<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Bush-like doubletalk from Chinese foreign minister]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/yang-jiechi-on-chinas-response-to-global-warming/ Tue, 02 Oct 2007 01:26:18 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/yang-jiechi-on-chinas-response-to-global-warming/1 I Believe That 1 Child Per Couple Are The Future


China has done more than any nation in reducing GHG and consumption through its policy of one child per couple.

People, not governments, not businesses, are the source of all pollution.

China cut pollution the right way, and continues to do so.

John Bailo
Sutext:



]]> I Believe That 1 Child Per Couple Are The Future


China has done more than any nation in reducing GHG and consumption through its policy of one child per couple.

People, not governments, not businesses, are the source of all pollution.

China cut pollution the right way, and continues to do so.

John Bailo
Sutext:



]]> Comment #2 by bookerly http://www.grist.org/article/yang-jiechi-on-chinas-response-to-global-warming/ Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:23:55 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/yang-jiechi-on-chinas-response-to-global-warming/2 Silly Numbers, So Inconvenient


   It is sad to see Grist has still not moved beyond mis-stating the situation in China (and thus presumably in other developing nations).  There are a number of inaccuracies in this article, I will only address the main thrust.

   Talking about China being the biggest source of green house gas emissions is extremely misleading.  Don't we know better?  China is the biggest nation in the whole world, in terms of sheer numbers, everything it does will be the biggest (mostly), but such statements are meaningless.  What matters in the world is per-capita emissions, and China is well down the list.  Not even in the top ten.

   When people say that the world can't afford for China to continue it's march towards economic prosperity, they are really saying that the world can't afford for America to keep over-consuming if other nations want more than crumbs from the table.

   Why compare China to America?  Why not compare America to Luxembourg??  MyGAWD!!!  America uses so much more energy than Luxembourg!!!  It is terrible!!! (Much gnashing of teeth, running around and tearing out of hair).  But, wait, America is large than Luxembourg.  Irrelevant!!  Look at those numbers!!  But, wait, America has more people than Luxembourg.  Aha!!  Who forced America to have so many people?  Amazing that it does so despite it's best attempts at killing off it's indigenous peoples.

   This article is typical of the scapegoating thunder and lightning that is useful in distracting Americans from the real issue.  Which is America's refusal to participate in any meaningful and fair-minded environmental programs.

   One expects this from right wing politicians appealing to their xenophobic base.  But, the environmental movement needs to move beyond xenophobia if it wants to be involved in international issues.  

   China is the pet scapegoat du jour (with India waiting to go next, soon to be followed by Brazil, or perhaps even South Africa).  But frankly, the poor reasoning and lack of understanding of the meaning of statistics reflects back on those providing them (here I am speaking about the American media in general, and not merely Mr. Romm, of whom I know nothing).

patrick in beijing

]]> Silly Numbers, So Inconvenient


   It is sad to see Grist has still not moved beyond mis-stating the situation in China (and thus presumably in other developing nations).  There are a number of inaccuracies in this article, I will only address the main thrust.

   Talking about China being the biggest source of green house gas emissions is extremely misleading.  Don't we know better?  China is the biggest nation in the whole world, in terms of sheer numbers, everything it does will be the biggest (mostly), but such statements are meaningless.  What matters in the world is per-capita emissions, and China is well down the list.  Not even in the top ten.

   When people say that the world can't afford for China to continue it's march towards economic prosperity, they are really saying that the world can't afford for America to keep over-consuming if other nations want more than crumbs from the table.

   Why compare China to America?  Why not compare America to Luxembourg??  MyGAWD!!!  America uses so much more energy than Luxembourg!!!  It is terrible!!! (Much gnashing of teeth, running around and tearing out of hair).  But, wait, America is large than Luxembourg.  Irrelevant!!  Look at those numbers!!  But, wait, America has more people than Luxembourg.  Aha!!  Who forced America to have so many people?  Amazing that it does so despite it's best attempts at killing off it's indigenous peoples.

   This article is typical of the scapegoating thunder and lightning that is useful in distracting Americans from the real issue.  Which is America's refusal to participate in any meaningful and fair-minded environmental programs.

   One expects this from right wing politicians appealing to their xenophobic base.  But, the environmental movement needs to move beyond xenophobia if it wants to be involved in international issues.  

   China is the pet scapegoat du jour (with India waiting to go next, soon to be followed by Brazil, or perhaps even South Africa).  But frankly, the poor reasoning and lack of understanding of the meaning of statistics reflects back on those providing them (here I am speaking about the American media in general, and not merely Mr. Romm, of whom I know nothing).

patrick in beijing

]]>