| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
| Date: |
07 Dec 2007 11:37:54 AM |
| Object: |
Chinese Reveal Environmentalism Is Politics |
After years of joining in condemnation of the United States on
Environmental issues, China has revealed that it's all about socialist
politics. After earlier refusing to agree to Kyoto, China added to
this rejection by, today, announcing that it will not even consider
mandatory cuts on its pollution emission...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071207/ap_on_re_as/bali_climate_conference
....while demanding that the United States cut their emissions.
Indeed, this article points out that China produces MORE pollution and
is, therefore, a bigger threat to the environment, but the United
States is the worldwide threat for condemnation. Why does this
country of more environmental destruction than the US get a pass, and
the US gets condemned? It's because it was never about saving the
environment for them. It was, as the article points out, to stop the
extravagant lifestyle of the US (translation...their capitalism is too
prosperous for us). It's not about the rise of pollution but the rise
of the US economy that bothers them. And worldwide socialists join in
chorus. What do you bet that Clinton and Gore will not be condemning
China over this industrial rejection of pollution limits?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Chinese Reveal Environmentalism Is Politics |
07 Dec 2007 03:45:36 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:247f16f6-62cd-4493-82e9-64b0757834e0@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
After years of joining in condemnation of the United States on
Environmental issues, China has revealed that it's all about socialist
politics. After earlier refusing to agree to Kyoto, China added to
this rejection by, today, announcing that it will not even consider
mandatory cuts on its pollution emission...
While CHina is resisting mandatry cuts (an internal cultural and political
position), CHina is actively working to reducew itw carbon emissions, and
the resultant air pollution.
Its Three Gorges hydro-electric project, for ex, is the largest in the
worlld and will help CHina shut down dozens of filthy electric generating
plants. China is also pursuing other hydro-electric projeccts.
China is building asn auto indistry from scratch. Using technology
transfered from the US and monies from our trade deficit they will bwe
producing a line of small, highly fuel efficient cars for both internal
sales and export. Their goal is a CAFE standard in excess of 40mpg.
China is also on a major modernization binge, in many cases funded by US
industry, in its heavy industry ssector, US companies are paying (often as
part of a transfer of manufacturing from thre US to CHina) for upgrades in
everything from steel mills to chemical plants to assembly lines.
Larry
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071207/ap_on_re_as/bali_climate_conference
...while demanding that the United States cut their emissions.
Indeed, this article points out that China produces MORE pollution and
is, therefore, a bigger threat to the environment, but the United
States is the worldwide threat for condemnation. Why does this
country of more environmental destruction than the US get a pass, and
the US gets condemned? It's because it was never about saving the
environment for them. It was, as the article points out, to stop the
extravagant lifestyle of the US (translation...their capitalism is too
prosperous for us). It's not about the rise of pollution but the rise
of the US economy that bothers them. And worldwide socialists join in
chorus. What do you bet that Clinton and Gore will not be condemning
China over this industrial rejection of pollution limits?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werner" |
|
| Title: Re: Chinese Reveal Environmentalism Is Politics |
08 Dec 2007 11:24:24 AM |
|
|
On Dec 7, 4:45 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
....
While CHina is resisting mandatry cuts (an internal cultural and political
position), CHina is actively working to reducew itw carbon emissions, and
the resultant air pollution.
Most people resist mandatory obedience. Why should it be different in
China?
China seems to have adopted the practices of the former USSR by using
factory fishing fleets to suck all life out to the oceans. Perhaps it
will be persuaded to stop that practice. I recommend expanding
national ownership from now 200 miles to 1000 in effect reducing the
size of the common sea.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml
Its Three Gorges hydro-electric project, for ex, is the largest in the
worlld and will help CHina shut down dozens of filthy electric generating
plants. China is also pursuing other hydro-electric projeccts.
Can you imagine the far left enviro freaks here if the US build such a
dam?
China is building asn auto indistry from scratch. Using technology
transfered from the US and monies from our trade deficit they will bwe
producing a line of small, highly fuel efficient cars for both internal
sales and export. Their goal is a CAFE standard in excess of 40mpg.
China is also on a major modernization binge, in many cases funded by US
industry, in its heavy industry ssector, US companies are paying (often as
part of a transfer of manufacturing from thre US to CHina) for upgrades in
everything from steel mills to chemical plants to assembly lines.
Larry
Larry, that's because customers like to buy less expensive products
made in China. Wouldn't it be nice if our esteemed Congress could
mandate a kind of COLA on taxes and regulations friendly to business?
But without treasury money it becomes more difficult to buy votes.
Perhaps some day enough people will understand that governing has
become about money and privilege - taking it from some and giving it
to themselves.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml
Wasn't America supposed to be about voluntary agreement instead of
forced obedience?
http://www.ny.lp.org/choice
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Chinese Reveal Environmentalism Is Politics |
07 Dec 2007 02:44:21 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
After years of joining in condemnation of the United States on
Environmental issues, China has revealed that it's all about socialist
politics. After earlier refusing to agree to Kyoto, China added to
this rejection by, today, announcing that it will not even consider
mandatory cuts on its pollution emission...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071207/ap_on_re_as/bali_climate_conference
No mention of socialist politics in that article. Therefore you are
making something up.
Meanwhile, China's rejection merely means that it is taking the same
attitude as George Bush. So if China is doing "socialist politics" by
rejecting Kyoto, then so is George Bush.
Indeed, this article points out that China produces MORE pollution
No it doesn't
<Saudi Arabia was listed as last among the 56 nations, right below the
< United States.
<The group said Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, was the
< biggest "climate sinner" for the second year in a row because its
< emissions are rising and it has no firm policies to address that.
<The United States was ranked No. 55 because it opposes mandatory cuts
< in emissions and argues that technology, private investment and
< economic growth will save the planet from global warming.
You were perhaps referring to this paragraph which referred to
greenhouse gasses and not to pollution, made a very qualified claim
about what "many experts believe", and then countered it by noting
that per capita calculation indicate the opposite.
<While many experts believe China has surpassed the United States as
< the world's top emitter of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping
< gases, Su noted the Chinese population is far bigger and said
< America's emissions per person are six times higher than in China.
and is, therefore, a bigger threat to the environment, but the United
States is the worldwide threat for condemnation.
The article specifically said that Saudi Arabia was last, and that we
were next to last.
Why does this
country of more environmental destruction than the US get a pass, and
the US gets condemned?
Because it isn't, and we have been doing it longer, and we have a lot
more money that could be spent to fix it.
It was, as the article points out, to stop the
extravagant lifestyle of the US (translation...their capitalism is too
prosperous for us).
Translation: their capitalism is so energy wasteful, that for us to
exercise the same wastefulness would drive gas prices to $30 per
gallon.
It's not about the rise of pollution but the rise of the US economy that bothers them.
Their economy is growing faster than ours, and some people think is
growing too fast.
And worldwide socialists join in chorus.
So do non-socialists, and everyone else.
What do you bet that Clinton and Gore will not be condemning
China over this industrial rejection of pollution limits?
You are more than a year too late for Gore
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Gore_Calls_On_China_And_India_To_Tackle_Climate_Change_999.html
And 10 years too late for Bill Clinton
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDP/is_1998_July_6/ai_50189033
Hillary hasn't discussed the matter; her platform is dominated by
domestic issues:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
which makes sense because we have no leverage with other countries
having refused to sign the Kyoto agreement (even if Bush hadn't
destroyed our international reputation with our Iraq policy).
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Chinese Reveal Environmentalism Is Politics |
08 Dec 2007 07:09:18 AM |
|
|
On Dec 7, 2:44 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
After years of joining in condemnation of the United States on
Environmental issues, China has revealed that it's all about socialist
politics. After earlier refusing to agree to Kyoto, China added to
this rejection by, today, announcing that it will not even consider
mandatory cuts on its pollution emission...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071207/ap_on_re_as/bali_climate_conference
No mention of socialist politics in that article. Therefore you are
making something up.
Meanwhile, China's rejection merely means that it is taking the same
attitude as George Bush. So if China is doing "socialist politics" by
rejecting Kyoto, then so is George Bush.
Indeed, this article points out that China produces MORE pollution
No it doesn't
<Saudi Arabia was listed as last among the 56 nations, right below the
< United States.
<The group said Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, was the
< biggest "climate sinner" for the second year in a row because its
< emissions are rising and it has no firm policies to address that.
<The United States was ranked No. 55 because it opposes mandatory cuts
< in emissions and argues that technology, private investment and
< economic growth will save the planet from global warming.
You were perhaps referring to this paragraph which referred to
greenhouse gasses and not to pollution, made a very qualified claim
about what "many experts believe", and then countered it by noting
that per capita calculation indicate the opposite.
You know what per capita means...right? It doesn't meant that they
produce less prollution, only less per individual. So? It's still
killing the environment, right? It's still a higher quantity of
gasses per country. Even if it wasn't wouldn't it be bad, though?
Why are they getting a pass?
