Copenhagen Climate Conference Failure, Chinese Reaction

From Mop:

The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference has failed, humans have declared war on planet Earth.

The Copenhagen Climate Conference has failed, humans have declared war on planet Earth. This proves that the so-called elite of humanity is a group of shit eaters.

Human activities have caused carbon dioxide emissions, global warming, the melting of glaciers, rising sea levels, the eminent sinking of coastal areas. Melting tundras mean the disappearance of Iceland and Greenland, and that the Tibetan Plateau will turn into a large mud puddle.
Humans, what exactly is it that you want to do?

[I] had hoped that the Copenhagen Conference would allow humanity to forget greed, unite, and counter climate change together. In the end, Copenhagen was a hideous act in a play of differentiating interests. After squabbling, the so-called elite can’t even put together a proper statement–Copenhagen ends in halfhearted effort.

Don’t tell me who won in the negotiations, or who lost. Who was good, who was evil, which rich nation bore too much responsibility, which poor one bore too little. When faced with climate change, no one can run away, no one can hope to maintain his own interests, no one country can jump onto Noah’s Ark.

Don’t tell me that climate change is still controversial, and that the melting of glaciers is still under investigation. I want to ask humans not to count on chance. If everything needs to be proven, then it will be all too late. ‘Prepare for disaster in propitious times’, this proverb has been around for millenniums. Besides, the present is no longer propitious.

The Kyoto Protocol is expired, the Copenhagen Accord has been aborted. Alright, elites, you have won completely. But you seem to have forgotten who your counterpart in signing the agreement is. Who? Who? The US? China? G8? G20? G77? …wrong, the other side of the agreement is very lonely. It’s the Earth that we live on. China has a very old story, “Bian Que meets Lord Cai”. The synopsis is, the famous doctor Bian Que diagnosed Lord Cai with an illness, and told him of the treatment. But Lord Cai didn’t listen to the doctor’s recommendations and carried on as before. Without treatment, Lord Cai died.

Is humanity not acting like Lord Cai, aware our own sickness and the appropriate treatment, but refusing to change.

Then we wait for the Earth’s punishment.

Copenhagen failed, we have declared war on the Earth. But even before this war’s started, the outcome has been set. Humans will lose for sure.

Comments from Mop:

cjc73735273:

Good post, must ding. China’s attitude at the summit was disappointing, not the attitude of a responsible large nation.

bjifs:

[response to cjc73735273] Disagree. Look at Premier Wen’s speech at the Summit.

那年也吃:

……The Earth is too dangerous. It’s time to go to Mars.

天堂的乐师:

Looks like I need to start building that Ark today.

爱若随缘:

Environmental pollution is the biggest issue. I remember a commercial: Humanity’s last drop of water is his own tear.

无聊.游荡:

Cups

zzF168888:

There’s some good in the destruction of the world. Whether rich or poor we’re all going to the underworld. The poor may fear death, but the rich and the powerful fear death even more. There’s nothing to worry about, with the high price of real estate and current rate of inflation, the poor will be exploited to death by the rich and powerful sooner or later. It is better that everyone dies together.

wby3979:

Developed countries have emitted [greenhouse gases] for more than a hundred years without restriction, now they want to chain the developing countries to shackles.

老子是你爹:

Dammit, we have the least advantage, climate change basically has nothing to do with us. In the end, we’re still needed to pay the bill. So TMD unfair.

oykiller:

Haha, I think we don’t have that many years of natural resources left to use anyway. For example, oil, why is it that it’s becoming harder and harder to find large oil reserves?! Because there’s less and less oil, there’s not much nuclear power either, hydro power has been developed to its limit, solar and wind power are just talk. The resources saved up by developing countries will be used by developed countries anyway! Therefore, whomever saves power first will be the first to die!!!
Drained energy sources mean the decline of civilization, this isn’t the first time it’s happened in human history. Before we’ve found an alternative energy source, reducing emission is ridiculous!!!
A trap by the developed nations!!!

12345上山打老外:

Seen 2012…?

帅的惊动CIA:

Louzhu do you really not understand? This summit was political, if it were as simple as you think, an agreement would’ve been signed a long time ago. Besides, you should brush up on your financial knowledge before posting here. Read more books, that’s what you should do, little kid!

飞度CVT:

Take care of the poverty problem first. What environment? Would a good environment feed you?

papabashen:

Why must there be conditions for us cutting our own emissions? Are we reducing emissions only for the benefit of others? Not cutting emissions if others won’t give you money? Truly ridiculous. If you don’t care about others, at least think of your own children, right? Honestly, I’m really disappointed.

冰封の嗜血:

It’s going to be hundreds of years before we all die anyways….I don’t care….

是这里吗:

It’s almost 2012, what’s there to squabble about.

绝色.红:

Humans…[I've] nothing to say to them…let’s all die…see if money could save you then.

就是那只熊猫2:

Lou zhu, you only know how to yell, but do you recycle?!

Share This Article

148 Comments

  • Some HTML can be used to format your comment.
  • Add a picture to your comments with Gravatar.
  • Our Comment Policy.
  1. Good thing I converted my body to run on CO2.

  2. It’s economics. Bush rejected the Kyoto protocol because it would disadvantage United States’ businesses in the global market. Whoever steps up to save the planet will screw itself over in the short run.

    • Nope. Japan did itself a huge favor as it was the country which had developed the most energy efficient technologies along with a series of re-tooling techniques to beneit from the changeover. Smaller European countries save themselves a ton of cash and are able to use the strategic advantage of applying ‘green’ production standards to imports in the future.
      The non-signers where either exploiting cheap energy and production methods as developing nations or couldn’t afford the comparative advantage those countries would have in the short term as they defected from the deal. Copenhagen failed because the US could not afford to allow the Indians, the Chinese, and the Brazilians gaining football fields during the recession.
      The only hope for a sucess is going to be in a realization by India and China that their development is unsustainable with current pollution levels and the old adage of shitting where you eat does in fact ring true.

  3. “Don’t tell me that climate change is still controversial, and that the melting of glaciers is still under investigation. I want to ask humans not to count on chance. If everything needs to be proven, then it will be all too late.”

    I keep telling people that we need to build giant lasers to fight UFOs “just in case” but no-one’s listening to me, I WANT TO ASK HUMANS NOT TO COUNT ON CHANCE!!!!!! Or what if Viking gods emerged from the underworld to punish us for neglecting their will, surely only giant lasers would stop them, who cares if paying for the lasers cripples our economy, if everything needs to be proven, then it will be all too late.

    • There are no aliens, god gave humans dominions over the earth and did not create aliens. Heathen gods are false idols, people worship them are doomed. Besides, all righteous faithfuls know climate change is just a big hoax by the godless liberals trying to goad the government into creating a better world for nothing.

      • There’s no God, either. Whether you pay homage to Jehovah or The Gorical, as far as I’m concerned you’re all emotionally driven doomsayers portending Armageddon in one form or another. I intend to continue enjoying the material pleasures in life as well as the intellectual ones (of course), being proud of it, and not buy into yet another insane non sequitur, namely: By getting the most out of life, I am therefore killing the planet or sacrificing the well-being of future generations. Both “Tingting” and yourself are screwball zealots and no friend of humanity. I spit on both your houses.

        Tony.

        • It was a (failed) joke.

          • Yes, sorry. Once upon a time I recognised satire, but years of being bombarded with greeny hysterics from “liberal” drones whose love for soul destroying, power hungry government is far greater than the G77′s carbon footprint will ever be, and being told by Christian fundamentalists that “godless atheism” is the root of all dicatorship and whose own respect for political freedom, limited government, and self-responsibility is inseparably connected to election cycles has numbed my satire detection system.

            What should I do?

            Tony.

    • …don’t waste so much hot air… it might heat the planet

  4. I think the author had too much expectation for the conference and failed to remember that nothing ever get’s done in Denmark. I all for the giant lasers, we should put smaller ones on specially trained attack sharks too, you can NEVER be too careful.

    • Yep. Niels Bohr didn’t get much done. Judging from your comment I will recommend you pick the Simple English version, when you look him up in Wikipedia.

  5. And the Beat goes on

  6. I agree with the post. I don’t agree that this is the be-all, end-all of climate talks. The governments of the world have yet again failed the people they serve. People need to contribute during their daily lives and be conscious of the choices they make and of the effect they have on the planet. governments wont do sh*t until we do. We need to push them to react.

  7. The conference wasn’t a big success but it wasn’t a failure. The Chinese delegation was very happy with the outcome… But what it showed was either the UN process needs radical reform (crazy that China and Tuvalu both get one vote) or the real decisions will be made elsewhere, i.e. the Major Economies Forum.

  8. For once I thought I read somewhere some dudes says the biggest air polluter is the gas released from the cows.:):)

  9. Not that hard to make Chinese people environmental. Just force all their Feng Shui Masters to promote recycling and environmental things and then averyone will follow.

    If Feng Shui says so, people shall do so!

  10. The only thing a Chinese is afraid of is being fined money…. they don’t give a shit about anything else except that coin.

    • Fool, Chinese fear nothing and only care about China.

      about Copenhagen, please, stop allowing idiots to post about Chinese issues.

      “If the (US) president’s idea of action is to cut US emissions by 4 per cent on 1990 levels, then we’re heading for climate catastrophe. Barack Obama should have taken the opportunity to up his proposed cuts to at least 40 per cent by 2020 and ditch carbon offsetting,” said Atkins.”

      Wen meets Obama on day of whirlwind diplomacy
      By Fu Jing in Copenhagen and Li Jing in Beijing (China Daily)

      leave it to the biggest polluter to do the LEAST and talk the MOST.

      americlowns.

  11. So what? I think is nigh time for course correction.

    THE EARTH will be fine, after we are all dead & gone, dead & gone (most of us or all of us?).

    I for one welcome this.

  12. Why AM I Still BANNED. DON’T MAKE ME HAVE TO BREAK OUT MYSELF. YOU’VE BEEN WARNED.

  13. Blame Canada, it’s not a real country anyway.

  14. was listening to a chinese person telling me how 6, especially 3 together is a lucky number and then those crap sunday school classes smacked me in the back of the head and it occurred to me that revolutions crap could just be talking about China…….not a religious person but was tormented with sunday school for many years, just food for thought.

    • ‘Revolutions’ probably was about China and most likely a history lesson, however I doubt the book of Revelation is.
      All that time wasted when you could have been outside enjoying the fresh air while we still had some…Gods a bitch.

  15. People also forget or don’t take in account that a proportion (I do not know how large or how small of the total CO2 emissions of China) of the emissions China emit are passed onto them from other counties.
    As other counties send their manufacturing offshore to China, they also send off the potential emissions related to that product.

    For example (and a not a good one either, take it as a grain of salt), Apple manufacture almost every one of their products in the PRC, their emissions or carbon footprint in the USA would be relatively small. All the energy, resources and subsequently CO2 emissions are all emitted in the PRC. This story is repeated with almost every product you own in your house.

    As more foreign companies send their manufacturing offshore to China, the more China’s emissions will grow.

  16. ‘What environment? Would a good environment feed you?” – POSTER

    Ha ha, the answer is… YES!

  17. what we see is not disagreement on climate change, but lonliness…

  18. It’s going to be hundreds of years before we all die anyways….I don’t care….

  19. let’s just develop kinetic weapons as the first step…

    Then we can move to anti-matter weapons.

    The future is looking bright for fighting the aliens.

  20. HI I AM BAAAAAAAAAAACK!!!!!!!!
    WELL, its not about the meeting but about USA. they decide, they choose to save or screw the planet, they decide.
    as long as there is USA nothing can be done. CHINA and other countries only posed as worried nations but in the end is the USA that decides if we live or die

  21. its unnecessary to worry much about the climate change.frankly,its none of our businesses.maybe,just maybe,the temperature will rise to 1 or 2 degrees in 5 or 10 decades,but,are you still alive half century later,or you couldn’t understand the a little more warmer weather?almost every one think that co2 must be responsible for the climate change.but have you taken a cool meditation that the warmer and warmer climate is just uncontrolled trend,just like your body’s metabolism.some men even worry how can they survive if the petrol gas was used out.foolish enough,scientists will automatically do the job of inventing alternative gas.do not “qiren youtian”(a man from state qi worried about the sky would fall one day.)

  22. This is retarded.

    Arent these chinese comment posters aware that THEIR ability, THEIR wealth to have a PC with internet connection to write their delusive garbage is only possible BECAUSE China gives a shit about CO2 and only concentrated on growth, from which THEY benefitted from?!

    AAAARRGHGH. I see it already. Chinese will become the same stupid hippie-faggots like here in the west.

