Is China showing more leadership than America in the fight against climate change?

[kristopher]

China and the US
This house believes that China is showing more leadership than America in the fight against climate change.

'The Economist' hosts an online debate of the proposition, with 73% in agreement and only 27% voting no.

http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/158&sa_campaign=debateseries/debate36/alert/round/rebuttal

[joshcryer]

1. We'll see.

I find this observation sobering: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i9TuMrvrknh-ZXwqmZ2N-48kff3wD9C84RQG0

[kristopher]

2. We'll see what?

The Economist debate centers around a question not addressed by your link; is China actually doing more to provide leadership for action on climate change than the US?

Since you have no grasp of the mechanics of how action can actually be accomplished then I suppose it's natural that you are given instead to hyperventilating over inappropriate, meaningless links.

[joshcryer]

4. What are you talking about? We won't see if China "shows leadership" for a little while.

In the meantime no "leadership" by the top emitters is going to achieve very much at reducing emissions to acceptable levels.

Unofficial calculations by U.N. climate officials said the move would put China on a path to reduce all its greenhouse gas emissions about 13 percent from "business as usual," the level those emissions would have reached without any action.

I know you find this meaningless, but, well, you actually don't give a shit that your grandchildren have to deal with the mess you created for them.

[kristopher]

5. As I said..

you are not one to let new information get in the say of your delusional preconceptions.

In fact we do have a good deal of concrete information, but you must be able to understand its significance to process it.

That leaves you out.

[joshcryer]

7. So you are saying China will lower its emissions acceptably?

Enough to "take charge" and "show the world just how to lower emissions" in order to avoid high temperature changes?

Or are you just rambling and insulting as usual?

[kristopher]

8. Are you just making up quotes as usual?

""take charge""

""show the world just how to lower emissions""

[joshcryer]

9. Not at all, I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "leadership."

China's emissions will continue to grow for decades.

[kristopher]

10. If you bothered to read the article you'd know...

what is meant by leadership.

The economic investment in renewables that is happening in China is going to make a much larger impact on reducing carbon emissions than all the other things the rest of the world has done since Rio combined.

[joshcryer]

11. I did read it.

I consider leadership to be something more than simply acting within the interests of the market, paid for largely by consumers abroad and governments. China must show that they are going to curb their emissions dramatically in the coming years. They have not done that.

[kristopher]

12. Then you aren't interested in the actual discussion

You just want an opportunity to post another screed demonstrating how ignorant you are of of the mechanics of how action can actually be accomplished.

Uninformed opinion noted and disregarded.

[joshcryer]

13. Action to prevent us from hitting 4-5C is not happening. Please show me where it is.

I would be encouraged by such efforts, but as of now those efforts do not exist.

[kristopher]

14. If you understood what "action" means I would.

In fact I have; but you are too hysterical to focus.

[joshcryer]

15. Got a source rather than simple posturing?

I'd love a source. With projections. And actual expenditures. No "oh we could." Actual evidence that we are spending the 8% global GDP necessary.

edit: btw, when Copenhagen is over I plan to post excel graphs of the resulting CO2 emissions committed to by the various nations. That's when we'll see who is showing leadership.

[kristopher]

16. As I said, if you knew what "action" actually meant...

Any fool can post a graph Josh; it is the content and the associated analysis that is what gives the graph meaning. Given your track record, I suspect your "graph" will have little.

[joshcryer]

17. So no sources, more posturing. Void of anything substantiative, as usual.

I'd love to know of these peer reviewed papers you've authored.

[kristopher]

18. Wouldn't you, though...

[joshcryer]

19. Is this where I call you a liar like you did with me?

:shrug:

[kristopher]

20. I don't have a history of writing false things, you do.

[joshcryer]

21. Calling me a liar without any evidence is not an instance of you writing a false thing?

:shrug:

[kristopher]

22. No, it was based on evidence in your past and your post.

I'm not infallible, but I am honest.

[joshcryer]

23. So are you going to post these "papers" you authored?

Or are you going to keep posturing?

[kristopher]

24. I brought up my authorship once...

to put my remarks to GG in perspective.

You've brought it up about 4 times. Who is posturing?

[joshcryer]

25. The person who can't provide a simple link?

:shrug:

I would never make such a claim without providing evidence. I post with my real name.

[kristopher]

26. Take it or leave it.

Your opinion isn't that important as I don't make it a point to worry much about the fruitcakes who think the "C2C" programming schedule is part of climate activism.

[joshcryer]

28. ?

?

What? Climate activism on C2C? Seriously?

I don't think you've exhibited enough intelligence to have been published through the peer review.

[kristopher]

29. Take it or leave it.

Your opinion isn't that important as I don't make it a point to worry much about the fruitcakes who think the "C2C" programming schedule is part of climate activism.

[joshcryer]

30. Where did I ever state or even *imply* that the "C2C programming schedule"...

..."is part of climate activism."

[kristopher]

31. On another thread here tonight.

[joshcryer]

32. I never said that. You and your not reading fully problem.

[kristopher]

33. Really?

So you don't remember the nights you'd "spend up listening to C2C AM and debunking those fuckers."

Strange...

[joshcryer]

34. Not with regards to climate activism.

:hi:

[kristopher]

35. What were they "deniers" of?

[joshcryer]

36. Read the previous two fucking sentences.

Do you know what Hoagland is famous for?

Read the previous two fucking sentences.

I was comparing current denialist tactics to the same tactics of fucking UFO conspiracy theorists back before BAUT (Bad Astronomer) came around.

Read. Slowly. Put on your glasses. Put the kids to bed. It's clear as fucking day what I wrote.

[parkia00]

3. Yes

China is doing it because it sees the very strong potential to reap in billions from the green economy. That is also why as it stands right now, China is the worlds largest manufacturer of solar panels and wind turbines which are also very widely used domestically, not to mention exports. Want the price of the the green economy to be reduced so more people can get into it? You need mass production and no one does that better than China.

[kristopher]

6. And what is remarkable is that

China has largely built this momentum in the past 3 years. Considering the cash they have available to put to work, I'm becomiing more and more confident that the payoff in speed of deployment for renewables from the shift in the industry's economic fnudamentals is going to startle a lot of people who have been much too focused on the cooperative political approach.

[kristopher]

27. Now up to 74% supporting the proposition.