<While many experts believe China has surpassed the United States as
< the world's top emitter of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping
< gases, Su noted the Chinese population is far bigger and said
< America's emissions per person are six times higher than in China.
So, the United States doesn't need to cut emissions...just have more
kids...right?
and is, therefore, a bigger threat to the environment, but the United
States is the worldwide threat for condemnation.
Why does this
country of more environmental destruction than the US get a pass, and
the US gets condemned?
Because it isn't, and we have been doing it longer, and we have a lot
more money that could be spent to fix it.
Who cares who's been doing it longer? What does that have to do with
the question of fixing this environmental threat? In fact...and this
is a point that you consistently don't get..what does it matter what
others are doing in determining if you are right or wrong? If many
people are breaking the law, do I get arrested and jailed for doing
it, also? Is it still wrong, if many join in a riot?
It was, as the article points out, to stop the
extravagant lifestyle of the US (translation...their capitalism is too
prosperous for us).
Translation: their capitalism is so energy wasteful, that for us to
exercise the same wastefulness would drive gas prices to $30 per
gallon.
Ahh, so you admit capitalism is the problem for them?
It's not about the rise of pollution but the rise of the US economy that bothers them.
And worldwide socialists join in chorus.
What do you bet that Clinton and Gore will not be condemning
China over this industrial rejection of pollution limits?
You are more than a year too late for Gore
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Gore_Calls_On_China_And_India_To_Ta...
That doesn't have to do with condemning china for refusing Kyoto or
refusing limits on their pollution. Want to try again?
And 10 years too late for Bill Clintonhttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDP/is_1998_July_6/ai_50189033
Hillary hasn't discussed the matter; her platform is dominated by
domestic issues:http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
which makes sense because we have no leverage with other countries
having refused to sign the Kyoto agreement (even if Bush hadn't
destroyed our international reputation with our Iraq policy).
lojbab
Exactly. Hillary hasn't condemned them for it.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Chinese Reveal Environmentalism Is Politics |
08 Dec 2007 09:46:09 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
You were perhaps referring to this paragraph which referred to
greenhouse gasses and not to pollution, made a very qualified claim
about what "many experts believe", and then countered it by noting
that per capita calculation indicate the opposite.
You know what per capita means...right?
Yes.
It doesn't meant that they produce less prollution, only less per individual.
Well, you haven't posted any statistics on pollution (much less
prollution), so I don't think you know. I suspect that the US also
produced more pollution.
Some cities in China are extremely polluted. But most of China
The text in question referred to greenhouse gasses, not to pollution.
You apparently don't know the difference.
I did a little digging, which you didn't:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cfm?fa=eventDetail&id=923&&prog=zch
<To put the Chinese experience in perspective, Dr. Gallagher quoted
< some interesting statistics. Currently, China consumes 2/3 the total
< energy that the United States does, and emits 2/3 of the greenhouse
< gases. ... According to the International Energy Outlook, China will
< surpass the US in energy consumption in 2030 and in carbon dioxide
< emissions in 2015.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions
CO2 Emissions (most recent) by country
#1 United States: 5,762,050
#2 China: 3,473,600
So? It's still killing the environment, right? It's still a higher quantity of
gasses per country.
But it isn't, as you can see. And China, as a large country with a
lot more people, is expected to have a lot of pollution, which is why
people compare on a per capita or per square mile basis.
Even if it wasn't wouldn't it be bad, though?
Why are they getting a pass?
They aren't, as I demonstrated.
<While many experts believe China has surpassed the United States as
< the world's top emitter of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping
< gases, Su noted the Chinese population is far bigger and said
< America's emissions per person are six times higher than in China.
So, the United States doesn't need to cut emissions...just have more
kids...right?
We couldn't have enough kids.
Why does this
country of more environmental destruction than the US get a pass, and
the US gets condemned?
Because it isn't, and we have been doing it longer, and we have a lot
more money that could be spent to fix it.
Who cares who's been doing it longer?
Most people.
What does that have to do with the question of fixing this environmental threat?
A lot.
In fact...and this is a point that you consistently don't get..what does it matter what
others are doing in determining if you are right or wrong?
Because "right or wrong" in most situations is determined by what
others are doing.
If many people are breaking the law, do I get arrested and jailed for doing
it, also?
Depends on the law. If it is speeding on the expressway, you almost
certainly won't even get a ticket, much less arrested and jailed. If
it is cheating on your income tax by claiming your internet expenses
as a religious deduction (not that Kennie would ever do such a thing),
then you are unlikely to get caught, and therefore unlikely to go to
jail.
Is it "wrong" to speed on the expressway? Most people apparently
don't think so.
