Amazing China Polution pictures

[HOZ]

Good to see people not get the gist of the post and turn on Canada like ravenous wolves. China is polluting on a scale never seen before with no environmental oversight at all. If there is any it is just a piece of paper that is shown to jet-set environmentalists whenever they come. So I will make it much easier for those that missed the point: Just think what Canada with it's various problems would look like if the Chinese government was in charge.

The post about those natives in the back country that are suffering from industrial pollution....sure would like to see evidence of that.

Also....
It is easier for Europeans to put up giant fans and look down their collective noses at us North American rubes than to truly make a difference.

Despite Europe's boom in solar and wind energy, CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram. Now, even the Green Party is taking a new look at the issue -- as shown in e-mails obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE.

[Shazam]

It's been known for a while that Germany's emissions haven't fallen. It's all just a shell game, really.

The only real way to reduce manmade CO2 is to go back to a rural agrarian existence.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by HOZ

The post about those natives in the back country that are suffering from industrial pollution....sure would like to see evidence of that.

.

http://intercontinentalcry.org/canad...igenous-lands/
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/is/ewr-eng.asp

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-36904721_ITM

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/ab...ls/health.html
http://www.environment.utoronto.ca/S...%20Nation.aspx

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

http://intercontinentalcry.org/canad...igenous-lands/
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/is/ewr-eng.asp

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-36904721_ITM

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/ab...ls/health.html
http://www.environment.utoronto.ca/S...%20Nation.aspx

That is a very sad story. But again.....would you expect this to happen in China? (From your second link)

• The Government of Canada has contributed more than $9 million dollars in compensation to the First Nations affected by mercury contamination of the English-Wabigoon River system for economic and social development initiatives.
  
  
• The Mercury Disability Board was established in 1986 in response to mercury poisoning of the English-Wabigoon River system. The Board oversees the administration of a trust fund from which benefits are paid to claimants showing symptoms of mercury poisoning.
  
  
• Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) has been working with the Board, along with the Government of Ontario (represented by the Ontario Secretariat for Aboriginal Affairs), since its inception and supports its work.

Your Canada is just as bad because we did bad things too equivalency argument falls a little flat.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by HOZ

That is a very sad story. But again.....would you expect this to happen in China? (From your second link)

• The Government of Canada has contributed more than $9 million dollars in compensation to the First Nations affected by mercury contamination of the English-Wabigoon River system for economic and social development initiatives.
  
  
• The Mercury Disability Board was established in 1986 in response to mercury poisoning of the English-Wabigoon River system. The Board oversees the administration of a trust fund from which benefits are paid to claimants showing symptoms of mercury poisoning.
  
  
• Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) has been working with the Board, along with the Government of Ontario (represented by the Ontario Secretariat for Aboriginal Affairs), since its inception and supports its work.

Your Canada is just as bad because we did bad things too equivalency argument falls a little flat.

Ok, Canada isn't just as bad any more. Bad things happen and then we try to fix them usually after years of delaying and trying to weasel out of it.

Fifty years ago we were a lot worse though.

[Dorkmaster]

The problem with people's mentalities these days is pointing fingers at each other. Its not about whose worse, its about solving the problem at the end of the day. Per capita, per square mile are all just manipulations of numbers to make one or the other sound better.

Bottom line is that for people to solve the problem of pollution and destruction of the planet people must be willing to sacrifice and it must be a massive collective effort.

Are countries willing to sacrifice their advantages to clean up the Earth? Are we prepared to decrease our consumption by a large scale in order to reduce the amounts of wastes polluted?

Pollution will continue to be a major problem as long as our way of life as we know it continues. Are we willing to give up our comforts for the better of the world?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Also....
It is easier for Europeans to put up giant fans and look down their collective noses at us North American rubes than to truly make a difference.

Despite Europe's boom in solar and wind energy, CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram. Now, even the Green Party is taking a new look at the issue -- as shown in e-mails obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE.

For reasons (only known to the author) the article appears to be only concerned with CO2 emissions therefore can be a bit misleading.

whereas, ....

