Not hiring union workers would seem to be the solution then. Do it the same way Toyota does.
I think everyone should realize the way China does business, everything is open for negotiation on their side later on, so long as it doesnât mean a material commitment now and in return for a material commitment from others now. You saw it in the Olympics, sure if you give us the Olympics we will address human rights, and once they get it, any commitments are shelved.
China (for example) needs to lift those below the poverty line out of poverty, and that means substantial increases in emissions, which the people will thank them for, and that is their priority.
That is what the west did, no?? Developed developed industries for decades and decades, unquestioningly, for their peoples to be able to buy dried potato powder and now the minute China and India and basically BRICS gets onto the industrial revolution bit, the west wags its finger, no???
Letâs pull out some charts and see, who was the biggest polluter until 2 years ago??? Man weâve been through this rigmarole here.
You keep harping on the quadrupling of Indiaâs emissions, and I told you earlier:
Maybe this would refresh the memory a bitâŚif you are willing to really understand the climate change issue. If not, then well letâs just stand around and beat our chests and yell, those Chinese are slimy bastards and those Indians want a free passâŚbooo hoooo boo hoooâŚPropoganda style.
FOr a personal debate and opinion, get your facts right or accept corrections and then go on to extol your opinions, or else you just sound like a well, an ill informed debater.
Welcome divea . First point, yes, thatâs exactly what they did, now extrapolate the world population and calculate how many percent a very small population emits and if everyone were to do the same and calculations on global warming are correct, what do you get?
The second, are you doubting India projects 4x growth?
Also, I will welcome you can correct any propaganda style statements I make, please.
I keep seeing this old fallacy: economic growth = high emissions. We have the technology and knowledge so that this need not be the case.
Well ⌠itâs not really a fallacy. The main problem is this equation: economic growth = always good. Economic growth does basically mean increased rate of resource consumption. We can improve (reduce) our rate of resource use, including energy, for any given output rate, but not by as much as youâd think.
I was reading yesterday that the latest digital ICs (microprocessors and suchlike), which are based on a 28nm feature size, are so fiendishly difficult and expensive to design and set up for manufacture that itâs not worthwhile unless you can guarantee a billion pieces sold. A billion. Do we really, honestly need a billion iPads released out into the wild? Does it actually make life better if people can now sit on the MRT playing Angry Birds on the kind of technology that, 20 years ago, would have given the Department of Defence wet dreams? Apart from anything else, continuous growth in anything is obviously physically impossible. We need to re-assess the dogma that âgrowth is goodâ and find alternative economic models, before nature intervenes and says âOK, thatâs enough, guys. Time to thin the herd a bit.â
I think thatâs easier said than done for GM and Ford.
Iâm deeply disappointed by those advocating expensive policies to actually deliver anything more than thinly veiled vacuous attempts at justifying those costly policies, and I believe global warming is real and something should be done. Hypocrisy is claiming economic growth will not lead to higher emissions.
Divea it seems got a bit bent out of shape that I used India as an example, of course it could be equally applied to Indonesia, the Philippines, Brazil, China, or dozens of other countries. So in my mind her post comes across like a crack addled hopelessly lost I-dont-even-know-what-we-are-discussing type of reply after half a dozen cups of coffee and a gram of amyl nitrate. The issue raised, is rising emissions from developing countries and what is the correct policy to adapt (for diveas benefit, Im not saying India shouldnât do what it is doing, Im sure if I were India Iâd do the same).
Cap and trade which is the current conventional wisdom, hasnât been discussed. Increased prices as a result of either cap and trade or a direct tax on fuel and the economic consequences has not been discussed. How much needs to be spent on mitigation to other countries, and the economic consequences of that seem to be ignored. The best I have heard is the patronizing âthink of it as an investment in the futureâ reply.
Let me start off by saying that I very much believe in global warming. Iâll also state that I believe cap-and-trade is a total scam. Is cap-and-trade really the âconventional wisdom?â Iâm old enough to remember where and when cap-and-trade originated - it was a conservative big business idea, promulgated by Wall Street in the 1990s because it looked like a great money-making scheme. The Economist magazine (which I used to read) was most enthusiastic about this idea, at the same time they were ridiculing the whole notion of global warming. They didnât believe in global warming, but they did believe in stock market money-making schemes. Just like trading derivatives, it doesnât matter if the underlying âvalueâ of âcarbon creditsâ is fictitious - the idea of a Ponzi scheme is to make money, never mind that what youâre trading in isnât real.
