[Sueki]

Originally Posted by Raisondetre

but they seem happy and totally ignorant of what's happening to the environment. As long as they make money.

That's a bit unfair - we in the West have been polluting the planet for 200 years and more. Not just to make money, either.
We drive gas guzzling cars, take 'plane trips at the drop of a hat, ruin miles and miles of landscapes with landfills of plastic waste because it's cheaper than recycling or using biodegradable materials.
And so the Chinese are now manufacturing the goods that the West wants to buy. Who can blame them for wanting the lifestyle that we have enjoyed for so long ?
And believe me, if manufacturers could get it made cheaper in the West, they would do so, and we'd once again be polluting even more than we do now.

[Raisondetre]

Originally Posted by Sueki

That's a bit unfair - we in the West have been polluting the planet for 200 years and more. Not just to make money, either.
We drive gas guzzling cars, take 'plane trips at the drop of a hat, ruin miles and miles of landscapes with landfills of plastic waste because it's cheaper than recycling or using biodegradable materials.
And so the Chinese are now manufacturing the goods that the West wants to buy. Who can blame them for wanting the lifestyle that we have enjoyed for so long ?
And believe me, if manufacturers could get it made cheaper in the West, they would do so, and we'd once again be polluting even more than we do now.

I see your point. I'm not making a "blanket" statement per se - you have to be there to actually feel it in your system. They really do take it to the extremes and it's not just the disregard for the environment. The Chinese call themselves a civilization of 5000 years or more. I really expected better of them because of this superiority. They have a saying for almost everything, and moral values by the ton. I'm ethnic Chinese myself and I cannot stand the selfishness of alot of the people, even though it's universally human, and there are great people there who truly care and want to make a change. Wanting a better life after decades of poverty is something that just comes naturally, but because of the lag in development, awareness of the environment is just the furthest thing from their minds. I don't think it's something particular to the Chinese, East or West. We have all contributed to polluting the environment, even from before we were born. To be honest, this actually pains me alot more than it looks.

The thing that gets me, is that the better built schools catering for the rich were fine after the Sichuan earthquake, while tons of the rural schools collapsed right after. I have never seen this happen on a great scale in Western history. There is corruption, but never to this extent.

[Sueki]

"The thing that gets me, is that the better built schools catering for the rich were fine after the Sichuan earthquake, while tons of the rural schools collapsed right after. I have never seen this happen on a great scale in Western history. There is corruption, but never to this extent."

Hi Raison,
It was ever thus. There have been so many examples of the rich escaping while the poor suffer in our past history.
The great leveller these days is the vote. And education.
Now, rich and poor have the same power at the ballot box, and although the rich can rule, so also can the poor; and they are all dependant on the rest of us to keep them in power.
And corruption exists here, sometimes quite shocking, but eventually, the worm turns and we vote them out. And then the next lot become corrupted, and so it goes on...

[knotty panda]

Originally Posted by Raisondetre

Well, in case anyone was interested their male/female ratio will soon normalize because half their young males today will die of smoking-related diseases in as soon as 20 years. So much for female infanticide.

No longer. They have lost a generation twice over if you think about it.

The principle of government ordered abortions was "people cause pollution." Less people, less pollution. Reduce the population to a manageable level and pollution will be a more manageable problem. Easier stop population growth than to be environmentally responsible and still turn a profit.

The hypocrasy of it became so apparent when NOW/Planned Parenthood supported China's mandated one child per couple law. But over here, they supported "choice." Where was the Chinese woman's choice?

They have paid a terrible price.

[Raisondetre]

LOL Voting was only ever an option in Western civilizations. The Chinese government did not come into power through voting or democracy. Even with the capitalization of the economy they still call themselves communist, which is little better than a monarchy. It's still the same story all over again. The more I know about history, the more bitter I become.

[Valeria101]

Originally Posted by Slraep

Allergies to pollen are a result of our ever challenged immune system, which is slowly but surely being weakened by pollution(which also includes the stuff we eat), malfunctioning.

I have no theory on this but heard at least one plausible explanation (a US study on allergies, reported by an international newspaper - not sure which right now) that sounds a bit more optimistic: it wouldn't be a matter of 'malfunction' but of 'early training' - something long the lines of "got to have some real dirt around sometimes". Funny that! Either way, I'm quite grateful for those pollen bombs - no allergy to anything so far, fingers crossed.

[Valeria101]

Originally Posted by Sueki

"The thing that gets me, is that the better built schools catering for the rich were fine after the Sichuan earthquake, while tons of the rural schools collapsed right after. I have never seen this happen on a great scale in Western history. There is corruption, but never to this extent."

There have been so many examples of the rich escaping while the poor suffer in our past history.
...

New Orleans...

It doesn't even have to be corruption, inequality is quite enough, apparently.

Whether this is a matter of government or politics alone, beats me.

[Slraep]

Pollution in China's Seas: Now "Serious"
By Peter Bachmann, on Monday, 09 June 2008


"The condition of China's seas and coastline is further deteriorating, with experts warning that the ocean ecology system is seriously damaged and will get worse.

Up to 145,000 sq km of shallow waters along China's coast failed to meet quality standards, and 29,000 sq km were seriously polluted, according to a Dalian Maritime University report. The worst-affected areas include East Liaoning, the Bohai and Hangzhou bays, and the shores of the Yellow, Yangtze and Zhujiang rivers, plus some inshore areas of large coastal cities.

"Over the past 20 years or so, China's marine economy has been developing at a staggeringly rapid pace and marine resources are being widely tapped. As a result, the condition of China's inshore environment is deteriorating, and the ocean ecology has been seriously damaged," state media quoted Professor Luan Weixin, of the Economics and Management College at Dalian Maritime University."

http://www.bizchina-update.com/content/view/940/2/

[Slraep]

Nitrites in drinking water and cancer
Oliver Tickell 09/06/2008

Research from China suggests that even low levels of nitrites in drinking water can cause cancer. Why is the West ignoring the evidence? asks Oliver Tickell

http://www.theecologist.org/pages/ar...ontent_id=1861

Slraep

[Reiah]

Slraep,
Thanks for posting that link. Very informative. I really appreciate it.

[Slraep]

Here's something new:

Pollution in China is actually helping drive the value of the freshwater pearl UP! What a twist. The environment will do that to you...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/lifest...14717920080910

"Now, local Chinese governments, concerned about environmental damage to lakes and reservoirs from pearl cultivation, are beginning to rein in production.

And what's healthy for the environment may end up being healthy for the industry as well."

[Slraep]

I didn't know exactly where to post this mind blowing news. Seems a good parking spot for it here.

Yes, the pollution problem is easily solved! We just need another planet by 2030. No problemo! Congratulations, China! You are now on par with the USA with pollution.

http://www.news24.com/News24/Technol...417789,00.html

'We'll need 2 planets by 2030'
29/10/2008 14:16 - (SA)

Cape Town - The recent downturn in the global economy is a stark reminder of the consequences of living beyond our means. But the possibility of financial recession pales in comparison to the looming ecological credit crunch.

"If we continue with business as usual, we will need two planets by 2030 to keep up with humanity's demand for goods and services," cautions Dr Morné du Plessis, CEO of WWF South Africa, speaking at the launch of the Living Planet Report 2008.

The report, published every two years since 1998, has become widely accepted as an accurate statement of Earth's ability to retain its functional integrity as a "living planet".

The Ecological Footprint analysis shows that while global biocapacity - the area available to produce our resources and capture our emissions - is 2.1 global hectares per person, the average individual footprint worldwide is 2.7 global ha.

Thus, we are exceeding the Earth's carrying capacity by about 30% on average.

The report finds that the USA and China have the largest national footprints, each in total about 21% of global biocapacity (the productive area of the earth), but US citizens each require an average of 9.4 global ha (or nearly 4.5 Planet Earths if the global population had US consumption patterns), while Chinese citizens use on average 2.1 global ha per person.

Biocapacity is unevenly distributed, with eight nations - the United States, Brazil, Russia, China, India, Canada, Argentina and Australia - containing more than half the world total.

Population and consumption patterns make three of these countries ecological debtors, with footprints greater than their national biocapacity - the United States (footprint 1.8 times national biocapacity), China (2.3 times) and India ( 2.2 times).

Average individual footprints

According to Du Plessis, the average individual footprints of South Africans sits at 2.1 global hectares per person slightly below the world average of 2.7gha.

"While this seems very positive," says Du Plessis, "We must bear in mind that this does not indicate that you and I are necessarily living sustainable lifestyles.

"There is still a large gap between rich and poor in our nation and the reality is that this creates a biased perception of individual footprints."

The report also looks at the Living Planet Index (LPI) which reflects the state of the world's ecosystems.

The LPI of global biodiversity, as measured by populations of almost 2 000 species of mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian and fish from around the globe, has declined nearly 30% over the period from 1970 -2005.

To give some perspective: the 2006 Living Planet Report showed a decline of greater than 20% in the Global LPI for 1970-2003.

Dramatic losses

A closer focus shows much more vividly where the losses are occurring with the LPI for terrestrial species generally down by 33%, the Freshwater LPI down 35% and the Marine LPI down 14%.

Dramatic losses in our natural wealth are being driven primarily by deforestation and land conversion in the tropics (50% decline in Tropical LPI) and the impact of dams, over abstraction and climate change on freshwater species (35% decline).

Pollution, over-fishing and destructive fishing in marine and coastal environments are also taking a considerable toll.

Globally, the Grasslands LPI is down 36%.

"In South Africa, grasslands sustain major economic, agricultural, industrial and urban centres," says Du Plessis.

"The grasslands in South Africa have an indigenous species diversity which is second only to the Cape Floristic Region."

"A decrease in the LPI of grasslands can be attributed to a number of reasons. In South Africa they are one of the most threatened biomes, due to the pressure of unsustainable development and coal mining in particular," explains Du Plessis.

The water footprint

The water footprint of a country is the total volume of water used globally to produce the goods and services consumed by its inhabitants.

The new water footprint measures in the report illustrate the significance of water traded in the form of commodities with, for example, a cotton T-shirt requiring 2 900 litres of water in its production.

On average, each person consumes, through direct and indirect means, 1.24 million litres of water per year (about half the volume of an Olympic size swimming pool or nearly 3400 litres per day).

"Around 50 countries are currently facing moderate or severe water stress and the number of people suffering from year-round or seasonal water shortages is expected to increase as a result of climate change," says Dr Deon Nel, WWF Sanlam Living Waters Partnership Manager.

South Africa is an example of a water scarce country and through projects like WWF's Water Neutral Scheme (in partnership with SAB and the Working for Water Programme) which allows participants to quantitatively balance their water-usage accounts through a three-step process of reviewing, reducing and replenishing water supplies, WWF is actively working to address this issue.

The energy challenge

"Energy production from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas accounted for nearly 45 per cent of the global Ecological Footprint in 2005," adds Richard Worthington, Climate Change Programme Manager for WWF South Africa.

The report suggests some key strategies, represented as "sustainability wedges" which, if combined, could stabilise and reverse the slide into ecological debt and enduring damage to global support systems, by reducing the gap between humanity's footprint and available biocapacity.

"For the single most important challenge - climate change - the report shows that a range of renewable and low emissions 'wedges' could meet projected energy demands to 2050 with reductions in carbon emissions of 60 to 80%," says Worthington.

"These 'wedges' could include, for example, technological innovations and measures to reduce individual consumption."

"We have only one planet. Its capacity to support a thriving diversity of species, humans included, is large but fundamentally limited," says Du Plessis.

"When human demand on this capacity exceeds what is available - when we surpass ecological limits - we erode the health of the Earth's living systems. Ultimately, this loss threatens human well-being."

[pearlescence]

too many people.

[Valeria101]

Originally Posted by Slraep

'We'll need 2 planets by 2030'
[i]29/10/2008 14:16 - (SA)

....

The report, published every two years since 1998, has become widely accepted as an accurate statement of Earth's ability to retain its functional integrity as a "living planet".

....

They'd wish! Anybody would.. it's only human.

'Kept hearing this two-planet argument since at least '99 (and it's been around since at least the 60s anyway). Nice elevator speech. The record kept playing to old tune all the way while WWF came of age as a highly successful foreign policy schmoozing aid.

Funny that it isn't the Chinese (and just about anybody else, for that matter) that cry out for space on another planet.

Too many people, too many pearls...

[Slraep]

Originally Posted by Valeria101

The record kept playing to old tune all the way while WWF came of age as a highly successful foreign policy schmoozing aid.

Yeah, I'm not crazy about anything the WWF comes up with either. One has to wonder at some of their past and present board of directors. Conflict of interest galore.

Nevertheless, I don't even think the WWF need waste their money on any further studies as the population keeps on growing, resources keep on dwindling and pollution keeps on killing. So what if the WWF is a few years off the mark? So we'll need that other planet in 2040 or 2045

Slraep