China, you're just a developing country, so you don't have to sign kyoto

[member 5645]

But you make the second most pollution on earth...

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/120966/1/.html

China is now the world's second biggest polluter of carbon dioxide

he IEA report, timed to coincide with a UN conference on climate change in Buenos Aires, confirmed the growing role of China and other developing countries in the worsening greenhouse-gas problem.

Eighty percent of carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution in 2002 was emitted by 22 countries, the IEA said.

The biggest polluter by far was the United States, with 23.5 percent of the total, followed by China, with 13.6 percent.

Afterwards came Russia (6.2 percent), Japan (five percent), India (4.2 percent), Germany (3.5 percent), Britain and Canada (2.2 percent each), South Korea (1.9 percent), Italy (1.8 percent) and France (1.6 percent).

The United States walked away from Kyoto in 2001, arguing it would be too expensive to meet the treaty's commitments and branding the deal as unfair because countries like China and India, which have big populations and fast-growing economies, are not required to make targeted reductions.

But of course, we Americans are just big fat greedy devils! Or could it have to do with the fact that the 'holy grail' of climate control pragmatically targets the US economy, instead of pollution??


Someone want to explain why this is a fair document that we should support?

 

[Gokul43201]

Do you insist that it is unreasonable to hold developed nations to a higher standard than developing or under-developed countries ?

And you haven't explained why Kyoto targets the US in particular, rather than all of the developed, industrialized world.

 

[Smurf]

"They're worse so we're ok".. err.. "They're almost as bad, so we're OK" rather.

 

[Smurf]

But you make the second most pollution on earth...
But of course, we Americans are just big fat greedy devils! Or could it have to do with the fact that the 'holy grail' of climate control pragmatically targets the US economy, instead of pollution??

China:
-1,298,847,624 People
-Developing Nation
-13.5%
-Considerably far behind the west science and technology-wise

United States:
-293,027,571 People
-Developed Nation
-Most Powerfull Nation in the World
-Most Advanced Nation in the World
-Largest Economy in the World
-23.5%

http://www.zhb.gov.cn/english/treaty.php3

Someone want to explain why this is a fair document that we should support?

I don't know why you care if it's "Fair". I don't know what makes you think it's "Fair", but you should support it because it's what's going to give your grand children the chance to run the in the forests, swim in the rivers, see the sun without getting caner and breath air without a filter.

 

[wasteofo2]

Phatmonkey, why is it that you never seem to want to hold America up to a higher standard than the rest of the world?

 

[Polly]

Phatmonky, there are still tens of millions of us in China who make about US$130 A YEAR. And it was just about 40 years ago when some of us in poverty stricken villages had to eat fine grain clay with shredded and squeezed weeds (make a ball and steamed). The "food" was able to fill the belly for a while, but many many died from it. Have a heart.

 

[member 5645]

"They're worse so we're ok".. err.. "They're almost as bad, so we're OK" rather.

Nope, not my words at all. Don't start that.

 

[Locrian]

Old news. This was one of many reasons Kyoto was never going to do anything good at all.

 

[member 5645]

Do you insist that it is unreasonable to hold developed nations to a higher standard than developing or under-developed countries ?

And you haven't explained why Kyoto targets the US in particular, rather than all of the developed, industrialized world.

I insist that the second largest producer of green house gases should be required to join the supposed holy grail. It is unreasonable to give them a pass.
I am fine with us cleaning up more, for we produce more pollution. However, to say well "#2 producer of emissions, you don't count because we go by 1990 levels"


If nothing else , for the fact that none of the signatories that chastise us have any pragmatic action that shows they have a real goal of acting (There's also the argument that we are monopoly market). There's massive pressure for us to join, yet no one else is doing anything about their own problems. The only thing us joining and acting does is remove our economic competiveness further against China, India...and a Europe that speaks without acting themselves (spain's emissions have risen 33% percent since 1990, and portugal 36%).

China falsely holds their currency low, and that is a major problem for a document that uses numbers based on pollution per capita earning. China should float their currency and be subject to join Kyoto (I'm also for a slight rewriting of the document, but that's another thread). All of the same goes for India.

 

[member 5645]

Old news. This was one of many reasons Kyoto was never going to do anything good at all.

