What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, “Time for Miracles” view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
54 Comments
- altgeeky1, on 10/07/2008, -0/+9You were buried to -1 as if what you said offended someone, or was patently false. Did what I could.
As an American I have no qualms about saying the USA gobbles up a wasteful majority of the world's oil.
For too long we were coached by our leaders into saying "Well, we could afford it", or when not in mixed company, "Yes, but we are more CIVILIZED" (ok, this was a subtext, not actually spoken).
What's got Americans thinking 'green' now is the notion that China's going to bring online anywhere from 1 to 1.5x cars per person as their trade surplus leaves them flush in cash. THEY will be able to out-spend us on oil, leading to higher gas prices for all. Simply put, Peak Oil is something in our parent's lifetime, when previously they viewed it as fantasy, or something they would LEAVE for their children (demographically, under-40 is a small minority dwarfed by the aging, selfish Baby Boomers).
So yes, you're both right. But we're trying to change it. Even conservatives (minus the powerful neo-cons) are waking up to the fact that "the market" is a fallacy, and no pure ideological response is going to free the US or other nations from the energy provider stranglehold.
China has access to green technology... they manufacture it for other nations. They just lack the will to use it, for now. - Chompy, on 10/07/2008, -5/+14Did the OP not read the article he linked?
"New market pressures encourage plant managers to buy the cheapest, lowest quality and most-polluting coal available, while at the same time idle expensive-to-operate smokestack scrubbers or other cleanup technologies. The physical infrastructure is advanced, but the emissions performance ends up decidedly retrograde."
Sounds like a lack of regulation to me. - zippy757, on 10/07/2008, -2/+9Summary: China has good coal plants, but buys crappy coal, which creates significant pollution.
Net: Doesn't matter to me they built great plants, if they're stupid (and cheap) by using substandard coal. It's still the same air.
When we buy our cheap Ipods or Macs, we should recognize we're contributing to the problem...their labor is cheap, their lifestyle is less robust, their power is cheap. All those things help to contribute to your cheap Ipod. But they take a toll on the poor China citizen. - mattofasia, on 10/07/2008, -0/+7The problem is: they save cash by not using the technology they already installed for showing off when VIP's visit. This puts money in the operators pockets...
at the cost of the neighboring people's health and the worlds atmosphere. In the end it basically will kill the owners too, but they dont have the logical ability to get past the concept of money now- because the culture operates on the idea that everyone in authority is lying anyways, global warming to the average chinese is another excuse for power mongers to try and get in their pockets.
All it would take is one or two people there who cared to monitor the operators getting some backup from the authorities rather than getting tossed in jail by the authorities. And alot more awareness and acceptance of the idea among the people who operate things there. Surely someone in power there is capable of doing something correctly...before the situation is out of control... for a change...
or not.
- diggeratwork, on 10/07/2008, -0/+6Just like what zippy757 said, China is busy building your iPhones, PS3s, cloth hangers, TVs...
So where do you get the cheap power supply for this kind of cheap mass-production? Cheap coal, of course! - Albumen, on 10/07/2008, -2/+6I think he means emission controls
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4Or we could buy none of those products, or build them here.... and Chinese citizens would be better off how? Starvation/pollution...hmmmm
- Rousterfar, on 10/07/2008, -2/+6I have been to China and believe the biggest problem is the Chinese people don't have a concept of environmentalism. Case in point I met a smart college educated guy from Beijing who started bragging about how they where moving all the factories out to the countryside to make the air in the city cleaner. When I pointed out that doing so was just moving the problem, not correcting it, he stared at me blankly.
China is where America was years ago. Everything is about expanding the economy and making the country stronger with little regard to the costs. - tbredofsin, on 10/07/2008, -7/+11But they're still going to gobble up all the oil.
- cquinnd, on 10/07/2008, -0/+3I think you missed his point. Without oversight there is no reason for the government to use their huge amount of power and control to enforce regulations when they see no benefit in doing so for the ranking party members.
- inactive, on 10/07/2008, -4/+7Seems like China has this problem partially due to the way countries like the US have off-shored it's production of products there too, forcing them to do anything they have to to keep growing at a pace they can barely maintain, while causing massive ecological harm to itself and citizens alike. We have some responsibility there too, not saying we need to go bail them out by any means, but we should be more self sufficient with better energy technology than we have let ourselves become here in the US which would cut demand on another economy.
- Wrangler76, on 10/07/2008, -2/+5How is the "west" already feeling their impact on oil prices? The USA's net oil imports per day is over 10 million barrels. Japan's is over 5 million barrels and China is at around 2 million barrels at around the #5-#6 ranking. Let's not forget it's largely because they produce a lot of the world's stuff. If it wasn't China consuming these resources, it would be a mix of smaller, developing countries. It's funny how India is right behind China in net oil imports, yet no one in the "west" actually cares about India. The finger pointing is always at China regardless if we're talking about oil, job loss, or the financial crisis.
The fear mongering here is so stupid sometimes. - yosh7128, on 10/07/2008, -0/+3Another one would take his place purporting to be better so we'll leave him alone and then he'll do the exact same thing.
- Blacksoth, on 10/07/2008, -0/+3Wealthier nations usually have already benefitted economically by polluting first and then fixing it later. These same nations go to developing nations and advocate environmental restrictions immediately. Rightly or wrongly, those developing nations interpret it as a way of controlling their economic growth and reject what they perceive as hypocripsy. So it's hard to convince them that the environmental problems are real and important and not just a political tool to restrict the countrys' growth.
- inactive, on 10/07/2008, -0/+3Of course not. They use it to collect bribes and favors.
- Phearce, on 10/07/2008, -1/+4Affordable access to energy is one of the best indicators of a "developed" country.
- subliminalurge, on 10/07/2008, -2/+4Just because the government has a huge amount of power and control doesn't imply that they actually use that power and control to enforce the proper regulations.
- inactive, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2Even so, China's per capita emission is still lower than Europe and US for many years to come.
- gavinhudson, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2He's right, you know. The USA is still doing the gobbling at the moment. Here are the facts according to the CIA World Factbook. Read and compare them. They're interesting.
China's population: 1,330,044,544 (July 2008 est.)
Oil production: 3.725 million bbl/day (2007 est.)
Oil consumption: 6.93 million bbl/day (2007 est.)
Oil imports: 3.19 million bbl/day (2007)
Proven remaining oil reserves: 12.8 billion bbl (2007 est.)
USA's population: 303,824,640 (July 2008 est.)
Oil production: 7.46 million bbl/day (2007 est.)
Oil consumption: 20.8 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil imports: 13.15 million bbl/day (2004)
Proven remaining oil reserves: 21.76 billion bbl (1 January 2006 est.) - WangzoR, on 10/07/2008, -1/+3Don't have the money? are you kidding.. china has one of the highest budget surplus's in the world
- jm1234567890, on 10/07/2008, -11/+12Actually no... USA do that.
- gavinhudson, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1Dugg up for the good and apropos story. On the other hand, I don't think one can extrapolate to a population of 1.3 billion all from a conversation with one guy. I also know of, for instance, Roots & Shoots environmental groups in China that are very active, motivated, and full of initiative. In some ways, I also think that China today has the umph and drive that the US had years ago as well.
Not to knock the US, I think things are looking up there. However, compared to, say, S. Korea, where I'm living, the US workforce is nowhere near as dedicated or industrious. - rochskier, on 10/07/2008, -1/+2I'm trying to figure out exactly how these plants are "state-of-the-art" if the pollution output is so dependent on the quality of the coal that is being burnt. Shouldn't the scrubbers be mandatory, or almost mandatory to operate? Why even bother installing them if they won't get used?
- randf, on 10/07/2008, -3/+4it's the fault of the US that china produces goods at a scale that causes harm to itself and citizens?
cool...a global apologist. i had always heard these creatures existed.
logic extension....since we buy all the junk the chinese produce, and W is he leader of the US, the W can be blamed for every single xbox, nike high top, and box of contaminated milk product on US shelves. so W is simultaneously responsible for global warming and the harm of chinese citizens AND killing babies around the world. no need for the chinese (or anybody else) to ever step up and accept responsibility for their own action when logic (and the six degrees of kevin bacon game) can let you blame anybody else.
well played mr global apologist. what the next game? how the US (and/or kevin bacon) is responsible for the lost snow cap on Mt Kilimanjaro? - gavinhudson, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1They're actually a leader in wind energy. The US has moved up to #1, but China is fast catching up.
- diggeratwork, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1".. Lower-grade coal, which produces high levels of sulfur emissions, can be obtained locally, whereas the highest-grade anthracite comes mostly from China's northwest and must travel long distances to the plants, adding greatly to its cost. " and not to mention the amount of diesel burned to drive the engines of the trucks carrying them about xxx miles from mine to plant.
And not to mention refining of crude oil to produce the diesel for the trucks. - frnzkfk, on 10/07/2008, -2/+3africa's oil, actually.
ask the Sudanese.
edit: also, when making replies, use handy "reply" feature... - gavinhudson, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1Very well said.
- inactive, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1Coal is usually moved by train. A train can move one ton of material 423 miles on one gallon of gas. The only thing more efficient is barges.
- mattofasia, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1what motivates power companies to pay money to use the cleaner technologies? any takers?
