What is Digg?151 Comments
- poidh, on 12/28/2007, -2/+39China doesn't give a ***** about anything other than keeping the totalitarian ideal alive and keeping the leaders safe from the mob.
- jackkerouac, on 12/28/2007, -5/+31Wow, it only took 1 POST for some moron to bring up Bush. Good job!
- Berkana, on 12/28/2007, -4/+18How about using the sun and the wind, which are resources we all have? How about not polluting the resources we all need, such as air and water?
Clean air and water are priceless. To ignore the impact of burning coal on the quality of air and water in the weighing of costs is short sighted, and plainly immoral. (And in case you don't remember, burning coal causes acid rain and mercury and other heavy metal emissions, especially with the antiquated technology the Chinese are using to burn it.) Short term monetary savings are not worth destroying the environment for. - phybere, on 12/28/2007, -3/+15I enjoyed the human race while it lasted
- davecor, on 12/28/2007, -7/+18Settle down people! I'm sure that the UN and various environmental organizations will write some VERY strongly worded letters of protest. Soon the ChiComms will see the error of their ways and defer to world sentiment.
- Berkana, on 12/28/2007, -10/+21In other words, we humans are ***** because nobody is willing to do the right thing (or even willing to stop doing the wrong thing) until every one else does.
- Cyberen, on 12/28/2007, -1/+11Of course! The energy of the future...COAL!
- davecor, on 12/28/2007, -0/+10They have a huge landmass with PLENTY of higher ground. I don't think they see a little population decrease as a downside either.
- xmod3, on 12/28/2007, -6/+14Crazy Chinese, all they do is pollute, pollute, pollute.
Japan should invade China again. - masterm1nd, on 12/28/2007, -6/+14The 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%.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/intern ... .
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_ ... . - Petrarch1603, on 12/28/2007, -2/+8there is a great NYT article about China's coal problem here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbu ...
the soot from China falls on Korea, and the US west coast. - Berkana, on 12/28/2007, -0/+6No, but who says it costs 5 times more? Solar and wind power have no fuel costs EVER, and put out no polluting emissions, and are cost competitive if you factor in all the hidden costs, and cut subsidies to fossil fuel industries.
I contend that I am not willing to pay for astronomical medical bills for health problems incurred by air pollution and pollution related poisoning (such as asthma, bronchitis, and various cancers) if I am earning less than $5000 a year, on top of having otherwise able-bodied people taken out of the workforce by pollution related illnesses. In comparison to these problems which China is now realizing as a very real monetary cost, renewable energy isn't that costly. - foolonthehill, on 12/28/2007, -1/+6A promising late entry for Analogy of the Year
- and303, on 12/28/2007, -2/+7I wish everyone could see both sides of this argument, as it seems impossible since "green" has become so trendy.
This isn't happening completely because "rich people don't care about the environment". Does anyone stop to think that maybe China won't make an expensive change because they are finally seeing progress after suffering an economic depression for over a century? Does anyone understand that not being able to feed yourself will kill you faster than pollution will?
Finally, if you must blame the right wing rich for this problem, the only reason they have this authority is a result of the poor left wing liberals will still buy the products they mess up the Earth to produce.
So who's to blame? Nobody. The world is an imperialistic and ***** up place. - Ferretman, on 12/28/2007, -2/+6This just about pwns the folks who got all lubed up over Kyoto and Bali.....
- Berkana, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5It is a straight out lie that solar power is not enough to replace the energy we use from fossil fuels. The sun imparts more energy on the earth in a day than all of humankind uses in 27 years. If we are using such astronomical amounts of energy, why build an infrastructure dependent on fuels that are limited in supply and will eventually run out, rendering the entire investment obsolete?
Earth receives 174 petawatts of incoming solar radiation in the upper atmosphere, and 89 petawats of that get absorbed by the oceans and land. The deserts of the American South West could easily become the power plants of the nation. China also has vast areas of sun parched desert. Building a distribution grid and solar generating capacity to take advantage of this would mean having energy generating capacity as long as the sun shines, with no fuel costs ever. Solar thermal technology is already capable of doing this, its just a mater of deploying them instead of building coal plants and rail roads to feed them:
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/images.asp?Type=all
http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/05/21/sevilles-solar ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in ...
