtue. I think instead of causing democracy to flourish in China by engaging with them economically, the reverse has hapened, its causing our country to become less democratic. I have no doubt the government and corporate officials that come back from their trade junkets to China come back with a wistful appreciation for the way the economy is allowed to trump virtue in China. They probably think we need to race even faster than we have been if we ever expect to get to the bottom.

[stevoh]

Apparently, within 2 years China's greenhouse gas emissions are expected to totally swamp out the entire reductions of ALL of the other countries COMBINED!

Could some Dion supporter now please explain to me why we should even bother?

Here's the link: http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...ns-by-2010.html

Well, some countries get out of various international climate change accords by saying "look, they are worse than us!". Some countries, like say, the US.

At least asking china to reduce emissions isn't hypocritical when we are trying to do the same.

And what ever happened to setting a good example?

[Riverwind]

At least asking china to reduce emissions isn't hypocritical when we are trying to do the same.

And what ever happened to setting a good example?

China and India do not give a damn about examples. They want/need economic growth and will do nothing but make excuses even if the "rich" world legislated itself into poverty.

You also must keep in mind that the environmental pseudo-religion which has infested anglo-saxon/european culture does not exist in other cultures. This means that the Chinese and Indians are not going ignore to all of the compelling science which contradicts the "CO2 is dangerous" hypothesis.

[guyser]

I tend to stay out of these threads since I cant figure out one way or another which way to lean.

That said, I was shown some pics a guy took of Beijing......and the palace was almost invisible from across the square (Tianemen?) due to smog and it is less than 1K away.

Every single picture had smog worse than I have ever seen . The guy did say that cars would be heavily restricted as the Olympics approach in an effort to reduce the smog.

Apparently our marathon Olympians will be running up the Don Valley Parkway everyday at 5Pm in anticipation.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, some countries get out of various international climate change accords by saying "look, they are worse than us!". Some countries, like say, the US.

At least asking china to reduce emissions isn't hypocritical when we are trying to do the same.

And what ever happened to setting a good example?

None of which applies to Canada (especially the example part), which has not reduced growth in emissions even compared to the US. After ratifying Kyoto, the Liberals did nothing...that is certainly worse than (name any other nation who did ratify).

[Wild Bill]

What about "Green Tariffs", where if a country like China produces goods with the advantage of no anti-pollution costs we impose a tariff equal to what it costs our domestic industries to pay for smokestack scrubbers or whatever?

Shouldn't the idea of Free Trade also mean a fair, level playing field?

[capricorn]

I tend to stay out of these threads since I cant figure out one way or another which way to lean.

Me too.

That said, I was shown some pics a guy took of Beijing......and the palace was almost invisible from across the square (Tianemen?) due to smog and it is less than 1K away.

Every single picture had smog worse than I have ever seen . The guy did say that cars would be heavily restricted as the Olympics approach in an effort to reduce the smog.

China is desperately attempting to reduce air pollution in aniticipation of the Olympic games.

"Automobiles, excluding taxis, buses and emergency vehicles, are to stay off roads every other day in accordance with the even and odd numbers on the licence plates," Xinhua news agency quoted vice-mayor Ji Lin as saying.

"The ban is aimed to ensure air quality during the sport events in Beijing."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080307/sc_af...on_080307172144

It makes you wonder why Beijing was chosen to host the Olympics in what is clearly a very unhealthy environment for the athletes and spectators.

[Riverwind]

Shouldn't the idea of Free Trade also mean a fair, level playing field?

Definately. But we have a big problem getting china to respect the existing regulations regarding poisonous additives to products or intellectual property. It would be virtually impossible to 'audit' Chinese products to ensure they did not exceed their CO2 allowances during manufacturing.

Regulating CO2 is a fool's enterprise that is not even worth discussing.

[Wild Bill]

Definately. But we have a big problem getting china to respect the existing regulations regarding poisonous additives to products or intellectual property. It would be virtually impossible to 'audit' Chinese products to ensure they did not exceed their CO2 allowances during manufacturing.

Regulating CO2 is a fool's enterprise that is not even worth discussing.

Would we really need to rely on precise audits? How about a reverse onus system? We slap on a green tariff and leave it to CHINA or whoever to prove it's not applicable?

I'm not an economist but since the majority who get print these days seem all to be leftists from Queen's University I think I've a right to make suggestions and observations. A couple of years ago I heard Harper make a point that disappeared faster than a cat's duty in a litter box! He was pressing a human rights issue during a visit to China and some media type asked him if he wasn't afraid the Chinese would allow this to affect our mutual trade.

