China's 180 degree turn on pollution admissions

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Re: China's 180 Turn on Carbon Emissions

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.

Even so I dont think they have been given full credit for the efforts they have made, their expansion of solar and wind power is phenomenal, when compared to other countries, with their "Not in my Backyard Mentality". AS a American executive once put it, the Chinese have got a "In my backyard mentality."and in the years the west takes to get resource consent the Chinese have added another gazillion gigawatts of clean energy.

Talking about resource consent is anybody familiar with the 20th century version of the Noahs Ark Joke?, because it just about says it all with whats wrong in the West when it comes to development.

In Short IGod commands Noah to build a Ark as hes gonna flood the world for mans sins.

He revisits Noah just before commencing the storm to find Noah hasnt done anything and upon hearing about all the resource consents Noah has to go through, he rolls back the storm clouds , declaring man has been punished enough.
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
the shear number of Coal mining deaths in China is enough too make anyone Question it's dependents.

As for Obama I care but I care because of the mess... I respect the title if not the man.

I want too say this, I am not a massive believer in the Inconvenient Truth I rank it bottom of my Scifi-horror Move listings. But the more the World Changes too Cleaner renewable Energy the better not just for the Greenpeace types and the Global warming... But For each nation's Standing in terms of both Security and Pride... After all a nation that has swiss cheesed it's self for Coal and other consumables is not a pretty place. Recycling technologies and Green Tech offer a nice Alternative too living in dug out quarries that have been consumed too death and toxic waste dumps.
 

mobydog

Junior Member
Hey, guys.. I know it's kinda off topic, but since the hacked email from the CRU reviewed. The Global warming hysteria is a myth. The raw data was cooked up. The CO2 data was obtained from a station on top of a Volcano !! When questioned on the 7% raised in temperature on which the simulation was based, "sorry".. we dumped the raw data. Get this ! The World is cooling since 2000.

It's been two weeks now, and the Mass Propaganda media is not reporting it extensively nor objectively.

The new Term is "Climate-Gate".. google for it...For those who don't already knows it's huge.

BTW, if the Copenhagen's "world government" vote goes thru .. what's in it for China ? Does China even think they can benefit from Carbon trading than walls street ?
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
LOL... if China shouldn't burn coal, then what should it burn? FIrewoods?
there is plenty of alternative resources that they need to take advantage of. For example, do a better job of hooking the wind farms to the grid. Putting more pollution tax on coal that can be used to offset the cost of renewable energy. If you go to China, you can see how bad the pollution. Creating a pollution tax shouldn't be that big of a problem.
Hey, guys.. I know it's kinda off topic, but since the hacked email from the CRU reviewed. The Global warming hysteria is a myth. The raw data was cooked up. The CO2 data was obtained from a station on top of a Volcano !! When questioned on the 7% raised in temperature on which the simulation was based, "sorry".. we dumped the raw data. Get this ! The World is cooling since 2000.

It's been two weeks now, and the Mass Propaganda media is not reporting it extensively nor objectively.

The new Term is "Climate-Gate".. google for it...For those who don't already knows it's huge.

BTW, if the Copenhagen's "world government" vote goes thru .. what's in it for China ? Does China even think they can benefit from Carbon trading than walls street ?
Even if climate change is not as serious as people say it is, pollution is still destructive to people's health. If we don't switch to renewable energy + greater efficiency, we are going to eventually destroy the world's natural resources. China is extremely polluted right now. Anyone that spends a day in my hometown would be able to see how much more China needs to commit to this effort.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Re: China's 180 Turn on Admissions

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.

Still, that doesn't take into account population. One million dollars GDP in China involves magnitudes of more people than one million dollars GDP in EU or Japan.

A lot of people who blame China for pollution conveniently ignore the fact that pollution is caused by PEOPLE, not money.

People need to be fed, clothed, sheltered, have job opportunities, and be able to move around. All of that consumes energy and cause pollution.

By telling China to meet the same emission levels as EU, Japan, or even the US, is equivalent to telling the Chinese people that they are each only allowed to enjoy a fraction of the resources that individuals in those developed nations can enjoy.

In the end, it's the age-old story of fighting over limited resources


Mr T said:
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....."

Every project have critics, never mind a project as massive as the 3-gorges dam. Even if the dam never functions to full capacity, it amount of energy it can generate already, forever and ever, is an enormous contribution to the environment.
 

lcloo

Captain
The Three Gorges dam may have done local environmental damages but it has contribute a lot to elimination of carbon emission not only in China but also globally. It also help to control the frequent massive floods that killed tens of millions of people over last few thousand years.

I found an interesting chart citing source from International Energy Agency for 2007 Carbon Emission from Fuel Combustion Only, in tonnes per capita.

1. Qatar 63.9 tonnes
2. USA 21.1 tonnes
3. Australia 20.7
4. Saudi Arabia 16.3
5. Russia 12.4
6. Japan 10.6
7. UK 9.5
8. Italy 8.1
9. South Africa 8.0
10. France 6.4
11. China 5.0

I admit that this chart is 2 years old and may not represent current data due to rapid economic progress in China, but on per capita basis China still ranked quite low.

Qatar ranked No.1 is probably due to it's small population and huge oil out-put and carbon emitted from oil refinery, same for Saudi Arabia.

I am not claiming the chart is show absolute picture as number games can be very interesting as in "Carbon Intensity", "Total Emission", "Emission per Capita" etc.

Although per capita basis China ranked low but if the sum of that emission X total population of China actually has very significant effect globally as China is having around a quarter of world population.

However, geographically, only the industrial cities and coastal regions of China are badly polluted, more than half of China are relatively unpolluted, as in Western China, Southern China in Yunan, Guanxi, Northern China in Inner Mongolia, Qinghai etc.

What pollution you see on TV are always the worst case scenario, it is true but not total truth. I was in Shanghai for a week and never see the sun due to the smog, but back to Shenzhen it was blue sky and white clouds.
 

Engineer

Major
Re: China's 180 Turn on Carbon Emissions

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.
And there is CO2 emission in the process. Either way, CO2 is going to get released. There is no way around it.

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.
No. It is an inalienable rights for China to use its own coal. There is no reason for it to stop using its own resource just to please someone else on the other side of the planet.

So, tell me about alternatives to coal in China the day when US stop using its own coals and oil.

There is, for example, nuclear, gas, wind, hydro, solar, carbon capture for coal, etc.
Agreed, and China is investing heavily in all of the above.

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...
More expensive is, in other words, not economical. Coal plants in China do have scrubbers installed, but often the scrubbers are bypassed because they are not economical. But I agree that scrubbers should be installed and used.

There are ways of making coal-burning cleaner, but telling China to stop burning coals is just plain wrong.
 
Last edited:

solarz

Brigadier
Re: China's 180 Turn on Carbon Emissions

There are ways of making coal-burning cleaner, but telling China to stop burning coals is just plain wrong.

I wouldn't say it's wrong. I'd say it's unrealistic and naive.

I would love it if one day, humanity woke up and stopped using fossil fuel. Would that happen any time soon? No, due to a variety of reasons. The same reasons that propel the US to continue using oil propels China to continue using coal. It's a necessary evil, and simply telling them to stop is not very constructive.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
True stripes come out.


Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol


The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents. Photograph: Attila Kisbenedek/AFP/Getty Images



The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.


The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.


The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.


The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.


The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".


A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:


• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.


Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.


"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.


Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."

Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."


The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.


Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Engineer

Major
Re: China's 180 Turn on Carbon Emissions

I wouldn't say it's wrong. I'd say it's unrealistic and naive.

I should make some clarifications. In the context of my post, I do not mean switching to alternative energy as being wrong. If an alternative is available and is economically feasible, then by all mean use it. My use of the word "wrong" refers to the act of demanding China to do this and do that for no other purposes than to satisfy someone's ideologies. If people have concern with pollution and have constructive comments as to how to reduce pollution, great! However, if they simply expect country X to comply with Y then they should go and make sure their backyard is in order before sticking their nose to people's business on the other side of the planet.
 
Top