3 ms·

What? But China ratified the Kyoto protocol and pledged to reduce their pollution. This can't be true! It's almost as if the country completely disregarded t

What? But China ratified the Kyoto protocol and pledged to reduce their pollution. This can't be true! It's almost as if the country completely disregarded the treaty to grow their economy at any expense.

Symmetry 13y ago
The Kyoto protocol has to do with CO2 emissions, which are very different from the sort of particulate and sulfur pollution described in the article. Also, I have no idea whether China is actually following that treaty, but the reason the US didn't sign was that it did actually allow China to drastically increase the amount of fossil fuels it burns.
- danielweber 13y ago
  Yes, China and India are considered "developing" countries by Kyoto and can produce all the CO2 they want under the treaty, so of course they signed it. EDIT: and, of course, it was about CO2, not particulates. A country can make certain trade-offs about different types of pollution (particulates v. CO2 v. NOX).
  - _delirium 13y ago
    That part doesn't seem too unfair to me, considering that China and India's per-capita emissions are still vastly below U.S. levels. It'd be one thing if they were being allowed higher-than-US-level emissions due to being classified as "developing" countries, but they aren't producing anywhere near that.
    - ams6110 13y ago
      It's the total emissions that matter, not per capita, and China leads the world.
      - _delirium 13y ago
        That's a silly metric, though, because it just depends on where you divide things up politically. If China split into two independent countries, suddenly it wouldn't lead the world anymore, but the environment would not be any better off. Similarly, if Europe merged into a United States of Europe, its emissions would be much higher-ranked (maybe the largest), but it would not actually emit more than currently. The environment does not care at what scale you draw your political borders. Per-capita emissions are one way of accounting for the obvious fact that if Denmark (a nation of 5 million people) generated as much CO2 per year as Germany does (a nation of 80 million people), Denmark would in this hypothetical be more blameworthy, and it would be fair to ask Denmark to reduce its emissions more than Germany, as it would already be emitting far out of proportion to its size. Put differently, if every country reduced their per-capita emissions to China's level, we'd actually be in great shape. That suggests that China is not the main problem.
morkbot 13y ago
It's not that they don't do anything about it. In 2012 they emission of carbon dioxide raised by 3%, but that increase was at least lower than in previous years, where it oscillated around 10% (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770) 29 of 71 nuclear reactors that under currently under construction are being built in China (http://world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-and-Figures/World-Nuclear-Power-Reactors-and-Uranium-Requirements/ http://world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-and-Figures/World-Nuclea...), they also have similar numbers for hydropower (see the previous link).

Symmetry 13y ago

The Kyoto protocol has to do with CO2 emissions, which are very different from the sort of particulate and sulfur pollution described in the article. Also, I have no idea whether China is actually following that treaty, but the reason the US didn't sign was that it did actually allow China to drastically increase the amount of fossil fuels it burns.

danielweber 13y ago
Yes, China and India are considered "developing" countries by Kyoto and can produce all the CO2 they want under the treaty, so of course they signed it. EDIT: and, of course, it was about CO2, not particulates. A country can make certain trade-offs about different types of pollution (particulates v. CO2 v. NOX).
- _delirium 13y ago
  That part doesn't seem too unfair to me, considering that China and India's per-capita emissions are still vastly below U.S. levels. It'd be one thing if they were being allowed higher-than-US-level emissions due to being classified as "developing" countries, but they aren't producing anywhere near that.
  - ams6110 13y ago
    It's the total emissions that matter, not per capita, and China leads the world.
    - _delirium 13y ago
      That's a silly metric, though, because it just depends on where you divide things up politically. If China split into two independent countries, suddenly it wouldn't lead the world anymore, but the environment would not be any better off. Similarly, if Europe merged into a United States of Europe, its emissions would be much higher-ranked (maybe the largest), but it would not actually emit more than currently. The environment does not care at what scale you draw your political borders. Per-capita emissions are one way of accounting for the obvious fact that if Denmark (a nation of 5 million people) generated as much CO2 per year as Germany does (a nation of 80 million people), Denmark would in this hypothetical be more blameworthy, and it would be fair to ask Denmark to reduce its emissions more than Germany, as it would already be emitting far out of proportion to its size. Put differently, if every country reduced their per-capita emissions to China's level, we'd actually be in great shape. That suggests that China is not the main problem.

morkbot 13y ago

It's not that they don't do anything about it. In 2012 they emission of carbon dioxide raised by 3%, but that increase was at least lower than in previous years, where it oscillated around 10% (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770) 29 of 71 nuclear reactors that under currently under construction are being built in China (http://world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-and-Figures/World-Nuclear-Power-Reactors-and-Uranium-Requirements/ http://world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-and-Figures/World-Nuclea...), they also have similar numbers for hydropower (see the previous link).