China, you're just a developing country, so you don't have to sign kyoto

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter member 5645
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    China Sign
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the fairness and implications of the Kyoto Protocol, particularly in relation to China as a developing country and its status as a major greenhouse gas emitter. Participants explore the responsibilities of developed versus developing nations in addressing climate change, the economic impacts of the treaty, and the effectiveness of the Kyoto agreement.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that China, as the second largest polluter, should be held to the same standards as developed nations under the Kyoto Protocol.
  • Others assert that it is unreasonable to expect developing countries like China to meet the same targets as developed nations, citing economic disparities.
  • Concerns are raised about the fairness of the Kyoto Protocol, with some suggesting it disproportionately targets the U.S. while allowing developing nations to emit more.
  • Some participants highlight the historical context of poverty in China and argue for compassion in the discussion of pollution standards.
  • There are claims that the Kyoto Protocol is ineffective if major emitters like China and India are not required to participate meaningfully.
  • Participants express skepticism about the motivations behind the Kyoto Protocol and its potential economic impacts on the U.S. compared to other nations.
  • Some argue that if the U.S. could reduce its per capita emissions to the level of China's, it would significantly contribute to solving the climate problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether developing countries should be exempt from strict emissions targets. There are competing views on the fairness and effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the responsibilities of different nations in combating climate change.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the economic implications of the Kyoto Protocol for both developed and developing nations, as well as the definitions of fairness in international climate agreements.

member 5645
But you make the second most pollution on earth...

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/120966/1/.html
China is now the world's second biggest polluter of carbon dioxide

he IEA report, timed to coincide with a UN conference on climate change in Buenos Aires, confirmed the growing role of China and other developing countries in the worsening greenhouse-gas problem.

Eighty percent of carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution in 2002 was emitted by 22 countries, the IEA said.

The biggest polluter by far was the United States, with 23.5 percent of the total, followed by China, with 13.6 percent.

Afterwards came Russia (6.2 percent), Japan (five percent), India (4.2 percent), Germany (3.5 percent), Britain and Canada (2.2 percent each), South Korea (1.9 percent), Italy (1.8 percent) and France (1.6 percent).

The United States walked away from Kyoto in 2001, arguing it would be too expensive to meet the treaty's commitments and branding the deal as unfair because countries like China and India, which have big populations and fast-growing economies, are not required to make targeted reductions.

But of course, we Americans are just big fat greedy devils! Or could it have to do with the fact that the 'holy grail' of climate control pragmatically targets the US economy, instead of pollution??
:rolleyes:

Someone want to explain why this is a fair document that we should support?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you insist that it is unreasonable to hold developed nations to a higher standard than developing or under-developed countries ?

And you haven't explained why Kyoto targets the US in particular, rather than all of the developed, industrialized world.
 
"They're worse so we're ok".. err.. "They're almost as bad, so we're OK" rather.
 
phatmonky said:
But you make the second most pollution on earth...
But of course, we Americans are just big fat greedy devils! Or could it have to do with the fact that the 'holy grail' of climate control pragmatically targets the US economy, instead of pollution??
:rolleyes:
China:
-1,298,847,624 People
-Developing Nation
-13.5%
-Considerably far behind the west science and technology-wise

United States:
-293,027,571 People
-Developed Nation
-Most Powerfull Nation in the World
-Most Advanced Nation in the World
-Largest Economy in the World
-23.5%

http://www.zhb.gov.cn/english/treaty.php3


Someone want to explain why this is a fair document that we should support?
I don't know why you care if it's "Fair". I don't know what makes you think it's "Fair", but you should support it because it's what's going to give your grand children the chance to run the in the forests, swim in the rivers, see the sun without getting caner and breath air without a filter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phatmonkey, why is it that you never seem to want to hold America up to a higher standard than the rest of the world?
 
Phatmonky, there are still tens of millions of us in China who make about US$130 A YEAR. And it was just about 40 years ago when some of us in poverty stricken villages had to eat fine grain clay with shredded and squeezed weeds (make a ball and steamed). The "food" was able to fill the belly for a while, but many many died from it. Have a heart.
 
Smurf said:
"They're worse so we're ok".. err.. "They're almost as bad, so we're OK" rather.

Nope, not my words at all. Don't start that.
 
Old news. This was one of many reasons Kyoto was never going to do anything good at all.
 
Gokul43201 said:
Do you insist that it is unreasonable to hold developed nations to a higher standard than developing or under-developed countries ?

And you haven't explained why Kyoto targets the US in particular, rather than all of the developed, industrialized world.

