NationStates Jolt Archive

China has overtaken the US in the consumption of basic agricultural and industrial goods, a survey has found.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4272577.stm
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3996855.stm

...and they're not bound by the Kyoto Protocol.

Does anyone else see a problem here?

No.

China has overtaken the US in the consumption of basic agricultural and industrial goods, a survey has found.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4272577.stm
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3996855.stm

...and they're not bound by the Kyoto Protocol.

Does anyone else see a problem here?
Only the evil US's pollution is a problem. China's pollution is harmless.

Yep. The two largest consumers don't give a shit about the environment. That doesn't make the US not caring better. It makes the whole thing a hell of a lot worse. So don't you think both of them should sign up?

Clean AIR and WATER Act ring abell?

We do care about about the environment by Kyoto is a waste of time and trees.

As for China, they signed it but are not relegated to it.

Well the kyoto protocal was a long time ago.....1998 I believe when the nations discussed it..

And China has grown very fast since then, mainly economically and militarily.

Well the kyoto protocal was a long time ago.....1998 I believe when the nations discussed it..

And China has grown very fast since then, mainly economically and militarily.

1997! If they have grown economically then, they should not be excluded from the emissions part or any part of it for that matter.

1997! If they have grown economically then, they should not be excluded from the emissions part or any part of it for that matter.

1997 ..Sorry....And perhaps that is the case, although back in 1997 China was very different to what it is now.

1997 ..Sorry....And perhaps that is the case, although back in 1997 China was very different to what it is now.
You see, I really expected this from the Chinese. After all, they have always shown an ego-centric view that dwarfs that of the US or any nation except, possibly, for Japan (although Jap. isn't as bad now. I could already have told you that as soon as it became profitable, the Chinese would basically say "fuck the kyoto protocol, we can do what we want." If this comes as a shock to you, then you need to brush up on history some.

Why should the Chinese sign on to Kyoto? Most of the pollution in the atmosphere today was put there by the west over the past 200 years. China will have to eventually, but its to early yet.

Why should the Chinese sign on to Kyoto? Most of the pollution in the atmosphere today was put there by the west over the past 200 years. China will have to eventually, but its to early yet.

Actually, that's not true. Most of China's industrial pollution is the result of disastrous policies inacted by the central government since the 1950s. As for it being too early for the Chinese to face Kyoto regulations, that isn't true either. The Chinese economy grew close to 10 per cent in 2004, even in spite of central bank attempts to put the brakes on potential economic overheating. Environmental regulations would not hurt the Chinese economy. It would merely present another externality that would potential slow the economy only slightly AND help the Chinese environment recover.

The main stated reason why the U.S. has not signed onto Kyoto is because of the fact that rapidly developing economies such as China's are not bound to the same stringent emissions regulations as Europe, Japan or North America.

Now as for whether or not that's merely a convenient excuse for the U.S. to avoid signing on, that is murkier. I'm no apologist for U.S. energy policy to be sure. Nonetheless, the drafters of the Kyoto accord didn't pay attention to the U.S.'s demand to subject the Chinese to more stringent regulations, so it's as much their fault for not paying attention to a major problem as it is the U.S.'s fault for not signing it. As a result, the Chinese ecosystem and the health of 1.2 billion are facing the consequences.

If it means that the United States would sign onto Kyoto if the Chinese faced stricter regulations, then why not do that?

First of all, China has OVER FOUR TIMES the population of the US so they are still not consuming near as much per capita.

Secondly, they ARE bound by Kyoto, just not until they have developed their economy further. It's ridiculous to ask a country that came to the industrial revolution about a century too late to make as many sacrifices as a stable, industrialized western nation.

First of all, China has OVER FOUR TIMES the population of the US so they are still not consuming near as much per capita.

Secondly, they ARE bound by Kyoto, just not until they have developed their economy further. It's ridiculous to ask a country that came to the industrial revolution about a century too late to make as many sacrifices as a stable, industrialized western nation.

