China's greenhouse emissions to swamp all Kyoto reductions

[eyeball]

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!

'We' as in Canada. I didn't vote for the Liberals either and haven't for decades. I think if political parties don't deliver on their promises within say, two years of making them, our Governor General should dissolve Parliament and force an election. Especially in the case of promises made in our name to the whole world.

[eyeball]

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.

So, what if the CO2 scare turns out to be a valid one and some of the worst case scenarios start unfolding? Is there a plan in place for this contingency, should there be one just in case or would that be too prudent as well?

China should make an ideal canary I think. Bejing looks like a real candidate for a mass suffocation event of some kind. Perhaps after the Olympics when they go back to putting the pedal to the metal.

Edited March 14, 2008 by eyeball

[Oleg Bach]

So, what if the CO2 scare turns out to be a valid one and some of the worst case scenarios start unfolding? Is there a plan in place for this contingency, should there be one just in case or would that be too prudent as well?

China should make an ideal canary I think. Bejing looks like a real candidate for a mass suffocation event of some kind. Perhaps after the Olympics when they go back to putting the pedal to the metal.

So unrealistic this "greening" joke...we could recycle every damned tin can in North America - all ride bikes - and still the cloud of industrial filth from China would fill our lungs and destroy our lives as we know them in time...the great sin is that capitailist investment in this huge slave labour camp benfits no one but a few crazy men in the west that are not happy with a few billion dollars but want trillions - at the expense of the poor and tormented forced labourers in China and at our expense in the west - being forced to be bean counters at our useless computers in our coffin life office cubicals - there must be limits to greed and power mongering - seems that there are men that judge their success not by how much wealth they accumulate but by how many humans they can make suffer...China is hell - and in time we will pay for our parasitic dependence on slave labour...the environ will be first then - social moral collapse.

[Riverwind]

So, what if the CO2 scare turns out to be a valid one and some of the worst case scenarios start unfolding? Is there a plan in place for this contingency, should there be one just in case or would that be too prudent as well?

What if flouride turns out to be a poison or cell phones cause brain cancer? (answer: we deal with when we know that there is a problem).

Science comes up with all kinds of theories and some of them actually turn out to be true. Any action must be weighed against the costs of acting vs. the certainty of the science. No matter how much the alarmists whinge they cannot escape the fact that they don't have any real world evidence that CO2 warming is dangerous (computer simulations are not the real world and there is no conclusive proof that the recent warming was caused by CO2 alone). More importantly, even if they are right there is no reason to believe that CO2 reductions are the way to go. Many economists feel that spending money on adaption is much more cost effective.

I will put it another way. The IPCC predicted in 2001 that temperatures would rise at 2 degC/century. 7 years later the temperatures have not only fallen, they have fallen enough to show statistically that the IPCC prediction has a 95% chance of being wrong. Mind you - alarmists can still grasp onto that remaining 5% chance and claim that the warming is 'just around the corner'. If they are right we should see a rapid rise in temps over the next 5-10 years or so. If the temps remain stable or increase slightly that 95% chance of being wrong will increase to 99% or higher. We can afford to wait 5-10 years and see who is right. The cost of committing to massive CO2 reduction schemes is simply too high to justify the precautionary principle given the data available today.

China should make an ideal canary I think. Bejing looks like a real candidate for a mass suffocation event of some kind. Perhaps after the Olympics when they go back to putting the pedal to the metal.

China's pollution problems have nothing to do with CO2 and GW. Edited March 14, 2008 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

What if flouride turns out to be a poison or cell phones cause brain cancer? (answer: we deal with when we know that there is a problem).

Science comes up with all kinds of theories and some of them actually turn out to be true. Any action must be weighed against the costs of acting vs. the certainty of the science. No matter how much the alarmists whinge they cannot escape the fact that they don't have any real world evidence that CO2 warming is dangerous (computer simulations are not the real world and there is no conclusive proof that the recent warming was caused by CO2 alone). More importantly, even if they are right there is no reason to believe that CO2 reductions are the way to go. Many economists feel that spending money on adaption is much more cost effective.

