Latest comments posted about Did China win at Bali? on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1674-Did-China-win-at-Bali- http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1674-Did-China-win-at-Bali- "The developed countries experienced the cost of development. However, they offered neither good experience nor free environmentally-friendly technologies to China until China get stranded and has to buy these know-hows from them." Lots of experts, the US EPA and its EU equivalent have permanent offices in Beijing to help China develop a workable, comprehensive environmental development and enforcement program. China simply refuses to effectively and uniformly enforce its laws (any laws for that matter). As for giving China environmental technology, China has plenty of money for a manned space program and the rapid modernization of its military, as well as lots of goodies for party bosses. It can market prices for environmental technology. China also has a track record of reverse engineering western environmental technology for resale to other, poorer countries. No free lunch for China. Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:36:08 -0500 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1674#comment-7036 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1674#comment-7036 No Winner or Loser in Climate Talks For climate change talks, there is no winner or loser. Either all the countries win or they all lose. If no effective mechanism is reached at the talks to mitigate and adapt to climate change, all countries stand to lose. After all, we have only one planet to live. Inaction is not in any country’s interest. The author writes: “Perhaps the US is not a loser, because the US delegates tried their best to protect US national interest. In my view, this point is arguable. First, No country is able to escape from its dire consequences of climate change. Without active mitigation, climate will get worse and extreme weathers like Hurricane Katrina may hit the US more frequently. And no one knows for sure what potential catastrophic result all countries will surfer. Moreover, the US is not even a winner for the economic point of view. Early action will be much less costly. Inaction will not strengthen competitiveness of enterprises. On the contrary, some companies that refuse to improve their standard are suffering. The auto industry in the US is an obvious example. It is worthy mentioning that the Bush administration is not representing the true national interest of America, rather it is more influenced by large industrialists such those from oil and chemical industries. As for China, it is equally important to identify what kind of national interest is involved in the climate talks. Fist and foremost, building eco-civilization is the biggest national interest. Otherwise, China’s 30-year economic miracle will not last and the centaury-long dream of renaissance will face serious challenge. The pollution pattern of industrialization is simply not sustainable. And China is unable to fuel the pattern with shortage of natural resources, energy security, and air and water pollution. Let alone the emission of greenhouse gasses that affect the world as well as China itself. In addition, developing low carbon economy is the key to strength China’s competitiveness in the future. Fortunately, the concept of development is under significant change from “economic development first” to “balanced development”. As a result, the rhetoric of climate talks is shifting from “emission reduction puts burden on economic development” and points fingers with the US to more constructive actions. In fact, it is in China’s best interest to play a key role in tackling climate change. Reducing Greenhouse gasses can actually promote economic development rather than hurt it. Strategically, China should take the advantage of global fight against climate change to speed the great transformation to low carbon economy and realize sustainable development. To sum up, all countries should discard the narrow minded concern of national interest and unite together to realize cost-effective measures combat climate change. The developed countries, the US in particular, should shoulder their historical and current responsibilities. China should rely mainly on itself to seize the opportunity to play a leading role in low carbon economy. More importantly, the US and China as the two largest greenhouse gasses emitters should work together toward win-win result. JN Beijing Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:49:05 -0500 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1674#comment-7033 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1674#comment-7033 To Comment No. 1 Let me use a metaphor here.The pioneers on the path of development used to fall into a trap. But they just climbed out, stayed mute, and waited for the latecomers to fall into it as well. Twenty years ago China was merely one of the latecomers trying to catch up with the trend of development, so how can it foresee today’s environmental problems? The developed countries experienced the cost of development. However, they offered neither good experience nor free environmentally-friendly technologies to China until China get stranded and has to buy these know-hows from them. No matter how China makes efforts to deal with environmental issues, it can not simply achieve the goals itself, due to its huge population, tough employment issues, as well as the large number of interested groups. China still has a long way to go to tackle the environmental problems. Li Yang, Technical University of Munich. Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:23:45 -0500 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1674#comment-7023 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1674#comment-7023 China went on the offensive? No more so than in the past, demanding a list of explicit things that China has always demanded: technology, money and expertise, while making vague statements about what it should do. Enforcement of existing domestic laws and enactment of tougher laws would help China and the rest of the developing world to reduce emissions and pollution (it doesn't take high technology and money to keep factory bosses from dumping raw waste into rivers). Maybe China ought to steer military scientists and funding to more pollution control and cleanup, same for the rest of the developing world. Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:57:10 -0500 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1674#comment-7024 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1674#comment-7024 The attitude of Chinese new leaders to environmental protection has changed. We are looking forward to more action. Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:54:24 -0500 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1674#comment-7020 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1674#comment-7020 If China enforced its own legislation concerning pollution - especially coal fired power stations - and if China respected intellectual property rights, China would have much stronger credentials for her attempts to drive the global effort to minimise climate change. If, 10-20 years ago, China had sought to expand its economy with a great leap forward on the basis of existing green technologies (which the then wealthier nations' major industries refused to adopt) and of course good governance, China would now dominate the rapidly expanding world market for such technology, and this would warrant both international respect and domestic pride. Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:57:39 -0500 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1674#comment-7013 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1674#comment-7013