Comments on: On climate, US gives China a free pass (or not) – updated http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/06/12/china-usa-binding-targets/ Global risks and how to respond to them, edited by Alex Evans and David Steven Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:49:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anthony Mitchell http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/06/12/china-usa-binding-targets/comment-page-1/#comment-11301 Anthony Mitchell Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:11:45 +0000 http://www.globaldashboard.org/?p=9995#comment-11301 The Western nations could benefit from taking responsibility for their own failures to use the tools available to them, in a non-adversarial manner, to achieve their stated policy goals. The Western nations could benefit from taking responsibility for their own failures to use the tools available to them, in a non-adversarial manner, to achieve their stated policy goals.

]]> By: Hartmut Rast http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/06/12/china-usa-binding-targets/comment-page-1/#comment-11294 Hartmut Rast Sat, 13 Jun 2009 09:09:51 +0000 http://www.globaldashboard.org/?p=9995#comment-11294 Seeing the new installations of coal power plants in China I have my serious doubts that the government really wants to reduce CO2 emissions. The Chinese are only delivering lip-service as well as the western politicians so that everyone can show his efforts to find a solution without loosing voters. What sense does the Kioto protocol or Copenhagen agreements do if you reflect that they can still increase their emissons to a certain level in the future. Water levels haven't risen enough and droughts aren't effecting western communities hence effective measures are still kept on hold for national egoistic reasons. Seeing the new installations of coal power plants in China I have my serious doubts that the government really wants to reduce CO2 emissions. The Chinese are only delivering lip-service as well as the western politicians so that everyone can show his efforts to find a solution without loosing voters. What sense does the Kioto protocol or Copenhagen agreements do if you reflect that they can still increase their emissons to a certain level in the future. Water levels haven’t risen enough and droughts aren’t effecting western communities hence effective measures are still kept on hold for national egoistic reasons.

]]> By: Anthony Mitchell http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/06/12/china-usa-binding-targets/comment-page-1/#comment-11284 Anthony Mitchell Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:36:01 +0000 http://www.globaldashboard.org/?p=9995#comment-11284 I’m confused as to why the United States, through its participation in multilateral institutions—especially the World Bank, has historically been so supportive of China moving to a high-carbon economy with minimal environmental protections. During the Clinton administration, when I was working on coal projects in India, the World Bank was providing significant assistance to the coal sector in China, assistance that enabled a proliferation of coal fired power plants. I’m confused as to why the United States, through its participation in multilateral institutions—especially the World Bank, has historically been so supportive of China moving to a high-carbon economy with minimal environmental protections.

During the Clinton administration, when I was working on coal projects in India, the World Bank was providing significant assistance to the coal sector in China, assistance that enabled a proliferation of coal fired power plants.

]]>