Latest comments posted about Rethinking Sino-US relations on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/3232-Rethinking-Sino-US-relations http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/3232-Rethinking-Sino-US-relations Free trade and globalization, protection of IP, now this Carbon tax/tariff. Nothing has changed, all of these are proposed and promoted by the developed world to rip off, yes, rip off, the developing countries. They are trade rules designed to benefit the rich. China's only proper response would be to learn how the game is played, and play it better than the Yanks. Sun, 20 Sep 2009 03:17:49 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9344 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9344 The domestic goods tariff is called a carbon tax, and the foreign goods tariff is called a carbon tariff. The author sees the long term view! (Translated by Michelle Deeter) Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:30:44 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9299 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9299 This article is far below the standard what China Academy of Social Sciences can do. Indeed, The energy consumpted and carbon emissed per GDP in China are much higher than those of the US,Japan and Europe. it's not only an issue of productivity, but also referred to the industrial structure. If we take a look at the carbon emissions from manufacturing, what is the gap between China and the developed countries? Is there much difference in China's and rich countries' high energy-consuming industries? What will happen if we move all the high energy consuming industries out of China to US, Japan and Europe? (translated by Fangfang CHEN) Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:01:40 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9259 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9259 What on earth does the author want to say? I cannot find any clue! In the first two paragraphes, he seems to be discussing the stance China should take on carbon tariff. The author claims that the opposition against the bill is based on "in-depth consideration or research". However, the assertion is followed with a long sermon on why China must be low-carbon. To me, opposing carbon tariff and opposing low carbon or low carbon development are different. Carbon tariff is neither necessary, nor sufficient for low-carbon development. Rather, it's a trade-related measure, which is possibly imposed against the backdrop of climate change and may have multiple purposes and side effects. In most part of his speech, the author argues that it is imperative to promote low-carbon development. But this does not necessarily mean imposing carbon tariff is reasonable. In the second paragraph from bottom, the author mistakenly takes carbon tax as the same with carbon tariff. After the perplexing discussion, the author says in the last paragraph "of course, one can advocate a low-carbon future without supporting US carbon tariffs", undoing everything he preaches in the previous paragraphes. Seeing no clear perspective or position, I'm completely at sea! Translated by Yina Sat, 29 Aug 2009 08:37:06 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9252 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9252 The shift from high-carbon economy to low-carbon is a long period of transition, which cannot be reached at a single leap. Capital and technology are the key elements. How can Chinese government not understand the advantage of low-carbon economy? The view of the authoris good. But it sounds naive to me. Led by other people's view, the author has fallen into the trap of a few countries advocate. (Translated by Fangfang CHEN) Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:05:38 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9266 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9266 The author should make it clear that carbon taxes are NOT carbon tariffs. China should implement the low-carbon economy strategy as soon as possible. But the fact is that the peak of China's greenhouse-gas emissions will not come until 2020. Therefore, we cannot agree with US's unilateral action to go above UNFCCC. Translated by Catlin Fu Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:55:09 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9248 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9248 Is it uncertain whether the Chinese development pattern of “the conotation styled” mentioned in the article a new term or nothing but an incorrect translation? Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:25:12 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9256 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9256 I think what the author means to say is, carbon tariff is one of the considerable low-carbon developing strategyies. We can’t reject carbon tariff just because the US-proposed carbon tariff solution is not doable. The whole world need to explore together the feasible carbon tariff approach. (translated by Fangfang CHEN) Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:07:03 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9257 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9257 I have been listening to the conference made by the French sinologist Anne Cheng (http://www.college-de-france.fr/media/his_int/UPL59895_J24LICHENG.pdf) and she said that the university exchanges between USA and China were running on a "freeway updated every day motorway". It's hard to believe that the threat of an American carbon tariff is the chief reason China shouldn't adopt emissions reductions measures. Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:11:46 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9258 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3232#comment-9258