Itâs ironic that today, cap-and-trade is regarded as a wacky idea of liberals - an Al Gore/George Soros scheme in cahoots with climatologists to take over the universe and impose a âNew World Order.â Itâs probably got something to do with gay marriage and Obamaâs birth certificate too.
Carbon taxes - I can see some value in heavily taxing gas guzzlers to push people towards more fuel-efficient vehicles. However, itâs a stop-gap measure at best, not a long-term solution.
As for that elusive long-term solution, I donât expect it to be easy. A nice start would be achieving zero population growth, but I am not optimistic - weâre on target to have 10 billion people by 2050 (there were 2.5 billion when I was born). Of course, we may be back down to 2.5 billion by 2100, but not because of a falling birth rate, but rather, an escalating death rate, caused by our failure to deal with global warming.
Among those who seriously want to solve the problem, there is an unfortunate division into two camps, pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear. Iâm not shy of admitting Iâm in the pro-nuclear camp. The anti-nuclear camp thinks we can achieve zero-carbon with wind and solar power, and I actually wish they were correct - but I believe they are wrong.
More than likely, weâll go on denying the problem because itâs so much easier than trying to solve it. Judging from some of the comments in this thread, denial seems to be very popular. And that âsolutionâ will work for awhile. If youâre already in your 50s or 60s, maybe you can squeak by and die before global warming plunges the world into crisis. If youâre young or have kids (and actually care what happens to them), then you ought to be thinking about how to solve this.
Unfortunately, history suggests youâre spot-on. I personally think some variant cap-and-trade might work, but only because (as you point out) it enables TPTB to make shitloads of money. Again, historically, the only time things actually improve is when TPTB are guaranteed shitloads of money for making things better. OTOH I think cap-and-trade is fundamentally misguided in that it assumes business-as-usual, except with (slightly) lower emissions, and therefore pretty much the same level of general consumption and waste as before. With 10 billion people, weâll be right back where we started.
No, of course not. Iâll take an unbelievable load of work, and it pisses me off when governments offer grants and whatnot for technology that (in some facile alternative universe inside their heads) will make everything all right again, with minimal effort. We will basically have to put in as much work as we avoided doing during the last fifty years. Honestly, humans are pretty daft: over several million years of evolution, we STILL havenât figured out thereâs no free lunch, even though weâre fond of telling each other exactly that.
The corollary is that lots of countries which are full of young people with nothing better to do except shoot up and/or shoot AKMs could benefit mightily. Adopting âgreenâ technology and modern farming methods in those countries could push their economies into the stratosphere, while the West runs around chasing its tail. Unfortunately, thatâs not going to happen while those countries are run by peevish little nobodies like Robert Mugabe or Than Shwe, holding out their begging bowls with one hand and counting their diamonds with the other.
I agree with both those posts, and fear itâs even worse than that. If you look at Americaâs , Europeâs and Japanâs economy, they are all heavily in debt. Austerity measures are the order of the day, longer work till retirement, lower benefits, higher unemployment. In my mind TPTB have been sucking up to business interests for far too long, passing laws that in effect takes peoples money and pass it on to corporations.
There are many examples, Pharmaceuticals and the patent system, or one I was thinking about the other day, how is it in todayâs day and age, with every credit card purchase we hand over 2% of the total sum of the purchase, which might be a lot if you buy a car. Its completely possible to create a safe way to interact with banks, and portable devices that should eliminate this 2% purchasing tax that gets given straight to the credit card companies, completely automated with no expense to the bank. Legalize drugs, or at least marijuana and stop spending tons trying to police a failed prohibition, policing costs, lawyer costs, court costs and prison costs, and for what, to stop someone smoking some pot?
You might say what does any of this have to do with climate change, but any serious attempt to curb emissions will cost the global economy hugely, and the countries that are supposed to be leading the way are completely broke. People are already up in arms at the increases of energy prices, a fuel tax, or removal of tax breaks for the oil companies and energy companies will have a very negative effect. Iâm really for addressing the issue of climate change, but at this moment, fixing their broken economies should take priority.