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0209-solar.html
And latest generation PV modules are now able to track the sun and extract electrcity at 40% efficiency:
http://www.soliant-energy.com/products.php
Solar power can even be used at night, as demonstrated by the Spanish: they superheat steam, and pump it into pressurized tanks, in which the steam condenses to super heated water. At night, they tap into these tanks to spin turbines, and the super-heated water flashes back into steam.
There is no good reason we should keep building a coal based infrastructure at this point; it is destined to become obsolete, but solar power will never become obsolete as long as the sun shines. If you consider how heavily the government subsidized nuclear power until it became viable, it is patently unfair for them not to at least support solar energy, if not by subsidies like they did with oil and nuclear, then with deployment of the systems out there that are already cost effective and competitive against coal. Ditto for China. - baalzebub, on 12/28/2007, -3/+7the rich breath the same air the poor people do...
sooner or later the air quality will force the rich & powerful to take interest in the environment (hopefully sooner than later)... - bullcutter, on 12/28/2007, -2/+6uh, i can't believe you allowed yourself to type all that, say "OK that looks good", then hit the submit button...
- RedPhalanx, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4Kyoto Treaty: Punish past polluters, ignore future polluters.
- Berkana, on 12/28/2007, -2/+6The "global warming swindle" was very thoroughly refuted by British climatologists. The data shown in the "documentary" was not reproducible, and incomplete; they blame the warming on cosmic rays or something like that, but didn't show that from the 80's onwards, the correlation was completely gone, with temperature tracking CO2 emissions as that became the dominant factor. Some of the "scientists" for hire whom they consulted with were the same folks who produced "scientific" evidence that tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer. Don't let them fool you again; they're all funded by and cleave to Big Oil.
See this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-165664054 ... - davecor, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4So they are free to ignore everything humanity has learned in those 200 years?
- grumpyrain, on 12/28/2007, -2/+5But the picture changes remarkably when you consider carbon emmissions per capita. Our big problem now is that much of China, India, Eastern Europe, Indonesia and many others now want there equivalent to 'The American Dream'. According to your census website, USA produced 1,612,000,000 metric tons of Carbon from Fossil Fuel. Sudan produced 3,000,000 metric tons. Each person living in Sudan produced equivalent of 75Kg Carbon. Each person living in USA produced equivalent of 5.3 ton.
Shamefully, we personally emit 70 times more Carbon than someone else and yet still have the audacity to tell them they are not pulling their weight. - Jelfish, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4What would that do? A lot of poor Chinese citizens (the same ones suffering and dying from the pollution) would be killed and the people running the show would probably survive and continue to rule, possibly making things worse for the remaining population in the name of security, defense, and advancement.
And of course, the world would turn another blind eye because the Japanese would deny anything happened.
Unbridled disgust is cathartic, isn't it? - vlobbglib, on 12/28/2007, -2/+5They're using more coal, do whatever they want, while Gore is "buying credits" and lecturing us. What a f$#$%#$ed up situation.
- krnldmp, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3This has absolutely nothing to do with culture.
- bullcutter, on 12/28/2007, -2/+5protest what? China signed the Kyoto accord so therefore they are as pure as the wind-driven snow, doncha know...
- sponeil, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3You're 100% wrong. We're f'ed no matter what we do. Let's say the Western countries come up with a new unlimited clean energy technology. The price of oil will plummet so far that the third-world countries who can't afford the clean energy will start using it as much as the US currently does now. The countries selling oil will do it or several or their industries will go completely belly up, and their people will starve. The third world countries will also do it to keep their people from starving. As long as there are people in the world that might starve for this reason or that one, we're f'ed.
In addition to that, some companies will always take the cheaper route no matter how unethical or distasteful it is. - hiikeeba, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3Heck! Norway signed it and their emissions are up 80% and will not meet their goals. But fortunately for them, it the United States' fault. Gore preached to the Global Warming congregation at the High Mass in Bali and laid the blame squarely at the feet of the Great Satan. China wasn't mentioned. Norway wasn't mentioned. Japan wasn't mentioned. The air conditioning system at the resort which spewed out the equivalent of 48000 tons of CO2 wasn't mentioned. Nor was the amount of CO2 spewed into the atmosphere just to get the congregation to the summit.
