Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here

China admits ecological failings

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Story

So what does this mean for the rest of the world?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hopefully other countries will follow.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Let's hope that they come with a better solution than the latest gem proposed by the chimp:

    US solution to global warming: smoke and mirrors

    I guess the concept of using less fuel is too far fetched... :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah... I mean I know we're the windiest country in Europe, thus we can use wind farms... But surely they can figure something out.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So what does this mean for the rest of the world?

    If you're referring to cutting down emissions via Kyoto-esque treaties, then absolutely nothing.....the amount of coal powered stations China is building to keep its economy growing shows that they don't give a toss about global warming, forget what people are saying look at what they are doing....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Let's hope that they come with a better solution than the latest gem proposed by the chimp:

    US solution to global warming: smoke and mirrors

    I guess the concept of using less fuel is too far fetched... :rolleyes:

    If the doomsayers are right it could take such a 'far fetched' proposal. Tbh I've thought it pretty far fetched to believe banning cars will tangibly affect the present course of climate change.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who said cars have to be banned?

    They need to be used more sensibly though. Or rather, we need to use more sensible cars instead of pointless monster trucks.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    They need to be used more sensibly though. Or rather, we need to use more sensible cars instead of pointless monster trucks.

    Cars (and indeed all forms of transport combined) make up a small proportion of overall carbon dioxide emissions.

    This constant hounding of 4x4 or SUVs got tedious a long time ago. Do you really believe that if every owner of a 'monster truck' swapped it for a hybrid climate change would miraculously stop?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It would certainly help a significant amount.

    The reason why people go about irresponsible vehicles is because that is the contributing factor of global warming that can be tackled most easily. All we need is for those people who don't actually need a 4x4 (i.e. 95% of them) to stop acting like selifsh twats and to switch to a more responsible vehicle.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fair enough but I'm unconvinced. 4x4s seem an easy scapegoat and not much more. The recent 'green' emphasis to me seems to be largely about people trying to feel better about themselves. Or for Gordon Brown environmental concerns just equate to an opportunity to tax us more. Can't say I really buy into Cameron's 'green' gestures either, tbh I just thought he was a twat when I heard about him sticking a windmill on his house.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are many factors for prefering a hybrid saloon to a monster 4x4, not just emissions, but also car size (and as such how dangerous they are to other people in accidents), and fuel efficiency (that we're running out of oil cannot be denied it is a FACT).

    Don't be so single minded, everyone here seems to get that way but it is simply not the case. Even if having greener cars has no significant effect on climate change, at the very least london won't make me feel a whole new kind of dirty whenever i visit. Black snot is NOT normal.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Hopefully other countries will follow.

    One would hope so, but it is doubtful.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you're referring to cutting down emissions via Kyoto-esque treaties, then absolutely nothing.....the amount of coal powered stations China is building to keep its economy growing shows that they don't give a toss about global warming, forget what people are saying look at what they are doing....

    With a little help I think we could get them to convert most of those to 'clean coal' which in real terms costs next to nothing and there would be no emissions at all (or at least very few).

    China is getting richer, and like all rich countries eventually you get rich enough to give a toss about the environment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    China is getting richer, and like all rich countries eventually you get rich enough to give a toss about the environment.

    'Give a toss' or 'not give a toss'? I dunno how to read that?
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Teagan wrote: »
    'Give a toss' or 'not give a toss'? I dunno how to read that?
    Things that are most ecological tend to be more expensive too. So, one could say that poor countries "have" to use the less ecological thing. Once it's not a poor country, it can use something better for the environment.
    He wrote it correctly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Things that are most ecological tend to be more expensive too. So, one could say that poor countries "have" to use the less ecological thing. Once it's not a poor country, it can use something better for the environment.
    He wrote it correctly.

    Exactly, people only started giving a toss about organic this and fair trade that when they could afford to give a toss about it. We totally destroyed our natural environment because we were poor and it was a resource, we now expect other countries to behave differently.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Things that are most ecological tend to be more expensive too. So, one could say that poor countries "have" to use the less ecological thing. Once it's not a poor country, it can use something better for the environment.
    He wrote it correctly.

    Ah ok ... I didn't quite know what he meant by that grammatically. Most people might say that they 'wouldn't give a toss' about something - but 'giving a toss' is perhaps less used, but still valid.

    I have no issue with his argument by the way. It was just a question of understanding the grammar ... :)
Sign In or Register to comment.