Latest comments posted about An uneven playing field on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/2878-An-uneven-playing-field http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/2878-An-uneven-playing-field Any theory without consisting of cooling is self-deceptive. I sincerely wish that the Copenhagen conference could be the place to withness the truth! Non-governmental climate researcher Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:52:30 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-9512 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-9512 To the UN Secretary-General, related organisations and the Copenhagen Climate Congress: It seems as if we have had a misunderstanding about climate and the environment for a long time. We can no longer keep silence and continue to pursue greenhouse gases reduction under the framework of Kyoto Protocol. Only the "new geoengineering" has sufficient reason to prove itself. And, we have to, fundamentally, curb global warming! --by a civil climate researcher. Sun, 17 May 2009 09:16:05 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8869 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8869 Having been "the negotiator" for a small developing state, I know how difficult it is to actively and effectively participating in the UNFCCD process. And I said "the negotiator" because must of the time it was only me who participated in the negotiations, since the Secretariat of the UNFCCC only finances the participation of one person. But the problem is not so much during the negotiations, it starts long before; these countries have little capacity to prepare for the negotiations or to make submissions on issues of interest to them beforehand; overworked at home, were they attend several topics and negotiations, they usually go to them not adequately prepared. Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:10:34 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8718 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8718 It seems like a fundamental misunderstanding about climate and the environment has perpetuated itself in recent years. Reducing pollution and cutting emissions won't be able to halt the process of global warming. Cutting back on environmental pollution isn't going to stop glaciers from melting! It is misleading to think that the Greenhouse Effect by itself is somehow the key to reducing the rise in global temperatures. People are certainly a factor in this situation, but they are not the fundamental cause! We can only tackle the issue of global warming by dealing with the symptoms and the root causes in tandem with each other... A new conception of humanity would be of great benefit to the entire global community. The Service Community of New Ideas for Mankind Fri, 10 Apr 2009 08:17:51 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8704 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8704 I approve of the above comment very much. Society is not always developing as time goes on. Of course, different people have different standards for development. Living standards for today’s people are not necessarily more fortunate than living standards for people in the olden days; or else, the people whose lives in the cities are not necessarily better than those in the country side. Currently climate change is a question of risk. Who can say with 100% certainty what exactly caused climate change? Greenhouse gases are probably the main offender, causing over 95% of the damage. This probability is meaningful. And when we look at war, no one can know at what time war will break out. This probability is a riddle that many scholars secretly study. We aren’t able to say when there is no sign of war, we don’t want an army, and we don’t want a national defense, and we don’t want new technology and new weapons. Currently, the probability of local wars occurring in many areas is significantly lower than the probability that climate change exists and greenhouse gases are the primary cause of climate change. America spends billions of dollars on defense every year, when the total world spending on defense I’m afraid is less than 7 or 8 billion dollars. How much is spent on responding to climate change? It is impossible to talk about these numbers and talk about having no solution to climate change in the same breath. Besides, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an economic activity, even a profitable activity, so there are no reasons not to do it. Climate change is a war without any smoke. When you have seen the enemy, it is already over. --samuelzhoujc@hotmail.com (Translated by Michelle Deeter) Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:25:34 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8641 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8641 Where is the problem? The impact of climate change is uncertain and far away from you, so you are not worried at all. Maybe human beings would only think about dealing with global climate change instead of geopolitical borders after every person in the world has to suffer the damages of climate change. Maybe someone would say the change might be a normal rule of nature from a historical perspective. However, we should not forget, human beings are making progress and society is developing. If we can do something or we can reduce the pain of others, then why not? Everyone should learn to put themselves into shoes of others, especially those in the bottom of the pyramid, reconsider what they could do, and then see what they have done. (YZHK) (Translated by Xiaoyu Guan) Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:43:08 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8627 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8627 You seem to think that society will go on developing whatever happens. I don't think you have understood what the impacts of climate change will be... Societies can fall apart and go backwards as well as advancing -- look at what happened to China in the first half of 20th century. At current projections we are looking a possible temperature rise of 6 degrees, at which point large parts of the world become uninhabitable. Do you still think society will advance? Fri, 03 Apr 2009 06:58:16 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8631 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8631 There is no such thing as absolute fairness. This presents an enormous challenge for developing countries in general, and in particular for those poorer countries whose levels of human and material resources put them at an absolute disadvantage. As Einstein once said, you can't go looking for solutions to a problem by appealing to the same ideas that brought about the problem in the first place. The main shortfall of the Western approach is a tendency to tackle problems at surface value without ever getting to grips with the core reasons behind them. The Green Revolution, Ecological Civilization, they'll be no different in a hundred years time than Darwin's theory of evolution or the first industrial revolution are today; they cannot solve the root problems that humanity faces. The greedy pursuit of material wealth is the basis of so many of the problems that plague modern society. There is an evident need to restrain our desires, and yet it will only be when climate change results in a disaster of catastrophic proportions crashing down on the head of some unfortunate, impoverished nation that we will finally pay attention and wake up to the question of where exactly it is that our future lies. You can't know what a snakebite feels like until one leaps up and bites you... Global warming has given us the most wonderful opportunity, one that involves a return to nature. In addition, the fact that that there a lot of Americans is irrelevant if their nation fails to sign up to the Kyoto agreement or contribute to the Copenhagen agreement. There are a lot of Chinese as well! The key rather is how people view you, and whom you are able to persuade. Anyone who's been at a conference before will know that there exists today a breed of conference-lice whose sole purpose and sustenance in life is conferences, conferences and more conferences! They become so intoxicated by their own high-falluting vocabulary that when when the time comes for hammering out some kind of deal, they couldn't care less about its outcome. Still, if this current round of talks between climate change treaty signatories goes badly, then perhaps national delegates may have one or two tough questions to answer when they get home, as was the case with China's Agenda 21 a few years back. Who knows? In any event, at a specialized meeting such as this, it may be the case that, though moved by conscience into trying to fix a problem for which they themselves are responsible, developed nations realize that no such thing as a ready-made solution exists. Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:08:10 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8625 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8625 The great majority of the "17%" of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions attributed to deforestation takes place in two countries - Indonesia and Brazil. Land clearance for commercial plantations (palm oil and pulp) in Indonesia and agribusiness (soya and beef) in Brazil accounts for the great majority of those emissions. If we continue to buy products associated with the few enterprises which account for most of those green-house gas emissions we are wilfully compounding climate change. The directors of those enterprises (and their associates in government) have in effect committed global environmental crimes. The cheapest, quickest and most effective way to minimise further emissions from such land clearance (and to improve governance) is to stop buying (or punitively tax) the products made by those enterprises. Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:25:56 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8619 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8619 Of course smaller countries and bigger countries aren't equal, is there anywhere that is absolutely fair? The smaller countries unite to fight for their own interests, because this is their only way out. (Translated by Braden Latham-Jones.) Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:54:17 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8617 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2878#comment-8617