It appears China has finally defeated the Yangtze River, in what has been an epic battle for centuries. According to the state run newspaper China Daily, the river is so polluted that the damage is irreversible. Pollution, damming, heavy boat traffic, pesticides, fertilizers, sewage and freshwater use have all contributed to a sharp decline in aquatic life.
"The impact of human activities on the Yangtze water ecology is largely irreversible," said Yang Guishan, a researcher at the Nanjing Institute of Geography.
The Yangtze is 3,860 miles long, spanning from Tibetan plateau to the sea near Shanghai. It is the longest river in Asia and the third largest river in the world. Since the Han Dynasty, the Yangtze river has became more and more important in China's economy. The establishment of irrigation systems along the river made agriculture very stable and productive. But now, 30% of the Yahgtzes tributaries are seriously polluted and a total of 370 miles of the river is in critical condition.
The report said the annual harvest of aquatic products from the river has dropped from 427,000 tons in the 1950s to about 100,000 tons in the 1990s.
Fishermen along the river said even if they catch some fish from the polluted river, they dare not eat them, said Li Lifeng, freshwater program director of the WWF China.
Currently the river is used for 35% of Chinas fresh water resources. The once green river is now a dark yellow. Hundreds of dams line the river and damage its natural ecosystem by creating too much nitrogen.
Chinas other major waterway, the Yellow River, is also in poor condition. 66 percent of the Yellow River's water is no longer drinkable.
So much for human progress! We went from thinking open sewers in the streets were a good idea, to dumping all our shit and pollutants into the water and food arteries known as rivers.
Toku666 said:
Fantastic. And people wonder why we didn't ratify Kyoto when China refused to sign on?
Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji announced on September 3, 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development that China HAS approved the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
"The approval manifests China's positive stance towards international environmental cooperation and world sustainable development," said the Chinese premier in a press release.
Also I'm wondering if you could further clarify wtf you mean when you say "ratify". Because where I come from that would imply that we signed on but simply failed to follow thru., not torpedoed the shit out of the whole effort.
About the whole Kyoto Protocol thing, China is still a developing nation. Developing nations currently don't have the same restrictions on green house gas emissions as developed nations. Those nations weren't subject to such restrictions when they were developing, and it would be unfair to impose those limitations onto still developing countries now and restrict their industrial growth.
7
st_even
Milwaukee, WI
September 2006
APR 16, 2007 05:42 PM
A developing nation is a nation that has not yet become primarily industrialized. Congo is a developing nation. Honduras is a developing nation. China is a well-fucking-developed nation. China is in the middle of one of the greatest economic climbs in history, yes, but they are FAR from an undeveloped nation.
st_even said:
A developing nation is a nation that has not yet become primarily industrialized. Congo is a developing nation. Honduras is a developing nation. China is a well-fucking-developed nation. China is in the middle of one of the greatest economic climbs in history, yes, but they are FAR from an undeveloped nation.
There is actually some arguement about this, but yes, China is classified as a developing nation. Or more accurately it is a newly industrialized country, which is closer to somewhere in between, but I was using the term "developing" to mean any country that is not considered "developed", as that is a more familiar term that newly industrialized.
Also, most of the industrialization, I think over 50% of it at least, is concentrated in Beijing, Tianjing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. Those are tiny cities. India is in the same boat. They pollute like hell because of their population, they do have some well to do sectors, but they are also exempt from the green house gas emissions thing because they aren't quite at the developed nations level yet. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about, I was born and raised in China. It is most certainly not a well fucking developed nation, we're still struggling to make improvements in rural sectors.
I'm not even sure if the Congo counts as a developing country, because you have to be making some progress to be qualified as a developing country. I don't know anything about the Congo, but I do know that a lot of African countries have a totally stagnant or failing economy.
