Why don't global warming advocates have more to say about China? They have the worst pollution and...?

Question

...the most "CO2-exhaling humans" there! Why are we having to pay extra taxes while China continues on with business and gets rewarded with the Beijing Olympics? Why is excessive consumption only acceptable for people like Al Gore and countires like China, while normal consumption bad for regular people and other countries that are already much cleaner than they ever were (while China is more polluted than ever)?

Answer 1

I just wrote a paper on this very topic. I don't understand it either. Perhaps if it gets more attention, other countries will be forced to shell out the money that China is refusing to spend to restore itself. It's sad..

Answer 2

Because we owe them so much darned money!!!!

Keep buying stuff that says "made in china" because it's cheaper and they will continue to pollute with impunity to produce it!

Keep making labor more expensive in the US.by doing the things that make labor more expensive. (You can think about that on your own.)

Keep buying the cheapest thing you can buy instead of things with "made in the USA" on the labels. And I am NOT talking about cars.

And to China's credit - they know they have a problem and are working to solve it - albeit at a snails pace.

Answer 3

China definitely needs to be firmly on board any solution or it will not work.  

When they feel the pain of higher food prices and failing crops, and their 1.2 billion people are angry, they may change their tune.  Of course they already use per capita numbers to blame the U.S. going right along with the propaganda issued by the U.N., so we'd better have a rock solid military capability to keep those 1.2 billion angry people from invading us.  It may seem unlikely now, but don't underestimate the power of desperation, nationalistic propaganda, and the will of a totalitarian government that views its citizens as expendable (yikes, almost sounded like I was talking about the Bush administration for a moment there).

Since this is a dire situation on a global scale, nothing done in any one country or culture can possibly be effective against it.  Finger-pointing is pointless.  Both developed and developing countries must be on board any solution.  This is why the United States is holding back.  Holding out until the developing countries "get it" is a logical strategy, our most effective tactic that can bring others into the solution, as noted by this report from MIT:

"Our results confirm the well-known fact of global climate change: to meet temperature or concentration goals requires concerted efforts from much of the world over a substantial period of time. With rapid growth in developing countries, failure to control their emissions could lead to a substantial increase in global temperature even if the U.S. and other developed countries pursue stringent policies.

It is useful to evaluate the global costs and global benefits of achieving such targets, as difficult as that is to do. However, it is not possible to connect specific U.S. policy targets with a particular global concentration or temperature target, and therefore the avoided damages, because any climate gains depend on efforts in the rest of the world. And unfortunately, absent a global agreement a country’s best strategy in terms of its own self-interest is to do little and freeride on the actions of others. Of course, if all behave in this way very little mitigation will be achieved. If a cooperative solution is at all possible, therefore, a major strategic consideration in setting U.S. policy targets should be their value in leading other major countries to take on similar efforts."

http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJ...

For CO2 the United States must bring at least China, India and Russia into an agreement, for black carbon all of Asia must be included, and for deforestation Brazil is the key player.  They can come to the table now, or we can simply wait until they feel enough pain (after their governments are overturned by angry mobs perhaps) to voluntarily enter into agreements.

Side note -

Per capita numbers are pointless.  We were all born into cultures with particular "set points" based upon that country's development when we were born (1970, 1960, 1950, whatever).  I don't have the option of living in a grass hut, drawing water from a local pond, and hunting in a local forest and growing additional food in a local field.  How much of my daily living situation is under my control?  How much of it is "overconsumption" and how much of it is simply a given, out of my control, if I happen to live in a developed country?  Is living in a typical American house "overconsumption", or do I simply live in America?  Is having a job "overconsumption", or is that simply the way that people survive if they're born into a developed country?  How could I possibly change, or be personally responsible for, the built-in characteristics of a developed country that developed over hundreds of years?  In my opinion, comparing me on a person to person basis with someone who has that sort of infrastructure can only come from a position of utter ignorance or agenda-driven dishonesty (I agree with the skeptics about the U.N. position... it would be suicide to agree to any solution that does not encompass developing nations).

While developed nations can't magically replace their housing, food distribution and transportation infrastructure, we do know what development brings, possibly extinction of the human species on this planet, so how could any person or country have an innate "right" to increase their damage to all other humans on the planet?  That argument seems pathetically senseless to me.  Let's be "fair", even if we kill everyone in the process?  Riiiiiight....

Surely conservation on the part of all parties is important, but the two most critical evils to stop are population growth and "development".  We should start with a moratorium on all growth immediately (population and industry), with offenders required to migtigate the costs globally.  Then we can negotiate who can and will implement additional efficiencies.

Answer 4

No one complains about china because the chinese cannot be forced to pay carbon taxes.  The American government can tax  Americans all they like.

Anyone who has been to china recently will tell you that they are burning as much fuel as any american. The average chinese family has a car (albeit smaller than a us car) an air-conditioner, a flat screen tv etc etc

As far as China's claims that they are acting to reduce co2, forget it. China has been buying up every oil field on the planet.

