Obama Presses China On Global Warming 261
HughPickens.com writes: The NY Times reports that President Obama spoke at the United Nations Climate Change Summit and challenged China to make the same effort to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions and join a worldwide campaign to curb global warming. Obama's words were directly focused on putting the onus on China, an essential partner of the U.S. if a global climate treaty is to be negotiated by 2015. The U.S. and China bear a "special responsibility to lead," said Obama. "That's what big nations have to do." The U.S., Obama said, would meet a pledge to reduce its carbon emissions by 17 percent, from 2005 levels, by 2020 — a goal that is in large part expected to be met through proposed EPA regulation.
There were indications that China might be ready with its own plan, although many experts say they will be skeptical until Chinese officials reveal the details. A senior Chinese official said his country would try to reach a peak level of carbon emissions "as early as possible." This suggests the Chinese government, struggling with air pollution so extreme that it has threatened economic growth, regularly kept millions of children indoors and ignited street protests, was determined to show faster progress in curbing emissions. In recent years, the Chinese government has sent other signals about addressing carbon pollution, some of them encouraging to environmental experts. "Five years ago, it was almost unimaginable to discuss China putting a cap on carbon, but now that is happening," said Lo Sze Ping, chief executive officer of the World Wildlife Fund's office in Beijing. "Chinese leaders have seen that it is imperative to move toward a low-carbon economy."
There were indications that China might be ready with its own plan, although many experts say they will be skeptical until Chinese officials reveal the details. A senior Chinese official said his country would try to reach a peak level of carbon emissions "as early as possible." This suggests the Chinese government, struggling with air pollution so extreme that it has threatened economic growth, regularly kept millions of children indoors and ignited street protests, was determined to show faster progress in curbing emissions. In recent years, the Chinese government has sent other signals about addressing carbon pollution, some of them encouraging to environmental experts. "Five years ago, it was almost unimaginable to discuss China putting a cap on carbon, but now that is happening," said Lo Sze Ping, chief executive officer of the World Wildlife Fund's office in Beijing. "Chinese leaders have seen that it is imperative to move toward a low-carbon economy."
The pot calling the kettle black (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the Kyoto protocol?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
oh, you mean the one that the US refused to ratify because (according to Bush) "it would harm the economy"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The pot calling the kettle black (Score:5, Insightful)
While I think it is inaccurate to equate the two parties on environmental policy, I think this quote from Bush 41 best summarizes what we Americans as a whole really think about the environment: it's nice to have around for postcards and stuff, and ought to be the beneficiary of a few feel-good measures, so long as they're painless - but anything that costs real money or jobs is simply inconceivable. Any President who asks us to sacrifice for the future will simply be playing Carter to the inevitable Reagan who will come along to tell us that nothing we could ever do is bad, and everything will work to the greater good so long as we simply help ourselves and feel great about it. And that man will win the next election, in a landslide, every time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The pot calling the kettle black (Score:4, Interesting)
I came here to post just this. America is one of the worst examples of climate policy. I believe they took the position of saying if developing countries don't need to sign up then why should we. Capitalism at it's finest, the "first mover" advantage.
Not as disappointing as Canada though. At least everyone expects the USA to be a global ass, it's a shame Canada simply threw the environment into the "too hard" basket.
Re:The pot calling the kettle black (Score:4, Informative)
With Stephen Harper in charge the Canadian government doesn't look much different than the US's these days.
He is as bad as any leader we've ever had when it comes to science in general.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/12... [thetyee.ca]
http://www.academicmatters.ca/... [academicmatters.ca]
http://www.climatesciencewatch... [climatesciencewatch.org]
Tragedy of the Commons (Score:2)
The age-old problem persists, however, in that it is difficult to muster the political will in an individual nation if the measure of negative economic impact is greater than nil.
You can blame the system for creating disincentives toward pollution control, but it boils down to educating the populace. Unfortunately there is just enough denier science out there to keep c
Re: (Score:2)
Whine whine whine ... environmentalist research can be done outside funding & auspices of the federal government. Do it for "the truth", do it "for science".
Re: (Score:3)
With Stephen Harper in charge the Canadian government doesn't look much different than the US's these days.
Well at least he's no Tony Abbott. We actually made an effort (admittedly by a lying politician who said she won't introduce a carbon tax), only to roll backwards [smh.com.au] only a few years later.
Re:The pot calling the kettle black (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll also have noticed that this is all about "asking" China to do something, and not about America doing anything at all. All Obama had to do was to say "we're going to add a 5% import tax on all Chinese products that don't have a green certificate". That sort of approach may not be perfect, but it hurts the Chinese in ways that they can remedy, and whilst it ostensibly hurts the American consumer, the tax collected helps them in other ways. The tax collected could be used to stimulate local manufacturing or something - or perhaps green projects.
So as it stands, this is just one dirty country asking another dirty country to clean up. Doesn't mean anything at all, and apart from some carefully worded responses, the Chinese need do nothing about it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
What I really loved about the recent climate rallies was how the solution presented was hardcore socialist/communist revolution and the rooting out of capitalism. As if the solution to Climate Change was to eliminate Capitalism and everything would be fixed.
Although, if thats the case I need someone to explain to me why one of the few countries remaining on the planet with a Communist system of government is also the worst polluting country on the planet. If the marchers are correct and communism is the w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have some shocking news for you, immediate proximity to a border has very little to do with trade, and your arguments sound similar to those of the USA when they complained about China.
The reality is that climate change targets are not about cutting back, but rather about changing the way things are done. Case in point, read the article. South Australia hasn't gutted it's industry, it hasn't shutdown major polluters, and it hasn't caused a rise in the price of energy. You do this by subsidising green ener
Re: (Score:2)
immediate proximity to a border has very little to do with trade,
How do you figure? Do you think it is a coincidence that 70% of Canadian exports are to the USA? Also, it is worth noting that two of Canada's provinces have revenue neutral carbon taxes. One has closed down all coal plants. They are making strides, but there is a concern that being too far ahead of the curve will put them at a disadvantage.
Re:The pot calling the kettle black (Score:4, Insightful)
Histrionic nonsense.
U.S. total CO2 emissions for coal, oil and natural gas were 5,584 (million) metric tons in 1997. U.S. CO2 emissions rose to 6,023 (million) metric tons of CO2 in 2007 before they began to fall. In 2012, U.S. CO2 emissions fell to 5,293 (million) metric tons. That is 291 (million) metric tons less than they were in 1997 and 730 (million) metric tons less than their 2007 peak.
291 (million) metric tons below 1997 levels is a 5.2% reduction in CO2 emissions. It EXACTLY meets the Kyoto requirement.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, funny that, how one of the countries that didn't actually sign the treaty is one of the only countries that met its targets.
But shhhhh we can't say this. Natural Gas is pushing out dirty coal for power generation, but its only a good outcome and not a perfect one, so it still needs to be attacked by environmentalists.
Not intended, result of market crash in 2008. (Score:2)
There was absolutely no planning and no real work behind this.
Reduction resulted mainly from economic crash in 2008, and resulting lower production (=lower emissions). Kyoto goal has been reached by accident, not intentionally, and not in a stable way. When economy picks up and production increases, emissions will go back to previous levels.
Accidentally meeting Kyoto requirement is NOT the same as actively working on it.
Boasting this "achievement" is more like saying "he is a good guy, because today he did
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that actually meeting the requirements of Kyoto was never your desire. Instead Kyoto was a way to push through your idea of needed social engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The pot calling the kettle black (Score:4, Interesting)
China wouldn't need to burn so much coal if we in the West stopped using them for their child labor just so we can have iStuff and other bling a little bit cheaper.
Re:The pot calling the kettle black (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.economist.com/news/... [economist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Put the kids on pedal-powered generators and make child labor fun while cutting back on the need to burn coal. Get American kids to join in and we could solve the child obesity crisis, save the climate, gamble on televised kid-power competitions, create jobs for bicycle mechanics and generator technicians, end abusive fitness club contracts, and cut street crime from bored pre-teens running amok on our (and China's) streets.
Together we can make it happen. Vote for me in 2016.
