I offer a "grade" of the state of the union address in my most recent post on The Weekly Rader:
http://weeklyrader.blogspot.com/2008/01/grading-state-of- ...

Though I'd like nothin' more than for China and India to also take serious measures to reduce climate change, we can't use that as excuse not to do somethin' ourselves.

To say so is an insult to American spirit and patriotism.  What?  We can't do somethin' good or take action now just 'cause some of the others might not follow through?

And besides that, even if China and India agreed to new climate change treaty, why do I get the feelin' that Bush and so many others would still be opposed to it just as much as they are now?  I believe that they're just usin' China and India as an excuse not to take action on their own.

Though I'd like nothin' more than for China and India to also take serious measures to reduce climate change, we can't use that as excuse not to do somethin' ourselves.

Here's the chain of reasoning used by AGWers which clearly show their agenda has nothing to do with saving the planet but everything to do with advancing a specific political agenda.

First you propose an "international treaty".   The world's biggest potential polluters decline to sign.  You then say, that America should "go it alone".

This is typical fallacious bullshit on the part of Grist.   If we "go it alone" then there is no reason to sign the treaty.

At that point, the treaty is moot.

We can continue advancing our technology, and cutting CO2 (or SO2) without the treaty.    If the Grist Ecologists are telling us to go it alone, then a treaty isn't needed.   Let's just keep funding biofuels, and advancing our solar nanotechnology then.   No need for foreign entanglements.

So, in effect, the only point of this treaty is to try and make political points -- it has nothing to do with saving the planet!

Some reduction from us, but not from China or India, would still be much better than no reduction from any of the three.

...I don't think it'd be goin' alone just 'cause China and India don't sign on.  Or have ya forgotten 'bout the EU and all the other countries?

Go ahead.

Keep repeating yourself rather than answering the criticism.   Please, there's nothing more AGW and Grist-like than continuing to reiterate an argument that's been proven to be illogical even in this immediate thread.

Oh, and don't bother to read the arguments either...just re-iterate what the original fallacious post was about.

It's all part of the Big Bright Green Pleasure Machine.

Do figures of authority just shoot you down?
Is life within the business world a drag?
Did your boss just mention that you'd better shop around
To find yourself a more productive bag?
Are you worried and distressed?
Can't seem to get no rest?
Put our product to the test.
You'll feel just fine
Now.
Buy a big bright Green Pleasure Machine!

-P. Simon

   It is true that since their PER CAPITA (some of you may need to look this term up) emissions are much less than developed countries, they want a mechanism that takes that into account, and allows them to feed and provide a decent lifestyle for their people.

   John, using your logic, we are going to average your emissions with Bill Gates, then we will ask you both to reduce your half of the total sum to around the world average.  (Gates can do it, you may have to stop breathing, but then, isn't that what you are proposing for the developing nations?) (smile).

   You should all note, that no one outside of the US buys the "China and India" argument.  Everyone sees it for what it is, and excuse by the richest most polluting nation to do nothing.

patrick in Beijing

Exactly.

It's the same as sayin' "why should our city try to reduce the number of murders?  The other cities in the state aren't gonna devote more resources to it, so why should we?"

It's pure dribble.

A pound of CO2 is a pound of CO2, no matter which country it comes from.

I think the principle illustrated is called "Leading By Example."  George Bush should try it along with the rest of the free world, and maybe the recalcitrant others would be shamed into joining us.

Des Emery

        If you could only put your hatred of China aside, you might see that it is not the same.  Telling a starving person to eat 800 calories less a day and telling a person living on a MacDonalds diet to eat 800 less calories a day are not the same.  But they are still 800 calories aren't they?  

        Hmm, let's try another example.  If we added up your CO2 output and Bill Gates (I'm assuming you are not Bill Gates (smile)), we would discover the number is very high!!  Ohmigosh, we have to do something.  We'll divide by two, and each of you needs to reduce your CO2 output by say 200 tons a year to save the earth.  Wait, you say, it's not fair, you don't even produce 200 tons a year!!  

        Two hundred tons is two hundred tons, right?  Start cutting!!!

        Your argument that a pound of CO2 is a pound of CO2 makes great sense if everyone produces the same amount, a pound.  

