Enviornmental Issues...

[DeletedUser]

rice there are other things to consider such as position in the milky way, cycle of rotation and lot more besides, planet earth does not hang on a string and float around the universe at random. There are terrific forces at work out there and to suppose man is capable of competing is arrogant to say the least. Actually its more like 40 - 45% effect i included that already.

I highly doubt that celestial events have a noticeable effect related to the the environment. Temperature measurements of ice cores for the past 800k years have stayed within the same range and have spiked after the Industrial Revolution. As for the Earth having low climate sensitivity, just look at what happens when a volcano erupts.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

I highly doubt that celestial events have a noticeable effect related to the the environment. Temperature measurements of ice cores for the past 800k years have stayed within the same range and have spiked after the Industrial Revolution. As for the Earth having low climate sensitivity, just look at what happens when a volcano erupts.

With the risk again of taking this off topic yet still related. You are wrong on both a glacial and galactic scale. There is no point trying to refute that celestial movements and Events effected Planet Earth and will continue to do so. Too much star trek makes easy skeptics and that astronomical science is nothing but a Hollywood fairytale it is far from it.

http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/iceagebook/history_of_climate.html just one brief explanation.

excerpt

All of civilization developed during the last interglacial,and the data show that such interglacials are very brief. Our time looks about up. Data such as these are what led us to state, in the Preface, that the next ice age is about to hit us, any millennium now. It does not take a detailed theory to make this prediction. We don’t necessarily know why the next ice age is imminent (at least on a geological time scale), but the pattern is unmistakable.

The real reason to be frightened is that we really don’t understand what causes the pattern. We don’t know why the ice ages are broken by the short interglacials. We do know something – that the driving force is astronomical. We have models that relate the astronomical mechanisms to changes in climate, but we don’t know which of our models are right, or if any of them are. Much of the work of understanding lies in the future.

As a simple further explanation..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

excerpt

The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane (the specific levels of the previously mentioned gases are now able to be seen with the new ice core samples from the Antarctic shelf over the past 650,000 years) changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.

The Earth has been in an interglacial period known as the Holocene for more than 11,000 years. It was conventional wisdom that "the typical interglacial period lasts about 12,000 years," but this has been called into question recently. For example, an article in Nature[34] argues that the current interglacial might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years. Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now, even in absence of human-made global warming (see Milankovitch cycles). Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases might outweigh orbital forcing for as long as intensive use of fossil fuels continues.

Further information is available from countless sources.

Please bare in mind the medieval warm period in Europe where we were growing grapes and making wine in the UK like California and Italy are now... we still have the place names such as Vine Street in London as a reminder. There was no industrial pollution at that time and its a major inconvenient truth that wont go away. The core may have been stable but that also dosnt mean cycles don't happen and the sun and moon and all the other astrological anomalies play a big part whether you care to include it or not. We are currently at the beginning age of what is called aquarius in the stellar cycle moving away from the stellar cycle of Pisces. I won't bore you with astrological details but safe to say if on a simple basis the moon affects the weather and tides of Earth it is highly likely other stellar bodies directly or indirectly have an impact also, there is an ongoing study on the sun its activity, sunspots, solar winds etc and its effects on Planet Earth, this is not science fiction but a very interesting section of scientific research community in an attempt to understand the bigger picture and the implications for Planet Earth

Its important to keep an open mind at all times. Volcanoes erupt all the time rice and have been since the earth was formed the earth is very climate insensitive to this. Sensitive or insensitive is a matter of perception, Planet Earth is for the most part insensitive to the Extreme whether it take 10 years to recover or 10 million it matters not it is life that is climate sensitive not the Earth perse.

It is hard for me to even look at one small issue without considering the much much bigger picture. It dosnt mean I don't believe in the man induced added equation just that its arrogant to suppose everything is down to merely that.

As I said before everything is connected, always was and always will be

 

[DeletedUser]

Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases might outweigh orbital forcing for as long as intensive use of fossil fuels continues.....

