Iain Murray at Planet Gore yesterday predicted the enviro reaction to the news that China is already the world's biggest carbon emitter, and is running away from the rest of the world:
I look forward to complaints that China has only a sixth of the world's population but emits a quarter of its CO2, that Chinese auto emissions standards aren't good enough (Mr Gore?) and that China hasn't signed Kyoto .....
Murray didn't have to wait long.
The propagandists are already at work, with the willing help of the BBC:
(UK Foreign Office official John Ashton) pointed out that much of China's emissions growth was being driven by consumers in the West buying Chinese goods, and noted that China's emissions per person were still well below those of rich nations.
It is estimated that the average American still pollutes between five and six times more than the average Chinese person.
..... "Responsibility for China's soaring emissions lies not just in Beijing but also in Washington, Brussels and Tokyo," said Greenpeace UK director John Sauven.
"All we've done is export a great slice of the West's carbon footprint to China, and today we see the result.
..... "The West moved its manufacturing base to China knowing it was vastly more polluting than Japan, Europe or the US," he added.
"No environmental conditions were attached to this move; in fact the only thing manufacturers were interested in was the price of labour.
So Ashton says it's our fault that we're buying the stuff that the nation with the largest standing army on earth has been forced against their will (apparently) into making, and that we need to cut our emissions by 80%-85% to bring our emissions down to their level. Then we can live like the average person does in China. Uh, no thanks.
As to Suaven, he effectively says it's everybody's fault. (By the way, who was Vice President of the USA for eight years while so much of the outsourcing to China took hold?) So I guess there needs to be some kind of worldwide controlling regime that will browbeat everyone into cutting carbon emissions that "cause" global warming -- except that there hasn't been any since 1998. What a bunch of, well, globaloney.
In his daily e-mail this morning, Benny Peiser of CCNet calls the BBC "China's Mouthpiece" on this issue. Indeed.
NewsBuster Noel Sheppard wondered yesterday if the American media will notice. I would guess that they will, with the Beeb's template as guidance.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
}}---->China? Kyoto?
June 20, 2007 - 08:08 ET by Cool ArrowYeah, I can see China signing on to a treaty with a Japanese name.
That made me laugh. Thanks.
June 20, 2007 - 11:58 ET by stratmanThat made me laugh. Thanks.
And let me add that even that will get spun as : If America had taken the initiative on global warming then the treaty would have an American name and china would sign on. So it's all GWB's fault.
The thing that I don't really
June 20, 2007 - 08:21 ET by jpatchThe thing that I don't really understand about trying to cut our carbon emissions so drastically is that the global population is still growing extremely fast, as is the American population. How can it seem even remotely plausible that we could reduce our carbon emissions even 30%-40% with current population trends predicting our country to hit 500 million people by the end of the century? Who even knows what the population of Indonesia, China and India are going to be in 50 or 100 years.
We need to focus on reducing emissions through better fuel technology and better automobiles, but anyone who seriously thinks that some sort of carbon credit is the answer is totally insane. When I was a junior in college, which was in 2002, I took a class about current environmental crises' that were facing the earth...and did you all know, in 2002, that the doubling-time for fossil fuel consumption on planet earth was 8 years?
For example, from 2002 until 2010, the people of earth will have consumed as much fossil fuels as we have in the entirety of human history combined. That means that we consume fossil fuels at a geometric rate. Excuse me for stating the obvious, but the whole world runs on fossil fuels, and the global population is quickly rising. Anyone else think that reducing carbon emissions enough to do anything (which is still up for debate) is impossible?? I do. Moreover, it's not only impossible, it's completely illogical and nonsensical. But, I guess not if you're running a company that sells carbon credits.
I've read several incredible
June 20, 2007 - 08:39 ET by HelenSI've read several incredible books on the whole global warming thing, including "Kicking the Sacred Cow" and "Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1500 Years" - both fantastic reads - and the thing that I just cannot understand is why the hue and cry about CO2?
I just did a Google search on "CO2 is plant food" and got a bunch of sites listed. Plants thrive in a higher CO2 environment. Crop production goes UP when the CO2 goes up. Why is that a problem? I really don't understand the hysteria.
Obviously I'm open to enlightenment because I don't understand all the intricacies and subtleties and such so maybe (possibly. Probably...?) my understanding is sketchy to non-existant but from what I do understand, there are at least a few benefits to increased CO2
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
It's mainly about the sheer s
June 20, 2007 - 12:25 ET by USnotU.S.It's mainly about the sheer scale of the problem. You are right. Plants love CO2, but there aren't enough plants. There aren't enough forests left.
A fantastic book to read about it, and many other issues, is Bill Bryson's "Short History of Nearly Everything". He explains really complicated stuff in a reader friendly way.
Eh-hem, did you ever ask the
June 20, 2007 - 14:26 ET by dscottEh-hem, did you ever ask the question why the Sahara desert is shrinking? Maybe more plants are growing because there is more CO2 for them to breathe? Did you know that plants loose less water in a higher CO2 environment, hence they are more drought tolerant? Do you know that forest cover in the US has been increasing steadily for decades?
Ask the right questions and you get the right answers. Ask the wrong questions and you get the wrong answers.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
There's no profit in persec
June 20, 2007 - 08:46 ET by The Wicked ConservativeThere's no profit in persecuting China's carbon output. They're already a socialist state and the average person is unable to afford carbon credits. That is what all this malarky is about after all. The one stat to compare isn't carbon per person it's carbon compared to GDP. We can create 25% of the CO2 output because we put out 25% of the world GDP. And we do it with only 300million people. Seems the rest of the world isn't towing it's weight and just wants to put their hands in our pockets. I saw some jerk in a beater minivan with a terrapass bumper sticker...I just laughed at him.
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
You have raised a valid point
June 20, 2007 - 10:21 ET by dscottYou have raised a valid point on using 25% of the CO2 versus 25% of the GDP. It is called energy use intensity. The real issue is not how much energy per capita a country uses, it is how efficiently it uses energy or even how much pollution is produced per energy unit used. One look at the air pollution problem in Asia tell us intuitively that they are polluting the planet on a vast scale many times the comparitive output of the US.
What is the Chinese GDP compared to the world? $10.17 trillion (2006 est.) The US GDP: $13.13 trillion (2006 est.) So basically China has an economy that is 23% smaller than the US but produces more CO2 per unit. So who is responsible for the problem here?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
It is estimated that the aver
June 20, 2007 - 10:26 ET by Darth DutchIt is estimated that the average American still pollutes between five and six times more than the average Chinese person.
Right, because I'm sure that the environment is able to tell the difference between CO2 emissions from a Chinese person versus an American person. If these emissions are so bad, it shouldn't matter to any GW fanatic about the "who", but only the "how much". The fact that people aren't now screaming at China instead of the US shows how hypocritical they are.
Dutch
Nature knows capitalist car
June 20, 2007 - 10:31 ET by The Wicked ConservativeNature knows capitalist carbon when it smells it. China is a developing nation and is therefore entitled to see us knocked down to their level so they may feel better about themselves. Mind you we must go down to them, that is the socialist way. We never bring the bottom rung up, we must be brought down. Those of us who aren't part of the liberal elite plutocracy that is. They do the peoples work and must be allowed to aircondition their private jets... for the peoples sake...
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
Dutch, it is true but it has
June 20, 2007 - 10:37 ET by Airforce_5_ODutch, it is true but it has only happened in the last week. They shut down all those brick kilns.
Airforce, You are right - thi
June 20, 2007 - 10:48 ET by Darth DutchAirforce, You are right - this is new news, so maybe the GW activists will begin to shift their focus. But my gut tells me that it won't happen and that America will still be the "bad boy" in all of this.
Dutch
America's not the bad boy. Wh
June 20, 2007 - 12:34 ET by USnotU.S.America's not the bad boy. Who can blame the US for having the biggest economy since before we even knew about global warming? No one can, and the same is now true of China. Finger pointing is useless. It's a global problem.
I was a bit uncomfortable about my country's prime minister not signing Kyoto, but on the surface, I know his reasoning. It's because we have a massive country with a tiny population and a huge mining/fossil fuels industry. As a nation, our output looks pretty good. Per capita, it looks pretty bad.
In fact, per capita, if there is to be a "bad boy", it's probably Australia.
No, we are all in this, and we all have to solve it.
}}---->Skewed estimates Darth
June 20, 2007 - 10:42 ET by Cool ArrowIt is estimated that the average American still pollutes between five and six times more than the average Chinese person
Never mind the pollution China creates is attributed to Americans who buy the imported products. It's a cute little shell game designed to reflect badly on Americans regardless of their ecofriendly intent.
We could stop all domestic production of all products in the US and quit using oil completely and our Carbon Footprint would not diminish to zero until the money ran out.
And how many in the media wou
June 20, 2007 - 10:47 ET by Darth DutchAnd how many in the media would say how bad America is if we stopped all of our importing because it is costing other people jobs in third world countries? We would absolutely hear those reports. We're darned if we do, darned if we don't.
Dutch
dutch of course, carbon dio
June 20, 2007 - 11:29 ET by Jack Bauerdutch of course, carbon dioxide is NOT a "pollutant" anymore than oxygen or hydrogen is a pollutant.