        But the poor of the world don't produce so much, so asking them to stop and cut back is like asking the starving person to cut their caloric intake as much as the three meal a day MacDonalds eater.

         It is not only unfair in fact, it can clearly be seen as unfair by most people, and it won't work.

         By refusing to understand this, you end up in the same place as the climate change deniers, refusing to act.

         So far, the rich have pretty much refused to do anything.  The first move is theirs.

patrick in Beijing

But still, even a partial reduction from just America would be better than no reduction at all from either China, America, or India.

     It's a big world, you should realize that all CO2 in China doesn't come from coal plants.  So, your example doesn't make any sense.

     And if you think that all pollutants in America are regulated, you should go to the San Francisco Bay and look at the signs warning people against eating much fish from the bay, because of .... (drum roll) pollutants!!!

     (Unless the warning signs are what you mean by regulated!)

     Or you could wander down to the Charles River in Boston, bend over and drink some of its clear sparkling water (joking, joking!!!  health advisory warning, this could lead to serious illness or even death!).

     Hmmm, I wonder, does the CO2 from American planes bombing Iraq get counted against Iraq or America?  

patrick in Beijing

...China also has less regulations when dealin' with pollution from cars, boats, factories, and refineries, as well.  Those are all major CO2 contributors.

On average, every unit volume of CO2 emitted from China will also be accompanied by additional pollutants such as sulfur, lead, mercury, etc., in much greater numbers/volume than a unit of CO2 from America would be.

To produce an equal amount of power/product/energy, China and the US may produce a near-equal amount of CO2, but China will release a much greater amount of additional pollutants than the US would.

But still, that's besides the point.  Just 'cause China would release more additional pollutants, that doesn't give Americans an excuse not to try and reduce our own CO2 levels.

   Or is this just more of your general China bashing??

   I don't know the regulations China has for each of these (nor I suspect do you).  But I do know that the government is working to implement higher standards for automobile pollution than the US.  

    http://en.chinagate.com.cn/english/news/48914.htm

http://www.vecc-sepa.org.cn/eng/news/news_detail.jsp?news ...

http://wwics.si.edu/topics/pubs/2-feature_1.pdf

http://www.adb.org/vehicle-emissions/PRC/default.asp

http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=23 ...

http://www.chinacartimes.com/

http://www.chinacsr.com/2007/11/21/1878-chinese-ministrie ...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1719 ...

   You still persist in comparing China (or any developing country) to the US.  Developing countries are just that, developing.  They have a lot less money, and therefore less ability to pay for expensive devices.  So, their technology tends to lag, to be more primitive.

   This is not from desire, this is from lack of money.  Rich folks in the developed world seem to have trouble grasping this.  (And some rich folks here, too!)

   If there is going to be a global treaty to deal with global warming, we need to talk about facts, and deal with concepts like fairness, or we'll get nowhere.

    Do we want to solve the problem?

patrick in Beijing

While everywhere, including the U.S., is grossly overpopulated, China, India, and Indonesia head the list of countries causing the worst of that problem, though at least China has attempted to do SOMETHING about it with its one-child policy, while the rest of the world either ignores this severe problem or acts as if overpopulating is a good thing (the latter includes India, the U.S., and all governments like Japan and Russia that try to bribe women to breed).

But back to the issue between you and Tasermom's partner:  It makes no environmental or ecological sense to ignore the far greater number of people in China and India and say that everyone each gets to emit the same amount of pollutants or consume the same amount of stuff.  On a personal level, it would make sense to say that the amount you get to consume and emit becomes significantly more restricted the more children you have.  But for a global agreement, the amount of resources consumed or pollutants emitted should be based both on geographic area and the number of people within that area IN ORDER TO PRODUCE THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY BENEFICIAL AGREEMENT POSSIBLE.  The idea here (and of this website) is environmental protection, not social policies that favor or disfavor certain groups, regardless of how worthy or unworthy those groups are.

China has little to no regulations regarding the amount of lead and mercury in fuel oil (dependin' on grade and what it's used for, there are some lax standards for certain car fuels).  It has no regulations regarding sulfur, mercury, or lead emissions from power plants.  It has some restrictions on certain chemicals and toxins released from factories and refineries, but they are not nearly as strict as american standards and they are rarely enforced.

