backtop


Print 150 comment(s) - last by JonnyDough.. on Aug 23 at 10:27 PM


China's smog problem was very apparent in the weeks leading up to 2008 Bejing Olympics. But are the U.S. and others to blame for part of this smog?  (Source: AP)
Carnegie Mellon University releases controversial study placing the blame for a third of China's emissions on U.S., international community

China, the world's most populous nation, is a rich and diverse melting pot which is expected to one day be the world's largest economy.  Burdened by the environmental costs of rapid expandsion fueled by coal power, China leads the world in carbon emissions and emissions of many other airborne pollutants.  The air quality is so bad that often major cities are blanketed by a thick smog that is enough to trigger asthma attacks and breathing problems in those not prepared with masks.

With such problems, few questioned recent reports from NASA, which placed the blame for 15 percent of the air pollution over the U.S. on China, blown across the Pacific by the jets stream.  While the critical report certainly seems accurate, a new report from Carnegie Mellon puts this picture in a new light and shifts the blame away from China.

According to the report, much of China's chronic air pollution problems are not the fault of domestic endeavors, but rather it places culpability on international corporations that have outsourced their production to China.  According to the report, 1.7 billion metric tons of carbon or 33 percent of its emissions are the result of producing exports to sell abroad.

In total, six percent of China's pollution, according the study, can be attributed to the U.S. as 18 percent of Chinese exports head to the U.S.  This amount adds up to a sizable 300 million tons of carbon.  Such conclusions are controversial, but some say they illustrate that the U.S. should not be so quick to blame China for international climate problems.

The "export emissions" are expected to grow as well.  China, like the U.S., is unfettered by having committed to global air quality pacts such as the Kyoto Treaty.  Thus it is literally free to pump as much pollution into the air as it wants. 

This report and others are causing some to call for changes in the way greenhouse gases are measured, particularly when considering national and international legislation.  They say only domestic production should count against a nation, and export production should be distributed to other countries' metrics proportional to their percentage of outsourcing to the nation.  Furthermore, some say companies should not merely look at current carbon emissions, but should rather focus on carbon emissions by products, over the entire product lifetime.

Christopher L. Weber led the team from Carnegie Mellon and worked with colleagues Glen P. Peters of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Dabo Guan of the University of Cambridge and Klaus Hubacek of the University of Leeds in the analysis.  He states, "We found that in 2005, fully one-third of China's greenhouse gas emissions were due to production of exports. This proportion has risen quickly, from 12 percent in 1987 and only 21 percent in 2002."

While he says China is responsible for fixing this problem, in part, he says the international community, including the U.S., also bears responsibility.  He states, "It is clear that urgent improvements are needed, especially in China's electricity sector.  Installing more renewable power and overcoming the financial and technological hurdles involved with new technologies such as carbon sequestration should be the first priority of both China and its export partners."

Whether China will follow his advice remains uncertain.  While China has vowed to squelch all its carbon pollution within a couple decades and is adopting alternative energy sources, its emissions continue to soar yearly, just like its economic growth.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

crackpots
By mdogs444 on 8/20/2008 9:44:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
much of China's chronic air pollution problems are not the fault of domestic endeavors, but rather it places culpability on international corporations that have outsourced their production to China.

Wow, so now the US is responsible for China's pollution because we are supplying their 1.3B people with jobs?

What a freaking joke. Whoever came up with the idea for this report is a crackpot. These people should also be blaming illegals on for part of the US pollution then.




RE: crackpots
By someguy123 on 8/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: crackpots
By Solandri on 8/21/2008 1:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
That doesn't work the way you think it will. If a corporation were to abide by domestic environmental standards when outsourcing, it wouldn't magically raise the environmental standards in China.

The stuff the company produced would cost more because it's either produced domestically, or the outsourced factory has to install extra tooling to meet the environmental standards. A Chinese company that doesn't care about environmental standards could manufacture the same stuff for cheaper. The public has shown it's almost always going to buy the cheaper item regardless of what environmental standards were followed in its manufactured.

So what will happen if your idea is implemented is 1) manufacturing still winds up in China, 2) your country's corporation loses market share to a Chinese corporation, and 3) China still doesn't have stricter environmental standards.

What could work is if a country could place tariffs on imported products manufactured with lesser environmental standards than if it had been manufactured domestically. Unfortunately, I believe the WTO has declared this to be illegal.

Without that, you're pretty much left with what we've been doing. Develop deep economic ties with China, then try to apply political-economic pressure to get them to clean up their act.


RE: crackpots
By SiN on 8/21/2008 6:38:01 AM , Rating: 2
Your right on the button there, except the WTO is a world organisation for coporations. They'd be hurting themselves if they didn't allow corps to outsource.


RE: crackpots
By kkwst2 on 8/21/2008 7:40:10 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, that's one of the first things you learn in economics. Regulations rarely have the desired intent, and that taxing the undesired behavior generally is a better strategy.

Unfortunately, those creating our environmental policies don't seem to get that.


RE: crackpots
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/21/2008 11:36:01 AM , Rating: 2
"Unfortunately, those creating our environmental policies don't seem to get that."

Oh they get it, clear as a bell. That's because the one's they will be taxing run, head up, or create the well funded lobbyist group to stop the taxes from being created. Funny, they may spend more in creating the lobbyist group and running the group then the taxes would cost.


RE: crackpots
By Ammohunt on 8/21/2008 1:41:53 PM , Rating: 4
Watch out! this same logic would make you responsible for the carbon emissions of the lawn mower owned by the neighbor kid you pay to mow your lawn.

Never ceases to amaze me how stupid people have become.


RE: crackpots
By Solandri on 8/21/2008 1:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh. Why the downmods? Just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less true.


RE: crackpots
By aurareturn on 8/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: crackpots
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2008 10:40:41 PM , Rating: 5
> "The article is saying that we're in a way, outsourcing our pollution to China "

Stuff and nonsense. The US exports some $1,920 billion worth of goods and services each year. China exports significantly less, around $1,210 billion.

The goods we manufacture here for sale overseas are counted against us. Counting those made overseas for use here is nothing but a double-count bookkeeping scam.


RE: crackpots
By lennylim on 8/20/2008 11:35:10 PM , Rating: 4
Citation, please. Also a breakdown of the exports would be extremely helpful.


RE: crackpots
By NullSubroutine on 8/21/2008 12:04:03 AM , Rating: 5
He lumped goods and services together, which can be done mathmatically, but it is a red herring. The article mentions out sourcing production to China which in turns produces pollution. Unless I am mistaken but much of the "services" we export is not production and very well can't produce pollution like production can.

I do however, find that it is rather asinine to blame someone buying goods for the pollution the product they buy, without some way to see "x product produces x amount of pollution" label or fact site.

And if I am not mistaken we have a trade deficit with China, but I do not recall if that only counts goods or if it counts services as well.


RE: crackpots
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 12:39:49 AM , Rating: 5
No red herring. First of all, services can and do create pollution, sometimes vast amounts, as the services of a wildcatting team attest.

Second of all, barring services, the US is still the largest manufacturing nation in the world, larger than China or anyone else. Much of those goods are sold overseas. This report counts against us goods we manufacture for sale overseas, yet goods made by others are likewise counted? China makes a toy for the US, and its our pollution. We make a Jumbo Jet for China, and its ours as well? It's utter nonsense.

Even worse is the fact that counting the acts of one nation against another goes entirely against basic principles of personal responsibility. In general, China chooses to use very dirty means of productions. That's their choice, and their responsibility. Not ours.

As I said, the report is nothing but a bookkeeping scam, made to advance a political viewpoint.


RE: crackpots
By Nefiorim on 8/21/2008 1:19:49 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
In general, China chooses to use very dirty means of productions. That's their choice, and their responsibility. Not ours.


Yet we (the consumer in general) choose to buy products made in China, regardless of how it's made.

With all the much needed bad press about child labour and people boycotting corporations involved in such practices, is it really that hard to do so to polluting corporations as well?

Your comment comes dangerously close to "the end justifies all means" and choosing to stick your head in the sand regarding those means. That's a more and more common mindset nowadays and it isn't helping the world in general one bit.


