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

[member 5645]

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.

The US isn't reducing emissions?? Only a 10 year program to reduce the carbon emissions of the US by 18% by 2012. Try not to let that bias against the USA mess with the facts. Perhaps you can chastise spain and portugal at some point.

The double standard that you guys are setting in this thread is hilarious.

If China is okay because they are implementing whatever reduction policy, then the USA should be free to implement our own choice of reduction policy as well. Afterall, the main argument you are giving me is that China shouldn't be bothered to join because she'll handle herself. So can we.

If the USA should be forced to join the Kyoto protocol, then China should be too. This talk of higher standards means that we are trusted with a higher responsibility. By that string of logic, then if we need the global supervision of Kyoto, China REALLY needs it.

And this entire time, no one mentions that China is being bribed (maybe that's a harsh word...) to act inline with any reduction, while the rest of us pay out of our own pocket fully. This still doesn't address that if China is better suited to forgoe emissions reduction for a few years, to make itself more competitive economically, then there is/will be no pressure by the international community for not adhering. The attitude of "they are doing it on there own" is already prevailing in this thread, when it's not even the reality (haha, or the reality of those that have signed Kyoto for real.)

 

[member 5645]

Do you have a source for that? Some numbers? Wikipedia says: Which means right now they have no restrictions.

HERE is the Kyoto website with a list of countries and their targets: 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).

What's also interesting to note is the EU has done a neat little plan to exploit the poorer countries in it's region. They have changed it to allowing a 'bubble' to be formed around the EU allowing it to adjust it's levels as a whole.
This means that instantly Spain's 30% increase in emissions over the last years is instantly marginalized by the admission of the smaller soviet bloc countries that have a low output. Instant reduction without hurting Spain's economy...
And the Kyoto protocol doesn't have political goals at all??

 

[Gokul43201]

The US releases 6.6 metric tonnes in carbon equivalents (MTC) of greenhouse gas per capita per year (over 4 times the global average). Does that not upset you ?

On the other hand, China releases 1.1 MTC per capita and India releases 0.5 MTC per capita...perhaps they should be allowed more? Anyway, the US has a long way to go down before it can start complaining about China.

Besides the above, here are some reasons why I think there's more pressure on the US, than on China :

1. The US can afford it. People won't die in the US, if greenhouse levels are required to go down immediately.

2. The Treaty was intended in this first phase, to apply to the developed nations. If developed nations (that are emitting way more greenhouse gas per capita) don't agree to the Treaty, what moral high ground will they have, to get developing countries - where millions of children die of starvation every year - to fall in too ?

If you think Polly should give up some fraction of her 1.1 MTC before you will sacrifice any of your 6.6, that to me, is unfair.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The US releases 6.6 metric tonnes in carbon equivalents (MTC) of greenhouse gas per capita per year (over 4 times the global average). Does that not upset you ?

On the other hand, China releases 1.1 MTC per capita and India releases 0.5 MTC per capita...perhaps they should be allowed more? Anyway, the US has a long way to go down before it can start complaining about China.

I notice you always state your numbers per capita, which make China look good because you can divide by their population (how many billions now?). What are the absolute numbers? How does China's total insult to the atmosphere compare to the US one?

Your statement that no-one will die if the US implements the Kyoto reductions is unrealistic. The reductions have been evaluated to cause a deep recession in the US, and some people always do die from lessened life style in a US recession. Some people lose their living and commit suicide.

 

[russ_watters]

I notice you always state your numbers per capita, which make China look good because you can divide by their population (how many billions now?). What are the absolute numbers?

Or even per $$ of GDP, since GDP is the factor most directly related to pollution...?

The thing that gets me about Kyoto type treaties is that while its true that implimentation of changes is easier for more prosperous countries, the reason for that is these countries have already spent a lot of money developing the technology that enables the changes. Countries like China get the technology for free.

Case in point: CFC's. Developing the technology to replace CFC's wasn't cheap and it was done in the West. That made implimentation relatively easy for developing countries.

 

[Gokul43201]

I notice you always state your numbers per capita, which make China look good because you can divide by their population (how many billions now?). What are the absolute numbers? How does China's total insult to the atmosphere compare to the US one?

You can always find a large enough group of people whose combined contributions compare to the US. If tomorrow, all of Africa became a single country, they would become a dominant polluter.

Your statement that no-one will die if the US implements the Kyoto reductions is unrealistic. The reductions have been evaluated to cause a deep recession in the US, and some people always do die from lessened life style in a US recession. Some people lose their living and commit suicide.

While that's true (and I didn't mean "no one" literally), it's hardly comparable to the damage similar impositions will have on countries like India where an average middle class household can not afford air conditioning at home, to alleviate the misery of 110F summers.

 

[member 5645]

You can always find a large enough group of people whose combined contributions compare to the US. If tomorrow, all of Africa became a single country, they would become a dominant polluter.

And that's irrelevant since China IS a single country already, and IS the second largest polluter, and IS on track to be the first. How good of an idea is kyoto if it can't apply to the number one polluter when China becomes that? It already doesn't apply to her as the number two polluter.

Is the point of the document to ease global warming, or make the west, specifically the USA, clean up the world's mess while giving developing countries an even greater reason to keep slavery wages low?

 

[Gokul43201]

And that's irrelevant since China IS a single country already, and IS the second largest polluter, and IS on track to be the first. How good of an idea is kyoto if it can't apply to the number one polluter when China becomes that? It already doesn't apply to her as the number two polluter.

You don't think this large number of people deserve their rightful share of emissions ?

China can only reduce it total emissions a significant amount by reducing its total population.

Requiring that it emit much less than 1 MTC per person is unreasonable (this being way below the global average), so all this - making China sign Kyoto and agree to reduce emissions - will do is require a drastic population reduction along with a roughly constant per capita emission.

On the other hand, I think preventing too rapid an escalation is important, and that would be something worth making China/India/everyone else sign.