Not old news. China just became #2 polluter recently. This is even more evidence or what IS old news...that Kyoto is unfair.

 

[member 5645]

I don't know why you care if it's "Fair". I don't know what makes you think it's "Fair", but you should support it because it's what's going to give your grand children the chance to run the in the forests, swim in the rivers, see the sun without getting caner and breath air without a filter.

The Kyoto agreement will do nothing (assuming we all believe acting will fix crisis level climate change) if you've got the second and third largest producers of greenhouse gases (China, and eventually India will take these places,and eventually first place, but still be considered developing because of their population sizes) doing NOTHING. As is often the argument, pollution doesn't end at a country's borders.
So where is that mentality now? Suddenly it's gone and replaced with "ohhh, but we should hold ourselves to a higher standard"

 

[jcsd]

Phatmonkey:

1) Chnia HAS ratfied the Kyoto protocol so your point is moot.

2) Chnia is a much larger country than the US in terms of popualtion yet it produces signifcantly less pollutoin. In fact given that it has the laregst population even in a world where pollution is minimized one would still epxect it to be the largest polluter!

If the US could bring it's level of pollution per capitia down to the level of Chnia's then that would be a signifcant step towards solving the problem.

 

[member 5645]

Phatmonky, there are still tens of millions of us in China who make about US$130 A YEAR. And it was just about 40 years ago when some of us in poverty stricken villages had to eat fine grain clay with shredded and squeezed weeds (make a ball and steamed). The "food" was able to fill the belly for a while, but many many died from it. Have a heart.

If your country floated it's currency, then there'd be far less people making 130 bucks a day as the Yuan would be properly valued, instead of slave driving levels it is at.

My heart is here. Stop the BS of making me into the bad guy for holding a stance that a document on attacking a global problem should have global implementation.

 

[member 5645]

Phatmonkey:

1) Chnia HAS ratfied the Kyoto protocol so your point is moot.

2) Chnia is a much larger country than the US in terms of popualtion yet it produces signifcantly less pollutoin. In fact given that it has the laregst population even in a world where pollution is minimized one would still epxect it to be the largest polluter!

If the US could bring it's level of pollution per capitia down to the level of Chnia's then that would be a signifcant step towards solving the problem.

1> It's not moot unless there is the same pressure applied to them as us. If it is so moot, China/India should just be required to join. I've got a thread of people explaining why they shouldn't be held to it. At this time, if we all jumped in and gave a good word, China's clean air policies can be disregarded anytime in order to be more competive against our economy (this brings the economy issue, but also the issue that nothing is being done to curb emissions). Hey, actual signatories in Europe have abandoned the whole treaty in reality (maybe spain will prove me wrong in the next few years, but at their rate of increase HA, I doubt it).

2>And is on track to become the number one polluter due to this. How good is a policy that allows the number one polluter to go unchecked, until their economy takes over it's hindered competitors?
Come on guys, you would rip me a new one for forgetting pollution doesn't end at a countries borders. Somehow you've all forgotten it.

 

[member 5645]

Phatmonkey, why is it that you never seem to want to hold America up to a higher standard than the rest of the world?

'Never seems' being your operative mistake, and thus making any response to this a fallacy.
I often do with to hold us to a higher standard.

 

[jcsd]

1) Chnia and India have both ratifed the Kyoto protocls and therefore why would there be any pressure for them to join soemthing they've already joined!

2) Countries that are relatively low polluters per capita and deveolping countries under the terms of the protocols, do not have to reduce their polltuion immedautelty though I believe there is a cap on the incerase. China per capita is relatively a low polluter and it is also a devloping country. The amount of pollution produced by the USA is huge in itself, but it is also vatly disproportinate to it's population and it is one of the few contries that is in a postion to reduce it.

 

[member 5645]

1) Chnia and India have both ratifed the Kyoto protocls and therefore why would there be any pressure for them to join soemthing they've already joined!

2) Countries that are relatively low polluters per capita and deveolping countries under the terms of the protocols, do not have to reduce their polltuion immedautelty though I believe there is a cap on the incerase. China per capita is relatively a low polluter and it is also a devloping country. The amount of pollution produced by the USA is huge in itself, but it is also vatly disproportinate to it's population and it is one of the few contries that is in a postion to reduce it.

