What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
54 Comments
- nudedos, on 04/22/2009, -0/+17I'm so used to negative articles about China on digg that I'm just floored we're talking about something positive.
- divinediva, on 04/21/2009, -2/+16It would be a significant step for China.
- PandaBearShenyu, on 04/22/2009, -0/+12Not just China, but everyone need to cut down on their carbo emissions. Despite China being the biggest CO2 emitter, it has 1/5 of the world's population as well. In comparison, the U.S., which only has 1/20 of the world's population, pollutes as much as CHina, meaning, the average American pollutes 4 to 5 times more than the Average Chinese.
This isn't just about one country deciding to cut emissions, everyone needs to jump on board or we'll get nowhere.
If everyone lived like North Americans, we would need 11 more Earths to support everyone... think about that. - Berkana, on 04/21/2009, -2/+13They have a lot to lose if the sea level rises even a foot or two; Shanghai would be swamped.
- frieddonuts, on 04/22/2009, -0/+8I would just like to ask a preemptive question to the inevitable invasion of skeptics. Isn't reducing or minimizing the growth of emissions positive in any respect? Even if you deny that climate change is anthropogenic (misguided but we'll ignore that for now), carbon emissions correlates directly to oceanic acidification.
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -0/+7You know, things can have both good and bad attributes...
- spoon088, on 04/22/2009, -0/+6Good job America. Richest country in the world that deludes itself into thinking it's the good guy doesn't lead for ***** while the "evil communist human rights abusing country" steps up its game time and time again.
- rjshatz, on 04/22/2009, -0/+6Wait, the targets are lower, right?
- nmoulana, on 04/22/2009, -0/+5Nope, they're shooting for the record.
- morrissey79, on 04/22/2009, -2/+7"To be rich is to be glorious" "First, get rich" Famous notions from the era of Deng Xiao Ping that shook the foundations of socialims in the 80's. Many wondered if they were now capitalists, with these bold new ideas of personal wealth and selfish desire.
The government always had the plan that once they had acheived riches and influence that they would slow down and repair the damage done by the Great Push Forward. I believe that this time has come...change has even begun to reach the poorest of people in western China.
They aren't quite finished though. There is still a lot of infrastructure such as water purification and road and rail construction that needs to be finished, especially in the west and north. But, for the most part China has accomplished what they set out to do...and that is to improve the living conditions of it's 1.3 million citizens.
They know they paid the price for this; wildlife is sparce, water is hard to come by and the desert is rapidly spreading through the interior. They are prepared though. There are few other countries that are currently investing more money in R&D for new energy such as LNG, DME, Bio-energy and photo-voltaic energy.
There are few sinks in the whole country that don't have a sign cautioning you on your water consumption. There are few public transit systems in the world with electric and hybrid buses that cost less than 25cents american to ride.
My advice to you. Don't blindly criticize the Chinese. We all grew up with the same anti communist bias becuase of our history and social science classes...but it is time to put those differences aside. If China is going to improve their environment then they need friends. They need allies that are willing to share technology. They need peers that can share their personal experieces. Remember, the future of our environment, and the future of this very world depends on the the decisions that China has and will be making in the near future.
I think it would be in your best interest to extend your hand. - JohnFour, on 04/22/2009, -1/+5Fooled? Some countries involved in the Kyoto Protocol have indeed reduced their emissions, especially former soviet countries (although they didn't do that intentionally). Besides, the deadline hasn't hit yet. Educate yourself, k?
- brandita, on 04/22/2009, -0/+3This would be a game changer. Since China isn't a democracy they could probably pull it off unlike other developing countries. America time for you to beat China to it!
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -0/+3It would be a significant step [back] for China.
- dododohead, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2http://www.danwei.org/government/human_rights_is_n ...
Maybe you should focus on doing a little research? - inactive, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2Lies! All lies!!! Everything is either good or bad! There are no grey areas! The world is black and white! I'm too stupid to handle that kind of thinking! /s
- taibo, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2"If we can't succeed in reducing energy consumption, then no one can. I tell the government that a 1% failure in China is a 100% failure for the world," said Hu. "We must satisfy our national interest and match it with the interest of humanity."
If only our politicians were so noble. - JohnFour, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2AKA no more coral reefs for your Aunt Barb to visit.
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2The Permian was closed by the biggest extinction event in history with 95% of species extinct. Sure sounds like a good idea to me.