They don't even have enforced standards for the amount of lead in paint.

   Dear Tasermons Partner,

       I noticed you provided no links for your assertions (as usual.... sigh...).

       So, here are a few.

       Regarding Mercury generally,

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/con ...

and

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE1D61F ...

Here is a quote for you.

"Once again, a few countries led by US and India delayed real progress, whereas the EU, the African Region, Japan, Brazil, the Philippines, Norway and Switzerland were ready to make a political decision on a legally binding instrument as the way forward," said Elena Lymberidi from the European Environmental Bureau. "Instead, we have a process to consider options during the next Governing Council in 2009. We must finally move beyond promising words into real action."

http://www.mercurypolicy.org/

And hey, what's up with lead???  According to most sources I can find,

"In China, the National Petroleum Corporation is planning to phase out lead by 2000. As of July 1997, 56 percent of all gasoline produced in China was unleaded."

http://www.leadpoison.net/prevent/phasing-out.htm

http://www.osat.umich.edu/research/global/164_Chinaenviro ...

http://www.jari.jp/pdf/rt2004/02liisa_eng.pdf

Again, if you have any facts, as opposed to assertions, please feel free to provide them.

Yet, despite this, you are missing the point.  It's like there is this huge elephant in the room and you won't look at it.

Comparing developing nations to developed nations (not just China and the US,  but any such comparisons) is wrong.  And unfair.  And counterproductive.

Developing nations lack the resources and money necessary to be as clean as developed nations could be (if they tried).

If you want to change the world, try showing it how, instead of calling it names.

patrick in Beijing

         What happens when you lead a parade and no one is following you?

         You may not care about social justice or fairness in regards to environmental measures.  But some environmentalists do.  Look at people who want to preserve endangered species.  We can yell at people to not eat that bird or cut down that tree, but if they are starving (and watching us fill our bellies), history has shown that they will ignore us, and the tree and bird will be gone.

         Now, if as this point, we merely want to fold our arms and declame "See, I knew they wouldn't protect the species as I told them!!  I am great, they are terrible!!", well okay.  It is called posturing.  But it doesn't save the species.

         Only be engaging large numbers of people into the effort can it succeed.  If we start by telling poor people that their concerns for eliminating poverty will be disregarded (and do it from a position of wealth), well presto chango, the room may empty.

          In short, you can't protect the environment if you don't take people concerns into effect.  

          As the geographic nature of your argument, it is cleverly designed to favor the United States.  The people of Holland, Hong Kong and Singapore may not care for it.  

          For that argument to be acceptable, it must be seen as fair by most people.  I would argue that it isn't.  Fairness counts, even in a crisis.

patrick in Beijing

However, as a whole, humans and their domesticated animals are thriving.  It's everything else on the planet that's suffering, and that's where my concerns lie.  While I generally agree with leftist principles, I am strongly opposed to their priorities, because, just like the right, they place humans above all else.  Sorry, but I don't see life that way.  In fact, humans fit the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the Earth, and have ever since we began using agriculture and overpopulating.  So for me issues like racism take a back seat to protecting and restoring wilderness and wildlife (though I strongly support making alliances with anti-racist and other PC groups in order to benefit the environment along with their issues).

Nothing either of us says is likely to change the other's mind, because our world view is deeply ingrained.  I have strong empathy with non-humans, and only a major change in human behavior could possibly increase my empathy for human strangers to that level.

        I do hear you (smile), and you are correct that we will never agree.  I am sorry you feel so negatively towards human beings, please try to remember that we are animals too!!!  

        The work you do is valuable, even if the path is different.  But do keep in mind that the alliances (and who we chose to ally with) are important!!

        I am not a fan of car culture anyplace in the world (one of the reasons I love Beijing is the key place bicycles play in the city, despite the huge increase in the number of cars).  

        Ironically, Chinese cities are building tons of subways.  (hmmm, not sure how to measure them, but tons and tons (smile)).  The central government had to make the local governments slow down, as some of them were spending money they didn't have.  

        America lacks the will, the developing world lacks the money!!  Sounds like a perfect marriage to me!!

patrick in Beijing