  23. some reaction from Chinese community in the US

    不知道中国真有这个能力还是夸口,一开始如此高调。本来排放量的许诺就是一个很好的讨价还价的筹码,自己开价别那么高,然后再把美国的价码抬上去。结果美国全然接受这个减排许诺,不再跟中国在减排量上抬价,而是提出双方监督减排的许诺。

    个人觉得监督这个要求合情合理,至少别人看了合情合理。既然双方作了许诺,双方接受某种国际监督是再合理不过的事了。让叫兽觉得不可思议的是,宝宝居然觉得“国格受到污辱,愤而离席回到下榻旅馆。。。。。。”。你既然许诺了40%-45%,不让别人监督,靠自己许诺是个“负责任的大国”,这个有什么说服力?美国又不是中国的老百姓,你说啥人家也不反驳。

    • 教授,我看到说的是,中国承诺的单位GDP减40%,实际总排量是增加200%

    • 中国不傻,40% ~ 45% 的单位GDP 减排是为自己的可持续发展
    你说的对
    中国的GDP总量如果上去,单位排放量再减少总体排放应该还是上去的。中国只能靠提高单位能源效益来减排。
    不过主要让美国夺回主动权的是相互核查问题

    • 上海会被淹吗?阿宝清楚国人最不怕污染,可淹没了上海天津他就千古罪人
    • 没事!建造一条沿海大坝即可。这又是一项增加GDP的工程 -华夏之子-

    • 土共和一帮做过不少坏事的有文化的老流氓谈判
    虽然自己苦大仇深刚开始过上点好日子,但老流氓还是不让你滋润。早说过了,老中的政治手腕拿到国际上都不入流。西方流氓讲究合法的做坏事。老共简单粗暴,做了坏事让人不舒服。西方流氓做坏事,我们这还有人看不出来呢。

    My point – why would china want to go to such conference in the first place? What a disgrace bunch! And did you guys see picture of snoring drooping chinese pigs in the conference hall?

    To unite India, Brazail, Africa and new communist brothers?

    No way, if world war 3 breaks out over climate and world resource, China will be all alone!!!

    Chiang Ksi-shek was 1000 times better in diplomacy during world war 2. China’s baobao and taotao should give up their 1950s soviet socialism skills and learn some uptodate international diplomacy instead.

  24. Why the ban? Please unban…

    [Note from Fauna: 8 different names. If it is a misunderstanding, please email me.]

  25. Fucking Chinese Commies.

    Anyone here who has had to negotiate anything with the fucking locals know that they negotiate in bad faith.

    This article says it all:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas#start-of-comments

    The best quote from the article will surprise no one who has been here for a while:

    ” the world’s most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his “superiors”.”

    • Oh, they really had to wait? how pitiful. Waiting
      for people they normally recognize as drivers
      or waiters. That is really cruel. Are there
      psychiatrists to care fore the post-conference
      trauma of western diplomats?

      a^2

      • moron, if in China, you invite a egually powerful man (or woman), you think that situation would last long? It’s a profound sign of irrespect.

        then, you can imply that they’re never the guy waiting, but you can’t here. Not when you are in such a fucking important meeting…

        Open your eyes, drivers and waiters wait, it’s part of their job.

        • Much more respectful to barge in on other people meetings like Obama?

          Cut the crap.

        • My name is not moron, kid. You are lacking manners.

          I fail to see that Wen invited Obama to Copenhagen. They both took part in a conference, and Obama arrived at the last minute. The times when everything revolved around the US are gone. China has not to bow to some cocky creditor. And US officials should acquaint to the notion that they are one of the powers in the world, not the only one.

          • Your name is moron and you lack brains.

            You and your ilk only dream of becoming as powerful as the U.S.

            Of course that will never happen.

            Brainless moron!

  26. When you have to shower soon afterwards if you get caught in the rain in your country, its not a good sign…

  27. The name of the game is realpolitik.

    China’s leaders are looking out for the interest of 1.4 billion people. This is their number one responsibility because if they don’t, no one else will.

    The American and European leaders are also only concerned about their own countrymen. But that’s another story.

    Now, if, at an international conference, the American and European leaders get finessed by the Chinese, well, who’s to blame?

    When Chinese leaders come to international conferences, they come to play “chess.” They must win because if they lose, 1.4 billion people will pay the price.

    Westerners should stop whining and complaining when they get “checked” by the Chinese at these conferences.

    If Westerners do not like the outcome of an international conference, they should go home and practice their “chess.” They should learn how to make alliances and how to bribe corrupt Africans.

    In the past, the West had good ‘chess’ players: Machiavelli, Cardinal Richelieu, François Leclerc, Bismark, and Churchill.

    Just because the American have a fool for a President, China should not be blamed for outsmarting him.

    • truth.

      Regarding brilliant chess-player, you forgot to mention Fürst von Metternich, Henry Kissinger and Helmut Schmidt, all of them ruthless and clever tactician.

      Nowadays we cant have these nice things since pragmatism and realpolitik doesent sound as good as saving the whales or fighting for freedom to the simple-minded masses.

    • How cynical can you get? Maybe you’d make a great Chinese leader.

      • Oh. What do we have here?

        A real Moralfag?

        Cry moar. The tears of morality are always delicious.
        You can continue to sing Kumbaya, when the cynical Chinese leaders are outsmarting and overtaking your economy.

        • The Chinese should just sit content that the US sits atop its pile of Indian skulls and dead Phillipino’s with a somewhat more humanistic approach of cooperation. Realpolitik is a wonderful thing if you’re the only one at the table playing. If the US decided EVERYTHING based on the realist’s ideals then China’s tears would flood the Yangze and the world and China would be a poorer place for it. If this is your ideal my friend then I simply feel sorry for you.

  28. yall should turn off your computers and go plant a tree or pay for a blow job, it will be more helpful than your worthless opinions about about this issue…we all know you eco-conscious-pretenders don’t do shit about it other than bitch anyways…

  29. i wanna be a hippie and smoke mary jane in the back of a combi van and have dirty dirty sex.

  30. china so niu bi eh

  31. “How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

    • Several other people who were also in the room:

      George Monibiot:
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/21/copenhagen-failure-us-senate-vested-interests

      Gordan Brown:
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8423831.stm

      Before we all jump on the blame China bandwagon is it too much to process that different countries with divergent interests just couldn’t get things done?? Or we can all just blame the godless communists.

      • We shouldn’t spend too much time on the blame game but we can learn something from how and why the deal was scuttled – so we can solve the problem. From first-hand accounts from people in the meetings it is pretty clear that China was the major obstruction but played a game of using (then abandoning) the real developing countries. Not only was China destructive but was diplomatically childish in the way they insulted other leaders by sending low level reps to meet with them.

        • So…while China was dicking everyone around, the United States – the most powerful nation on Earth, European Union – the host and far larger economic entity and green house gas producer, and every other country in the world just sat around helplessly as China single-handedly outmaneuvered and destroyed the climate conference? Somehow I find that harder to believe than, say…some people trying to single out an easy target to place all the blame and shore off their responsibility.