I think China in the next ten years will become very serious about their enviromental policy in regards to air and water quallity. They will have to as there medical bill for 1.5 billion people with asthma and other proplems associated with drinking toxic water will so affect their economic growth they will have no choice . Lets hope in a sick way this happends sooner because unfortunatly governemnts only make changes when their bottom line is in danger of turning red. I am lead to believe they will be the biggest polluters in 30 years time, eclipsing the US.
Tech29 said:
I think China in the next ten years will become very serious about their enviromental policy in regards to air and water quallity. They will have to as there medical bill for 1.5 billion people with asthma and other proplems associated with drinking toxic water will so affect their economic growth they will have no choice . Lets hope in a sick way this happends sooner because unfortunatly governemnts only make changes when their bottom line is in danger of turning red. I am lead to believe they will be the biggest polluters in 30 years time, eclipsing the US.
I thought China already polluted more than the U.S., although I'm not sure. They do have a helluva lot more people and no restrictions on green house gas emissions though, so I think it's possible.
the thing I think is...what happens in a few years when all these billion of thirsty Chinese people start looking for water they can drink? I've never been so convinced that China will _ever_ truly the the "world superpower" that is frequently espoused of it.
What I've seen is the Chinese government mortgaging their populace and ecological resources for momentary gain and explosive growth in what? Consumerism and greed. There's no sharing of wealth, no broad support for Chinese humanity. From what I can see, it is just as much graft and short-sightedness as what the rest of the world complains about _here_ in the US.
We are _all_ in a potential huge pile of crap, regardless of whether you are Jew, Gentile, Arab, Muslim, Hindu, Communist, Socialist, or Ignoramus. If you aren't ready to get with the program, you need to migrate to another planet, one with less air and more vacuum.
st_even said:
A developing nation is a nation that has not yet become primarily industrialized. Congo is a developing nation. Honduras is a developing nation. China is a well-fucking-developed nation. China is in the middle of one of the greatest economic climbs in history, yes, but they are FAR from an undeveloped nation.
There is actually some arguement about this, but yes, China is classified as a developing nation. Or more accurately it is a newly industrialized country, which is closer to somewhere in between, but I was using the term "developing" to mean any country that is not considered "developed", as that is a more familiar term that newly industrialized.
Also, most of the industrialization, I think over 50% of it at least, is concentrated in Beijing, Tianjing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. Those are tiny cities. India is in the same boat. They pollute like hell because of their population, they do have some well to do sectors, but they are also exempt from the green house gas emissions thing because they aren't quite at the developed nations level yet. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about, I was born and raised in China. It is most certainly not a well fucking developed nation, we're still struggling to make improvements in rural sectors.
I'm not even sure if the Congo counts as a developing country, because you have to be making some progress to be qualified as a developing country. I don't know anything about the Congo, but I do know that a lot of African countries have a totally stagnant or failing economy.
So PROGRESS = Destruction of the Environment
in a Developing Country
Sounds like Bush speak to me
st_even said:
A developing nation is a nation that has not yet become primarily industrialized. Congo is a developing nation. Honduras is a developing nation. China is a well-fucking-developed nation. China is in the middle of one of the greatest economic climbs in history, yes, but they are FAR from an undeveloped nation.
There is actually some arguement about this, but yes, China is classified as a developing nation. Or more accurately it is a newly industrialized country, which is closer to somewhere in between, but I was using the term "developing" to mean any country that is not considered "developed", as that is a more familiar term that newly industrialized.
Also, most of the industrialization, I think over 50% of it at least, is concentrated in Beijing, Tianjing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. Those are tiny cities. India is in the same boat. They pollute like hell because of their population, they do have some well to do sectors, but they are also exempt from the green house gas emissions thing because they aren't quite at the developed nations level yet. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about, I was born and raised in China. It is most certainly not a well fucking developed nation, we're still struggling to make improvements in rural sectors.
I'm not even sure if the Congo counts as a developing country, because you have to be making some progress to be qualified as a developing country. I don't know anything about the Congo, but I do know that a lot of African countries have a totally stagnant or failing economy.