Re: (Score:3)
China wouldn't need to burn so much coal if we in the West stopped using them for their child labor just so we can have iStuff and other bling a little bit cheaper.
I am not sure why the parent post is marked as insightful??? Wouldn't China still use coal if they are not being hired to do the labor work? If their children are forced to work, does that mean the West force them to? Or the local contractors? Or it is simply their own will because many of Chineses are so poor and want to make money regardless what others (especially westerners) rules are or what they think? The culture of Chineses, who are poor, is that they want to make a few bucks if they can rather than
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be morally better for that average laborer in China to live on about $1 a day [wikipedia.org] like they did a quarter century ago? I think the situation is much less morally clear than many people would like it to be.
Re:The pot calling the kettle black (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The pot calling the kettle black (Score:5, Informative)
And, they will continue because they don't have to deal with a political element that drives solutions down paths driven by the uninformed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Can the US survive 2 more years... (Score:2, Troll)
Geez, this guy is not going to be happy till the US and its economy is run 101% into the ground and we're on a 2nd or 3rd world level.
WTF would we cut our emissions at the cost of our manufacturing and economy unless China or other offenders do it first? China is running roughshod over us and he's wanting to voluntarily cripple the US more at this critical time?
Obama is not a friend or champion of the US, more and more I'm starting to believe the extremists that said his goal was to dismantl
Re: (Score:2)
Relsx a bit. Obama has little intention of doing much, this is mostly electioning. It was projected that the dems would lose the senate in about 6 weeks so he is politicing to energixe the dem base for turnout.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey if we slip into being a 3rd world country, we can call ourselves a 'developing nation' and ignore the kyoto protocol like china does.
Seriously, "China is running roughshod over us " is not accurate. WE are running roughshod over ourselves.
WE want our cheap stuff and our own companies are happy to invest in factories in China, Myanmar, Malyasia, etc. WE have financed their industrial growth. WE have voted on laws and politicians that enable 'free trade' with countries that cannot afford our own products.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, right now I don't give much a fuck about greenhouse gases. I'll worry about that when we're rolling the economy along again.
I think I'd start by dropping corporate taxes to about zero. That would attra
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, they're going faster, but they've also got a lot more ground to cover and a lot more errors to fix.
Re:The pot calling the kettle black (Score:4, Interesting)
China is kicking the worlds ass when it comes to clean air generation progress.
China is moving its dirty coal burning plants away from the cities, not getting rid of them
Coal gas boom in China holds climate change risks [huffingtonpost.com]
This is the first of more than 60 coal-to-gas plants China wants to build, mostly in remote parts of the country where ethnic minorities have farmed and herded for centuries. Fired up in December, the multibillion-dollar plant bombards millions of tons of coal with water and heat to produce methane, which is piped to Beijing to generate electricity.
It's part of a controversial energy revolution China hopes will help it churn out desperately needed natural gas and electricity while cleaning up the toxic skies above the country's eastern cities. However, the plants will also release vast amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, even as the world struggles to curb greenhouse gas emissions and stave off global warming.
If all of the plants start up, the carbon dioxide they'd release would equal three-quarters of all energy-related carbon emissions in the U.S., according to U.S. government data and energy experts from Duke and Stanford universities. That is far more than now produced in China by burning coal, the country's main source of power.
And the nuclear plants they have under construction will produce more power than the USA's (#1) and France's (#2) nuclear power combined.
Yet they will still need all that dirty coal power to meet their energy demands.
Re: (Score:2)
In short, you can't ignore China's growth challenges.
Re: (Score:3)
I have sent you a link about Germany, as actually live here. :)
A random usa web page about solar power is certainly far less credible
And, well, you can google yourself.
However, a simple thought experiment: a day has 24 hours. That is over the course of a year more or less exactly 12h daytime and 12h night time. Lets cut the 'useful' daytime to 8h, losing 2h dawn and dusk each.
How the heck should it be possible that you only get 2.5h sun put of 8h 'daylight'?
If you want english links out of germany, google f
Re: (Score:2)
China is building up massive amounts of nuclear as well. They are really trying to kick their coal habit.
