A GREAT coal rush is under way across China on a scale not seen anywhere since the 19th century.
Nonetheless, the Chinese plan to build no fewer than 500 new coal-fired power stations, adding to some 2,000, most of them unmodernised, that spew smoke, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere.
Cloaked in swirling mists of soot particles and smoke, cities such as China’s “coal capital” of Datong are entering the coldest period of winter in which demand for power and heating produces the worst pollution.
It is often darkness at noon in Datong, just 160 miles west of Beijing, where vehicles drive in daytime with their headlights on to grope through the miasma.
One of the four filthiest towns in China, it stands at the heart of the nation’s coal belt in Shanxi province, a region that mines more coal every year than Britain, Russia and Germany combined.
Cancer rates are soaring, child health is a time bomb and the population, many of whom are heavy cigarette smokers, are paying the price for China’s breakneck rush to riches and industrialisation — an estimated 400,000 premature deaths nationwide because of pollution every year.
Now, for the first time, the Chinese media have reported a revolt among the choking citizens of Shanxi. More than 90% of people surveyed by the provincial bureau for environmental protection said economic growth cannot go on at such an appalling cost.
That puts them on a collision course with their rulers — the same survey, reported by the China Youth Daily, found that 90% of mayors and local cadres opposed any moves to protect the environment that might slow the economy.
It is not hard to find the reason why. One mine boss in Shanxi named Zhang owns three Rolls-Royces of different colours plus a fleet of other luxury cars for his extended family, according to the Chongqing Morning Post, a daily newspaper.
“While normal people die of polluted air and water, officials use mineral water to wash their vegetables and even their feet,” said Yue Jianguo, an analyst, commenting on the Shanxi survey.
A GREAT coal rush is under way across China on a scale not seen anywhere since the 19th century.
Nonetheless, the Chinese plan to build no fewer than 500 new coal-fired power stations, adding to some 2,000, most of them unmodernised, that spew smoke, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere.
Cloaked in swirling mists of soot particles and smoke, cities such as China’s “coal capital” of Datong are entering the coldest period of winter in which demand for power and heating produces the worst pollution.
This is nuts. How long does this have to go on before goverments realize the world cannot sustain it's population with people consuming like those in the US?
Globalization sure gives us cheap sh%t at Walmart, but it looks like it's going to be expensive when it's all said and done.
Probably not at least until the US really realises and champions the change herself.. which would be just a minute or so before 'too late' (Which many say has already passed) China seems to have a funny (from a US persp) mix of pragmatism and ambition. I don't see that pragmatism as a really essential part of the American (US) Culture, if it is in any way obstructing either our Pride or our Illusions of 'Independence'.
We can be brilliant, but as the old saw has it, "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, once they've exhausted all the other options.." ~ Churchill?
I went through Datong in 2003 and it really was pretty bad. Right across from a huge open pit mine is the wall of 50,000 Buddhas. The Buddhas, ranging from 1 inch to 50' in hight are carved into a sandstone wall and are reputed to be the oldest carvings in China. Sadly, the pollution is disolving the Buddhas and many are already lost forever.
I've just started reading Big Coal and the opening chapters would suggest we need look no further than the Appalacians to find similar ecological devastation and economic inequality.
However, the gapping difference between current US practice and that in China has to be the issue of health and safety. This is an issue on which China has a very long way to go.
Expanding worldwide the burning of coal in conventional powerplants will have detrimental effects on populations far from the source of pollution. Mercury emissions will increase as will the amount then going into the food chain, especially seafood. Since the Chinese have less pollution controls on their power plants, acid rain will increase in other parts of Asia.
The only way to get the PTB in China to adhere to international standards (US and EU) for air pollution is through sanctions and tarrifs on Chinese goods. In a sense we are trading cheap Chinese made products sold at Wal Mart for early deaths and lifelong illnesses in other parts of the world.
China is where the US was in 1920's as far as pollutants generated. Difference is that in 1926 we did not know all the harmful effects of industrial pollution; leadership of China knows these hazards but chooses to ignore the problem.
China is where the US was in 1920's as far as pollutants generated. Difference is that in 1926 we did not know all the harmful effects of industrial pollution; leadership of China knows these hazards but chooses to ignore the problem.