Why count per capita? If you do that, you get weird results... like that Vatican City has a better economy than most of the planet. When speaking of nations polluting, the *total sum* is the only thing that matters.

In the meantime, they can deforest Indonesia at a rate of a Switzerland of trees per year?!? Riiiiiight. Great idea. :rolleyes:

First of all, China has OVER FOUR TIMES the population of the US so they are still not consuming near as much per capita.

Secondly, they ARE bound by Kyoto, just not until they have developed their economy further. It's ridiculous to ask a country that came to the industrial revolution about a century too late to make as many sacrifices as a stable, industrialized western nation.

Per capita consumption in China has not reached U.S. levels, that's true but to exempt them from the same standards is irresponsible. China is a special case. Their state of government is stable enough to withstand full-on Kyoto standards and if anything, the centralised nature of the government would only assist in the implementation of standards.

90% of China is still agrarian peasantry. This is the most opportune time to enact tough pollution standards, as it would mean that by the time the majority of those people urbanised, the infrastructure for sound environmental policy would already be in place.

As long as they are not bound to the same pollution standards, their signing of the Kyoto accord is symbolic at best.

Only the evil US's pollution is a problem. China's pollution is harmless.

Now *that* was funny! :D

(It's rare I chuckle at something on the forums...)

Why should the Chinese sign on to Kyoto? Most of the pollution in the atmosphere today was put there by the west over the past 200 years. China will have to eventually, but its to early yet.
Maybe because it will require a 60% reduction in carbon emissions to stop global warming and in order to get that Kyoto isn't enough. China and everyone else will have to toe the line. Or is Kyoto not about climate change at all?

I hope no one will try to use China's increase in pollution as an excuse for the US not to curtail its pollution.

I hope no one will try to use China's increase in pollution as an excuse for the US not to curtail its pollution.

I would hope for the same thing, but trust me. As someone who is familiar with both cities, I can tell you the air in Beijing is simply frightful - twenty times as bad as it ever has been in Los Angeles.

First of all, China has OVER FOUR TIMES the population of the US so they are still not consuming near as much per capita.

Secondly, they ARE bound by Kyoto, just not until they have developed their economy further. It's ridiculous to ask a country that came to the industrial revolution about a century too late to make as many sacrifices as a stable, industrialized western nation.


Hey, I travel to China to find suppliers for my import business. If you guys think they are backwards. Get a damn clue. They are smart and there cities are shiny new. They are as stable as any westren group of nations.
If europe wants to tie there hands with the ill fated Kyoto. Have fun. US and China are going to continue on huge growth and profits.

First of all, China has OVER FOUR TIMES the population of the US so they are still not consuming near as much per capita.

Secondly, they ARE bound by Kyoto, just not until they have developed their economy further. It's ridiculous to ask a country that came to the industrial revolution about a century too late to make as many sacrifices as a stable, industrialized western nation.
I agree. Also the stable industrialized nations should be the leaders in technology when it comes to eradicating pollution. Europe is much further ahead of the US and Canada in relation to controlling pollution.

The US should be leading the charge towards weaning herself from use of non-renewable energy sources, instead of kicking up sand in the Middle East.

China is still a developing country. Like all other developing countries, it relatively produces less polution than the industrialized nations, ence, it has more credits to sell in the polution market, i.e., the rules apply to them, just as they apply to lets say, Brazil. The thing is, people are vewy vewy scawed of China, and don't understand that they are still far, far away from their potential.

Don't worry. The way Kyoto was set up, once China starts to polute alot, it will find itself on the other end: It will have to start paying for the right to polute, this is, it will be given a finantial incentive to start being enviromentally friendly.



PS: The USA produces 36% of the world's pollution. You are in no place to criticise anyone.

