Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Both China and India have rejected carbon cuts while recommending the US do so. Love it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/20/india-tells-clinton-no-carbon-cuts/

Where did it say India & China recomended the U.S. do it? I didn't see that there.

Even if they did say that, it doesn't relieve us of our responsibility to reduce pollution. And I want to qualify that by saying reducing it in a sane manner that won't bankrupt us.


GG

At the recent climate control talks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:At the recent climate control talks.

Does this surprise anyone?

I hate to say it, but this is Bush's fault.

If he hadn't repudiated Kyoto, the US could have had some kind of programme in place now, and would be able to tell India and China to stop whinging and get with it.

Wait, Europe signed on, why didn't they sign on then?

How come they woun't sign on now?
Oh yea, the hundreds of thousands of jobs they'll get if the rest of the world kills itself with restrictions and they don't.

Europe is full of reasonable people who understand the value of international co-operation.

Kilkrazy wrote:I hate to say it, but this is Bush's fault.

Yeah, I heard he killed MJ too. And he also beats puppies and doesn't recycle.

Of course several of those targets were immediately delayed...

Evidently it had no effect upon India and China then or now though. Its not in their enlightened self interest to reduce carbon emissions, outside of shifting to nuclear reactors for power to avoid particulate pollution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I hate to say it, but this is Bush's fault.

Yeah, I heard he killed MJ too. And he also beats puppies and doesn't recycle.

1. No-kittens. He loves puppies, and sharks with friggin laser beams.
2. Only people in Austin recycle. The rest of Texas makes fun of them, and vice versa.

Frazzled wrote:Of course several of those targets were immediately delayed...

Evidently it had no effect upon India and China then or now though. Its not in their enlightened self interest to reduce carbon emissions, outside of shifting to nuclear reactors for power to avoid particulate pollution.

I just finished reading this a couple hours ago. Like the abstract says, the cost of Chinese pollution is 5.8% of GDP and rising. Also, about 70% of their potable water is toxic, so that's a little bit of an issue for the future.

Yes indeedy. Their particulate pollution is positively East German in its impressiveness. For a period of time they were opening an ungodly amount of dirty coal generators to feed electric need.

Personally I am counting on environmental degradation and their looming demographic problems to keep China off all our backs.

The last time the environment stopped a society was the Mayans (post followed by Dogma correcting me). We humans are as hardy as cochroaches. It will take more than that to stop the Chinese.

In 35 years China will be complaining about those upstarts in Eastern Europe takin all der yobs!, with some people saying the Iberian Peninsula is where ists at, and the cycle will begin again.

There's also that whole bit about developing a consumer economy while shifting to value added production.

The Easter Islanders were later than the Mayans.

Countries only do that when they can't compete on the heavy manufacturing front any more...

Here's an interesting OT. Is it just me or are the "empire timelines" accelerating?

Rome: what 5 centuries of kickbuttedness
Spain: about 2 - 2.5 centuries
British: what 1.5 - 2 centuries?
US: ~60 years
Japan: ~30 years
China? (factories are already shifting production to lower cost locations in SE Asia)
If you had a 30 year timeline would Africa be the place to invest?

The Japanese never had an empire of any real extent. I mean, Formosa and Korea don't constitute an Empire. You could as well have called the British an Empire once we owned the Channel Islands and Ireland.

I was lumping in mercantile empires etc, hence adding in the US, Japan, and China.

They did indeed have a military empire of course, but the US and Britain objected and our objection was sustained by order of the Atomic court, judge Enola Gay presiding.

Frazzled wrote:The last time the environment stopped a society was the Mayans (post followed by Dogma correcting me). We humans are as hardy as cochroaches. It will take more than that to stop the Chinese.

It won't stop them, but it will slow them down. Either they'll have to come up with a new way to power their industrial progress, or develop a means of coping with high rates of disease, low life expectancy, and water shortages in a nation of a billion people with over 300 million provided with internet access. That, and their population is projected to fall by 79 million in the next 30 years; meaning fewer workers supporting a much larger group of the elderly.

Frazzled wrote:Countries only do that when they can't compete on the heavy manufacturing front any more...

Here's an interesting OT. Is it just me or are the "empire timelines" accelerating?

Rome: what 5 centuries of kickbuttedness
Spain: about 2 - 2.5 centuries
British: what 1.5 - 2 centuries?
US: ~60 years
Japan: ~30 years
China? (factories are already shifting production to lower cost locations in SE Asia)
If you had a 30 year timeline would Africa be the place to invest?

I'm not sure its accelerating. Using the barest definition the US was an expansionist power from the very beginning, and an Imperial power once TR took office. Even now our empire is far from dead, though it certainly being force to cope with the reality of rising powers around the world. Something even the British had to do when dealing with France, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and late Germany.

It won't stop them, but it will slow them down. Either they'll have to come up with a new way to power their industrial progress, or develop a means of coping with high rates of disease, low life expectancy, and water shortages in a nation of a billion people with over 300 million provided with internet access.

Where's the down side again? They need to reduce their population in a big way, this is helpful to that goal.

Frazzled wrote:
Where's the down side again? They need to reduce their population in a big way, this is helpful to that goal.

The same as the downside inherent in the baby boom: an aging population. Oh, and social pressure. Plus health care costs, sick people tend to get sicker; creating all sorts of problems with infectious disease.