Harper commented that when our trade balance with China is so incredibly out of whack in China's favour why should we care?! I thought this is a good point that I never hear mentioned, let alone considered. What's more, if China depends so much on having huge trade surpluses with western nations then they should also be incredibly vulnerable to boycotts and high tariffs.

Are we not being some kind of "Lenin-esque" "useful idiot" pushovers? China is wiping out more than the entire world's Kyoto reductions and we're supposed to keep buying from them? While imposing green costs on our own industry and expecting them to be able to compete against such countries on the world stage?

It just doesn't make sense!

[Riverwind]

Would we really need to rely on precise audits? How about a reverse onus system? We slap on a green tariff and leave it to CHINA or whoever to prove it's not applicable?

Lead, pesticides or other things that actually show up in the end product can be tested for. It is virtually impossible to ensure that any CO2 mitigation measures are actually used - especially if there is money to be made turning the equipment off the minute the inspector leaves the building. In fact, we will likely have a tough time making sure that the Enrons of the world don't scam the system at home - policing societies where corruption is a expected part of business/government culture will be impossible.

We would be fools to enter into any arrangement where we need to trust the word of the Chinese government.

Edited March 14, 2008 by Riverwind

[Wild Bill]

Lead, pesticides or other things that actually show up in the end product can be tested for. It is virtually impossible to ensure that any CO2 mitigation measures are actually used - especially if there is money to be made turning the equipment off the minute the inspector leaves the building. In fact, we will likely have a tough time making sure that the Enrons of the world don't scam the system at home - policing societies where corruption is a expected part of business/government culture will be impossible.

We would be fools to enter into any arrangement where we need to trust the word of the Chinese government.

So we don't! We slap on the tariffs and we don't take them off unless and until we have reason to believe the audit process. If that means forever then so be it!

[myata]

Wait-a-min, reality check:

#1 Why is it that we need these dramatic reductions in the first place? I.e. who is responsible for the bulk of the effect we're starting to see now?

#2 China's emissions have (or were expected to) surpass those of the US (the biggest carbon emitter till then) only this year. Meaning that per capita China is still at least 3 (three) times lower than the US, and probably times lower than the rest of the developed world;

#3 Exactly how significant those reductions were (judging by example of this country)? I.e. in plain worlds, if developed countries with their huge headstart of wealth and technology mostly sat on their bums and pointed fingers at each other, how surprising it is that everybody else's following the suit (or simply don't care to play). Kinda like self fulfillling profecy, is it?

Speaking of the solutions, due to reluctance and resistance of the developed world to take any real and meaningful actions, the game is back to square one. Much of the time since Kyoto accord was signed was wasted in stall tacktics, finger pointing and denial. The West has lost moral privilege to lead this development, as it quickly loosing its physical dominance in the world's politics. To me, the failure is rooted in the deeper issue that we see in manifistations all over, that humankind at this point isn't yet ready to tackle global issues. Whether it comes up to speed in the near future or not may become a key question of its long term prosperity (if not survival).

[Riverwind]

#1 Why is it that we need these dramatic reductions in the first place?

There is no compelling scientific or moral justification for reducing CO2 at great cost. China and India understand this which is why they will refuse to limit their own emissions in the foreseeable future. That said, you can expect them to use the issue as an opportunity to extort money from naive people in developed countries. Edited March 14, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

There is no compelling scientific or moral justification for reducing CO2 at great cost.

On the other hand not reducing CO2 may come at a far greater cost. The recklessness and willingness of conservatives to damn the torpedoes and put the pedal to the metal really is quite surprising when you think about it. Normally there is a compelling justification for being conservatively prudent in the face of uncertainty. I guess their fear of change and strong preference for incrementalism is more powerful than their urge to be...conservative.

Go figure.

[Riverwind]

Normally there is a compelling justification for being conservatively prudent in the face of uncertainty.

Any time you walk down the street you take a risk that some idiot will run you down. According to you a prudent person would hide in their home because of the risk of being run over.

Prudence by any sensible definition of the word takes into account probabilities associated with risks. The temperature trends over that last 100 years suggest that the probability of a CO2 induced global crisis remains quite low no matter what grant seeking activists and scientists may claim.

Edited March 14, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

Caution and circumspection are hallmarks of conservatism, that said so is hubris.