I insist that the second largest producer of green house gases should be required to join the supposed holy grail. It is unreasonable to give them a pass.
I am fine with us cleaning up more, for we produce more pollution. However, to say well "#2 producer of emissions, you don't count because we go by 1990 levels"


If nothing else , for the fact that none of the signatories that chastise us have any pragmatic action that shows they have a real goal of acting (There's also the argument that we are monopoly market). There's massive pressure for us to join, yet no one else is doing anything about their own problems. The only thing us joining and acting does is remove our economic competiveness further against China, India...and a Europe that speaks without acting themselves (spain's emissions have risen 33% percent since 1990, and portugal 36%).

China falsely holds their currency low, and that is a major problem for a document that uses numbers based on pollution per capita earning. China should float their currency and be subject to join Kyoto (I'm also for a slight rewriting of the document, but that's another thread). All of the same goes for India.
 
  • #10
Locrian said:
Old news. This was one of many reasons Kyoto was never going to do anything good at all.

Not old news. China just became #2 polluter recently. This is even more evidence or what IS old news...that Kyoto is unfair.
 
  • #11
Smurf said:
I don't know why you care if it's "Fair". I don't know what makes you think it's "Fair", but you should support it because it's what's going to give your grand children the chance to run the in the forests, swim in the rivers, see the sun without getting caner and breath air without a filter.

The Kyoto agreement will do nothing (assuming we all believe acting will fix crisis level climate change) if you've got the second and third largest producers of greenhouse gases (China, and eventually India will take these places,and eventually first place, but still be considered developing because of their population sizes) doing NOTHING. As is often the argument, pollution doesn't end at a country's borders.
So where is that mentality now? Suddenly it's gone and replaced with "ohhh, but we should hold ourselves to a higher standard"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Phatmonkey:

1) Chnia HAS ratfied the Kyoto protocol so your point is moot.

2) Chnia is a much larger country than the US in terms of popualtion yet it produces signifcantly less pollutoin. In fact given that it has the laregst population even in a world where pollution is minimized one would still epxect it to be the largest polluter!

If the US could bring it's level of pollution per capitia down to the level of Chnia's then that would be a signifcant step towards solving the problem.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Polly said:
Phatmonky, there are still tens of millions of us in China who make about US$130 A YEAR. And it was just about 40 years ago when some of us in poverty stricken villages had to eat fine grain clay with shredded and squeezed weeds (make a ball and steamed). The "food" was able to fill the belly for a while, but many many died from it. Have a heart.

If your country floated it's currency, then there'd be far less people making 130 bucks a day as the Yuan would be properly valued, instead of slave driving levels it is at.

My heart is here. Stop the BS of making me into the bad guy for holding a stance that a document on attacking a global problem should have global implementation.
 
  • #14
jcsd said:
Phatmonkey:

1) Chnia HAS ratfied the Kyoto protocol so your point is moot.

2) Chnia is a much larger country than the US in terms of popualtion yet it produces signifcantly less pollutoin. In fact given that it has the laregst population even in a world where pollution is minimized one would still epxect it to be the largest polluter!

If the US could bring it's level of pollution per capitia down to the level of Chnia's then that would be a signifcant step towards solving the problem.

1> It's not moot unless there is the same pressure applied to them as us. If it is so moot, China/India should just be required to join. I've got a thread of people explaining why they shouldn't be held to it. At this time, if we all jumped in and gave a good word, China's clean air policies can be disregarded anytime in order to be more competive against our economy (this brings the economy issue, but also the issue that nothing is being done to curb emissions). Hey, actual signatories in Europe have abandoned the whole treaty in reality (maybe spain will prove me wrong in the next few years, but at their rate of increase HA, I doubt it).

2>And is on track to become the number one polluter due to this. How good is a policy that allows the number one polluter to go unchecked, until their economy takes over it's hindered competitors?
Come on guys, you would rip me a new one for forgetting pollution doesn't end at a countries borders. Somehow you've all forgotten it.
 
  • #15
wasteofo2 said:
Phatmonkey, why is it that you never seem to want to hold America up to a higher standard than the rest of the world?
'Never seems' being your operative mistake, and thus making any response to this a fallacy.
I often do with to hold us to a higher standard.
 
  • #16
1) Chnia and India have both ratifed the Kyoto protocls and therefore why would there be any pressure for them to join soemthing they've already joined!

2) Countries that are relatively low polluters per capita and deveolping countries under the terms of the protocols, do not have to reduce their polltuion immedautelty though I believe there is a cap on the incerase. China per capita is relatively a low polluter and it is also a devloping country. The amount of pollution produced by the USA is huge in itself, but it is also vatly disproportinate to it's population and it is one of the few contries that is in a postion to reduce it.
 
  • #17
jcsd said:
1) Chnia and India have both ratifed the Kyoto protocls and therefore why would there be any pressure for them to join soemthing they've already joined!