Is it still wrong, if many join in a riot?
That depends.
Was the Boston Tea Party "wrong"?
It was, as the article points out, to stop the
extravagant lifestyle of the US (translation...their capitalism is too
prosperous for us).
Translation: their capitalism is so energy wasteful, that for us to
exercise the same wastefulness would drive gas prices to $30 per
gallon.
Ahh, so you admit capitalism is the problem for them?
Our capitalism is wasteful. So is theirs.
It's not about the rise of pollution but the rise of the US economy that bothers them.
And worldwide socialists join in chorus.
What do you bet that Clinton and Gore will not be condemning
China over this industrial rejection of pollution limits?
You are more than a year too late for Gore
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Gore_Calls_On_China_And_India_To_Ta...
That doesn't have to do with condemning china for refusing Kyoto
China signed the Kyoto agreement.
Exactly. Hillary hasn't condemned them for it.
I suspect no candidate has, not that I have checked. It really isn't
much of an American issue what China does, since we aren't dealing
with our own problems.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Chinese Reveal Environmentalism Is Politics |
09 Dec 2007 07:19:57 AM |
|
|
On Dec 8, 9:46 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You were perhaps referring to this paragraph which referred to
greenhouse gasses and not to pollution, made a very qualified claim
about what "many experts believe", and then countered it by noting
that per capita calculation indicate the opposite.
You know what per capita means...right?
Yes.
It doesn't meant that they produce less prollution, only less per individual.
Well, you haven't posted any statistics on pollution (much less
prollution), so I don't think you know. I suspect that the US also
produced more pollution.
The text in question referred to greenhouse gasses, not to pollution.
You apparently don't know the difference.
So, greenhouse gasses are not an air pollution problem? Great. The
US cannot be condemned for them, then.
So? It's still killing the environment, right?
But it isn't, as you can see.
Even if it wasn't wouldn't it be bad, though?
Why are they getting a pass?
Because it isn't, and we have been doing it longer, and we have a lot
more money that could be spent to fix it.
Who cares who's been doing it longer?
What does that have to do with the question of fixing this environmental threat?
A lot.
Specifically...what does the length of doing it have to do with
whether it continues being done. Does this mean new countries have no
responsbility...wait..I forget I'm talking to the classical
irresponsible..
In fact...and this is a point that you consistently don't get..what does it matter what
others are doing in determining if you are right or wrong?
Because "right or wrong" in most situations is determined by what
others are doing.
If many people are breaking the law, do I get arrested and jailed for doing
it, also?
Depends on the law. If it is speeding on the expressway, you almost
certainly won't even get a ticket, much less arrested and jailed. If
it is cheating on your income tax by claiming your internet expenses
as a religious deduction (not that Kennie would ever do such a thing),
then you are unlikely to get caught, and therefore unlikely to go to
jail.
Is it "wrong" to speed on the expressway? Most people apparently
don't think so.
So, to reiterate your position...breaking the law isn't wrong, if
others are doing it too? You're really securing that irresponsible
title.
Is it still wrong, if many join in a riot?
That depends.
Enough said.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Chinese Reveal Environmentalism Is Politics |
09 Dec 2007 07:24:51 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
The text in question referred to greenhouse gasses, not to pollution.
You apparently don't know the difference.
So, greenhouse gasses are not an air pollution problem?
Correct.
The US cannot be condemned for them, then.
Of course it can.
Because it isn't, and we have been doing it longer, and we have a lot
more money that could be spent to fix it.
Who cares who's been doing it longer?
What does that have to do with the question of fixing this environmental threat?
A lot.
Specifically.
A lot.
You want something more specific, then you start specifically
answering the questions of others.
Depends on the law. If it is speeding on the expressway, you almost
certainly won't even get a ticket, much less arrested and jailed. If
it is cheating on your income tax by claiming your internet expenses
as a religious deduction (not that Kennie would ever do such a thing),
then you are unlikely to get caught, and therefore unlikely to go to
jail.
Is it "wrong" to speed on the expressway? Most people apparently
don't think so.
So, to reiterate your position
You are not capable of doing so. You are only capable of iterating
your own strawmen.
...breaking the law isn't wrong, if others are doing it too? You're really securing that irresponsible
title.
Tell it to Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and other proponents of
civil disobedience.
Is it still wrong, if many join in a riot?
That depends.
Enough said.
You ignored my question.
Were those who joined in the Boston Tea Party wrong?
Were the Rumanians who rioted and overthrew their communist
dictatorship wrong?
Was Jesus Christ, who rioted in the Temple, overturning the tables of
the moneychangers wrong?
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
