So China is polluter no. one

has taken over US on top spot held by US since late 19th century - didn't take long

2 new coal fired power stations opening per day at present rates and no sign of abating

they are unrepentant and say that westerners per capita pollute more and it's up to them to reduce their emissions and not for them

however they have instructed worst polluters around Beijing to reduce emissions by a third for two months around Olympics

which is no different from their reaction to human rights criticism and other issues - an arrogant deflection of that criticism and a refusal to even recognise a problem let alone take responsibility for it

and the concession around the Olympics is only because of the Olympics and about creating a better "image" - they don't actually have any genuine concern for environmental matters, or care about the environment

they are basing their argument on a per capita basis sauying that each westerner pollutes far more than each Chinese purely because of the numerical supremacy of the Chinese

conveniently ignoring that this is just the reason why they must heed the calls on carbon emission standards as their populational affluence has already outstripped the US in carbon emissions at this early stage of their economic ascent

Link?

You're kidding me right - so they're NOT number one per capita? OF COURSE it matters on a per capita basis... They've got close to 4 times the population of the US, so in that case the US are polluting 4 times as much.
Yes China should start to wide the wave of emission reduction technologies that are coming out, yes they should begin to be phased into global caps on emissions and yes it matters given they are the largest country but you simply can't say "numerical supremacy is just an excuse"

in terms of global impact yes I can

our getting coy about per capita blah blah blah belies the fact that in a very short while global emissions based on their recent and current levels will impact far more seriously than the reasonably steady rates that the developed world emits and which it is taking stringent effforts to reduce

their sangre froid is unreasonable given that this is the best time to implement carbon-efficiency when they are developing infrastructure not later

the developed world's best interests are served by helping them to attain better emission standards imo

Guess all we can do back here in NZ is go over there and have a look for ourselves. Although the facts mount up westerners are always looking for an 'Asian' scapegoat which is wrong in many ways.

After watching the news on it I can feel for China wanting a way of life like ours.

What the western world should do for such a big country to help them get that, also as New Zealanders that have 'everything' it should be noted - it isn't wrong of them - workking harder at helping them get these things easier, would be very benificial for mother earth. So much negativity towards China no wonder they are clammed up.

There are alot of them, that is their right, as a world we need to help them get where they want, we can just turn around and say....

No, you cant have an air con machine, a tv and a microwave....thats just not fair.

M.

The whole per capita thing is irrelevant in this case. The only statistic that matters is the % of the total polution that they contribute. Having a low per capita figure doesnt change the fact that they pollute more than anyone else.

and you only need to see the Beijing "smog-scape" to know that.

China needs to develop an environmental awareness, and a human rights awareness, in order to move forward

I dont see the fact that they are still a 'developing' nation as an excuse for their pathetic attitude towards pollution. Their economy is booming and they have ample funds to invest in cleaner technology. For example a coal fired power plant in NZ is required to have all sorts of filters and scrubbers to remove most of the harmfull substances from what is released into the atmosphere. No such requirements exist in China however and a new coal fired power station comes online in China every week.

‘per capita’ is a human construct - the only thing that matters AT ALL to the environment is the TOTAL

Divide up the total: China’s output is already higher than it’s ‘per capita’ share of 1990 levels.

We are supposed to be aiming for cuts from these 1990 levels - not building 2 coal plants per day and aiming to double the USA’s output within 10 years.

no minimum environmental standards

no minimum human rights standards

no minimum labour protection standards

you start to see a pattern here

Yes - you're blind dislike of China. You haven't once referred to improving conditions or possible reasons with them. You're like the "everything-the-US-does-is-evil" crowd on this one man. I don't disagree that there's all kinds of negatives in there, but your completely lacking any balanced view of each of them.


And to say per-capita doesn't matter is RIDICULOUS. Under every single rational view of this, China should be expected to emit the most - they have the most people. And of course per capita is a human construct, so is the anthropogenic emissions we are talking about! Unless you're saying their emissions should be the same as every country (NZ huh?), the only other valid measurement I can think of is emissions per sq km. And given they're much larger than the US, they are miles ahead of them on that as well!
How in Gods name can you expect a country with 4 times the people to feed, transport, house, attendant industy etc etc etc to have LOWER total emissions? Absurd anti-Chinese rhetoric to support "its not our bloody fault" global warming arguments? Hope not.

Yes, China should be included in emmission reduction like anyone else. Yes, their impact is the largest. But even if they were considerably more efficient than everyone else (based on the fact that each Chinese person emits a QUARTER of a US person, or the fact that their per sq km emissions are an even smaller fraction) they would still be expected to emit the most, based on population.

Under your constructs, even if China was 75% more efficient than the US in terms of emissions, they would still be the big environmental evil. Because the total would be higher.


Focus on how efficient they can be for the population they have to support. I hope by say, 2050, they are the most carbon efficient country around. But I would still expect them to emit the largest total.

A simple analogy to show that 'per capita' arguments are valid:

If I, living by myself, use only slightly less power than the family of 6 living next door, it would be ABSURD for me to criticise their power usage and claim that the "population sizes" of the 2 houses were irrelevant.

wouldn't that make NZ potentially more of a emitter than China?

I was reading this monring that grazing animals account for 18% of global emissions (I might have to confirm this as it might be a part of one sort of emission - no fart jokes please)

as a concerned nation we should dump the bulk of our current agriculture and find something more sustainable and that pollutes less

shame on us all

I have actually

China has not demonstrated any awareness around these issues, or any desire to change

without even a desire to look at problems and to be constructive eg try to attain a more sustainable development - there can be no change

I don't see any excuse in the 21st century for a country not to sign up to minimum standards in the key areas of human rights, labour and the environment - even as a long term goal

especially if a country is happy to make international commitments in other areas such as trade

but at least we have made an international commitment by signing up to Kyoto

exactly like China did you mean...

and no awareness? no desire to change? have you looked into this at all?
these are just the wiki pages on China's environmental record - they completely counter what you're saying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

1. the first wiki article does not quote sufficient reliable sources/references

(so I cannot trust all of the content)


2. as regards China's signing of the Kyoto protocol, it exempted itself from all obligations under the treaty - "deftly playing the international system to its advantage" - so its merely window-dressing. China took on ZERO binding obligations under the protocol.