2) Countries that are relatively low polluters per capita and deveolping countries under the terms of the protocols, do not have to reduce their polltuion immedautelty though I believe there is a cap on the incerase. China per capita is relatively a low polluter and it is also a devloping country. The amount of pollution produced by the USA is huge in itself, but it is also vatly disproportinate to it's population and it is one of the few contries that is in a postion to reduce it.


1>Considering it's our main objection to joining, and has been for a while, you would think that such a move to make them actual signatories, rather than excusable "good tries" would be in effect. Rewrite the document, bring on the USA, forces russia to sign(who wasn't ratifying until recently). Instant power behind the protocol.

2>I'm aware of all of this.
 
  • #18
How many times do I have to tell you, they've signed the bloody document! :smile:
 
  • #19
Just in case you don't realize you sign a document first THEN you ratify it (even the US have signed it, but they haven't ratified it).
 
  • #20
jcsd said:
How many times do I have to tell you, they've signed the bloody document! :smile:


Again, it doesn't matter, as there is no pressure to meet ANY level of compliance. What don't you understand about that?
They have entered a "we will pay you credits if you do a certain amount of cleanup".They are not obligated AT ALL to meet ANY certain level of requirement.

You are now starting the typical overusage of punctuation and laugh smilies. Try not to hop on the next downgrade of internet debate by calling me names.
 
  • #21
The first stage of the Kyoto protocol is reducing the greenhouse emissions of devolped countries, this first stage was never meant to apply to Chnia so why are you whining? But just last week they announced measures to curb emmisions anyway (as a note they have actually announced

The problem is your moaning about a relatively low polluter like China with a developing economy, who I'd guess probably wouldn't even have even have to reduce emisisons even if they were a devolped country under the protocols comparing to a completely disproptinate polluter with a devolped economy, CLEARLY the requirements are going to be different!
 
  • #22
phatmonky said:
'Never seems' being your operative mistake, and thus making any response to this a fallacy.
I often do with to hold us to a higher standard.
Well, why in THIS CASE do you not see it proper to hold America to a higher standard than countries like China?
 
  • #23
wasteofo2 said:
Well, why in THIS CASE do you not see it proper to hold America to a higher standard than countries like China?

I'd compromise to a sliding scale even, but an absolute cut off is not in the playbooks IMO.
I feel like this conversation could just as easily be a flat-tax vs. sliding scale conversation sometimes haha :wink
 
  • #24
jcsd said:
The first stage of the Kyoto protocol is reducing the greenhouse emissions of devolped countries, this first stage was never meant to apply to Chnia so why are you whining? But just last week they announced measures to curb emmisions anyway (as a note they have actually announced

The problem is your moaning about a relatively low polluter like China with a developing economy, who I'd guess probably wouldn't even have even have to reduce emisisons even if they were a devolped country under the protocols comparing to a completely disproptinate polluter with a devolped economy, CLEARLY the requirements are going to be different!


'moaning', 'whining'...drop the deragatory choice of words and I'll continue with you.
 
  • #25
phatmonky said:
If your country floated it's currency, then there'd be far less people making 130 bucks a day as the Yuan would be properly valued, instead of slave driving levels it is at.

My heart is here. Stop the BS of making me into the bad guy for holding a stance that a document on attacking a global problem should have global implementation.

*fails to duck RPG and is killed in action" :biggrin:
 
  • #26
Polly said:
*fails to duck RPG and is killed in action" :biggrin:
NNNNNOOOOOOoooOOooooo! POLLLLLLLYYYY!
 
  • #27
:devil: Don't worry Smurfee, I will come back and haunt Badmonky.
 
  • #28
wasteofo2 said:
Well, why in THIS CASE do you not see it proper to hold America to a higher standard than countries like China?
It is always proper to hold the US to a higher standard: we're better than countries like China and everyone knows it (try to argue against that without saying we should be treated equally... :smile: ).

The problem, in this case, is China (and developing countries) is being held to no standard.
 
  • #29
russ_watters said:
The problem, in this case, is China (and developing countries) is being held to no standard.
One... more... time... CHINA IS REDUCING EMISSIONS
US isn't. China isn't being held to a standard because it's already holding itself to a standard. The US isn't.
 
  • #30
Smurf said:
One... more... time... CHINA IS REDUCING EMISSIONS
Do you have a source for that? Some numbers? Wikipedia says:
China has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and is expected to become an Annex I country within the next decade.
Which means right now they have no restrictions.

HERE is the Kyoto website with a list of countries and their targets (Annex I): notice that China is not on that list.

I won't claim to be a Kyoto expert, so if I'm wrong, please show me (just saying I'm wrong isn't good enough).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News China Urges US to sign the Kyoto Treaty
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K