It is hard for me to even look at one small issue without considering the much much bigger picture. It dosnt mean I don't believe in the man induced added equation just that its arrogant to suppose everything is down to merely that.

As I said before everything is connected, always was and always will be

Yes there is a natural cycle by which ice ages come and go, but as stated in the first sentence I quoted, mankind's industrial activities basically accelerate the phase of the cycle that we are currently in.

 

[DeletedUser25606]

I highly doubt that celestial events have a noticeable effect related to the the environment. Temperature measurements of ice cores for the past 800k years have stayed within the same range and have spiked after the Industrial Revolution. As for the Earth having low climate sensitivity, just look at what happens when a volcano erupts.

Sorry rice ,but they very much do , the moon IS the tide . The tide is current , and current IS the most basic start of ocean food chain . If the ocean doesnt move ,it's dead .
A few years ago (maybe 6) off the west coat of tasmania , usually "choppy" to say the least there was a period of 8 weeks where the ocean was like a lake, it was very strange to us used to a very differnt ocean . We may as well have tied up , empty cod end's every time we winched . I know im bieng anecdotal , but it's a good basic example.

Vic as much as i'd say your points about natural cycles are very relevant ,that's without el nino/la nina which is well documented as el nino getting more frequent ,the 2007-8 la nina
was one of the strongest in memory ,and intrestingly the was a LOT of scientific opinion that linked that particular el nina to global warming , it was just too out of sync .

What i would say ( and this is just my personal opinion ) that an ice age or any drop in temperature would be countered by frequent el nina , and thats without going into reef bleaching (as you'd know vic ,inshore nurserys for marine species) acidification through co2 of ocean ,basically the myriad of factors creating warming affects through oceans .
I think the last thing i would have to explain to you vic is how important the meeting of cold and warm water is in context of the ocean is , it is the very start of ocean food chains, let alone what a warm trend does in relation to weather ( that one in 08 , about 16 named storms ,ouch)


"lets move past the idea I am on the anti side because im not rather the level and manner its being prostituted with carbon taxes as the main trick for hire.

Answer me please on this point do you think it is right carbon tax credits can be bought and sold on the market to hide others footprints ?"


I think this is one of the most important points hands down so far in this thread because it is at the crux of practical soultions to the issue . Of course a carbon tax is riddled with flaws but crucial in the scheme of what government can do in real terms in relation to thier economies .I exampled the livestock industry as a radical change that has been put forward as an option , but in practice (and i think this is where sumdumass was trying to get to ) , to impliment this in real terms it'd take at least a decade , not replacing cattle stocks as there consumed , setting up agriculture to sustain the extra volume , but it's all irrelevant because no government (and we'll use america as an example with its quarter of world beef production) would ,or could realistically, simply just shut that down , the human impact ,financial impact would simply be devasting .

So lets consider carbon tax , firstly i'd point to that say two decades ago , a decade ago , a country adopting a carbon tax would be unimaginable , yet here we are today with many countries bringing one in or having exsisting , so i think that's very telling in the scheme of public and goverment consiness of the issue .My problem with carbon tax that the model (in my opinion) only works in a global sense not in a domestic one . That is to say , countries should be penalized on total emisons , but putting this into practice is unlikely.
Intrestingly one of the biggest poluters is about to take a box seat as the biggest superpowers in the wolrd , to me the time of the west is over and the rise of the east will dominate policy /financial markets down to enviromental over the next decade. What's key to note is that China IS bringing in a carbon tax this year , and considering the exacting care China has used to put itself in this position ,and long term thought China has used (i.e resource /asset stockpiling) i wonder how much thought they've put into enviromental long term issues , i think it'd be remiss to think there dismissive of it , and more importantly , socailly , there more set up to impliment REAL policy that would have a significant outcome .In a scenerio where china is the superpower , the issue of america holding back on harsher enviromental policy could be negated due to chinese sanctions . While this could seem far fetched , look at the changes to what was "set in stone" say 30 years ago.
While i realize i'm bieng simplistic and not accounting for a lot (american social consinece for one) to me its intresting , and as far as the current status quo of the world , carbon tax is something government can do , is it enough? of course not ,but it's a step in the right direction and of more relevance its sets a culture where enviroment is a given in relation to polution /emisons in the scheme of any major companies bottom line.

