It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China: Global Warming Not Our Problem

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   


China and India suffered far more dead due to flooding in past centuries ( and in 31' as many as 3 million died in China due to flooding and after effects) than they are ever likely to again and the days of the floods that kills hundreds of thousands are probably a thing of the past whatever China chooses to do to it's environment.
reply to post by StellarX
 

Hi Stellar, Thanks for your post. Not sure why you think China is not likely to suffer severe flooding again aside from statistical probability but they do have major or should I say a mega dam project called the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River. It has been criticized as being highly risky overall (effects not predictable), esp. relating to sociological, archeological, cultural and environmental consequences. It may well have major benificial effects but it is the kind of project that would have little chance of approval in a western country. This dam is one of the Hallmarks of the Chinese government, ie. when they decide to do something they really get with it (big time)! This particular quality of China could either break them or save their bacon. Time will tell!




posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Now, I don't think that it is the right position to take, but it is kind of funny. I think that China brings up an interesting point when they state how the United States didn't have to follow any of these regulations during their rise to power, so why should they?


The US being critical of China is kind of like Barry Bonds criticizing baseball players for using performance enhancing drugs to get ahead.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
Hi Stellar, Thanks for your post.


Unless you agree with what i support it's probably not wise to say anything encouraging.



Not sure why you think China is not likely to suffer severe flooding again aside from statistical probability but they do have major or should I say a mega dam project called the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River.


I am 'sure' that China wont again suffer a natural catastrophe of that scale ( ruling out volcanoes and earthquakes) because similar things do not happen in the organized mostly western industrial societies.Are you implying that the Chinese can't build dams or that whoever designed the dam made some kind of error?


It has been criticized as being highly risky overall (effects not predictable), esp. relating to sociological, archeological, cultural and environmental consequences.


Criticized by who ( no, not the WHO)? Doesn't getting killed by a big flood have a bigger sociological effect on a nation if not just it's victims? Sure the Chinese government are going to seriously damage or destroy many many many sites that could have potentially still yielded knowledge of value but the US occupation of Iraq have led to the same result and there are NO benefits to the people of Iraq. As to the environmental consequences the wikipedia article you cited makes it clear that this dam will result in a cut in the consumption in coal usage numbering in the tens of millions of tons, when i see many western governments investing their resources in such renewable power 'generation' schemes i will start pointing fingers at the 'evil' Chinese 'communists'.

I won't pretend to know how this dam will culturally affect the Chinese nation but given proper relocation ( which seems to be the case for the vast majority) of the displaced there might be more culture if less Chinese are drowned or impoverished as result of flooding while millions of lives are improved as access to energy increases. I can not advocate the protection of the environment over the protection of people and until our governments listen to us and do both ( as they easily can) i choose people and hope that the people thus empowered quickly use their greater economic power to bring about the changes, and hopefully this includes the protection of our environment, they want. That's after all what democracy is all about and if the two and a half billion Chinese and Indians do not care about protecting their our environment we will have a very real problem no matter how much the people of Sweden 'recycles'.


It may well have major benificial effects but it is the kind of project that would have little chance of approval in a western country.


Western governments/country/city governments find ways to buy homes for new roads or other city projects? Sure you can not just relocate a million people in a 'democratic' society but how many autocratic regimes abuse the rights of a minority group for the benefit of the majority? Can we imagine the Chinese government abusing it's power in ways that are far less constructive than this and why do we not instead investigate why they are in fact doing this when such projects are so very rare in supposedly progressive countries? I just think the Chinese government could be doing far worse things , and they are, with their power and i do consider this 'beneficial' for the vast majority of that countries citizens.


This dam is one of the Hallmarks of the Chinese government, ie. when they decide to do something they really get with it (big time)! This particular quality of China could either break them or save their bacon. Time will tell!


The Chinese government, like all others, are quite well aware that rising prosperity levels will result in them slowly losing their power so for them to use their power to build dams and develop their countries infrastructure, instead of recruiting more security/policy officers, tells me that the Chinese government thinks they are increasing their standing amongst the people by giving them more access to energy and preventing the devastating floods that will surely cause the central no end of headaches or increasingly violent and protracted social upheaval.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
In regards to desertification -- you're just looking at the issue from a single perspective. Swapping out cash crops for food won't solve a thing. Why? You're still using the water, no? And more food equals more people in the end, which will result in more water usage anyway.


Since at least a billion people are under-nourished or plainly malnourished/starving exchanging cash crops, where needed, for food will not only result in much lower birth rates , as is the norm when food security increases, but in much less water usage considering how water intensive the majority of cash crops are. Why you think more food will lead to more people is entirely beyond me as in developed countries people tend to get fatter and have fewer children while doing so.


Pertaining to better technologies -- you need money first to get to that level.


No you do not. The technologies i am talking about are well understood but not implemented for variety of reasons not least of which is IMF/WB standards and general intellectual property rights issues.


Cash crops can supplement this, so it comes back to that. It's all about balance.


Cash crops are mostly produced in countries that must generate cash to pay back debt incurred by previous governments which were in some instances elected by the people.


On the issue of preventing mudslides -- since you're not from a rainforest/tropical region, I don't think you're much of an authority to say anything about it. When it pours here, it really pours. And these days it rains heavier and more frequently than it used to.



Which must be why so many Japanese and Taiwanese/Koreans die in mudslides every year? Who are we kidding here and why should i have to life in a tropical country to understand engineering challenges, political choices and the wealth that makes the subjugation of nature entirely possible?



The route they usually took - up the hills of Bukit Timah Nature Reserve - has been cordoned off.

Heavy rains had caused a mudslide, dragging along part of the popular "Tiup-tiup" trail.


How many people died?


And then in December of the same year:
Floods, mudslides belt Singapore


Mudslides carried soil and trees down a slope, covering two cars, parts of a playground and the front yards of several homes.


No one seemed to have died. There is a vast difference between mudslides in areas where they were not considered possible or very dangerous and those areas where they are known to occur but can't be prevented for lack of resources of political will. Lets not confuse the issue and pretend that we know exactly what this 'global warming' phenomenon will or will not do


One of the richest country in the tropical zone with a level of technology at least a decade ahead of it's neighbour to the north -- still not immune to mudslides.


I think they can prevent all of them but why would the various city governments pay the cost of erecting barriers where people are very unlikely to be in danger? Who says they expected mudslides in those areas, and wont do something about it now, or that it's simply further down on the list? Since no one got killed nature is either pretty toothless or Singapore do in fact have this issue under control?


Let's not even talk about other tropical countries...
And no, I'm not scaremongering. Just stating the facts.


Why is it that the scaremongers are always claiming that they are 'realistic' when they make such unrealistic claims? You are a GOOD researcher so why are you stuck on this idea that human beings are powerless to affect their surroundings in the most progressive of ways? You do believe we are generally destroying the planet but why do you have such a hard time considering what might get done if governments and corporations were kept in check and had to comply with what the people of this world really wanted?

It's REALLY easy to get scared by all the media propaganda and i don't see why FOX/BBC/CNN needs a smart guy such as yourself to spread the misinformation they have paid reporters for ... If you feel strongly about your statements then we are going to keep on disagreeing and you should probably look into getting some kind of reward for towing the line.

Stellar

[edit on 27-11-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
And you don't think (all) the posts by stellarx don't reek of "nationalism"?


I rarely talk about South-Africa so how can i be a nationalist?


The guy is a "homer" for anything related to the old U.S.S.R.


Anything? The only thing that the majority of uninformed/ignorants on this forum knows about the former/reformed USSR is that it 'lost' against the USA, somehow, and that their strategic weaponry just suddenly stopped working... They are a few other things they ' know' but the chest thumping majority rarely go far beyond the 'we are supreme' type of nonsense i sometimes feel compelled to contest. The fact that many of the 'regulars' have already mended their ways indicates to me that even a casual lay person's introduction of evidence to the contrary is enough to get them to shut up for fear of actually having to defend a view they never bothered to investigate in the first place.


(apparently still thinks it exists - but wait, here comes Putin),


So where did it in your opinion go? If you paint a gorilla orange, and say cut off a few of it's toes, does that mean it's left the room?


and here is defending another communist dictatorial regime employing the old "ends justify the means" manifesto.


So you do not believe that the Chinese government have a mandate to prevent the massive flooding that kills thousands and disrupts the lives of millions every few years? Why do you think they should not occasionally use their dictatorial power to do something that is clearly progressive? Why should i not be able to point out that fact while making it clear that such actions are not very humane to many?


The rest of the world can GTH for all the chinese care.


They may have displaced more than a million Chinese citizens in during the construction of that dam but meanwhile the US government have stayed a genocidal blockade against Iraq resulting in the deaths of more than a million AGAINST the wishes of the American public. Which country is acting more dictatorial on the world scene? I do not have to like the Chinese regime to understand that they are doing very little harm internationally when compared to the new liberal capitalist dogma the US national security state is spreading at gunpoint.


Yo! Wake up people and quit hammering on the U.S. all the time.


Then stop intervening in our affairs and killing so many millions of the worlds citizens?


Your real problem (china) is sneaking up on you ...


It's always good to watch your back but to ignore the tank approaching at high speed in favour of watching the spear armed man coming over a distant hill is not wise or safe. When the Chinese invades what isn't actually theirs , ruling out Taiwan, and start killing people on the scale the US is i will divide my attention equally but until then lets stick to clear and present dangers?

Stellar



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
the chinese dam was poorly constructed because they did not take the risk of silt seriously.now the silt is building up and causing increasing amounts problems,eventually upon the surface of the dam.

my father warned me about it many years ago,and hes built everything from nuclear power stations to oil pipelines,so i trusted his expertise.
news.bbc.co.uk...

and it looks like he was right
www.threegorgesprobe.org...

also, china is in no way a communist country,it now one of the most capitalist countries in the world.one of my longest friends is living there.corruption/bribery is amongst its biggest problems.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   
If the Chinese leaders were smart,
they would build lots of windmills to generate power.

If common folk were smart,
they would build windmills like the ones found at otherpower.com.

California, West Texas and Ontario are putting up lots of windmills as we speak.

Once they see what we're doing,
they will do the same because they are cheaper and cleaner than coal.

Companies like Airtricity and Google are leading the way
so let's support companies like these and get the word out.

Google announced an ambitious plan to develop electricity from renewable energy sources that will be cheaper than electricity produced from coal.

Go Green - Go with Windmills !!


[edit on 27-11-2007 by ATS-38]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by avingard
They have a point, legally, global warming really isn't their problem. Don't yell at China, yell at the Kyoto Protocol. According to Kyoto, developing countries are exempt from restrictions on emissions.


Soon India, another developing country, will rival the U.S. and China in emissions. All three must work together or the whole world will pay the price. That won't be easy, given China's (justifiable) priorities, but it must be done.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   
when china is to dam the yangtzh river to generate electricity, you are critical of those immigrants and ecological issues related. if china is not to do so, you must be to blame china's non responsibility.

the three gorge dam was not built by china itself but by a global bid with couples of international companies involved including american's. its quality depends on the world wisdom. dont be skeptical of yourself.

as a developing country, china has done alot efforts to reduce pollutant emission ranging from closing down those backward coal plants to developing nuclear, wind powers. you dont know this just because your media tutors never tell you this.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by wwssii]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Which must be why so many Japanese and Taiwanese/Koreans die in mudslides every year?


Your attempts to be sarcastic shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Weather in the temperate zone (that's where those countries you listed are located) and that in the tropical zone are totally different. Do you even know the difference? Have you been to Taiwan and/or Singapore?


It's REALLY easy to get scared by all the media propaganda


Media propaganda? What nonsense. I live here in the tropics, silly. Plus I don't watch American news channels. I've event stopped watching those propaganda shows on NatGeo masquerading as documentaries. But then I only need to look out my window to see the rains are getting heavier and more frequent. I only have to walk down the road to see that the sink hole they patched a month ago has reappeared.

You telling me those things do not cost money to fix? I need only drive up to Genting (look it up) to see that even all the money in the world and all the advanced technology the owners of GohTongland can buy will not help them when the heavy rains cause landslides. It's getting less frequent only because they're spending more cash shoring up the slopes.

Even if those landslides don't cost any human lives, it still costs money to clear it up. It still costs money to fix the damage.

Stop being so egotistical. If you were talking about events happening in your neck of the woods, I'd listen to you. Now listen when I'm talking about events happening in my region of the world.

Sheesh. :shk:
The Singaporeans have a word for it. Kiasu. Look it up.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to have misinterpreted my stance on the entire climate change issue. You can look to this post for a complete outline of where I stand. It's not an "either you're with us or against us" thing. It certainly as hell isn't political (though some people would try to make it one
)

My whole point is, some things we can fix, some things we can't. Best we not break it in the first place if we can help it -- it's only going to cost more to fix it later.

I'll take your points about starvation versus cash crops into consideration. Somehow I doubt it applies to China (where birth rates are encouraged to be low any way...)

Thanks for your post...



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:15 AM
link   
I got a feeling china might be right, they're problem isn't the green house gasses, their problem is trying to get safe products to the market and manufacturing them without all the toxic wastes being dumped into their environment....

otherwise, they're liable to poision themselves (and us) and become extinct long before the polar bear does.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   


Are you implying that the Chinese can't build dams or that whoever designed the dam made some kind of error?
reply to post by StellarX
 

Hi Stellar,
I'm saying that the effects of the dam may well be very benificial but that there are huge costs and sacrifices involved. Some of the effects will not be known for decades. It won't be fully completed till 2011. It has been heavily criticized by dam experts, socialogists and environmentalists. It seems that only in China where they have a centralized, totalitarian, oligarchy government would such a project be undertaken. Not in Kansas, not in South Africa IMHO!



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   
to dawnstar

If malicious curse can make you feel better, just do it to present your "advance" civilization.

God will care those benevelent people.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by wwssii
to dawnstar

If malicious curse can make you feel better, just do it to present your "advance" civilization.

God will care those benevelent people.


no curse, just stating what seems to be quite obvious. China would do better to worry about regulations restricting what goes into their products, and what comes out of their factories far more than they would worrying about greenhouse gases. remember, when the US was in this "developmental" stage, we didn't have all these neat little chemicals to play with, many of which, no one has any idea what effect they have on the human body. We at least have the EPA, and a bunch of regulations attempting to protect our environment and the consumer.....china and other third world nations seem to have pretty much bypassed this step in their developement, there are few regulations protecting anyone.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Your attempts to be sarcastic shows that you don't know what you're talking about.


I wasn't being sarcastic and if your are STILL unaware of the direct correlation between the wealth/developed nature of a nation and the effects of environmental 'disasters' or problems clearing up this issue is only going to get harder


Weather in the temperate zone (that's where those countries you listed are located) and that in the tropical zone are totally different. Do you even know the difference? Have you been to Taiwan and/or Singapore?


Your still trying to represent nature as something that can not be prepared for or dealt with and that is just not accurate. If you were to make a list of countries in the tropics you will find a direct correlation between how wealthy and developed they are and how exposed the people are to mudslides and the like.


Media propaganda? What nonsense. I live here in the tropics, silly. Plus I don't watch American news channels. I've event stopped watching those propaganda shows on NatGeo masquerading as documentaries


And yet you are in my opinion still making unfounded claims, as they are 'coincidently' made in the mass media, based on presumptuous reasoning.

.

But then I only need to look out my window to see the rains are getting heavier and more frequent. I only have to walk down the road to see that the sink hole they patched a month ago has reappeared.


And in some areas of the globe, over a few decades, the rains do increase in intensity and frequency. Do you think this is evidence of global warming and if so why?


You telling me those things do not cost money to fix?


I am telling you that spending money to keep educated industrious people alive are ALWAYS money well spent. I am not suggesting that we should not do your best to mitigate or prevent any of our industrial activities from contributing and especially not when there is no net gain in either living standards or security.


I need only drive up to Genting (look it up) to see that even all the money in the world and all the advanced technology the owners of GohTongland can buy will not help them when the heavy rains cause landslides. It's getting less frequent only because they're spending more cash shoring up the slopes.


And that's why we need to develop our energy infrastructure so that we may be better able to apply energy and resources where it can prevent nature from taking it's course. Too frequently those who are arguing for environmental protection wishes to reduce energy consumption ignoring the fact that such will leave us in the very same situation. While that company may be making a smaller profit the infrastructure has been built and that structure/industrial area will be safe for all uses many decades after the original company left the area. Infrastructure investment is rarely a bad thing in countries where democractic and labour forces are getting there way and if development and construction is causing problems it's not due to them being unnecessary but becuase the host government are not doing what it's citizens wishes.


Even if those landslides don't cost any human lives, it still costs money to clear it up. It still costs money to fix the damage.


Money has no physical substance and no direct relation to energy expenditure and i can assure you that the money spent on preparing such protections against natures excess is almost always in the interest of the wider public.


Stop being so egotistical. If you were talking about events happening in your neck of the woods, I'd listen to you. Now listen when I'm talking about events happening in my region of the world.


I can't make you listen to me or even consider my words but some of what your have claimed so far had to be contested, in some respects, by someone and since i noticed your stuck with me. We do have regular flooding occurrences and while it's nothing like in the tropics i am well aware of which parts of the society suffers most and that is why i am insisting that energy development of all varieties should go ahead until we can convince our governments to generate it in the ways we choose.. That is a universal norm and unless governments act very irresponsibly the middle classes and rich can sit at their pc's and wax lyrically about how we must protect the environment by reducing energy generation while insisting on our completely unfair share.


Sheesh. :shk:
The Singaporeans have a word for it. Kiasu. Look it up.


I have plenty of interesting topics to look into so i think i will have to stick to the abuse of only one language.


As for the rest of your post, you seem to have misinterpreted my stance on the entire climate change issue.


I have read the mentioned post but i remember having seen it before and i do know that you are not openly supporting AGW or the many lies spread to support it's main tenants. I think i made my earlier objections relatively clear and that they were in fact typed while having a good approximation of your publicly stated view in mind. When i have objected it's in relation to specific points or some of your claims that are not in my opinion consistent with your declared stance.


You can look to this post for a complete outline of where I stand. It's not an "either you're with us or against us" thing. It certainly as hell isn't political (though some people would try to make it one
)


Global warming is ENTIRELY political and since we have many far greater problems, including a billion people living in abject poverty with at least half a million that are chronically malnourished, slowly starving to death, i can not take the undue attention given to global warming at face value. Clearly this is political with the AGW theory imposed and propagated to 'excuse' all the problems we see as entirely 'natural' and simply humanities 'own damn faul' for 'breeding' like we do and not 'pulling ourselves out of poverty by our bootstraps'.t. While they destroy our planet they are going to do their best to convince us that it's our fault and thus our responsibility to fix it faster than they are breaking it. I am not signing up to take part in that type of charade and i will not take on the intellectual and sociological burden of accepting the responsibility for something that we as humanity did our best to prevent while doing our best to survive the schemes and tyranny of kings and despots.


My whole point is, some things we can fix, some things we can't. Best we not break it in the first place if we can help it -- it's only going to cost more to fix it later.


And i think this claim is consistent with your declared principles in the provided link. As i have said before humans naturally try to fit into their environment and we have never chosen to destroy it for the sake of destruction alone or for making a extra few 'dollars'. That is not borne out in the historic record and since we did our best not to involve ourselves in the 'breaking' in the first place we should turn to those that did and force them to do accounting for their crimes against humanity. The sad thing about this is that 'cost' is a entirely constructed notion and that all there really is is human labour which have so far been largely misdirected into destructive industrial activities that can simply not be undone by forcing them to 'give back the money'. What this will take is a reallocation of labour and thinking towards the type of constructive endeavours that will not only right many of the past wrongs but largely prevent nature from doing whatever it may be intending to.


I'll take your points about starvation versus cash crops into consideration. Somehow I doubt it applies to China (where birth rates are encouraged to be low any way...)

Thanks for your post...


Cash crops are the result of the problem , skewed international trade practices, but if we could do away with the need for such , but preventing agri dumping and agri subsidies, massive volumes of water would be conserved. If everyone now involved in cash crop production could go back to producing food crops it would certainly massively reduce prices and living standards but since that's part, low agri prices, of the problem the historic wrongs are going to be hard to undone when people no longer have land to return to. As always it's not easy to set up international systems that are so very destructive but once they do come into being the damage they do/did are exceedingly hard to undo.

Wiki to the rescue... en.wikipedia.org...

In retrospect i could have better spent this time arguing with people that are seriously deluded instead of trying to 'correct' or 'help' someone that is in my opinion already on a very constructive course. Since there are always many others who are reading maybe they can find more benefit , or just pull at their hair, by this than you do and i can apologise if you believe that i have badly misrepresented what you consider your views to be . I have wondered how constructive mere discussion, with generally like minded people, are when you are pressed for time, and on your way to contesting truly astounding misrepresentations elsewhere, but sometimes i just can't help myself and involve myself where things were already going quite well!

I suppose i will be judged and i suppose that's what my democratic intent demands.


Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join