True that.

They do have a massive pollution problem. They need to address that before greenhouse gas emissions.

Kilkrazy wrote:I hate to say it, but this is Bush's fault.

If he hadn't repudiated Kyoto, the US could have had some kind of programme in place now, and would be able to tell India and China to stop whinging and get with it.

Spare me.
Clinton never sent it to Congress.
Bush never sent it to Congress.
Obama is not sending it to Congress.

Count yourself lucky you don't live in Australia.

When polled most Australians want a carbon emmission trading scheme.
When polled most Australians don't know what a carbon emissions trading scheme invoves.
When informed that it is (in essence) the taxing of carbon production, that can be offset by the carbon producers buying 'carbon offsets' from the govt, and each other so that they can make the same or even more carbon, but pass on the new tax cost onto end consumers (me, you, us, we), the number who want it drops.
When it is revealed that tens of thousand of jobs are to be lost as costs rise, when compared to other countries who do not have carbon emission trding scheme the numbers drop again.
When revealed that at an average cost of $4000AUS (About $3200US) per year per family for a predicted reduction in global temperature of one ten thousandth of a degree celcius the total, utter and complete retardedness of our politicians is revealed to all.

Frazzled wrote:Both China and India have rejected carbon cuts while recommending the US do so. Love it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/20/india-tells-clinton-no-carbon-cuts/

Yeah, so India takes a hard opening line, to provide bargaining space. Why?

I mean, you follow politics so you'd know that countries like any groups engaged in bargaining will take extreme positions to give themselves bargaining ground. But they'll indicate their willingness to negotiate with additional comments like this one from the article you linked to; 'It is possible for us to have an international agreement that recognizes formal but differentiated responsibilities'. Which means that they won't agree to the same level of cuts as the richest countries, but they will commit to their share. This is pretty basic stuff, so I'm left wondering why you suddenly forgot it all in order to be outraged or shocked in the sudden discovery that India apparently wasn't going to commit to any level of emissions control.

I have to disagree Sebbie. Its not a hard opening line. Its a public no. They said no before. They are saying no now. This is not a negotiation point for them as the request fo them is insane-

The choice they are given is: reduce carbon footprint or provide power, jobs, and higher standard of living for populace.

Peekachoo I choose you!

Kilkrazy wrote:I hate to say it, but this is Bush's fault.

If he hadn't repudiated Kyoto, the US could have had some kind of programme in place now, and would be able to tell India and China to stop whinging and get with it.

Dude, Kyoto was an absolute waste of time. There was no provision in there for failing to meet the standards and as a result, shockingly enough, hardly anyone met the standard. Some signatories, such as Canada, actually increased their relative emissions over the period covered Kyoto by more than the US did. It's a really complicated issue, and to meaningfully move forward we need an agreement far better than Kyoto.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Its not a hard opening line. Its a public no. They said no before. They are saying no now. This is not a negotiation point for them as the request fo them is insane-

The choice they are given is: reduce carbon footprint or provide power, jobs, and higher standard of living for populace.

Peekachoo I choose you!

You're playing a game where only two positions exist, equal emission cuts and no emission cuts. Which has nothing to do with any of the discussion of the issue since the first rounds of talks that led to Kyoto. India's position, like China's, has been that they want to be part of a global position, but it has to be recognised that they are developing economies and can't meet the extent of emission cuts that the richer countries can afford. This isn't secret information, it's part of the year 10 teaching package on the subject (I'm reliably informed by my housemate).

sebster wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I hate to say it, but this is Bush's fault.

If he hadn't repudiated Kyoto, the US could have had some kind of programme in place now, and would be able to tell India and China to stop whinging and get with it.

Dude, Kyoto was an absolute waste of time. There was no provision in there for failing to meet the standards and as a result, shockingly enough, hardly anyone met the standard. Some signatories, such as Canada, actually increased their relative emissions over the period covered Kyoto by more than the US did. It's a really complicated issue, and to meaningfully move forward we need an agreement far better than Kyoto.

Nonetheless, every journey starts with a first step. Kyoto would have been that first step, in diplomatic terms if not in substantive terms.

I have more hope from local programmes than from government action.

A town in the UK reduced 23% in a couple of years, by loft insulation, low-energy light bulbs, switching things off, and converting the chip shop fat into biodiesel.

Kilkrazy wrote:Nonetheless, every journey starts with a first step. Kyoto would have been that first step, in diplomatic terms if not in substantive terms.

True, but I'm not sure it would have really been a step forward. It might have given people the feeling of a step forward, but without anything in place to make or encourage anyone to actually do anything I'm not sure it counts.

I have more hope from local programmes than from government action.

A town in the UK reduced 23% in a couple of years, by loft insulation, low-energy light bulbs, switching things off, and converting the chip shop fat into biodiesel.

Good point. The biggest issue I have right now is that all the plans we have for reducing emissions are ceilings and the like. I'd much rather see a direct tax on emissions, with the money raised being used entirely to fund and subsidise green energy and energy saving schemes. So that if the fish and chippie wants to convert to bio-diesel then they could get a grant for half the cost of the capital investment, and similar schemes.

And your direct tax on emissions would hammer the poor, absolutely hammer them. I, China, and India welcome Australia, and Europe applying as severe a cap and trade program as possible.