RE: crackpots
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 1:42:11 AM , Rating: 1
> "is it really that hard to do so to polluting corporations as well?"

Anyone who believes boycotting would help the Chinese needs their head screwed on more tightly. For hundreds of years, the average Chinese has been doomed to a nasty, brutal agragrian life in the fields, unable to afford even the most basic essentials of a modern life. That's just now starting to change, thanks to foreign trade.

Just 50 years ago, Chinese were starving to death by the tens of millions. Just 30 years ago, the average income for a family was only a few hundred dollars a year, and even something as simple as toothpaste was a luxury most passed by. Do you really want to return them to that life?

Does China have a problem with pollution at present? Yes, but they're improving quickly. It's part of experiencing an industrial revolution. And without a doubt, China will clean up much faster than Europe or America did.

For anyone concerned with human health and happiness, boycotting companies that do business with China is an act so barbarous as to be criminal. The solution won't be found in such pudding-headed acts. As China builds wealth and prosperity, it will soon be able to afford things like modern pollution controls and regulations. In fact, it already is implementing many such....and their cleanup is being financed with their profits from foreign trade.


RE: crackpots
By sld on 8/21/2008 2:34:58 AM , Rating: 3
They were starving to death 50 years ago because of Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward (an industrial revolution corrupted by Communist thinking), not because of natural disasters that affected agricultural production or a boom in births.


RE: crackpots
By Parhel on 8/21/2008 11:01:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone who believes boycotting would help the Chinese needs their head screwed on more tightly.


It might not directly help the individual Chinese family, but it would certainly make our pro-democracy, anti-communist, human rights stance that we take with the rest of the planet a lot more believable.

quote:
Just 50 years ago, Chinese were starving to death by the tens of millions.


Chinese families aren't even allowed the most basic of human rights, the right to reproduce freely without government interference.

That said, I don't advocate a boycott of China. It just ticks me off to think we are helping to fund their government.


RE: crackpots
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 11:07:02 AM , Rating: 3
> "It might not directly help the individual Chinese family, but it would certainly make our pro-democracy, anti-communist, human rights stance "

What an utterly terrifying statement. You don't care if your actions hurt or help, as long as we make a point?


RE: crackpots
By Parhel on 8/21/2008 10:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think you understand what I'm saying. I specifically stated that I wouldn't support a boycott, for pretty much exactly the reasons you mentioned. But funding the Chinese government as we do, despite their human rights abuses, seems un-American. And, for the record, I side with China on the Tibet issue.


RE: crackpots
By JediJeb on 8/21/2008 9:16:26 AM , Rating: 1
When you
quote:
Yet we (the consumer in general) choose to buy products made in China, regardless of how it's made.
that isn't always true. I for one would by products made in the USA if I even had to pay more for it, but seems noone is selling them that I can find. You can't place so much blame on the consumers if the retailers don't give us the choice.


RE: crackpots
By NullSubroutine on 8/22/2008 2:45:32 AM , Rating: 2
The red herring was not that what we produce here is counted against and what we buy from somewhere is also counted against. I agreed (in my previous post) that is BS.

The red herring was the 'we export more than China' statement you made and also lumping goods and services together saying they produce equal amounts of pollution.

Much of our services (which I believe accounts for a greater percentage of our exports as of 2000ish) are things like Legal services, I can't believe that besides hot gas or bull#@$% lawyers spew, their pollution would be equivilent of the plastic toys or chemicals that are produced in China and bought or used in the US.

And I don't think you can count what materials you would use in services because thats already being counted as material (in either $ or pollution) when it is being produced (cant use bookeeping scams).


RE: crackpots
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 12:42:42 AM , Rating: 3
RE: crackpots
By NullSubroutine on 8/22/2008 2:33:08 AM , Rating: 2
However, we still have a trade deficeit with China of $256,206,700,000. Meaning our trade with China, they export almost 5 times as much to the US as the US exports to them.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700....

*Disclaimer, my math may be wrong, not a math wiz, but the stats are there in the link.


RE: crackpots
By omnicronx on 8/21/2008 8:18:38 AM , Rating: 1
Masher, you can't always prove a point with numbers. You know damn well that emissions regulations in China are much more lax than in the United States and other parts of the world. Of course this can also be blamed on China too, but International companies sure know how to take advantage of it...


RE: crackpots
By BZDTemp on 8/21/2008 8:36:17 AM , Rating: 1
Actually the US is only trailing four oil states when it comes to CO2 emissions per capita! So if you compare yourself to the countries where life is more like the US you do have the largest CO2 emission all ready.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_perc...

Hardly surprising since the US uses aprox. twice the amount of energy per capita than anybody else in the western world.


RE: crackpots
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 11:02:08 AM , Rating: 4
> "Actually the US is only trailing four oil states when it comes to CO2 emissions per capita! "

Oops; you linked to old data. The US currently ranks 7th, and is dropping. Also, if one includes emissions from land-use changes, the US only ranks 14th:

http://cait.wri.org/

> "Hardly surprising since the US uses aprox. twice the amount of energy per capita than anybody else in the western world. "

Wrong again! Several Western nations use more energy per capita than the US, Canada being one of them.


RE: crackpots
By Solandri on 8/21/2008 2:21:24 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
> "Hardly surprising since the US uses aprox. twice the amount of energy per capita than anybody else in the western world. "

Wrong again! Several Western nations use more energy per capita than the US, Canada being one of them.

The number everyone is looking for is Energy Intensity - how much energy a country uses per dollar of GDP produced. A per capita meausre unfairly penalizes modernized countries relative to agrarian countries. Normalizing to GDP correctly compares energy consumed with the country's productivity with that energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

The U.S. is worse than most of Europe, but is better than several other developed nations. And it's only slightly more wasteful than the world average, not 2x as bad.


RE: crackpots
By CloudFire on 8/20/2008 10:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
i totally agree. what a joke!

if they are accepting the OUTSOURCING of jobs, it's their own fault for not putting up regulations on air quality.

i rather have all the jobs that the US outsourced back in our country to deal with this crap economy we're living in now.


RE: crackpots
By Bender 123 on 8/20/2008 10:16:15 PM , Rating: 3
Ding...You win a cookie.

If these jobs were in the US making the crap that people buy at WalMart, the EPA would hammer them into the ground until they limited emissions. This study is a joke because it does not normalize/standardize the industry into a the emissions at a US air pollution standard.

What we should do is enact laws that mandate that outsourced factories will comply with US air pollution standards and normalized wage standards or face steep import tariffs and VATs. This would place American Workers on equal footing and dissuade companies from moving their plants to avoid costs associated with being good stewards of the earth. I am no tree hugger, but I do not want my children to inherit a garbage pile...or a broke nation.


RE: crackpots
By captchaos2 on 8/20/2008 10:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
How can you blame the US for the way goods are being produced in another country? China produces goods for many countries because it has a cheap labor force. If the labor force were allowed to complain about their conditions, and if their citizens were allowed to complain about their environment like ours can, then they wouldn't have such problems. The smog is just another symptom of communism, not the buyers of the goods they produce.


RE: crackpots
By GTVic on 8/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: crackpots
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2008 5:52:10 AM , Rating: 5
One of the great things about living in the US is that you can buy what you need and what you want. I hate the Walmart mentality. But I don't think I have the right to tell people they can't shop there and buy all the Chinese made crap they sell. This is a free country. Unlike China.

The fact remains that China is to blame for their situation. Those manufacturing plants are a result of their desire to get all the world's manufacturing by having a cheap labor force and practically no emissions regulations which are costly. If they want to clean up their air, it's their responsibility to do so. Not ours.


RE: crackpots
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 11:09:56 AM , Rating: 3
> "If americans bought just what they needed "

How many things have you bought that you don't truly need? The computer you type this message on, for one. Do you truly need a closet full of clothes? A TV? A car? Your own private apartment? Vacations and weekend trips?

When it comes right down to it, I imagine nearly every single purchase you've made your entire life is something you want, rather than what you actually need. When you give up all your own luxuries, then you can ask us to give up ours.


