Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. Dec 7, 2004 #1
    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??

    Someone want to explain why this is a fair document that we should support?
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 7, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  4. Dec 7, 2004 #3
    "They're worse so we're ok".. err.. "They're almost as bad, so we're OK" rather.
  5. Dec 7, 2004 #4
    -1,298,847,624 People
    -Developing Nation
    -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

    http://www.zhb.gov.cn/english/treaty.php3 [Broken]

    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: May 1, 2017
  6. Dec 7, 2004 #5
    Phatmonkey, why is it that you never seem to want to hold America up to a higher standard than the rest of the world?
  7. Dec 8, 2004 #6
    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.
  8. Dec 8, 2004 #7
    Nope, not my words at all. Don't start that.
  9. Dec 8, 2004 #8
    Old news. This was one of many reasons Kyoto was never going to do anything good at all.
  10. Dec 8, 2004 #9
    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.
  11. Dec 8, 2004 #10
    Not old news. China just became #2 polluter recently. This is even more evidence or what IS old news...that Kyoto is unfair.
  12. Dec 8, 2004 #11
    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: Dec 8, 2004
  13. Dec 8, 2004 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    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. Infact 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: Dec 8, 2004
  14. Dec 8, 2004 #13
    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.
  15. Dec 8, 2004 #14
    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.
  16. Dec 8, 2004 #15
    '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.
  17. Dec 8, 2004 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  18. Dec 8, 2004 #17

    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.
  19. Dec 8, 2004 #18


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How many times do I have to tell you, they've signed the bloody document!!!!!!!! :rofl:
  20. Dec 8, 2004 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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).
  21. Dec 8, 2004 #20

    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook