Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner
1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,702 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,966 Posts
From the same article
Other experts have estimated that China will only surpass the United States in coming years. The rise to number one emitter may put pressure on Beijing to do more to help a U.N.-led fight against global warming.
I love the defeatist attitude the deniers have.
Maybe we can do away with grades is school....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,702 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I love the defeatist attitude the deniers have.
Maybe we can do away with grades is school....
I love your poor reading comprehension.

I'll repeat my previously stated stance that you have read more than once.... I believe in global warming and that CO2 emissions are a likely cause. I believe that the precautionary principal compels us to act on it.

Who cares about the exact date China passes the US? The Chinese are incapable of tracking their industry and estimating emissions. There is a lot more burning going on than is probably accounted for. But again, it doesn't matter because they are either number 1 or number 2 for CO2. There is no reason they should not be part of Kyoto.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,119 Posts
So what would you suggest is done, if anything, about the instabilities in the climate that are on our temporal doorstep, Vandave?

More to the point, who is the wench in your avatar, and do you have a larger version of the picture, so I can make a proper assessment of the climatic conditions surrounding her?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,702 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
So what would you suggest is done, if anything, about the instabilities in the climate that are on our temporal doorstep, Vandave?
I think we need to take a harder line with China. Their environmental, social and ethical standards as a nation are pathetic. If we are going to trade with them, then we need to set out minimum standards that are acceptable to us. The problem is that no single country wants to call them on it because they want in on future growth. The G8 needs to come to an agreement about taking a hard line.

More to the point, who is the wench in your avatar, and do you have a larger version of the picture, so I can make a proper assessment of the climatic conditions surrounding her?
No idea who she is. The ice is definitely melting in that picture though.
 

·
Bald by choice
Joined
·
9,055 Posts
I believe the United States and China are also having some kind of contest to see whose prison and justice systems are inferior.
When it comes to "inferior" justice systems, they'll be hard pressed to catch up to Canada.

jb.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,903 Posts
If China's emissions are about the same as the U.S.'s, then per capita they are only about 1/4. Countries like the U.S. and Canada (with per capita emissions much higher than other developed nations) need to do a heck of a lot more and stop whining about countries that a) emit much less per person and, b) emitted much less per person into the historical carbon stock.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,119 Posts
I rather think that "taking a hard line with China" is tantamount to doing nothing anyway. Can you imagine taking a hard line with the US?

I really don't think China could give a toss about the rest of the world. It's the Big Beast waking up, after a long slumber.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,415 Posts
I think we need to take a harder line with China. Their environmental, social and ethical standards as a nation are pathetic. If we are going to trade with them, then we need to set out minimum standards that are acceptable to us. The problem is that no single country wants to call them on it because they want in on future growth. The G8 needs to come to an agreement about taking a hard line.
Well said. I also agree with AS that China probably doesn't give a rat's a$$ what the rest of the world thinks as long as everyone keeps buying their exports. But I do think we can make a difference, both here and in China, by imposing some environmental tariffs etc. on Chinese exports.

Cheers
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,966 Posts
I think we need to take a harder line with China. Their environmental, social and ethical standards as a nation are pathetic. If we are going to trade with them, then we need to set out minimum standards that are acceptable to us.
Don't you find it hypocritical that you don't want to take the same stance with the U.S.? If we can't say anything to our "friends", who can we speak to?
Actually, you seem to have a morally superior tone lately. How come you don't pick on other countries that have low social standards such as some of the oil producing countries?

Cherry-picking your values and imposing them via some unknown variable instead of a blanket implementation devalues the point you are trying to make.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,702 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I don't think per capita is the only thing to consider. There are two China's. One is for the rich who live like us in the West (cars, consumption, etc...) and the other is desperately poor. There are around 200 million people in the first category and about 1 billion in the second.

Should the nouveau riche of China and their industry get a free pass due to their demographics? I don't think so.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,702 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Don't you find it hypocritical that you don't want to take the same stance with the U.S.? If we can't say anything to our "friends", who can we speak to?
Actually, you seem to have a morally superior tone lately. How come you don't pick on other countries that have low social standards such as some of the oil producing countries?

Cherry-picking your values and imposing them via some unknown variable instead of a blanket implementation devalues the point you are trying to make.
Again with the moral equivalence and the inability to see the obvious.

There is simply no comparison between the US and China when it comes to ethics and social and environmental values. NONE.

Get your head out of your ass. :lmao:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,966 Posts
And I see you can't address the question - or should I make it clearer for you?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,966 Posts
There are around 200 million people in the first category and about 1 billion in the second.

Should the nouveau riche of China and their industry get a free pass due to their demographics? I don't think so.
You sound like a conservative that wants to be a socialist....
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,966 Posts
Again with the moral equivalence and the inability to see the obvious.

There is simply no comparison between the US and China when it comes to ethics and social and environmental values. NONE.

Get your head out of your ass. :lmao:
The beauty of the UN is that they don't pass moral judgments like you do.

You are imposing your values once again...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,702 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
The beauty of the UN is that they don't pass moral judgments like you do.

You are imposing your values once again...
The UN has very little credibility amongst rational thinking people.

Of COURSE I am imposing my morals. That isn't a bad thing. You only think it is bad because you are a moral relativist.

- Democracy fundamentally has higher morality than totalitarianism.
- The rule of law fundamentally has higher morality than a corrupt state.
- Freedoms fundamentally have higher morality than totalitarian rule.
- A state with a constitution has fundamentally higher morality than one without.
- Etc....

Sad that you can't see this and actually get off the fence.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,903 Posts
I don't think per capita is the only thing to consider. There are two China's. One is for the rich who live like us in the West (cars, consumption, etc...) and the other is desperately poor. There are around 200 million people in the first category and about 1 billion in the second.

Should the nouveau riche of China and their industry get a free pass due to their demographics? I don't think so.
That is an artificial distinction for the problem in that you choose "free ride". Does our heavy industry get a free ride off of the services sector? Yep. That's our choice (to our detriment...carbon tax!), as long as we fit into a meaningful long-term standard.

If some sort of caps are imposed at China's current level of wealth, before they can afford to benefit from fancy clean technologies like the ones that we could not afford when at their level of wealth, it would just serve to stifle their economic growth; the very growth that has moved millions from subsistence living. Those 200 million, to pick a number, never used to be "rich". The same thing is happening in India. And then there's the science and the stock of GHGs in the atmosphere and attaching costs to damage done (building the stock).

Or should some sort of Gini index be how things are allocated? Or perhaps emissions per capita of rich people...which would lead to any sane country picking the absolute cheapest forms of energy, such as coal, to maximise wealth and er, well, what do you think it looks like when a country of 1 billion largely poor people slowly moves towards being a developed nation?

If the problem is their ruling regime, then don't trade with them. That should do wonders for them caring about emissions in that it would remove our key non-violent lever. Their wealth redistribution, however, especially at a very different stage of development than ours, is their business.

The only useful baseline for long-term emissions control starts with per capita. From there, maybe cold nations get some bonus room, and ones without lots of hydro power get less and so on, but without the starting point it makes little sense.
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top