- krnldmp, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4Ultimately the consumer determines environmental policy. Their money buys the product made by the factories powered by this coal. The rich corporations decide to run their plants in China because it is CHEEP. The rich consumer wont refuse to buy. Ultimately, this IS happening because "rich people don't care about the environment". Faced with the decision iPod or environment, they choose iPod.
- bullcutter, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3ok, we're just sayin, if you want to point fingers about global warming, don't do it at US anymore, since China is by far and away a bigger "problem."
- dezhonguoren, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4This is not a simple matter of China wanted to screw the earth. If given a choice, they would use cleaner technologies. Have you seen the pollution? Noone likes it there. The problem is short-term demand, which is HUGE. We are witnessing the fastest growing economy in HISTORY from the largest country in the world. From what I read, they added the same amount of power that France uses a year to their grid last year--and that's not even meeting their demand... Dude, that's INSANE. Thus, we see all these coal plants popping up (easier, faster to build) vs cleaner altneratives... Its a sad reality but what else can you do about it? What I want to hear about is their long-term goals: how they are going to build BIGGER, BETTER plants and close down those smokestacks over the years. I'm a realist--you're not going to stop China from preventing itself to grow. For them the short-term costs of pollution is worth it. What can we do about it?
- MacEnvy, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3Perri-air?
- Norante, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Eventually? I wish I had your optimism.
- masterm1nd, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2And by the way the US is ranked #10 by per capita emissions, not #1 like you guys like to perpetuate... And grumpyrain, is it really us having the audacity to tell others they are not pulling their weight, or is it the other way around?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ... . - jim3008, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2dugg, i understand we SHOULD use cleaner energy, but for China to actually harvest those energy (in a effective way) is very costly, 5times more is based on what i've read in the pass,
seriously, imagine how many new solar panels or wind towers you need to build to power China?
you are asking the Chinese to juggle between clean energy and fighting poverty,
health is over-rated when you are a poor starving farmer,
not to mention, the price increase of sneakers in Wal-Mart if they care about health and factory safety - zhulien, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2so, it's ok for the rest of the World to have poluted their "per head" share of the atmosphere, but not China?
come on, is it fair that each countries emission targets are not based on an EQUAL PER HEAD EMISSION target? Why should someone in Australia or USA be allowed a higher PER HEAD EMISSION that a person in China? - bullcutter, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2"But the picture changes remarkably when you consider carbon emmissions per capita." actually the picture doesn't change at all, because the problem at hand is not changed, neither is the fact that China is a bigger polluter than the U.S., yet they are a Kyoto signatory so somehow this is OK...
- krnldmp, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2The poor are often priced out of a choice. US corporations manufacturing in China take advantage of that too.
- principle, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Yes, using coal is a more sophisticated way of generating power then wood, but it has been 200,000 years since Neanderthal invented fire!
- davecor, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3THAN
...moron - boflaade, on 12/28/2007, -3/+5Start with the USA, as they are the biggest polluters in the world.
- Spoomeister, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2The problem will take care of itself in 20-40 years, when half their population dies of black lung.
- kazamx, on 12/28/2007, -2/+4You make a really good point, America already went through her industrialization. Each person there produces more than anyone else on the planet. It does seem a little unfair to say the people of sudan (70kg each) aren't doing enough compared to Americans (5.2 tonnes)
- masterm1nd, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2You ***** retard. These numbers reflect the effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol, not the piggishness of American vs other per person.
Be what you want to be.
See what you came to see. - Rmstrjim, on 12/28/2007, -4/+6Human emissions of co2 simply PALE in comparison to natural emissions.
Kind of ruins the global warming argument, so it usually doesn't get brought up. - inactive, on 12/28/2007, -3/+5It doesn't get brought up because it's *****.
- themoosejuice, on 12/28/2007, -4/+6Take that you global warming hippies!
- ukfoole, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3And yet diggers lambast the US for not signing the Kyoto agreement that gives China this free reign to do with themselves however they please when their main perogative is to have some sort of ecological boundary for China. I petitioned enough but our Prime Wanker was too much in love with his image than the fate of the world.
http://digg.com/environment/US_now_alone_as_sole_K ...
http://digg.com/environment/Australia_ratifies_Kyo ...
Polite golf clap for you, digg. - iDiggIt42, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3I will proofread my comments before submitting
I will proofread my comments before submitting
... - Nossie, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1oh china WIll catch up...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 144 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