RE: crackpots
By blaster5k on 8/20/2008 10:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
Free trade isn't exactly fair trade. A move like this could end up hurting American companies when foreign governments retaliate though. Also, it's not easy to ensure comparable environmental standards -- and it's even harder to ensure proper enforcement.


RE: crackpots
By Ringold on 8/20/2008 10:51:05 PM , Rating: 4
Exactly. Trade protectionism disproportionately impacts the middle and lower classes as well. The upper classes often enough buy their goods from expensive European, American, or Japanese high-end brands. They also spend a smaller percentage of their income on the things that would become significantly more expensive -- clothes, consumer electronics, food. Left-wing defenders of the "middle class", which has been shrinking by having more members move up rather than down, would be cutting off their nose to spite their faces.

Beyond that, another point. Anyone who has seen pictures from a modern, recently-built, developed-world car plant should know what has really eliminated jobs; automation. Shall we all become Luddites and throw the robots in to the rivers too?

We've tried trade protectionism; 1028 economists signed an open petition to Congress before it passed Smoot-Hawley, which ended up being disasterous. That people still even think that fighting trade in any significant way is productive is more an indictment of our educational system, where history teachers often teach one-semester economics courses which barely go further than how to balance a check book, much less explain how the world functions in any basic way. David Ricardo get any mentions in high school econ? I doubt it.


RE: crackpots
By Bender 123 on 8/21/2008 10:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
Ummmmmmm...yeah...thats the point.

We enact laws and rules to protect our citizens and the company attempts to subvert these rules by "outsourcing" to a different country. We then get hurt by the...

1. Loss of jobs
2. Loss of tax revenue coming from the income of paid workers
3. Increased damage to environment, due to evasion of policies
4. Decreased quality, Increased risk from lax foreign control over safety (see the last two years for stories of lead paint in toys...)
5. Decreased health standards (see last two years for the Chinese dog food that was tainted with toxins or the Mexican tomato/jalapeno pepper thing from a few months ago the whole industry was relocated out of the US because of pesticide laws and cleanliness standards...being a health care worker, the disease on those peppers comes from human feces, which is why smart people dont eat fresh veggies in Mexico, but we love to import them and eat them here!).

We seem to be the only ones in global trade game that is not erecting barriers and we seem to be losing more and more jobs, safety standards, etc...I am a conservative, but not a republican. I believe our government is for protecting our citizens from all hostility, whether it be from an army, a cyber attack or even a hostile foreign investment group.


RE: crackpots
By Ringold on 8/21/2008 3:31:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We seem to be the only ones in global trade game that is not erecting barriers


Where do you get this? A few places with resurgent socialism, yes, are erecting barriers and price controls. Zimbabwe's economy has been almost entirely annihilated. Venezeula has been forced to back off some price controls to alleviate massive shortages. Russia has lost almost all credibility regarding how safe it is to invest there.

But the US is really somewhat alone in its more recent (last 1-2 years) protectionist rhetoric; feel free to search news archives and reading all the foreign trade ministers that've stated how it's scaring them. The world trend is towards lower barriers, not higher. Trade ministers from around the globe locked themselves up for 6 days, and many long nights, recently to try to conclude the Doha round of trade talks. India, China, and Middle Eastern countries are dropping fuel subsidies. Heck, the Swiss have even dropped most the protection for their beloved Cheese! That may not sound significant, but believe me, that's a huge accomplishment for free trade. PM Brown of the UK, Merkel of Germany, they both openly commit themselves to trade. Expansion of the EU, it's worth pointing out, is also in effect an a bilateral free trade agreement, and that hasn't stopped them.

quote:
and we seem to be losing more and more jobs


Paul Krugman, perhaps the most famous liberal economist in the nation, tried to quantify the negative impact on US labor due to free trade agreements, mostly to validate his criticism of NAFTA in the 90s. Despite his best efforts, he failed to be able to prove it. He blames insufficient granularity in data, but this simply means that any impact on blue-collar wages is most likely tiny.

quote:
I am a conservative, but not a republican.


Must be a social conservative then, like the evangelicals. Milton Friedman and Barry Goldwater would've rolled in his grave over that post. The Republican Party needs none of these kind of "conservatives," because we know what a Republican Party with social conservatives is like; identical to the Democrats, just more religious.


RE: crackpots
By Bender 123 on 8/21/2008 4:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
The entire Euro Zone enacts steep VATs and it is also a serious concern in the Pacific rim as well. It is one thing to be protectionist, but it also wrong to be suicidal.

I am for free trade, but only if it is fair trade. I must be in the minority that thinks our culture and future economic/environmental strength are not worth a lead paint slathered toy or another cruddy Gizmo.

And for the record, i am also extremely fiscally conservative. The more Americans make the more taxes they pay (at lower rates, see the Laffer Curve), the stronger our reserves, the stronger the dollar the more our paychecks are worth. That is as core to the Reagan/Goldwater conservative as you can get.

A healthy American industry benefits all Americans.


RE: crackpots
By Solandri on 8/21/2008 2:10:21 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
What we should do is enact laws that mandate that outsourced factories will comply with US air pollution standards and normalized wage standards or face steep import tariffs and VATs. This would place American Workers on equal footing and dissuade companies from moving their plants to avoid costs associated with being good stewards of the earth.

For some baffling reason my comment on this got downrated above. What you're saying doesn't work. It doesn't change the fundamental supply-demand forces that are at play.

If the companies in your country have to apply pollution controls to outsourced work or face tariffs, that doesn't force their outsourced factories to become cleaner. What happens is that it allows foreign companies without the pollution requirement to manufacture the same product at a cheaper cost. The demand doesn't stay with your company regardless of cost, the demand shifts to whatever company can produce the product for lower cost.

So the sales don't stay with your less-polluting product. They go to the other just-as-polluting-as-before product, and you end up with just as much pollution as before. Except now the market share is dominated by those other companies instead of your companies, meaning you have less influence on global pollution emissions.

What would work is if your country could slap tariffs on any product manufactured abroad with pollution standards lower than in your country. So for example, if any company (foreign or U.S.) wanted to manufacture something for import into the U.S., it would have to pay a tariff or show that the factory used to manufacture met U.S. pollution standards. Essentially you're saying, "if you want access to my country's market, you need to comply with my country's pollution standards or pay a hefty tariff which makes you less competitive than if you just complied." Unfortunately I think the WTO has outlawed this as an unfair trade practice.


RE: crackpots
By Bender 123 on 8/21/2008 3:07:06 PM , Rating: 1
I dont follow...
You are assuming somebody else will step up and manufacture the crap and assuming that we would not add this requirement to any items coming into the country.

Due to the narrow scope of the article, I did not draw this conclusion, but it is a logical extension. Ask a European about VATs or somebody from China/Japan/Korea about what extra they pay for American goods...Why cant we return the favor?


RE: crackpots
By omnicronx on 8/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: crackpots
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2008 8:48:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I actually take offense to your comment about supplying them with jobs, if you don't like it, then why were you outsourcing in the first place.


You're being obtuse. I'm not the one complaining that were giving them jobs by outsourcing. You're the one who is claiming that the US outsourcing some of its manufacturing to China, which results in cheaper products for US consumers, is now responsible for their pollution.

In fact, I don't care if China decides to address its epa regulations or not - I just hope that the US decides to lessen its own regulations, and bring back those jobs and cheaper products.


RE: crackpots
By veewonwon on 8/21/2008 8:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
"People live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

Since we're on the topic to improve our environment, then let's see who made the major contribution of pollutants in the North America continent - the USA. And this has been the major cause of acid rain from the later part of the last century. Visit the Environmental Canada website, http://www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain/acidfact.html, or do a search on Google.

The major contribution of SO2 and NOx emmissions are from Electric Utilities (coal power generation) and Transportaion (those gas guzzler SUVs) sectors respectively. So what are the Americans doing in the last 25 years to drastically reduce pollutants by having clean power generation and getting rid of the big gas guzzlers with mainly one driver in each vehicle?

The Canadian government had try many ways to kindly ask the USA to cooperate and take actions against the pollution. And I'm sure most intelligent folks here already knew the outcome. USA is not as innocent as it portrait.

If the Americans are playing an effective leader to save the world's environment, then lead by examples and share your experience, show the world what can be done. At this moment, USA has not been regarded as a green nation by the world's population.