:roflmao: This takes talk shop to a new level. everyoneâs still discussing Kyoto 
Cancun and maybe Durban whilst delegates are meeting twice a month and frantically ironing out issues (in NY at the moment) for Rio in June. But all our resident experts, have not even mentioned Rio or are even concerned about the agendas then. I guess once Rio is over, THEN everyone will have reams to say about how bad India and China are, coz for that you donât have to know ANYTHING.
For folks who are interested in the subject, thisis a good read.
Divea, I donât understand your point. Nobody here is really mentioning Rio, or the other climate-change conferences, because all they are is an excuse for politicians to enjoy some nice canapes, and maybe a bit of sunbathing. The blog you mention has this to say:
Well, hereâs some news: they donât have any control over them, and in the next sentence the blogger helpfully explains why:
This is the basic problem. Fix the economic issues - the extremely poor economic efficiency of our current way of doing things - and the emissions will take care of themselves. Mick said something similar back there.
So ⌠what are you saying? That India and China are not disasters waiting to happen? It is nobodyâs fault but their own if they have made conscious policy decisions to install outdated, wasteful, expensive systems instead of cheaper, better, sustainable ones. Indian researchers, especially, have come up with some immensely clever system designs lately for (e.g.) irrigation and farmland repair. But nobodyâs using it because the Indian government is still paying farmers to do things the wrong way. We live on one planet and we each have stewardship for our own bit of it. Rather than finger-pointing and complaining about how unfair everything is, it would be nice if people could agree on a mutually-beneficial plan of action, and then get on with it. That means the little people, not govât penpushers: because it is they who actually have the choice whether to spray their food with banned pesticides, or to buy a Tata Nano (which they will only be able to drive at 3mph because Indian cities have no functioning roads), or to build their houses out of energy-sucking concrete instead of using modern technology.
Divea, in the past people did what they did because they did not know that it was bad. Now that we do know, should we allow anyone to continue doing the bad shit? No, we should not.
We used to keep slaves (well, not me specifically, Iâm too young, and probably not you either). But plenty of people in India and in China and in Europe and in America etc. did in the past, before we woke up and stamped it out. Are you suggesting now that those who did not keep slaves in the past but want cheap labour now, should have the right to keep slaves? That is a morally equivalent argument, and itâs wrong.
No, India, China, and Brazil, and all the other little developing countries we often forget about should absolutely not have the right to pollute the world even further than it is. How the hell can you ask for that, given what we all know and see is the problem, and given that the technology exists to do it differently.
What an opportunity to develop something better, rather than have to swim in increasing amounts of crap in the atmosphere and wherever. We canât afford to miss it.
Youâre the one with children, not me. You should be worried for the future of your descendants, in a way that i donât need to be but still am. How ironic!
I was reading something today that said since the onset of the Holocene (i.e. the last 12000 years) the average rise in the Earthâs temperature has been 0.067 degrees per 100 years but in the last 100 years it has gone up 0.6 degrees. That is the data from the ice cores. It gives a spread of 8 degrees Celsius b/w the last ice age and where we are at today and shows an increase of 9 times the average increase in the last 100 years. That is obviously a very rapid increase in temperature. There may have been other periods in the last 12000 years that also increased rapidly. It didnât mention those.
I agree o great mind!! More than you would know, (No need to invoke kids. I always find that way below the belt just like you would if I told you what the hell do you know about kids since you donât have any. So lets not go there. 
) but at the same time stop all machines in Europe and America. Just stop all the packaged food. Stop all the continuing pollution. Let the west just stop all pollution, let them give BRICS a little bit of margin??? No? Equal opportunity to developing nations and all that.
Urodacus you and I both know, climate change not unlike disarmament is crap talk. They donât want India and Pak to have Nuclear capability but will not let go of theirs. Simple. mine may not be the popular sentiment among white foreigners, but it doesnât mean I am wrong.
Why did Canada opt out?? Where was its conscience to pollute less??? Saying India and China are polluting so we can make merry is HA!!! Clean up at home first honey, and then be a role model. Donât friggin overshoot your targets and then cry about Indiaâs projected ones. The US had its chance to development right?? They were the largest polluters until two years ago??? Not one American thought of its children??? BS BS.
If you are as smart enough as I think you are, and I am sure you have the resources to know that, then youâll also know that Climate Change however real is politicised and is DEFINITELY geared to stop industrialization in the developing world. When shove comes to push no one is going to do anything, but it makes more sense, good media to say âah those Asian polluterâ just like Ah those bloody Iraqis had nuclear weapons, but Korea has them too, we donât need to send our troops there. If there is Hypocrisy, it is well among the monied nations, the rich ones, whether you talk about selling AIDS meds in Africa at higher prices or Climate change.
