Latest comments posted about What Stern said about China (part one) on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/537-What-Stern-said-about-China-part-one- http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/537-What-Stern-said-about-China-part-one- Some of the English translations are really inappropriate (awful), translators should be better equipped with industry knowledge. For example: "online real time" as translated in "China New Tech"'s no. 8 post was not rightl while the sentence "artificial neural networks is the cutting edge technology in soft measurement" sounds like it was translated entirely through some software. Translations like this are a worry to readers at this website. -- Adam Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:30:51 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-3827 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-3827 In the sewage treatment process, we are still facing a lot of technical problems. For instance, we are unable to monitor certain parameters of water quality while carry out the experiment. However, we could apply soft sensing technique to overcome this problem. Alike human neural network with added the most advance soft sensing technique. We believe that this artificial neural network and soft sensing technique will become part of the development in sewage treatment. It will bring forward our home construction of water quality towards a new platform. Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:48:03 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-3812 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-3812 Chinese people can create the most advanced technology to handle exhaust fumes, why can't they spread? We again hear that the U.S. government refuses to sign the Kyoto Protocol, something that makes me sigh a great deal. My country's amount of pollution emissions is already serious, having exceeded the environment's ability to bear the load. This is shocking to behold, the situation is a crisis. China's current key industries, such as minerals, textiles, metallurgy, paper-making, steel and chemicals, are all industries high on resource consumption and heavily polluting. luoyangzhangjixing@yahoo.com.cn Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:42:19 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-545 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-545 "Population growth rates will be higher among the developing countries, which are also likely in aggregate to have more rapid emissions growth per head. This means that emissions in the developing world will grow significantly faster than in the developed world, requiring a still sharper focus on emissions abatement in the larger economies like China, India and Brazil.” What Stern says makes some sense. But what developed countries are doing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is not enough by far. They have not done well in promoting the creation of environmental protection science and technology or in the support of China creating world-leading technology to handle exhaust fumes. Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:40:52 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-544 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-544 Is it not a case of the west, the developed west with a 200-year history of industrialisation, preaching to China? So what if China overtakes the US as the world's biggest polluter? That's no surprise, it's the world's most populous nation. A bigger problem is a resources- and capital-rich country, the US, currently being the world's largest polluter and the world's largest per capita consumer of resources. This has been going on for some time too. What should one say to Chinese people whose jobs have allowed them to climb out of absolute poverty - 'I'm sorry we have to get rid of your factory and your job because you pollute too much?' Clearly, in the short term, this could not be the way forward. But it may well be an option in the medium term, say 10 years from now. What then for Chinese workers? Should it not be a case of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'? In terms of carbon emissions this would mean that Americans should immediately make sacrifices in lifestyle in order to protect the planet's future, because they are in a position to. They should be joined by Europeans. China has a more pressing need to develop; and it should be encouraged in this, and criticised if that development leads to pollution. It is hyprocritical of the west to criticise China without itself making huge changes in lifestyle right now. Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:18:50 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-505 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-505 If we in the West hope that China will do something to reduce its global environmental footprint, we should think carefully about the target of our hope. The Stern Report comes on the heels of a huge wave of alarming reports coming out in the UK recently-along with news berating Britons for the wastefulness of nearly everything they do and buy. While this may be having its effect on consumption patterns here, I would not suggest it as a strategy for reaching out to Chinese consumers. Better to patiently emphasise local impacts in China itself, and the big steps that business and government can start with. Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:44:31 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-498 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-498 drug enforcement policy, especially the US's, has for a long time tried to blame Columbians or Afghans for producing drugs, rather than looked at the problem from the point of view of its own society that produces a need for drugs. same with carbon. it is very inefficient to "shoot the supplier"; instead, the consumer of the bad substance - here carbon - should be made to feel the pain. Most of that consumption is in the rich west, wherever the production may be. Tony Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:35:24 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-494 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-494 The Stern review does detail the issues and the situation we are facing to deal with climate change, but it fails to explore the reasons behind these problems, thus it fails also to point out what we should do to sort out the problems. I think what we need today is not only the revealment of climate change problems, but also the actual solutions and commitment, especially those from developed countries. The relocation of manufacturers from developed countries to developing ones, and other similiar globalization drives, leads to today's unequal responsibility to our common climate change problems. "Made in China" is not a problem of China, but globally. Today in the UK,nearly all products are imported overseas, including spring onion from South America and other common vegetable which could be grown in England. So you know how the transport of the goods to England causes emission. It is unfair to blame developing countries for large amount of emission, even it is true. Developing countries should not be treated as scapegoat of developed countries. If rich countries do care about the future of this planet, they need take actions now to sort out their own emission problems, and also are responsible to help sort out emission problems in developing countries which the rich countries have caused. Today we do need think more about the impact of globalization and the living styles of developed countries upon the climate change. To tackle climate change needs the transformation of the global system, it needs action. Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:24:27 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-492 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-492 Stern is important because it demonstrates that the environment and the Chinese economy are mutually constituted, that they are one and the same. For China or the rest of the world to move forward we must change the way our economies grow. Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:45:13 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-477 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/537#comment-477