Blaming others lead us no where. In the end, USA will continue to loose its credibility. How embarrass to see irresponsible reports like this.


RE: crackpots
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 11:16:23 AM , Rating: 3
> "And this has been the major cause of acid rain."

Ah, acid-rain, one of the most overstated environmental problems of the past century. Thirty years ago, I was taught acid rain meant the deaths of all our forests. Yet today, the US is more heavily forested than ever.

> " So what are the Americans doing in the last 25 years to drastically reduce pollutants "

Well we tried to replace our coal plants with nuclear and hydro, but the environmentalists vetoed that idea. Still, the average car from today emits 1/1000 the particulates and 1/100 the VOCs as a car from 1970....progress the US first among all nations mandated, and technology first developed by US companies.

> "The Canadian government had try many ways to kindly ask the USA to cooperate and take actions against the pollution."

I guess you don't realize that Canada ranks above the US in total GHG emissions per capita.

> "If the Americans are playing an effective leader to save the world's environment"

You presume to believe the environment "needs saving". While that belief has assumed near-religious value in many people's minds, it just isn't born out by the facts.


RE: crackpots
By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 12:03:16 PM , Rating: 2
Masher2, have you seen the pollution in Beijing? What non facts can you concoct to describe what I see on tv? Made in warner bros back lots?
The Europeans had a nasty bout of acid rain a few years ago, thats why they mandated pollution controls.How old are you?


RE: crackpots
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 12:18:20 PM , Rating: 1
> "Masher2, have you seen the pollution in Beijing?"

Did you not read my post? By what tortuous logic process did you link the pollution in Beijing to acid rain in the US?


RE: crackpots
By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 12:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
Read your last line. Thats what I dissagree with.

I didn't link acid rain and US. I said, Europe had a bout years ago implying that if you aren't concerned with the environment you could get it too.

I think you read it too quickly. I wouldn't link the two, as you suggest, together..it is a long bow.
Sorry its after 2am, way past my bed time.


RE: crackpots
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 12:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, the environment isn't being 'damaged' by air smog in Beijing. Were there mandated pollution countrols on all their cars, trucks, and factories, the smog would disappear in a few weeks. And one day it will...in about 10 or 20 years, when China can afford that. In the meantime, that smog is better for the Chinese than the alternative of a brutal near-starvation agrarian lifestyle they faced for centuries.

Secondly, the primary component of acid rain is emissions from coal power plants...and environmentalists have done more to keep those active than any other group of earth. Had they not forced most of Europe entirely out of nuclear power, they wouldn't have such problems today.


RE: crackpots
By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 12:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
Were there mandated........ yea right. after the olympics what do you think will happen.
If the environment isn't being damaged, what am I seeing on tv, wood ducks?
What are you saying, here have some poison and in 20-30yrs time we might have a cure? Its like saying some must die for the good of the majority. I thought neocons dissowned that thinking. NOT!
How old are you? I am old enough to remember when acid rain destroyed forests in Germany.
PS they don't seem to have that problem today, something about mandated no sulfur in fuel?!?!?


RE: crackpots
By veewonwon on 8/21/2008 2:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ah, acid-rain, one of the most overstated environmental problems of the past century.


masher2, Acid rain problem isn't overstated, the damaging effect varies in different regions, and are based on many factors. The grossly simplify way of looking at the density of a forest is a premature conclusion.

You're lucky to live in part of the US that may not be seeing the damaging effects, because a lot of the pollutants has blown to the eastern states and provinces. There were some improvement in the past few years after the Canada-US Air Quality Agreement signed in 1991 (guess which side push for this bilateral agreement). Believe in what you want to be. I'm sure many others will tell you otherwise, in particular those from Asia and Europe.

quote:
You presume to believe the environment "needs saving".


You totally missed my point. I stated the big "IF" as a start. I'm no where near an evangelist in environmental issues. My point was "IF" US really wanted to take on this matter, then take actions and show the world that the America are serious about this, I'm sure great progress can be made if the heart is in, and this applies to anything we do in life. Otherwise, none of us are in a better position to push the responsibility to others. Laying blames aren't going to resolve any matters.


RE: crackpots
By veewonwon on 8/21/2008 3:12:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess you don't realize that Canada ranks above the US in total GHG emissions per capita.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

If the source of your quoted stats were from Wikipedia in 2000, please take note of the accuracy, as stated +/- 150% in extreme cases. Noted the numbers for Canada and US are very close, 24.3 and 22.9 resp., there is really no real world difference on the GHG emssisions/capita.

However, US population is 10 times of Canada, in approximate the same geographical size. I'm sure you can do the math for the total emission.

And I was surprise you didn't do the honorable mention of China, as the chart was 7-8 years old. A lot has changed since.

P.S. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot more for the Chinese and Canadian to improve. But need to base on facts.


RE: crackpots
By AlexWade on 8/21/2008 8:39:16 AM , Rating: 3
And I've got the answer to this pollution problem! The people in the US should start living in huts, growing their own vegatables using a horse to plow the field. Really, that is what this is. Yet another attempt by the eco-nazis to destroy our economy.


RE: crackpots
By clovell on 8/21/2008 12:45:00 PM , Rating: 3
How true. China is a big boy now, and it is fully capable of passing its own environmental protection policies. A nation exculpacated due to its own complacency, greed, and nationalism? Something tells me the world would not take it so easy if it were the United States, rather than China we were talking about.

Shens.


RE: crackpots
By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 12:56:52 PM , Rating: 1
different colour, same shit


RE: crackpots
By LatinMessiah on 8/21/2008 1:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
Makes sense to me. What's not to understand?

quote:
Wow, so now the US is responsible for China's pollution because we are supplying their 1.3B people with jobs?


Answer: Yes.


Continuing this train of thought...
By Landiepete on 8/21/2008 3:38:35 AM , Rating: 5
The US is responsible for 33% of traffic violations in China because the people that make them are driving to work to make products for export to the US.

Methinks the people that make up these reports should ask their physicians to adjust their meds.




RE: Continuing this train of thought...
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2008 9:00:53 AM , Rating: 1
And gun manufacturers are responsible for crime as well.


RE: Continuing this train of thought...
By andrinoaa on 8/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Continuing this train of thought...
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2008 9:49:07 AM , Rating: 4
Your logic is quite flawed.

First off, guns by themselves do not kill people. People, who use guns to commit crimes, kill people. A gun sitting on a shelf will not, by itself, kill someone.

You are a typical liberal bs'er who tries to blame everyone and everything - with exception to the person who actually committed the act. You probably blame car manufacturers for someone who got killed in a car accident because they fell asleep at the wheel, right? Or perhaps you blame McDonald's because they made that fat guy eat 8 whoppers a day, right? Hell, you know what - lets blame every company who makes flip flops, instead of the people who wear them, for anyone who has foot problems due to wearing shoes without proper arch supports.

You really are an idiot.


RE: Continuing this train of thought...
By frobizzle on 8/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Continuing this train of thought...
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2008 1:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you are the typical neocon that wants to shirk responsibility for anything and everything.

Sorry buddy - but i value this thing called "personal responsibility". It is not society's responsibility to prop you up and live your life - its yours.

As our four fathers wrote "all men are created equal". Its what YOU do with it from there - not what EVERYONE else can do for you.


By frobizzle on 8/22/2008 11:35:29 AM , Rating: 1
Your answer is a complete non sequitor! Do you even have any idea of what you're talking about?
quote:
As our four fathers wrote "all men are created equal"

Now I understand! You were privileged! Most of us had only one father but you had 4! Must have been confusing!


RE: Continuing this train of thought...
By andrinoaa on 8/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Continuing this train of thought...
By andrinoaa on 8/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Continuing this train of thought...
By andrinoaa on 8/21/08, Rating: 0
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2008 1:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am not the idiot in the room. You are.

I almost thought I heard Nancy Pelosi's voice for a minute there.

Yes Adri, I'm certain you are the idiot...and many others agree


By frobizzle on 8/21/2008 12:05:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What is so hard to comprehend?

You're wasting your breath. Neocons only see one perspective, their own, and arbitrarily discard anything that disagrees with that.


RE: Continuing this train of thought...
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 12:22:50 PM , Rating: 4
> "Cars are not designed to kill...GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL"

My neighbor has a car and several guns. None of his guns have killed anyone...but his car has. What does that prove?

Now, according to the news at least, a chap on the other side of town has a gun that's actually killed someone. A robber, who broke into his home and began attacking his daughter. For the life of me, though, I just can't force myself to regret that death.


RE: Continuing this train of thought...
By andrinoaa on 8/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Continuing this train of thought...
By clovell on 8/21/2008 1:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
In today's domestic society, guns exist to ensure life and liberty. Examine Switzerland's policy of government mandated firearms training in contrast to the city of Chicago's gun regulations.

The simple point I'm trying to make there is that an absence of guns is, firstly, unrealistic, and, subsequently, seems to be rather unproductive as an effective way of deterring crime.

Every man has the right to live, and to defend that right accordingly. To tell a man, who has not deferred this right through abuse or instability, that he must settle for a knife, when his aggressor will, realistically, have a gun is madness.


By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 8:23:10 PM , Rating: 1
YOU MISSED THE FUCKING POINT. If no one has a gun, why do you need one? sheesh
stop using fear as a replacement for logic.


RE: Continuing this train of thought...
By Solandri on 8/21/2008 2:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
Guns are designed to intimidate, not to kill. It's a subtle but important difference. The police use guns millions of times a year to defuse situations without ever firing a shot. They're used in this manner far more often than they're ever fired. By your reasoning, that could never have happened because the guns weren't being used as designed.

NATO is switching from 7.62mm to 5.56mm rifle rounds partly for this reason. In battle, if you kill an enemy combatant, that's it, he's dead. But if you wound him, he lays there screaming and demoralizing his comrades. The enemy has to devote resources to pulling him back from the front lines, and additional medical resources to treat and convalesce him. In testing they found the smaller bullets were less likely to kill, more likely to wound. Again, the intent is not to kill, but to intimidate.


By icanhascpu on 8/21/2008 9:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
"Guns are designed to intimidate, not to kill."

Not ones with metal bullets. You're dumb =/


RE: Continuing this train of thought...
By Jellodyne on 8/21/2008 12:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
Statisticly speaking, that gun was more likely to kill his daughter than an intruder. Lucky him, it got the intruder.


By clovell on 8/21/2008 1:05:16 PM , Rating: 2
lies, damned lies, and statistics.


RE: Continuing this train of thought...
By Solandri on 8/21/2008 2:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's true that a gun in the home on average is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. However, this is a flawed comparison because of the reason I posted above - guns aren't designed to kill, they're designed to intimidate. By looking only at deaths, you're missing the whole point of having the gun in the first place - to intimidate the intruder into leaving without further violence. The correct comparisons you should be making are:

Rate at which a family member is killed by a gun stored in the house vs. rate at which a family member is killed by an intruder.

Rate at which intruders flee houses with guns vs. houses without guns.

Unfortunately the statistics on this are difficult to gauge because often when an intruder is driven off in this manner, it isn't even reported as a crime.


RE: Continuing this train of thought...
By Ringold on 8/21/2008 3:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
Just because we ban guns doesn't mean they'll disappear too.

I also don't know why andrinoaa thinks guns kill. If I catch a home intruder, I'm going to try to kill them no matter the tool at hand, not because I want to take a life but because they're a threat and based on what I've seen in the news they're just as likely to do the same to me. A good swing from a metal bat, which I have, would kill. I lack the skill, but have seen enough on Discovery Channel to know where to stick it to end things quickly. I'd also be dirty; a key to the eye would tilt things in my favor at close range.

All a gun does is allow me a fighting chance against someone twice my size, or younger, more agile and strong intruders. The bat doesn't kill, a knife doesn't kill, nor does a gun kill. The human master of these inanimate object kills. He says a gun is designed to kill, but what's a knife designed to do? Cut meat! A gun penetrates meat. And maybe I've watched too many movies, but I think bats are clearly designed smash bones, not baseballs. Whats the difference?

Perhaps most importantly of all the constitution says I have the right to one, but of course constitutional arguments cut no water with liberals if it doesn't serve their purposes.


By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 8:06:05 PM , Rating: 1
You guys just don't get irony, do you? I never said guns kill for a start. They are tools for killing.
Just imagine if no one had a gun. There wouldn't be any gun deaths. HELLO ARE YOU LISTENING. Stop looking for any way to deflect the reality. More guns means more deaths. If the bad guys don't have a gun, you don't need a gun. SO, take guns out of the equation.
If you are in denial, not my problem. I don't live in US, go ahead kill yourselves. I just thought you might want to look in the mirror. Obviously like a Vampire you don't see the reflection. ( bloody good analogy, ha ha )
Violence begets violence. Do you guys fantasise in front of a mirror? Ringold, your language is remenisent of a serial , loner killer. Were you spanked when you wet the bed? Grow up man.
Constitutional rights, you are a fuckwit, at least the constitution enables you to be one. lol
The gun manufacturers are spewing forth how many million guns a year? You don't find this morally repulsive? They seem to be making hay while the sun shines. This is a self fulfilling circle. Can't ban guns so make more available so its harder to ban....... I am afraid banning guns will be a long term proposal, it will take many decades, once reality sets in.
I see you are firmly entrenched in your attitudes, how brutalised is your society when you need a gun to feel safe?
Fear is a powerful marketing tool, even to TECH HEADS.


A bit overstated?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2008 10:21:38 PM , Rating: 1
> "In total, six percent of China's pollution, according the study, can be attributed to the U.S..."

Six percent eh? You're right, that puts the blame squarely on the US. Obviously 6 is a much more significant fraction than 94.




RE: A bit overstated?
By Nfarce on 8/20/2008 10:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
This article has some merits behind it. However, has anyone ever noticed how American-bashing, guilt-laden articles like this never mention that US companies go overseas to escape insane government taxation, politician-driven over-regulation, and outlandish union wages and benefits like retirement pensions? Ask GM and Ford how they feel about the last points, union wages and pensions. Hell just ask Daimler why it dumped Chrysler - and all $18 billion worth of union "bargained" liabilities.


RE: A bit overstated?
By DOCDAT1 on 8/21/2008 7:12:55 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, the Unions are killing the US auto industry. Of course it's not the only reason why things are so bad for GM at the moment, but it's a major factor!


RE: A bit overstated?
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2008 9:00:13 AM , Rating: 3
It's the root of a lot of their problems. When unions are sucking up all your money in insanely high wages, its hard to spend money in other areas like quality control, design and development, etc. But even despite all this, GM has made huge strides in these areas.


RE: A bit overstated?
By frobizzle on 8/21/2008 9:01:40 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yep, the Unions are killing the US auto industry. Of course it's not the only reason why things are so bad for GM at the moment, but it's a major factor!

Oh please! If the US auto industry needs someone to blame, let them look into a mirror. Poor management decisions, gas-guzzling, urban assault vehicles, poor quality. If unions are so culpable in the auto industry's demise, how do you explain it when they have shifted a large chunk of their manufacturing capacity to places like Mexico?

I will agree that the unions are a factor but hardly a major one. More negligible an effect.


RE: A bit overstated?
By blaster5k on 8/21/2008 9:23:27 AM , Rating: 2
Do you know why they shifted a lot of it to Mexico? You guessed it, unions. The overhead costs per vehicle were quite large -- and still are on the high side I believe. That left less money to spend on the cars themselves, making smaller vehicles even tougher to make a profit on than the foreign competition could.

Management deserves its fair share of blame, but the unions do not help.


RE: A bit overstated?
By andrinoaa on 8/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: A bit overstated?
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2008 9:55:37 AM , Rating: 3
Yes voting with their pockets for whatever is a cheaper substitute.

If you knocked off the several thousand dollars of overhead on GM & Ford vehicles, due to union boondoggles, you'd see that GM would still be the #1 auto seller in the world.

