China, World's Biggest CO2 emitter

[Tommy-K]

Did anyone else see in the news this week that China has overtaken the US as the world's biggest CO2 emitter? Yet more evdience that their industry is getting so much stronger and that soon they will indeed become the world's biggest superpower. America rpoduces 1000tonnes of CO2 every 5 seconds, so I dread to think what the figures for China are now? Is this not worrying?

[Dr Mindbender]

Im more worried about America's blatant disregard for international incentives to deal with the problem. China's attitude is, 'well if the states can get away with it, why cant we, since we need to develop'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Surely it's not China, it's Tony Bl(hot)air?? :D

[Janus]

America rpoduces 1000tonnes of CO2 every 5 seconds, so I dread to think what the figures for China are now?
According to the NEAA which conducted this study, the PRC produced 6.2 million tonnes compared to the US's 5.8 million tonnes. However, China is still far behind the US and the UK in terms of CO2 emissions per capita.

[pedro san pedro]

most 'western' countries are, aren't they? even clean green new zealand pumps out a lot more per capita than china

[apathy maybe]

Indeed, while this sounds like a terrible thing (and it isn't a good thing), it isn't as bad as what you might think. Most over developed countries are much more polluting per capita.

This is one reason why the US's stance is such a load of bullshit, they want the developing countries to also sign up for emission reduction targets, yet are the single most polluting country per capita, and (now) the second most polluting country full stop!

[TC]

Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 30, 2007 03:33 pm
Did anyone else see in the news this week that China has overtaken the US as the world's biggest CO2 emitter?
not per-capita by a long ways :lol:

[Pawn Power]

Supposedly sheep in, holland I believe, are produce a generous amount of CO2.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 02, 2007 04:39 am
most 'western' countries are, aren't they? even clean green new zealand pumps out a lot more per capita than china
divide anything by 1.3 billion.

Most of chinas residents barely own anything more enviromentally damaging than a scooter.

The C02 emissions come from the sweatshops owned by western corporations.

[Vanguard1917]

In today's world it's better for a developing country to be a high CO2 emitter than to be a low CO2 emitter. The developing countries with the lowest CO2 emissions are also likely to be the countries with the lowest life expectancies and the highest child mortality rates (list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)). With that in mind, all i can say is, good for China!

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by TragicClown+July 02, 2007 10:54 am--> (TragicClown @ July 02, 2007 10:54 am)
Tommy-[email protected] 30, 2007 03:33 pm
Did anyone else see in the news this week that China has overtaken the US as the world's biggest CO2 emitter?
not per-capita by a long ways :lol: [/b]
Hmmm, I wonder why...

[Vanguard1917]

Most of chinas residents barely own anything more enviromentally damaging than a scooter.

That's right. In 2002 China was the world's second biggest CO2 emitter. However, CO2 emissions per capita, it was well below the industrialised West, and even below countries like Mexico, Iran, Turkey and South Africa (graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CO2_emission_2002.png)). While everyone in the West seems to be worried that China is developing 'too fast', China in fact needs much more economic (and social) development in order to raise the bulk of its population out of poverty.

[Fidelbrand]

China should go more socialist and greener,
and get more involved in the Kyoto Protocol,
since it is ruled by the CCP .

[Karl Marx's Camel]

China should go more socialist

How does a capitalist country go "more socialist", if we speak on a more practical level?

It is natural to assume the capitalist class do not want this, after all they want to maximize profit and minimize cost, and... I assume the people do not have even legal way of creating even the smallest changes (such as bourgeois democracy)?

Usually a capialist nation doesn't "go more socialist", it expands on social support in order to calm down the masses.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:50 am

Most of chinas residents barely own anything more enviromentally damaging than a scooter.

That's right. In 2002 China was the world's second biggest CO2 emitter. However, CO2 emissions per capita, it was well below the industrialised West, and even below countries like Mexico, Iran, Turkey and South Africa (graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CO2_emission_2002.png)). While everyone in the West seems to be worried that China is developing 'too fast', China in fact needs much more economic (and social) development in order to raise the bulk of its population out of poverty.
Yes! And only neolibral globalization and bring them that!

[apathy maybe]

To be fair, he didn't say that.

I agree that China needs more development, though I'm not sure that I would agree with Vanguard1917 on the sort of development needed.

Firstly, I reject the need for more coal power plants, more massive dams (I'm interested in people's opinions on dams such as the Three Gorges Dam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three+Gorges+Dam)) or similar projects.