Wind is more of a curiosity than anything in China.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to curb the global problem is to impose sanctions on all the countries who have the highest per capita power consumption.
Bullshit. The only way to curb the global problem is to impose sanctions on all the countries which have the highest per capita emissions. The USA would still qualify, of course, but it's not about power consumption but about the end results. If you produce the power from solar or wind sources, you can use more with less impact. (Arguments about viability of these sources are separate from this argument, I hope.)
The US neither manufactures things,
Well, actually, the US is still one of the world's largest manufacturers, but it's recently beco
Re: (Score:2)
Could you elaborate on how the US has recently become unfriendly toward steel production?
Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
The US consumes 1.6KW of power per person. China consumes 0.4KW.
An average US person consumes 4x more power than a Chinese person. The US ought to cut its fuel and power consumption before snubbing other nations.
Re:Funny (Score:5, Funny)
Haiti consumes 0.01KW/person. We should all strive to reach the ecological responsibility displayed by Haitians.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, China produces nearly twice as much carbon as the USA, even though it only has four times our population....
Re: (Score:2)
What's that you said? China produces half the CO2 emissions per capita? Actually is significantly less than half enjoying the lovely 55th place in emissions per capita ranked globally. But I guess the USA should be proud of being the highest ranked nation that doesn't have an insane oil or coal industry like the 11 nations above it.
Re: (Score:3)
Or the fact that it doesn't have millions upon millions of rural, subsistence farmers to goose the average.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think those figures demonstrate what you think they demonstrate. They still show that the average American produces twice as much carbon as the average Chinese.
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly, that's pretty much what I thought those figures shows.
Alas, OP (who I was responding to) was trying to suggest that the average American produced FOUR times the carbon of the average Chinese....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that mean that a person in the US emits twice as much Carbon as a person in China?
Sure. But China is trying to "modernize" and give everyone our lifestyle. Since China is building coal plants faster than anyone, they're on the road to producing just as much CO2 per person as we do, plus more of all the bad things which come out of a coal plant.
Re: (Score:2)
So, are you saying that till the point they burn twice the amount of coal and give the US lifestyle to their citizens, they are justified?
This is not a proper sentence, because it does not express a complete thought. Who is justified in what?
The US ought to reduce its carbon emissions at least as low as China
China's carbon emissions are higher than the USA's, so that's already done. If you mean per capita, like I said, China is working to provide its citizens with a more "modernized" lifestyle. They're working to catch up to our per capita output.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it is even more uneven, as US outsources its CO2 to China via manufacturing products which ultimately end up in US consumer hands.
If the CO2 was accounted to a country according to where the product ended-up then US would be consuming much more CO2 and China much less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
China has demonstrated in the past decade that it is capable of making such large-scale changes to its infrastructure. Asking them to do that trick again seems reasonable.
They did incidentally make thorium reactors a national priority a few years ago.
The impoverished West meanwhile has this: https://www.indiegogo.com/proj... [indiegogo.com]
Re: (Score:3)
it would be a good plan to try to implement that growth with CO2-neutral technologies, rather than build more coal plants.
The whole "coal plants or carbon-neutral" is a false dilemma, and not really helpful to reducing C02. Few technologies are really carbon-neutral. I mean, if you buy a bunch of solar panels and stick them on the roof, OK, they don't emit any C02. But they're manufactured in China using power that is primarily generated by coal, so you're helping to add C02 to the atmosphere. Likewise, if you build a hydroelectricity plant, odds are the machinery used to build it is all fueled by diesel, and the concrete pro
Re: (Score:2)
But they're manufactured in China using power that is primarily generated by coal
What if you buy the panels that are manufactured using power primarily generated by solar panels ?
Burning Lungs At Olympics (Score:2)
Tending to the environment helps everyone, which is why the US and Europe don't have acid rain problems like in the 1990s.
No one benefits from polluted air or toxic water, China has made great strides in the last 20 years and they have the resources to raise their own state of affairs for the human condition in their country by cleaning up a bit. A fair amount of it
Re:Funny (Score:5, Informative)
The dirty three (US, Canada and Australia) all produce more than 16 tonnes CO2 per person.
