China's 180 degree turn on pollution admissions

King_Comm

King_Comm

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Re: China's 180 Turn on Admissions

HKSDU said:
Why does China need to reduce its emission levels to EU and Japan rates? China has a far larger population which multiplies every factor, while the EU and Japan have a smaller one, so if China is reducing their emissions, EU and Japan must also. China will always be a big emisions emitter cause of the population. But saying that China must reduce it to EU and Japan level, sounds like that EU and Japan don't need to reduce it further, and that China must match theirs which is wrong in theory. Look at Australia small popluation but extremely high emission emitter, which is way more severe then China, if you multiple the emissions footing, China is much smaller then Australia and America.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the carbon intensity, not the total emission, reducing carbon intensity by 40% makes is still over 600 tonnes of greenhouse gas per one million dollars GDP. The carbon intensity of Japan and EU are currently around 300 tonnes per one million dollars GDP.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Who cares about Obama
Click to expand...

I do..and I did not vote for the man.While I do not agree with many of his policies...still >> he's the president of the United States. And I care about that.
 
M

montyp165

Senior Member
Re: China's 180 Turn on Carbon Emissions

Engineer said:
LOL... if China shouldn't burn coal, then what should it burn? FIrewoods?
Click to expand...

Coal should be converted to cleaner fuels such as natural gas and petroleum, even if there's a bit of energy inefficiency in the conversion process.
 
R

ravenshield936

Banned Idiot
pla101prc said:
ya know, when China substituted water energy for coal...it actually drew more criticisms...
Click to expand...

yea but fuck what others say
yes the three gorges dam did environmental damage, but honestly, what in this world has no negative impact serving alongside the positive side of things?

i believe that china shouldnt give a fuck about what others say as long as the chinese knows what's the best for themselves, and what's the right thing for them to do.

the dam will do some harm, but in trade, the amount of energy produced forever and ever, as well as serving power to the people, and able to rely on alternate and cleaner energy source is all worth it

imo, china is full of things to mend and fix, from environment to corruption, from literacy to poverty, from gender ratio inbalance to social moral standards, but i believe china's working hard at it, and they should ignore what others say and keep up the good work. accept suggestions for improvements and displace the bashing
 
S

Schumacher

Senior Member
Actually the 3 Gorges Dam was recently named one of the top 10 green projects in the world by some international green publication for the immense amount of power it's now producing that would have had to been coal based had it not been built.

As for China's recent announcement, it's not much of a surprise really if one follows the rapid growth of green investments there. The timing of the public announcement is just negotiating tactics vs the developed world especially the US & the upcoming Copenhagen summit.
 
bladerunner

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
I wonder if the recent anouncement in the delay in filling the dam to its designed depth does represent ecological problems that are proving extremely difficult to solve, Ive even read claims that it may never work at full capacity because of it.
 
Last edited:
Mr T

Mr T

Senior Member
Re: China's 180 Turn on Carbon Emissions

Engineer said:
LOL... if China shouldn't burn coal, then what should it burn? FIrewoods?
Click to expand...

You're advancing a great reason for doing absolutely nothing about climate change. If China cannot change from coal, why can anyone else? If we're all expected to pitch in China has to find alternatives like the rest of us.

There is, for example, nuclear, gas, wind, hydro, solar, carbon capture for coal, etc. Even installing more efficient boilers and carbon scrubbers can reduce CO2 emissions. It isn't that there are no alternatives to coal, it's that they're more expensive and lazy bones prefer to leave all the lights on in their houses/businesses, than learn to use electricity efficiently - so they refuse to pay more for their power.

bladerunner said:
I wonder if the recent anouncement in the delay in filling the dam to its designed depth does represent insurmountable ecological problems that are proving extremely difficult to solve, Ive even read claims that it may never work at full capacity because of it.
Click to expand...

The dam has had critics from day 1 - I think even former engineers who worked on it. I have a feeling they'll be saying "hate to tell you I told you so, but....."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top