The thing is that the "evil west" and not just USA is poluting five times more then the poor countries in average, at the same time we have globalwarming problem that most people agree on happen. So that to do about it? Should we say to the poor countries you have to stop increase your pollution and we also stop so we stick our 5 times more pollution, and problemmy stick to the same ineaquality between poor and rich countries. Because if it would be so easy for the poor countries to develope to west standards without increased polution, it would be a peace of cake for the west to keep the standard of living with a stopping or even a decrease in their pollution. Like for example that is the point to have car in the city that need 1,5 liters gas per 10 km, then you could get a really good car with 7 or 8 gas per 10 km, or even "enviromental friendly" that need less or runs on alternative sources.

Or just say the simple truth, that I think is pretty clear that we in west is really overspending the resuorces of the world per capita as at the same time the rest of the world want to work to archieve the standard of the world. So that we in the west need is to cut down on our own consuming as at the same time help the developing countries with there enviroment works. Atleast know with kyoto protocol countries with the majority of the world population with 60 % of the greenhouse gas expositon is willing to give it a try even if it's a small try, while USA don't want to have anything to do with it.

Don't worry. The way Kyoto was set up, once China starts to polute alot, it will find itself on the other end: It will have to start paying for the right to polute, this is, it will be given a finantial incentive to start being enviromentally friendly.



PS: The USA produces 36% of the world's pollution. You are in no place to criticise anyone.
Lol! China violates plenty of treaties. Look how they violate international patent laws. If you think they'll adhere to Kyoto restrictions once they get rich I've got a bridge to sell you.

Lol! China violates plenty of treaties. Look how they violate international patent laws. If you think they'll adhere to Kyoto restrictions once they get rich I've got a bridge to sell you.


The wonder of Kyoto its that it uses financial, economical incentives to work. Should Chine violate the treaty, we simply place a "enviromental" tax on their products, making cheaper for China to be enviromental friendly than to break the treaty :)

China has a population of 1.3 roughly billion,
US has a population of roughly 400 million.

If the Chinese put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the US, more power to them cos they got every right to. Its not possible to substain a modern lifestyle without some pollution.

A hefty percentage of the industrial pollution kicked up by China is the result of unsound environmental practises.

Also, since less than 15 per cent of China is urban, that means that a large percentage of the industrial pollution in China is produced by a group of people perhaps smaller or approximate in size to the population of the United States, meaning that it is possible that per-capita emissions of pollutants by China's urban citizenry may actually be higher than in the national per capita average in the United States.

That said, both China and the United States need to get their act together.
I'd also like to know why more people don't have an ax to grind with Australia, the second largest producer per-capita of CFC related pollution and a nation that, like the United States, has also not signed the Kyoto Accord.

China has some problems with polluted water. in 2005 Guangdong Province in the south will have a water demand about double that of the supply. And most of the water they have is polluted. The main river in Anhui is so polluted that they can't use the water for irrigation. The Three Gorges Dam is a cesspit, since the water does not flow away anymore and sewage plants for the 100 million peoiple living there do not exist.

What do you think, how long Chinese can survive in these conditions without catching major diseases? And then, how long can China survive as a nation?

China is no threat. It is gone within the next 50 years.

MOst likely they'll have another 98' river crisis.

China has a population of 1.3 roughly billion,
US has a population of roughly 400 million.

If the Chinese put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the US, more power to them cos they got every right to. Its not possible to substain a modern lifestyle without some pollution.

As I said before: this is a load of BS.

If the US were to merge with all of South America (just for arguement sake) could we then pollute more? Is that the right thing to do?

The point of the treaty was that pollution is hurting the PLANET. To say one nation deserves to pollute more because they have more people is crazy.'

The US will never sign because of this. Thank goodness.

As I said before: this is a load of BS.

If the US were to merge with all of South America (just for arguement sake) could we then pollute more? Is that the right thing to do?

The point of the treaty was that pollution is hurting the PLANET. To say one nation deserves to pollute more because they have more people is crazy.'

The US will never sign because of this. Thank goodness.

Ok so we should go by country not the population of country: Ok then USA should polute 0,5 % of the world polution (1/200 countries) instead of today 25 % something.

