Latest comments posted about Towards a low carbon future, together on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1392-Towards-a-low-carbon-future-together http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1392-Towards-a-low-carbon-future-together reading the article of world today I quoted "Third, encouraging the transition to a low carbon future requires the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade in low carbon, energy efficient and environmentally friendly goods and services". But I don't agree at all with this change of the custom taxes given that the relativ position of china and EU doesn't come frome the rights import or export but frome the value of the goods expressed in Renminbi. Meleze Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:55:07 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4520 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4520 "When the UN and China are talking about how to make a secure and stable future, one of the most powerful parties is looking on." That is all the UN and China can do is talk talk talk, then demand that the US and Europe do the hard work for them. China and its UN friends demand free access to high technology and yet won't enforce existing laws in their respective countries to punish polluters, which is how the US and EU cleaned up their environments even before exotic remediation technologies existed. The fact is that the third world's leaders are too corrupt, incompetent and lazy to make their benefactors do what is right for their countries. lamb kebab Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:47:49 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4518 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4518 First, it's the fact that developing countries like China aren't on the same level with developed countries. Since the Industrial Revolution, the economic development of developed countries has used most resources on earth, part of which are gained from developing countries in a variety of ways; while at the same time, western countries contributes the lion's share of polutants, including CO2. However, the consequences have to be shouldered by all the peoples. Therefore, developed countries have obligations to help other countries in technical innovation to achieve common existence and development of humanity. Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:18:21 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4517 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4517 In fact, the low cost of "Made in China" is due to China's plenty of cheap labor, not advanced technology. The key is to decrease carbon emissions, that is to say, China needs to improve production skills through an introduction of new expertise，not only rescinding anti-dumping tariffs. Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:07:09 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4516 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4516 Who cares about human's future and who doesn't? When the UN and China are talking about how to make a secure and stable future, one of the most powerful parties is looking on. Do things should go on this way? Thu, 18 Oct 2007 05:42:46 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4512 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4512 "Furthermore, the most advance technology is often not the machinery themselves. Technological know-how is by far the most value of cutting-edge clean technology which most of the developed countries not willing to share with China." You are right about that, the know-how to make the machines is far more valuable, and the entire world knows that IP protection in China is not worth its weight in paper. China simply wants to profit off of others' hard work. China has lots of academics, why not design its own environmental technology? Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:04:53 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4510 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4510 Please present evidence. In fact, comparing to gigantic Chinese export total, exports to 'other developing countries' only account for tiny proportion. Furthermore, the most advance technology is often not the machinery themselves. Technological know-how is by far the most value of cutting-edge clean technology which most of the developed countries not willing to share with China. In this context, more negotiations and cooperations to overcome this barrier are needed. Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:19:45 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4509 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4509 China has been given and purchased plenty of green technology, only to turn around and sell reversed engineered versions to other developing countries while not utilizing this technology for its own pollution reduction. This is not the behavior of a responsible society or government that claims to be interested in true international cooperation in reducing greenhouse gases and general water and air pollution. Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:59:21 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4507 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4507 China's rise to prominence is an imperative but its development should be benign, sustainable and should not take the same route that developing countries have over the last 100 years. As the article says, China and Europe (along with America and other developed countries) should press forward with further cooperation. Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:40:35 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4500 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4500 I think this is an optimistic vision and I applaud it. But right now the reality is that the Us is unlikely to be able to continue running a massive deficit on trade with China, stimulated by China's artificially low exchange rate. If we are to avoid a trade war, someone else will have to pick this up. The EU is the only other entity capable of doing it but I can't see Europe being willing to do this, which means that the discussion in the EU will move towards protectionism rather than visionary cooperation. Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:13:16 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4504 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1392#comment-4504