It is estimated that the av
June 20, 2007 - 11:05 ET by lnthompIt is estimated that the average American still pollutes between five and six times more than the average Chinese person.
And if Al Gore moved all his houses, SUVs, planes and his citizenship to China, the averages would be reversed.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
As a general question, whenev
June 20, 2007 - 12:47 ET by USnotU.S.As a general question, whenever they talk about setting targets for reducing greenhouse gases, the measurements are always compared with 1990 levels.
Kyoto was in 1997. Does anyone know why 1990 is still the "yardstick"?
I don't know why 1990 was c
June 20, 2007 - 12:53 ET by lnthompI don't know why 1990 was chosen. I'm sure it was a compromise between people who wanted to keep emissions at "current" (1997) levels and those who wanted to go back even further. Some of the truly anti-human types want us to go back to pre-industrial levels, and ignore you if you point out that an awful lot of home heating back then was provided by coal fires and wood fires that polluted worse than cars do today.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
I can only vouch for the UK a
June 20, 2007 - 13:10 ET by USnotU.S.I can only vouch for the UK and Australia, so I'm not sure if it's the same in the States, but everyone seems to be leaning more towards long term targets; as in 50 or 60 years, and I just can't help being sceptical.
I mean; the most enlightened people on this subject (generally) and the ones most affected in this time frame, are those in their early 20's right now. They will be elderly people when these targets are held up to the light on their completion dates. They are hardly likely to riot!
More importantly, the 40 to 70 y/o people discussing these targets right now, won't be around.
Maybe that's why they don't like 20 year targets......
}}----> Bingo aussie
June 20, 2007 - 13:22 ET by Cool ArrowThere's money to be made in the fear market right now. But not much by way of evidence to promote the fear. The evidence that isn't manufactured is misinterpreted data.
So we scare our kids with frantic desparate dancing penguins, and crop pictures of polar bears seemingly stranded hopelessly in open waters on a sliver of an iceberg.
Checked the price of groceries lately? We're stuffing our food in our cars to pay penance and lipservice to to the god of Global Warming.
The very thought of Ethanol outrages me
June 20, 2007 - 13:29 ET by RJEthanol is the most outrageous result (so far) of this Anthropogenic Global Warming scam. I just heard the there are 117 new ethanol refineries in America, with another 77 scheduled to come on line by the end of the year. Meanwhile, it's been many, many years since a gasoline refinery has been built in America.
Rain forests are being removed to grow palm oil for ethanol, food prices (as you said) are going up worldwide, and all for a fuel that doesn't work well and takes more energy to produce than gasoline. Wait until there's a weather problem and crops suffer.....then the sh*t will really hit the fan.....
We live in absurd times....
Yeah, it's absurd, but we'r
June 20, 2007 - 13:32 ET by sarcasmoYeah, it's absurd, but we're about to see some ethanol ass-kissin' in Iowa, if my bet is right, from some allegedly free-market loving Presidential candidates. (No wonder they're scared s--tless of my guy!)
JMR
You should see and hear the a
June 20, 2007 - 13:37 ET by bigtimerYou should see and hear the amendments that are getting voted on or not in the Senate.
I pray this B.S. of an Energy Bill that they are working on now DOES NOT PASS.
I wished that more people would listen to this or be as informed as they do illegal immigration..after-all this is National Security if anyone really thinks about it.
They voted down an increase of 54 cents per gallon on ethanol in some major parts of the country...in other words it passed, there are many, this bill is full of tax increases to the American people...
No drilling either so far....
Heck what do we need that for...we need to keep being dependent on the terrorists oil...why be self-dependent here?
Hmmmm.Not a believer, then?&q
June 20, 2007 - 13:33 ET by USnotU.S.Hmmmm.
Not a believer, then?
"50% of all people die within 3 months of their birthday"
"No, we are all in thi
June 20, 2007 - 16:25 ET by ckc1227"No, we are all in this, and we all have to solve it."
Only if you buy into the lie that there is a problem to solve.
"It is estimated that the average American still pollutes between five and six times more than the average Chinese person."
Well duh. That's what happens when you divide their output by 1.3 billion, and our output by 300 million. We also have to keep in mind that China is still a developing country. Their current output is only the tip of the iceburg.
""The West moved its manufacturing base to China knowing it was vastly more polluting than Japan, Europe or the US," he added."
But that doesn't mean they have to pollute once there. This is a good thing, because the West uses more efficient, cleaner technology than the local Chinese manufacturers. Just because China is loose on environmental issues doesn't mean Western companies are going to go over there and start polluting carelessly. To do so wouldn't be good for business.
It's like those morons who say Exxon wants to destroy the world over the use of oil. Yeah, that makes sense, because everyone knows destroying the world is an excellent strategy for long-term profitability, lol.