11 ms·

This is great news. China is and needs to be a major player in all climate change negotiations.

by smb06 10y ago

themodelplumber 10y ago
What was their position prior to this? What changed to make this happen? Really curious.
- pen2l 10y ago
  I am guessing that the fact that they very visibly _see_ pollution might have something to do with it. Those that were in Beijing when things got bad with smog know -- after spending a day outside and coming home, you'd find your nose to have black debris. It's a really unsettling thing especially if you're not used to it. Beijing has gotten a lot better recently, the joke is that it's because the Politburo leaders mostly live in Beijing and if affects them the most.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    > after spending a day outside and coming home, you'd find your nose to have black debris. Travelling in to London zone 1 still does this for me, and yes it was unsettling when I first moved to London...
    - k-mcgrady 10y ago
      This has never happened to me. Is it possible it's nothing to do with being in central London but due to dust and debris in the tube system? The amount of stuff that gets blown around in the air in the deep level lines is blinding if you don't look away as a train approaches.
- pcr0 10y ago
  China used to be the go-to place for cheap labor and manufacturing. Now that they're richer than before, Low-tech and highly pollutive manufacturing has moved to other countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh. [0] They're willing to pay more for the environment.[1] [0]: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/business/international/china-jobs-donald-trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/business/international/chi... [1]: http://qz.com/769957/chinese-people-want-renewable-energy-more-than-anyone-but-nobodys-selling-it-to-them/ http://qz.com/769957/chinese-people-want-renewable-energy-mo...
- jdavis703 10y ago
  Environmental stewardship is actually something that economists refer to as a luxury good --- it's something you'll start purchasing the more disposable money you have. Which makes sense, if I have to choose between starvation and air pollution, I'll take air pollution. Now my belly is full, but I can't breath? Now maybe I'll think about spending some money on cleaner air. That's why I find the West's scolding of developing economies for environmental degradation to be hypocritical. If we really care, then we'll give those countries the money to preserve their environment.
  - smb06 10y ago
    It shouldn't be a zero-sum game where you have to choose between starvation and air pollution. The west did not go about industrial development in an environmentally friendly way and that only increases the onus on the developing countries to learn from their mistakes, instead of repeating them.
    - eyelidlessness 10y ago
      The west hasn't ceased industrial development, and we'd be remiss to pretend that we have. The fact that we've outsourced a lot of the costs to China and then to other countries doesn't change the fact that we extract growth from dumping toxins and pollutants into the environment. If we want to preach learning from mistakes, we should take our privileged position and lead the charge. We do the opposite of that, externalizing the costs of ongoing industrialization to societies that can least afford the costs. The ultimate math is a zero-sum game. Industrialization produces efficiency and waste, and a lot of the meaningful waste comes in the form of harm to our future environment. We haven't actually devised a way to produce industrial goods without producing massive byproducts that harm people somewhere. Until we have, the best course of action we can take is to reduce consumption. But so far we've done the opposite.
      - zhte415 10y ago
        > The ultimate math is a zero-sum game. It is most definitely not a zero sum game so far, but there certainly are losers.
- legulere 10y ago
  China wasn't inclined to join climate deals when the US wouldn't
- barney54 10y ago
  Their is little evidence that their position has changed on the ground. Green peace says China is still building a ton of coal. http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/07/13/china-keeps-building-coal-plants-despite-new-overcapacity-policy/ http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/07/13/china-keeps-buil...
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  Their position on CO2 hasn't changed all that much. The major issue for them is particulates and other side effects from burning coal. However, switching to renewables and/or anything non-coal is something that would also help with the air quality problem they have. And there's been alot of diplomacy pushing them towards that anyway so why not sign up.

This is great news. China is and needs to be a major player in all climate change negotiations.

by smb06 10y ago

This is great news. China is and needs to be a major player in all climate change negotiations.

themodelplumber 10y ago

What was their position prior to this? What changed to make this happen? Really curious.

pen2l 10y ago
I am guessing that the fact that they very visibly _see_ pollution might have something to do with it. Those that were in Beijing when things got bad with smog know -- after spending a day outside and coming home, you'd find your nose to have black debris. It's a really unsettling thing especially if you're not used to it. Beijing has gotten a lot better recently, the joke is that it's because the Politburo leaders mostly live in Beijing and if affects them the most.
- vidarh 10y ago
  > after spending a day outside and coming home, you'd find your nose to have black debris. Travelling in to London zone 1 still does this for me, and yes it was unsettling when I first moved to London...
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    This has never happened to me. Is it possible it's nothing to do with being in central London but due to dust and debris in the tube system? The amount of stuff that gets blown around in the air in the deep level lines is blinding if you don't look away as a train approaches.
pcr0 10y ago
China used to be the go-to place for cheap labor and manufacturing. Now that they're richer than before, Low-tech and highly pollutive manufacturing has moved to other countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh. [0] They're willing to pay more for the environment.[1] [0]: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/business/international/china-jobs-donald-trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/business/international/chi... [1]: http://qz.com/769957/chinese-people-want-renewable-energy-more-than-anyone-but-nobodys-selling-it-to-them/ http://qz.com/769957/chinese-people-want-renewable-energy-mo...
jdavis703 10y ago
Environmental stewardship is actually something that economists refer to as a luxury good --- it's something you'll start purchasing the more disposable money you have. Which makes sense, if I have to choose between starvation and air pollution, I'll take air pollution. Now my belly is full, but I can't breath? Now maybe I'll think about spending some money on cleaner air. That's why I find the West's scolding of developing economies for environmental degradation to be hypocritical. If we really care, then we'll give those countries the money to preserve their environment.
- smb06 10y ago
  It shouldn't be a zero-sum game where you have to choose between starvation and air pollution. The west did not go about industrial development in an environmentally friendly way and that only increases the onus on the developing countries to learn from their mistakes, instead of repeating them.
  - eyelidlessness 10y ago
    The west hasn't ceased industrial development, and we'd be remiss to pretend that we have. The fact that we've outsourced a lot of the costs to China and then to other countries doesn't change the fact that we extract growth from dumping toxins and pollutants into the environment. If we want to preach learning from mistakes, we should take our privileged position and lead the charge. We do the opposite of that, externalizing the costs of ongoing industrialization to societies that can least afford the costs. The ultimate math is a zero-sum game. Industrialization produces efficiency and waste, and a lot of the meaningful waste comes in the form of harm to our future environment. We haven't actually devised a way to produce industrial goods without producing massive byproducts that harm people somewhere. Until we have, the best course of action we can take is to reduce consumption. But so far we've done the opposite.
    - zhte415 10y ago
      > The ultimate math is a zero-sum game. It is most definitely not a zero sum game so far, but there certainly are losers.
legulere 10y ago
China wasn't inclined to join climate deals when the US wouldn't
barney54 10y ago
Their is little evidence that their position has changed on the ground. Green peace says China is still building a ton of coal. http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/07/13/china-keeps-building-coal-plants-despite-new-overcapacity-policy/ http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/07/13/china-keeps-buil...
nikdaheratik 10y ago
Their position on CO2 hasn't changed all that much. The major issue for them is particulates and other side effects from burning coal. However, switching to renewables and/or anything non-coal is something that would also help with the air quality problem they have. And there's been alot of diplomacy pushing them towards that anyway so why not sign up.