And don't go blaming the whole "urban assault vehicle" crap on the downfall of the auto industry. If it weren't for those SUV's, which turned a higher profit than any other type of car made by GM or Ford in the last two decades, your precious unions would have been given the boot much earlier than now. Those profits from the SUV's are the only thing that kept these companies from going further in debt and getting rid of even more workers many years ago.


RE: A bit overstated?
By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 10:52:14 AM , Rating: 1
Yea right on man, simplistic solutions for simple minds.


RE: A bit overstated?
By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 11:41:29 AM , Rating: 2
Ever notice how the japanese manufacturers concentrated on quality before profits over the last 20yrs? Well guess which way around GM and FORD went the last 20yrs.
Who is reaping the rewards now. Not much to do with unions, just lazy corporates and short term planning. Sound familiar?


RE: A bit overstated?
By Solandri on 8/21/2008 3:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
Say Toyota and Ford try to manufacture the same class car for sale at $25,000. Say their predominant costs are materials, labor, and quality control.

Say Toyota spends $10,000 on materials and $10,000 on quality. Say Ford spends $10,000 on parts and $10,000 on labor. Can they make the same quality car as the Japanese for the same price?

This is just hypothetical, I have no idea if the above numbers are representative. But I don't think it's at all obvious that the unions don't share any of the blame for the poor quality.


RE: A bit overstated?
By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 8:19:48 PM , Rating: 1
The unions may add to the cost, but why would you buy shit for a few dollars less? I think you guys concentrate on the cost too much. When you live in an affluent society, you tend to spend more on quality. You would be surprised what costs the market can tollerate for "perceived" quality. ie Mercedes, BMW Lexus....
Your question is missplaced. An Oxymoron. Same quality, same price? Its obvious to anyone who looks that current GM, FORD products made in USA are not to the same quality standards and finish as Japanese made products. You cannot fix the problem when you deny it exists. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to destroy the car manufacturers, I wish they would get off their asses and produce something great, surely a win win. If INTEL can keep making better and better chips, why have GM and Ford stalled? Thats my angle.


RE: A bit overstated?
By frobizzle on 8/21/2008 9:51:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you know why they shifted a lot of it to Mexico? You guessed it, unions.

Your argument is completely devoid of merit. NAFTA has been in effect for 14 years now. If the unions are still such a big problem as you allege, why haven't the auto makers recovered using labor in Mexico?


RE: A bit overstated?
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2008 9:57:19 AM , Rating: 2
Because not all their labor is in Mexico - in fact, a small portion is. But it also shows why they are bringing the Mexican made Fiesta to the US soon, doesn't it?


RE: A bit overstated?
By frobizzle on 8/21/2008 10:52:31 AM , Rating: 2
The original point of this thread was the US automakers' ills are all due to the unions as the root cause.

The automakers have been manfucturing in Mexico for years now, perhaps not final assembly but certainly a great many sub-assemblies. US employment in that industry has been on a steady decline. Yet you and others blame the dire straits GM and other manufacturers are in on the unions. This is a completely moot point, a smoke screen that many sheeple want to believe as canon.


not so cheap after all
By dome1234 on 8/20/2008 9:49:07 PM , Rating: 3
with all these 'hidden' costs (human rights, pollution, etc), suddenly the cheap goods out of china aren't that cheap after all.




RE: not so cheap after all
By blaster5k on 8/20/2008 10:21:12 PM , Rating: 5
They're actually not that cheap anymore. China has been cracking down on pollution and adopting stricter environmental standards. Workers there are starting to demand more benefits and higher pay.

Companies are looking more at other countries now for outsourcing, where they will take advantage of lax environmental standards, help them develop themselves, and watch the cycle repeat until the whole world is industrialized. Whether this is a good or a bad thing depends on who you ask, but I can tell you the economic pie will get bigger and more people will have a higher standard of living.


RE: not so cheap after all
By TomCorelis on 8/20/2008 10:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
So who wants to place bets on which country's next, then?


RE: not so cheap after all
By Solandri on 8/21/2008 2:05:39 AM , Rating: 2
My guess would be Indochina. Malaysia and Thailand already have many electronics fab plants. Indonesia and India have huge populations with per capita wages half to a quarter that of China. China still has a long ways to go though - large parts of its population are still agrarian, dragging down its per capita income to 1/5th to 1/10th that of modernized countries in the region like Korea and Japan.


RE: not so cheap after all
By blaster5k on 8/20/2008 10:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
RE: not so cheap after all
By Ringold on 8/20/2008 10:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whether this is a good or a bad thing depends on who you ask, but I can tell you the economic pie will get bigger and more people will have a higher standard of living.


Environmentalists would fiercely disagree, but I for one think the latter part of the sentence above solves the question posed in the first half. Like Europe and America, after China and later Africa develops, they'll be wealthy enough to restore the environment if they care enough. Perhaps California hippies forget it, but nature preserves and pristine mountain forests are luxuries when living on.. what is the average Ethiopian wage? 20-some odd cents a day?

The sooner Africa embraces this kind of development, the better. People focus on Darfur, but I really, really don't understand why; other parts of Africa make Darfur look like Disneyland. No such mass-famines and civil wars taking millions of lives in the developed world, and no more in China either.


RE: not so cheap after all
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2008 8:58:34 AM , Rating: 2
If anyone is to blame in America, it is the environmentalists. They are the ones who've made the cost of doing business so high here in America (where we have modern pollution control laws). They cost companies millions of dollars any time a business wants to set up a factory in environmental impact studies and lawsuits protesting the opening of the factory.


RE: not so cheap after all
By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 9:26:31 AM , Rating: 1
that one is too stupid to reply to.


RE: not so cheap after all
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2008 10:02:50 AM , Rating: 3
Actually - its because his post is true, and you have no rebuttal.


RE: not so cheap after all
By andrinoaa on 8/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: not so cheap after all
By blaster5k on 8/21/2008 10:04:41 AM , Rating: 2
I'm rather glad we have pollution controls personally and I don't think it's even possible to sustain growth without them. Heck, we still have enough air quality alert days that we've got a ways to go I think. I should be able to go for a run outside on any day of the year without having my lungs burn afterward. Not gagging on exhaust fumes would be great too. It's natural to demand such things once developed.


Made in China
By JonnyDough on 8/21/2008 5:34:38 AM , Rating: 3
Cute photo. I got a flier the other day with similar propaganda for some politician promising to change our education system or some crap.

I don't believe in the pride of a nation. When are we going to start seeing ourselves as a part of the human species, or a part of EARTH? When are we going to have pride as a planet?

Who cares where the stupid $.10 trinket was made? It's a freaking pin. It isn't like some Chinese came over and inseminated your wife.

We hold ourselves in such high regard, thinking little of the Chinese families, or those in a third world country. It's so easy to be privileged and blame others for their own demise, without realizing that we have had opportunities far greater than they can even imagine having.

The location in which you are born has more impact upon your financial success than your motivation and work ethic do.

Without a chance to be properly educated, to have access to books and toys, clean water, a family, or a job (yes, believe it or not some people LONG for a job 100x crappier than the worst job you've ever done) then your shot at "making it big" would have been pretty slim.

I guess the whole point to all this is that if someone is dumb enough to waste $.10 on a trinket for national pride than God bless the Chinese workers that worked for $.001 an hour to make it.

/end disgust for lack of a broader perspective of respect among fellow human beings




RE: Made in China
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2008 5:59:47 AM , Rating: 3
I am not a citizen of the planet. I am a citizen of the United States of America. I live on the planet.


RE: Made in China
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/21/2008 8:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed. Hate to say it but the hippie mentality that we're all "humans" and therefore should all play nicely is ignorant to say the least. We're Americans. We pay our taxes to America, we live in America, we have American rights but only in America. China != America.


RE: Made in China
By lifeblood on 8/21/2008 9:05:22 AM , Rating: 2
But we live in a Symbiotic circle. Surely you must see that?


RE: Made in China
By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 9:30:42 AM , Rating: 2
you need to get out more. lol


RE: Made in China
By frobizzle on 8/21/2008 12:18:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
you need to get out more. lol

He does when he goes out to kill animals with his big, manly gun!


RE: Made in China
By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 12:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
got to have a giggle at times!