1>Considering it's our main objection to joining, and has been for a while, you would think that such a move to make them actual signatories, rather than excusable "good tries" would be in effect. Rewrite the document, bring on the USA, forces russia to sign(who wasn't ratifying until recently). Instant power behind the protocol.

2>I'm aware of all of this.

 

[jcsd]

How many times do I have to tell you, they've signed the bloody document!

 

[jcsd]

Just in case you don't realize you sign a document first THEN you ratify it (even the US have signed it, but they haven't ratified it).

 

[member 5645]

How many times do I have to tell you, they've signed the bloody document!

Again, it doesn't matter, as there is no pressure to meet ANY level of compliance. What don't you understand about that?
They have entered a "we will pay you credits if you do a certain amount of cleanup".They are not obligated AT ALL to meet ANY certain level of requirement.

You are now starting the typical overusage of punctuation and laugh smilies. Try not to hop on the next downgrade of internet debate by calling me names.

 

[jcsd]

The first stage of the Kyoto protocol is reducing the greenhouse emissions of devolped countries, this first stage was never meant to apply to Chnia so why are you whining? But just last week they announced measures to curb emmisions anyway (as a note they have actually announced

The problem is your moaning about a relatively low polluter like China with a developing economy, who I'd guess probably wouldn't even have even have to reduce emisisons even if they were a devolped country under the protocols comparing to a completely disproptinate polluter with a devolped economy, CLEARLY the requirements are going to be different!

 

[wasteofo2]

'Never seems' being your operative mistake, and thus making any response to this a fallacy.
I often do with to hold us to a higher standard.

Well, why in THIS CASE do you not see it proper to hold America to a higher standard than countries like China?

 

[member 5645]

Well, why in THIS CASE do you not see it proper to hold America to a higher standard than countries like China?

I'd compromise to a sliding scale even, but an absolute cut off is not in the playbooks IMO.
I feel like this conversation could just as easily be a flat-tax vs. sliding scale conversation sometimes haha :wink

 

[member 5645]

The first stage of the Kyoto protocol is reducing the greenhouse emissions of devolped countries, this first stage was never meant to apply to Chnia so why are you whining? But just last week they announced measures to curb emmisions anyway (as a note they have actually announced

The problem is your moaning about a relatively low polluter like China with a developing economy, who I'd guess probably wouldn't even have even have to reduce emisisons even if they were a devolped country under the protocols comparing to a completely disproptinate polluter with a devolped economy, CLEARLY the requirements are going to be different!

'moaning', 'whining'...drop the deragatory choice of words and I'll continue with you.

 

[Polly]

If your country floated it's currency, then there'd be far less people making 130 bucks a day as the Yuan would be properly valued, instead of slave driving levels it is at.

My heart is here. Stop the BS of making me into the bad guy for holding a stance that a document on attacking a global problem should have global implementation.

*fails to duck RPG and is killed in action"

 

[Smurf]

*fails to duck RPG and is killed in action"

NNNNNOOOOOOoooOOooooo! POLLLLLLLYYYY!

 

[Polly]

Don't worry Smurfee, I will come back and haunt Badmonky.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, why in THIS CASE do you not see it proper to hold America to a higher standard than countries like China?

It is always proper to hold the US to a higher standard: we're better than countries like China and everyone knows it (try to argue against that without saying we should be treated equally... ).

The problem, in this case, is China (and developing countries) is being held to no standard.

 

[Smurf]

The problem, in this case, is China (and developing countries) is being held to no standard.

One... more... time... CHINA IS REDUCING EMISSIONS
US isn't. China isn't being held to a standard because it's already holding itself to a standard. The US isn't.

 

[russ_watters]

One... more... time... CHINA IS REDUCING EMISSIONS

Do you have a source for that? Some numbers? Wikipedia says:

China has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and is expected to become an Annex I country within the next decade.

Which means right now they have no restrictions.

HERE is the Kyoto website with a list of countries and their targets (Annex I): notice that China is not on that list.

I won't claim to be a Kyoto expert, so if I'm wrong, please show me (just saying I'm wrong isn't good enough).