- nj10ii, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1I would like to see that China doesn't pollute their landscape with the power lines and substations infrastructure necessary to support a electrical grid the size they need. If only there was a way to transmit power wirelessly, hmmmmmm...... Wasn't there some crazy guy named Tesla? In a communist state do they meter and charge for electricity? Yeah dumb question, but why would they need to, doesn't the government provide all needed services?
- JohnnyDIGGme, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1Blah, I'm so over China.
- Math, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1This is true. China is currently the world's largest consumer of solar panels.
- morningmatters, on 10/07/2008, -1/+2People who live in 3rd world countries typically don't have a concept of environmentalism. When your average citizen makes $300 a month they are unlikely to spend more on products which are better for the environment.
On the other hand, the Chinese government does try to force it's people to become more aware of the environment. For example, supermarkets across China no longer offers free plastic bags. The government also heavily subsidizes studies to alternative energies (for every private dollar spent the Chinese government puts down four). - mrigns, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1There you go, state capitalism is bad
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/07/2008, -1/+2forcing them.... that is total crap. People who believe things like you do, such as the US forcing its production on China, also won't let us build nuclear power plants at home to really make a dent in the energy problem.
- thecrazyrasta, on 10/07/2008, -0/+0they will try to gobble up all the oil, but they have an amazing transportation infrastructure. high speed trains, buses, subways, and you would not believe how many people are riding their bicycles and doing tai qi in the park every morning, even when it is freezing out. I guess maybe America will just continue to gobble up all the oil especially if you start to look at per capita
- cognizance8, on 10/07/2008, -1/+1Having to go to China every other month for business has shown me that the government does not really care about its people.
Seeing what they did during the olympics only proves that they are not really interested in environmental impact but more of their image. All they did to try and control pollution was to shut down factories around the time of the olympics instead of addressing the issue by forcing the factories to clean up and limit their pollution. - EtherGnat, on 10/07/2008, -1/+1It doesn't matter much who buys oil from who. Oil is a global market, so if we decide not to buy from a certain country or they decide not to sell to us things just get shifted around with almost no net effect. To be more specific, even if China is buying oil from sources we would never touch it still affects us. *Somebody* else would have bought that oil, and now they're competing for the same sources of oil we are. Nobody is going to sell below the global price, which is determined by global demand.
- PhantomRogue, on 10/07/2008, -3/+3same could be said for our government
- tbredofsin, on 10/07/2008, -4/+4The world's oil, in the long run. 1.5 billion people. Just take a second and think about that. Biggest population in the world, industrializing at an incredible rate and using more and more energy the more it develops. In terms of the world market we're already feeling their impact on oil prices. In the long run, between us (meaning the west), them, and to a lesser extent the rest of the world, we're in for a scary ride.
Yeah, I know oil prices are down right now. Temporary deflation. The economic crisis is disguising the problem, but it's not going anywhere while we hold onto our dollars like a lifeline. - M41k3ru, on 10/07/2008, -1/+1loki49152:
Actually, the government really doesn't regulate it. The government just doesn't want to regulate it because it would cost them too much. Also, the industry has motivation not to be cleaner because it cuts cost. And aren't we all enjoying the relatively cheap cost of production for stuff made in China? - Blacksoth, on 10/07/2008, -1/+1China doesn't mind trading for oil with countries the U.S. wouldn't. There might be competition among some sources but not all.
- arec, on 10/08/2008, -0/+0Can't agree more
- fixyourthinking, on 10/07/2008, -8/+7tbredofsin:
What oil? Their own? China produces most of its own. They also have the highest alternative power/fuel production rate of any population - gavinhudson, on 10/07/2008, -2/+1Full of logical fallacies that were not present in the original argument. Also unnecessarily insulting. FAIL.
- randf, on 10/07/2008, -8/+7why doesn't the Goracle head on over there and give them a thorough powerpointing? imagine the influence a nobel peace price winner could have on their society! i'm sure they'd all change their evil polluting ways in a tennessee minute if they were just better informed.
oh wait...Algore and Co. only wag their finger at this country, where they can make a fast buck or two on this terrible global warming problem.
FTFA: China's power sector has been expanding at a rate roughly equivalent to three to four new coal-fired, 500 megawatt plants coming on line every week.
seriously though, why haven't any of the global warming alarmists made anything of china's addition of 3-4 coal plants per week? isn't this the worst case scenario for man-made global warming? unfettered building of dirty coal? where is the outrage? where are the global scientists? where is the pressure from global communities? too busy planning the next bash-the-west-fest at their local starbucks? - wiesel99, on 10/07/2008, -4/+2Seems like as always the problem is getting the funding to do the green thing. They have the technology, just not the money to afford to run the cleaner and more technologically advanced equipment.
- inactive, on 10/07/2008, -5/+3You think the Chinese give a flyinf ***** about their people? They know it and now the world knows it. It would sure suck if something happened to their ruler...
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is