One thing that China could do, is to invest a shit load more into electric cars, solar panels and wind turbines. Similarly, they could use these fluro light bulbs and other energy efficient devices. Anyway, I might add more later, but right now, I have to go.

[socialistfuture]

china is getting a lot of green development as well as the worldbank/capitalist-vanguard17 type.

they are building what they are calling an eco city near shanghai on an island - i was reading about it in a new internationalist. will put links up if i find anything on the net.

i think its the two new coal power plants a week that is fucking them up. a lot of the rural peasants are rioting and getting up in arms as the devlopment and vast wealth of china is benefiting the middle class, ruling class and thwe rest of the elite. i'd say class is still a huge factor in China, and the type of development there is on such a huge and non democratic scale that a lot get left behind.

its likely china needs a new form of revolution.

[socialistfuture]

have a read of http://www.chinadialogue.net/
because it is a chinese website some characters wont come up - be cool to hear some views from chinese comrades.

[Vanguard1917]

Condemnations of China by Western politicians, media commentators and NGO activists need to be strongly opposed. We need to support China's right to develop however it sees fit. Indeed, the major reason for China's development is its relative freedom from Western influence.

Whether China is criticised for developing 'unsustainably', for its lack of co-operation with the 'international community' and Western NGOs, its human rights record, or even for its exploitation of workers and peasants in China - these criticisms by Western elites need to be recognised in the context of an existing state of deep anxiety in Western society about the East. Western criticisms of China's economic growth (whatever their content) need to be seen as nothing less than chauvinist attacks against China and, more broadly, against the developing world.

[apathy maybe]

Why should we oppose condemnation of China's human rights abuses? Why should we oppose condemnation of China's inherently unstable political system?

And to the point, why should we oppose condemnation (or even not join in that condemnation) if China does develop in a stupid, unsustainable fashion?

The thing about underdeveloped countries is that they have a unique opportunity to by pass many of the inefficient and unsustainable practices that were used in the overdeveloped countries. They have the potential to leap frog technology.

We can see this best with telecommunications technology in parts of Africa. Rather then laying down expensive landline cables for telephones, companies are putting in mobile towers. It is much cheaper and faster to do this. And, because often the main power grid doesn't reach these towers, they use sustainable decentralised energy sources (solar panels mostly I think).

We should encourage these countries to leap frog unsustainable technology, not tell them they should go through each stage like Britain (e.g.) did.

[Vanguard1917]

Why should we oppose condemnation of China's human rights abuses? Why should we oppose condemnation of China's inherently unstable political system?

And to the point, why should we oppose condemnation (or even not join in that condemnation) if China does develop in a stupid, unsustainable fashion?

Because China should have a right to self-determination - to be free from Western meddling. Like all non-Western countires, China should be free to form its own policies without Western interference.

Western elites like to highlight problems abroad as a means to win support for intervention. This is a basic Western ruling class manouver which needs to be consistently opposed.


We should encourage these countries to leap frog unsustainable technology, not tell them they should go through each stage like Britain (e.g.) did.

What do you mean 'we'? You mean Western states? International organisations? NGOs? What?

More to the point, why do 'we' have to 'tell' the Chinese anything? Developing countries should have to listen to 'enlightened' Westerners who know what's best for them?

No, they shouldn't. They should have autonomy and state sovereignty - i.e. the political freedom to devise their own policies free from Western meddling.

Indeed, as i pointed out above, the major reason that China has been able to develop at such an impressive rate is due to its relative freedom from Western influence over the years.

[Andy Bowden]

Western governments have neither the moral authority, nor admirable motives for condemning China or possibly intervening in its internal situation.

However "we" ie the Left should not feel in any sense duty bound not to criticise Chinas appalling anti-worker abuses, regardless of whether or not they are seen to be "neccessary" by the Chinese bueracracy or sections of international capital.

For example, the huge rates of fatalities in Chinese mines.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 04, 2007 06:56 pm
However "we" ie the Left should not feel in any sense duty bound not to criticise Chinas appalling anti-worker abuses, regardless of whether or not they are seen to be "neccessary" by the Chinese bueracracy or sections of international capital.
Absolutely. However, as 'leftists' in the West, our primary duty to the people of the non-Western world should be to defend them against Western interference - however such interference is justified.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:58 am
We need to support China's right to develop however it sees fit.
Surely the chinese capitalists and state officals have the best intrests of the people at heart? :rolleyes:

We do not need to support any state's "right to develop." This does not mean we support foriegn intervention or supranational pressure. If China is "developing" in a way that is harmful to the majority of workers we can certainly oppose it. We can oppose injustice.

"Development," which is really capitialist development, habitually calls for the expansion of corporate control, privitization, deregulation, etc. and in some cases increased state control over "human rights."

Of course, our western states are also "developing" in a way that is in many ways harmful to us and to the rest of the world. Which should also be wholly opposed. This development is not necessarily connected to increased standards of living, scientific progress, freedom, human rights, etc.

[socialistfuture]

chinese, tibetan and taiwanese people have a right to self determination - the chinese state has a right to listen to the people.

NGOs criticize the government because the people can't without receiving the death penalty and loosing a few organs.

ever been there capitalist vanguard? u read much about what the poor in china think and how they live? devlopment so the rich can get richer. there are many kinda of development - the ones u advocate are usually neo liberal and capitalist in nature with red rhetoric. chinese rights to self determination mean the the communities decide - not a dictator and his party hacks.

~

[socialistfuture]

Absolutely. However, as 'leftists' in the West, our primary duty to the people of the non-Western world should be to defend them against Western interference - however such interference is justified.

like freetrade and neo liberal policies suggested by western institutions, corporations and buisnesses (and polits - who run the buisnesses or at least are on the boards etc)?

[Vanguard1917]

We do not need to support any state's "right to develop." This does not mean we support foriegn intervention or supranational pressure. If China is "developing" in a way that is harmful to the majority of workers we can certainly oppose it. We can oppose injustice.

We don't oppose the development itself; we oppose the injustice and the exploitation. And when the Chinese working class fights back, we give our full support to them - since they are the people who can put an end to the injustice and exploitation.

Now, this is the vital point: supporting the Chinese working class is highly problematic for the environmentalist opponents of economic development.

When the Chinese working class starts demanding higher wages, Western environmentalists start sweating. The last thing they want is Chinese people having more money to consume more 'stuff'. They don't want the Chinese people to lift themselves out of poverty - and they're quite open about this: for people in the developing world to enjoy Western living standards, we would need four Earths. Etc, etc.

Therefore, we see the deeply chauvinist side of environmentalism. Western environmentalists (who are overwhelmingly from priviledged middle class backgrounds) stick their noses up at people who desire greater material prosperity.

That's one reason why environmentalists like to romanticise peasant life in the developing world. We are continually told about people in the countryside being moved into the towns due to urbanisation and how this is destorying the peasant 'way of life'. Western environmentalists like to celebrate the actions of obscure tree huggers in India (for example, the 'Chipko movement'). They prefer and are more comfortable with their third-worlders living in villages and huts, not in cities like Westerners.

Well, in 2003, 40 million workers went on strike in India, but we never hear about that. If the environmentalists from the NGOs supported these struggles as enthusiastically as they celebrate a few handfuls of tree-huggers, i'd take my hat off to them.

But environmentalists cannot support the working class of the developing world. They fear the rise of the working class as much as those 'evil corporayshuns' do. In order to take sides with the working class, you first have to take sides with humanity. And that's something which the environmentalists have shown that they aren't prepared to do.

[socialistfuture]

so you support miners in china who have a low life expectancy, and some of the most dangerous conditions in the world - because their industry fuels economic growth and capitalism - which means the elite lives well while the rest toil, live (or dont) on starvation wages if they can get a job.

environmentalists often support workers struggles - in a degraded environment a family and community is more at risk, of having bad water, few resources, indaquate housing, warmth, employment and so on.

development can happen in many ways - neo liberal think big developments and mega projects are only one way. they are highly centrallized and un democratic.

do you advocate workers control? if the workers advocate at times for low development do you support them? or are they ignorant and not developed (marxist) for you?

siding with a corporation is not siding with humanity my friend. a corporation is not a person. have you seen that film 'the corporation'? do you suport shell? and exxonmobil or rio tinto? they are anti worker and anti environment - tho they claim to support both - maybe they are your allies

Vandana Shiva is my majority world hero - who is ures capitalist vanguard - warrior of the corporates?

i'd recoment you read this site - http://www.minesandcommunities.org/

random news on it -

The Chinese regime has introduced sweeping new labour laws as it deals with widespread revulsion last month at revelations of appalling conditions in the brick-making sector. However, there are concerns that the legislation doesn't establish the right to collective bargaining, nor allow the functioning of independent unions.

The manager of an illegal Chinese coal mine has been sent to prison for life, after arranging the murder of an investigative reporter; while a survey of conditions at coal mines in Shanxi province exposes networks of corruption, in which local officials are heavily involved.

India's Supreme Court may reverse a ban on limestone mining in forest areas of Meghalaya; meanwhile, massive opposition to Jindal's bauxite project in Andhra Pradesh is ignored by the authorities.

In a spate of measures, passed last week by the US House of Representatives, it seems that Bush's war on the environment and the poor, may finally have received its death knell.

[socialistfuture]

When the Chinese working class starts demanding higher wages, Western environmentalists start sweating. The last thing they want is Chinese people having more money to consume more 'stuff'. They don't want the Chinese people to lift themselves out of poverty - and they're quite open about this: for people in the developing world to enjoy Western living standards, we would need four Earths. Etc, etc.

i want them to have an equal wage to you - and for you to start making your clothes and growing your food. :P

i think we need a reduction - and for the poor to have decent housing, food and so on. i don't think they should mimic idiotic western fashions like SUVs and obesity. I dont think china's growth should be at the expense of tibetan people. it shouldnt be at the expense of its poor. china is rich - it has a huge class divide - the rich can loose a bit and the poor can gain. i think its the same with the west and the majority world. bill gates should give a lot of his money back to the factory workers who made his computers in the third world.

millionaires and billionaires living next to people dying of starvation is sick. starvation wages will never fix that.

do you ever read the NEW INTERNATIONALIST? maybe you only read the economist.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:58 pm
Condemnations of China by Western politicians, media commentators and NGO activists need to be strongly opposed. We need to support China's right to develop however it sees fit. Indeed, the major reason for China's development is its relative freedom from Western influence.

Whether China is criticised for developing 'unsustainably', for its lack of co-operation with the 'international community' and Western NGOs, its human rights record, or even for its exploitation of workers and peasants in China - these criticisms by Western elites need to be recognised in the context of an existing state of deep anxiety in Western society about the East. Western criticisms of China's economic growth (whatever their content) need to be seen as nothing less than chauvinist attacks against China and, more broadly, against the developing world.
But at the rate China is developing, economists predict that it will only be a matter of a few years before it take over the US as the world's biggest superpower, and you say we should support this development???

We don't need any more superpowers and I certainly won't support the development of any country with a human rights record like China. In fact, I don't think they should be allowed to host the 2008 olympics in Beijing until they have sorted out their appalling attitude to human rights. Until then, they certainly won't get my support.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 07, 2007 10:06 am
But at the rate China is developing, economists predict that it will only be a matter of a few years before it take over the US as the world's biggest superpower, and you say we should support this development???
Yes, of course. I wish every developing country could surpass America's level of economic development. Then we wouldn't have billions living in poverty.

(And while it may indeed be possible that China, in the foreseable future, can takeover the US in terms of economic output, that would not give it superpower status. The US is not just an economic power; it's a military power with a large global political influence. No developing country is going to takeover the US as 'superpower' (if we can call it that) anytime soon.)


We don't need any more superpowers and I certainly won't support the development of any country with a human rights record like China. In fact, I don't think they should be allowed to host the 2008 olympics in Beijing until they have sorted out their appalling attitude to human rights. Until then, they certainly won't get my support.

So Western states - the 'international community' - should have the authority to punish the sovereign state of a developing country in order to make it act how they want it to act?

I don't support the despicable oppressive actions of the Chinese state. But i also refuse to link arms with Western politicians and join in with their condemnations of developing countries as a means to make themselves look good and win support for Western intervention.

Furthermore: you said that you don't support economic development in China. The Chinese masses desperately yearn for greater development in China (as do the inhabitants of all poor countries). So, by refusing to support development in China, and by setting up qualifications for your support (developing country x should not be allowed to develop until it abides by Western demand y) what you're doing is sticking two fingers up at the aspirations of hundreds of millions of people who wish to no longer live in material poverty. You don't solve the problems of a country by keeping that country poor.

[socialistfuture]

sweatshops, low wages and dictatorship style rulers arent helping the majority of chinese my friend. more democratic rights, openess and unions is part of what is needed. define more the type of devlopment you are talking about; which industries and what are the conditions of the workers in those industries.

are you in favour of the much hated in china MEGA DAM developents? and the endless coal mines that take the lives of endless poor workers. chinese workers are heavily oppresed, their environment is being heavily degraded do to a rush to develop as fast as possible as cheap as possible (low wages, bad work conditions, low environmental regulations) and that not taking into account the lack of democracy and human rights violations in China and Tibet by chinese authorities.

China is not a superpower to support, go visit capitalist vanguard if that is your utopia - dont say it is leftwing or democratic. it is capitalism in all its glory.

china and america are so simular, venezuela and cuba are far more interesting.
as usual vanguard you fail to talk about the environmental side - which is what this thread is about and go on about ure freemarket lust.