ChinaDialogue: Latest responses to From the US, a new pledge on climate change

Missing the point?

Thu, 29 May 2008 08:18:36 +0000

I appreciate the criticisms that have been leveled at ChinaDialogue for printing McCain's speech (and I notice they have now published a speech by Barack Obama). But the real problem with this speech is that McCain's plan is totally insufficient to solve America's climate problems. Cap and trade may be part of the solutions, but only if accompanied by strong regulations on industry - which he does not mention. Cap and trade alone will not get us to the 60% by 2050 reduction McCain is proposing, nor will it take us to the 80% threshold which most scientists, and Obama, are demanding. Erin Condit-Bergren, London

On Earth's side

Fri, 23 May 2008 09:12:16 +0000

From all I have read on chinadialogue in the past year or so, I don't think the website is politically biased at all -- and certainly not toward US Republicans! To me, it is biased only in favour of planet Earth and its ecosystems. The United States is currently in the midst of a tough election campaign that will culminate with a new president in the White House in January 2009. Who that new leader will be matters greatly to the world, particularly given the long years of shameful Washington inaction on climate-change issues. So, we need to hear from all of the viable candidates regarding environmental matters. In the interests of debate and advancing global solutions, I'm sure we will be seeing more on chinadialogue from all the viable American candidates. The US (like China) is critical to global efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change; it needs to face up -- in reality, rather than just in rhetoric -- to its responsibilities. Surely all the current presidential candidates are well aware of that -- and none could do worse than the incumbent. -- Matthew

Contrast US with EU

Tue, 20 May 2008 11:45:03 +0000

The interesting comparison is not so much between the US Presidential contenders but between US and EU policy. President Barroso of the EU Commission, who recently took a number of his Commissioners to the EU-China Summit on Climate Change in Beijing (25 April) has published his speech note from the press conference afterwards. This shows just how closely the EU and China are co-operating on climate change and the considerable resources the EU is making available. (See here) In addition to these measures, the European investment bank has made available 500m euros for energy efficiency etc measures to help reduce China's carbon footprint. Dave Feickert

McCain backs down on tariffs?

Tue, 20 May 2008 07:08:20 +0000

What I found especially interesting was not what was in this speech - but what was removed - specifically hints that he might impose carbon tariffs on countries (read China and India) who did not take on emission reduction commitments. As for the random Democratic party partisans, please try and see that this is interesting for an international audience. If and when Obama makes a full speech on this topic I'm sure chinadialogue will publish it.

Re: From a journalistic perspective

Tue, 20 May 2008 07:06:58 +0000

Re: "It is inappropriate for the site to publish McCain’s speech in full without discussing proposals by Obama and Clinton as well." -- I'm pretty sure this quote, which I will reproduce below, from chinadialogue's introduction to the McCain speech, counts as a positive discussion of Obama and Clinton's proposals. How does this imply a McCain bias exactly?: "McCain’s target for reducing emissions – 60% below 1990 levels by 2050 – is lower than those proposed by either of the Democratic presidential candidates. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have suggested cutting emissions by 80% in the same time-frame."

What about Obama's plan

Mon, 19 May 2008 13:14:29 +0000

Further to my comment on a biased leaning to John McCain. It remains unclear why Chinadialogue prints his plans for the environment when Obama as early as October 2007 made in depth speeches on the subject. Where are the articles on Chinadialogue. Simple answer, nowhere. This is the [link] to Obama's plan for a clean energy future. He acknowledges that "corn ethanol is neither the perfect nor the permanent answer to our energy challenge" and that there are "legitimate economic and ecological concerns" over its use. He talks also about the need for investment in "clean energy sources like wind power and solar power, so that by 2025, America can meet a new standard that will require 25% of all our electricity to come from renewable sources." While McCain mentions clean energy sources he sets out no plan or date. Perhaps Chinadialogue should look at all the candidates and give a balanced report on their views. Ba Jin (巴金)

Both candidates are biased against China.

Mon, 19 May 2008 15:08:19 +0000

John McCain has threatened to ban toy imports from China and has hit out at the Chinese government over religion and free speech. Obama, as well as Hillary Clinton, have also been China bashing and called for measures to punish China for currency manipulation. The proposed U.S. policies against China highlight anti-Chinese sentiment coming from the West. Previous Presidents, both Bill Clinton and George Bush, denounced China on the campaign trail and promised a harder line. But both changed course when they took office. So can you really believe the rhetoric spouted by Obama and McCain. Ba Jin

More added

Mon, 19 May 2008 15:11:19 +0000

Obama accuses China of dumping products in the U.S., violating intellectual-property rights and ``grossly undervaluing'' its currency. While there may be trade issues that need resolving, speaking of China as the enemy is not helpful. The US recently stopped its criticism of China in the wake of the Wenchuan earthquake, talking instead of sympathy and offers of aid. But it won't be long until the China bashing starts again. China's ambassador to the U.S., Zhou Wenzhong, dismisses criticisms from the presidential candidates. ``My friends advise us not to take this campaign rhetoric too seriously,'' said May 14 at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington. ``The most important thing is the policies.'' So let's hear ALL the policies. NOT just John McCain's. But then again can we really trust any of them? Ba Jin

re:biased?

Mon, 19 May 2008 13:12:03 +0000

I would like to have seen Obama's statement on climate change published as well; this would have saved CD from accusations of pro-Republican bias. However, more important, McCain's speech is badly misinformed about what China is already doing. For example, China has 80% of the world's newest, clean coal power stations while the US has merely one or two prototypes. China is commissioning a new power plant every week and this is important, as these plants are between 20-30% more efficient in thermal terms, reducing CO2 (the main greenhouse gas) per unit of electricity by a similar amount, compared to US or European plant. The US and EU could actually retro-fit this technology (supercritical boilers) to many of their existing power stations, whereas China cannot do this to its older plant. Second, China has a rapidly growing coal mine methane control programme, working with the UN and investment banks, under the Clean Development Mechanism. Methane is around 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and this programme benefits miners' safety, uses a premium fuel which would otherwise cause global warming. Dave Feickert Coal mine safety and energy consultant Beijing

Re: Biased?

Mon, 19 May 2008 12:55:24 +0000

Ba Jin: I think chinadialogue republished John McCain's speech in Chinese because it is very relevant for policy-makers in China, not because of a political affiliation. (Frankly, it seems a bit loony to suggest there is a right-wing bias at chinadialogue! I have seen very little to suggest this...). And more to the point, why is it "China-bashing" to publish McCain's speech? McCain's speech is interesting precisely because of its progressive attitude towards China's participation, or not, in a global deal on climate. I think, frankly, that it may be you who has to adopt a less partisan -- and more international -- perspective on this issue. SL