ChinaDialogue: Latest responses to Clearing the air with China

Tragedy of the Commons

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:21:23 +0000

Something that is owned by all is owned by none. Therefore, no action is taken to maintain it. Global ownership is the responsibility of those who benefit from the global system. Financial freedom does not come without moral responsibility. It is irreversibly linked to the privileges of leadership. Chairman Mao might have agreed that without such moral responsibility the only logical path of the people is revolution.

close and real collaboration is the answer

Tue, 15 May 2007 17:53:58 +0000

Thanks Juilet, I also learnt a lot. As the developing countries struggling with the dilemma between growth and environment, close and real collaboration, I mean real, not hot air nor business speculation, led by developed countries will be extremely helpful. Developing countries also have to show their resolute determination and serious care on the climate change issue in the international collaboration. Luckily this is also what we see more and more in today's international collaboration. Climate change can never be solved by one-side solution, neither from developing nor developed countries. Being an international challenge to the whole world, it also requires international solution with the whole world's effort. Tao Wang

[TRANSLATED] Still some doubts

Mon, 07 May 2007 04:18:34 +0000

Thanks very much, Tao Wang, for letting me rethink over these issues, which led to material improvements of my understanding! Especially the sentence "The more you know, the more urgent you will feel to help them out of the dilemma situation." It really speaks my mind. However, about your point "But that need real actions from the more wealthy, more developed countries.", coundn't there be anything more than that? Juliet

zero growth should be a soultion

Fri, 04 May 2007 18:14:19 +0000

When is the tipping point? China is on racing car, as some economists point, and most industralized countries have been stuggling for a faster growth. Looking at growth is another useful perspective for us to find solutions to enviromental headaches. Developing countries should be allowed a longer time of fast development while zero-rate growth should be kept in developed countries. And then the two worlds can meet somewhere with a zero-rate growth worldwide. That maybe works given the resources and evenvironment constrains further development. Lobbiests, thinkers, and economsits can think about the perspective: Zero-growth. FJ

[TRANSLATED] What happened 161 years ago?

Wed, 02 May 2007 13:06:25 +0000

Why the temperature at that time is higher than the present?

Re Comment 8

Wed, 02 May 2007 11:06:15 +0000

Juliet, I think you pointed out a reality, that the poorer are the more vulnerable to pollution, and the richer are less vulnerable and contribute more to the pollution. This is true to the climate change. The CO2 emission that have taken the world to today's dangerous situation was by majority produced by developed countries during their industrialisation rather than the developing countries today, because CO2 stays in atmosphere for 100-200 years for its warming effects. But unlike early industrialisation countries, today's developing countries are more constrained by natural resources and international environment issues. Similar to other pollution in China, a large proportion of the pollution generated in China is from manufacturing export products; therefore people in developed countries can enjoy cheap goods without suffering from pollution they cause. This kind of "pollution export" has been part of the reasons for the improved environment in developed counties. I am not saying that Chinese people should not care about their own environment. Rather, nothing can be more important for us to realize the serious situation and to react to save our own environment, because as you say, it will be an issue of survival for many people soon. But on the other hand, shall people in developed just urge Chinese people and Chinese government to be more responsible, while themselves only remain as a "morally superior" international environment watchdog, pointing out this and that wrong with their clean hand? There are many ways for the developed countries to be more responsible for what they have caused and there is large scope to collaborate with the developing countries to avoid repeating the same mistakes again, for our own common environment, but scolding without considering their situation certainly isn't one of them. I wouldn't feel really sad if there are people caring more about China's (but in fact it is the whole world's) environment than Chinese people themselves. In fact, how much Chinese people care about their living environment cannot be simply judged by what they are doing. Most of us, wherever, are unfortunately short-eyesight animal, not just in China or developing countries. Compromise is always made in our decision, and immediate demand always comes with high priority. 饮鸩止渴 is not a right thing to do, but is now a real thing done in many places. The more you know, the more urgent you will feel to help them out of the dilemma situation. But that need real actions from the more wealthy, more developed and hopefully more civilized countries. Tao Wang

Good comment!!!

Wed, 02 May 2007 11:38:49 +0000

I strongly support the opinions elaborated in Comment nine!! Well done, Tao Wang. Environmental problems face all human beings, thus coordinated efforts are needed to find solutions.

[TRANSLATED] Re Comment 6

Tue, 01 May 2007 10:54:21 +0000

Do we have to wait till adequate food and shelter are being provided before we start caring about climate change? Actually, if the environment worsens like this, it will be an issue of survival for many people. When our survival is endangered, wouldn't food and shelter be luxuries? Another reality is that the poorer are the more vulnerable to polution. And for those people who have achieved moderate prosperity, they are less vulnerable. Furthermore, they are contributing more to the pollution of the environment, even without recognising that a deteriorating environment could actually threaten their own lives. Therefore, it is extremely important to improve public awareness of environmental issues. Juliet

Why must the US lead?

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:41:44 +0000

Thanks for clear overview, but must the following claim be the case: "If the United States will not lead, China will not follow, and the results will be tragic: both countries will suffer grievously, and so will the rest of the world"? Does the US have to lead? Why can't China do so? If China did lead, would not the US have to follow? Anthony Barnett

who leads?

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:48:41 +0000

This article by Schell first appeared in the Washington Post on 15 April, so was largely intended for US readers. In response to comment 4 notes, there are some ways in which China already leads the US - for example vehicle engine efficiency; but it is likely that China will continue to need and benefit from technological input from other nations. In terms of political initiatives, why should they not come from people in both countries, and others, working together. A task force of the kind Schell suggests could be broadened out - perhaps as I have suggested in The Gramsci-Schwarzenegger dialectic: China, the U.S. and climate change politics. Caspar Henderson