I will put it another way. The IPCC predicted in 2001 that temperatures would rise at 2 degC/century. 7 years later the temperatures have not only fallen, the have fallen enough to show statistically that the IPCC prediction has a 95% chance of being wrong. Mind you - alarmists can still grasp onto that remaining 5% chance and claim that the warming is 'just around the corner'. If they are right we should see a rapid rise in temps over the next 5-10 years or so. If the temps remain stable or increase slightly that 95% chance of being wrong will increase to 99% or higher. We can afford to wait 5-10 years and see who is right. The cost of committing to massive CO2 reduction schemes is simply too high to justify the precautionary principle given the data available today.

China's pollution problems have nothing to do with CO2 and GW.

CO2 is not the issue - nor is warming or cooling effects of mans activity - it's just common human waste - filth - for instance ..big flat screen TV...generate cancer to thousands in China that manufacture them - also - recyling our old computers via primative methods also brings ill health and suffering to the common person suriving in China...imagine a billion ants pooping in a confined environ - we are suffocating in our own industrial and human excretement - you can not poop on the floor of your living room till you are up to your neck in crap - you will not surive...greenhouse gases are the least of our problems - human generation of crapage will kill us...we are great inventors and expect something for nothing - problem being - is we are as stupid as we are ingenious - we are totally inefficient when it comes to manipulating matter and making product - for every item created - 20 % is product - and 80% if filthy by-product...all for the sake of trinkets we do not need - I have used a phone maybe 5 times in 2 years - I walk everywhere - I rarely use public transport...I have one bed and a nice home - I eat survivingly - my income consists of nothing sometime - but I manage - when the big collapse comes - you - will suffer - I am already ahead of the game and fully adjusted - I suggest you do the same - now - and not in a panic when it is to late - a depression is coming..prepare to live on next to nothing - you will be healthy and happy no matter what.

[jbg]

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?

Because we are making useless gestures for an entirely speculative benefit. The whole theory of manmade climate change is ridiculously far-fetched anyway.

[jbg]

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.

Political correctness. Same reason that people are insisting on Kyoto restrictions that Chinese activity would wipe out.

[mcqueen625]

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?

Now there is an utterly naive comment if I ever heard one. The argument before over China's human rights abuses, it was said by the corporate sector that we should develop trade with them and we will influence how they treat their own people, by them observing how we treat our people. After all of this time the only thing they have learned is that they can have their cake and eat it too. They can continue to abuse and threaten not only their own people but those in Tibet, as well as those in Taiwan, while being allowed to pollute the environment at will.

The only thing that will teach this ruthless regime is to stop all trade with them, until they step into line, and the World should boycott the Olympics as a indication that we do not accept the way they treat either their people or the environment.

[jbg]

The only thing that will teach this ruthless regime is to stop all trade with them, until they step into line, and the World should boycott the Olympics as a indication that we do not accept the way they treat either their people or the environment.

Of course Nixon, egged on by Trudeau's recognition of China, is the main culprit here. "Realpolitik" was basically cynicism (sp) by another name.

[xul]

About the issue of these civilized emissions vs those uncivilized emissions, please allow me to make a joke by a story of environmentalists:

There was a rich Canadian environmentalist who was a capitalist and he generously hired a dozen of poor $8/h workers, who like most Canadian also were environmentalists, to save them from misery of unemployment.

One day the capitalist gathered all his workers and lectured them, "As the owner of a environmental control business, I declare that I will give up one of my two luxury yachts for cutting down 50% carbon dioxide emission of my family. For honoring our common value of environmentalism, I also strongly recommend all of you to fellow me and plunge into the same action of cutting your families emissions 50% off."

His workers tried to say something but they didn't, for they all knew how high the moral criterian their superior adopted. Next day evening, the capitalist went into fury for he found the efficiency of his product line declining 50% in the afternoo. He sent for the forman and asked him why this happened.

"My lord," the foreman said, "your workers did not eat any food at noon, whatever representation would you expect for them? "

"Why didn't they have lunch at noon? " the civilized, generous, environmentalism and human rights believed superior asked with surprise.

"Your workers decided to fellow you to cut their families' carbon dioxide emission off, but they had not a yacht to cut, even had not a car or motorcycle to cut, so they had to cut off one of their cookings a day to catch up your moral criterian...."

Edited March 16, 2008 by xul

[xul]

There is another joke about capitalist and environmentalist:

There was a Canadian capitalist who have a huge factory with thousands of smoking chimneys. After these chimneys brought Canada into a civilized country and, also contaminated every corner of Canadian atmosphere, his factory was enclosed by furious environmentalists so he decided to emigrate to China, with his factory and, of course with all his chimneys so all Canadian environmentalists cheered for their success of saving the earth from the globe warming.

Meanwhile, after several years of warm welcome for booming China economy, the capitalist's factory and its chimneys was blocked by Chinese brutal police for its smoke made communist chairman asthmatic. So the capitalist emigrated to Africa and the Chinese government began to cheer their contribution of protecting earth environment.

And of course, the capitalist was eventually expelled from Africa for his smoke poisoned the king's baby prince to pneumonia and the king also was award a Nobel Prize for his contribution of cutting off carbon dioxide emission of his country.

According there were not any chimneys left in any country, the environmentalists around world decide to shift their career to pursue the great goal of establishing peace in Afghanistan after they held a ceremony to celebrate their contribution of saving earth.

For no where to lie his chimney and the acknowledgement of his duty to product cheap merchandises to satisfy all environmentalist and non-environmentalist around world for their good life, the capitalist decided to build a huge float island drifting on oceans to lie his factory and chimneys . The float island belonged to no country but himself so he thought there would no one could ever bother him.

Several years later, after each piece of ice of earth was meltdown by his chinmeys and the sea flooded every piece of dry land, he received a dozen of urgent telephone call everyday from PMs, chairmans, Kings....for asking him to emgrate their country to give their people a hitchhiking on his float island...

Edited March 16, 2008 by xul

[xul]

I agree what most people here have pointed out, that the increase of greenhouse gas from developing countries such as China and India will gorge any western decrease. But I think the main cause of the increase of developing countries is that the so-called "decrease" of greenhourse gas from developed countries merely mean those developed countries have moved most of their chimneys and pollutant producing factories to developing countrys. Just as the second story I have posted.

And Kyoto Protocol is based on reducing a country's CO2 emission from its current amount. If developing countries like China and India acted as the way that developed countries act, it would just be like my first story, the capitalist cuts a yacht, workers cut the meal. It is really unfair. This is why Kyoto Protocol temporarily did not ask China and India having a limits of greenhouse gas emission.

I'm not sure whether the globe warming is truth or merely a myth. If it was a myth which was invited by those environmental scientists for getting funds, it would be the most expensive joke in human history. If it is truth, I think the only way is to support the birth control in developing country to reduce the sum of human population, unless the concept of those civilized guys' "human rights" is Canadian have white human rights to drive SUV while African merely have black human rights to ride donkey.

Edited March 16, 2008 by xul

[Wilber]

Well said xul.

[Riverwind]

I agree what most people here have pointed out, that the increase of greenhouse gas from developing countries such as China and India will gorge any western decrease. But I think the main cause of the increase of developing countries is that the so-called "decrease" of greenhourse gas from developed countries merely mean those developed countries have moved most of their chimneys and pollutant producing factories to developing countrys. Just as the second story I have posted.

It is truer than you might beleive.