This China focus here has to stop somewhere, I'm sorry, but it turns into an ever weirder excuse to not look at ourselves.
EIA 2004: per capita coal consumption for the US: 3.5 times higher than in China. It'll take forever before that is 1 on 1. We may reduce some pollutants, but not all. Our coal consumption does much more harm than theirs. Face it. Do something.
In 1926, there was plenty evidence of the harmful effects of coal burning. It was ignored, however, just as it is now.
When we talk about mercury, there are no ways to clean or scrub that out of coal plants. It ends up in the Arctic and in our children.
There are 140 coal plants set to be built in the US, of which ONE has plans to be "clean coal", and 139 will be just more of the same. In anticipation of new regulations, many of the permits are rushed through.
Yes, China is bad, but so is the US. The difference is that we have much more money to do something about that, and we refuse.
We do, however, expect the Chinese to act. Why? I'll tell you why: so we can feel less guilty. Good luck with that.
If we don't start, they will not follow. They will do nothing if we don't, and frankly, I see their point.
Want to look at per capita income, lifestyle etc? We have so much more,
We have no God given rights to have more than Chinese people. We have to come down from our pedestals first, if ever we want to accomplish something. A constant rant vs someone else's pollution doesn't make us one bit cleaner. And WE are the biggest polluters, by far. Not them.
I don't dispute that our coal consumption is bad, just that China produces much more pollution per pound (kilogram) of coal burned than the US does. Most US plants have scrubbers that catch nearly all of the ash and some of the sulfer dioxide, though the latter is still a problem which has been partly solved by using low sulfer western coal. Mercury pollution is a problem of much more complexity and requiring massive investment.
Yes, of the 150 coal power plants in planning or construction stage in the US, only one (FutureGen Program sponsored by US DOE) will be truely "clean". We definitely need to reform our own power industry and urge conservation with requirement to build "clean coal" power plants. But that does not let China off the hook for being one of the world's greatest emitters of GHG and pollution.
As I said before, one of the best incentives for reducing pollution is a disincentive like a tariff. Start with a tax on all goods made by foreign countries that do not adhere to our pollution standards. Also tax goods that are not energy efficient and use the proceeds to reduce taxes on income and perhaps food.
If the US government does not take the lead, no one will. We are soon headed down the "path to destruction" because of GHG and Peak Oil, and getting off the path will require world wide cooperation. Setting an example to the rest of the world should be the US's first step. But that may have to wait until after the 2008 elections, unfortunately.
The idea of a tariff to encourage pollution controls is very good one. Unfortunately, the U.S. govt is in too weak of a position to make such an attempt. U.S. govt officials have very recently been in high level talks with the Chinese to request that China's move away from holding the dollar be done in a gradual and orderly fashion such that the decline of the dollar will not occur in a precipitious manner. The unsustainable debt of the U.S. and the threat of a global move away from the dollar (esp. with the expected emergence of new petrocurrencies) means that China has the U.S. by the gonads and, for better or worse, the Chinese will be in full control of their own destiny.
It is unfortunate that there wasn't enough political will 3 decades ago to embark on the path of setting an example of conservation and using trade related incentives to encourage other countries to adopt environmentally sustainable economies. It appears that the opportunity to effect real change and alter the current global trajectory has passed.
And you have proof that the US government has been in 'high level talks' with the Chinese to request that their move away from the dollar be done gradually?
I highly doubt it.
Sounds to me like someone is trying to blow smoke up the worlds arse by jumping on the current doomer-centric bandwagon ~_~
You realize that China has almost 5x our population, and ergo, a 3.5x per capita consumption of coal in the US means that China is STILL using FAR more coal then we are.
And since you like facts...China has plans for 500 MORE COAL PLANTS, many of them being built with systems that were considered gross polluters back in the 50's.
Note also that China is ruled by a Communist oligarchy; unlike the U.S. and European nations they can ignore the suffering of millions of their "citizens" and pay no attention to public opinion. So what if the Chinese people lose ten years of life expectancy due to pollution? The oligarchs have oxygen masks, bottled water and air-conditioned luxury cars, not to mention countryside retreats.