          I am not saying that China was a model of global cooperation or that the leaders from developed countries twiddled their thumbs with a sinister smirk on their faces but how about let’s not jump on a single British source that blames China for…everything, and pay attention to what the rest of the world – including other British leaders – had to say?

    • Fuck Wen Jiabao

  32. I grew up in Florida in the 1950s and 1960s in the shadow of the space program at Cape Canaveral. I witnessed every Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo launch and dreamed of a time — which would have been about now, in fact — when humanity would live in space stations and be building colony ships to explore the galaxy. It seemed then that the stars were in humanity’s grasp and I hoped to be a part of the process.
    As I grew older and learned a little of politics I realized humanity would never leave this planet. The principle of “bread and circuses” dictated that the people of the world would never be moved to make the united effort and strive for something they could not immediately use. I felt sad that my grandchildren’s grandchildren would not have the opportunity to explore and to learn and to benefit from what might be found in the great cosmos beyond our tiny Earth.
    Now those same politics are killing our planet. The politicians posture for “face” and votes and the majority of common people make demands typified by the commenter on Mop: “Take care of the poverty problem first. What environment? Would a good environment feed you?” The environment is the only thing that feeds us; without it there can be no “us.” But for far too many people in a position to make decisions — whether in corporate board rooms or the halls of government or in the voting booths — that inescapable truth is a small thing compared to their short-term profit or immediate comfort or interest of the moment.
    Where I once was sad my grandchildren’s grandchildren would not live on new worlds, I now fear they will not have any world to live on at all.

  33. If someone forced me to do something like drastically cut down my consumption and change my life style, like maybe back to subsistence farming, I would do it.

    • Well, if they forced you to do it, then it doesn’t matter whether or not you would do it, if you have a choice in the matter, then they have merely suggested it to you.

  34. Its the people’s world ! They have no rights to decide for us! srcew u !

  35. Doesn’t anyone read the news?

    100 Reasons Why Climate Change is Natural
    (www dailyexpress co uk/ posts/ view/ 146138)
    The World has been Cooling since 1998
    (What happened to climate change – BBC 10/11/2009)
    The Sun is Causing the Cooling
    (www cjonline com/ news/ local/ 2009-09-20/ earth..)
    The Ozone Hole is Shrinking Quickly
    (www usatoday com/ weather/ resources/ coldscience/ aozone92000.htm)
    Global Warming is the New Religion
    (www vancouversun com/ story_print.html?id=1835847)

    Come on, people! Figure this out for yourselves. Don’t be stupid, like the dolts who think that man could live on Mars, which has 95% CO2 atmosphere and an average temperature of -55C.

    Because there are SO MANY stupid people, these rich politicians can feed you ANY piece of crap and you happily eat it.

    But, like I always say, there is a big problem: you, me, and my neighbors LIKE to live in filth. We only pollute. We never clean. We let our factories poison us because we love the money.

  36. I’m really alarmed by the sinophobia that’s erupted in the British media following the Copenhagen summit. The rich nations are throwing a hissy-fit because China wouldn’t sign up to their agreement with little change in their emissions while consigning the developing nations to the stone-age. Fair criticism is one thing but the hysteria in the UK is out of all proportion.

    http://madammiaow.blogspot.com/2009/12/sinophobia-and-copenhagen-open-letter.html

    An interesting take from the G77 perspective here:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/23/g77-copenhagen-bernaditas-de-castro-muller

  37. http://www.carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/ranking/

    Footprint per capita[ton CO2 equ./person]

    United States 29
    Australia 21
    Canada 20
    Switzerland 18
    Finland 18
    Netherlands 17
    Belgium 17
    Ireland 16
    Cyprus 16
    United Kingdom 15
    Denmark 15
    Germany 15
    Norway 15

    China 3.1

    enough said

    • I’m guessing that in your mad rush to redirect blame, you totally missed this sentence.

      “The following table compares the CF of different countries for the year 2001″

      Its located just underneath the big pretty picture and just above the rankings. I guess ethnocentrism makes you apply 2001 figures to a 2009 argument. Try this 2008 article.

      http://www.cgdev.org/content/article/detail/16578/

      • Your hate attack goes too far. As a matter of fact, China’s per capita CO2 footprint went up from 3.1 in 2001 to 5.5 in 2007. Still, this is half of that of Europe or Japan and a quarter of the US. You are displaying the ashamable appearance of wealth chauvinism and racism claiming that only the “civilized world” is entitled to pollute.

        What mankind needs is curbing emissions, but without leaving 4 fifths of world population in the dirt. That is what you should learn.

        • A hate attack? Spare me. Only a hypersensitive 8 year old would call that a hate attack. I’ll bet that you were one of the ones who went after president Bush when he refused to sign Kyoto. But now that some people are questioning China you immediately scream chauvinism.

          What mankind really needs is for the “next great superpower” to start leading by example not running around screaming woe is me.

          • Who was screaming “mad rush” when somebody else presented statistics? No hate, no hysteria? Give me a break. Indeed, Bush took a bad move when not signing Kyoto, and Obama takes an even worse one when trying to bury Kyoto. And yes, there is much wealth chauvinism in Western reasoning. That doesn’t make all Chinese moves flawless, as two wrongs do not make right.

            It is absolutely ok to question China’s politics. It is not right, not ethical and not appropriate to try to force China on the knees, Much more, it is a stupid move.

            Why is so much of the developing world assembled behind China? Because they know that China’s path out of the dirt is theirs if there is any. That’s why G77 is backing China, not because they love Premier Hu or appreciate Chinese Communist Party.

            It is people like you who ought to learn. Yet I fear you are resisting to do so as you believe to hold truth. I pity you – to some extent.

          • Nobody was “screaming” mad rush. I correctly point out that the stats he was presenting as evidence were out dated by several years. He might not have overlooked that fact for himself had he not been in such a haste to dismiss Chinas critics. Hence the term mad rush. Nobody but your took that term so literally.

            Bring China to its knees? How so? The same emissions cut back would have also applied to other industrialized countries. Letting your imagination run wild won’t give your assertions any validity.

            “Because they know that China’s path out of the dirt is theirs if there is any.”

            That’s a fallacy. China’s path out of the dirt is the result of years of most favored nation trading status with the US, lots of early sweatshop labor, and an intentionally undervalued currency. Let’s see Sudan or India try to get those.

            The western chauvinism you keep mentioning is easily surpassed by the eastern chauvinism that we see more of every time we turn on the news. And might I add every time come to this website.

            I fear that your replies are nothing more then manufactured outrage base on every conceivable perceived slight you can find. I don’t pity you. How can I pity someone who is happy to be just another brick in the wall.

