This website is no longer actively maintained
Some material and features may be unavailable

December 15, 2009
Debating aid to world’s top greenhouse gas emitter: China

China and the U.S. are involved in a showdown at the international climate change conference in Copenhagen. At the heart of the dispute, the U.S. wants China to cut its greenhouse gas emissions more than China has proposed, but China wants to be treated as a developing country. Orville Schell, the director of the Center on US-China Relations at the Asia Society, joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss the issue.

Listen to Martin Savidge host Worldfocus RadioRed China Goes Green. He is joined by Greenpeace China’s Rashid Kang in Beijing and the Center for American ProgressJulian Wong in Washington D.C.

Should China get international financial aid for its efforts to curb pollution?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please remember to be respectful and on-point in your comments. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.

bookmark    print

Comments

40 comments

#40

Well… This is a deep subject…pause…have you heard the joke about the coastal property owner?
The irony of it all? Regarding glass ceilings and the analogies of the emerging global issues; -is-

The draw to be near the beauty of our coastland, and the businesses and properties with millions of dollars at stake, all have a one in six chance equivalent to a roll of the dice…..to be washed into the sea. SEE: OUR HOST’S SWAT! (below)

Not to exclude or insult native coastal populations granted with that luxury.

The irony is that there are poor people living in the heartlands, that will never get out of the dusty ruts they have accepted…better off than scared millionaires with coastal liabilities. Ahhem. Who owns these “moral dillemma” losses?

Preferably not the complicit fat cats. Have you watched any re-runs of GreenPeace launch pilots in international waters, being struck by fifty-five gallon drums being dropped on them?
Bombs away…oops, too late now!

#39

I do not believe that copenhagan meeting will produce best results if rich nations and under development can agree to reduce carbon emission , china and United states should take big role to combat global warming by reduce carbon emission I have mix feeling global warming summit will end with empty hand results with out any achievement
As politicians reach out their conclusion on friday no doubt in mind that most likely speech will focus on political point of view rather that looking out current situation of global disaster according to expert

#38

Don’t think of the financial aid to China as ” for doing whats morally right “, think of it as penalty for what’s been done wrong by the developed countries – emitting 4 times more than the China per capita.

#37

Absolutely NOT!!! No other country gets financial aid for doing whats morally right why should the Chinese. The Chinese, US, India, Russia and Western/Eastern Europe need to develop internal systems to deal with climate issues. But to reward the Chinese for not polluting is like subsidizing failed policies. China is for China and they could care less about the responsibilities that go with being an industrialized nation. They want it all (100% in their favor) Jim @ USA

#36

Lee Davis:”I believe those profit from polution, Should pay the Bill in the country where the Polution Takes place.”
Yes, but the question is about the stock of polution in the air due to the developed countries over the last 200 years. US already made clear it is not responsible to pay for that. Therefore, charging a fee over the new polution will be extremely unfair to those still are developing. Right?

#35

I believe those profit from polution, Should pay the Bill in the country where the Polution Takes place. I think UN should have the power to charge A transaction Tax, on Bank Transactions to fund Alternatives, Wind, Solar, and other Tecknologies. Each country could apply for grants to fund clean Energy.

#34

In addition and more specifically than superpower extremism, its free trade and profit maximization corporate model are irresponsible, anti-social, anti-democratic, and promote a big business model that is biased against its own communities. Europe’s stakeholder capitalism and social welfare model is sounder, and the employee-ownership cooperative business model is soundest of all. Denmark and Germany have lead the world with approximately 20% and 6% levels of renewable energy respectively. William Greider treats these issues comprehensively in his book The Soul of Capitalism, as does Richard Gephardt in his book An Even Better Place, Marjorie Kelly in The Divine Right of Capital, and Jeff Gates in The Ownership Solution.

#33

The U.S. has no basis to fund another nation’s renewable energy development, perhaps least of all China. The U.S. has squandered its former democratic excellence through superpower extremism, and needs to muster whatever funds it can for its own renewable energy development, decentralized models, job creation, along with overcoming the big corporate entrenchment and subsidies it pays to the fossil fuel industry.

#32

Of Course China should get aid, it is only trieing
to moderize and catch up with America and Europe.

