Why is China, a country whose people still live in poverty by Australian standards and whose per capita greenhouse emissions will never even approach ours, prepared to make far greater economic sacrifices for the environment than us? They are going to ban golf courses and free standing houses and shut down steel and iron mills.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21331921-601,00.html

Mr Wen said China's drive for a cleaner environment would "give full play to the role of the market", including through charging companies for pollution emissions.

Because theyre leaders have half a brain? :P :P

i thought China was heavily polluted, which is why they are making such sacrifices. Australia should as well, better to fix this problem earlier, rather than later.

If China makes all these concessions to control their greenhouse emissions, the US and Australia won't have an excuse not to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

We should be ashamed of our regressive energy policies.

Too right, mantra. Australia should be leading by example, not using the juvenile "if China can pollute, we can too" argument.

China is incomparable to Australia when it comes to pollution. The government may say this or that but the country is largely  unregulated - particularly industry, and in places an utter disaster area. They are already facing serious environmental issues, the recent market 'correction' was explained by one analyst as a result of environmental concerns in China, and there are likely to be many more to come. The only known major species extinction event in the last 50 years just happened in China when a type of freshwater dolphin died out due to pollution and overfishing. Didn't one of their major rivers recently turn completely red from pollution? Regulation means little without enforcement and in China this is how things work, the system is utterly corrupt.

When we are on the brink of collapse, then yes I think our governments will pull their fingers out too. Although with the current water crisis and the useless responses by all levels of government I think maybe this isn't necessarily the case!

When the only day that you can see a blue sky is the Chinese New Year holiday in the cities, it's a fairly big sign that drastic measures need to be taken. However, I don't believe that banning golf courses and free standing homes are a good idea. Much of China is still rural and eventhough there has been a huge migration toward the cities, the bulk of their population still live in villages in free standing homes that are shared by a family (large ones at that). Oh and China's current golf course owners just got exponentially richer.

And before people start praising the Chinese Government simply because they SAY they are doing something, you also need to take into account how vast their state bureaucracy is and the massive capacity for corruption and 'exceptions'.

Also, what is going to happen to the owners and workers of these 'backward' industries?  

It's all well and good to think Australia should cut back on greenhouse gasses, but how do they propose this?  :-?

As far as I know, there's no other way to do this except build nuclear power plants, ride bicycles, cut back on production of goods and services, take shorter showers and grow your own vegetables. With reducing greenhouse gasses come consequences... there's no EASY way to do it.

Are people willing to make these sacrifices? I doubt it.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 10^th, 2007 at 10:00pm:

It's all well and good to think Australia should cut back on greenhouse gasses, but how do they propose this?  :-? As far as I know, there's no other way to do this except build nuclear power plants, ride bicycles, cut back on production of goods and services, take shorter showers and grow your own vegetables. With reducing greenhouse gasses come consequences... there's no EASY way to do it. Are people willing to make these sacrifices? I doubt it.

This is absolutely true and does not necessarily mean at least some of it can't be achieved by people who are willing. Like I said in another thread, you don't need to grow your own vegetables, you just need them grown and sold near you. Riding bikes is another good one, and there is no good reason why people would not want to ride a bike. Although cars make up only a fraction of CO2 emissions.

Now I am a greeny through and through, but I believe in practical solutions and right now I don't see a good reason why we should be going nuclear. Coal is cheap and easy and we have the infrastructure installed to continue working with coal. It makes no economic sense to stop using it. And whilst we are huge per capita polluters the argument that we amount to a tiny percentage of world emissions is unfortunately apt. I would prefer to see our CO2 emissions offset with other things like reforestation and ending our dependence on fossil fuel sourced fertiliser in farming. I personally see desertification and deforestation as much larger and more pressing issues than climate change.

If people aren't willing to make these sacrifices then I'm happy to sit back and watch them devolve into squalor as our environment self-destructs around them. It is pure idiotic lunacy to refuse to open your eyes and keep doing what we are doing, and if thats what people want then hey I'm willing to watch their ignorance come back and bite them in the arse.

But Zoso, don't coal power plants produce large quantities of CO2 emissions whereas nuclear power plants produce 0?  :-?

And what are the odds of a nuclear meltdown anyway? Million to one?

And as far as I'm concerned, Australia is the PERFECT place to dispose of nuclear waste. Look at Western Australia for example... large amounts of UNUSED earth (Not even used by animals), just ready and waiting to be put to use by us humans.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 11^th, 2007 at 3:50pm:

But Zoso, don't coal power plants produce large quantities of CO2 emissions whereas nuclear power plants produce 0?  :-? And what are the odds of a nuclear meltdown anyway? Million to one? And as far as I'm concerned, Australia is the PERFECT place to dispose of nuclear waste. Look at Western Australia for example... large amounts of UNUSED earth (Not even used by animals), just ready and waiting to be put to use by us humans.

Firstly it is a slight fallacy to think Nuclear plants produce zero CO2. Uranium is spread far and wide compared to coal and requires significant amounts of CO2 to mine and transport. It has to be then processed intensively at high power consumption before it is useful as fuel. The entire process is intensive and expensive.

Coal on the other hand requires little processing, and nearly zero transportation as coal plants tend to be located next to coal mines. Of course coal produces huge quantities of CO2, but this is not what I am getting at.

My argument is that Nuclear is hugely cost-inneficient. Right now, as found by the Switkowski report, Nuclear is about as cost effective as wind or solar power. Even the 25 plants that we are supposed to be building soon will only amount to a fraction of our power needs and I argue that it would be better to invest this money in wind and solar. South Australia now has 20% of its power coming from renewables in the form of wind and solar and if these hot rocks plants get off the ground that should jump to 30%. I believe that our economy is simply not big enough to justify the Nuclear option and investments should go into carbon offsets like sequestration and plantation timber instead. If we truly want to support nuclear then we should export uranium to other countries and support their nuclear power. Eventually of course we will have to end our coal use since we will run out of the stuff, but for now I simply think there are better ways to spend our money than on Nuclear plants.

Meltdown is not really a danger I agree, but waste management is an issue. No matter how big our country is we are talking about dangerous stuff that is expensive to deal with. Are you aware that it is not only spent uranium, but plant water and the plant itself that is counted in the dangerous waste by-products of nuclear power? And there is another issue - water! Nuclear plants require vast quantities of makeup water just the same as coal plants, water we do not have.

I just think Nuclear is the expensive option and since it involves pollution of a sort, why not use the money to fund solutions that don't involve pollution?

Perhaps a more Technocratic approach (applicable in this case would be the shift from a dollars based economic efficiency analysis ie dollars per kilowatt to an absolute energy in terms of real material resources required to produce that one kilowatt efficiency equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accounting) and analysis to the energy question needs to be taken. How green or renewable is something when you take the WHOLE process of producing say one kilowatt of power is from start to finish? This includes the construction of the equipment needed, the training and upkeep of persons required to run and build it, the base infrastructure both industrial, technical and material required to even make it a proposition from a non-economically based efficiency point of view and the actual consumables in terms of fuel to feed it.

Fundamentally speaking, I believe that energy self sufficient homes that collect their own solar and water resources to be a good idea when supplemented by a shared infrastructure that we use today. Just switch to nuclear power as the backup energy source instead of burning coal.

It's all well and good to think Australia should cut back on greenhouse gasses, but how do they propose this?

Via a green tax shift.

As far as I know, there's no other way to do this except build nuclear power plants, ride bicycles, cut back on production of goods and services, take shorter showers and grow your own vegetables. With reducing greenhouse gasses come consequences... there's no EASY way to do it.  

There are plenty of different ways in which industry and individuals can cut back on emissions. Most of it is hidden from the generalk public and very complex. You just have to create the right incentives and the changes will happen.

Are people willing to make these sacrifices? I doubt it.

We could make significant reductions in our emissions with very small sacrifices. People are more prepared to make those sacrifices than to sacrifice the environment for our comfort.

TommySix wrote on Mar 11^th, 2007 at 7:05pm:

Perhaps a more Technocratic approach (applicable in this case would be the shift from a dollars based economic efficiency analysis ie dollars per kilowatt to an absolute energy in terms of real material resources required to produce that one kilowatt efficiency equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accounting) and analysis to the energy question needs to be taken. How green or renewable is something when you take the WHOLE process of producing say one kilowatt of power is from start to finish? This includes the construction of the equipment needed, the training and upkeep of persons required to run and build it, the base infrastructure both industrial, technical and material required to even make it a proposition from a non-economically based efficiency point of view and the actual consumables in terms of fuel to feed it. Fundamentally speaking, I believe that energy self sufficient homes that collect their own solar and water resources to be a good idea when supplemented by a shared infrastructure that we use today. Just switch to nuclear power as the backup energy source instead of burning coal.

I like you way of thinking and I agree completely. One thing I don't understand is why the government hasn't put a mandate on solar hot water in new homes, and a subsidy to boot?

I do however disagree that Nuclear (Fission) should play a part in our future. Either we wait for clean(er) nuclear in the form of fusion or we stick with coal and clean it up I think (or both, really). The earth is a living carbon system, even now we don't actually put out a comparable amount of CO2 to nature, we have just badly upset the balance. I see no reason why we cannot find that balance again and still emit a small amount of CO2, I mean we exhale the stuff for gods sake!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/china-overtakes-us-as-top-co2-emitter/2007/06/20/1182019182449.html

China spewed out more carbon dioxide than the United States for the first time last year, making it the world's biggest producer of the primary gas blamed for global warming.

New figures from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency show China produced 6,200 million tonnes of CO2 in 2006, while the US produced 5,800 million tonnes, the Guardian Unlimited news site reports.

In 2005, China's emissions were 2 per cent below those of the US, it said.

greenhouse emissions mean jack, as climate change is not affected by humans.

Planting more trees would be wonderful though, more oxygen etc, however i would like to point out one thing. flying over sydney you cannot help but notice the sheer amount of green in comparison to other cities around the world. We arent doing to badly.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/SA-greenhouse-gas-laws-take-effect/2007/07/03/1183351176855.html

South Australia's target to reduce greenhouse gas emission has become law.

Legislation committing the state to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets took effect as of Tuesday, Premier Mike Rann said.

The laws set three targets: reducing greenhouse gas emissions in SA by at least 60 per cent of 1990 levels by the end of 2050; increasing renewable electricity generation to comprise 20 per cent of power generation by the end of 2014; and increasing renewable energy consumption to make up 20 per cent of power used in SA by the end of 2014.

"We are on track to achieve the legislated target of 20 per cent of our state's power coming from renewable sources by 2014," Mr Rann said in a statement.

---

China can have sustainable growth: Gore

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/China-can-have-sustainable-growth-Gore/2007/08/07/1186252705844.html

China can cut its carbon emissions without jeopardising economic growth if it uses new technologies that do not emit greenhouse gases, former US Vice President Al Gore says.

Gore cited the mobile phone industry as an example of a business that does not need to burn fossil fuels such as oil and coal.

"There are ways to leap-frog the old, dirty technologies," said Gore, who was speaking at the Global Brand Forum in Singapore.

China, like other developing nations, is worried that plans to cut carbon emissions would cripple its economic development.

But Gore said the Chinese government needed to be more aggressive in fighting global warming because the country's chronic water shortage is tied to climate change.

---

One-child policy 'helps protect climate'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Onechild-policy-helps-protect-climate/2007/08/31/1188067338744.html

China says its one-child policy has helped the fight against global warming by avoiding 300 million births - the equivalent of the population of the United States.

But delegates at UN climate change talks in Vienna said birth control was unlikely to find favour as a major policy theme, partly because of opposition by the Catholic Church and some developing nations trying to increase their population.

Some scientists say that birth control measures far less draconian than China's are wrongly overlooked in the fight against climate change, when the world population is projected to soar to about nine billion by 2050 from 6.6 billion now.

"Population has not been taken seriously enough in the climate debate," said Chris Rapley, incoming head of the Science Museum in London.

He favours a greater drive for education about family planning to avoid unwanted births and slow population growth.

But tougher birth control runs into opposition from the Roman Catholic Church, and from some developing nations which favour rising birth rates and have per capita emissions a fraction of those in rich nations.

Harlan Watson, the chief US negotiator, said that high immigration to the United States makes it harder to slow its rising emissions.