Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room.

Options
  • 23-12-2009 11:22am
    #1
    zod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭


    A great article in todays Guardian.
    But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.
    Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action


    Seems the Chinese scuppered the deal, for some short term gain. Have to say the Americans are hamstrung when it comes to China now they practically own all their (USA's) debt.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    There are vast numbers of Chinese people living in absolute poverty, I guess they should keep on doing so in order to not destroy your precious environment. I wonder of how high importance the environment would be to you if you lived on like €1-€2 a day.


  • Options
    #3
    zod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭zod


    SLUSK wrote: »
    I wonder of how high importance the environment would be to you if you lived on like €1-€2 a day.

    Agreed. Any agreement must be HEAVILY scewed against the richer nations.

    Unfortunately deals with no targets for everyone may doom us all, including China's poor.


  • Options
    #4
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    SLUSK wrote: »
    There are vast numbers of Chinese people living in absolute poverty, I guess they should keep on doing so in order to not destroy your precious environment. I wonder of how high importance the environment would be to you if you lived on like €1-€2 a day.

    This is a card which is played too often and people shy away or don't know how to answer.

    First, the affects of climite change will affect the poorist of the poor the most. Even poorer people in rich countries will be more affected as they will be the ones hit hardest when it comes to adapting. Doing nothing about climite change meens poor people will suffer more.

    Secondly, and maybe more to the point, there is little to no link between being well off and your carbon output. There's a myth here which is notable strong in Ireland and the US. A prime example of this is transport and car use. Car use in Ireland is very high and sometimes people think this is linked to us being able to afford cars. But this link is broken in other countries with higher GDP and strikingly around the same or higher car ownership. (source: Gridlock, by James Wickham). For example: The boss taking the Dart or bus to work has more wealth than the office worker driving in.


  • Options
    #5
    Toiletroll
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Toiletroll


    monument wrote: »
    This is a card which is played too often and people shy away or don't know how to answer.



    First, the affects of climite change will affect the poorist of the poor the most. Even poorer people in rich countries will be more affected as they will be the ones hit hardest when it comes to adapting. Doing nothing about climite change meens poor people will suffer more.



    Secondly, and maybe more to the point, there is little to no link between being well off and your carbon output. There's a myth here which is notable strong in Ireland and the US. A prime example of this is transport and car use. Car use in Ireland is very high and sometimes people think this is linked to us being able to afford cars. But this link is broken in other countries with higher GDP and strikingly around the same or higher car ownership. (source: Gridlock, by James Wickham). For example: The boss taking the Dart or bus to work has more wealth than the office worker driving in.


    A lot of new evidence emerging indicated a carbon regulation system will hurt the poor and make millions starve.

    Evidence now points to the fact that a warmer planet could be fantastic for all life.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html


  • Options
    #6
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Toiletroll wrote: »
    Evidence now points to the fact that a warmer planet could be fantastic for all life.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
    I am not going to warn you again. There is already a thread discussing these issues. Stop dragging other threads down the same discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,489 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    zod wrote: »
    Agreed. Any agreement must be HEAVILY scewed against the richer nations.

    Unfortunately deals with no targets for everyone may doom us all, including China's poor.

    No it shouldn't. It should be heavily skewed against countries with larger populations.

    Its not industrialisation nor consumerism but population size that will have the largest impact on greenhouse gas and deforestation.

    It doesn't matter how rich or poor China is, the fact thats there 1.3 billion of them means they will always produce more pollution to feed and employ such numbers, India is exactly the same.

    The next one of these conferences (if they ever happen) need to be soley targeting population size and creating realistic targets to maintain or reduce global population to a sustainable level


  • Options
    #8
    Shiny
    Registered Users Posts: 2,259 ✭✭✭Shiny


    <From their point of view >

    The West has had its chance to improve its quality of life with no restrictions.
    (Think any industrialised nation)

    Why shouldnt we have our chance?

    </From their point of view >

    Placing limits on emmisions will restrict growth for them.

    If my choice was the hope of (Car + House) v.s. the (Rice Paddy + Mud hut),
    I know which one I would pick.


  • Options
    #9
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Shiny wrote: »
    Placing limits on emmisions will restrict growth for them.

    If my choice was the hope of (Car + House) v.s. the (Rice Paddy + Mud hut),
    I know which one I would pick.

    Ok, then, we'll go on Irish standards. As of 2007 (never mind if car ownership has gone down a bit since as we're talking about unrestricted growth), so it's "one private car for almost every two adults living in the State" (source).

    Then we have 1 billion plus people in India and China means. So that means we're talking at least 1/2 billion cars for both countries or 1 billion between them.

    Never mind climate change. This isn't feasible on a practice level. Even if car usage was lower than our high car usage, it is not feasible. No major increase in car ownership and usage is feasible in India or China. Not because of climate change, but because it would bring their countries to a standstill.


  • Options
    #10
    zod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭zod


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    No it shouldn't. It should be heavily skewed against countries with larger populations.

    Its not industrialisation nor consumerism but population size that will have the largest impact on greenhouse gas and deforestation.

    It doesn't matter how rich or poor China is, the fact thats there 1.3 billion of them means they will always produce more pollution to feed and employ such numbers, India is exactly the same.

    The next one of these conferences (if they ever happen) need to be soley targeting population size and creating realistic targets to maintain or reduce global population to a sustainable level

    What ?

    All targets should be based per capita. By that standard China emits a fraction of the USA.

    China already has a one child per couple rule.

    What exactly are you saying ?