 

[DeletedUser]

I meant that besides the usual range of things going on, like the moon influencing tides, celestial activity pales in comparison to man made carbon emissions.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Aye scamp Thermohaline circulation is the term they use, (never could remember it ) I was taught this was the beginning of the ocean food chain and possibly more critical that the Amazon is on land. If anyone else wants a crash course in the importance of the chain ie Solar Activity, Gravity, Winds and something called Coriolis Force and Ocean Gyres which I found to be fascinating this an excellent essay. It is presented here wonderfully with simple diagrams and broken down for almost anyone to understand.
http://essayweb.net/geology/quicknotes/ocean_currents.shtml

Oh and if youve never heard of the Pacific plastic garbage dump.......a current vortex of rubbish of epic proportions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTurihxSTnI&feature=related its not just carbon emissions thats a major issue.

Yep China is entering the clean up arena,

Article here http://www.businessspectator.com.au...-energy-pd20120202-R3W2P?opendocument&src=rss reacting to the skeptics by giving some good info, I still have a real big problem with carbon tax credits being traded, it seems to me to be counter productive and I can just imagine china selling them in huge quantities and other nations/businesses cash rich buying them up and defeating the point.... but its a good step, as Ive said before without China or a couple of the other main players you may as well be spitting into the wind. The best move china could make is to lead the world in this arena, it would galvanise competing nations and shame them into action and I applaud it. It would also imo afford them huge international recognition and accolade especially from the younger generation Im not going to make judgements other than to say the Chinese when put to a task achieve fantastic results, i have yet to experience however any concern for anything other than self serving which in this case dose make sense it may or may not have a political agenda but if youve been to or even seen the skys over Beijing or Shanghai youll see why theres a real pressing need for China to do something immediately. The countryside in places is even worse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3pWv-P1QrU

 

[DeletedUser]

Regarding carbon tax credits, we should just make them super expensive.....but then the US would say we don't feel like paying.....so China could say, do it and we'll write off some of your debt......that would be funny!

 

[DeletedUser25606]

Just to get a little anecdotal , when i was a very green deckhand and just starting to contemplate the weather ( any long term fisherman basically becomes a meteroligist due to livelyhood but more because you see the power of weather when your past the shelf) there was an old fisherman who could'nt read of write who basicly explained Thermohaline circulationto me, it was just something he'd worked out .When i researched it and told him he was exactly right his reply "course im %^&^*& right look out the $%^&* window " .To me it'd be refreshing if that would come from a scientist to a climate skeptic.


On that "plastic vortex" recently on an attenbourgh special "the death of the oceans" he featured that , if anyone saw that and wasn't suitabley horrified i'd be amazed.

My parents last year had a three month holiday of china ,the photos of sky's over (especially) shanghi are just a murky brown haze , lots walk with masks outdoors everyday , while this may seem a bad thing , one thing it does do is put enviroment /polution on the agenda in china because it's simply so obvious.
Hence china moving to a carbon tax ( and of course your right within the issue of carbon tax credits ,removing this one aspect would fundamentally change the entire context of the tax) but i'd like to entertain the hypothetical here if i may ..

I think a lot would agree on the global stage China is poised to become the superpower of this century , this isnt circumstance , china has actively positioned itself into this future ,and done it so cleverly ,yet so easily in the scheme of things to.

Lets context that in relation to the last 50 yrs , would it be fair to say that american domestic policy (as the superpower of the world) was replecated by its western (and to a lesser extent eastern) trading partners /allies as a model for sucess and in cases by nessesity for trade . Any big player globally there is (simplistically) a monkey see ,monkey do mentality .

