An inconvenient truth

[stompie]

http://enviro.org.au/enews-description.asp?id=630
"HONG KONG - China is set to spend US$200 billion on renewable energy over the next 15 years, and industry players are racing to grab a slice of the action. That kind of money would buy you an oil firm the size of Chevron and leave change to fund the current renewables programmes of all Europe's top oil firms for 25 years."

7% alternative already to 20% renewable by 2020 is official China energy policy. 1 GW wind now to 30GW wind in 2020.

AS I said earlier, when we sign up to those kind of targets, I'll consider nuclear Amazing to think that little old communist china appears to be making the most economocally rational energy decisions in the world!

AS for Oz helping China - if only we had signed to Kyoto we could be making CO2 credits from those nuclear exports!

What are all you right wingers doing knocking wind and solar - get out there there's $$$ in them thar hippy ****e.

You are right here. They are investing heavily in renewable energy. Economically sensible, and also quite wise as it reduces dependence upon other nations like America is dependent upon the middle-east. I’m sure you are aware of the Yangtze river dam and I know some researchers looking at solar powered aeroplanes and biofuels.

Yet the alternatives just aren't enough for the rate China is growing, so they appreciate that nuclear is essential. They started negotiations for Australian uranium last year. I think they also want to have control of the mines in order to guarantee supply.

India will probably be next. The USA is helping them with their nuclear industry in the hope of keeping oil prices down. Another market for Australia beckons.

 

[just maybe]

See, even if global warming did not turn out to be as serious as it is looking like, there is no real danger in going ahead with the reforms that lots of countries have been looking at. There is no loss in improving our environment and reducing our pollution output. Hell, global warming aside these things are causing environmental catastrophes every day, such as acid rain.

No reform comes without some economic hits, but it's about time we worked for a sustainable environment rather than just blindly pumping on pollution, regardless of global warming. The reforms suggested go further than just abating the some say mystical threat of global warming, they're beneficial all round for humankind and our relationship with the planet we inhabit.

I am fully in support of nuclear and other renewable energy sources. Oil is going to run out, and climate change, whether natural and human-accelerated, needs to be responded to.

 

[Richo83]

Americans rarely listen to others about anything, let alone Australia. In any case, they will have India and China as allies.

Those two nations have signed Kyoto, and since it doens't include them, those countries are quite happy to go on an environmental crusade against their economic enemy, as long as it doens't effect them, which Kyoto doesn't.

No. China is just too big to enforce them, and there is too much of a relationship culture that dominates everything. Culture is something that is extremely difficult to change, especially when 1.3 billion people need to be changed. During the cultural revolution, people were killed, books burnt, others imprisoned all in the name of bringing social equality. However, the social heirachies of the past are simply emerging again more strongly than ever. In any case, the Greenhouse effect is way down on the list of priorities.

You really think the "cultural revolution" changed China in any way? No, all it did was to show to the average Chinese peasant that Mao was a prick, nothing else.

Secondly, China is willing to display a clean and healthy china if it means that it will improve relations with the west. As I said, if all the west supported climate change, then so would China. After all, all China wants is to make a buck from America, and it can't do that if America dissaproves. If America was left as the only country not to sign Kyoto, it would make it much more willing to push climate change as it wouldn't have anyone to rely on as an ally. Therefore, the US would become concerned in China's environmental standards, meaning that theings change.

When I was in Orange county LA, smog made it difficult to look across the street clearly, although places on the ocean such as Venice were ok. On the other hand, Beijing actually has quite a lot of blue skies. A lot of the air pollution is merely dust blown in from the desert or kicked up from construction sites. I say that as someone who is accustomed to clean air.

Answer these questions:

1. Have you been to China?
2. If so, ahve you been to Beijing?
3. If so, ahve you been to all parts of China, not just the touristy bits?
4. If so, were you able to breathe without a surgical mask?
5. If so, did you find Beijing's air quality reminicent of a smelting factory? Did you see how the air was dirty and brown? Did you se how the average Beijing person consistently has respitory problems? I spoke to a Beijing doctor and he said that Beijing has one of the worst rates of respitory problems and deaths in the world.

Because that's what it is like. When I was there, I never saw a clear sky. I was there for 2 and a half months, and the only times when I saw blue sky is when I went out of Beijing to go sightseeing.

And as for China reaching Australia's rate of greenhouse emissions/person, HA! China still has over 600 million people living on a peasant rural lifestyle, and who don't produce much pollution. for China to operate at the same standards as us, they have to have the same standard of linving accross the board. China's GPD/ person of $6000, Australia is $30,000, showing that the average aussie uses and consumes and produces five times more than the average Chinese.

 

[just maybe]

1. Have you been to China?

Yes, in 1997.

2. If so, ahve you been to Beijing?

Yes.

3. If so, ahve you been to all parts of China, not just the touristy bits?

Yep, been through the distant inland countryside and seen people living in conditions that wouldn't be out of place in the Middle Ages.

4. If so, were you able to breathe without a surgical mask?

Everywhere yes, but in the big cities it wasn't exactly pleasant. Then again I've lived in Mexico City too so that's not saying much.

5. If so, did you find Beijing's air quality reminicent of a smelting factory? Did you see how the air was dirty and brown? Did you se how the average Beijing person consistently has respitory problems? I spoke to a Beijing doctor and he said that Beijing has one of the worst rates of respitory problems and deaths in the world.

Doesn't beat Shanghai. Woke up first morning and looked out the window, thought it was going to rain because it was so dank and grey. In fact it was a fine and sunny 27 degrees, the dank and grey was a low-hanging cloud of smog that covered the city.

 

[stompie]

Those two nations have signed Kyoto, and since it doens't include them, those countries are quite happy to go on an environmental crusade against their economic enemy, as long as it doens't effect them, which Kyoto doesn't.




You really think the "cultural revolution" changed China in any way? No, all it did was to show to the average Chinese peasant that Mao was a prick, nothing else.

Secondly, China is willing to display a clean and healthy china if it means that it will improve relations with the west. As I said, if all the west supported climate change, then so would China. After all, all China wants is to make a buck from America, and it can't do that if America dissaproves. If America was left as the only country not to sign Kyoto, it would make it much more willing to push climate change as it wouldn't have anyone to rely on as an ally. Therefore, the US would become concerned in China's environmental standards, meaning that theings change.





Answer these questions:

1. Have you been to China?
2. If so, ahve you been to Beijing?
3. If so, ahve you been to all parts of China, not just the touristy bits?
4. If so, were you able to breathe without a surgical mask?
5. If so, did you find Beijing's air quality reminicent of a smelting factory? Did you see how the air was dirty and brown? Did you se how the average Beijing person consistently has respitory problems? I spoke to a Beijing doctor and he said that Beijing has one of the worst rates of respitory problems and deaths in the world.

Because that's what it is like. When I was there, I never saw a clear sky. I was there for 2 and a half months, and the only times when I saw blue sky is when I went out of Beijing to go sightseeing.

And as for China reaching Australia's rate of greenhouse emissions/person, HA! China still has over 600 million people living on a peasant rural lifestyle, and who don't produce much pollution. for China to operate at the same standards as us, they have to have the same standard of linving accross the board. China's GPD/ person of $6000, Australia is $30,000, showing that the average aussie uses and consumes and produces five times more than the average Chinese.

I'm in China now, Beijing to be precise. The sky is quite blue today. It was more blue last Sunday.

Although it doesn't quite match the air in our own great nation's capital, I can breathe without a face mask.

It is not really possible to travel all over China. It is quite a big country you know. Xiaan has a bad smell. I think they are manufacturing biofuels there from corn. The country side is quite nice, but people are walking off the land to get labouring jobs in the city. The coast is a bit unsavoury. The ocean has lots of batteries, plastic bags, and all manner of garbage in it. No need to complain about Bondi cigars after you've been for a dip here.

I have a neighbouring family that lives at the foot of my apartment complex in a corrugated iron shed that is about 2 by 2 meters. They use lots of blankets in winter as it is almost permanently below zero. Good on them for making sure they don't contribute much to the Greenhouse effect.

As for me, I am in an apartment with central heating. I'd say my contribution would be low as well, as apartments tend to be more energy efficient that houses. Trade off is that you don't have a garden to take co2 out of the atmosphere. Now before you give me credit for my apartment lifestyle, I should say when I return to Australia it will be back to the co2 emitting houses.

As for the respiratory problems, it probably doesn't help that people smoke inside, or weaken their immune systems by drinking themselves into oblivion. Desertification is more of a problem than the smog. When the dust storms come in, the city can resemble the kind of scene you might associate with a Mad Max movie.

So, do you think the Chinese are worried about the Greenhouse effect? No, they are not. In the list of priorities, it ranks a long way behind getting food to eat, or having some warmth in their corrugated iron shed. Perhaps it is a issue in Australia largely because you don't have worries, or other problems to be concerned about.

 

[Richo83]

Out of interest, what's your job if you do have one in China? And do you know specifically where you live in China (I know, obvious, but the name of the suburb)

China may not place the environment as the no. 1 priority, but priorities are not exclusive form each other. Like for instance food to eat, well if they want food to eat, they better stop the desertification of the land otherwise there will be no areas for crop production, which bites into the Chinese food intake. If they keep cutting down trees that will mean that the flow off of water won’t be stopped by tree absorption, meaning that farms on a sloped terrain (majority of farms) will be flooded, destroying many farms and food sources.

Even Sweden doesn’t place the environment as its no. 1 priority, but governments look to solve numerous challenges that face the nation, not just two or three. China has many issues, such as foreign relations especially economics and security, Taiwan, their human rights record and national stability, but the environment is more important than you think.

 

[stompie]

Out of interest, what's your job if you do have one in China? And do you know specifically where you live in China (I know, obvious, but the name of the suburb)

China may not place the environment as the no. 1 priority, but priorities are not exclusive form each other. Like for instance food to eat, well if they want food to eat, they better stop the desertification of the land otherwise there will be no areas for crop production, which bites into the Chinese food intake. If they keep cutting down trees that will mean that the flow off of water won’t be stopped by tree absorption, meaning that farms on a sloped terrain (majority of farms) will be flooded, destroying many farms and food sources.

Even Sweden doesn’t place the environment as its no. 1 priority, but governments look to solve numerous challenges that face the nation, not just two or three. China has many issues, such as foreign relations especially economics and security, Taiwan, their human rights record and national stability, but the environment is more important than you think.

I live in the Haidian district – north west Beijing. About 20 minutes to the city by Taxi.
Technically my job title is “foreign expert.” I work at university delivering English language courses, and cultural lectures to Chinese scholars preparing to go to foreign country. About 80 per cent of my students are members of the Communist Party. They come from all range of academic backgrounds. Rocket scientists, lawyers, economists, environmental scientists, doctors, psychologists etc.

You are right that they take a very holistic approach to solving problems. They know the dangers of losing biodiversity, and they are also aware of how economic decisions need to be made carefully otherwise instead of alleviating poverty, they might entrench it. They are also well aware of how corruption hinders their solutions being implemented. I knew one economist who was advocating beheadings to deal with corruption.

On the whole, I respect their approach to solving problems. They are not all emotional about things, and they realise that every coin has two sides. I also respect their attitude to Mao. They acknowledge he made some very serious mistakes, but they reserve great respect for him as he liberated China from French, English, Russian, American and Japanese control. Furthermore, his ring-roads in Beijing seem to work well, and from what I’ve been told, everyone seems happy with the more efficient writing characters that he introduced. Finally, there seems to be almost universal acceptance that he was a great poet. There is an official line that Mao was 70 per cent good, and 30 per cent bad. I like that line. It is one that is able to see the good as well as the bad - unlike some of the lefties on this board that can only see the bad. It is quite interesting that the only people that really hate Mao are not Chinese.

 

[just maybe]

Technically my job title is “foreign expert.” I work at university delivering English language courses, and cultural lectures to Chinese scholars preparing to go to foreign country. About 80 per cent of my students are members of the Communist Party. They come from all range of academic backgrounds. Rocket scientists, lawyers, economists, environmental scientists, doctors, psychologists etc.

3 non-thread-related questions:

1. How did you get this job?

2. Does it pay well?

3. Do you speak Chinese fluently?

 

[The Flying Belgian]

I must admit to have skipped over some of this thread, but it amuses me somewhat to hear people talking about "facts" when it come to climate change. There are no "facts". Just a lot of guessing. Educated guessing maybe, but there's still a lot of debate about the topic. I wonder how many people here have looked at a wide range of scientific journals and actually read what the sceintists are saying. Even if you read IPCC reports (and I mean the individial studies/reports and not the "highlights" package for media and politicy-makers) there are wide and conflicting reports contained within. The media don't care what they print, as long as it makes people scared or uncertain.

The other thing I note is that many of those who are convinced about human-inflicted climate change immediately attack anyone who questions it. Those who question it are not necessarily saying they dismiss "global warming" outright. There are those among us who are yet to see firm and consistent evidence to back it.

 

[Richo83]

I live in the Haidian district – north west Beijing. About 20 minutes to the city by Taxi. Technically my job title is “foreign expert.” I work at university delivering English language courses, and cultural lectures to Chinese scholars preparing to go to foreign country. About 80 per cent of my students are members of the Communist Party. They come from all range of academic backgrounds. Rocket scientists, lawyers, economists, environmental scientists, doctors, psychologists etc.

I don't know if you share my opinion but I would really like to do what you do, that would be a great job.

You are right that they take a very holistic approach to solving problems. They know the dangers of losing biodiversity, and they are also aware of how economic decisions need to be made carefully otherwise instead of alleviating poverty, they might entrench it. They are also well aware of how corruption hinders their solutions being implemented. I knew one economist who was advocating beheadings to deal with corruption.

Typical Chinese. They want the horse meat but they also want the draft work.

On the whole, I respect their approach to solving problems. They are not all emotional about things, and they realise that every coin has two sides. I also respect their attitude to Mao. They acknowledge he made some very serious mistakes, but they reserve great respect for him as he liberated China from French, English, Russian, American and Japanese control. Furthermore, his ring-roads in Beijing seem to work well, and from what I’ve been told, everyone seems happy with the more efficient writing characters that he introduced. Finally, there seems to be almost universal acceptance that he was a great poet. There is an official line that Mao was 70 per cent good, and 30 per cent bad. I like that line. It is one that is able to see the good as well as the bad - unlike some of the lefties on this board that can only see the bad. It is quite interesting that the only people that really hate Mao are not Chinese.

That I seriously doubt. Every Chinese person I met that expierienced either hated him for stealing one of their family or hated him for sending the country into mass famine. If you look at the cultural revolution and the great leap forward, millions upon millions died and many more suffered under his regime. He was a tyrant, and anyone who questionned him was destroyed. The difference between Mao and Stalin isn't that great, Mao was the only millionaire in China at one stage, and witheld grain supplies to boost up the price and buy weapons from Russia.

I realise that he did many things, like make literacy for all, and simplify the writing system (which makes it much easier for people like me) however, in consideration of his leadership, you must consider him as a despot first and a leader second.

 

[Corpuscles]

There are those among us who are yet to see firm and consistent evidence to back it.

The thread was an encouragement to se the film?... If not see it and then... make up your own mind!

You could either be in one of several camps....One of them is along the lines "I think I know but I am not prepared to listen to alternate views"

If you have seen it tell me why it is incorrect?

 

[medusala]

The other thing I note is that many of those who are convinced about human-inflicted climate change immediately attack anyone who questions it. Those who question it are not necessarily saying they dismiss "global warming" outright. There are those among us who are yet to see firm and consistent evidence to back it.

Even the much criticised IPCC have a pretty big range of possible outcomes for climate and sea level increase in their predictions.

 

[stompie]

That I seriously doubt. Every Chinese person I met that expierienced either hated him for stealing one of their family or hated him for sending the country into mass famine. If you look at the cultural revolution and the great leap forward, millions upon millions died and many more suffered under his regime. He was a tyrant, and anyone who questionned him was destroyed. The difference between Mao and Stalin isn't that great, Mao was the only millionaire in China at one stage, and witheld grain supplies to boost up the price and buy weapons from Russia.

I realise that he did many things, like make literacy for all, and simplify the writing system (which makes it much easier for people like me) however, in consideration of his leadership, you must consider him as a despot first and a leader second.

As I say, from my experience, it is foreigners rather than the Chinese that hate him. From foreigners I've heard that he r*ped women to steal their chi, caused mass starvation, was an idiot, a despot etc. From the Chinese, I've heard he liberated China from foreign control and then made some mistakes. However the liberation of China was such a positive event that it outweighed the bad.

Go to Xiaan's central park and you will see the working class singing songs in tribute to him every night of the year. He remains on the Chinese currency. I've had some people say that in the past there were alot of people criticising but nowadays the trend is to respect him. (The Muslims in Xinjian aren't a fan, but then they really aren't a fan of any Chinese.)

Anyway, this is an issue for the Chinese. Personally though, I see that there is more to be gained by thinking of his good points that his bad. China is a country with so many problems that it does need its heroes.

 

[funkyfreo]

I can't find a link as it is at work, but I got emailed a story that was a bit of a Whitehouse rumour that the next State of the Union Address (Jan I think) or earlier that GWB is going to announce a MASSIVE shift in direction of US energy and greenhouse policy.

Lets face it, in a neurotic isolationist america under the fear of the middle east, a low carbon future is the ultimate vote winner from those who want to sure up an independent energy supply, AND the intelligent middle of the roader who can see that current US policy is odd, to say the least.

I'll email the link home tomorrow and post here, unless someone beats me to it. The quotes had a number of WHitehouse advisors very concerned... and some leftys saying the only reason for it was political... well what other reason does a polititian have anyway.

Could be interesting.

 

[funkyfreo]

Hmm all I can find is a denial:
http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MjA1MTE

 

[IntheNet]

In any case, I disagree that global warming is a bad thing. The environment needs change in order to rejuvenate itself. If it doesn’t have change, the rivers will become more polluted, the soils more leached, and the forests cut down until none are left. Environments without change become stagnant cesspools without life...

I have beachfront property in Nevada just waiting for Al Gore's prophesy to come true!!!


Global Warming is a hoax; a liberal leftist way to secure idiotic grants to study ice cubes! We all know the earth goes through subtle variations in temperature and has so for millions of years. This cycle, however, comes with reasearch grant funding!

 

[just maybe]

Even the much criticised IPCC have a pretty big range of possible outcomes for climate and sea level increase in their predictions.

It's not 'much criticised'. Talk about overstating the case.

 

[just maybe]

I have beachfront property in Nevada just waiting for Al Gore's prophesy to come true!!!


Global Warming is a hoax; a liberal leftist way to secure idiotic grants to study ice cubes! We all know the earth goes through subtle variations in temperature and has so for millions of years. This cycle, however, comes with reasearch grant funding!

This post has confirmed for me that there is no way global warming is untrue.

If InTheNet is calling it a 'liberal leftist hoax', this suggests a 99.956793925% probability that it is complete truth.

 

[just maybe]

As I say, from my experience, it is foreigners rather than the Chinese that hate him. From foreigners I've heard that he r*ped women to steal their chi, caused mass starvation, was an idiot, a despot etc. From the Chinese, I've heard he liberated China from foreign control and then made some mistakes. However the liberation of China was such a positive event that it outweighed the bad.

Go to Xiaan's central park and you will see the working class singing songs in tribute to him every night of the year. He remains on the Chinese currency. I've had some people say that in the past there were alot of people criticising but nowadays the trend is to respect him. (The Muslims in Xinjian aren't a fan, but then they really aren't a fan of any Chinese.)

Anyway, this is an issue for the Chinese. Personally though, I see that there is more to be gained by thinking of his good points that his bad. China is a country with so many problems that it does need its heroes.

I think it is naive to think this doesn't have a lot to do with the regime in power. Mao did a lot of horrible things to Chinese people, and expat Chinese certainly speak about it more freely.

Having said that, would you answer my questions about your job? I'm very interested, on a personal level, not in the context of this discussion.

 

[Richo83]

As I say, from my experience, it is foreigners rather than the Chinese that hate him. From foreigners I've heard that he r*ped women to steal their chi, caused mass starvation, was an idiot, a despot etc. From the Chinese, I've heard he liberated China from foreign control and then made some mistakes. However the liberation of China was such a positive event that it outweighed the bad.

Go to Xiaan's central park and you will see the working class singing songs in tribute to him every night of the year. He remains on the Chinese currency. I've had some people say that in the past there were alot of people criticising but nowadays the trend is to respect him. (The Muslims in Xinjian aren't a fan, but then they really aren't a fan of any Chinese.)

Anyway, this is an issue for the Chinese. Personally though, I see that there is more to be gained by thinking of his good points that his bad. China is a country with so many problems that it does need its heroes.

Many Chinese people still love him because of the brainwashing and indoctrination that followed his cult status.

Dead people can't talk, but if they could, they would call Mao a mass murderer. Look at all the millions of people who died because of his policies?

Think about it this way, studied Russian history? Sure the communists removed Russia from the incompetent rule of Nicolai, but surely the subsequent murder of Russians under communist rule suggests that everything wasn't great. Stalin had a cult following much like Mao, and many loved him, but the millions in the Gulags sure didn't. And the 20 millions that were killed didn't. And the thousands more who were tortured sure didn't like him.

China is always going to display a biased view of Mao, they have a building in the middle of their capital specifically designed to preserve his dead body ffs.

However, if you look beyond the lies, you see that under the Cultural Revolution, under Mao's rule millions and millions of Chinese people starved to death and were tortured for speaking out. Many of the young Chinese people who didn't endure Mao's rule have been fed this image of what Mao was like. For example, Chinese students have no knowledge of the Tiananmen Square massacre, the cultural revolution or anything like that, they are told that Mao is China's father and Hu Jintao is our leader.

Mao improved things in China, he improved education out of sight, he improved woman’s rights, and he improved the writing system, this and more. However, he could have done this and not lead the country into famine. Mao was happy to lead the nation into starvation as long as he held onto power, and by this way it meant that his grip on control was stronger than ever.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

The thread was an encouragement to se the film?... If not see it and then... make up your own mind!

You could either be in one of several camps....One of them is along the lines "I think I know but I am not prepared to listen to alternate views"

If you have seen it tell me why it is incorrect?

I haven't been to the movies in years - my daughter has seen to that! So I think I'll wait until it comes out on DVD. I'm interested to see it though. My gut feeling is that like Moore's docos there will be some good stuff in there, but is obviously twisted in a way that suits it's own intention.

Just as you encourage people to see this film, I encourage everyone to read the scientific reports and decide for themselves rather than relying on one person telling you the "facts". As you so rightly say "make up your own mind".

My worry is that people will see the film and take that as their proof like they did with Fahrenheit 9/11. Of course I haven't seen it yet as we've covered. So it's hard to comment on the science contained within. However I'd be guessing that evidence that brings the whole concept into, well, not doubt, but cloudy territory, is covered briefly and dismissed, or not covered at all.

 

[funkyfreo]

Just as you encourage people to see this film, I encourage everyone to read the scientific reports and decide for themselves rather than relying on one person telling you the "facts". As you so rightly say "make up your own mind".

At least with this film the science backs it up all the way.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

At least with this film the science backs it up all the way.

You mean the science they've chosen to include. Of course it's a flim and has to have a focus, so covering all areas of debate and uncertainty isn't selling their message.

 

[funkyfreo]

You mean the science they've chosen to include. Of course it's a flim and has to have a focus, so covering all areas of debate and uncertainty isn't selling their message.

I've not seen the film.

But I KNOW that if the film says Glolbal warming is caused by humans, and if we don;t do something we are rooted (I mean some say we should not worry and just try to adapt - but we are not evern investing in THAT), then the films conclusion is consistent with what mainstream science is telling us about the issue.

I dunno the film may well go over the top? But the scientific consensus is very clear.

 

[section8]

I've not seen the film.

But I KNOW that if the film says Glolbal warming is caused by humans, and if we don;t do something we are rooted (I mean some say we should not worry and just try to adapt - but we are not evern investing in THAT), then the films conclusion is consistent with what mainstream science is telling us about the issue.

I dunno the film may well go over the top? But the scientific consensus is very clear.

Consenus in science isn't evidence, in particular when said consenus is based on climate models with large margins for error.

Basically they and you "know" nothing as much as a Christian "knows" that there is a god, for which there also seems to be a large consensus for.