So PROGRESS = Destruction of the Environment
in a Developing Country
Sounds like Bush speak to me
In this case, progress=fastest growing economy in the world. China is trying to do something about the pollution problem, but it's not an easy job, especially when a country is still in the process of industrializing.
Yummy said:
In this case, progress=fastest growing economy in the world. China is trying to do something about the pollution problem, but it's not an easy job, especially when a country is still in the process of industrializing.
At what level of industrialization will they start working on their pollution problem? I don't think the Earth can wait for X number of years of pollution before the DPRC decides it is time to tackle the problem. There is enough evidence that the world environment and ecology stand at a precipice, and that every nation, including China, has to make some bold choices to ensure the survival of all life on this planet. The old rules of progress and development don't apply anymore. There has to be a way to grow a nation's economy without destroying the planet.
Toku666 said:
Fantastic. And people wonder why we didn't ratify Kyoto when China refused to sign on?
Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji announced on September 3, 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development that China HAS approved the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
"The approval manifests China's positive stance towards international environmental cooperation and world sustainable development," said the Chinese premier in a press release.
Also I'm wondering if you could further clarify wtf you mean when you say "ratify". Because where I come from that would imply that we signed on but simply failed to follow thru., not torpedoed the shit out of the whole effort.
As he said, China is trying. The whole world is trying, but it's not as if there's an easy solution. Maybe the issue of pollution could use more attention than it is currently getting, but if there was an easy fix, it would have been addressed years ago. And, as everyone probably knows, international cooperation does not exactly run smoothly.
Yummy said:
In this case, progress=fastest growing economy in the world. China is trying to do something about the pollution problem, but it's not an easy job, especially when a country is still in the process of industrializing.
At what level of industrialization will they start working on their pollution problem? I don't think the Earth can wait for X number of years of pollution before the DPRC decides it is time to tackle the problem. There is enough evidence that the world environment and ecology stand at a precipice, and that every nation, including China, has to make some bold choices to ensure the survival of all life on this planet. The old rules of progress and development don't apply anymore. There has to be a way to grow a nation's economy without destroying the planet.
I agree. It isn't the 40's. Knowing what we know now, it seems like it must be easier to build developing nations' infrastructures to be more responsible and emissions conservative. Building a traditional infrastructure and then having to tear it down and rebuild a modern one in 10 years but stupid in the long run and the short run.
Last year I attended a march in Lisbon. People of the agricultural community were protesting because some Belgian guy was going to be, or had been, put in charge of Portuguese agriculture as a whole. They believed his intention was to make a bad situation worse, then go home and get a pat on the back for it. They wanted someone Portuguese in charge. Apparently it never occurred to anyone that he was truly there to help. (I don't know if he was or not, or if the march changed anything.)
It would be nice if we could let China 'grow up' on its own, make its own mistakes so it can learn from them without anyone else telling them what to do; but it's already been part of the global community for too long. I'm not happy about a lot of things China (those in power, not its people) has done. It makes me angry to think the West is already doing business with them. Unfortunately, the West has been pissing me off lately, too.
China will be the next superpower because the current one is fast becoming ripe and ready to fall.
xmaulerx said:
Your English teacher would have asked you who or what the WWF is... I'm assuming its is not indeed the World Wrestling Federation.
[Macho Man]
Well lemmie tell ya summtin 'bout that DASTARDLY Yangtze! He's a no good, low down dirty SNAKE or a river! OHHH YEAHHH!! And at Wrestlemania, I showed the WORLD what a two-bit, washed up, HASbeen he was! OH YEAAH! And now I hear all this and that from all you little punks a flappin' yer lips and a wagglin' yer fingers at what the Macho Man did! Well lemmie tell ya summtin, people, what you witnessed was an extravaganza of pure athleticism and power from yours truly and the END of the YANGTZE RIVER! OHHHHH YEEEEAAAAHHH!!
and if i hear any little iota of a tiny bit of a SQUEAK out of you, Yellow River, your next! Oh YEAAH! i'll put you in a HEADLOCK!
Tech29 said:
I think China in the next ten years will become very serious about their enviromental policy in regards to air and water quallity. They will have to as there medical bill for 1.5 billion people with asthma and other proplems associated with drinking toxic water will so affect their economic growth they will have no choice . Lets hope in a sick way this happends sooner because unfortunatly governemnts only make changes when their bottom line is in danger of turning red. I am lead to believe they will be the biggest polluters in 30 years time, eclipsing the US.
I thought China already polluted more than the U.S., although I'm not sure. They do have a helluva lot more people and no restrictions on green house gas emissions though, so I think it's possible.
Actually I think their Industry is more polluting than the US but America's car driving population beats China in the end tho I'm not sure anymore, I read this like 5 years ago. God help the world when everyone in China starts driving cars every day
brooklynhero said:
I absolutely love how people get wrapped up in green issues. Too bad Vonnegut isn't here to remind us - but Carlin still is
God I hope you think this is just a joke. The Planet IS NOT FINE.
no, i actually think that Carlin got it right: the planet is not fine FOR US. and many of the organisms that inhabit it NOW. from the perspective of something that might not survive this stage in the planet's evolution, it's not fine. but the planet, on the whole, IS doing fine. it's still got billions of years worth of existance and new creatures to populate it ahead. we haven't learned how to blow it up, yet, after all. we won't make it a barren, lifeless rock with our current level of technology, even. maybe we'll irradiate it for a little while, but stuff will adapt. the planet has been through worse.
so the planet is fine and doesn't need saving.
we are the ones needing the saving, actually. i'm all for spaceships, myself.
Today, the giant impact hypothesis for forming the Earth-Moon system is widely accepted by the scientific community. In this hypothesis, the impact of a Mars-sized body on the proto-Earth is postulated to have put enough material into circumterrestrial orbit to form the Moon.[1] Given that planetary bodies are believed to have formed by the hierarchical accretion of smaller bodies to larger ones, giant impact events such as this are thought to have affected most planets. Computer simulations modelling this impact are consistent with measurements of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system, as well as the small size of the lunar core.[33] Unresolved questions regarding this theory have to do with determining the relative sizes of the proto-Earth and impactor, and with determining how the material from the proto-Earth and the impactor was distributed when it formed the Moon. The formation of the Moon is believed to have occurred 4.527 ± 0.01 billion years ago, about 30-50 million years after the origin of the solar system.[34] - wikipedia
After a cataclismic event like that - The earth became what is is today. Only reason I bring it up is that the conditions necessary to create our environment took millions - if not billions of years to come together.
Folks we are NOT undoing the planet - we are simply undoing any chance at prolonging our stay here
perhaps that is what fate intends. Perhaps we are one of the few species that actually erradicates ourselves for history by our own hands.
Funny thing about environmentalism is it exists due to a fear of someday we will "have not." No clean water - no fish in the sea - no forests to make oxygen - no clean air. All of these realizations lead us to finally take a frame of mind that is more inline with primitave human beings - human beings who evolved into what we are today by FEARing the environment. So we replace the earthly concerns with religious concerns - or dogmas that stray from environmental preservation and systems preservation to self-preservation (not that self-preservation is a "new idea") and the fear that accompanies the unknown within man's law- we increase our efficiency in terms of sustainance and reproduction - and suddenly over thousands of years you get civilization, industrialization, and ceratinly pollution - but that pollution will only choke our species - and those on the planet today. Our environment is constantly evolving - as are the living creatures that inhabit such an environment. There is literally nothing we can do to destroy our planet - until we invent a Deathstar or something - but that would be a deliberate choice now wouldn't it - not this strage passive aggressive way of perceived destruction.
My final thought is that when you consider our dyanmic with the environment - you must consider our dynamic with ourselves.
Remember WE are our OWN pollution - be it in idea or practice.
FearTheReaper
NEWSWIRE
I'm lost
APR 16, 2007 12:33 PM