Take a look at this article about toxic waste from solar cells being dumped in China: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte..._3.html?sub=new

Environmental regulations designed to combat a 'global' problem are useless unless everyone follows them. The Europeans are starting to realize this and recognizing that GHG regulations in Europe will simply cause production to move elsewhere and will likely make the problem worse - not better. Naive is the the most polite word for people who think that the "rich" world should adopt strict GHG measures while the developing world is allowed to do whatever they want.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Riverwind

[Wilber]

xul

In retrospect I would qualify my "well said" by taking some exeption to the phrase "white human rights" in the following sentence.

unless the concept of those civilized guys' "human rights" is Canadian have white human rights to drive SUV while African merely have black human rights to ride donkey.

There are plenty of non white Canadians who are taking full advantage of those so called "white human rights". A very large proportion of BMW's, Mercedes etc are owned by non whites in this part of the world. More a question of opportunity than colour neh?

[Wild Bill]

It is truer than you might beleive.

Take a look at this article about toxic waste from solar cells being dumped in China: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte..._3.html?sub=new

Environmental regulations designed to combat a 'global' problem are useless unless everyone follows them. The Europeans are starting to realize this and recognizing that GHG regulations in Europe will simply cause production to move elsewhere and will likely make the problem worse - not better. Naive is the the most polite word for people who think that the "rich" world should adopt strict GHG measures while the developing world is allowed to do whatever they want.

Did I miss something? Did someone FORCE the Chinese government to accept that waste? Did someone FORCE China to refuse to enact or enforce any anti-pollution measures?

Looks to me like they couldn't start making all that money fast enough!

[xul]

xul

In retrospect I would qualify my "well said" by taking some exeption to the phrase "white human rights" in the following sentence.

Thank you to point out the fault in may post. I'm sorry to use these words. I think using the words of "developing country's human rights" and "developed country' human rights" would be better.

There are plenty of non white Canadians who are taking full advantage of those so called "white human rights". A very large proportion of BMW's, Mercedes etc are owned by non whites in this part of the world. More a question of opportunity than colour neh?

I knew these. I have several relatives and classmates lived in Canada and America, they were immigrants and most of them's living level are even better than a lot of native born people. It seems there is a possibility that American would have their first minority president. If the majority of a nation did not have tolerance, they would not allow these happening.

[xul]

Did I miss something? Did someone FORCE the Chinese government to accept that waste? Did someone FORCE China to refuse to enact or enforce any anti-pollution measures?

Looks to me like they couldn't start making all that money fast enough!

No one force China to accept these waste. I was not accusing anyone even those poor Chinese peasants who brought these wastes into China themselves. They was given birth by their illiterate parents not themself, but they have to find a way to survival.

This is why developing country needs birth control policy. Several decads ago, most of these countrys were neither doctors nor hospitals and people might die in various diseases , the only way to continue their race was to breed more baby, so breeding more baby has become a part of their culture. Suddenly, after WW2, western physic and medicine flooded into these country and cured every sick kids to health---these is a good thing. But the culture could not change as fast as the application of medicine, so the surplus of population emerged.

And those huge number of people need survival, they need to do somthing making their life better. So the cheap merchandizes they made flooded everywhere of developed country and made some guys losed their jobs. Even if developed countrys blocked all trade with China could not solve the problem because other deveoping countrys might buy these goods and without their cheap Chinese factory, western companies would lose the competition in those raw material produce developing countrys unless they liked to lower their moral criterian back to colonial age with the way of grabing the raw material from developing countrys by war.

If China had less population, it could mostly develop its economy by itself resource, so other countrys would be less affected. It's good to both western and China. The other developing countrys are the same. I gusee if the population of Africa were as the same as 100 years ago, 90% of tribal wars, western so-called humanitarian disaster, would not happen.

Edited March 17, 2008 by xul

[JB Globe]

The Chinese government is well-aware of the consequences of their reckless use of the environment - they inhale the result of their coal-hungry energy policy every day on the commute to and from the party office. It's taken a while, but the party seems to be coming around, the change stems from mounting concern over the potential public health catastrophe that would result from the world's worst air pollution in nearly all Chinese cities becoming 2-3 times worse in the next 25 years. That and the concern that melting glaciers in the Himalayas will dry up China's rivers on which most of its population depends for drinking water and it's booming agriculture industry depends on for irrigation.