Answer 5

Firstly, China became the worst CO2 emitter very recently, surpassing the U.S. only in 2007 (source 1), by which time, of course, the Olympics committee has already chosen Beijing. So they are not actually REWARDED for it by any means.

Secondly, the U.S. has hosted the Olympics numerous times while being the world's worst polluter, so the charge is at best hypocritical.

Thirdly, "CO2-exhaling humans" contribute pitifully little CO2 compared to industry. China has a population 5 times that of the U.S. but about the same amount of CO2 emissions. India has a population rivaling China's but contributes only about 5% the world's total CO2 emissions (or one fourth of either China or the U.S.)

Lastly, while in the second place, the U.S. still accounts for approximately 20% of the world's emissions, and is still rapidly increasing its output. (source 2)

Not doing anything about it just because China isn't decreasing its emissions is both shorted-sighted and irresponsible.

Under the present circumstances, for the U.S. to complain about China's CO2 emissions would be a textbook case of "Pot calling the kettle black."

Answer 6

It doesn't have the worst pollution PER CAPITA. USA puts out 20 tonnes of CO2 per head, where China will onkly hit ten tonnes in a few years. Onviously they don't have excessive consumption when its only half the USA - or at least, if they are excessive, so is the USA. You can't penalise a country based on its population. Restrictions have to be a per head restriction. Obviously, the more people you have, the more energy needed to provide necessities etc. It would be unrealistic to put the same absolute cap on China as USA as they have something like ten times as many people. Each person in USA would then get preferential treatment as compared to each person in China. How is that fair? The aim is that everyone has to reach a 2 tonne per person limit by 2050.

Answer 7

Because America is worse

Answer 8

they ought to only because 1.3 billion human beings want the American standard of living as well. And when that happens......

Answer 9

Well, China has a population of 1.3 billion people (as of 2006). Take a look at the US, with only 300 million people. Truly, that is a DRASTIC amount!. However, global warming can't be stopped in China due to the large amounts of energy required to fuel powerplants and power homes. As you know, many countries are outsourcing to China because of cheap labor costs. The energy to sustain such production is tremendous. It is nearly impossible for China to switch to alternative energy sources as quickly as we can. And anyways, the US produces a lot more pollution in retrospect to our population and GDP.

Answer 10

Because the environmental movement is dominated by communists, and communists NEVER criticize communist regimes no matter how brutal they may be.

Answer 11

cuz china is stubborn (no offences 2 any1)

:) xx

Answer 12

Because 1)  China isn't the richest country in the world and 2) China is already a full-fledged communist state.  

The Earth's net CO2 levels aren't calculated on a "per capita" basis.  On a "per capita" basis, China doesn't make the top 30 list, and Luxembourg is number 3 with less than half a million people in it!!!

Here's the list:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_po...

Now compare it to this list (ranking of 157 nations by their level of economic freedom):

http://www.heritage.org/index/countries....

Notice a pattern yet?  I do.

Answer 13

we have nothing to say about it all the national reserve the oil we produce out of alaska is sent to china because our ecologists say it produces too much sulfur dioxide emisons

so we send it all to china and other counties that don't have enviornmental laws where it comes back here and falls as acid rain.

I'llgive china one thing they have the best hydro electric project going atm which will save allot more emisions than the other stuff they put out

Answer 14

This is what I remember from my global class.

I believe that possibly due to the Kyoto Protocol, China is still considered a developing nation. There are far less international restrictions on developing nations, as emissions are not thought to be as important as issues such as political justice, or whatever.

China has a population of well over a billion people, with crowded cities and impoverished farmers. For many reasons, advocates don't have more to say about China. Not only is the dominating political party supressing protests (Olympics..which brings up pollution/food contamination/TIbet etc) and examination of their policies, but it would also be extremely difficult at this time for China to slow their emissions. This is because of things such as our "cheap-labor" factories there, international relations (I believe we do sent financial aid for emission reduction though..)... there are many reasons. Because of this, 1/6 of the world's emissions come from China, and they have a very high pollution rate. This not only affects the Chinese people, but the world. I truly hope that as China emerges as a superpower from global perspective, that     the viewing and altering of China's global warming policies change for the better.

Answer 15

They would if it were really about protecting the environment. Unfortunately, it's really a political power grab with the real purpose of damaging and eventually destroying America's capitalistic system. To those people, China and Korea are the last of the 'good guys'.

But since clean industry and recycling are really more efficient, they're really not doing China any favors. Allowing them to poison themselves and everyone they sell to can only damage their position in the long term market. It's to their own advantage to be required to be just as clean as us. That way they won't have to retool once we've cleaned up our act.

Answer 16

does it matter? china is waaaaay more overpopulated than we are so the pollution IS going to be much worse. and personally, I think it's petty to worry about comparisons, because the truth is global warming IS bad, and I DO want to do something about it regardless of what's going on in china pollution.

Answer 17

they all want it to seem like its our country so we will try to change the most

Answer 18

America has the worst emissions per capita

Answer 19

Because bashing America is the hip thing to do.