RE: Made in China
By JonnyDough on 8/21/2008 6:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't 1980 anymore. Business is more global than it has ever been. The airline industry is twice the size it was 28 years ago. Economies are based on WORLD trade. Since the 80s, we've discovered the internets, there has been western development of eastern nations through outsourcing, and governments have changed. It's time to wake up. Isolationism only worked during the cold war.

If a nation or business wants to compete economically (thrive) than you had better realize that just because you might live under a slightly different set of freedoms and laws (democracy is failing us anyway), then they have to realize the bigger picture. It is a GLOBAL market. You can't be a big corporation without diversifying your markets. That means doing business overseas. In order to compete you have to utilize the cheapest resources, both natural and human.

You might be a citizen of the U.S. but you are ALSO a member of the human race, and the human race can exclude, take away, revoke, or not acknowledge your citizenship to the human race at any time by simply refusing your business. You had better link yourself to the human race, and quit isolating yourself. The U.S. might spend oodles on their military funding, but that doesn't make us unbeatable. Economically, we are VERY vulnerable. It is likely to be our downfall in the years to come. Bullying might earn you a quick buck today but when the little guys get together, and learn your economic tactics you had better watch out. Nobody thought the U.S.S.R. would fall either. They had a stronger military than we did and thought themselves able to be isolationists as well.

To live alone, is to die alone. Whether you are a citizen of a nation, or a society of one living out in the middle of nowhere. The idea of being a part of a larger society, or seeing yourself as a member of the human race is not a "hippie" idea. It's common sense. But as Voltaire said...


Sigh...
By ytsejam02 on 8/21/2008 8:52:09 AM , Rating: 2
Here's a thought...

Rather than bickering over which country is the root cause (by the way, MANY countries outsource to China), why won't we try solving their air pollution problem? Sure we can't solve ours, but hey, if China reaches their potential, they'll far surpass this country in carbon emissions.

Last I heard Carnegie Mellon was a good tech school. Maybe they should come up with a solution rather than writing socio-economic reports.




RE: Sigh...
By Sandok on 8/21/2008 8:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
Can't come up with a solution unless you study the problem first... A report is just that.


RE: Sigh...
By ytsejam02 on 8/21/2008 9:11:30 AM , Rating: 2
True... and I'm sure there are plenty of reports on air pollution due to the use coal power.

The report in question is superfluous at best. What are we supposed to take away from a report that says outsourcing is a major contributor to China's air pollution? Do you think China will say "oops sorry! We won't allow that anymore!". Because we all know the US government won't tax businesses for doing so, and nearly all business only care about money, so they won't do anything about it either.

Again, the US is not the only country to outsource to China, so I really see no point to the report in question at all. It sounds like people are playing the blame game, which rarely results in any kind of meaningful resolution.


RE: Sigh...
By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 9:12:15 AM , Rating: 1
I think the major thrust of this report makes sense. You can interpret it in many ways too. I think it has many hidden agendas. BUT, you guys are missing the big picture. Both sides of the debate are right , however, it doesn't matter who defecates in your pool, the shit is still in there!!!
To state the obvious, pollution is a a global problem. Morally some companies have made a bad call, using cost cutting as an excuse to outsource to countries that treat their citizens like shit. Lax standards are a given in these countries, goes hand in hand with their general concern for their citizens. This is what happens when a/ capitalism isn't regulated, corporate greed takes control b/ a poor country tries to improve its standards and c/ arseholes control a country ie communists,dictators and fascists


RE: Sigh...
By ytsejam02 on 8/21/2008 9:17:55 AM , Rating: 2
That's pretty much my point, so I don't think I'm missing the big picture too much. :-)


RE: Sigh...
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2008 9:51:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think it has many hidden agendas. BUT, you guys are missing the big picture.

That IS the big picture - hidden agenda. Do you know what the difference between "opinion" and "spin" is?

Opinion is where you base your assertions off of actual facts.

Spin is where you distort facts to meet your opinion.

This case, right here, is pure spin. No doubt about it.


RE: Sigh...
By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 10:57:45 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't matter who dropped the turd in the pool, its still there! How is that spin? Maybe I didn't phrase it well enough.
Let me see, hidden agendas..... american jobs, american trade inbalance, polution control...need I go on?
The big picture is the "turd"


RE: Sigh...
By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 11:15:42 AM , Rating: 2
Global pollution is the big picture.
The facts on pollution are self evident.
What facts did I present to distort?

Now, you claim the hidden agendas are the big picture, but thats not how I read between the lines. Maybe the water is different when you mix DDT ( masher2's favourite drink! )
I thought assertions are used to start a new religion - no facts required. lol


RE: Sigh...
By ytsejam02 on 8/21/2008 11:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Opinion is where you base your assertions off of actual facts.


Unfortunately the number of assertions based on non-facts are unbelievably numerous.

I agree with both of you. It's spin, and who cares. The problem is the damage that's being done to our environment.


Another correction
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 1:46:01 AM , Rating: 1
> "China, like the U.S., is unfettered by having committed to global air quality pacts such as the Kyoto Treaty"

Kyoto has nothing to do with air quality or pollution. It's strictly a restriction on GHGs, a measure that its critic call worse than useless and even its most ardent supporters admit will have nothing but a symbolic effect on world temperatures.




RE: Another correction
By grenableu on 8/21/2008 11:22:02 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone knows Kyoto has been a joke. Of all the countries who signed it, how many actually are meeting their goals? 1 o r 2?


RE: Another correction
By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 11:24:35 AM , Rating: 2
KYOTO was ment as a first step. Setup the channels for dialog. Seems some countries are unwilling to even take that. I don't think anybody seriously thought it would happen overnight, doh.


RE: Another correction
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 12:27:05 PM , Rating: 3
Steps that cost trillions of dollars that do no more than "setup channels for dialog" are worse than useless. Kyoto is a massive squandering of resources on a criminal scale, resources that could have otherwise been spent to solve real problems.


RE: Another correction
By andrinoaa on 8/21/2008 1:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
masher2, you make me despare. What hope is there for the species if the only good you see GLOWS?
I am off to bed


Truth hurts, isn't it?
By dickeywang on 8/21/2008 4:48:49 AM , Rating: 1
It is always interesting to see the reaction of people when they read something that is different from what they have been thought. Denial is almost always the first reaction to news like this. I have no doubt that China has a lot of problem of its own, but it seems the American people are so stuck in the idea "everything China does is wrong and evil", they can't even accept something that is published by their own scientific researchers.

Be reasonable people, when you go too extreme on a certain issue, in this case your opinions about China, there is always a chance that your decision/opinions are not always rational.




RE: Truth hurts, isn't it?
By kyleb2112 on 8/21/2008 5:17:01 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly you're more enlightened than all of us.


RE: Truth hurts, isn't it?
By dickeywang on 8/21/2008 9:30:06 AM , Rating: 2
No, I am not saying that. But it is just really very interesting to see that, on one hand, most of the Americans couldn't wait to bash China whenever they read something negative about China, while on the other hand the U.S. Olympic team received a very big warm welcome in this year's Olympic opening ceremony.

Jon Stewart once said that "80% of the Americans are reasonable people who don't necessary agree with each other, but understand", but in so many cases I see Americans only show this kind of sympathy to their own people, while on the other hand, the Chinese people show sympathy to people from all countries.


RE: Truth hurts, isn't it?
By Solandri on 8/21/2008 3:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
China received warm welcomes in Los Angeles in 1984 and in Atlanta in 1996 (especially in 1984 since all the Communist countries except China and Romania boycotted it). People predominantly disassociate the Olympics from politics. I find myself groaning every time any athlete from any country gets injured or messes up. I want them all to do their best.

And Americans bash China because that's the only recourse they have to change China's environmental and political policies. (Well, they can also stop buying Chinese-made products, but they seem to be unwilling to do that.) Regardless of how much of China's pollution is due to manufacturing things destined for the U.S., the people with the power to change that are the Chinese Government, not the U.S. government, corporations, or consumers.


RE: Truth hurts, isn't it?
By dickeywang on 8/21/2008 5:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I agree the Chinese government should start to do more about the environment, but you also have to realize that they didn't have the luxury to put environment protection as their first priority when you had 1.3billion people to feed when they began to open up the society 30 years ago. Just like the government in the 1920s don't have the luxury to keep environment as their first priority either. It is easy to say that "the government should ....", but as a Chinese who lived through those years, I can tell you that the government of China didn't have much choice. During those years, if a foreign company says that they want to open a new factory in your country, you had to take the offer even if it causes some damage to the environment, because it would provide the necessary income for hundreds of families. Before you think in this case the Chinese government should take all the blames, you may want to realize the fact that in many real life situations, you don't always have the choice to do everything right, instead often you can only do the things that would have the least negative impact.


What a joke
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2008 5:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
The Chinese government is to blame here. They are the ones who allow factories to be so polluting. And its because they want to get all the manufacturing jobs there because it helps their economy and hurts everyone else's. No one would outsource to China if they had the emissions laws of the US.

It's because of our EPA that companies are outsourcing. Because of the strict environmental standards, it's too expensive to do business here. I would be perfectly happy bringing those jobs back to the US.

This report is about as liberal as it gets. Blaming companies for following the laws of the country they're doing business in. If China wants to clean up its air, it's their responsibility to do so. Not US companies who do business there. But their government won't significantly because they know it'll cost them jobs.




RE: What a joke
By tmouse on 8/21/2008 7:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
I think you hit the nail right on the head. It’s not like these companies sneak up in the middle of the night and put up factories. There are months of negotiations, the host country knows exactly what’s going on and set their own priorities. The US government cannot do anything about it. They cannot force the companies to obey US laws in foreign countries. They cannot impose tariffs; they cannot force the countries to obey US standards. This "study" is less than useless; all it really says is when countries produce more with less environmental standards they pollute more. Countries with low income levels can only raise their standard of living rapidly by exporting goods, since there is simply no money to be made within their own markets. Eventually this will equalize out a bit as their populous can afford more luxuries. Consumers have absolutely no control over how an item is made and quite frankly will not care no matter what country they come from. The host country bears ALL of the responsibility. They are the only ones who can really control the situation. In this case they set their priorities more toward economic growth than the environment. To say consuming countries must economically support the environmental efforts of countries that are actively competing against their own economic growth is just plain stupid and no government anywhere is going to do this.


RE: What a joke
By frobizzle on 8/21/2008 9:10:15 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
This report is about as liberal as it gets.

I agree this report is a joke, but...
quote:
The Chinese government is to blame here

No. We have no authority to put blame on any other country. This constant "butt in where you're not wanted" attitude is part of the reason the US is currently universally despised worldwide!
Lead by example, not by proclamation. Only then will we have credibility, a leg to stand on.


RE: What a joke
By dickeywang on 8/21/2008 9:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
I agree.
I think before you put a standard to someone else to determine whether he/she did is right or wrong, you need first to understand he/she may not live in the same standard of life style as you are.

The people of China had just gone through a terrible time in the later 70's, and the highest priority for the Chinese government at that point is to provide food and all the other living supplies to the people of China. If millions of people in your country was still in hunger, would you rather reject the contract from big foreign companies so that you could "protect the environment"? Put yourself in such a situation and try to understand.

It is easy to say that "if we had knew burning oil is bad for the environment, we should have use solar power from the first place centuries ago", but reality is never that simple.


Can Anyone Explain
By onelittleindian on 8/21/2008 12:49:04 AM , Rating: 2
What a report on pollution has to do with technology?

This is a science/tech website, right?




RE: Can Anyone Explain
By Nefiorim on 8/21/2008 1:24:52 AM , Rating: 2
It's a scientific report?


hrmp
By Yaos on 8/21/2008 8:59:03 AM , Rating: 4
Does this mean that it's China's fault our landfills are filled with cheap junk?




Nonsense
By Calin on 8/21/2008 4:35:15 AM , Rating: 3
I am not a fan of the US government. These being said, it's not like US forces China to pollute at gun point.
China is free to stop that 6% of pollution by not giving anything to the US, or to stop 20% of the pollution by not giving anything abroad. If China choose to pollute more in order to sell more, you can't blame US for that (or Europe for that matter).




Why this title?
By tmouse on 8/21/2008 8:29:19 AM , Rating: 3
There is a lot of US VS China in this debate, probably because the title specifically mentions the US. From the Carnegie Mellon link I see absolutely NO mention of the US; it DOES mention the west. The west is in no way shape or form just the US. The facts I see are the following:

In 2008 China contributes 6% of the global greenhouse gas emissions.

1/3 of these emissions can be attributed to the production of products for export AND the electricity needed to power them. So 2% of the global greenhouse gas emissions that China releases come from exports.

The percent of China's emissions from exports has grown from 12% in 1987 to 21% in 2002 and now sits at 31% in 2008.

Ok so I see if 18% of china's exports go to the US it represents 6% of the export emissions. The remaining 94% come from the rest of "the west".

SO; why the title? A far more accurate title would be "Report Blames West for Part of Chinese Emissions" although I can see where that would not be so inflammatory and tabloid as the chosen title.




Mwuh?
By DangerMouseNZ1 on 8/20/2008 11:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
"Burdened by the environmental costs of rapid expandsion". Eh? Expansion maybe?




Don't be so arrogant
By swizeus on 8/21/2008 2:49:13 AM , Rating: 2
Well, it's some sort of 'save the motherland' project from U.S. We built factory outside our land in order to pollute others and blame them on what they've done, in that way We can have cheap stuffs (because of cheap labour) and still be the hero by lending them money to conserve their environment.

Making jobs to 1.3 B people ? Bah... it just a part of the sweet thing. You just don't know how/what they (the politicians) have done with their IMF to third world countries. Your country just a damn sucker. Sucking everything out of us and blame us not aware of the environment and not democratic enough




What a joke
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2008 5:46:44 AM , Rating: 1
The Chinese government is to blame here. They are the ones who allow factories to be so polluting. And its because they want to get all the manufacturing jobs there because it helps their economy and hurts everyone else's. No one would outsource to China if they had the emissions laws of the US.

It's because of our EPA that companies are outsourcing. Because of the strict environmental standards, it's too expensive to do business here. I would be perfectly happy bringing those jobs back to the US.

This report is about as liberal as it gets. Blaming companies for following the laws of the country they're doing business in. If China wants to clean up its air, it's their responsibility to do so. Not US companies who do business there. But their government won't significantly because they know it'll cost them jobs.




RE: What a joke
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2008 5:52:34 AM , Rating: 1
Apologies for the double post.


Inbred assistant Prof.
By elewand2 on 8/21/2008 6:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
This guy is an inbred professor from Carnegie Mellon, who just got his PhD. The guy just wants to make a name for himself and chose a controversial topic, that has no business in science. This piece should be placed in the national enquirer along with underage Chinese gymnastics team.




I just realized....
By JonnyDough on 8/23/2008 10:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
That DT took away my voting rights. Leave it up to the bloggers to not allow people to disagree with them. Sad. DT just sucks more everyday.




Ha!
By RallyMaster on 8/21/2008 3:29:27 PM , Rating: 1
Been saying this for a long while. No arguments there.




By FITCamaro on 8/21/2008 5:56:17 AM , Rating: 2
India is almost just as polluted as China. A better thing to say would have been Europe. And I'd have said bullsh*t just as much for them as us.

It's their country. How they choose to regulate emissions there is their choice. If they want a dirty, polluted country, that's their problem. And the fact is they do because otherwise companies wouldn't be bringing manufacturing jobs there.

I don't like the fact that companies have outsourced to China. But it's their decision and they're just abiding by the rules there same as they would here. Except our rules are a lot more strict. So strict that all the regulations have become prohibitive to doing business here.


By James Wood Carter on 8/21/2008 5:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
don't like the fact that companies have outsourced to China.

I totally disagree . if if wasn't for China many sp500 companies would have trouble keeping costs down for their product/ services they sell you. That means you'll probably pay many more times for the same product and services - In other words if our companies didn't get oppurtunity to use China as manufaturing base many of our companies might exist or out competed by companies that did outsourced.
I don't like people that think that China is STEALING work and jobs from us, its more like we are grateful to have the oppurtunity to base operations there along with access to chinese markets.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki