Politics
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
The US and China, the world's two biggest polluters, today said they aimed to set targets for easing greenhouse gases emissions next month, potentially breathing new life into the flagging Copenhagen climate negotiations.
Days after the US president, Barack Obama, said time to secure a legally binding agreement had run out, he and the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, agreed at a summit that they would continue to press for a comprehensive deal at Copenhagen that would "rally the world".
"Our aim there, in support of what Prime Minister Rasmussen of Denmark is trying to achieve, is not a partial accord or a political declaration, but rather an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations and one that has immediate operational effect," Obama said after holding talks with Hu in Beijing.
In a joint communiqué, the leaders said an accord in Denmark should include emission reduction targets for rich nations and a declaration of action plans to ease greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries.
Don't get me wrong, what I want is a legally binding agreement, not a target. However, this move completely undermines the argument that China cares nothing for CC and that Western action is therefore a waste of time. Indeed, it's indicative of how genuine leadership and example-setting from Western nations is the best way to win over high-population, poorer nations.
Days after the US president, Barack Obama, said time to secure a legally binding agreement had run out, he and the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, agreed at a summit that they would continue to press for a comprehensive deal at Copenhagen that would "rally the world".
"Our aim there, in support of what Prime Minister Rasmussen of Denmark is trying to achieve, is not a partial accord or a political declaration, but rather an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations and one that has immediate operational effect," Obama said after holding talks with Hu in Beijing.
In a joint communiqué, the leaders said an accord in Denmark should include emission reduction targets for rich nations and a declaration of action plans to ease greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries.
Don't get me wrong, what I want is a legally binding agreement, not a target. However, this move completely undermines the argument that China cares nothing for CC and that Western action is therefore a waste of time. Indeed, it's indicative of how genuine leadership and example-setting from Western nations is the best way to win over high-population, poorer nations.
Show More
targets are the result of talk, actual reductions are the result of action-too much of the first has been going on with little enthusism for the second
Reading that the Chinese have agreed to agree about something at some stage in the future.
They're just stringing Obama along
They're just stringing Obama along
Those 97 new airports not going to be built then?
LOL
LOL
Like I say:
what I want is a legally binding agreement, not a target.
what I want is a legally binding agreement, not a target.
hahahahaha Dr J, this is a retarded thread title even by your low standards
aiming to agree is not the same as agreeing, is it?
aiming to agree is not the same as agreeing, is it?
"Good news as USA and China agree greenhouse gas targets"
Er, no they don't, according to the story.
Er, no they don't, according to the story.
It's a curious love-in that Dr J is having with the Chinese given their human-rights record....
Hell no, I can't stand the Chinese and I've posted many comments here about their appalling Human Rights record.
The point is that the rich West can't expect poorer nations to take the lead in cutting carbon. My beef is with the UK government for not doing enough and, pathetically, using China as an excuse.
(My amazement is that so many posters buy this line of argument.)
The point is that the rich West can't expect poorer nations to take the lead in cutting carbon. My beef is with the UK government for not doing enough and, pathetically, using China as an excuse.
(My amazement is that so many posters buy this line of argument.)
blackburn/Chippie
none of that please. leave Dr J to his little arrogant Western-centric delusions about China being a helpless third-world country
none of that please. leave Dr J to his little arrogant Western-centric delusions about China being a helpless third-world country
I find it all very amusing how a (supposedly) intelligent man believes his own nonsense. What worries me is that he works at a place of education and clearly thinks that stating untruths as facts is acceptable.
Once you boys have finished b*tching and whining like teenagers, could you actually indicate whether you agree with me:
The point is that the rich West can't expect poorer nations to take the lead in cutting carbon. My beef is with the UK government for not doing enough and, pathetically, using China as an excuse.
Or think that China and India should take the lead?
The point is that the rich West can't expect poorer nations to take the lead in cutting carbon. My beef is with the UK government for not doing enough and, pathetically, using China as an excuse.
Or think that China and India should take the lead?
Dr dumber and dumber
You do realise that when Nobama was in China last week he was there to visit his creditors and not some 3rd world backwater?
You realise that, right?
You do realise that when Nobama was in China last week he was there to visit his creditors and not some 3rd world backwater?
You realise that, right?
He clearly doesn't see it chippie, he has refused to acknowledge that China is wealthier than us. The Chinese treated Obama like a complete nobody yet he still pillories "the rich west".
Whilst**ing over Obama of course.
He is a very mixed up boy
Whilst**ing over Obama of course.
He is a very mixed up boy
And to think he stands up in front of impressionable young people spouting all this nonsense.
I bet they all s** at him behind his back. :^0
I bet they all s** at him behind his back. :^0
I like the way he slyly added India there as well, when we've been discussing China (whose greenhouse gas emissions, despite his pitiful protestations, are now rivalling some developed Western countries on a per-capita basis... and dwarfing all other nations on an absolute basis)
another pathetic little straw-man from the poor excuse for a Dr
another pathetic little straw-man from the poor excuse for a Dr
he has refused to acknowledge that China is wealthier than us
On a per capita basis, it simply isn't.
On a per capita basis, it simply isn't.
In that case you must now refer to Monaco in every statement you make about wealth
That is the most disgusting, racist thing I've read on here in years.
Sorry - wrong window, thought I was on chit-chat jokes thread...
come on Dr J, not going to add any more random nations as pathetic straw men?
you tried India, why not throw in Mongolia or Timbuktu next? :D
you tried India, why not throw in Mongolia or Timbuktu next? :D
Dr J 18 Nov 15:26
he has refused to acknowledge that China is wealthier than us
On a per capita basis, it simply isn't.
and yet its per-capita carbon emissions are now at Western levels
just imagine how much carbon they'll be pumping out when they've caught up with our wealth levels then :D
or do you still think we should proceed even without their agreement? :D
he has refused to acknowledge that China is wealthier than us
On a per capita basis, it simply isn't.
and yet its per-capita carbon emissions are now at Western levels
just imagine how much carbon they'll be pumping out when they've caught up with our wealth levels then :D
or do you still think we should proceed even without their agreement? :D
Not many constructive suggestions from the naysayers as of yet...
and yet its per-capita carbon emissions are now at Western levels
No, they're not.
Perhaps this is where you're getting confused?
No, they're not.
Perhaps this is where you're getting confused?
is France a major, industrialised, wealthy Western country Dr J?
last time i checked, it was
last time i checked, it was
by the way Dr J, you China-denier, have a quick read of this link
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/parts-of-china-now-have-per-capita-co2-emissions-to-rival-the-west.php
i love the name by the way, treehugger.com :D
but anyway, if those figures are in remotely the correct ballpark (and they fit very well with the extrapolation from Chinas recent growth) then China has already exceeded the per-capita figures of some 'wealthy, Western', to use your words, EU members
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/parts-of-china-now-have-per-capita-co2-emissions-to-rival-the-west.php
i love the name by the way, treehugger.com :D
but anyway, if those figures are in remotely the correct ballpark (and they fit very well with the extrapolation from Chinas recent growth) then China has already exceeded the per-capita figures of some 'wealthy, Western', to use your words, EU members
Won't make a blind bit of difference.
Bog barons: Indonesia's carbon catastrophe
* 01 December 2007 by Fred Pearce
* Magazine issue 2632. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Read full article
Continue reading page |1 |2 |3 |4
I AM standing in the heart of the world's second largest tropical peat swamp, the Kampar bog in central Sumatra, watching the swamp's water drain away along a small canal. Across the western side of the bog there are dozens more drains. The peat bog is bleeding to death before me.
Until five years ago, Kampar was a true bog with water at the surface, and it was covered by a rich rainforest in which Sumatran tigers roamed. A huge dome of peat, up to 15 metres deep, had built up over the past 6000 years as woody debris fell into the swamp. It contains several billion tonnes of carbon.
Now this part of the Kampar bog has been clear-felled, and the canals have been installed to turn it into plantations. As water levels fall beneath the blackened and treeless wasteland, the peat is drying and decomposing, releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per square kilometre than do many cities.
I watched as workers planted acacia trees for paper and palm oil trees destined to make biofuels to help reduce Europe's CO2 emissions. Yet draining the peat will release 30 times more CO2 than will be saved by replacing fossil fuels with biofuels - an irony that is hard to stomach. The fact that European countries can meet their Kyoto protocol obligations by sponsoring activities that have helped turn Indonesia, of which the giant island of Sumatra is a part, into the world's third largest emitter of greenhouse gases is a savage indictment of the perverse incentives created by the protocol.
Next week, the world's governments will assemble on the Indonesian island of Bali to discuss what should follow Kyoto. The fate of peatlands like Kampar will be an important topic. The Indonesian government is expected to argue that the very companies destroying the bogs should be awarded carbon credits for stopping the haemorrhaging of even more carbon. But can the region's great despoilers really become its saviours?