[Wilber]

Normally there is a compelling justification for being conservatively prudent in the face of uncertainty.

Fortunately enough people ignored that principle to get us out of the stone age. Because the evidence of mans effect on climate change is not physical but comes from computer models, there is risk involved whichever way we go, either to the environment or the economy or both if we get it wrong.

[eyeball]

Normally there is a compelling justification for being conservatively prudent in the face of uncertainty.

Fortunately enough people ignored that principle to get us out of the stone age.

Yep, those would be your devil-may-care progressives. We can thank them for leading us down out of the trees too.

[Wild Bill]

On the other hand not reducing CO2 may come at a far greater cost. The recklessness and willingness of conservatives to damn the torpedoes and put the pedal to the metal really is quite surprising when you think about it. Normally there is a compelling justification for being conservatively prudent in the face of uncertainty. I guess their fear of change and strong preference for incrementalism is more powerful than their urge to be...conservative.

Go figure.

You should read the link again! It states that within 2 years China will have gotten to the point with its polluting emissions where it totally swamps out the entire Kyoto reductions of ALL of the signing countries!

In other words, it will have made all the efforts of everyone else totally a waste of time and money. And its emission curve will still be accelerating!

This makes the idea of CO2 reductions not a matter of cost versus threat. It simply means that everything anyone else does is nullified by the Chinese, WHO ARE SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF KYOTO!

Again I ask, why should the rest of us bother?

[eyeball]

You should read the link again! It states that within 2 years China will have gotten to the point with its polluting emissions where it totally swamps out the entire Kyoto reductions of ALL of the signing countries!

In other words, it will have made all the efforts of everyone else totally a waste of time and money. And its emission curve will still be accelerating!

This makes the idea of CO2 reductions not a matter of cost versus threat. It simply means that everything anyone else does is nullified by the Chinese, WHO ARE SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF KYOTO!

Again I ask, why should the rest of us bother?

We knew this would be the case when we signed the Kyoto Protocol. The idea was that developed nations would take the first steps towards a global solution, because we can afford to better than the developing world. This included placing a tax on our CO2 emissions to generate the money needed to develop new energy-generating technologies which in turn would be exported to developing countries like China.

I'm willing to bite the bullet but I should also admit my livelihood depends on being able to burn fuel, lots of it. Like I said earlier I think the west could do a lot more to force countries like China to reduce their emissions by linking trade to human rights. If the loss of manufacturing jobs in the developed world is anything to go by, I'd say putting the economy before virtue has already bitten us as hard in the present as Kyoto would have in the future.

We should have stuck by our agreement so we could hold our heads up and maintain our principles. These are what we need most of all to carry us safely into the future.

I never really had much faith in the developed world's committment, so we may as well bring on the carbon. I just hope I get to live long enough to see how things turn out.

Edited March 14, 2008 by eyeball

[Wilber]

Normally there is a compelling justification for being conservatively prudent in the face of uncertainty.

Yep, those would be your devil-may-care progressives. We can thank them for leading us down out of the trees too.

And of course every one of them voted Liberal.

[Wild Bill]

We knew this would be the case when we signed the Kyoto Protocol. The idea was that developed nations would take the first steps towards a global solution, because we can afford to better than the developing world. This included placing a tax on our CO2 emissions to generate the money needed to develop new energy-generating technologies which in turn would be exported to developing countries like China.

We should have stuck by our agreement so we could hold our heads up and maintain our principles. These are what we need most of all to carry us safely into the future.

Who's "We"? I don't recall ever voting Liberal! I certainly didn't vote for them to sit on their hands for over a decade until it would cost BILLIONS to live up to the promised THEY made!

In fact, it was the Liberal talk of sticking to the agreement last election that made me all the more reluctant to vote for them! I would have taken no pride in sticking to such a ridiculous and harebrained scheme as Kyoto. I would have been ashamed for being a citizen of such a sucker nation!

[Riverwind]

I never really had much faith in the developed world's committment, so we may as well bring on the carbon. I just hope I get to live long enough to see how things turn out.

Don't worry. The CO2 scare will go the way of all of the other 'end of the world' predictions which humans seem to be suckers for. FWIW - unlike past doom sayers the CO2 alarmists will likely be able to take solace in the fact that temps will likely go up. They just won't go up as much as predicted and the increases will not result in any measureable catastrophes.

I recommend that you read about the population bomb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb