7 ms·

The Chinese leadership strikes me as pragmatic. If they thought the harm from Global Warming would be more costly than carbon emission cuts, they would make the

The Chinese leadership strikes me as pragmatic. If they thought the harm from Global Warming would be more costly than carbon emission cuts, they would make them. But neither China nor India wants to remain poor. Any poor country is likely to benefit much more from development than the harm development will cause through additional carbon emissions (unless it's the Maldives). And neither countries' regimes can benefit from buying the votes of a green constituency with expensive projects of uncertain value. Rather, their legitimacy is strengthened by delivering increased living standards, and that is just what they intend to do. The author is disingenuous to claim that these countries are acting in the service of of "planetary suicide", the breathless accusations of western green activists to the contrary. The Chinese leadership is well-educated. They can read the IPCC reports. They know what the likely consequences are. Planetary suicide is not among them. Their leaders also know it's a hell of a lot better to be not-poor than poor. They think they are making a rational decision by frustrating the western green lobby's plans. And I'm pretty sure they are right. It's going to take a hell of a lot bigger bribe than $100 billion to convince them otherwise.

baguasquirrel 17y ago
Define "planetary suicide." I'm sure that the Chinese leadership isn't too concerned because their patch of Earth is well-positioned to whatever chaos will ensue. I'm sure the sub-Saharan nations, Australia and perhaps even the Indian subcontinent would beg to differ though. A two degree centigrade difference, real or imagined, wouldn't be a big deal to a modernized China, nor would it be a big deal to those of us living in North America. What's more is that China is blessed with regards to natural defenses. These same natural defenses also lead to isolation. The Chinese paid dearly for their relative isolation in the 19th and 20th centuries. But if all havoc were to break out in the rest of the world, then they'd do comparatively well in their present state. It's all just politics, plain and simple.
- Zarkonnen 17y ago
  The problem with a 2C warming is that it won't just cause everywhere to become two degrees warmer. It will mean a massive upset in weather patterns and large areas of land that are currently arable becoming barren, along with a lot of fertile or inhabited land becoming flooded.
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    What are your favorite references to back up those predictions? Couldn't there also be currently barren areas that become arable?
    - zzkt 17y ago
      The IPCC 4th Assessment Report is a good starting place. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_f...
mattmcknight 17y ago
Is it also possible that slightly higher temperatures and more rainfall could be less of a negative in China? There are a lot cold areas there that could become more fertile. The bigger problem in Beijing is simply the air quality, I felt the need to wear a mask. The direct perceptibility of that phenomena is more likely to drive action on air pollution.
- thijsterlouw 17y ago
  no, one of the major problems in China is drought and heat. Beijing suffers from both of them and each year the desert is moving closer to Beijing and the sandstorms are getting worse. Increasing global warming will also make the situation worse in China.
  - BearOfNH 17y ago
    [Citation Needed]
joe_the_user 17y ago
Uh, * Yes, this kind of thing often comes down to "real politic". * No, we shouldn't be happy to let it just stand as that. I'll give you that the exact result of continuing unlimited production of hydrocarbons is unknown. The "Green Lobby" has ill-served itself by framing things as 'we know global warming will happen' rather than "do you want to risk eating your own industrial shit for longer than necessary?'. "Planetary Suicide" is indeed an almost meaningless term. Tremendous environmental impact with a negative, say terminal, impact for millions of people is concrete and likely. Desertification advances as quickly in China as anywhere. The Chinese leadership is far-sighted and near-sighted according to their historical origins and material interests. You know about the Cultural Revolution? Edit: And the particular strategy "the West" have taken certainly has made the bed they are lying in as much as China has. Again, does that mean we should be happy with this situation?
- hga 17y ago
  You make some very good points, the only thing I'd add is that for the Chinese leadership choosing between the two extremes is easy. Millions dead due to a nasty environment? They're living that now and can deal with it a lot easier than they could deal with the hundreds of millions who'd die if they did what the goo-goos in the West asked them to do.
  - pyre 17y ago
    > They're living that now and can deal with it a lot easier than they could deal with the hundreds of millions who'd die if they did what the goo-goos in the West asked them to do. I'm curious. How are hundreds of millions going to die if the Chinese agreed to the treaty?
    - hga 17y ago
      The people at the margin, the ones who are barely making do, will be pushed over the edge by the total program of the goo-goos (I'm not talking about just this treaty, which was only going to be a good second step at best). Look, there's no way to implement the "decarbonization" of industrial society without killing off billions of poor people. It's one thing for the wealthy nations to impoverish themselves, we've got reserves we can draw on. Those living on a dollar or two a day ... not so much.
nir 17y ago
The pragmatic and well educated Communist Party leaders have already been responsible for the death of over 15 million Chinese in the 1958 famine, when they muddled with nature to achieve unrealistic growth goals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine No doubt, the Party is pragmatic (so pragmatic it supplied Sudan with weapons during the Darfur genocide, collecting their support in Copenhagen in return). It is well aware that to maintain its control over the nation it has to keep delivering the current high growth rate. This has a lot more to do with the politicians' power than the people's quality of life.
- fleitz 17y ago
  Obviously they didn't need their support in Copenhagen to get what they wanted.
- chrischen 17y ago
  Unfortunately short-sighted pragmatism could mean the death of us all.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  I'm as against communism and social planning as anyone you'll meet, but refencing 1958 isn't quite correct here. Deng Xiaoping's reforms began China moving towards a modern society. If anything, the general idea behind Copenhagen is more similar to the Cultural Revolution than walking away - it's trying to centrally plan what some people think would be a better world.
- papersmith 17y ago
  Only they were different leaders. Traditionally PRC had two factions. The Maoists and the rivals, let's call them the pragmatists. The Maoists were bent on communist doctrines and making great leaps. The pragmatists were more into what already works. The heads of the pragmatists were Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Shaoqi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Shaoqi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_xiaoping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_xiaoping The famine as you mentioned was attributed in part to Mao's radical policies, and because so Mao stepped down while Liu Shaoqi took his chair for a few years. While Liu was in power he played with capitalist policies similar to those in place today (this was the early 60s), Mao got paranoid and ousted him and Deng, and cultural revolution was launched in part to undo their popularity. Liu died in house arrest. After Mao died in the late 70s, Deng took over and finally switched to market economy. The current line of leaders descended from his faction of pragmatists. Maoism is pretty much dead in China, a new split in the party is between the populists and the princelings, much more similiar to the dichotomy of liberals and conservatives in the west. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_of_Chinese_leadership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_of_Chinese_leadersh...
anigbrowl 17y ago
s/cuts/democracy? I think they are being pragmatic, but that you're being too dismissive of the potential costs if this strategy has long-term negative repercussions.
nsoonhui 17y ago
By similar token, George Bush and Co. were also pragmatic in dealing with global warming issues.
- hga 17y ago
  So was the Senate during the Clinton Administration when they preemptively voted down Kyoto with 97 against.
  - encoderer 17y ago
    So was the ^Republican Senate... Fixed that.
    - hga 17y ago
      All that means is that they were able to ensure that the vote got scheduled. By my count 41 Democrats nonetheless voted for it (after looking it up I see that it was 95-0, with 1 Republican and 4 Democrats not voting). It's also worth noting that with a 60 vote (or votes with) Democratic majority cap and trade is getting exactly nowhere in the current Senate.
      - encoderer 17y ago
        There's a lot of game theory in the Senate. It's not a secret ballot with a gag order. So if you're a senator, it makes no sense to make a risky vote on a bill that you know has no chance to pass. About Cap And Trade... Frankly, the bill is an atrocious gift to investment bankers that will make billions in this new market. But lets ignore that. Let's talk about why a 60-democrat senate cannot pass this or other Progressive legislation. Here it is: The country has gotten more liberal in the last 10 years. But it's not 60% liberal. Not even close. Democratic gains have been easy gains, politically speaking. The party ran conservative Dems in conservative districts. All in all I'd rather have a conservative dem than a liberal republican -- at least a conservative dem will contribute to the Democrats having control over committees and procedure. But what I really want -- and what I think this country needs -- is a progressive. Democratic, Green, Indy, whatever. But, a progressive. Everybody acts like Democrats should be able to pass progressive legislation just because there's 60 Dems in the Senate. Count the number of Progressives. The work that needs to be done -- the activism and organization -- is to promote the progressive agenda at the grassroots level. We need to attack on all fronts to move the country left, the same way the Conservative trio of the Reagan Admin, Think Tanks, and new Media (including direct mail and, say, Rush Limbaugh) moved the country right in the 80's and 90's.
caf 17y ago
The Chinese leadership, like the leadership of every country, is a band of old men. Old men who know they won't be around to see the worst consequences of global warming, but consider that they might well be around long enough to hang from lampposts should the gravy train of economic growth shudder to a halt.
- hga 17y ago
  Culturally the Chinese seem to care a lot more about their children, you can see this in their ruling class by how many well connected sons are running various enterprises. And culturally I see no reason they'd buy into the West's Malthusian tradition, which goes back to 200 AD (sic). So as noted, they (or their staff) can read the IPCC reports, read the ClimateGate emails and code, etc. etc. and do what's right for their country. Heck, they're not watermelons, e.g. green on outside, red on the inside. They're unabashedly red all the way through, they don't need environmentalism as a stealth path to "socialism", they've got their own version of the real thing!
  - gaius 17y ago
    Culturally the Chinese seem to care a lot more about their children, you can see this in their ruling class by how many well connected sons are running various enterprises There's a word for that: nepotism.
    - nitrogen 17y ago
      I don't see any reason for all cultures to have a negative view of nepotism. Were I a parent, I'd certainly try to provide the best possible platform for my children on which to build their careers. I see nepotism as wrong only when it comes at too great a cost to the company or country in which it is practiced, or violates laws or company policies.
      - Tuna-Fish 17y ago
        The reason nepotism is so despised in the west is because we still remember how it worked the last time we tried it -- aristocracy is just the extreme version of nepotism. There is nothing wrong in trying to provide for your child as well as you can, but (s)he shouldn't end in a leadership position just because of his pedigree. Nepotism is generally one of the opposites of meritocracy.
awi 17y ago
The Chinese are acting pragmatically/rationally and in their own short term self interest. If all nations do the same catastrophic climate change is unavoidable, this is the Tragedy of the commons [1]. The negotiations are about setting aside individual nations self interests in order to avoid disaster. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  I'm curious why you believe catastrophic climate change is unavoidable. Even accepting the "consensus" position, the amount of warming the world will face is not exactly life threatening. Go read an actual IPCC report rather than breathless press releases by greenpeace.
  - masomenos 17y ago
    Catastrophic for many, not for all. In particular island nations, and nations already susceptible to drought.
    - hugh_ 17y ago
      Why should a changed climate result in worse droughts in places that are susceptible to drought? Might it not lead to more rain in some drought-stricken places and less rain in some rainy places?
      - arebop 17y ago
        > Why should a changed climate result in worse droughts in places that are susceptible to drought? "Theoretical and climate model studies suggest that, in a climate that is warming due to increasing greenhouse gases, a greater increase is expected in extreme precipitation, as compared to the mean. Hence, anthropogenic influence may be easier to detect in extreme precipitation than in the mean. This is because extreme precipitation is controlled by the availability of water vapour, while mean precipitation is controlled by the ability of the atmosphere to radiate long-wave energy (released as latent heat by condensation) to space, and the latter is restricted by increasing greenhouse gases." --- http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/chapter2.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/chapter2.pdf > Might it not lead to more rain in some drought-stricken places and less rain in some rainy places? Yes, in fact some IPCC analysis suggests that North America will see e.g., increased crop variety and yields by 2080, and also e.g., a 40% decrease in Texan farmers' net income and more agricultural disease. But although climate change isn't uniformly and strictly bad news, it is likely that some places will see catastrophic effects and that in aggregate the changes will be more problematic than beneficial for humans.
Tichy 17y ago
"They know what the likely consequences are. Planetary suicide is not among them." And you know that because...?

baguasquirrel 17y ago

Define "planetary suicide." I'm sure that the Chinese leadership isn't too concerned because their patch of Earth is well-positioned to whatever chaos will ensue. I'm sure the sub-Saharan nations, Australia and perhaps even the Indian subcontinent would beg to differ though. A two degree centigrade difference, real or imagined, wouldn't be a big deal to a modernized China, nor would it be a big deal to those of us living in North America. What's more is that China is blessed with regards to natural defenses. These same natural defenses also lead to isolation. The Chinese paid dearly for their relative isolation in the 19th and 20th centuries. But if all havoc were to break out in the rest of the world, then they'd do comparatively well in their present state. It's all just politics, plain and simple.

Zarkonnen 17y ago
The problem with a 2C warming is that it won't just cause everywhere to become two degrees warmer. It will mean a massive upset in weather patterns and large areas of land that are currently arable becoming barren, along with a lot of fertile or inhabited land becoming flooded.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  What are your favorite references to back up those predictions? Couldn't there also be currently barren areas that become arable?
  - zzkt 17y ago
    The IPCC 4th Assessment Report is a good starting place. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_f...

mattmcknight 17y ago

Is it also possible that slightly higher temperatures and more rainfall could be less of a negative in China? There are a lot cold areas there that could become more fertile. The bigger problem in Beijing is simply the air quality, I felt the need to wear a mask. The direct perceptibility of that phenomena is more likely to drive action on air pollution.

thijsterlouw 17y ago
no, one of the major problems in China is drought and heat. Beijing suffers from both of them and each year the desert is moving closer to Beijing and the sandstorms are getting worse. Increasing global warming will also make the situation worse in China.
- BearOfNH 17y ago
  [Citation Needed]

joe_the_user 17y ago

Uh, * Yes, this kind of thing often comes down to "real politic". * No, we shouldn't be happy to let it just stand as that. I'll give you that the exact result of continuing unlimited production of hydrocarbons is unknown. The "Green Lobby" has ill-served itself by framing things as 'we know global warming will happen' rather than "do you want to risk eating your own industrial shit for longer than necessary?'. "Planetary Suicide" is indeed an almost meaningless term. Tremendous environmental impact with a negative, say terminal, impact for millions of people is concrete and likely. Desertification advances as quickly in China as anywhere. The Chinese leadership is far-sighted and near-sighted according to their historical origins and material interests. You know about the Cultural Revolution? Edit: And the particular strategy "the West" have taken certainly has made the bed they are lying in as much as China has. Again, does that mean we should be happy with this situation?

hga 17y ago
You make some very good points, the only thing I'd add is that for the Chinese leadership choosing between the two extremes is easy. Millions dead due to a nasty environment? They're living that now and can deal with it a lot easier than they could deal with the hundreds of millions who'd die if they did what the goo-goos in the West asked them to do.
- pyre 17y ago
  > They're living that now and can deal with it a lot easier than they could deal with the hundreds of millions who'd die if they did what the goo-goos in the West asked them to do. I'm curious. How are hundreds of millions going to die if the Chinese agreed to the treaty?
  - hga 17y ago
    The people at the margin, the ones who are barely making do, will be pushed over the edge by the total program of the goo-goos (I'm not talking about just this treaty, which was only going to be a good second step at best). Look, there's no way to implement the "decarbonization" of industrial society without killing off billions of poor people. It's one thing for the wealthy nations to impoverish themselves, we've got reserves we can draw on. Those living on a dollar or two a day ... not so much.

nir 17y ago

The pragmatic and well educated Communist Party leaders have already been responsible for the death of over 15 million Chinese in the 1958 famine, when they muddled with nature to achieve unrealistic growth goals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine No doubt, the Party is pragmatic (so pragmatic it supplied Sudan with weapons during the Darfur genocide, collecting their support in Copenhagen in return). It is well aware that to maintain its control over the nation it has to keep delivering the current high growth rate. This has a lot more to do with the politicians' power than the people's quality of life.

fleitz 17y ago
Obviously they didn't need their support in Copenhagen to get what they wanted.
chrischen 17y ago
Unfortunately short-sighted pragmatism could mean the death of us all.
lionhearted 17y ago
I'm as against communism and social planning as anyone you'll meet, but refencing 1958 isn't quite correct here. Deng Xiaoping's reforms began China moving towards a modern society. If anything, the general idea behind Copenhagen is more similar to the Cultural Revolution than walking away - it's trying to centrally plan what some people think would be a better world.
papersmith 17y ago
Only they were different leaders. Traditionally PRC had two factions. The Maoists and the rivals, let's call them the pragmatists. The Maoists were bent on communist doctrines and making great leaps. The pragmatists were more into what already works. The heads of the pragmatists were Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Shaoqi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Shaoqi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_xiaoping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_xiaoping The famine as you mentioned was attributed in part to Mao's radical policies, and because so Mao stepped down while Liu Shaoqi took his chair for a few years. While Liu was in power he played with capitalist policies similar to those in place today (this was the early 60s), Mao got paranoid and ousted him and Deng, and cultural revolution was launched in part to undo their popularity. Liu died in house arrest. After Mao died in the late 70s, Deng took over and finally switched to market economy. The current line of leaders descended from his faction of pragmatists. Maoism is pretty much dead in China, a new split in the party is between the populists and the princelings, much more similiar to the dichotomy of liberals and conservatives in the west. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_of_Chinese_leadership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_of_Chinese_leadersh...

anigbrowl 17y ago

s/cuts/democracy? I think they are being pragmatic, but that you're being too dismissive of the potential costs if this strategy has long-term negative repercussions.

nsoonhui 17y ago

By similar token, George Bush and Co. were also pragmatic in dealing with global warming issues.

hga 17y ago
So was the Senate during the Clinton Administration when they preemptively voted down Kyoto with 97 against.
- encoderer 17y ago
  So was the ^Republican Senate... Fixed that.
  - hga 17y ago
    All that means is that they were able to ensure that the vote got scheduled. By my count 41 Democrats nonetheless voted for it (after looking it up I see that it was 95-0, with 1 Republican and 4 Democrats not voting). It's also worth noting that with a 60 vote (or votes with) Democratic majority cap and trade is getting exactly nowhere in the current Senate.
    - encoderer 17y ago
      There's a lot of game theory in the Senate. It's not a secret ballot with a gag order. So if you're a senator, it makes no sense to make a risky vote on a bill that you know has no chance to pass. About Cap And Trade... Frankly, the bill is an atrocious gift to investment bankers that will make billions in this new market. But lets ignore that. Let's talk about why a 60-democrat senate cannot pass this or other Progressive legislation. Here it is: The country has gotten more liberal in the last 10 years. But it's not 60% liberal. Not even close. Democratic gains have been easy gains, politically speaking. The party ran conservative Dems in conservative districts. All in all I'd rather have a conservative dem than a liberal republican -- at least a conservative dem will contribute to the Democrats having control over committees and procedure. But what I really want -- and what I think this country needs -- is a progressive. Democratic, Green, Indy, whatever. But, a progressive. Everybody acts like Democrats should be able to pass progressive legislation just because there's 60 Dems in the Senate. Count the number of Progressives. The work that needs to be done -- the activism and organization -- is to promote the progressive agenda at the grassroots level. We need to attack on all fronts to move the country left, the same way the Conservative trio of the Reagan Admin, Think Tanks, and new Media (including direct mail and, say, Rush Limbaugh) moved the country right in the 80's and 90's.

caf 17y ago

The Chinese leadership, like the leadership of every country, is a band of old men. Old men who know they won't be around to see the worst consequences of global warming, but consider that they might well be around long enough to hang from lampposts should the gravy train of economic growth shudder to a halt.

hga 17y ago
Culturally the Chinese seem to care a lot more about their children, you can see this in their ruling class by how many well connected sons are running various enterprises. And culturally I see no reason they'd buy into the West's Malthusian tradition, which goes back to 200 AD (sic). So as noted, they (or their staff) can read the IPCC reports, read the ClimateGate emails and code, etc. etc. and do what's right for their country. Heck, they're not watermelons, e.g. green on outside, red on the inside. They're unabashedly red all the way through, they don't need environmentalism as a stealth path to "socialism", they've got their own version of the real thing!
- gaius 17y ago
  Culturally the Chinese seem to care a lot more about their children, you can see this in their ruling class by how many well connected sons are running various enterprises There's a word for that: nepotism.
  - nitrogen 17y ago
    I don't see any reason for all cultures to have a negative view of nepotism. Were I a parent, I'd certainly try to provide the best possible platform for my children on which to build their careers. I see nepotism as wrong only when it comes at too great a cost to the company or country in which it is practiced, or violates laws or company policies.
    - Tuna-Fish 17y ago
      The reason nepotism is so despised in the west is because we still remember how it worked the last time we tried it -- aristocracy is just the extreme version of nepotism. There is nothing wrong in trying to provide for your child as well as you can, but (s)he shouldn't end in a leadership position just because of his pedigree. Nepotism is generally one of the opposites of meritocracy.

awi 17y ago

The Chinese are acting pragmatically/rationally and in their own short term self interest. If all nations do the same catastrophic climate change is unavoidable, this is the Tragedy of the commons [1]. The negotiations are about setting aside individual nations self interests in order to avoid disaster. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

yummyfajitas 17y ago
I'm curious why you believe catastrophic climate change is unavoidable. Even accepting the "consensus" position, the amount of warming the world will face is not exactly life threatening. Go read an actual IPCC report rather than breathless press releases by greenpeace.
- masomenos 17y ago
  Catastrophic for many, not for all. In particular island nations, and nations already susceptible to drought.
  - hugh_ 17y ago
    Why should a changed climate result in worse droughts in places that are susceptible to drought? Might it not lead to more rain in some drought-stricken places and less rain in some rainy places?
    - arebop 17y ago
      > Why should a changed climate result in worse droughts in places that are susceptible to drought? "Theoretical and climate model studies suggest that, in a climate that is warming due to increasing greenhouse gases, a greater increase is expected in extreme precipitation, as compared to the mean. Hence, anthropogenic influence may be easier to detect in extreme precipitation than in the mean. This is because extreme precipitation is controlled by the availability of water vapour, while mean precipitation is controlled by the ability of the atmosphere to radiate long-wave energy (released as latent heat by condensation) to space, and the latter is restricted by increasing greenhouse gases." --- http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/chapter2.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/chapter2.pdf > Might it not lead to more rain in some drought-stricken places and less rain in some rainy places? Yes, in fact some IPCC analysis suggests that North America will see e.g., increased crop variety and yields by 2080, and also e.g., a 40% decrease in Texan farmers' net income and more agricultural disease. But although climate change isn't uniformly and strictly bad news, it is likely that some places will see catastrophic effects and that in aggregate the changes will be more problematic than beneficial for humans.

Tichy 17y ago

"They know what the likely consequences are. Planetary suicide is not among them." And you know that because...?