#31

No

#30

Yes. I have mixed feelings toward China in it’s polution footprint.The US wants china to adhere to strict guidelines involving greenhouse emisions. The US on the other hand has had it’s hayday in the industrial revoulition with no restraints. It was not until the cites in the US were so polluted and your eyes were burning and our lungs ached that we started to do something about it. America totaly devistating forest, hydro mining,poluting rivers and lakes, oceans etc. durring the Eighteen and Nineteen hundreds, all the way to the Sixtees. Now we look to China to give us all the things we think we need for a cheap price. In the mean time the industrial mechine has been switched to China with all the polution that comes with it. China ought to raise the prices of there goods to pay for any polution cost as long as the world wants to get a free ride from China’s cheap goods. There is a sequel to this senario. The world knew about polution in the Sixtes. Top economic powers were doing something about it at that time. I can’t belive that China was oblivious to the fact. To build a new coal fired generation plant one every two months,if the news media is right. It is not acceptable in this modern world. China has to face up to better standards. You can not call China a third world Nation although the people they hire come from third world comunites and providnences. Possibly China is stroking the rest of the World and trying to get them to pay for there clean up and crying Thitd World Nation. Yes.

#29

Yes and No. I have mixed feelings toward China in it’s polution footprint.The US wants china to adhere to strict guidelines involving greenhouse emisions. The US on the other hand has had it’s hayday in the industrial revoulition with no restraints. It was not until the cites in the US were so polluted and your eyes were burning and our lungs ached that we started to do something about it. America totaly devistating forest, hydro mining,poluting rivers and lakes, oceans etc. durring the Eighteen and Nineteen hundreds, all the way to the Sixtees. Now we look to China to give us all the things we think we need for a cheap price. In the mean time the industrial mechine has been switched to China with all the polution that comes with it. China ought to raise the prices of there goods to pay for any polution cost as long as the world wants to get a free ride from China’s cheap goods. There is a sequel to this senario. This is why I say Yes ans No. The world knew about polution in the Sixtes. Top economic powers were doing something about it at that time. I can’t belive that China was oblivious to the fact. To build a new coal fired generation plant one every two months,if the news media is right. It is not acceptable in this modern world. China has to face up to better standards. You can not call China a third world Nation although the people they hire come from third world comunites and providnences. Possibly China is stroking the rest of the World and trying to get them to pay for there clean up and crying Thitd World Nation. Yes and No. ?

#28

Any nation that has a nuclear weapon should not be considered a “developing” country. If you can produce multiple weapons, you can finally start calling yourself a developed nation. If you can manage the debt of other countries, you can call yourself developed. If you can shoot a satellite out of the sky, you can consider yourself developed!

#27

No. Transferring money from the developed nations to the developing ones may make us feel good but the money always ends up in the hands of corrupt officials. Global warming will be solved like all human problem, with the development of new technologies. As China factories will manufacture the products using these technologies they will have access to them first. Right now they are a leader in the making of LED lights and solar cell.

#26

All of the mandates to study the phenomenon of the “Glass Ceiling” in the United States from 1991 to 1995; Apply to global issues now. Not just individuals trying to catch up to “The Fat Cats.”

The metrics that controlled what was accepted for those trying to be their best and, being shoved backwards now apply towards ecological issues.

The findings of the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission blamed “Disaggregation, inadequate or inconsistent monitoring, reporting and dissemination of information relevent to the issues of why individuals failed to break these barriers.” Why? First: A difference barrier… Second; Lack of educational resources… Third; Ambiguities must be immediately confronted with hard evidence, because if left un-refuted, they become factual and able to be repeated without unpopular sentiment. Hard-wired and keyed to a physiology of reinforced acceptance.

Now for the kicker: Now all nations, ecologists, businessmen and women are poised looking at a “Glass Ceiling” that we now must reverse our sociological acceptance to push, until we rise up and crack or break through an -intangible- layer.

As we weaken this intangible barrier, we now are as dumb as flies, that do not know that a vaccume cleaner will kill it…because their physiology is mapped by evolution to avoid the pressure wave of its host’s swat… Man is no different, our physiology has most of the same DNA, we cannot respond to the reversal of a tangible threat.

To be able to visualize all of the nuances and interpret all of the signals and metrics of man, ecology, technology, time, law and mortality of all the above, one now must be master of all these tools at once. We are trained to serve the parcels we hold paper to. Partisan Intelligence.

If we cannot depend on a sound connecting link to create the synergy needed to understand the un-seen, when we cannot assemble the seen, we must learn how to take apart the pieces of the puzzle, the completed format, then stack them in layers to make their contents closer together. Screw the fancy little compound curves… This is called Science. Transgressing barriers in new ways. This is taking the time to look up blind alleys to see if they are actually blind…

Emergence is a newfound science, identified by the sum of curiousity and…the the sum of vanity. When the global glass ceiling is concerned, no book, no belief, or ablative avarice will satiate the needs required of a breached sky. Sorry about the long story.

My Bad…

#25

I think that every contry should help China with there carbon emishions because the whole world needs to reduce. But they should only get money if they use it only for greener things

#24

All countries should pay to reduce greenhouse gases. A formula using GDP, carbon footprint, as a base should be determined to tax each country to reduce greenhouse gasses. I would assume this is what they are working on in Copenhagen. Poor countries need to participate to benefit from the tax. Monitoring progress is essential and needs to be part of the package. (how can we determine progress without monitoring.)

#23

It is ridiculous to say that developing countries have polluted in the past and hence they need to pay the developing countries for reducing global warming. As long as everyone is using technologies that cause pollution we are in it together. Developed countries have polluted int past because they invented / implemented technologies that led to industrial revolution which also caused pollution. If developing countries had invented any such technologies even they would have used and caused pollution. The notion that somebody need to give some money for some one else to control their pollution is a ploy by developing countries to grab some free money. If this money goes to the developing world it would be devoured by the corruption prevalent in those countries.

#22

Since there is no scientific proof of the AGW theory that human activity and CO2 are causing the climate to warm, (Note well, the climate stopped warming in 1998), the IPCC, bureaucrats,environmentalists and their zealot scientists have created the greatest hoax in the history of the world. The intent is for the few to obtain control on total energy and to
redistribute the wealth of nations. The recent release of the emails and files of the CRU show without a doubt that the man made theory, man made assumptions, man made computer programs, man made temperature manipulation of raw data are the real cause of man made global warming.The IPCC should be disbanded, the Kyoto Accord consigned to the trash bin and no monies paid as tribute or blackmail to China or any developing country to combat a non-problem.

#21

Absolutely Not. Of course, if China wants to buy more Treasury bonds at a premium, I’m sure the US could had out some stimulus funds to them.

#20

I wish I could tell my bank: hey, since you have so much money, I’m not gonna pay my mortgage.

#19

NO, THEY DO NOT NEED MONEY FROM ANYONE ELSE. ALL COUNTRIES SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME.

#18

Are they kidding? A big NO!China is hardly a third world economy.It is one of the few economies that continued to grow during the current world-wide economic downturn which seriously effected all of the “developed” countries.In the end, it will be the US taxpayer, already overstretched, who would have to pay for this.Here is what the reality of what that would mean: the US would increase its already crushing national debt by borrowing the money from China to then give it back to the Chinese to pay for their climate change programs which will enhance their industries making them even more competitive against ailing American industrial companies trying to compete with the Chinese companies in the international market.At the same time we would be paying the Chinese interest on these funds. How nuts is that? Rather than lending us the money to pay them, the Chinese should use a portion of their massive cash reserves derived by a massive favorable trade balance to pay for their national campaign. China is not Bangladesh and shouldn’t be allowed to pretend it is.As for real third world economies, I do believe that they should be offered assistance, but that assistance should come to each of those nations from their prior colonial masters (UK,France,Belgium,Holland,etc) which had exploited those nations for their own economic gain & whose nationals in many cases still control the natural wealth of those nations.Now is the time for that payback those developing nations richly deserve.

#17

China has been destroying Tibet’s environment and eco-system recklessly since China invaded TIBET.

#16

Absolutely not China should come out of its shell and stand up for who it is, as Long as it wants to display weapons of Mass destruction then it is in the forefront of forgoing strong countries and has communities which are equal to the United States, it is time for all goods shipped from China to pay Duties equal to the Countries that ship into China itself, Yes it is time for china to stop crawling and stop crying Poverty and hold its head up high, walk with the rest of the International communities who cares for the smaller countries! In a few words “It is time for China to Grow Up!”

#15

I have a rule of thumb: every time I hear someone says China is the biggest emitter, I know he is not serious about climate change.

#14

China has been playing all of its international economic cards brilliantly. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how they have skewing all rules in their favor over the last 25 years: 1.) state controlled exchange rates artificially favoring their exports 2.) current cash account reserves that are the envy of the world 3.) demanding a controlling stake in all foreign investments in China 4.) complete disobedience of all international patent and anti-pirating rules, 5) non-importation of foreign goods, etc… They are a developed country; it is self evident to everyone who has been there. They have poverty, so does most of the world. They need to be forced to spend their ample cash reserves and we need to review and tighten up our trade rules and regulations, and stop the pecuniary bleeding of our hard earned wealth.

#13

I think that the world collectively should assist any country willing to lean green, that doesn’t have the means to themselves. Not to snub China, but they have the means. We are all inthis together and as long as it stays on the back burner, the more we burn our future.

#12

Are you kidding? China is gearing up to be he leader in production of solar panels, as well as being the largest processor of rare earth metals, used for the production of magnets, think electric hybrid motors and wind generators.
They hold our debt, shame on us, and are poised make greater fortunes in zero emission energy products.
The fact that they are more than willing to burn whatever fuel they choose to or dam any rivers accomplish that goal is immaterial to their government. They will make the profit, aren’t we helping that?

#11

CO2 Emissions Per Capita, 2006:

US: 18.67
Russia: 11.03
Japan: 10.14
EU: 7.84
China: 4.57 (Ranked 96)
World Average: 4.18

This tells how biased so called “Free Press” is.

#10

It’s time for the developed countries to pay up for the emission they incurred during their development.

#9

China has more than enough money to pay for its own projects. By the way, the notion of “climate change” is an unnecessary excess, which even if it is true, has become a focal point for that political ilk which is against doing anything about the environment. It might be helpful to state the minimum requirement, which is pollution. Pollution is a fact while global warming is a theory. All developed nations which create pollution need to be working feverishly before now to control/eliminate pollution. Many things can be done about that, including mandating mass transit only in urban areas and placing closed system filters on factories. Petroleum can be replaced with existing technology engines than work on compressed air, hydrogen, and methane, as well as batteries. All that is lacking is a will to problem solving in politicians worldwide.

#8

China has way over $2 trillion US$ in their foreign reserves, likely more than the foreign reserves held by the rest of the world. China instead of being a receiver of funds should be a major donor. It is about time China acts responsibly.

#7

You are predisposed to harp on the fact that China is the world’s greatest producer of CO2 but why not tell the whole story? On a per capita basis, the United States generates three times the amount of CO2 as does China. Why do you show bias in news reporting? On this basis the US should recieve financial aid too.

#6

The Chinese communists have always displayed nothing but selfish traits. If China is asking money to reduce its pollution maybe it should also think of giving money to the other countries whose technologies they are using for its development and selfish gains.

#5

Definitely not. They should take up more responsiblities as a nation, and they can well afford it.

#4

No. China has the largest trade surplus in the history of the world, gathered up in part because of an artificially undervalued renminbi. It is China that should itself be supplying developing countries with environmental aid. In addition, China needs to allow verification of what it promises in terms of environmental reform.

#3

no money should be given to any country before aid is needed , the USA borrows money , how can China expect the US to pay for aid on top of our financial woes paying our debt .

#2

December 15-2009:

TO: letters@worldfocus.org

Should China Ask For Help To Reduce Green House Gas Emissions?

The Chinese are quite capable to reducing Green House Gases, in the time that they speculate would be feasible to their ongoing internal development.

As for asking for help or aid. I haven’t heard them do so far, because as a very proud people. They would prefer not to ask for help, unless in a dire situation.

Derryck.
New York City.

#1

China has positioned itself to drain international resources to fill its coffers for what amounts to a massive increase in its carbon emissions. China should be included as a developed nation and reduce its production of non-essential trinkets and toys as well and its Carbon Emissions. Is there any way we can reach an agreement without China always having to reap a huge profit of the backs of the rest of the world ?

Produced by Creative News Group LLC     ©2018 WNET.ORG     All rights reserved

Distributed by American Public Television