Seriously 
as expats I thought you guys had better knowledge of these regions and an objective view on policies.
It seems to me, Divea, that youâre the one regurgitating received wisdom, courtesy of tub-thumping politicians. This, for example:
And why would you want to industrialize? Look at the mess itâs got us into - and we have no way out. It is not an issue of will or conscience. We continue to pollute because we are utterly dependent, even for the basics of life, on our machines. We are hamsters in a wheel, trapped by the system we built around ourselves. Our entire economy is controlled by huge companies that provide our energy and food, because we allowed them to.
No, Iâm not asking for your sympathy. We made our bed, and now we lie in it; and besides, you believe we are rich, because our admen have told you so, and therefore itâs true. The point is that you - India, for example - still have a choice. YOU are the ones who need to be setting the example. It is you will see the greatest benefits for the least investment. You do not need to make the mistakes we did. You can do it differently. Or, if you want, you can âindustrializeâ, and drop your country into a big, smoking hole in the ground. Your choice.
You are poor because you believe you are poor. America is rich because it believes it is rich. Such is the power of fiat currency. India, and other developing countries, have the biggest opportunity in the history of the planet: they can take the lead, and profit massively by doing so. But they donât want to, because theyâre still waiting for their colonial masters to give them alms. Unfortunately, your masters donât have anything to give except knowledge and the benefit of hindsight; and the developing world is still giving away their riches - the contents of their forests and rivers - to anyone who comes asking, because their masters have told them thatâs how a country can âdevelopâ. Get up off your knees, and take your proper place.
Listen, I am just responding to all the above 'we are superior and look how China and India are KNOWINGLY polluting (whilst we are doing it too but you know we can coz we have been at it for 200 years). IMO What India should do vis a vis pollution is continue its growth, REALLY lessen pollution as much as it can and give a Ratsâ arse to what the west is carping about climate change. They brought it on the world table, let 'em deal with it. But the UN doesnât function that way so we have to get onto detailed negotiations and in the finer print what does get worked in is other issues like the patenting of natural products like turmeric and MANY other trade issues, whilst pollution keeps hogging the headlines is all I am saying, and yes Asians are horrible works at a lot many levels. Climate change is a big arm twister, and a bartering platform and it only works if the world opinion is against developed countries.
About regurgitated wisdom, 
.
well, Iâm just glad Iâve not got any kids then if that is the attitude that wins out in the end.
develop at all costs, bugger the future.
I find this sort of thing unutterably depressing. It seems to be a common theme in developing countries. âHey, you westerners poisoned your air and your soil, made yourselves dependent on hostile foreign powers for food and warmth, and left yourselves drowning in debt! We want some of that too, and ainât nobody going to stop us! What do we want? Poverty and breathing problems! When do we want it? Now!â
One half of my family is Sri Lankan. A while ago I read an MSc research paper (a UK university - I forget which) written by an architecture student who had gone to Sri Lanka to promote sustainable building design. He found the biggest obstacle was that people were obsessed with concrete, even though nobody had the necessary skills or knowledge to use it correctly, and it was next-to-impossible to get quality materials. The reason was, poor people had some twilight-zone conception that rich westerners lived in concrete houses, and therefore if they built their houses out of concrete, however shoddily, they would be one step further towards the lifestyle of a rich person. I can completely get this: my dad is an insufferable snob who thinks appearances are everything. Heâs the sort of person who will buy a made-in-China designer fake rather than a good quality no-name. The tragedy of that particular situation is that the student was working with a Sri Lankan team (they were the ones who advised him about the cultural barriers) to develop something that would actually work in that locale. Their designs would have been cheaper to build, cheaper to run, more attractive, more comfortable, and longer-lasting. But nobody wanted them because they were made of rammed earth and wood. Monkeys live in the woods, and poor people live in earth buildings. Rich people live in crumbling, stained, concrete shitholes.
I get Diveaâs point about developing countries doing their own thing; but the irony is, theyâre not doing anything of the sort. Theyâre copying (from The West) some ghastly hall-of-mirrors version of what they imagine development is. When those arrogant Westerners remind them that they (the West) have already been there, done that, and maybe there are better ways of doing things, they say âand WTF do you know about it, eh?â.