China, doing their part to contain GHG

[TheMercenary]

Green House Gases. Another good reason not to sign Kyoto:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/wo...e6c&ei=5087%0A

[piercehawkeye45]

I don't see how that has to do with Kyoto.

Right now, there are two factors determining what is happening with Kyoto, GDP and greenhouse gas emission. If China and India limit GHG, their GDP won't raise enough to get out of 3rd world status or it will be dramatically slowed. If they don't limit GHG, there is an enormous amount of pollution going into the air. If we limit our GHG, our GDP will decrease and China and India will catch up to us while we are the only ones sacrificing for the environment. If we don't limit our GHG, we are doubling the amount of GHG than if we would if both limited them (assuming we release about the same).

They Kyoto Protocol says that we should limit our GHG while China and India don't have too. How does it matter to our signing of the Kyoto if China releases 100 tons or 100 million tons of GHG since they don't have to limit them in the first place?

All this is a "they are allowed to spew GHG, so that means we should be able too" argument.


If we sign the Kyoto Protocol, that would force China and India to control their GHG once they reach 1st world status. If we don't sign the Kyoto Protocol, China and India won't control their GHG even when they they reach 1st world status which will hurt EVERYONE later on.

This is a time where the United States should take responsibility and help be a leader in this movement, because even though it will hurt us in the short run in terms of GDP, it should help us in the long run.

If we invest in clean technology now, that means when China and India get to 1st world status, they will be forced to lower their GDP for environmental reasons and by that time, we will making money selling them our clean investments, raising our GDP.

I think there should be more with Kyoto Protocol to encourage China and India to limit their GHGs now, by giving them the technology of clean sources that will only raise them up to industrialized status though.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If we sign the Kyoto Protocol, that would force China and India to control their GHG once they reach 1st world status.

Why? Why do you think they would give a rat's ass, unless it would be in their own self interest? And if it's in their own interest, what difference does it make who else is on board?

China at least, is finding out already, the hard way, how pollution hurts them, and is starting to make moves to mitigate that. There is a very real danger of them blowing their grand show as Olympic host.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Why? Why do you think they would give a rat's ass, unless it would be in their own self interest? And if it's in their own interest, what difference does it make who else is on board?

They could continue to make bad environmental decisions but wouldn't they be under the Kyoto Protocol when they become a 1st world country so they would have the same amount of pressure put on them as the US would?

[Clodfobble]

Unless, you know, they pulled out of the treaty at that point. Treaties are not forever.

Someone posted numbers at some point that proved Europe wasn't living up to the Kyoto standards it agreed to anyway. At least we were honest about whether we were going to follow the treaty.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I don't see how that has to do with Kyoto.

Right now, there are two factors determining what is happening with Kyoto, GDP and greenhouse gas emission. If China and India limit GHG, their GDP won't raise enough to get out of 3rd world status or it will be dramatically slowed. If they don't limit GHG, there is an enormous amount of pollution going into the air. If we limit our GHG, our GDP will decrease and China and India will catch up to us while we are the only ones sacrificing for the environment. If we don't limit our GHG, we are doubling the amount of GHG than if we would if both limited them (assuming we release about the same).

They Kyoto Protocol says that we should limit our GHG while China and India don't have too. How does it matter to our signing of the Kyoto if China releases 100 tons or 100 million tons of GHG since they don't have to limit them in the first place?

All this is a "they are allowed to spew GHG, so that means we should be able too" argument.


If we sign the Kyoto Protocol, that would force China and India to control their GHG once they reach 1st world status. If we don't sign the Kyoto Protocol, China and India won't control their GHG even when they they reach 1st world status which will hurt EVERYONE later on.

This is a time where the United States should take responsibility and help be a leader in this movement, because even though it will hurt us in the short run in terms of GDP, it should help us in the long run.

If we invest in clean technology now, that means when China and India get to 1st world status, they will be forced to lower their GDP for environmental reasons and by that time, we will making money selling them our clean investments, raising our GDP.

I think there should be more with Kyoto Protocol to encourage China and India to limit their GHGs now, by giving them the technology of clean sources that will only raise them up to industrialized status though.

Umm.... well I say screw China and India {aren't they porn stars?}. If you read the article you will see that most likely befor 2010 China will surpass the US as the worlds number one producer of GHG. So all industrialized and successful nations should spend tons of their cash to fix their problems all the while those other nations need not do so. I don't think you can hardly call either of them "Third world nations". They have the technology to limit their gases. Our prosperity and GDP should not be penalized because of agreements like Kyoto. The more expensive we make it for our industry to produce here at home the more likely companies will simply take that industry to countries which have no such restrictions. I believe we need to continue on a course of trying hard to clean up our own country. We need a strong relook of the environment in this country ASAP post-Bush.

A few notable quotes from the article:

Public health is reeling. Pollution has made cancer China’s leading cause of death, the Ministry of Health says. Ambient air pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Nearly 500 million people lack access to safe drinking water.

Chinese cities often seem wrapped in a toxic gray shroud. Only 1 percent of the country’s 560 million city dwellers breathe air considered safe by the European Union.