    • Hardly enough said. It’s absurd to pretend that skewing things with per capita numbers mean anything. China is now the number one polluter in the world and we will all have a chance to suffer equally from Chinese, Indian, American and European pollution.

      • It is really ashamable how you are compromising the principle that all men are created equal. You suburbian petty bourgeois feel entitled to 22 tons per capita for your SUV and your bungalows without any proper heat or cold insulation? Get a life.

      • Those were C02 numbers. C02 is not pollution. It’s absurd to pretend all things are equal, if USA’s C02 is cleaner of real pollutants.

        It’s also absurd and irrational to pretend per capita numbers don’t matter. If USA had 1.3 billion people the entire sky would be brown, instead of just the horizon.

        Bottom line: It’s time to move on from “fossil fuel”. It will only ever get done out of neccesity, not human wisdom or stewardship of the planet…

        • You are perfectly right that CO2 is not pollution. Pollution is local, at worst regional, hitting the environment and the populace in the citiy or region affected. CO2 emission, while not directly hitting locals, regionals, or even humans as a whole in the first place, is a global hazard, and may only be curbed globally. Thus all that picking on one another is so stupid. US Copenhagen diplomat Scott babbled that US taxpayers would never pay for China. What a dickhead! If CO2 may be curbed effectively I wouldn’t mind part of my tax money going to USA if CO2 can be curbed there more effectively than at home. All those idiots, Scott, Obama and their ilk, still haven’t learnt what global means.

          • Well get mine outta your pocket then! You are a mark.
            However you got convinced of something so counterintuitive as C02- and you didn’t even say “excessive”, just C02 emission in general- being hazardous doesn’t matter. It’s only important you buy that the solution to this Hegelian little problem is for excessive C02 emitter X to be forced to pay money to company Y for the transgression, raising your energy prices in the process. That is your tax. Not a tax to the government to do altruistic “green” things with, but in raised prices. That is the basic plan being touted. With the hope that excessive emitter Z will retrofit their operation and create greener jobs as a result of a cost/benefit analysis.

            It reminds me of the bank bailout plan the American people were against 100:1, where the idea being sold was that we had to give money to the banks to alleviate the “credit crunch”. It was a scam.

            There might be some company Z’s out of these cap-and-trade schemes, but the real winners will be the company Y’s, who came up with the idea for these laws in the first place. They are waiting eagerly for that money you’re so ready to give them…

            http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html?_r=1

  38. Are the netizens in China aware of how their leadership scuttled the talks and insulted Obama and the other leaders by sending low-level representatives to meet with them? Are they able to read the Guardian and The Australian articles that detail China’s undiplomatic behavior?

    • Are you able to read and comprehend George Monbiot’s rebuke of those ridiculous accusations? How do I dare to ask ..

      • Oops! Did whichone actually call it “global warming”?

        Get with the program! The word is now “climate change”!

        Until the next card gets pulled out from the house anyway…

        http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1326937617167558947#

        • Indeed, the climate is changing, it’s warming, on a global scale, hence the name Global Warming…did I just blow your mind? haha jk jk

          It’s an interesting video, and some points Bob Carter makes in there are pretty convincing, however, I also find most of the evidence for anthropogenic causes of global warming/climate change rational and reasonable. Most of the this stuff is pretty complicated and does not lend itself well to understanding by the lay person or even scientists who do not specialize in climate science. For me, what it comes down to is the skepticism of individuals scientists – who are often not well regarded within the climate science community – are less convincing then the overwhelming consensus of experts in similar fields.

          I suspect neither of us are able to critically examine the evidence directly, while you have a scientist who sounds credible in one video, I can name the virtually all the science academies and societies of every major nation who believe global warming is real and caused by human activities. So, unless there is a massive international conspiracy of scientists, it does not seem likely Bob Carter is correct.

    • Or looking at it another way …

      Pressure on poor at Copenhagen led to failure, not diplomatic wrangling
      The summit was a culmination of attempts by rich countries to steamroller the G77 into accepting a deal not in their interests
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/23/g77-copenhagen-bernaditas-de-castro-muller

  39. For me, the timing of Climategate was compelling enough to make it plausible in my mind. Necessity is the mother…

    http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles-climate.html

  40. China cares a lot for the environment… http://www.peta.org/feat/chineseFurFarms/

    [Note from Fauna: Comments under different names (GO CAPITALISM, lol/LOL, Capitalist Pig, COMMUNISM SUCKS, Counterfeit Eggs, Capitalism Rocks Communism Sucks, & BRING HER TO JUSTICE).]

  41. “Pity this busy monster man-unkind not. Progress is a comfortable disease.”

    It is our nature to consume and convert energy into other forms of usable energy. We will not change the system, the system will change us.

    Civilizations come and go.. The Earth remains and will heal itself naturally with enough time.

    People just want to feel good before they die. We are trapped by modernization and selfish society programming. We cannot regress to simpler times or advance to environmentally friendly times.

    Factories produce things that people need and will buy. Buses take people to work so they can buy food for their children. Oil keeps our cities alive and moving. We are not prepared as a species yet to change this reality. We populate and consume faster than the Earth can grow and manage our increasing needs.

    The only thing that would really help any of this natural absurdity is if aliens visited the Earth and decided not to eat or enslave us, but share their advanced technological knowledge with us, but the probability of this happening is far less than humanity drinking its last drop of water from a fallen tear.

    Thus, it is our fate to continue as we are until we are forced to continue in a different way.

  42. Danwei comes through with a great post with more interesting reading on this issue:

    http://www.danwei.org/foreign_media_on_china/danwei_interviews_jonathan_wat.php

    Excerpt:

    Danwei: A bit of media speculation frenzy has been caused by Mark Lynas’ article published in The Guardian, where he claims that China refused to agree on targets and intentionally humiliated Obama during Copenhagen’s final meetings. Should we trust his account or just see it as one voice in a cacophony? What’s your take?

    JW: Lynas has given a partial view from the inside. It is fascinating, but we will need a lot more than this to build up a full picture of what happened. The post-conference blame game is now well underway. Europe, and the UK in particular, have come out of Copenhagen with guns blazing. They are frustrated because their strategy for the conference fell apart almost from day one.

    Their plan had been for the Danish hosts to introduce a compromise deal at some point early in the talks. About a dozen countries, including China, India and Sudan, had been consulted about this in advance, according to one European negotiator. But this strategy collapsed when someone leaked the “Danish Draft” to my Guardian colleague John Vidal. Nations that were not part of the consultation were furious. The authority of the chair was undermined. From then on, the talks ground to a halt. Almost the entire two weeks was wasted as a result.