BRUSSELS (Dow Jones)--Greenhouse gas emissions in 15 European Union countries fell by 1.3% in 2008 compared with the previous year, the fourth consecutive annual fall, putting them on track to reach their 2012 Kyoto Protocol target, the commission said Monday.
The latest fall took the emissions of these E.U. countries - which don't include the newest members, mainly eastern European states - to 6.2% below their 1990 level, according to provisional data by the European Environment Agency. According to the Kyoto international agreement on climate change, the 15 countries must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 8% between 2008 and 2012, compared with 1990 levels.
Emissions for all of the 27 E.U. countries fell by 1.5% in 2008, the commission also said, citing the provisional data. The 27-country bloc doesn't have a common target under the Kyoto protocol.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...31-703433.html

And don't ask me why they put CO2 in the title of that article either when it refers to GGs as a whole.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The beauty of the hypocrisy of environmentalists is the use of "per capita" stats. The earth doesn't care how many people live in Canada vs. China. It only cares how much damage is being done to it. We in Canada need to improve, there is no doubt about it. But China has much, much farther to go, and it is hard to take the entire green movement seriously when the world simply won't hold the worst polluters accountable.

If not per capita stats, then what should be used? The arbitrary divisions that are political borders?

Keep in mind that China makes up about 20% of 'the world' that you're talking about. Canada makes up a measly 0.5% of that population. Even the US, which is the most populous country of the developed world is still less than 5%, while China and India together make up a good 37% of the Earth's population. All of Europe and North America together is still smaller than China at only 19%.

It's a matter of people trying to move up in the world, and a matter of only a small portion of the world living in states of development that the rest of the world want. It's not so nice sitting in on a pile of money in an extremely privileged part of the world, consuming disproportionately large amounts of resources and asking for your variety of products to be made more cheaply while telling the much larger part of the world population, who live in much harder conditions, that they can't consume resources and make a mess in order to earn what you have while producing your goods.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Why do we have to bend the facts to make ourselves worse than we are? So what if we burn more energy per capital than China or some European country. Pollution generated shouldn't be divided by a country's population when determining the level of a country's guilt. Pollution generated should be divided by the land mass a country controls and that figure used to determine the level of responsibility.

So if a person in Neighbourhood A throws trash on the ground and a person in Neighbourhood B throws trash on the ground, but Neighbourhood B is bigger then the person from Neighborhood A is more responsible for polluting the Earth?

[Bagor]

The Copenhagen positioning of China and India - not always what it seems November 3, 2009 9:10amby Fiona Harvey


Some people may be confused as to the positions of developing countries in the negotiations leading up to Copenhagen. That is not surprising, as they are confusing. Here are some pointers, and some myths busted.
Q. India and China keep saying they will not take on binding targets to cut their emissions or caps on their emissions. This scuppers a deal, right?
A. Wrong. For a start, India and China are not being asked to take on binding targets to cut their emissions. They are, along with other developing countries, being asked to take on “nationally appropriate mitigation actions”, or NAMAs. (Mitigation, in the climate change context, always means cutting or curbing emissions. It never refers to adjusting to the effects of climate change - that is called adaptation.)
These NAMAs would set out “measurable, reportable and verifiable” actions that the countries would take to curb the growth of their emissions in future. These actions include investing in energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy.
India and China have both begun to take many such measures, and they have pledged to increase these. In fact, if China is successful in meeting its own targets - as it has been in the past - then according to the IEA it will be the biggest single contributor to global emissions reductions by 2020.

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/20...what-it-seems/

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Bagor

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/20...what-it-seems/

From the time I've spent working with professionals from a whole range of industries in China, I know that there is a massive amount of investment in cleaner energy inside China. Especially in wind.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The beauty of the hypocrisy of environmentalists is the use of "per capita" stats.

And the solution is?

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

The only people who think of Canada as an environmental heaven are uninformed Canadians. Everyone else in the world knows that as "America Jr." we consume at a ridiculous rate.

Honestly in my dealings with international committees regarding environmental studies, many Europeans paint us the same color as Americans when it comes to consumption and pollution. We are, in short, scoffed at for our degradation of the planet.

Originally Posted by Dorkmaster

The problem with people's mentalities these days is pointing fingers at each other. Its not about whose worse, its about solving the problem at the end of the day. Per capita, per square mile are all just manipulations of numbers to make one or the other sound better.

Bottom line is that for people to solve the problem of pollution and destruction of the planet people must be willing to sacrifice and it must be a massive collective effort.

Are countries willing to sacrifice their advantages to clean up the Earth? Are we prepared to decrease our consumption by a large scale in order to reduce the amounts of wastes polluted?

