What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
300 Comments
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -22/+72So let me see if I got this right, the USA should have signed KYOTO while China got a pass and didnt have to because its a "developing nation"?
doh! - TJ11240, on 04/15/2008, -4/+43When your building 2 new coal fired power plants per week, pollution will catch up to you in a hurry. I would love to see olympians wearing dust masks in protest.
- Bodhinature, on 04/15/2008, -3/+40Dammit! We used to be the best at everything! Now we're not even the best polluter. Damn you Captain Planet!
- Bigtone79, on 04/15/2008, -3/+38China has sub standard environmental control standards.
A friend of mine lives in Xian he said some days from his 22nd floor balcony its hard to see across the next street.
Xian has great mountain views which you get to see about once a year the rest of the time its thick smog
Lucky half of china have not started driving yet - masterm1nd, on 04/15/2008, -3/+37The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.
* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)
* Maldives, 252%.
* Sudan, 142%.
* China, 55%.
* Luxembourg, 43%
* Iran, 39%.
* Iceland, 29%.
* Norway, 24%.
* Russia, 16%.
* Italy, 16%.
* Finland, 15%.
* Mexico, 11%.
* Japan, 11%.
* Canada, 8.8%.
World and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions. Once again, stated intent trumps actual results. Can even the global warming believers possibly believe this treaty has anything to do with it?
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s1 ...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_ ... . - SuperMoses, on 04/15/2008, -9/+33CO2 Emissions (per capita)
US - 19.43 per 1000
China - 2.66 per 1000
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_perc ... - bluto36, on 04/15/2008, -12/+32sweet so America is to blame for china. boy for a moment i thought i wasn't going to be able to blame the US, thanks!
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -6/+25And how many people live there?
- tman84, on 04/15/2008, -9/+28"Progressives" will find a way to spin this and say its ok for China to do it. Don't you know Global Warming and Climate change are more about "going green and being cool" by spending 5 grand more on a Hybrid to get 6 extra MPG a year, paying Carbon taxes, and screaming in everyone's ear the world is ending and its your fault for not wiping your ass with tree bark.
- killbert24, on 04/15/2008, -26/+43Yeah well most of their carbon pollution has much to do with the fact that they are making crap for us in factories that we opened up there so we could get cheap labor and avoid environmental regulations that hinder max profit.
- drake77, on 04/15/2008, -2/+19Anyone else catch the guy's name in the accompanying video?
Maximillion Oxhammer
If there is a more badass name in the world than that, I haven't see it. - diggerine, on 04/15/2008, -6/+21Yes, but you fail to mention that China's rate of increase in emissions is about 3 times faster than that of the US. China in absolute terms is now already the biggest emitter. In a couple of decades or less it will be the biggest emitter in per capita terms also, if the rate of increase does not slow down, and that would really be scary, wouldn't it.
FTA: "Next month's University of California report warns that unless China radically changes its energy policies, its increases in greenhouse gases will be SEVERAL TIMES (emphasis mine) larger than the cuts in emissions being made by rich nations under the Kyoto Protocol."
China, by itself, is nullifying (a better term would be 'massively reversing') any beneficial effect the Kyoto Protocol may provide, and that's assuming the protocol signers are even fulfilling their obligations.
Are you leftist diggers disappointed that the US is no longer the number one CO2 emitter, and so cannot lay the biggest blame on the US? China is the biggest polluter and will be even bigger in the future, far ahead of the US in a few years time. Let's see you people criticize and pressure China even half us much as you do the US. Or do you feel like criticizing only if the US is the biggest culprit?
Much more fun and 'meaningful' being anti-US than being anti-China, right? - slvrbullet87, on 04/15/2008, -2/+17They wont, but notice that all the comments are still bitching about the USA?
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -3/+17They may have caught up to us in pollution however they're smarter than us in one way. They haven't turned their food supply into gas...
- cyrix, on 04/15/2008, -4/+17I think the more important thing to look at is the average carbon footprint of their citizens compared to us. We are still FAR worse.