No the thing in today world that we both have a enviromental problem and a problem with poverty and poor countries. And somehow we have to find a way to deal with both problem. Then it's not very constructive to say that the world richest countries that pollute way more then poor both per capita and in total should be treated the same way as poor countries, that despretly need improwment in lifestyle. There we can only hope they don't pollut as much as USA, England, Sweden all other industrail countries did during there industrializen process and today.

Ok so we should go by country not the population of country: Ok then USA should polute 0,5 % of the world polution (1/200 countries) instead of today 25 % something.

No the thing in today world that we both have a enviromental problem and a problem with poverty and poor countries. And somehow we have to find a way to deal with both problem. Then it's not very constructive to say that the world richest countries that pollute way more then poor both per capita and in total should be treated the same way as poor countries, that despretly need improwment in lifestyle. There we can only hope they don't pollut as much as USA, England, Sweden all other industrail countries did during there industrializen process and today.

China is not a poor country. Sudan is a poor country. Surinam is a poor country.

Hope makes a fine breakfast but a poor supper. The Chinese will exploit the "world's goodwill" within this loophole.

Yep. The two largest consumers don't give a shit about the environment. That doesn't make the US not caring better. It makes the whole thing a hell of a lot worse. So don't you think both of them should sign up?

Two things

1. Global warming has not been proven, in the US, their was a petition or something that 1600 scientists signed saying glabal warming is a problem. What you may not have heard was the petition that says 24000 scientists said it wasnt a problem.

2. If we are the worlds leading producers in the gas than wouldnt it make sence to not cut down? Think for a second. Why do we have the most? Maybe because we are the largest producers in the world. Meaning the most people are employed by it. A recent study has shown that if we signed the Kyoto Treaty that we would lose millions of jobs. And thats hardly justified for helping an unproven cause.

China has a population of 1.3 roughly billion,
US has a population of roughly 400 million.

If the Chinese put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the US, more power to them cos they got every right to. Its not possible to substain a modern lifestyle without some pollution.

Actually the US's pop. is roughly >300 million people.

Dear dear, an afficionado of denial. The concensus among scientists involved in studying the many aspects of forced climate change is clear. It's happening, now, and it's a big fat problem.

Propoganda sponsored by oil and coalinterests and their lackeys has been produced which argues otherwise. These arguments are spurious and do not stand up.

It is always possible to deny virtually any fact or truth, or to deny the viability of a theory (e.g. evolution). We all do this more or less in our lives, that's what rationalisations are for. The problem with simple denial or complex, is that reality bites, and sooner or later your ass is going to have teeth marks in it.

The key is, are you willing to think logically and rationally, applying the basic methods of verifying facts? If you can do this, then you can learn about the world, become more knowledgeable/wiser/better informed etc. This can also be damned useful. Nobody does it all the time, but the more the better, generally.

The alternative is to use illogicallity, denial, magical thinking, wishful thinking and all the other paraphenalia of deception and wilful ignorance that are vividly displayed by certain senior political leaders these days. This is essentially an act of cowardice, a refusal to surrender your comfortable illusions in the face of reality.
One of the consequences of this is that you do not have either the mental strength, the tools or the guts to take a clear look at yourself, your ideas and preconceptions, your limitations of knowledge and understanding.
Your world of unquestioned preconceptions, unchallenged assumptions, and untested ideas may be comfortable, but it will be very small and limited, and will not prepare you for reality, when the teeth sink in....

China is not a poor country. Sudan is a poor country. Surinam is a poor country.




China as a 5000 USD per capita income year. That is 415 dollars a month.. you say they are not poor? You try to live off with that value in a month!! Their GDP is of 6.400 trillion, but since they alone have 1/6 of the world's population, you would expect a big value, wouldnt you?

You seem to defend that the US can pollute, and all others must bow down. Have you considered that if things were fair (i.e, each country poluted the same per capita) China would still polute less then the USA today?