So lets look at that history in light of China ,would it be fair to say that emerging eastern economies will look to china as it's model not america , that's where the money will be , so include the big economies shaping up in the reigon , india ,south east asia (indonesia especially) , if they were to become tradional partners to china (much in the same vien as u.k/australia to america) would it also be fair to say that they will have similar outlooks in relation to enviroment (india has a carbon tax by the way)

So for the first time in modern history ,the world will have a superpower , that if worst comes to worst can introduce harsh regulation , because "land of the free" isnt exactly what china is known for ,let alone democratic process , and in a future where america is reliant on china (and it has to be ) if china were to apply pressure on america (sanctons etc) there could be a real turn around in american emisons .

I think the next decade is where lines in the sand on this issue will be drawn .

 

[DeletedUser]

I feel the need to pose contention on that. The U.S. is, and will continue to be, the biggest consumer. Economic power is not so cut and dry. There are consumers and producers, importers and exporters. You can be a weak producer and a big consumer, a strong producer and weak consumer, or weak on both, or strong on both. Weak is never good, but strong is good (economically) regardless of whether it's production or consumption, because it gives you power over the global economy.

The United States, as the greatest consumer, has and will continue to have, the greatest consumer power, and thus can pose great influence merely by dictating what nations, states, or businesses it will allow to trade with businesses and the consumers within their borders.

Just something to consider during these discussions about environmental issues and the role the U.S. has in all this.

 

[DeletedUser25606]

(almost a forehead slap moment)

I do realize im bieng very hypothetical and i do realize simplistic , every issue in this area has that many layers its compounding .

However , could it also be relevant to say that the standard of living in China has risen dramatically ,and in that , Chinese consumerism even it it rose by a few percent just through sheer numbers in population could domestically rival American?.

Further could it be argued that in context of personal debt and what restrains the american consumer arn't a factor for the chinese consumer ,therefore a faster rise in Chinese consumerism coupled with standard of living rises in China while American consumer figures would remain stable could lead to China having compartible level of America?


"
The data were collected from slightly more than 2,000 households residing in fifteen cities within China, all Class-One and Class-Two cities. The data represent the urban Chinese, having greater wealth and income than their rural counterparts. In this group, 73% were married, compared with 59% in the Unites States. Fifty-five percent of the Chinese stopped school with a high-school education or less, while in the United States 46% stopped with a high-school education or less. The average annual household income in China, converted to dollars, was $10,220, compared with $84,300 in the United States (the median US income is $47,300.) One of the few similarities was average household assets: in both China and the U.S., the average family’s assets were about eight times its average income.
At face value, the similarities between China and the United States, with respect to relative levels of assets to income, as well as demographics, are remarkable. The level of debt to average income, however, is not. The average US household debt is 136% of household income, compared to 17% for the Chinese. Moreover, if we include federal borrowing, the United States number increases an additional $109,792 per household, to $224,303 per household or 266% of average household income.
We need to ask the question, Is this sustainable? And where is all of this debt coming from?
For starters, we found that while 85% of Chinese households surveyed owned a home, only 11% carried a mortgage on that property. In the United States 69% were homeowners in 2007, with 70% of them carrying some debt on the property, in the form of a mortgage or a home-equity loan. Some of this is a result of Chinese employer home purchase plans for employees, in an effort to provide housing while limiting indebtedness. In the United States, however, mortgage debt is encouraged through a subsidy in our tax code that, in fact, provides the greatest subsidy to those with the largest mortgage and, typically, the highest incomes.
Less than 1% of urban Chinese use consumer loans to purchase consumer goods, while 47% of all US families have installment loans and 46% carry a credit card balance. Admittedly, consumer credit is necessary to smooth our consumption stream – shifting income from high periods to periods where it is relatively low. In fact, a member of the Bank of China confided to me that increasing the borrowing of the younger Chinese is a goal of the Chinese government to enable them “to not be dependent on the west to support our growth”.
(forbes)