Palm oil and paper
The destruction of tropical peatland forests is a disaster for many reasons, not least its global impact. Peat holds many times more carbon than the forest above it. Marcel Silvius, a tropical ecologist at Wetlands International, estimates that in south-east Asia, 130,000 square kilometres of peatland forests have already been cut down and partially drained. As a result, an average of 2 gigatonnes of CO2 is being released each year through burning and decomposition. That's equal to 8 per cent of the total annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels - and 90 per cent of it comes from Indonesia alone.
Here, forests are being cut and the peat drained to make way for two crops: palm oil trees for food and biofuels, and acacia to make pulp for paper. This is happening fastest on Sumatra, and most intensively of all in the central Sumatran province of Riau. Until the late 1980s, Riau was 80 per cent jungle. Today it's just 30 per cent.
Palm oil is used for cooking and as an ingredient in everything from shampoo to biscuits. Global production has been soaring and Indonesia now produces a third of the global crop. In Riau, palm oil plantations already cover more than 15,000 square kilometres - a fifth of the province - with another 5000 square kilometres planned to meet the expected demand for biofuels. Local politicians see this as boosting both industrial and rural development.
That may be true, but in climate terms, razing rainforests to grow palm oil for biofuels is madness. Clearing a hectare of tropical forest releases between 500 and 900 tonnes of CO2. Since turning a hectare's worth of palm oil into biodiesel saves approximately 6 tonnes of fossil CO2 emissions a year, it will take 80 to 150 years of production to offset the one-off emissions from trashing the forest.
Carbon losses
That is bad enough. If the forest is growing on a peat bog, however, the CO2 losses are far greater and continue far longer.
During a drought in 1997, when fires set by farmers in Sumatra burned out of control, the peat bogs produced most of the smoke that blanketed vast swathes of south-east Asia. Later studies suggest that the burning peat accounted for as much as 40 per cent of human CO2 emissions that year.
Bog barons: Indonesia's carbon catastrophe
* 01 December 2007 by Fred Pearce
* Magazine issue 2632. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Read full article
Continue reading page |1 |2 |3 |4
I AM standing in the heart of the world's second largest tropical peat swamp, the Kampar bog in central Sumatra, watching the swamp's water drain away along a small canal. Across the western side of the bog there are dozens more drains. The peat bog is bleeding to death before me.
Until five years ago, Kampar was a true bog with water at the surface, and it was covered by a rich rainforest in which Sumatran tigers roamed. A huge dome of peat, up to 15 metres deep, had built up over the past 6000 years as woody debris fell into the swamp. It contains several billion tonnes of carbon.
Now this part of the Kampar bog has been clear-felled, and the canals have been installed to turn it into plantations. As water levels fall beneath the blackened and treeless wasteland, the peat is drying and decomposing, releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per square kilometre than do many cities.
I watched as workers planted acacia trees for paper and palm oil trees destined to make biofuels to help reduce Europe's CO2 emissions. Yet draining the peat will release 30 times more CO2 than will be saved by replacing fossil fuels with biofuels - an irony that is hard to stomach. The fact that European countries can meet their Kyoto protocol obligations by sponsoring activities that have helped turn Indonesia, of which the giant island of Sumatra is a part, into the world's third largest emitter of greenhouse gases is a savage indictment of the perverse incentives created by the protocol.
Next week, the world's governments will assemble on the Indonesian island of Bali to discuss what should follow Kyoto. The fate of peatlands like Kampar will be an important topic. The Indonesian government is expected to argue that the very companies destroying the bogs should be awarded carbon credits for stopping the haemorrhaging of even more carbon. But can the region's great despoilers really become its saviours?
Palm oil and paper
The destruction of tropical peatland forests is a disaster for many reasons, not least its global impact. Peat holds many times more carbon than the forest above it. Marcel Silvius, a tropical ecologist at Wetlands International, estimates that in south-east Asia, 130,000 square kilometres of peatland forests have already been cut down and partially drained. As a result, an average of 2 gigatonnes of CO2 is being released each year through burning and decomposition. That's equal to 8 per cent of the total annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels - and 90 per cent of it comes from Indonesia alone.
Here, forests are being cut and the peat drained to make way for two crops: palm oil trees for food and biofuels, and acacia to make pulp for paper. This is happening fastest on Sumatra, and most intensively of all in the central Sumatran province of Riau. Until the late 1980s, Riau was 80 per cent jungle. Today it's just 30 per cent.