It's inevitable that China will change, unlike democratization in China this is an issue where the communist party can see that the pros clearly outweigh the cons in the long term. We can speed up the process by demonstrating that new technologies and strategies work in the real world.

[xul]

It's inevitable that China will change, unlike democratization in China this is an issue where the communist party can see that the pros clearly outweigh the cons in the long term.

This is truth. In fact they are moving, not for following western demonstration, but for the high oil price and pollution of its environment. They have just passed a labour protection law that means all sweatshops will be politely expelled out of China, if those loacal goverments in poor area could enfore the law efficiently.

But it is not a good news to Canadian. I guess those factories would not come back Canada because the cost here is too high, but they will just move to Vietnam or Cambodia, Perhaps further North Korea.

And I have not doubt that both CEOs of like Walmart and western politicians are trying to make India to "second China" to rouse competition between these two big developing countrys. Honestly, I don't think this is a good scheme to developed countrys like Canada. Westerners should not suppose China would stop at its current position waiting India to catch up. China has upgrade its railway system to 300km/h, uses homemade trains after bought 2 Canada made trains, and 100 seat airplane will have its first fly several month later. Perhaps it is not a current threatening to some Canadian company like Bombardier except in China domestic market, but it would be a potential threathening, and Canadian would soon have two "competitors" both of China and India from different directions of competition if Canada could not move its position to an "upper" level and make its companys more competitive.

Edited March 18, 2008 by xul

[peter_puck]

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

The problem is that most of the earth is in the stone age compared to us. Most people in China (and the rest of the world) don't have cars. You cannot go to Africa and tell someone who walks 10 miles to work that he can't have a moped because it would wipe of the carbon you saved by buying a smaller SUV.

In the past most countries have been unable to afford fossil fuels. Right now there is no reason that someone in the third world cannot engineer the same car or write the same computer program that we do. Soon they will be able to afford the same energy.

As for "Why should we even bother".

1) If we continue to consume ever more expensive fossil fuels it will sap our economic strength.

2) Smog is a bad thing.

3) A portion of every oil dollar goes to fund A) Chavez, B)Iran, C) Sudan D) Bin Laden (yes I know Canada is a net exporter, I am speaking of the world here).

4)If you believe global warming will have a large negative impact, decreasing our consumption will help.

[jbg]

As for "Why should we even bother".

1) If we continue to consume ever more expensive fossil fuels it will sap our economic strength.

2) Smog is a bad thing.

3) A portion of every oil dollar goes to fund A) Chavez, B)Iran, C) Sudan D) Bin Laden (yes I know Canada is a net exporter, I am speaking of the world here).

4)If you believe global warming will have a large negative impact, decreasing our consumption will help.

I am dead-set against well-intentioned acts of futility.

[Wilber]

Saw an interesting interview with a CIBC analyst the other day. He sees a carbon duty being imposed in the future along with a domestic carbon tax. The rational being there is no point in the later if you don't impose the former because the environment doesn't really give a damn who is doing the polluting. Makes sense to me.

[jbg]

Saw an interesting interview with a CIBC analyst the other day. He sees a carbon duty being imposed in the future along with a domestic carbon tax. The rational being there is no point in the later if you don't impose the former because the environment doesn't really give a damn who is doing the polluting. Makes sense to me.

Sounds like a revenue grab to me.

[Riverwind]

Sounds like a revenue grab to me.

No just a trade protectionist's dream come true. I agree with the logic though. IF we start pricing carbon in NA then we MUST tax imports as well. Not doing so would simply ensure that the production conceivable commodity or good will be moved over seas.

For example, cement production is a big CO2 emitter and would be hit with the biggest tariffs. The wannabe carbon Politburo naively assume that this tax will encourage the cement makers to clean up their act. However, the more likely outcome will see the raw material shipped to China and returned as ready mix cement.