[muBXvWIC]

Probably to have China abide by the same restrictions as the rest of the world. I mean, if they can afford to send men into space, I think they can play on a level field. Maybe we should all whine about how they won't support Kyoto.

[ViaplyVuple]

Interesting projection, but it ignores improvements that will be made in fuel efficiency and other areas.

Also China won't be growing at 8% compounded for another 30 years. it will tapper off before that. Just look at Japan and RoK.

[MP+4]

I , in India , am completely unconcerned . The communist model has to collapse sooner or later .

[Appeselve]

Originally posted by Sandman
You would have thought that China would be trying to develop its own sustainable forestry industry. Loads of employment, flood and soil protection, environmental kudos and a permanent supply of wood. That's an excellent idea. I guess that would come a bit later, after they get a grip with the peasant problem.

A lot of forest land that had been cleared for agriculture was ordered to be replanted with trees.

One of my cousins had bought the rights to chop down trees of a hill, then the government decreed that trees can't be cut in that area to protect against flood. Oops.

[yWleIJm4]

who's funding all the recent investments in china's economy? is it all home grown capital, or are other countries doing thier bit to help fund the potential enviromental disaster?

[Flatlytaize]

Originally posted by child of Thor
who's funding all the recent investments in china's economy? is it all home grown capital, or are other countries doing thier bit to help fund the potential enviromental disaster? Other countries is a stretch, but there are a lot of foreign businesses that either do or want to profit from China's lax environment regulation, just as they want to profit from China's cheap labor.

[outsitWrord]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's an excellent idea. I guess that would come a bit later, after they get a grip with the peasant problem. "peasant problem"? Sounds like Mao Tse-tung. What peasant problem are you refering to actually? The theft of their land? The rule of cruel party supported warlords or other corrupt party supported officials? The toxic waste dumps that their homes have become for nearby factories? The complete neglect for their needs while the cities become bourgeois paradises?

Or is it that they are just ignorant whiners who don't know what best for them and best for China?

[hasasnn2345tv]

Communist and capitalist terms have little use in China.

This is a strong, centrally planned economy. Very similar to how existing First World countries governed during their booms, post industrial revolution. The names have been changed for spin/ideological reasons.

I thought the article was good and balanced, but the commentary was hyperbole.

China is reducing pollution in many ways - for example, they have restructured the whole steel industry, eliminating the small, highly polluting "mom and pop" operations.

It is simply unreasonable to suggest that China cannot aspire to and achieve the same standard of living as the USA. Obviously a lot of work in enviroment and resource management will be required, but you know, as recently as the 60s and 70s, how did the US do in these areas?

It may or may not be "sustainable", with the USA retaining the current standard. But explain why the USA should be permitted a 3% annual increase, and the Chinese should not be permitted to catch up?

Perhap the article should be about the USA starting to cut its consumption by 2% a year, so there are more resources left for the developing countries that actually need them.

[bonyclayd]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

China is reducing pollution in many ways - for example, they have restructured the whole steel industry, eliminating the small, highly polluting "mom and pop" operations. Do you have a link for this? I tried to find some articles about it, but can't find anything to the scale that you're describing or any describing any true improvement environmentally.

[Luisabens]

How is this lame?

Who has the grand design for what is yours and what is mine?

Why is China being criticized?

Look at the what the original quoted article says, and the comment paragraph immediately following. Total non-sequiter.

"The bottom line of this analysis is that we're going to have to develop a new economic model. Instead of a fossil-fuel based, automobile-centred, throw-away economy we will have to have a renewable-energy based, diversified transport system, and comprehensive reuse and recycle economies. "If we want civilisation to survive, we will have to have that. Otherwise civilisation will collapse."

The Greenpeace report is one of the first major indictments of the catastrophic environmental effects the great Chinese industrial behemoth is starting to have on the rest of the world. So who has the fossil fuel based, automobile centered throwaway economy that we need to change?

How did this get spun into a "major indictment of the catastrophic effects of the Chinese behemoth"?

It is so transparent its funny.

The Chinese people, and the Chinese nation, are no less deserving of the benefits of industrialization than we are.

Blaming them is counterproductive to finding solutions to the limits of the earth's resources.

China has taken great pains, literally to limit population growth. While Dubya has gone out of his way to keep birth control out of third world countries.

[traiffhetl]

Originally posted by DaShi

What names have been changed for spin/ideological reasons? In 1870, they didn't call it communism with capitalist bubbles. But it operated very similarly. Strong Government regulation, with elite private corporation operating on a for profit basis.

In 1930 they called it Fascism.

Same thing as what China is doing today. And it has NOTHING to do with Marx.

[siflversonemunk]

Originally posted by DaShi


Because in a rather short amount of time it is consuming more resources than other developed nations and creating levels of pollution higher than expected, and probably higher than are being reported.



It's only non-sequitur if you take it out of context of the rest of the article, which you just did. The article is about the Greenpeace report and using quotes from a leading environmental analysist, which seems pretty normal for an article like this. Now you could argue that Mr. Brown's statements are wrong, but you'd have to back that up somehow.



It's primarily a caution of China's rapidly growing industry and environmental problems. I don't see how it is spun. Mr. Brown is discussing a need for a new economic model for globalization given the results of rising nations like China and India. The only spin here is how you're trying to take these statements out of context.