The EU about 6.8
China produces 7.2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scie... [bbc.co.uk]
Perhaps the US should demonstrate how big countries lead and actually do something meaningful about its emissions instead of hypocritically lecturing.
None of the figures above actually account for outsourcing manufacturing to China from the US and EU. In that light the Western country's CO2 production is much and China's lower.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and what does China do with it? A Chinese is about 1/4 as productive as the US.
Yet, we would be better off if that production actually happened in the US and EU, because we would be emitting less CO2 ov
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't actually true. Although the EU is much more populous than the US, it's emissions per person are much lower. This results in the EU producing 10% of the global total of CO2 versus 15% by the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the linked article at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get those values?
According to this table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita)
It's 9.6kW for the USA and 2.4kW for China.
I suppose you only took electric consumption into account (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC), but if you talk about climate change and global environmental impact, you've got to take everything (food, transport, heating & cooling, ...) into account. The ratios might be approximately the same, but electricit
Re: (Score:2)
An average US person is also more than 4x as productive than a Chinese person.
That will have a combination of three consequences: (1) more of the stuff we make will be made by the Chinese with less efficient methods, leading to more carbon emissions, (2) stuff will get more expensive overall, making everybody worse off, and (3) China will become more powerful rel
Re: (Score:2)
And they have the money now to be able to afford scrubbers and other technology to keep their air and water clean!
Instead of keeping trillions in surplus in the bank while air and water pollution is miserable, they should use a small percent of that to have cleaner air and water for their citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the west is so decadent in our consumption.
And surely the selfless Chinese themselves bear no responsibility for not pricing in the damage to their environment in the price of their goods. It is the west's evil desire to consume that is the source of environmental damage and child exploitation in China. How could you even think that China themselves should bear responsibility? The Chinese are morally superior and have no desire to consume. You can be sure that if the Chinese were as rich as Westerner
Think about the children (Score:5, Insightful)
There is global warming, leading to more chaotic and extreme weather patterns. There is also pollution in general/
I currently live in Hong Kong. In general that is a great experience but there are days when lots of smog comes from the Shenzen area. I first thought it was fog, that is how bad it can be.
We should all do an effort, on country, company and personal level to make this world more livable for our children.
Re: (Score:3)
We should all do an effort, on country, company and personal level to make this world more livable for our children.
What I don't like about that argument is that is seems to imply that "we all" have "our children".
Specifically, what I don't like is the "our" in your sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Parents often recognize and complain that they let their emotions rule when their own children were challenged.
They first express your opinion and later regret it.
Re: Think about the children (Score:2)
But I think we have a moral obligation towards the next generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Think of the children!"
"Lets leave them a world of energy starvation and poverty!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, that is what would happen if we don't develop sustainable infrastructure!
Re: (Score:2)
I mean it seriously, we need to think about what kind of world we leave for our children. .
i do not have any children and frankly I do not believe there is anything special about our species or even life on this planet to merit such considerations. We merely exists and that's the end of it. Whether we continue to exist, or not makes no difference at all.
Re: Think about the children (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And because you live in Hong Kong and experience China's lousy environmental record, not to mention rapid population growth... the US with its stagnant natural growth and strong environmental protection is at fault for global pollution and global warming. Sure, that makes total sense!
so (Score:2)
...when will American auto makers get the message and build a car that gets better than 60mpg? (easily done with a 1.3 litre engine, impossible with a 6 litre whatever fucking jet engine thing, and there is NO NED for 6 litres in a car that's made for a market with a 55mph national speed limit!). I say China is doing damn well with small-engine hybrids etc, even considering they're importing them by the shipload from Korea and Japan. Obama's got no room to talk. Maybe he should get back to adding another la
Re: (Score:2)
...when will American auto makers get the message and build a car that gets better than 60mpg?
American automakers got the message, which is why they are not doing that. They got the message that we will covet and pay more for vehicles with excessive power output, and not for fuel-efficient econoboxes.
there is NO NED for 6 litres in a car that's made for a market with a 55mph national speed limit
There is no 55 mph national speed limit. There are highways as fast as 75 mph in the USA. That still supports your argument, but do try to get the facts right.