    Was China to blame? Well, there is no smoking gun. The killing of the Danish draft served the interests not only of China, but also other nations such as India that were determined to block any proposal that might constrain their future growth. Nonetheless, China was repeatedly cited as the main obstacle, particularly on the final day. While Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and a core group of leaders from about thirty nations or regions tried to hammer out a deal, Wen Jiabao sent officials in his place. This was primarily a defensive tactic. He did not want to be strongarmed into a deal. Those negotiators choked almost every numerical target.

    Three European negotiators confirmed to me that Chinese negotiators not only blocked targets for themselves, but also a target proposed by Angela Merkel for developed nations to trim emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

    I found that disturbing and perplexing. Was China doing this because it will be a developed nation by mid-century? I would like to hear China’s explanation, but its delegates have been very quiet since the end of the conference.

  43. check the article “How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room”:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

    extracts:”The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal”
    “it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. “Why can’t we even mention our own targets?” demanded a furious Angela Merkel”
    “China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak “as soon as possible”. The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised”

  44. Here’s another perspective on what wrecked Cop15:
    http://socialistresistance.org/?p=781

    “But what was this ‘deal’ that these obstinate rascals obstructed? “A 50% reduction in emissions by 2050 and an 80% reduction by the developed countries,” laments Mr Milliband. “Both were vetoed by China.” What he refers to of course is none other than the infamous Danish Text. But what he carefully omits from his account is the reason why this deal was ‘obstructed’.

    “The Danish Text, which had been secretly put together by the US, the UK and Denmark, revealed the true aim of the rich countries in Copenhagen. There was to be a gesture towards cutting emissions, sure there was… on condition that the natural order and balance of the world remains unaffected, that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, that growth and accumulation continue unhindered. The proposal would have sidelined the UN by handing power and control to the rich countries themselves; it would have entrenched global inequality by allowing the rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes of CO2 per capita while granting developing countries only 1.44 tonnes; it would have handed control of climate change finance to the World Bank; it would have locked the world into a disastrous system of carbon trading; it would have attached tight strings to any financial aid; and it would have abandoned any interim 2020 targets. All in all, the ‘deal’ would have condemned the world, and the South in particular, to a climate catastrophe of unimaginable horror.”

  45. A piece on foreignpolicy.com last week argued that China was afraid of transparency, but I think that’s not it at all–the Chinese bureaucracy has been known to use international oversight to push through reforms that they want (e.g. village elections).

    I wrote what I think is a fairly non-judgmental account of why China has the policies it has on international climate negotiations. It is essentially a balancing act to preserve political stability: economic growth, reducing unrest that comes from pollution, and mitigating international pressure. Energy security plays in as well.

    But has China miscalculated on the ‘international pressure’ front? Is China now, as a result of Copenhagen, more likely to face tariffs from the U.S. and the EU? Europe seems especially annoyed with Beijing’s performance at Copenhagen, and tariffs could have serious economic implications for China.

  46. More than a year ago, Mr. Obama said of climate change: “Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.”

    But when Mr. Obama and other world leaders met last month, they were forced to abandon the goal of reaching a binding accord at Copenhagen because the American political system is not ready to agree to a treaty that would force the United States, over time, to accept profound changes in its energy, transport and manufacturing sectors.

    So the leaders said they planned to leave Copenhagen with an interim political deal and work toward a binding treaty next year.

    Delay, it turns out, was the only option.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/weekinreview/13broder.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

  47. “Are you making a point there?”

    Clearly I was critiquing the “Precautionary Principle” invoked by the original post, it’s illogical to waste precious resources simply because something *MIGHT* happen.

  48. never heard of insurance?

  49. let’s just develop kinetic weapons as the first step…

    Then we can move to anti-matter weapons.

    The future is looking bright for fighting the aliens.

  50. hi, id like to tell you that chinsmack is for us to comment on the topic and you are making it a forum so could u please shut the fuck up AND STOP POSTING LOADS OF MESSAGES NOBODY BUT YOUR LITTLE BUDDIES REPLY, SHUT YOUR MOUTH, 1 POST IS ENOUGH. thank you very much for your attention

  51. the ONION.

    inferior non chinese monkey THE ONION??? gtfo.

    as with gdp, pollution, and income, PER CAPITA IS HOW HUMANS measure.

    learn something monkey.

  52. GetyourselfinformedFool

    Guess again.
    Top 10 historical emitters,

    1850-2005 Millions tonnes CO2, total
    1. United States of America 328,263.60
    2. European Union (27) 301,940.00
    3. China 92,950.00
    4. Russian Federation 90,327.20
    5. Germany 79,032.80
    6. United Kingdom 67,776.80
    7. Japan 42,742.00
    8. France 32,031.50
    9. India 26,008.10
    10 Canada 24,561.5

    1850-2005 Per Capita (tonnes CO2)
    1. Luxembourg 1,458.70
    2. United Kingdom 1,125.40
    3. United States of America 1,107.10
    4. Belgium 1,021.30
    5. Czech Republic 989.8
    6. Germany 958.3
    7. Estonia 851.4
    8. Canada 760.1
    9. Qatar 716.7
    10. Kazakhstan 656.2

    89. China 71.3
    123. India 23.8

    I guess that’s why they think historical responsibility is

  53. Brilliant?!

    Whatever they say.

    China wont let itself to be controlled by potentially ill-minded and hostile foreigners, who would most probably misuse their ‘independent’ control-authority over the chinese industrial growth to damage China’s economy for their own benefits.
    No sane Nation in this world would let themselfes be checked by people who actually fears/hates them.

    China is not the late Qing anymore, where every foreign Nation were free to butt in and to claim their responsibility of christian benevolence.

  54. I’d say that article hit one nail directly on the head: China doesn’t want the world to know how little it actually controls local officials. That would be a huge “loss of face” internationally. Now I’m nowhere near an expert, but the idea in the article that the local officials will not report accurate numbers in order to save their own skin and keep their extravagant lifestyle sounds very much in line with the behaviour of officials that I’ve been reading about in the last 5 years here in China.

  55. Ok, When I read that “brilliant analysis” I cannot but admire what bunch of idiots were sent to Copenhagen by the US unless they never had another goal than destroying the Kyoto accord and preventing the US from any kind of change in their emission level.

    Actually, the quality of data is a problem in China though they seem to be in touch with reality, anyway. The article leaves unmentioned that the Bureau of Statistics frequently dismisses overly optimistic data sometimes setting up independent inquiry. That struggle between central and periphery is a well two thousand years old story in China.

    And as the story is that old, isn’t it a wise move to pull the verification argument out of the pocket in the very last minute to atone one of the most important partners in climate dialogue? What stupid pricks are those Americans? The Chinese could have embraced any formula announcing improvement and modernization of methods of evaluation of climate data using it as a leverage against cocky provincial leaders refusing to comply with environmental and emission targets for not always and not solely illegitimate reasons.