- PhildoVT, on 04/15/2008, -5/+18you think america is the only country that benefits from manufacturing in china?
- davidrools, on 04/15/2008, -1/+13actually China is going to flex their communist muscle to try to clean up the air before the olympics by forcing people not to drive and shutting down power plants/blacking out cities.
- lazybat, on 04/15/2008, -8/+19China has already overtaken the "US" as the world's "biggest polluter"... No Way! Where can I get a coal powered car?
- JosephShell, on 04/15/2008, -4/+14Developing nation?
Developing world wide problem, more like. - inactive, on 04/15/2008, -22/+32Liberal denial in 3..2..1!! Lets see if they have the guts to go ape on china as they do on the usa.
- Warptera, on 04/15/2008, -0/+10When I was in Australia last summer, the news there was reporting that China had just passed the U.S. in CO2 emissions.
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -7/+17Like Pakistan Liberals tend to STFU whenever China could get PO'ed,, remember the Red Mosque incident,, all that needed to happen was for there to be 2 Chinese prostitutes to get kidnapped,, forget the dozens of Westerners, South Koreans, ect....
- 883XL, on 04/15/2008, -6/+16Yes and being the second highest polluter give us every right to condemn them...hypocrites
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -4/+13yeah, the problems with China started in 2000. I'll pretend the reports I read in 1983 were Bush's fault too. This is an "all those lame asses in Washington" fault, but you just go ahead an play pin the tail on the rhetoric...
- technogenius, on 04/15/2008, -0/+9A lot more than the US
- diggjcarp, on 04/15/2008, -0/+9Yes, and they are proud of it... http://www.theonion.com/content/video/china_celebr ...
- SuperMoses, on 04/15/2008, -15/+24Although I agree China needs to reduce the carbon emissions, let's not forget that they have 1 billion more people than the US. In terms of carbon emissions per capita, China is not near the top
- mirunit, on 04/15/2008, -3/+11China - Proud Kyoto Protocol Adherent.
- PinkFloydFan, on 04/15/2008, -3/+11It's not fair to say that they already caught up... they had a good 5,700 year head start on us!
- masterm1nd, on 04/15/2008, -6/+14Ahahaha, you cry about pollution and than go on to defend China's pollution, which is absolutely greater than the US's pollution.
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -0/+8I know that you were being sarcastic but actually they aren't "clean coal". Many of the power plants and factories (i.e. steel) that China has would be illegal in the EU and the US. Some of their plants are actually old plants shipped over from the West.
- geogeer, on 04/15/2008, -1/+8Yeah, but they're "clean coal" plants right? Everyone knows China cares more about their citizens and the environment than those evil western nations.
- diggerine, on 04/15/2008, -3/+10China is already the biggest emitter NOW. And getting bigger MUCH faster than the US NOW.
The point is that making China change its ways NOW will have a bigger beneficial effect on emissions than making the US change its ways NOW because China is increasing its per capita emission much faster than the US NOW. - kungfool, on 04/15/2008, -2/+9People want to buy cheap goods, made in China. But they don't want 'our jobs' to go to China. And they're surprised when people doing 'our jobs' making cheap goods for us work in factories that pump out pollution. Wake up, folks. This is the modern American Dream, and you made it. How the hell do you think your cellphone, iPhone, iPod, laptop, whatever, doesn't cost a fortune? It's because someone sweats for 14 hours a day churning out ***** for you to buy, and gets paid $100 a month for the privilege.
Chinese people don't need democracy. They need normal people in the West to realize the impact of their lifestyles upon the rest of the planet. Ditto that for biofuels, oil consumption and all the things we get at the cost of other people's quality of life. - diggerine, on 04/15/2008, -2/+9Petrodollar, a US dollar spent in China, whether in order to reduce CO2 emissions or for some other economic activity, has a greater bang for the buck than if it were spent in the US, simply because the cost of living and economic activity in China is so much lower than that in the US. Why do you think so many Western companies have outsourced their manufacturing capability to China?