There is nothing calling for taking away the benefits of industrialization for China. However, it is cautioning the unbridled rise of it and the result if other developing nations follow the same model. The blame you are applying to article is simply an identification of the problem.



That's a strawman, and inaccurate as well. It seems your issue has more to do with anti-Americanism than with China. Rubbish and claptrap. It seems your issue has more to do with anti-Chinese sentiment than logic.

The language describing China is a clear metaphor for a destructive monster.

Population growth is ultimately the biggest threat to the environment. China is tackling this hard, the current US policy is a detriment to the problem.

Complaining about a third world country developing an infrastructure for power, transportation, communications, and public health is not a reasonable approach.

The subtext is really a fear of the power that China is gaining, and a fear that the remaining resources will become less available and affordable for us.

A real fear. Lets talk about what to do without demonizing a people for wanting to work to obtain what we acquired by birthright.

[Jueqelyl]

And you still haven't provided a source for your steel claims. I'd think it'd be easy, since you clearly are aware of it occurring. That is, of course, you just took a small bit of information and falsified and exagerrated it, but I'm not saying you did.

[sigrekatonov]

It'd be easier to take this thread seriously if certain people would take the time to support their claims.

[Buildityrit]

I will support my claim of "lame" to

It may or may not be "sustainable", with the USA retaining the current standard. But explain why the USA should be permitted a 3% annual increase, and the Chinese should not be permitted to catch up? with

Blaming them is counterproductive to finding solutions to the limits of the earth's resources. Both Mad Viking Quotes

and that repeat myself with "IMO, giving those resources over to a 3rd world country who is going to do nothing new with those resources, only play catchup, is very counterproductive."

and add

...and does nothing to help solve what to do about limited resources.

TMV is just bashing the US, and that's fine. However, it is developed countries, countries that NEED alternative resources in order to meet demand that will find the solution. NEcessity is the mother invention. Thrid world countries will not, because they don't have the need. They, as well as first world countries, resist change. First world countries will resist changing into a 3rd world country because of depleting resources, and 3rd world countries will resist becoming a 1st world country no matter how many raw materials and finished goods you throw at them.

[AblemTee]

Don't you have students to bore?

[gamecasta]

Originally posted by DaShi

How so? Where is there anti-Chinese sentiment in my post? That's a big claim, so please back it up. Thanks for the insults, but I'm used to them when discussing China with irrational people. You wouldn't happen to be one of those people, would you? You are accusing them of terrible crimes against the environment. Where is your evidence? A few generic quotations from a Greenpeace article?

How so? If it's so clear, please show us an example. I did. Twice. Here it is a third time.
"The Greenpeace report is one of the first major indictments of the {b]catastrophic[/b] environmental effects the great Chinese industrial behemoth is starting to have on the rest of the world."

behemoth: Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin, from Hebrew behEmOth
1 often capitalized : a mighty animal described in Job
2 something of monstrous size or power

First, strawman again, since you aren't proving that population growth is the main cause. You are really starting to piss me off.

It is not in any way a strawman. Nobody proves everything they say. "Proving" this is likely impossible. It is certainly beyond the scope of a post on an internet forum.

But if you want, try reading "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. I balanced approach that does nothing to understate the great risks to the earth posed by China joining the developed world, without blaming them for a desire to do so.

The fact is that the demand on the environment is a product of the number of people x the average consumption per person.

It is pretty reasonable to limit population growth, thus limiting the the demand on the environment.

It is not reasonable to tell people they must live without electricty, potable water, and healthcare.

And I doubt people in Japan or Canada are lining up to give their resources away.

Like it or not, the third world is catching up.

We must control global population.

It seems to me that proper management of resources can absorb a larger population. Modern Japan is an ideal example. Absolutely correct.

As for China tackling this hard, please describe. Are you refering to the barely enforced single-child policy, in a country that still has a rapidly rising population despite it? China's population growth is far lower than India, Pakistan, and many other third world and developing countries. Their policies are draconion, and selectively enforced, but they are working.

As far as a reasonable approach - I would suggest that China look after its own. Show me how China's environmental problems are hurting the West?

My ignorance? Please!

I am a Westerner. I am not anti-West, not anti-American. I am opposed to Bush's foreign policies, and in particular, outraged that he pandered to Christian fundamentalists and withdrew funding for organizations that so much as mentioned birth control as part of their programs.

What is the point of the article, other than hate and fear mongering? What does it suggest we DO?

I do not need to support everything I say. You know what? You don't.

As far as the steel issue, this was in an article I read about 1.5 years ago, in a trade journal. When the construction industry in North America was facing huge steel shortages and cost increases. Sorry, I don't have links for every magazine article I read.

Does China complain about US oil exploration in the Alaskan Nature Preserve, or cyanide leaching from abandoned mines that were not properly decommisioned?

What is your solution? Nuke Beijing? Trade embargo?

[Dwerfsd]

China is 164th in the world in Birth Rate.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2054rank.html

USA is 157th.

[popillio]

It's the American Way

[Amerworma]

I agree with the OP, but MOBIUS posted it, and there's nothing anti-American in it, so it could be a trick