It's because of these kinds of arguments that I see no improvement in the future. The problem is here, not over there, much as that would make you more comfortable.
Yes, HG, China uses more coal than the US. but then again the US uses more than Belgium. Does that mean the Flemish should complain about us, and you'll say they're right? My bet is you won't. How absurd will we get?
The US uses 10 times more energy than China per capita, and until we come down from that big time, the Chinese won't budge. Good on them.
And Don, do you really think the Communism vs Democracy that you're trying to establish will hold up for more than 2 seconds? That your leaders care more about you than the China Politburo does about their people?
You can poke all the fun you like at the U.S. political institutions. In fact, we have a functioning republic. In fact, China is a Communist dictatorship. You may not like these facts, but my guess is that as long as historians write these big differences will be acknowledged.
A "dictatorship", certainly, but how do you define Communist?
To use a metaphor probably of your liking, communism is as christianity, it has never been tried.
And probably never will, just for the same reason as christianity, not realistic.
In the meantime it comes handy as an epithet.
As for a "functioning republic" the US certainly is MUCH MORE CLEVER in its "functioning" than the USSR/China brutes, stealth bombers but also stealth torture : The History of U.S.Torture.
The US is slowly drifting toward Brazil (the Terry Gilliam movie, that is).
"Best Hopes" as one use to say for solving PO & GW problems in such a context.
Both of you did not answer the main point. What does it matter what kind of government China has? It is the majority of their population that demands more power and it gets it, government form has little to do with it - it just follows . You both seem not to understand that China is still a poor country and the population pressure is much stronger than the clean energy pressure. This includes srubbers - they remain costly and time-cosuming investments for a country commited to lift 1 BILLION people from poverty.
Yes, China is doing exactly what US did in the beginning of the last century. Cleaner energy in USA become priority LONG AFTER IT ACHIEVED A HIGH LIVING STANDARD. Poor people care more for necessities than clean air - this is the sad reality and simply bitching at China is NOT GOING TO CHANGE IT.
USA has greater consumption per capita. Surely this is the valid comparison on ethical grounds. I can imagine no reasonable basis upon which it could be argued that the pollution of the two groups of people existing within Chinese national boundries and USA national boundries should be compared in aggregate.
Of course, globally, we seek to reduce aggregate emissions. But comparisons between countries in the context of ethics and fairness should proceed on a per capita basis, surely.
Also, rather than compare the location in which the pollution is created, perhaps it is more reasonable to compare the location where the pollution is caused. In other words, consider the proportion of Chinese pollution that goes to create value consumed in the USA.
This adjustment would bring you closer to a reasonable comparison.
A kilogram is a kilogram is a kilogram. Regardless of where it happens, pollution and greenhouse gasses matter. So what if China has four times as many people as the U.S.--does that make its burning of coal any less harmful?
The problem is not to reduce percentages or per capita emissions: The problem is to reduce total global emissions. China is on the way to becoming a much bigger factor in air pollution than is the U.S., and there is absolutely nothing in the form of the Chinese government that is likely to slow down or mitigate the growing use of coal.
In the U.S. there is at least talk of cleaner coal--and by and large our coal-burning utilities are less dirty than they were thirty years ago. Thus one can reasonably argue that the U.S. is on the right track--with a lot of distance to go. The problem is that both China and India are on a fast track to accelerating their emissions of CO2 and all the other pollutants that burning coal creates.
Thus there is no comparison between the U.S. and China: What is happening in the U.S. offers at least some hope, while China is pushing the world faster and faster toward a possible tipping point in regard to abrupt climate change. These facts are unpleasant, but that does not make them go away.
So basically, the USA has more than their fair share, but because the USA got there first the damn Commies can go hang. The USA is the greedy pig who got it's nose in the trough early and ate everyone else's share.
And Americans wonder why they have an image problem...
As Heinberg often points out, this is the whole point of globalization. It allows the U.S. to grab other countries' resources, like a greedy kid who has eaten his own desert and now wants to eat everyone else's.
I guess the other arm of the military-industrial complex is there to ensure US "leadership" stays that way.