Palm oil is used for cooking and as an ingredient in everything from shampoo to biscuits. Global production has been soaring and Indonesia now produces a third of the global crop. In Riau, palm oil plantations already cover more than 15,000 square kilometres - a fifth of the province - with another 5000 square kilometres planned to meet the expected demand for biofuels. Local politicians see this as boosting both industrial and rural development.
That may be true, but in climate terms, razing rainforests to grow palm oil for biofuels is madness. Clearing a hectare of tropical forest releases between 500 and 900 tonnes of CO2. Since turning a hectare's worth of palm oil into biodiesel saves approximately 6 tonnes of fossil CO2 emissions a year, it will take 80 to 150 years of production to offset the one-off emissions from trashing the forest.
Carbon losses
That is bad enough. If the forest is growing on a peat bog, however, the CO2 losses are far greater and continue far longer.
During a drought in 1997, when fires set by farmers in Sumatra burned out of control, the peat bogs produced most of the smoke that blanketed vast swathes of south-east Asia. Later studies suggest that the burning peat accounted for as much as 40 per cent of human CO2 emissions that year.
I did a gas earlier that would have shattered a greenhouse, targets or no targets.
in climate terms, razing rainforests to grow palm oil for biofuels is madness
Absolute madness.
This was an idea conceived by idiot politicians and vehemently opposed by Greenpeace and a million other pressure groups. I personally lobbied the government over this issue. In fairness, they accepted the mistake immediately and the project was halted.
To use it as evidence of 'dumb greenies' couldn't be further from the truth.
Absolute madness.
This was an idea conceived by idiot politicians and vehemently opposed by Greenpeace and a million other pressure groups. I personally lobbied the government over this issue. In fairness, they accepted the mistake immediately and the project was halted.
To use it as evidence of 'dumb greenies' couldn't be further from the truth.
ignoring the climate change debate - lets talk about the legislation.
i look forward to reading the bills dr j. i can almost guarantee that they look after the special interests in the main. it's just another excuse to steal a load more public money. and any extra taxes/costs faced by industry will be passed onto consumers too, so the man in the street loses both ways. and will the legislation achieve what they say it will? i would so NO.
you've only got to look at the stimulus' etc to see that they were sold to you as a solution to a problem but really you were getting ripped off and the legislation is ineffective. dont know if you've seen, but the us gov even had a website (which they spent 18million on) to track stimulus spending - and there are items on there for congressional districts that dont even exist! lol. not too corrupt eh. aside from those fraud cases though, unemployment is up when they said with the stimulus it would go down, and it is higher than they said it would be if there were no stimulus at all! lol.
for the last time - stop listening to what they tell you in their statements on telly and in the paper, and read the legislation itself. nowadays it is rarely written with the intention of achieving the goals that they are selling it to you with - they are written by the special interests and lobbyists themselves! representatives in uk and usa arent even reading them half the time! it takes too long they complain....
so whilst it is a nice idea to want to save the planet etc - there is a clear debate as to whether any of this is necessary, ie can we do anything about it, should we do anything about it, is it man made or not etc, are we warming or cooling etc. but step back from that. none of it is really 100% clear - but dr j an alike want to throw x billion away and straight into the pocket of big energy etc who will write the legislation - the very people he claims to despise and seeks to make compensate for the negative effect they may or may not be having on the planet....
so from my perspective, if you want to do something dr j, save energy etc or pay 3 times as much for it that's fine you are free to do so. but you and your ilk have no right to impose that upon the rest of us - dont you see how your beliefs are effectively dogmatic and verging on being a religion in itself? what would you think of someone else telling you you must convert to their religion..
i look forward to reading the bills dr j. i can almost guarantee that they look after the special interests in the main. it's just another excuse to steal a load more public money. and any extra taxes/costs faced by industry will be passed onto consumers too, so the man in the street loses both ways. and will the legislation achieve what they say it will? i would so NO.
you've only got to look at the stimulus' etc to see that they were sold to you as a solution to a problem but really you were getting ripped off and the legislation is ineffective. dont know if you've seen, but the us gov even had a website (which they spent 18million on) to track stimulus spending - and there are items on there for congressional districts that dont even exist! lol. not too corrupt eh. aside from those fraud cases though, unemployment is up when they said with the stimulus it would go down, and it is higher than they said it would be if there were no stimulus at all! lol.