    Maybe the US caught China off guard with their verification babble. Maybe as well that the Chinese will think twice in the future when it comes to address US financial vulnerabilities.

  56. Whoa….. quite a huge prosecution complex here eh comrade?

  57. lol. its not that harsh.

    just your normal, pragmatic thinking:

    China is a growing new power, and there are people, including the major old powers who dont want that to happen without their influence. Shit thing is just, that China grows into something beyond their control, so it’s the most natural thing for them to try to contain it.
    If I’m the US/EU/Japan/etc. I would try the same.

  58. Haste Grünkohl oder Rotkohl mit Kassler oder Gänsebraten vergessen…

    Es ist ja schließlich Weinachten.

  59. Wahre Worte.
    Leider ist damit zu rechnen das aufgrung dieser Tatsache, und duch die Medien agefacht, die Sinophobie im Westen mehr und mehr zunehmen wird.
    Auf China werden in den kommenden Jahren/Jahrzehnten schwere Zeiten zukommen. Hoffentlich bleibt die KP standhaft und zieht ihren Plan für China und die Welt mit notwendiger Härte durch, selbst dann wenn der ganze Westen mit seinem Vasallen gegen China hetzt.

  60. Die Tatsache dass der Westen überhaupt via Medien und moralischer Besserwisserei vorgehen muss, zeigt schon deutlich, dass China faktisch und materiell gesehen nicht mehr beizukommen ist.
    Die normalen kleineren Schurkenstaaten der Dritten Welt ließen sich bis dato immer sehr bequem per wirtschaftlicher Aushungerungstaktik unterkriegen und in ‘altruistischer’ Schuldknechtschaft der “westlichen Entwicklungshilfe” zwingen. Alles ganz einfach, und ohne größere Hetzkampagnen.

    Das was jetzt in den letzten Jahren so abgeht, zeigt nur allzu deutlich, dass so manche kalte Füße bekommen haben… Da kann man sehen, wie wichtig dem Westen die ideologische Ausrichtung eines Landes doch noch ist, trotzdem der Kalte Krieg ja von ihnen als ‘gewonnen’ erklärt wurde.

  61. Folks, those comments in German are somewhat unnecessary. In fact, China has to face sinophobic campaigns in the West because as economy is remaining unstable in all of the Western world racist scapegoating comes handy. Fortunately, the Chinese are not under Western control like the Jews under Nazi rule, and not that powerless.

    As to Copenhagen, China has blocked the burial of the Kyoto accord. That is not big progress, but a starting point anyway.

  62. baumkuchen, apfelstrudel, pumpernickel, schnitzel, sauerkraut wurst, ja ja gut?

  63. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

    How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

    As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed

    Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

    China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.

    All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as “a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”.

    Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

    Here’s what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

    What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world’s most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his “superiors”.

    Shifting the blame

    To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. “Why can’t we even mention our own targets?” demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil’s representative too pointed out the illogicality of China’s position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord’s lack of ambition.

    China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak “as soon as possible”. The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

    Strong position

    So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn’t need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: “The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans.” On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

    Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China’s negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity (“equal rights to the atmosphere”) in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

    With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. “How can you ask my country to go extinct?” demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

    China’s game

    All this raises the question: what is China’s game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, “not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?” The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now “in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years’ time”.

    This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

    Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

  64. you teach english in china?chinese do not teach you how to read chinese?ok,if you are in a remote mountain village,you would say “why not use electricity to cook your meal?it’s a clean energy.stop using your firewoods.” to those farmers who even have never saw what those electric utensils like.china is china,it has the richest coal resources in the world.you urban people blame the governmetn that chinese should act like western countries in every aspects.ok,we wear suit jackets,we speak english.”heng wu ji wu”ma?if one do not like the one party system,why you blame everything the pary did.communist’s decision in copenhagen is correct,though its accent sounds arrogant.the nation has been doing much in the clean energy.you know?the capactiy of nuclear power plant is biger and biger.the installation of windpower is going on.china has the most volume of solar energy water heater.in my area,the authority order property developers every building less than 12 floors must install the solar heater.and the local officials build public toilets for free in my village.the township leaders have posted notices every where tell the villagers do not dump their household rubbish in the rivers and pools.do not believe every thing westerners said.

  65. The idealist’s tears are delicious.

    Hopefully the fools of the world will now see that not ‘Kumbaya’ is the order of the day, but cold, hard realpolitik. And this applies to everything.

    Wake up from your delusions, western world, and look into the cruel face of reality.

  66. You can’t lump all westerners as “westerners” first of all. The basis of political freedom enjoyed by the west is that there are many “factions” just like the communist party in China is a “faction.” The particular difference between the west and China is that the west is used to refer to a collection which has hundreds, thousands, of factions, whereas China has >> ONE << faction in control of the whole country, and in control of the whole national political stance.

    So don't make this a China vs the west thing because the WEST is not a unified entity like the communist party in China is. Do not generalize and accuse the "west" of saying or accusing something. Perhaps someone from the "west" said it, but it does not mean everyone there agrees.

    I hate it whenever someone from China starts accusing and lumping the west as a single entity that is trying to preserve itself and suppress China. It's probably propaganda invented by the government to control and unify the population. If the west is doing something against China, then it's probably China that's doing something wrong, because the west is a bunch of diverse people, ideas, and backgrounds. Either China just happens to be right, and everyone else just happens to be wrong, or China is wrong.

    I used to live in semi-rural China and now I live in the "west." I consider myself a westerner because I believe in the prosperity of ideas and the natural selection of the best ones. That's all the "west" stands for, if anything.

  67. @daoist
    Relax buddy. All I said was that one part of the article rung particularly true, given what I’ve experienced here. Don’t get so defensive.

  68. I dare you to go out and buy something not made in China. When you realize how hard it is, and how much of a premium you pay for something not made in China if you manage to find it, you’ll realize why legislation and agreements higher up is needed for greater change. Even if you personally are willing to pay more, or go the extra difficult step, you can’t expect the mass majority of citizens to do so without making it past a barrier of difficulty.

  69. You’re right that “the West” is comprised of many individual countries who ultimately have different positions, so sometimes accusing “Westerners” of this or that is unfair because it lumps together those who are guilty of the accusation with those whoa re innocent of it.

    At the same time, I think the generalization of “westerners” used by daoist above is very much like how you used the generalization of “the Chinese”.

