<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>ChinaDialogue: Latest responses to Hard sell</title>
    <description>Latest comments posted about Hard sell on ChinaDialogue</description>
    <language>en-gb</language>
    <link>http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1130-Hard-sell</link>
    
    <item>
      <title>Negative equity</title>
      <description>The Cool Earth scheme reminds me of a joke my father once made. "Today I saved twenty dollars!" he proudly announced. "I saw a sign that said TWENTY DOLLAR FINE FOR SPITTING ON THE FLOOR, and I didn't spit on the floor."

Even if no more forests were destroyed, the carbon footprint of our collective extravagance would still tip the planet over the edge of climate sustainability. It just might take a little longer.

John Whiting
www.whitings-writings.com</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:16:25 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1130#comment-3983</link>
      <guid>http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1130#comment-3983</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Right direction, but wrong track!</title>
      <description>It is right to point out that curbing deforestation offers probably the most cost-effective way battling against climate change, as IPPC and McKinsey reports suggest.

However, simply buying forests to stop them being chopped down is not a sustainable option.

Firstly, indigenous people will move on to another forest when the one they relied on is bought, unless they are provided with alternative livelihood and development oppotunities.

Secondly, even you can buy out all forests, it is simply not ethical to deprive locals of rights to develop themselve, unless the money spent can enable them to have the same and higher standard of life, as well as oppotunities to develop, without damaging forests.

Therefore, the key is not about forests, is about developing forest dependents' ability to survive and develop sustainably. Only if the money spent can be converted into education, training, technology and innovation helping these dependents either manage forest resources sustainably or establish non-forest means of livelihoods, the spending would be justified and effective.

Tian Ming</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:30:32 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1130#comment-3931</link>
      <guid>http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1130#comment-3931</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[TRANSLATED] Can it be true?</title>
      <description>Climate change is already an irreversible reality today. The leading perpetrators of the developed countries are now said to spend money to stop the destruction of rain forest - can it really be true? </description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:14:24 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1130#comment-3924</link>
      <guid>http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1130#comment-3924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