In other words, a US dollar goes farther in China than in the US. That, in your own words, is "basic economics".
Another thing, I'm not Republican (not that there's anything wrong with being Republican, if you're a good person). - leroyk, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7Leadership has it privileges. No one is holding China to any standard other then the lowest cost of goods it can produce. Maybe someone should start.
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -2/+8Actually the EU is chinas biggest trading partner. It might even be India by now.
- Kireblade, on 04/15/2008, -3/+9I blame Yao Ming's stretch Hummer.
- ASeventhSign, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7dugg... just... dugg.
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -3/+9I don't think the US is really that "bad" if you look at per capita consumption. Most of China is still dirt poor. The boom has only really hit the provinces closer to the coast, and even the boom areas have a ton more room to grow economically. What's your point?
- masterm1nd, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7The America haters don't give a damn about "the atmosphere".
- aznwild0, on 04/15/2008, -0/+6No, we were never the top carbon polluter, we were the top carbon producer. Get the semantics right. Way to be patriotic.
- doyoulikeworms, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7If "they" charged more, then Wal-Mart would look elsewhere, and the quality of life in China could be even worse than it is now.
- kungfool, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5That's ironic, considering Australia passed the US as holder of the 'highest emissions per capita' title last summer!
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -3/+8selfpwned! Should read: if 300 million chinamen halve their CO2 output, the net effect would be far smaller than if 300 million americans did the same.
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -1/+6"Summary: If its economic growth continues, the rise of China will be the most important change in the global economic, political and military balance of the next century. This growth will be accompanied by environmental degradation, an activist foreign policy, and even military adventures. Yet the pervasive tendency to blame China, and the current regime in particular, is misplaced. Most of China's actions are perfectly understandable attempts by a rising power to expand its influence abroad."
That is from 1993, from (GASP!) the Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19931201faessay5219/ ... - burningmanstan, on 04/15/2008, -1/+6No. It suggests that we need to reduce our per capita emissions and they need to try to keep their per capita emissions low. We have the standard of living that they strive for and if everyone in china attained it they would have per capita in the double digits, just like us. If we increased our population that would not help our per capita values because every person added would still have a high and wasteful standard of living. In a perfect world every country would have the same value for per capita CO2 emissions. However to to be fair some countries would require more due to climate or large land area (requires more transportation infrastructure). Take the median CO2 emissions value from the list posted. That is the value that should be our goal.
- paddywalsh84, on 04/15/2008, -1/+6According to Chinese statistics, the EU is China's first trading partner (ahead of both the US and Japan) and has been for a number of years.[Source: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/bilateral/countri ... So its actually us Europeans who are more to blame!! It was China's cheap laborers who turned the country into the world's factory. By one estimate, China's manufacturing unit labor cost was just 4% of that of the U.S/EU in 2005. So naturally manufacturers moved there operations over there.
It is both Europeans and American's mindless and frenzied consumption that is contributing to environmental damage within China and thus for the whole world.
China is getting its first taste of wealth in this modern world, and it is understandable that they will focus growth more than the environment. I just had a thought: as developed nations we should look at developing new practices similar to 'fair trade coffee' whereby we will only by from China factories that are low carbon emitters
But really there is a simple way to help the environment: stop buying crap you don't need! - Bodhinature, on 04/15/2008, -2/+7You're half right. China doesn't have to behave this way. Their government chooses to. If they charged Wal-mart more for their textiles, we would have to deal with it.
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -1/+6Damn you Digg!!! Lost the rest of my comment.
In the 80's the worry was that, unlike Japan, China would not squander the money they made "buying up" America. That turned out to be so, so true. The other thing that got poo-poo'd was that China would be fighting with America for basic resources (oil, coal, steel, etc.) as they grew exponentially. We were still technological babes back in the early 80's. People didn't really get it.
Nixon opened the door. By the early 80's, the writing was already on the wall. -
Show 51 - 100 of 301 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is