<?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 Understanding China&#8217;s climate policy</title>
    <description>Latest comments posted about Understanding China&#8217;s climate policy on ChinaDialogue</description>
    <language>en-gb</language>
    <link>http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/2239-Understanding-China-s-climate-policy</link>
    
    <item>
      <title>Jia Hepeng/&#36158;&#40548;&#40527;</title>
      <description>Prof. Zhuang has deeply explored the gaming powers between climate negotiations. However, while suggesting lack of research is impeding China's role in the international climate talks, a more thinking should be given to the basic scientific aspects of climate change. Is the 2 C temperature rise (equivalent to 450 ppm CO2) really a dangerous cap, or just a pretext for EU to pressure China/India's growth? I would say it is a go-between, balancing more to the scientific truth. One evidence for this is when setting the 450 ppm in 1990s, China's rise has not been considered. Also, many US scientists have played an active role in determining the dangerous level of how much PPM, but the lower (450 ppm or lower) level will be more negative to US too. In this case, it seems to me, that many Chinese researchers and officials have not taken seriously with the excuse of uncertainties. 
But, the question is if we exceed 450 ppm, could we bear the real dangers? 
Then my suggestion is: Try to keep the 450 ppm as much as possible, rather than simply refusing it. In the case we really cannot reach the 450 ppm target, we can only say the closer we are with the 450 ppm, the less risky we will be. </description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:14:14 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2239#comment-7720</link>
      <guid>http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2239#comment-7720</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[TRANSLATED] self-interest is the drive</title>
      <description>For the Chinese government, despite the fact that it has been taking the climate change issue as a diplomatic one, international public opinion holds little sway over its policies in this field. As is the case with other countries. However, confronted with the current acute energy and environmental crisis, Chinese government, I believe, means business this time about cutting back on emissions. The change of heart comes from concern over its own interests.

(Comment translated by Yang bin)</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2239#comment-7707</link>
      <guid>http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2239#comment-7707</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[TRANSLATED] Of high reference value </title>
      <description>This article is of high reference value in that it analyses the detailed considerations in the international climate policy negotiation. Well done.
(This comment was translated by Zheng Shen.)</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:58:08 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2239#comment-7705</link>
      <guid>http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2239#comment-7705</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[TRANSLATED] 20 Years</title>
      <description>I think it will take at least 20 years for the climate change to become the priority consideration in the policy making process in China.
(This comment was translated by Zheng Shen.)</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:41:29 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2239#comment-7704</link>
      <guid>http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/2239#comment-7704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