I think that's relevant ,because it puts the adverage Chinese very much in a favorable position over the American counterpart , and just off China's growth would a domestic market compairable to america's in the near future be very much a real possiblity?
Obviously not the same products overall , but negating the need of america as a primary desired trading partner , in australia ,already , china is our biggest trading partner but america is our tradional ally ,this paradox is intresting to me , and i dont think its that much of a stretch to see emerging powers in the asia pacfic taking China as thier primary desired trading partner AND ally .

 

[DeletedUser]

If OPEC decided to raise prices on oil or even cut off the oil supply, there would be 'nothing' the US could do to stop them. While consumer power is strong, production power is equally so, if not more.

 

[DeletedUser]

If OPEC decided to raise prices on oil or even cut off the oil supply, there would be 'nothing' the US could do to stop them. While consumer power is strong, production power is equally so, if not more.

They are raising the prices and no they won't cut off their major source of income and yes currently the US cannot stop them.

 

[DeletedUser]

If OPEC decided to raise prices on oil or even cut off the oil supply, there would be 'nothing' the US could do to stop them. While consumer power is strong, production power is equally so, if not more.

OPEC is not a single nation, but an organization comprised of 12 nations: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Qatar, Libya, United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Nigeria, Ecuador, and Angola. It is not a reasonable comparison to pose one nation's consumer power against 12 nations' production power.

However , could it also be relevant to say that the standard of living in China has risen dramatically ,and in that , Chinese consumerism even it it rose by a few percent just through sheer numbers in population could domestically rival American?.

It would be relevant to say that if it were true, but it is not.

Further could it be argued that in context of personal debt and what restrains the american consumer arn't a factor for the chinese consumer ,therefore a faster rise in Chinese consumerism coupled with standard of living rises in China while American consumer figures would remain stable could lead to China having compartible level of America?

Again, if it were true, you would have an argument, but it is not. The circumstances in the U.S. are far and away different from that of China. It is not even remotely a reasonable comparison, nor is it feasible that China would reach the level of consumerism that the U.S. presently maintains (other than for the purposes of production, which is deemed as an expense to production, and not merely straight up consumerism). As it is, there are plenty of other countries out there with substantial income factors, but they just don't compare to U.S.' consumerism. And yes, it does put this country, and its people in debt, it does force them into a state in which they pay interest over much of what they purchase, but that's an incentive to sell here, not a detractor. As a producer, you get more bang for your buck by selling to Americans (not merely for how much is purchased, but how much is paid for the item, and how much interest is accrued over the product's original purchase price).

The data were collected from slightly more than 2,000 households residing in fifteen cities within China, all Class-One and Class-Two cities. The data represent the urban Chinese, having greater wealth and income than their rural counterparts. In this group, 73% were married, compared with 59% in the Unites States. Fifty-five percent of the Chinese stopped school with a high-school education or less, while in the United States 46% stopped with a high-school education or less. The average annual household income in China, converted to dollars, was $10,220, compared with $84,300 in the United States (the median US income is $47,300.) One of the few similarities was average household assets: in both China and the U.S., the average family’s assets were about eight times its average income.
At face value, the similarities between China and the United States, with respect to relative levels of assets to income, as well as demographics, are remarkable. The level of debt to average income, however, is not. The average US household debt is 136% of household income, compared to 17% for the Chinese. Moreover, if we include federal borrowing, the United States number increases an additional $109,792 per household, to $224,303 per household or 266% of average household income.
We need to ask the question, Is this sustainable? And where is all of this debt coming from?
For starters, we found that while 85% of Chinese households surveyed owned a home, only 11% carried a mortgage on that property. In the United States 69% were homeowners in 2007, with 70% of them carrying some debt on the property, in the form of a mortgage or a home-equity loan. Some of this is a result of Chinese employer home purchase plans for employees, in an effort to provide housing while limiting indebtedness. In the United States, however, mortgage debt is encouraged through a subsidy in our tax code that, in fact, provides the greatest subsidy to those with the largest mortgage and, typically, the highest incomes.