Again, the USA shows its arrogance and self centering.

China is no threat. It is gone within the next 50 years.

Well if this guy says it, it must be true! Why would china be a treat?

Almost everyone else predicts China to be the major industralised power within 50 years. With an average income of that of the rich european nations today(roughly $30,000 when adjusted for inflation. It will still be lower then Japan, Europe and US) With its massive population it will become the worlds largest economy.

Urban population of China is about 35-40% of the total population, but it is increasing rapidly as rural poor seek a new life in the cities. It is expected to reach as high as 60% in 20 years. This will free up more land for more efficent farming and cause less enviromental damage.

You must realize that China is a rapidly industalizing nation and pollution control is not a priority yet. Its like the US and Britain during there industral revolution, but china is industalising at a much faster pace.

China as a 5000 USD per capita income year. That is 415 dollars a month.. you say they are not poor? You try to live off with that value in a month!! Their GDP is of 6.400 trillion, but since they alone have 1/6 of the world's population, you would expect a big value, wouldnt you?

You seem to defend that the US can pollute, and all others must bow down. Have you considered that if things were fair (i.e, each country poluted the same per capita) China would still polute less then the USA today?

Again, the USA shows its arrogance and self centering.

Things in China are cheaper. China is a middle income country, on a global scale they are not poor.

China as a 5000 USD per capita income year. That is 415 dollars a month.. you say they are not poor? You try to live off with that value in a month!! Their GDP is of 6.400 trillion, but since they alone have 1/6 of the world's population, you would expect a big value, wouldnt you?

You seem to defend that the US can pollute, and all others must bow down. Have you considered that if things were fair (i.e, each country poluted the same per capita) China would still polute less then the USA today?

Again, the USA shows its arrogance and self centering.

In China, I could. They don't pay $5.00 for a cup of coffee and a bagel with cream cheese like I do here in Manhattan. In Slovakia, I'd lived off of $320/month before, and that was only a few years ago.

A Big Mac in China: China Yuan9.95 =$1.2007
A Big Mac in USA: $2.65
http://www.oanda.com/products/bigmac/bigmac.shtml
...and that's for an American product, which is HEAVILY taxed by their government and considered a luxury item.
Go look at what things actually *cost* in China before you tell me $5000 a year isn't much.

The bowing down is your opinion... and you demonstrating an anti-American bias, in assuming that because we don't back a bad proposal that we're evil.

Fair? Sure! The US simply holds that the Kyoto Treaty is unfair.
It supposedly is to help the environment, but in reality just legislates whom may pollute.
This is foolish, as we should be working towards NOT polluting, as domestic US laws already do. I remember the 70s in America, and the air & water quality in my area (which was very industrial) is AMAZINGLY better now.

And, as I'll post for the third time: Per capita arguements hold no truck with me.
If the US suddenly merged with all of South America (theyby making our population and per capita income AVERAGE OUT to be the same as China, could the US then pollute with abandon?
Could we remove our scrubbers, start burning untreated coal and leaded gasoline again? :rolleyes:

Two things

2. If we are the worlds leading producers in the gas than wouldnt it make sence to not cut down? Think for a second. Why do we have the most? Maybe because we are the largest producers in the world. Meaning the most people are employed by it. A recent study has shown that if we signed the Kyoto Treaty that we would lose millions of jobs. And thats hardly justified for helping an unproven cause.

Well it could maybee also have to do with American spending the money on the wrong stuff. For example ´they could buy cars that need around 0,7 liter of gas per 10 km (sorry for being eurocentric and using the metric system) instead of cars that need 1,5 liter of gas per liter thereby be able to spend more money on the car their buy (that maybee even produced in the USA) instead on polluting oil that likely comes from the middleast.

And hopefully China will learn from all the mistake the western countries has done in their developing and see the benefit of protecting the enviroment. But one big problem with China is that they are not a democracy but was not England, USA or Sweden either then they started their industralisation, so hopefully it work out.