Completely agree... I can hardly believe that seemingly intelligent people here are actually arguing to the contrary. The mind boggles

things are not always as they seem

Yak, because like the rest, the principle of a ‘per capita’ share of a fixed total seems to have passed over your head.

And this TOTAL is fixed – the maximum CO2 the scientists figure that the environment can deal with.

Now there is nothing wrong with dividing this TOTAL up among nations on a per capita basis (in fact that’s probably the best way to do it) but that is not what the ‘per capita’ theorists above are doing. They seem to believe it means we all get to match the US per capita outputs?? If we all do this the TOTAL is going to be five times the safe limit that the scientists have identified - and the world is fucked.

So as I said...

Still boggled?

He's right in that per capita is only useful for dividing up the fixed total.

China could have a lower per capita output 5 years from now but still be pumping a higher amount of Co2 into the air.

Anyway just because the Chinese multiply at such a high rate doesn't mean they should be allowed to produce more and more Co2. There just isn't anymore to go around, we need them to start thinking about how they can reverse the current levels.

I was watching a story about how they are going to try to clear the air there for Olympic runners due to health concerns and I thought hmm they must be about #1 by now, next morning this story hit.

To me this is of more concern than Tibet.

pollution is the new boogyman in which we cast our hatred at the states that pollute the most....

surely our displeasure should be aimed at those that have for a long time stiffled any real attempts to create viable non fossil fuel alternatives to that which we currently rely on

where are the trillions of dollars of investment in ecologically safe energy sources which would address our global emissions problems and also those of our reliance on a fuel source that is diminishing and causing all sorts of strategic conflicts now

where the fuck is the 'market' in all this?

oh yeah trading carbon credits, excellent


I got the memo, China Bad, West great... yet I don't want to subscribe to this making of a new cold war

and what of India another new entrant on the high energy rapidly developing front with a shitload of people are they the boogyman too?

Bob pollution has long been a major concern for everyone but in the past there was no evidence to suggest it was threatening the survival of the entire planet.

So yeah I would say pollution sure as hell is the new boogie man, even if it turns out that global warming is not the crisis they think is, it's still a dam good excuse to clean this dump we call planet earth up and raise some awareness.

Like I said I have no idea how people breath that shit in China's air and many other countries it's a fuking joke.

And one alternative is Bio fuel which as it turns out may cause a crisis of it's own in the food markets.

There is no easy fix.

People talk about the suppression of new technology by the corporations but it's more likely we are all to blame.

I don't totally buy into the suppression theory (except in the instances of global warming and the tobacco industry), but do believe there has been no incentive to develop anything but that which basically mimics the current oil model of business which is not about the planet but the bottom line

the more I read the more I start to believe that everything we're doing to try and save the planet seems counter productive - the bio fuel thang for a start, the things we eat being another - read a funny Monibot article this week where he strongly suggest veganism is the most logical way forward whilst also pointing out how horrible that diet is to all but a very few

blah blah blah

me neither and bob_d you'll soon find out the hard way when we start breathing it too which won't be too long at the reckless rate that the Chinese (and other Asians) are churning it out

Without any presumption on each side, I think the wiki of pros and cons of China's responsiblities to emission reductions is a pretty good overview of the arguments pulling one way or the other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_China%27s_economic_responsibilities_for_climate_change_mitigation

I've experienced some horrible pollution and would prefer not to again...

in fact I deal with Aucklands everyday due to where I live... and its fucking disgusting the shit that invades my home thanks to our car culture...and thew lack of emissions testing and enforcement we have here concerning motor vehicles

we're not green nor clean and lets stop fooling oursleves

our nation profits from environmentally wrong practices, so lets sit down and focus on our own behaviours before taking to the moral high ground over this issue

agree

http://www.ecologic.org.nz/?id=28

Download the Winter 2007 issue and go to the article page 6 'Will China co-operate in limiting global warming to two degrees?'

According to this article it was announced June 19 2007 that China's emissions surpassed those of the US, although i guess there could be technical disputes amongst sources on the topic.

You appear to assume that the increase in Chinese emissions is a product of population increase.

It's not, it's the result of China's rapid economic development (explained in the Ecologic link above), which has been hugely beneficial to the West. From the perspective of the Chinese, anthropocentric global warming is largly the result of Western emissions dating back to the industrial revolution.

As a source of emissions, China is very much a Johnny come lately. That doesn't mean they should be allowed to 'catch up their share', but that basic fact needs consideration.

This would be economic suicide. Agriculture accounts for over half our exports.

Moreover, our agriculture is far more efficient than that of many other first world countries. But, it is projected to contribute 49% of our total greenhouse emissions in 2010 (energy 23%, transport 20%), so we certainly do need to act.

What we really need to do with agriculture is improve its efficiency:

"... recent research has shown that the highest producing farms are not the most profitable - low to medium intensity farms get a higher return on investment. This is hardly surprising - more and more inputs must be used to get an additional unit of production ... this intensification may be driven by farming for capital gain, especially if farmers believe that land prices are driven more by productivitiy than profitibility." (Ecologic Autumn 2007 p9)

Some of the problem is nitrate fertilizer, which has oonsequences not only for emissions, but also for water quality.