Obama's got no room to talk.
There's still room, because China is still polluting more per unit of energy generated. That's still cause for concern.
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected, the national speed limit (55mph www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724439/ ) was repealed in 1995 (disclosure/disclaimer: I am not American).
Re: (Score:2)
there is NO NED for 6 litres in a car that's made for a market with a 55mph national speed limit
There is no 55 mph national speed limit. There are highways as fast as 75 mph in the USA. That still supports your argument, but do try to get the facts right.
There's no national speed limit. Texas is weird in that it's not as uniform as other states. It does have an area with an 85 mph limit but it's mostly 75 mph. There's three states with an 80 mph limit and 13 with a limit of 75 mph. Eleven states have a cap of 65 mph and one state has a cap of 60 mph. The remaining 22 have a cap of 70 mph.
There was a law passed in 1974 in response to the oil crisis that set a national speed limit of 55 mph. It was upped to 65 mph in 1987 but finally repealed in 1995.
Re: (Score:2)
He "challenged" China? (Score:2)
Well now, that's a President who's getting it done (i.e., by asking/demanding/challenging somebody else to do something).
And that really puts the pressure on China. I mean, it's not like they can ignore a Presidential challenge. (/sarc)
Re: (Score:2)
China has a government that adapts to changes (Score:2)
While Western nations (certainly not just the US, but also almost all of Europe) have reached a democratic impasse in which very little changes, China seems able to reflect on changes internally and externally, and develop drastic new regulations when necessary. It can self-correct. I could give a long explanation why this is true, but Eric Li explained it a lot better in a TEDx presentation. It's 20 minutes, but very relevant when comparing governments of China and US (and other Western countries).
https:// [ted.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People made the same arguments about Stalin and Hitler. For some reason, communism and totalitarianism tend to have a large following among a Western intellectual elites.
Text of speech (Score:2)
"So today, I call on all major economies to do the same [declare emissions targets and implementation policies]. For I believe, in the words of Dr. King, that there is such a thing as being too late. And for the sake of future generations, our generation must move toward a global compact to confront a changing climate while we still can."
Threatening China w
Innocent as Acid Snow (Score:3)
Over the decades we have outsourced our most hazardous production to other nations such as China since in the US complying with our strict labor and environmental safety regulations makes it very expensive, and some industries probably can't be clean or safe enough to be legal. But now we stand at our clean and smog-free shores and pat ourselves on the back while pointing at the very nations we shipped our hazardous production to and accuse them of being unsafe and dirty.
Reminds of the scene from Game of Thrones when Joffrey says his mother has told him that a king should not strike a woman, then he orders Ser Meryn to hit Sansa. Meryn immediately obeys the command without hesitation or concern for the young lady. The US is Joffrey, Ser Meryn is China, Sansa is Mother Nature, and we are all hypocrites.
So While Evaluating Unicorn? (Score:2)
Obama says.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
May be but the per capita COâ for China has now surpassed that of the E.U. so at least those of us in Europe can sit point fingers and demand action from both the USA and China. Australia's per capita COâ is also bad but there not many of them to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The reason for this is because we stopped producing many things and outsourced much of the dirtiest and energy-intensive production to China.
If China was to stop doing that production for us and we'd start to have to smelt and shape that steel and aluminium again, our emissions per capita would explode.
Re: (Score:2)
One car per household may mean one job per household, and that hasn't been sustainable for a loooong time.
On one hand the US is using an incredible amount of energy and they need to clean it up, the barriers to that are almost purely political. It's economically and technologically feasible.
On the other hand, China doesn't have to develop itself on coal. Again, clean energy can be just as cheap. Oil is only getting more expensive and renewable is only getting cheaper. And China's heavily authoritarian gover
Re: (Score:2)
If you use per capita energy usage then you're using a really poor statistic because you're ignoring the fact that China has millions of sustenance farmers that goose the average.
Think about it - the US could improve its per capita energy usage by importing people, putting them in 6x6 homes and giving them just enough food to survive. Surely you recognize now that your metric is flawed.
Even the comparison of emmisions vs GDP is a better metric.