Latest comments posted about “China needs time” on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/3309--China-needs-time- http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/3309--China-needs-time- Environmental crisis is not only the severe imbalance between human beings and nature, but also a contradiction between people. Environmental issues can greatly reflect a government’s ways of ruling as well as their ruling capability, which needs to be politically wise and technical. The government in all levels should use discipline in their development rather than seek progress in irreversibly destruct ways. Development should progress on the basis of respecting and protecting human rights for development, environment, and health. Biology and health science research suggests that genes and environment are closely linked—people's lifestyle has changed the content and expression of the development of genes. Admittedly, the ever-changing environment has tremendously improved animals’ progress from lower to higher, as well as greatly changed human genes. However, environmental contamination is severe enough to cause change in genetic heredity, even to cause cancer among babies. Thus, the danger of environmental contamination to human beings has been largely beyond our imagination. As a whole, the Chinese government’s environmental protection efforts have been effective. Nevertheless, the pressure of environmental problems is also beyond their imagination. Since their efforts to improve the environmental cannot keep up with the scale of pollution, the capacity of some local governments has been severely strained, and fear emerges and spreads through the public. Why are institutions and institutional arrangements are not only imperfect, but in a sense, even completely lacking. Could it be that this is not enough to explain why our level of environmental protection has always lagged? How can I find the fulcrum of sustainable development that yields more meaningful, appealing and valuable life? The resolution can be found in many fields; the answers lie within numerous controversial options. However, only when all levels of government respect and protect human rights and strictly regulate its own administrative behavior, perhaps, only at that time, can these problems can be resolved, rather than stagnating in a strategic conference document. Human rights are the people’s will, wishes and interest expressed legally and concretely. In a harmonious society, the state must have “respect and protect human rights” as its soul, as its societal vision. To ensure right to life, development, and health are fully respected and guaranteed requires all levels of government to approve effective public administration that implements the law of “respect and protect human rights” in individuals so that all legitimate interests and rights are protected, because all forms of human rights are closely connected to environmental issues. The rights to life, development and health, including societal, economic and cultural rights, can only be enjoyed in a health environment. This is the fundamental reason why all levels of our government must chose to adhere to the principle of sustainable development. Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:31:18 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3309#comment-9560 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3309#comment-9560 What I see, in China and other countries, is a lot of money spent on 'business banquets' and other 'expenses' by older generations. At the same time the younger generation works and parties, or struggles to find work. Both generations claim the global economy doesn't have enough money or potential to change. I really think that some people need to look at themselves, or their older relatives. I still think we ought to consume, but responsibly. 'There must be winners and losers' I often hear said about the new, necessary economy. How about making the losers those that encourage excessive, non-sustainable consumption paths and the winners all others. I think that's what all moral people hope for, but I don't see the extent of change right now that I think is necessary, I'm afraid. From 'Citizen of Beijing'. Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:38:14 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3309#comment-9516 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3309#comment-9516 The article proposes a zero-sum game (despite the urgent need for a reduction) - continuing to emit greenhouse gas emissions within their own national borders while giving money to entities abroad either to protect forest or to reduce emissions by industry. It also suggests that it is more cost effective to do the former (in Brazil) than the latter (in China). Illegal logging in Amazonia is rampant - and reduces those countries' wealth. Surely it would be sound economics for their governments to enforce their own laws first. Further, there would be nothing to stop the newly "protected" forest from being burned or logged illegally by others - or for the illegal loggers to simply take the money and their chain saws to another forest to repeat the process. Often, indigenous peoples - not corporations or the government - have rights to the forest. Offsets are likely to dispossess the innocent. The money should be held in an escrow account until the offset project has demonstrably achieved its target - and be non-refundable if it does not or if the entities which stop logging start up elsewhere. So far, forest offset projects have been controversial and not cost-effective. Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:02:52 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3309#comment-9495 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3309#comment-9495 Would the carbon trading really be able to save the multilateral mechanism of climate change? Recent carbon tariff disputes have made nations at daggers drawn. Developed countries announced in the name of fighting climate change that they would levy tariffs on products from countries those haven't pledged to reduce emission, which would drive "carbon trading restraints" to tariff barriers. It highlights the conflict between Multilateral Environmental Agreements(MEAs)and the multitrade regulations of WTO. Although carbon trading and carbon tariff are the crucial economic options to cope with the climate change, carbon trading has been suffered increasing "market failures" since 2005. The essence of carbon tariffs is to make up for the cost of reducing emissions due to the expansion of carbon trading in developed countries. Although carbon traff and carbon restraitions are clear violations of rules in MEAs and WTO, the difficulties of implementing and the implied rationality in the regulations of international law encourage China in the micro level to cope with the problems and pay attention to preventive measures. Through establishing the domestic carbon emission trade system, domestic carbon tax system and so on, China could be able to deal with possible trade and environmental disputes in the future. In the macro level, it should go beyond the trade and environmental disputes, study the national mechanism and even the transformation strategic of a major economy, and direct the country to participate international mechanism in the future. -- Li Wei, East China University of Political Science (The comment was translated by Li Huan) Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:52:35 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3309#comment-9493 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/3309#comment-9493