Pollution will continue to be a major problem as long as our way of life as we know it continues. Are we willing to give up our comforts for the better of the world?

Pretty much. Look at certain posters in this thread for the typical attitude of some Canadians (not all, but some). Canadians think they have it right, but North Americans (including Canadians) also have to be some of the most wasteful people I've met.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Bagor

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/20...what-it-seems/

China has the second largest GDP in the world and your article calls it a developing nation. That alone makes anything else it says laughable. Canada by comparison has the 14th largest GDP.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Pretty much. Look at certain posters in this thread for the typical attitude of some Canadians (not all, but some). Canadians think they have it right, but North Americans (including Canadians) also have to be some of the most wasteful people I've met.

This thread was started to discuss China's dismal record regarding the environment and the world's unwillingness to call them out for it. Unfortunately certain posters chose to attack Canada's record instead which readily demonstrates the blindness many have towards China and bias against Canada.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

China has the second largest GDP in the world and your article calls it a developing nation. That alone makes anything else it says laughable. Canada by comparison has the 14th largest GDP.

This post is ridiculous! If you don't think China is a developing nation then you probably don't know anything about China beyond it's name. The very fact that you point out Canada's GDP in comparison reinforces how phenomenally backwards that comment is. Canada's GDP ($1.511 trillion) is only 1/3 of China's GDP ($4.402 trillion) while the population of Canada is 1/50 of China's population. How does that not support the view that Canada is MUCH more developed than China!?!

Here is some more reading on levels of poverty in China that might further enlighten you to China's state of development. A country with 12-13% of adults living on $1.25/day or less has some serious development in store for it yet.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

This thread was started to discuss China's dismal record regarding the environment and the world's unwillingness to call them out for it. Unfortunately certain posters chose to attack Canada's record instead which readily demonstrates the blindness many have towards China and bias against Canada.

Based on your previous comments I'd say that you need to seriously enlighten yourself about China. You seem quite in the dark on the topic.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

So if a person in Neighbourhood A throws trash on the ground and a person in Neighbourhood B throws trash on the ground, but Neighbourhood B is bigger then the person from Neighborhood A is more responsible for polluting the Earth?

Trash isn't pollution until it alters the environment it's discarded in. If a can of trash is discarded into a small stream it might contaminate the habitat for fish and make the water undrinkable(depending on what is in the can). If that same can of trash is dumped into a river the size of the Kootenay or the Columbia the impact is slight. Of course there is no practical reason to throw trash around which makes trash a bad metaphor. Pollution produced in the process of growing food or moving goods and people have a definite benefit to mankind. That is why most people will accept a certain level of alteration of the environment in order to achieve a quality of life. The question of impact relates directly to size of the environment.

[JohnnyB]

To get back on topic. I have seen several sides of China, including having lived in one of the most polluted cities in the world for a month. I have scene both intense pollution and very beautiful natural environments. China is still a very undeveloped country. Even the city where I am now, which has 6-7 million people would not be considered a well developed city by Western standards. I've also spent time with friends and their families in villages in the countryside. Once you get out of the really major cities the level of development is very low and the lifestyle is very basic. There is a great deal of poverty and agricultural subsistence in China. On the other hand, there is also a lot of industrial development in China and there are areas which are intensely industrial and intensely polluted with very poor or non-existent regulations.

The fact is though that China is changing very quickly. Awareness of environmental issues is progressing very quickly. When living in Shanghai my job had me in daily contact with a broad array of university level students and professionals. Consciousness of the importance of dealing with the environment and pollution was practically universal among them. Most people had quite strong feelings about the need to reduce pollution and regulate industry. This in itself is a sign of China's rapid development and progress.

Furthermore, the regulatory process is improving, though it is hampered by having to change a situation that is rife with corruption and a culture which emphasizes the importance of relationships over rule of law. In major urban centers the regulations are becoming stricter and stricter, which is ultimately pushing highly polluting factories out into less densely populated and less regulated areas of China. This is part of the development process. The whole country will not change at once. Managing and developing a country of this nature is a gargantuan task. At the same time, there is a lot of investment being made into clean forms of energy in China. This is a country which has changed and is continuing to change at a phenomenal pace. It has many problems, but they cannot simply be made to disappear.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

China has the second largest GDP in the world and your article calls it a developing nation. That alone makes anything else it says laughable. Canada by comparison has the 14th largest GDP.

Are you having a stupid reaction to a vaccine per chance?