Environmental woes that might be considered catastrophic in some countries can seem commonplace in China: industrial cities where people rarely see the sun; children killed or sickened by lead poisoning or other types of local pollution; a coastline so swamped by algal red tides that large sections of the ocean no longer sustain marine life.

China’s problem has become the world’s problem. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides spewed by China’s coal-fired power plants fall as acid rain on Seoul, South Korea, and Tokyo. Much of the particulate pollution over Los Angeles originates in China, according to the Journal of Geophysical Research.

More pressing still, China has entered the most robust stage of its industrial revolution, even as much of the outside world has become preoccupied with global warming.

Experts once thought China might overtake the United States as the world’s leading producer of greenhouse gases by 2010, possibly later. Now, the International Energy Agency has said China could become the emissions leader by the end of this year, and the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency said China had already passed that level.

Beijing also insists that it will accept no mandatory limits on its carbon dioxide emissions, which would almost certainly reduce its industrial growth. It argues that rich countries caused global warming and should find a way to solve it without impinging on China’s development.

For air quality, a major culprit is coal, on which China relies for about two-thirds of its energy needs. It has abundant supplies of coal and already burns more of it than the United States, Europe and Japan combined. But even many of its newest coal-fired power plants and industrial furnaces operate inefficiently and use pollution controls considered inadequate in the West.

Submit a Question Expanding car ownership, heavy traffic and low-grade gasoline have made autos the leading source of air pollution in major Chinese cities. Only 1 percent of China’s urban population of 560 million now breathes air considered safe by the European Union, according to a World Bank study of Chinese pollution published this year. One major pollutant contributing to China’s bad air is particulate matter, which includes concentrations of fine dust, soot and aerosol particles less than 10 microns in diameter (known as PM 10).

The level of such particulates is measured in micrograms per cubic meter of air. The European Union stipulates that any reading above 40 micrograms is unsafe. The United States allows 50. In 2006, Beijing’s average PM 10 level was 141, according to the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics. Only Cairo, among world capitals, had worse air quality as measured by particulates, according to the World Bank.

Emissions of sulfur dioxide from coal and fuel oil, which can cause respiratory and cardiovascular diseases as well as acid rain, are increasing even faster than China’s economic growth. In 2005, China became the leading source of sulfur dioxide pollution globally, the State Environmental Protection Administration, or SEPA, reported last year.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

They could continue to make bad environmental decisions but wouldn't they be under the Kyoto Protocol when they become a 1st world country so they would have the same amount of pressure put on them as the US would?

When is the last time anyone had the ability to influence1,323,058,938 Chinese to do anything they didn't want to do?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

When is the last time anyone had the ability to influence1,323,058,938 Chinese to do anything they didn't want to do?

Never, you couldn't influence the US to do anything neither or the European countries according to Clod. I said they would be under the same restrictions as the US, which still isn't a lot.

I think there should be a more joint agreement with China to help stop their output as well.

The more expensive we make it for our industry to produce here at home the more likely companies will simply take that industry to countries which have no such restrictions.

Couldn't you just extend that to all American based companies? You could still easily get passed that but it would at least help a little. And other countries are starting to put tougher restrictions on environmental practices now that they realize that bad environmental practices by companies will greatly hurt them once the company leaves and forces them to clean up the company's mess.

I believe we need to continue on a course of trying hard to clean up our own country. We need a strong relook of the environment in this country ASAP post-Bush.

I agree with this 100% but doubt it will happen.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

And other countries are starting to put tougher restrictions on environmental practices now that they realize that bad environmental practices by companies will greatly hurt them once the company leaves and forces them to clean up the company's mess.

That was the point of the article, only to this point China has refused to do so and it is at the expense of the world. It is not countries like the US and European nations that are the problem, It is countries like China and India.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

When is the last time anyone had the ability to influence1,323,058,938 Chinese to do anything they didn't want to do?

1949

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

They could continue to make bad environmental decisions but wouldn't they be under the Kyoto Protocol when they become a 1st world country so they would have the same amount of pressure put on them as the US would?

They are already arguing the way output is measured, I doubt that will change. I firmly believe China will do what they feel is best for China, no matter what.

[queequeger]

This is so much like the Prisoner’s Dilemma, my Philosophy prof must be rolling over in his grave (assuming he’s dead by now, which the ever present bulging vein on his head did suggest…) China will do what’s best for China just like the US will always do what’s best for the US. Most sides won’t budge because they fear the other sides won’t budge. It's the way of the superpowers (not sure if that's a cause or effect, though).

I've lost all faith in major governments to do anything that isn't guided solely by money. So here's hoping the oil reserves run out before we do severe enough damage to our selves... But then again, they say if the ice caps melt, we might be able to find a stockpile accounting for 25% of the globe's oil, so maybe Reagan was right, global warming WOULD be a good thing…

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by queequeger

...so maybe Reagan was right, global warming WOULD be a good thing…

Orly?

[queequeger]

rly! I mean, imagine not having to heat your home in winter!

[9th Engineer]

Frankly speaking, I think that China will do what's best for China because they don't give a damn about the well being of anyone else.