- canchin, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2And, last year, China made it illegal to give away free plastic bags. Now, even Walmart doesn't give away free plastic bags, nor does 7-11, nor do any of the supermarkets or department stores.
They also made the very, very thin plastic bags illegal to even manufacture.
You can still get some free plastic bags from some small stores, but they are usable more than once.
Yes, much to be said for a government that takes the word "govern" literally and accepts responsibility.
And now, reusable bags are all the rage and people all over carry their own bags when they go shopping rather than pay for a plastic bag. It's actually created new businesses manufacturing and selling canvas bags with company logos.
Tell me, what is the state of free plastic bags in other countries? Since plastic bags are a serious problem - although not as serious as disposable diapers - nappies for the British English crowd - which are far worse and far more plentiful in landfills in so-called "developed" countries - then all the developed countries have already banned the giveaway of free plastic bags....right?
How does the ban on free plastic bags effect China's carbon footprint? - dododohead, on 04/22/2009, -0/+2it was one of my nitpicky things about digg.
but the whole China bash fest died down and the lemmings all jumped off
time to get real. - gibbwake, on 04/22/2009, -1/+3Alex Jones explains the carbon credit scam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH9pyL_lrvM
- PandaBearShenyu, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1You, sir (abw), are an idiot.
When a matter concerning CHina comes up, ignorant Westerns can either be jackasses by uttering the word lead for the 1 trillionth time, or try to be subtle with the racism by talking about human rights. - Khiva, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1That's right, there is no way to talk about human rights that is not racist. (slow clap)
If someone is beaten up for voting for the wrong person in Zimbabwe - don't look, that's racist.
If journalists are killed for covering the conflict in Chechnya - don't look, that's racist.
If someone is thrown in jail in China for trying to raise awareness of dangerous products - don't look, that's racist.
Because we all know that human rights campaigners typically crawl out of the most racist, inbred, bigoted parts of society, and that their dearest hope is Western hegemony. Goddamn human rights imperialists! - Lamadave222, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1Purge enough lovers of freedom and pretty soon it looks like a nice friendly society. Just don't have two kids, or be a "extra" girl, or violate any health or safety rules, they might take you out in the night and kill you. In the meantime you can supply North Korea and/or Iran with nuclear technology which you procured from the West (thanks Mr. Clinton) and argue that these loose cannons have a right to possess such weapons. But aside from those minor issues, oh and Tibet, and the Red Guards, and the Three Gorges, they're supah.
- BossKey, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1I am very grateful for it. I am even more grateful for the unbelieveable revolution it spurred in materials: Plastics, fertilizers, textiles, membranes, etc.
In fact carbon resources such as petroleum are so essential to us now as raw materials, that we look like fools just burning it up for fuel.
Perhaps we should not be passively satisfied with what carbon fuels have done for us. Let's not rest on our laurels. Let's find the next great fuel that will take us to the next level so that we can go beyond what carbon can do for us. - Pinkertinkle, on 04/22/2009, -1/+2Per capita it ain't that bad, but then you're dividing by 1.3 billion.
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -3/+4Maybe they should focus on human rights rather than media-sensationalized, over-politicized notions of "climate change".
- brandita, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1Bye Bye Pudong!
- Lamadave222, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1There are perhaps ideas that are more unnatural than communism but it is hard to envision what it would be. The Chinese exemplified this in two instances, the abandonment of absolute communal farms because of continuously declining yields and the abrogation of government responsibility in 1966 when Mao "decided" that he should not control the Red Guard. The entire "climate change" worship is nonsense, we can no more analyze ALL the variables and know with absolute certainty what the outcomes will be. The real problem is the 1.3 billion person population, even China's Draconian attempts to stop its population growth have not succeeded.
- cfbb, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1and you need these http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610
Generally disputes happen either because of misunderstandings or of conflict of interest. I don't think the expert supporters and deniers are misunderstanding each other (other than the general public). So there must be a conflict of interest. For example, the tobacco industry denies the risks of smoking to sell more tobacco.
The supporters of human caused climate change have always pointed fingers at fossil fuel producers which makes more money the less people cut back. But it also appears that it is the supporters who are more resourceful.
may I ask you what is fulling this movement other than honest people trying to lessen climate change? If you clam some organization, please state the motive, since everyone can have a position on the issue, unless of some other motive, they are saying what they believe. - DarkRellik, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1The Chinese Communists are actually not as bad as most people think. They keep stability and order pretty well, and now people have total economic and cultural freedoms pretty much.