for the last time - stop listening to what they tell you in their statements on telly and in the paper, and read the legislation itself. nowadays it is rarely written with the intention of achieving the goals that they are selling it to you with - they are written by the special interests and lobbyists themselves! representatives in uk and usa arent even reading them half the time! it takes too long they complain....
so whilst it is a nice idea to want to save the planet etc - there is a clear debate as to whether any of this is necessary, ie can we do anything about it, should we do anything about it, is it man made or not etc, are we warming or cooling etc. but step back from that. none of it is really 100% clear - but dr j an alike want to throw x billion away and straight into the pocket of big energy etc who will write the legislation - the very people he claims to despise and seeks to make compensate for the negative effect they may or may not be having on the planet....
so from my perspective, if you want to do something dr j, save energy etc or pay 3 times as much for it that's fine you are free to do so. but you and your ilk have no right to impose that upon the rest of us - dont you see how your beliefs are effectively dogmatic and verging on being a religion in itself? what would you think of someone else telling you you must convert to their religion..
don't worry Don, Dr J just wants to encourage people and industry to move to China where they can pollute as much as they like :D
actually, i'm flying back to China myself in a few weeks, I'll be sure to be as environmentally unfriendly and damaging as possible while i'm there, just to help keep those per capita carbon figures growing at 10% per year
actually, i'm flying back to China myself in a few weeks, I'll be sure to be as environmentally unfriendly and damaging as possible while i'm there, just to help keep those per capita carbon figures growing at 10% per year
subversion in dishonest stat manipulation shocker.
"There are many [b[i]]parts of China[/b] where emissions intensity and emissions per capita are looking much like some of the richer countries in Europe,"[/i]
Some parts of china exceeding western levels is entirely different from the whole of china.
One might also like to consider that China makes everything for everyone in the world, and that this adds to their emissions and not ours.
"There are many [b[i]]parts of China[/b] where emissions intensity and emissions per capita are looking much like some of the richer countries in Europe,"[/i]
Some parts of china exceeding western levels is entirely different from the whole of china.
One might also like to consider that China makes everything for everyone in the world, and that this adds to their emissions and not ours.
read the article more closely evski
especially the estimated average per-capita CO2 for the *WHOLE* of china
its on a par with nations like France and Sweden, who last time i checked, qualified as wealthy Western nations
especially the estimated average per-capita CO2 for the *WHOLE* of china
its on a par with nations like France and Sweden, who last time i checked, qualified as wealthy Western nations
evski 19 Nov 18:37
One might also like to consider that China makes everything for everyone in the world, and that this adds to their emissions and not ours.
one might also want to engage ones brain, evski, and consider what might happen if even more pressure is put on industry to relocate to China, if the West tightens environmental regulations even further without Chinese involvement
and, some of you dummies really need to get your head around this - the equivalent industries will pollute far more in China (not just carbon pollution either), because i) their environmental regulations are practically nonexistent, and ii) we then have to ship the goods half way round the planet to their target markets
One might also like to consider that China makes everything for everyone in the world, and that this adds to their emissions and not ours.
one might also want to engage ones brain, evski, and consider what might happen if even more pressure is put on industry to relocate to China, if the West tightens environmental regulations even further without Chinese involvement
and, some of you dummies really need to get your head around this - the equivalent industries will pollute far more in China (not just carbon pollution either), because i) their environmental regulations are practically nonexistent, and ii) we then have to ship the goods half way round the planet to their target markets
oh, and i forgot iii) the power supply to these industries inevitably comes from a far less clean source, and a far higher % carbon source, than would be the case in the West
so yeah, lets keep incentivising industry to relocate to China, its worked so very well for the last decade hasnt it? :D
so yeah, lets keep incentivising industry to relocate to China, its worked so very well for the last decade hasnt it? :D
Currently, according to Stern, China emits six tonnes per person, the European Union emits an average of 12, and the United States 25.
hardly on par with westernised nations, and france is still slightly above and is, by far, the most green major industrialised nation.
consider what might happen if even more pressure is put on industry to relocate to China, if the West tightens environmental regulations even further without Chinese involvement
I was commenting on, not supporting, the fact that China makes all of our shyte. Easy to miss something like that when you're in the middle of one of your narcisstic solo-love-making sessions. Tw@t.
hardly on par with westernised nations, and france is still slightly above and is, by far, the most green major industrialised nation.
consider what might happen if even more pressure is put on industry to relocate to China, if the West tightens environmental regulations even further without Chinese involvement
I was commenting on, not supporting, the fact that China makes all of our shyte. Easy to miss something like that when you're in the middle of one of your narcisstic solo-love-making sessions. Tw@t.
