4 Comments so far

1. adambrown March 5th, 2007 1:25 pm

   Walmart’s high-China content is a symbol of the problematic GHG-emitting aspect of global trade.
   As long as only the monetary cost of goods is shown
   on shelves, China (and other Asian countries)
   can flood the US & Canada with ‘low-cost’ items. But these cost the world, if the full social/environmental costs are considered.

   Help reduce China’s global footpring by buying local.
   Shrink the market for overseas products. Support your local business and help cut China’s GHG emissions.

2. adam March 6th, 2007 11:56 am

   Yes, buy local, but two points should be stressed here. One, China’s per capita carbon emissions are still nearly a fourth of what American’s pollute. While we’re right to be alarmed at the break-neck pace of China’s increasing emissions, we Americans should never lose sight of our own massive responsibility in contributing to the climate crisis. Perhaps the best way to curb China’s emissions is to demonstrate our nation’s own ability to cut carbon use while still maintaining, perhaps even improving, our quality of life — doesn’t everyone like clean air?
   The second point has to do with the true scale of the problem the industrialized countries have caused. Scientists are agreed that another 1.3 degree celcius rise in global average temperature will likely kick into gear terrible positive feedback loops which may lead to runaway climate catastrophe. Though we should certainly be concerned about China’s increasing contribution to this crisis, we should not forget that radical cuts in global carbon emissions are necessary NOW. For the writer of this article to say that “China is contributing to the global warming problem of tomorrow,” he reveals his ignorance of the scale of our current predicament. Global warming is a problem of today, so much so that we can’t count on addressing the problems of tomorrow. We must act now!

3. bdefrond March 6th, 2007 4:19 pm

   Talking about a countr total GW emissions, or even per capita, is meaningless given the wide disparity in living standards.

   Only by measuring emissions per unit of GNP will we reach a true understanding of efficient use of resources.

   We will then have a sound basis for action, immune to the wide range of debilitating arguments that span, from the witless US complacency to the legitimate aspirations of emerging countries including China and India. Let then technology, ecology and economics inform us.

4. bnhihonosovu December 10th, 2007 3:59 am

   titruxovekuni…

   exninexunezu…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)