 

[member 5645]

One... more... time... CHINA IS REDUCING EMISSIONS
US isn't. China isn't being held to a standard because it's already holding itself to a standard. The US isn't.

The US isn't reducing emissions?? Only a 10 year program to reduce the carbon emissions of the US by 18% by 2012. Try not to let that bias against the USA mess with the facts. Perhaps you can chastise spain and portugal at some point.

The double standard that you guys are setting in this thread is hilarious.

If China is okay because they are implementing whatever reduction policy, then the USA should be free to implement our own choice of reduction policy as well. Afterall, the main argument you are giving me is that China shouldn't be bothered to join because she'll handle herself. So can we.

If the USA should be forced to join the Kyoto protocol, then China should be too. This talk of higher standards means that we are trusted with a higher responsibility. By that string of logic, then if we need the global supervision of Kyoto, China REALLY needs it.

And this entire time, no one mentions that China is being bribed (maybe that's a harsh word...) to act inline with any reduction, while the rest of us pay out of our own pocket fully. This still doesn't address that if China is better suited to forgoe emissions reduction for a few years, to make itself more competitive economically, then there is/will be no pressure by the international community for not adhering. The attitude of "they are doing it on there own" is already prevailing in this thread, when it's not even the reality (haha, or the reality of those that have signed Kyoto for real.)

 

[member 5645]

Do you have a source for that? Some numbers? Wikipedia says: Which means right now they have no restrictions.

HERE is the Kyoto website with a list of countries and their targets: notice that China is not on that list.

I won't claim to be a Kyoto expert, so if I'm wrong, please show me (just saying I'm wrong isn't good enough).

What's also interesting to note is the EU has done a neat little plan to exploit the poorer countries in it's region. They have changed it to allowing a 'bubble' to be formed around the EU allowing it to adjust it's levels as a whole.
This means that instantly Spain's 30% increase in emissions over the last years is instantly marginalized by the admission of the smaller soviet bloc countries that have a low output. Instant reduction without hurting Spain's economy...
And the Kyoto protocol doesn't have political goals at all??

 

[Gokul43201]

The US releases 6.6 metric tonnes in carbon equivalents (MTC) of greenhouse gas per capita per year (over 4 times the global average). Does that not upset you ?

On the other hand, China releases 1.1 MTC per capita and India releases 0.5 MTC per capita...perhaps they should be allowed more? Anyway, the US has a long way to go down before it can start complaining about China.

Besides the above, here are some reasons why I think there's more pressure on the US, than on China :

1. The US can afford it. People won't die in the US, if greenhouse levels are required to go down immediately.

2. The Treaty was intended in this first phase, to apply to the developed nations. If developed nations (that are emitting way more greenhouse gas per capita) don't agree to the Treaty, what moral high ground will they have, to get developing countries - where millions of children die of starvation every year - to fall in too ?

If you think Polly should give up some fraction of her 1.1 MTC before you will sacrifice any of your 6.6, that to me, is unfair.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The US releases 6.6 metric tonnes in carbon equivalents (MTC) of greenhouse gas per capita per year (over 4 times the global average). Does that not upset you ?

On the other hand, China releases 1.1 MTC per capita and India releases 0.5 MTC per capita...perhaps they should be allowed more? Anyway, the US has a long way to go down before it can start complaining about China.

I notice you always state your numbers per capita, which make China look good because you can divide by their population (how many billions now?). What are the absolute numbers? How does China's total insult to the atmosphere compare to the US one?

Your statement that no-one will die if the US implements the Kyoto reductions is unrealistic. The reductions have been evaluated to cause a deep recession in the US, and some people always do die from lessened life style in a US recession. Some people lose their living and commit suicide.

 

[russ_watters]

I notice you always state your numbers per capita, which make China look good because you can divide by their population (how many billions now?). What are the absolute numbers?

Or even per $$ of GDP, since GDP is the factor most directly related to pollution...?

The thing that gets me about Kyoto type treaties is that while its true that implimentation of changes is easier for more prosperous countries, the reason for that is these countries have already spent a lot of money developing the technology that enables the changes. Countries like China get the technology for free.

Case in point: CFC's. Developing the technology to replace CFC's wasn't cheap and it was done in the West. That made implimentation relatively easy for developing countries.