Currently, according to Stern, China emits six tonnes per person, the European Union emits an average of 12, and the United States 25.
hardly on par with westernised nations, and france is still slightly above and is, by far, the most green major industrialised nation.
consider what might happen if even more pressure is put on industry to relocate to China, if the West tightens environmental regulations even further without Chinese involvement
I was commenting on, not supporting, the fact that China makes all of our shyte. Easy to miss something like that when you're in the middle of one of your narcisstic solo-love-making sessions. Tw@t.
hardly on par with westernised nations, and france is still slightly above and is, by far, the most green major industrialised nation.
consider what might happen if even more pressure is put on industry to relocate to China, if the West tightens environmental regulations even further without Chinese involvement
I was commenting on, not supporting, the fact that China makes all of our shyte. Easy to miss something like that when you're in the middle of one of your narcisstic solo-love-making sessions. Tw@t.
Currently, according to Stern, China emits six tonnes per person, the European Union emits an average of 12, and the United States 25.
hardly on par with westernised nations, and france is still slightly above and is, by far, the most green major industrialised nation.
consider what might happen if even more pressure is put on industry to relocate to China, if the West tightens environmental regulations even further without Chinese involvement
I was commenting on, not supporting, the fact that China makes all of our shyte. Easy to miss something like that when you're in the middle of one of your narcisstic solo-love-making sessions. Tw at.
hardly on par with westernised nations, and france is still slightly above and is, by far, the most green major industrialised nation.
consider what might happen if even more pressure is put on industry to relocate to China, if the West tightens environmental regulations even further without Chinese involvement
I was commenting on, not supporting, the fact that China makes all of our shyte. Easy to miss something like that when you're in the middle of one of your narcisstic solo-love-making sessions. Tw at.
Currently, according to Stern, China emits six tonnes per person, the European Union emits an average of 12, and the United States 25.
hardly on par with westernised nations, and france is still slightly above and is, by far, the most green major industrialised nation.
consider what might happen if even more pressure is put on industry to relocate to China, if the West tightens environmental regulations even further without Chinese involvement
I was commenting on, not supporting, the fact that China makes all of our shyte. Easy to miss something like that when you're in the middle of one of your narcisstic solo-love-making sessions. Tw at.
hardly on par with westernised nations, and france is still slightly above and is, by far, the most green major industrialised nation.
consider what might happen if even more pressure is put on industry to relocate to China, if the West tightens environmental regulations even further without Chinese involvement
I was commenting on, not supporting, the fact that China makes all of our shyte. Easy to miss something like that when you're in the middle of one of your narcisstic solo-love-making sessions. Tw at.
Currently, according to Stern, China emits six tonnes per person, the European Union emits an average of 12, and the United States 25.
hardly on par with westernised nations, and france is still slightly above and is, by far, the most green major industrialised nation.
consider what might happen if even more pressure is put on industry to relocate to China, if the West tightens environmental regulations even further without Chinese involvement
I was commenting on, not supporting, the fact that China makes all of our shyte. Easy to miss something like that when you're in the middle of one of your narcisstic solo-love-making sessions.
hardly on par with westernised nations, and france is still slightly above and is, by far, the most green major industrialised nation.
consider what might happen if even more pressure is put on industry to relocate to China, if the West tightens environmental regulations even further without Chinese involvement
I was commenting on, not supporting, the fact that China makes all of our shyte. Easy to miss something like that when you're in the middle of one of your narcisstic solo-love-making sessions.
Lets agree on a target - how about the world is rid of cancer by 2010. All in favour say aye!
do france and sweden count as wealthy western nations? yes or no please evski?
and you also need to look at the emission growth rates, china will soar past france and sweden within a year or two, and is not far off countries like spain and italy
good that your reading comprehension seems to have improved with a bit of prompting though :D
enjoy your solo-love-making session btw, tw@t? :D
and you also need to look at the emission growth rates, china will soar past france and sweden within a year or two, and is not far off countries like spain and italy
good that your reading comprehension seems to have improved with a bit of prompting though :D
enjoy your solo-love-making session btw, tw@t? :D
oh and btw, IEA figures have the average for the EU at around 8, not 12
but the IEA and article agree much more closely on US and Chinese figures
so China is far more close to the EU average than you think, if you believe the IEA of course
but the IEA and article agree much more closely on US and Chinese figures
so China is far more close to the EU average than you think, if you believe the IEA of course
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539