    Do not generalize and accuse “China” of saying or accusing something. Perhaps someone from “China” said it, but it does not mean everyone there agrees….because the Chinese are a bunch of diverse people, ideas, and backgrounds.

    It works both ways, whether it is “the West”, China, America, Europe, etc., right?

    It’s probably propaganda invented by the government to control and unify the population. If the west is doing something against China, then it’s probably China that’s doing something wrong, because the west is a bunch of diverse people, ideas, and backgrounds. Either China just happens to be right, and everyone else just happens to be wrong, or China is wrong.

    This is lazy. I think you can do better than this. There is too much eagerness to dismiss any or all disagreements from the Chinese as “propaganda” and “brainwashing”. Let’s pick one disagreement and genuinely discuss it. Chinese disagreements with you are not always because they were brainwashed by government-invented propaganda. Propaganda may not always be invented. Government positions and narratives may not always be baseless or exploitive. Positions and narratives may have legitimate rationale behind them.

    Are you considering these?

    Maybe China isn’t wrong and everyone else just happens to not be right, or China is right. I think the truth lies more along the lines of “China has its interests and so does everyone else, and they all think of their interests as ‘right’ while competing interests are ‘wrong’.”

    And really, after explaining how the West is so diverse, you go ahead and juxtapose a singular China with a singular “everyone else”? Come on, man.

  70. Actually the whole should invest in teleportation technology.. so that we can all say “Beam me up Scotty”

  71. Typo, the whole world should invest in teleportation technology.. so that we can all say “Beam me up Scotty”

  72. In other words, you are saying, don’t become the change you wish to see, wait until there is a law that coerces everyone to do it.

  73. “Higher” is probably the only thing Canada gets more than America. Fucking stoner hippie country.

  74. Kid, I am an old man who lived at a lot of places around the world, not in China so far, btw. My opinion is uttered for free though it is not as cheap as yours, I experienced arrest and similar for it sometimes. There is not enough money on the planet to buy my opinion. That is the difference between you and me.

  75. Well, Jones
    If you lack understanding: The wu mao insult claims that the accused does not utter his or her proper opinion but is bought by the officials to spread their view on the issue. If GuoBao were not such a contemptible coward he would utter such insults face to face instead over the internet. At least he could give the persons he slanders his real name and address to give them the opportunity to demonstrate who is wu mao and who is a coward.

  76. Good synopsis. But the failure is actually a success. Pollution needs to be fought, but carbon dioxide is not pollution.

  77. China= “the superpower that cares”? How about the superpower that doesn’t care what you do as long as it works in our interest. I’m not disagreeing that they sometimes make that a sticking point, but the official statements of “hands off” approaches to other countries political maelstroms (Read here: Myanmar, Nigeria, Iran)especially in the third world and only supporting projects which cater to specific interests make them sometimes worst than the half-assed, sugar coated, bullshit of the developed world blocks. Read here: Somalia, Darfur, etc.

  78. Jones, if you understand what wu mao dang means why do you deny the insult intended? Granted, I am not such a finely educated person like you, I am working class and passed apprenticeship, worked in workshops and factories before going to university and gaining my master and doctor degree – I still am a gongren and will always be, and in case some coward shit insults me, I slap his face if he comes close and call him coward if he doesn’t dare, let that be zhongxue style or whatever, I take pride in as a grandfather.

    As I am not Chinese as you correctly noticed thus I can hardly be Fenqing. And I do not see that any of my comments were nationalistic, even if I were PRC citizen.

    That Guobao (claiming protector of the motherland – pathetic indeed) type seems to be some liusi nostalgic, full of hate that China developped since. Ok, his problem. I do not attack him personally for his stupid views thus he should abstain to do likewise. He who has nothing to tell to the subject should abstain from ad hominem attacks.

  79. Grünkohl mit Pinkel, bitte

    Meinjanur

  80. Yes, it’s true that China’s enormous populations translates into number one emitter of green house gas as a nation even when per capita emission is a fraction of the developed countries. It is easy to point out that everyone should do their part there is also such a principle as differentiated responsibility as outlined in the Kyoto Accord.

    Developed countries have been pumped out the overwhelming majority of green house gases in the past century and are in the best position to cut emission – they have a higher base and well…can afford it. How are you going to tell the 35% of Chinese who makes less than $2 a day that they should stop burning coal and start “living green”?

    China is doing what it’s can with regards to the huge population base, draconian measures like one child per family have been enacted decades ago, short of banning child birth or genocide there is no good way of dealing with the large demographic.

    Getting more control over local official is nothing new, and you better believe the central government have a very large incentive to do so even without the dark cloud of global warming hanging overhead. It’s easy to announce everyone needs to make concessions but it’s difficult to tell the constituents they need to change the style of living when a large portion of them still don’t believe in global warming, safer to lay the blame on someone else though…

  81. Now I see what your problem is. Your brain is fluoridated from all that American tap water!;)
    Many people think they got the idea to fluoridate your water from Hitler, but au contraire, I think it’s vice-versa. Everybody knows USA is the most innovative country! He got his ideas from America!
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9014940408212321489&ei=1WMzS47gBKXOrAOg5rHJDg&q

    “Let’s stop the climate from changing”. Does it really make more sense to you… to fix the problem in your first paragraph,over than the one in your second?

    Did you notice all the other people, like aquadraht, who have this same emphasis? Like “climate change” (the man-made portion) is more pressing than fighting the things EVERYONE AGREES IS POLLUTION.

    Where did that come from? A vacuum? Or have you been conditioned a little?…

  82. jones
    uh…what? I thought I was responding to you, were you responding to 1.3 billion people I mentioned?

  83. the points are like the fact that your girlfriend is wrong when you are having a fight with her – doesn’t matter, though it feels good to be appreciated :0

  84. Dude, I don’t think “you must be X because you disagree with me” is going to earn you any plus votes or progress on the one comment here that has a “ridiculous amount of negative votes” (your own). Just sayin’.

  85. Is that the same Canada that tore up its Kyoto pledges and is now exploiting its dirty shale oil? Is that the same US that didn’t even sign up to Kyoto?
    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/01/the-urgent-threat-to-world-peace-is-…-canada/

  86. You think I didn’t?

    In the interests of a proper discussion how about dealing with the substance of their analysis?

  87. I’d love to see a thread about the shoddy, halfass, pretty for 15 minutes, ugly, rusted and crumbling for 15 years building techniques in the major cities of China. In terms of safety its hardly as bad as the fact that you’re freezing your ass off, running your quota on the meters keeping every appliance that keeps you warm or cool(winter/summer)running. As for the 22 tons of coal reference. Walk by a Chinese office building in summer. Both doors wide open and you can feel the cool hair hit you at 30 meters or more.

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»