  • Options
    #11
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    monument wrote: »

    Never mind climate change. This isn't feasible on a practice level. Even if car usage was lower than our high car usage, it is not feasible. No major increase in car ownership and usage is feasible in India or China. Not because of climate change, but because it would bring their countries to a standstill.

    Were it not for the current road-building programme that started 20 years sr so ago, you could say the same for Ireland!

    China knows which side it's bread is buttered and will do anything to ensure it stays butter side up. What could the EU (& others) do to stop them, trade embargos for example - almost unenforceable as we are so dependant on China for a high percentage of manufactured goods.

    That was highlighted when a human rights group tried to start a boycott of Chinese goods just before the olympics, they found it almost impossible to manage successfully.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    zod wrote: »
    What ?

    All targets should be based per capita. By that standard China emits a fraction of the USA.

    China already has a one child per couple rule.

    What exactly are you saying ?

    Part of the fear is that if people in China & India were to emulate western standards of living, the supply of oil will be depleted much faster than it is today.

    The day of rekoning when demand outstrips supply cound be brought forward by decades, China appears to be already planning for that by dealing with some oil producer nations.

    Just imagine the increases in oil consumption in those countries if a high percentage of the population adopted western consumption habits, these numbers are already increasing but still only account for a relativly small percentage at the moment.


  • Options
    #13
    zod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭zod


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Just imagine the increases in oil consumption in those countries if a high percentage of the population adopted western consumption habits, these numbers are already increasing but still only account for a relativly small percentage at the moment.

    We cannot ask them not to increase their co2 numbers without us decreasing ours and meeting in the middle somehow.

    We must reduce ours to where we want them to be, anything else is unfair and wont work.


  • Options
    #14
    Pembily
    Registered Users Posts: 14,404 ✭✭✭✭Pembily


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    No it shouldn't. It should be heavily skewed against countries with larger populations.

    Its not industrialisation nor consumerism but population size that will have the largest impact on greenhouse gas and deforestation.

    It doesn't matter how rich or poor China is, the fact thats there 1.3 billion of them means they will always produce more pollution to feed and employ such numbers, India is exactly the same.

    The next one of these conferences (if they ever happen) need to be soley targeting population size and creating realistic targets to maintain or reduce global population to a sustainable level

    Both my father and I have the same thoughts on this but didn't think anyone would say it out loud!!! And it is not just China that needs to tackle population size - it must be tackled world wide!!


  • Options
    #15
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Pembily wrote: »
    And it is not just China that needs to tackle population size - it must be tackled world wide!!
    Why exactly? There seems to a complete unwillingness to entertain the idea that behaviour modification and a reduction in OUR ghg emissions might be the more equitable and logical way forward.

    Ireland's ghg emissions are approximately 17 tonnes per capita. Sweden's are approximately 6 tonnes per capita. And China's are less than half that at 3 tonnes per capita. But China is the problem and not us?

    As with pretty much all resources, it is the small wealthy minority that use up the vast majority. With the above statistics, I can conclude that you would need almost 6 Chinese individuals to make up the same amount of ghg emissions as an Irish person. So if you want to talk about effective population control, the most efficient place to start is those countries with the highest per capita emissions - Ireland is top of the list.

    For me, population control as a solution is just another example of the wealthy, bloated, selfish West to fob off the climate change problem onto poorer nations.


  • Options
    #16
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    Pembily wrote: »
    Both my father and I have the same thoughts on this but didn't think anyone would say it out loud!!! And it is not just China that needs to tackle population size - it must be tackled world wide!!

    You are right - the elephant in the room is world population, but its not fashionable to say so. 6500 000 000 humans and rising every day. And each of us humans is wicked and responsible for vast emissions of greenhouse gases over our lifetimes. Or so we are told.

    Try telling that to any of the neo-credulousists, and they'll snap your head off!


  • Options
    #17
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    You are right - the elephant in the room is world population, but its not fashionable to say so. 6500 000 000 humans and rising every day. And each of us humans is wicked and responsible for vast emissions of greenhouse gases over our lifetimes. Or so we are told.
    Are you also in denial about the many other resources you use up to support your lifestyle? Water? Fossil fuels? Are you also in denial about the amount of waste your lifestyle generates?

    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    Try telling that to any of the neo-credulousists, and they'll snap your head off!
    Neo-credulouists? I think there's an extra syllable in there somewhere but I like it.


  • Options
    #18
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    taconnol wrote: »
    Are you also in denial about the many other resources you use up to support your lifestyle? Water? Fossil fuels? Are you also in denial about the amount of waste your lifestyle generates?


    OK one westerner can use as much resources as a third world family!

    So the westerner reduces their consumption (somehow), the third world family breeds and soon where there was one there are now two or three using twice or three times the resources, population growth IS a problem!


  • Options
    #19
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    taconnol wrote: »
    Are you also in denial about the many other resources you use up to support your lifestyle? Water? Fossil fuels? Are you also in denial about the amount of waste your lifestyle generates?



    Neo-credulouists? I think there's an extra syllable in there somewhere but I like it.

    I think many of us are in "denial" about the resources it takes to support our lifestyle. Are you in denial that it takes 250 000 gallons of water to make a single car, for example?

    If our grandparents looked at how we all live our lives, they would be shocked to see how wasteful we are compared to the way they lived their lives. And we are wasteful, as I've siad before, as we drive to the bottle banks in our 4 x 4's or SUV's, leaving on the TV and central heating at home.

    I'm not sure how to make credulous into credulousists, but it is a grand word alright!


Advertisement