These are not even remotely reasonable comparisons. American homes are purchased for a helluva lot more (a helluva lot more -- you're talking 5k vs 400k). Also, the information you're comparing was provided to Forbes by the Chinese government (which is grossly, and intentionally, misleading) and only uses a "rich" sample of the population in China, as opposed to using the U.S. "average."

I think that's relevant ,because it puts the adverage Chinese very much in a favorable position over the American counterpart , and just off China's growth would a domestic market compairable to america's in the near future be very much a real possiblity?

Debt is no doubt a bad thing in most people's minds, and I definitely am against it, but it has provided the U.S. with a huge bargaining chip and has provided the U.S. with substantial gains, not withstanding the ability to buy and buy and buy. Yes, that opens up for the potential for bubbles (like the housing bubble), but it doesn't destroy what exists, merely rocks the boat and let's a good handful realize what idiots they are for putting themselves in debt. Then next week they grab some credit cards out of their mailbox and start up all over again.

The U.S. has developed a consumer lifestyle, a way of looking at things, that the Chinese are decades, if not centuries, away from emulating. It would require not merely the means, but the mindset, and the Chinese government is hellbent on restricting the latter. If you examine the market, and particularly investment funds, you get a decent picture of what's really going on. For example, the Dreyfus Greater China (DPCAX) fund was off by more than 30% last year, and most other China-emphasis funds have flopped as well. Investors fear China is setup for a crash.

"Wall Street worries about what will happen to the export giant if its currency continues to strengthen. Also, there are hints of a housing bubble in China, with reports of high-rise ghost towns with no residential tenants in the condos and no businesses in the office spaces. Then there's the concern about any data we are given from China's notoriously opaque government. The bottom line is that it is extremely difficult to transition from a hyper-growth emerging market to a slower-growth developed economy. And many fear China will hit a wall -- if not this year, then soon." ~ Jeff Reeves, InvestorPlace​

in australia ,already , china is our biggest trading partner but america is our tradional ally ,this paradox is intresting to me , and i dont think its that much of a stretch to see emerging powers in the asia pacfic taking China as thier primary desired trading partner AND ally .

Because China is the bigger producer, not a paradox, just a misunderstanding (a common one, mind you) on how world economics works. This is merely another example of looking at the wrong tree. China's banks have been providing loans to many countries, but what many don't realize is that they've also been providing loans to their own nation's provinces, and that has them in big trouble, because their own government isn't paying up. The facts are, many businesses within China are starting to finally get the picture... the government owns them and will use them as long as it benefits them, but will screw them over eventually, because what they advocate through their very existence is contra to the government's goal, the philosophy of governance they instituted. Eventually it will come to a head, just as it's demonstrating within investment circles. For those who know what to look for, the writing is on the wall.

 

[DeletedUser25606]

Firstly i think a point could be made that America is never in a position to do "nothing" , America is a powerhouse of great achievments on all fronts ,no matter what your take on it .

Hellstromm

At the risk of getting too off topic (i dont want to overly bog this thread down but i feel this is relevant to this particular aspect of enviroment ) i would like to point you to this ...

In 2010, China's GDP was valued at $5.87 trillion, surpassed Japan's $5.47 trillion, and became the world's second largest economy after the U.S.[60] China could become the world's largest economy (by nominal GDP) sometime as early as 2020.


It has also appeared that Noopolitik and the knowledge economy had become salient interests of the PRC's economic policy across the 2000s, through which the country made clear its move from "Made in China" to "Innovated in China" as notes Adam Segal.[63] Idriss Aberkane thus argued "With China’s cosmopolitan and highly educated diaspora, it is no surprise that as of 2010, five of the top twenty most visited websites in the world are indexed in Mandarin. They include PRC-born behemoths such as Baidu.com, Taobao.com, and Sina.com.cn, and video sharing Tudou.com, which has gained users in both North America and Europe." [64]
The Institute of Economic Research of Renmin University of China has conducted several studies and released several reports regarding China's economy. "Under the influences of 2009’s stimulus policies, the spread of the economic bubble and implementation of the “12th Five-Year Plan”, China was at a key stage of steering the economic recovery to stable growth. While prices increased steadily, China’s GDP went back to the high-level growth rate and its economic structure gradually became market-oriented.".[65] The foremost authorities on the Chinese economy -- those within the Chinese think-tanks and government -- give a unique, first-hand perspective. Their works, translated into English for a Western audience, are published only through an independent Hong Kong publishing house, Enrich Professional Publishing (EPP), and can be found at academic libraries throughout the world.
The World Bank's chief economist Justin Lin in 2011 stated that China, which became the world's second largest economy in 2010, may become the world's largest economy in 2030, overtaking the United States, if current trends continue. Challenges include income inequality and pollution.[66] The Standard Chartered Bank in a 2011 report suggested that China may become the world's largest economy in 2020.[67] A 2007 OECD rapport by Angus Maddison estimated that if using purchasing power parity conversions, then China will overtake the United States in 2015.[68] James Wolfensohn, former World Bank president, estimated in 2010 that by 2030 two-thirds of the world's middle class will live in China.[69] The Director of the China Center for Economic Reform at Peking University Yao Yang in 2011 stated that "Assuming that the Chinese and U.S. economies grow, respectively, by 8% and 3% in real terms, that China's inflation rate is 3.6% and America's is 2% (the averages of the last decade), and that the renminbi appreciates against the dollar by 3% per year (the average of the last six years), China would become the world's largest economy by 2021. By that time, both countries' GDP will be about $24 trillion."[70]

These are world finacial experts all pointing to China surpasing the U.S and going off that , i think my points are valid , While i do understand your points i think you'd have to agree what im saying is a possibilty.Also (and this is just my personal opinion ) i cant see China allowing it's dollar to rise as Jeff Reeves, InvestorPlace points to , i think any country that owns 20% of Americas debt would stand to loose , well lots ,if they allowed that to happen ,and there's been a great deal of debate/discussion on currency games that are always played in financial climates such as were seeing now , most ive seen are pretty steadfast that China will keep it's currency close to America's as its done to this point.I'd say Jeff is having a fish ,but then im no expert .

To return to topic (well more obviously on topic ) i think the major superpower in the world (no matter who it is ) will always be emulated by those it's allied with and those it trades with (a lot of the time through nessisity ) in the context of legislation China will always be in a better position to enable significant change than America just on the basis of culture alone.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, it's misleading. China's population is 4:1, with about 1.35 billion vs U.S. at 310 million. GDP is "productivity," which I already indicated is where China will eventually lead. But consumerism is based on consumption, not production. In order to "equal" the U.S. in consumerism, China would need a GDP far higher than that of the U.S. (not merely surpassing it). Assuming China's provided information is correct, they would need a GDP that is almost three times higher. That's not going to happen anytime soon, if ever, particularly not with their market's indications (as I previously noted).

So then, the assumption that China will endeavor to go green... back to that.

A nation that shows little for their people's rights, as well show little for the environment (want some pictures?). There really is no logic in assuming they'll somehow just turn around and start caring. As it is, they're in a race --- a destructive one to be sure. Indeed, it is not a race with any end-goal and, as such, no reason for them to act in a responsible fashion to be the global leader in "green."

No, in fact it is consumers that dictate what is produced, by their consuming habits. As the U.S. is, by far, the leader in consumption, it really is up to the U.S. to dictate import policies that encourage "green" and discourage other-than.

To explain this, producers produce at the lowest cost possible, to obtain the best profits. If the consumer doesn't care how it's produced, they'll buy. If one product is cheaper than another, they'll buy the cheaper, regardless of how it's produced, or even who died in the process. And, producers will make it cheaper, sell it cheaper, to obtain a greater percentage of the consuming market.

You substantially profits in three basic ways: reduced production cost, greater percentage of consumer market, selling in a region with a higher CPI. All this points to producers doing whatever is necessary to make a profit. So the U.S. has two major draws and the ability to influence the third basic impact on profits. By imposing restrictions on what is sold within the U.S., making it a requirement that they abide by some "green" standards, China and other countries will be tasked to make those changes, precisely because they want to do business, to sell, within the biggest market.

 

[DeletedUser25606]

Yes, it's misleading. China's population is 4:1, with about 1.35 billion vs U.S. at 310 million. GDP is "productivity," which I already indicated is where China will eventually lead. But consumerism is based on consumption, not production. In order to "equal" the U.S. in consumerism, China would need a GDP far higher than that of the U.S. (not merely surpassing it). Assuming China's provided information is correct, they would need a GDP that is almost three times higher. That's not going to happen anytime soon, if ever, particularly not with their market's indications (as I previously noted).

It's completely misleading , i wonder why that very straight forward agrument isn't more prevelant in general (commercial) media , overall its more focused on GDP as it's measure ,another instance of using figures specific to an argument ignoring conviently the bigger picture ? ( i thought that was only ever done on the west forum and only by me )

You substantially profits in three basic ways: reduced production cost, greater percentage of consumer market, selling in a region with a higher CPI. All this points to producers doing whatever is necessary to make a profit. So the U.S. has two major draws and the ability to influence the third basic impact on profits. By imposing restrictions on what is sold within the U.S., making it a requirement that they abide by some "green" standards, China and other countries will be tasked to make those changes, precisely because they want to do business, to sell, within the biggest market.

While i'd agree with that , i'd also point to that if it led to significant price rises domestically in the current culture of this almost McCarthyism labelling of policy as socailism in America it would be too easy of target to be picked up by the media in vote consious administration , and would'nt it'd be fair to say that there'd be contension in America's own companies that arn't operating green offshore let alone domestic , and in a culture where big business makes presidents down to campain funding before you even get to the lobbyists ,could American business ever be held accountable by it's government? Could the American people stomach any government that would look to legislate in this area , raising the cost of living in an already growing anti policy culture ? To me that's the problem , it's not that America won't legislate say a carbon tax (for example) , it's that it simply can't.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

*waves a hand furiously* guys can we please get the last few posts re china moved to a new topic as 1 its gonna derail this one and 2 im currently and have been for about 6 mths or so on the trail of where China is going and if shes as solid as so many think. The deeper im looking the more I think she has a real possibility or revolution and certainly more unstable than say N Korea mad as it may sound.

Excellent posts btw scamp and HS and I know how we got here ... everything is linked

 

[DeletedUser]

Victor's a njub...

Oh, and Scamp, yeah that is the pickle, no doubt. It is likely prices will go up, but partly as a form of "penalty" for the government having instituted such regulations. The businesses (corporations) will endeavor to keep their investors happy, so they'll still venture for the EM, which means they'll aim for increasing profits. Thus, if the U.S. imposes restrictions on production (green/fair), it will invariably cut back on their profits, and they'll try to recoup by increasing retail prices.

Still, they'll cooperate and abide, because the U.S. still has two of the main attractions (greatest consumers and high CPI). It would be nice if they could include a cap on prices, but that's just not someplace the government can effectively intervene, so games will be games, and the consumer will eventually have to pay for green.

 

[DeletedUser5046]

I can't read every post . . . too long XD... same old thing about politics and science...

WHy not start by planting a tree or flower or a plant? well not a power or nuclear plant though...but a plant

before we all turn into zombies

 

[DeletedUser]

Planting a tree here and there won't do anything. The major game changers are what will have the most effect.