Before I get accused of being anti-American, this is exactly the same policy that the former British Empire used to operate. Been there, got the T-shirt. We annexed Hong Kong because the Chinese objected to our "free trade" - selling their peasants opium, that is. We eventually gave it back though.
But if someone is yelling at the neighbour to clean their yard, he should instead start with cleaning his own yard. And I don't just mean talking about, actually doing it.
At least the Chinese exercise some restraint on population growth, which is the underlying problem.
Does the U.S. force the Chinese rulers to ignore mine safety?
Does the U.S. force the Chinese to ignore worsening pollution?
I could go on, but this mindless bashing of the U.S. and claiming that this country is the root of all global evil is nothing but twaddle and nonsense.
BTW, the Communist countries had and have a far far worse record in regard to pollution of air and water than any capitalist country in history. What is it, I wonder, about communism that forces it to pollute to the max? Somehow I am thinking that it is not globalization.
Of course, the US was never concerned before about pollution in the evil communist bloc. So what changed? Oh yeah, now there is a possibility it might have a financial impact on the good old USA. Now suddenly the US becomes environmental champion, demanding that everyone should clean up their act. (Not the Americans themselves mind, 'cos they are the blessed democracy, they are "non-negotiable". It's OK for them to just talk about it. Praise the Lord and drill the ANWR)
For your information, complaints by the capitalistic countries (especially the Western European ones but also the U.S.) about pollution and environmental devastation in the Communist bloc go all the way back to the nineteen fifties and were quite notable in the nineteen seventies.
People in the U.S. could make just as much (or more) money if the commies cleaned up their act than otherwise. For an interesting contrast, look at the old East and West Germany: Same culture, same language, same traditions--but in the Communist East bloc energy wastage and the grossest pollution was rampant while West Germany was a leader in cleaning up its environment and in wind power and energy conservation. Or for that matter, look at North vs. South Korea today.
Political systems, indeed. But capitalism and communism are economic systems. There have been more than enough capitalistic dictatorships, a democratic communism hasn't existed yet on a large scale. I agree that a democracy (or at least a parliamentary system with elections and civil rights) is better than a dictatorship.
Apart from that, never has a system been implemented purely. West Germany built up an extensive social security, up to the point where roughly 50% of the GDP is controlled by governmental or non-commercial institutions. On the other side, even the USSR engaged in international trade.
Don: Most If your definition of "Communist" is a country where all the cards are stacked in favor of the business community and the worker holds zero power, then China is a "Communist" country.
In order to support this point of view with an ethical framework, you need to argue that because Chinese national borders contain a greater number of inhabitants, each one those inhabitants has a smaller claim to resources.
If national borders are ethically arbitrary, then the claim becomes absurd.
I submit that national borders are ethcially arbitrary.
The Chinese oligarchs brutally repress labor unions: Thus there is no hope for workers in China to get decent working conditions. The Chinese oligarchs censor news of rural riots, hence conditions in the countryside continue to deteriorate with little notice by the media.
BTW, the population increase of China is much greater than the population growth in the U.S., despite the widespread practice of female infanticide (covertly favored by the Powers that Be in China).
China is a cess pit. Why glamorize it?
The Chinese government is of the Communist hierarchy, by the hierarchy and for the Party. Yes, it really is that simple.
The US oligarchs brutally repress labor unions: Thus there is no hope for workers in the USA to get decent working conditions. The US oligarchs censor news of rural riots, hence conditions in the countryside continue to deteriorate with little notice by the media.
BTW, the population increase of the US is much greater than the population growth in the Norway, despite the widespread practice of female infanticide (covertly favored by the Powers that Be in USA).
USAis a cess pit. Why glamorize it?
The US government is of the capilaist hierarchy, by the hierarchy and for the Party. Yes, it really is that simple.
What matters for environmental impact is absolute numbers, not percentages. Please check your data to verify that in fact China's population growth is much more than that of the U.S.
If only China had introduced democracy in the 90s as Russia did, no doubt life expectancy would have fallen by 10 years or more, and their population would now be declining.
China has been incomparably better served by its political leadership over the past 30 years than the US by its own, if you look at any measurable benchmark.
I was talking about changes in life expectancy. By any measure, U.S. increases in life expectancy over the past 100, past fifty, past twenty and past ten years have been impressive.
Doubtless our life expectancy would be higher if we walked and biked more and ate less junk food; despite our bad habits, we keep living longer and longer--plus many people now have high quality lives at ages seventy-five to eighty-five, something that was almost unknown fifty years ago.
By way of contrast, look at the astonishing decrease in life expectancy among Russian males during the past fifteen years. One thing worse than communism is the breakdown of societies such as the old Soviet Union followed by government of the gangsters, for the gangsters, and by the gangsters.
There is talk about clean coal here, but I think it may all be just talk. Of the many planned coal-fired plants in this country, do you (or does anybody else) know how many will have state-of-art pollution controls? I would guess that the number will be considerably less than 100%.
And how many will not send all of their CO2 into the atmosphere? I would be surprised if that number was greater than 0%.
Lets clean up our act here first. Our vehicle efficiency is abysmally low (do they have many SUV's in China?). Can we get leaders who will motivate us to conserve energy (does that sound like today?). Can we make ourselves into an example that China would want to emulate?
This is nuts. How long does this have to go on before goverments realize the world cannot sustain it's population with people consuming like those in the US?
Globalization sure gives us cheap sh%t at Walmart, but it looks like it's going to be expensive when it's all said and done.
How Long?
Probably not at least until the US really realises and champions the change herself.. which would be just a minute or so before 'too late' (Which many say has already passed) China seems to have a funny (from a US persp) mix of pragmatism and ambition. I don't see that pragmatism as a really essential part of the American (US) Culture, if it is in any way obstructing either our Pride or our Illusions of 'Independence'.
We can be brilliant, but as the old saw has it, "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, once they've exhausted all the other options.." ~ Churchill?
Bob
Hello Bob, The actual quote is:
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.
Other quotes can be found at:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/winston_churchill.html
Enjoy! (Everyone should read them).
I went through Datong in 2003 and it really was pretty bad. Right across from a huge open pit mine is the wall of 50,000 Buddhas. The Buddhas, ranging from 1 inch to 50' in hight are carved into a sandstone wall and are reputed to be the oldest carvings in China. Sadly, the pollution is disolving the Buddhas and many are already lost forever.
I've just started reading Big Coal and the opening chapters would suggest we need look no further than the Appalacians to find similar ecological devastation and economic inequality.
However, the gapping difference between current US practice and that in China has to be the issue of health and safety. This is an issue on which China has a very long way to go.
Expanding worldwide the burning of coal in conventional powerplants will have detrimental effects on populations far from the source of pollution. Mercury emissions will increase as will the amount then going into the food chain, especially seafood. Since the Chinese have less pollution controls on their power plants, acid rain will increase in other parts of Asia.
The only way to get the PTB in China to adhere to international standards (US and EU) for air pollution is through sanctions and tarrifs on Chinese goods. In a sense we are trading cheap Chinese made products sold at Wal Mart for early deaths and lifelong illnesses in other parts of the world.
China is where the US was in 1920's as far as pollutants generated. Difference is that in 1926 we did not know all the harmful effects of industrial pollution; leadership of China knows these hazards but chooses to ignore the problem.
This China focus here has to stop somewhere, I'm sorry, but it turns into an ever weirder excuse to not look at ourselves.
We do, however, expect the Chinese to act. Why? I'll tell you why: so we can feel less guilty. Good luck with that.
Want to look at per capita income, lifestyle etc? We have so much more,
We have no God given rights to have more than Chinese people. We have to come down from our pedestals first, if ever we want to accomplish something. A constant rant vs someone else's pollution doesn't make us one bit cleaner. And WE are the biggest polluters, by far. Not them.
I don't dispute that our coal consumption is bad, just that China produces much more pollution per pound (kilogram) of coal burned than the US does. Most US plants have scrubbers that catch nearly all of the ash and some of the sulfer dioxide, though the latter is still a problem which has been partly solved by using low sulfer western coal. Mercury pollution is a problem of much more complexity and requiring massive investment.
Yes, of the 150 coal power plants in planning or construction stage in the US, only one (FutureGen Program sponsored by US DOE) will be truely "clean". We definitely need to reform our own power industry and urge conservation with requirement to build "clean coal" power plants. But that does not let China off the hook for being one of the world's greatest emitters of GHG and pollution.
As I said before, one of the best incentives for reducing pollution is a disincentive like a tariff. Start with a tax on all goods made by foreign countries that do not adhere to our pollution standards. Also tax goods that are not energy efficient and use the proceeds to reduce taxes on income and perhaps food.
If the US government does not take the lead, no one will. We are soon headed down the "path to destruction" because of GHG and Peak Oil, and getting off the path will require world wide cooperation. Setting an example to the rest of the world should be the US's first step. But that may have to wait until after the 2008 elections, unfortunately.
The idea of a tariff to encourage pollution controls is very good one. Unfortunately, the U.S. govt is in too weak of a position to make such an attempt. U.S. govt officials have very recently been in high level talks with the Chinese to request that China's move away from holding the dollar be done in a gradual and orderly fashion such that the decline of the dollar will not occur in a precipitious manner. The unsustainable debt of the U.S. and the threat of a global move away from the dollar (esp. with the expected emergence of new petrocurrencies) means that China has the U.S. by the gonads and, for better or worse, the Chinese will be in full control of their own destiny.
It is unfortunate that there wasn't enough political will 3 decades ago to embark on the path of setting an example of conservation and using trade related incentives to encourage other countries to adopt environmentally sustainable economies. It appears that the opportunity to effect real change and alter the current global trajectory has passed.
And you have proof that the US government has been in 'high level talks' with the Chinese to request that their move away from the dollar be done gradually?
I highly doubt it.
Sounds to me like someone is trying to blow smoke up the worlds arse by jumping on the current doomer-centric bandwagon ~_~
You realize that China has almost 5x our population, and ergo, a 3.5x per capita consumption of coal in the US means that China is STILL using FAR more coal then we are.
And since you like facts...China has plans for 500 MORE COAL PLANTS, many of them being built with systems that were considered gross polluters back in the 50's.
Well-stated.
Note also that China is ruled by a Communist oligarchy; unlike the U.S. and European nations they can ignore the suffering of millions of their "citizens" and pay no attention to public opinion. So what if the Chinese people lose ten years of life expectancy due to pollution? The oligarchs have oxygen masks, bottled water and air-conditioned luxury cars, not to mention countryside retreats.
It's because of these kinds of arguments that I see no improvement in the future. The problem is here, not over there, much as that would make you more comfortable.
Yes, HG, China uses more coal than the US. but then again the US uses more than Belgium. Does that mean the Flemish should complain about us, and you'll say they're right? My bet is you won't. How absurd will we get?
The US uses 10 times more energy than China per capita, and until we come down from that big time, the Chinese won't budge. Good on them.
And Don, do you really think the Communism vs Democracy that you're trying to establish will hold up for more than 2 seconds? That your leaders care more about you than the China Politburo does about their people?
You can poke all the fun you like at the U.S. political institutions. In fact, we have a functioning republic. In fact, China is a Communist dictatorship. You may not like these facts, but my guess is that as long as historians write these big differences will be acknowledged.
Happy New Year!
China is a Communist dictatorship.
A "dictatorship", certainly, but how do you define Communist?
To use a metaphor probably of your liking, communism is as christianity, it has never been tried.
And probably never will, just for the same reason as christianity, not realistic.
In the meantime it comes handy as an epithet.
As for a "functioning republic" the US certainly is MUCH MORE CLEVER in its "functioning" than the USSR/China brutes, stealth bombers but also stealth torture : The History of U.S.Torture.
The US is slowly drifting toward Brazil (the Terry Gilliam movie, that is).
"Best Hopes" as one use to say for solving PO & GW problems in such a context.
Both of you did not answer the main point. What does it matter what kind of government China has? It is the majority of their population that demands more power and it gets it, government form has little to do with it - it just follows . You both seem not to understand that China is still a poor country and the population pressure is much stronger than the clean energy pressure. This includes srubbers - they remain costly and time-cosuming investments for a country commited to lift 1 BILLION people from poverty.
Yes, China is doing exactly what US did in the beginning of the last century. Cleaner energy in USA become priority LONG AFTER IT ACHIEVED A HIGH LIVING STANDARD. Poor people care more for necessities than clean air - this is the sad reality and simply bitching at China is NOT GOING TO CHANGE IT.
USA has greater consumption per capita. Surely this is the valid comparison on ethical grounds. I can imagine no reasonable basis upon which it could be argued that the pollution of the two groups of people existing within Chinese national boundries and USA national boundries should be compared in aggregate.
Of course, globally, we seek to reduce aggregate emissions. But comparisons between countries in the context of ethics and fairness should proceed on a per capita basis, surely.
Also, rather than compare the location in which the pollution is created, perhaps it is more reasonable to compare the location where the pollution is caused. In other words, consider the proportion of Chinese pollution that goes to create value consumed in the USA.
This adjustment would bring you closer to a reasonable comparison.
One can also use energy use per unit of GNP. China has the stated goal of reducing energy per yuan of GDP.
Software beats steel making and chemicals by this metric though.
Alan
A kilogram is a kilogram is a kilogram. Regardless of where it happens, pollution and greenhouse gasses matter. So what if China has four times as many people as the U.S.--does that make its burning of coal any less harmful?
The problem is not to reduce percentages or per capita emissions: The problem is to reduce total global emissions. China is on the way to becoming a much bigger factor in air pollution than is the U.S., and there is absolutely nothing in the form of the Chinese government that is likely to slow down or mitigate the growing use of coal.
In the U.S. there is at least talk of cleaner coal--and by and large our coal-burning utilities are less dirty than they were thirty years ago. Thus one can reasonably argue that the U.S. is on the right track--with a lot of distance to go. The problem is that both China and India are on a fast track to accelerating their emissions of CO2 and all the other pollutants that burning coal creates.
Thus there is no comparison between the U.S. and China: What is happening in the U.S. offers at least some hope, while China is pushing the world faster and faster toward a possible tipping point in regard to abrupt climate change. These facts are unpleasant, but that does not make them go away.
So basically, the USA has more than their fair share, but because the USA got there first the damn Commies can go hang. The USA is the greedy pig who got it's nose in the trough early and ate everyone else's share.
And Americans wonder why they have an image problem...
As Heinberg often points out, this is the whole point of globalization. It allows the U.S. to grab other countries' resources, like a greedy kid who has eaten his own desert and now wants to eat everyone else's.
When you are right, you are very right ;)
I guess the other arm of the military-industrial complex is there to ensure US "leadership" stays that way.
Before I get accused of being anti-American, this is exactly the same policy that the former British Empire used to operate. Been there, got the T-shirt. We annexed Hong Kong because the Chinese objected to our "free trade" - selling their peasants opium, that is. We eventually gave it back though.
But if someone is yelling at the neighbour to clean their yard, he should instead start with cleaning his own yard. And I don't just mean talking about, actually doing it.
At least the Chinese exercise some restraint on population growth, which is the underlying problem.
Does the U.S. force the Chinese rulers to ignore mine safety?
Does the U.S. force the Chinese to ignore worsening pollution?
I could go on, but this mindless bashing of the U.S. and claiming that this country is the root of all global evil is nothing but twaddle and nonsense.
BTW, the Communist countries had and have a far far worse record in regard to pollution of air and water than any capitalist country in history. What is it, I wonder, about communism that forces it to pollute to the max? Somehow I am thinking that it is not globalization.
Of course, the US was never concerned before about pollution in the evil communist bloc. So what changed? Oh yeah, now there is a possibility it might have a financial impact on the good old USA. Now suddenly the US becomes environmental champion, demanding that everyone should clean up their act. (Not the Americans themselves mind, 'cos they are the blessed democracy, they are "non-negotiable". It's OK for them to just talk about it. Praise the Lord and drill the ANWR)
For your information, complaints by the capitalistic countries (especially the Western European ones but also the U.S.) about pollution and environmental devastation in the Communist bloc go all the way back to the nineteen fifties and were quite notable in the nineteen seventies.
People in the U.S. could make just as much (or more) money if the commies cleaned up their act than otherwise. For an interesting contrast, look at the old East and West Germany: Same culture, same language, same traditions--but in the Communist East bloc energy wastage and the grossest pollution was rampant while West Germany was a leader in cleaning up its environment and in wind power and energy conservation. Or for that matter, look at North vs. South Korea today.
Political systems make a huge difference.
Political systems, indeed. But capitalism and communism are economic systems. There have been more than enough capitalistic dictatorships, a democratic communism hasn't existed yet on a large scale. I agree that a democracy (or at least a parliamentary system with elections and civil rights) is better than a dictatorship.
Apart from that, never has a system been implemented purely. West Germany built up an extensive social security, up to the point where roughly 50% of the GDP is controlled by governmental or non-commercial institutions. On the other side, even the USSR engaged in international trade.
Don: Most If your definition of "Communist" is a country where all the cards are stacked in favor of the business community and the worker holds zero power, then China is a "Communist" country.
In order to support this point of view with an ethical framework, you need to argue that because Chinese national borders contain a greater number of inhabitants, each one those inhabitants has a smaller claim to resources.
If national borders are ethically arbitrary, then the claim becomes absurd.
I submit that national borders are ethcially arbitrary.
The Chinese oligarchs brutally repress labor unions: Thus there is no hope for workers in China to get decent working conditions. The Chinese oligarchs censor news of rural riots, hence conditions in the countryside continue to deteriorate with little notice by the media.
BTW, the population increase of China is much greater than the population growth in the U.S., despite the widespread practice of female infanticide (covertly favored by the Powers that Be in China).
China is a cess pit. Why glamorize it?
The Chinese government is of the Communist hierarchy, by the hierarchy and for the Party. Yes, it really is that simple.
The US oligarchs brutally repress labor unions: Thus there is no hope for workers in the USA to get decent working conditions. The US oligarchs censor news of rural riots, hence conditions in the countryside continue to deteriorate with little notice by the media.
BTW, the population increase of the US is much greater than the population growth in the Norway, despite the widespread practice of female infanticide (covertly favored by the Powers that Be in USA).
USAis a cess pit. Why glamorize it?
The US government is of the capilaist hierarchy, by the hierarchy and for the Party. Yes, it really is that simple.
Have you ever heard of the United Mine Workers?
Why do you flaunt your ignorance so egregiously?
Utter nonsense, China's population growth rate is much less than that of the US.
What matters for environmental impact is absolute numbers, not percentages. Please check your data to verify that in fact China's population growth is much more than that of the U.S.
If only China had introduced democracy in the 90s as Russia did, no doubt life expectancy would have fallen by 10 years or more, and their population would now be declining.
China has been incomparably better served by its political leadership over the past 30 years than the US by its own, if you look at any measurable benchmark.
Consider changes in life expectancy as a benchmark.
Consider cleanliness of water and air as benchmarks.
Don: Actually, U.S. life expectancy is not at all impressive when measured against countries of similar wealth.
I was talking about changes in life expectancy. By any measure, U.S. increases in life expectancy over the past 100, past fifty, past twenty and past ten years have been impressive.
Doubtless our life expectancy would be higher if we walked and biked more and ate less junk food; despite our bad habits, we keep living longer and longer--plus many people now have high quality lives at ages seventy-five to eighty-five, something that was almost unknown fifty years ago.
By way of contrast, look at the astonishing decrease in life expectancy among Russian males during the past fifteen years. One thing worse than communism is the breakdown of societies such as the old Soviet Union followed by government of the gangsters, for the gangsters, and by the gangsters.
In the U.S. there is at least talk of cleaner coal--and by and large our coal-burning utilities are less dirty than they were thirty years ago.
Thank you for quoting me correctly. It is always nice to see true statements repeated.
Well, the button didn't work. Let me try again.
There is talk about clean coal here, but I think it may all be just talk. Of the many planned coal-fired plants in this country, do you (or does anybody else) know how many will have state-of-art pollution controls? I would guess that the number will be considerably less than 100%.
And how many will not send all of their CO2 into the atmosphere? I would be surprised if that number was greater than 0%.
Lets clean up our act here first. Our vehicle efficiency is abysmally low (do they have many SUV's in China?). Can we get leaders who will motivate us to conserve energy (does that sound like today?). Can we make ourselves into an example that China would want to emulate?
Tony Verbal