- Lamadave222, on 04/22/2009, -1/+2 What did the Chinese actually say? That CO2 emissions "relative to GDP should be reduced by 50% by 2020, and that total CO2 emissions should peak between 2030 and 2040 if the country introduced more stringent energy-saving policies" Do they presuppose that GDP will increase? How is that calculation effected by the current economic downturn? How do they propose to crank up their economy while reducing the use of carbon? If they get in a real pinch meeting these goals they could just order a percentage of the population to march into the sea "for the good of the planet." Perhaps roaming cadres of Green Guards could take matters into their own hands. Compulsion is still compulsion no matter how noble one believes the ends to be.
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1*facepalm* Yeah, because there's no possible risk for disrupting entire ecosystems. You can't know the consequences of your actions, man. Who knows what might happen. Increased vegetation leads to a boom in the population of Herbivore A, which supports increased numbers of Predator B, which outcompetes Predator C, which had previously been keeping Herbivore D in check - and Herbivore D turns out to carry a nasty parasite that is devastating to us. Not that I'm saying that's what will happen, but you're messing with powers you can't possibly comprehend.
- PandaBearShenyu, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1Spouting the same stock reply for the upteenth time without actually give a crap enough to do research on the subject is racsim in my book. It's just a way for you to justify your hatred for another race. YOu may not realize, but that's the ugliness of ur subconcious. :)
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1Racism?
... - inactive, on 04/22/2009, -2/+2I would, if I was in China.
- taibo, on 04/22/2009, -0/+0Yeah, I'm not sure using dinosaurs is the best example, seeing what happened to them.
Honestly, if being like friggin dinosaurs is the best we can do, then we might as well give up and kill ourselves right now. - christoast, on 04/22/2009, -0/+0They are going to be converting to steamed rice
- upick, on 04/21/2009, -1/+1Indeed, considering China likes to keep to themselves
- Lamadave222, on 04/22/2009, -2/+1And they need technology from where?
- dekuscrub, on 04/22/2009, -5/+4Carbon based fuel is one of the best things that has ever happened to mankind. It has allowed people to travel long distances in a short amount of time. It has given birth to industrial and technological revolutions that have spawned our high tech societies.
Let's stop demonizing it and be grateful for it. - quirkopatra, on 04/22/2009, -3/+2LOL!
You don't have to, you're not an Olympic athlete trying to compete over there. - taibo, on 04/22/2009, -1/+0Actually N. Korea did suspend it for a while.
And you haven't given any reasons why China would just say this stuff for no reason. It's not like China especially cares about world opinion. - taibo, on 04/22/2009, -1/+0I hope you're kidding. It's pretty common knowledge that carbon emissions = carbon dioxide emissions.
FTA
"It is an option. We can very easily translate our [existing] energy reduction targets to carbon dioxide limitation" said Su. "China hasn't reached the stage where we can reduce overall emissions, but we can reduce energy intensity and carbon intensity." - lndmn01, on 04/22/2009, -4/+1and a higher carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere cause plants to grow larger and faster. What if, by limiting carbon emissions we are actually harming the earth. What if, by increasing the concentration we could actually increase our food supply and feed starving people around the world?
In fact, during the jurassic period when very large reptiles (dinosaurs) roamed the earth and into the cretaceous period when most modern mammals first appeared atmospheric carbon was at a concentration between 1800ppm and 3400ppm .
At the beginning of the permian period CO2 levels were at or below 300ppm. As time progressed and co2 levels rose to around 2000ppm we saw the development of coniferous plants along with the rise and diversification of vertebrates.
Currently we have a co2 concentration of approximately 385ppm. If anything, for the earth to truly prosper, we need to increase c02.
- DudeInAustin, on 04/22/2009, -7/+3Let's make a deal then: They do it first and we match them on what they ACTUALLY reduce.
Some folks are just sooooooo gullible. Heck, they even believed it when the North Koreans promised to suspend their nuclear program in exchange for all that aid. - GodsTwin, on 04/22/2009, -7/+3I wouldn't hold my breath.
- brad3378, on 04/22/2009, -7/+2Before you know it, they'll quit putting lead in consumer products like makeup and toothpaste too!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI ... - norman619, on 04/22/2009, -10/+4China considers lieing. No way they will cap carbon emissions. It would hurt them WAY too much. If I remember right the none of the countries fooled into signing the Kyoto Treaty came close to meeting goals.
-
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is