FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


China seeks export carbon relief





ilie88
Quote:
China has proposed that importers of Chinese-made goods should be responsible for the carbon dioxide emitted during their manufacture.

China’s top climate change negotiator, Li Gao, said his country should not pay for cutting emissions caused by the high demands of other countries.

In recent years China has overtaken the US as the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases.

Mr Li was in Washington for talks ahead of a major conference in Copenhagen.

Envoys from Japan and the EU were also in the US capital for preliminary talks aimed at paving the way for the Denmark talks.

That meeting, scheduled for December, will see the start of negotiations on a new international treaty on climate change.

Participants hope to reach an agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. Neither the US nor China ratified the Kyoto deal, with each believing the other needed to do more.

Fair deal?

China’s latest suggestion would see its own huge export sector be exempted from any new treaty.

These products are consumed by other countries… This share of emissions should be taken by the consumers but not the producers
Li Gao, China’s climate change negotiator

Beijing argues that rich nations buying Chinese goods bear responsibility for the estimated 15-25% of China’s carbon emissions that are created by its production of exports.

“It is a very important item to make a fair agreement,” Mr Li said in Washington.

He argued that it was unfair to put the highest burden on China.

“We are at the low end of the production line for the global economy,” he said.

“We produce products and these products are consumed by other countries, especially the developed countries. This share of emissions should be taken by the consumers but not the producers,” he said.

Mr Li also criticised proposals by the US to place carbon tariffs on goods imported from countries that do not limit those gases blamed for a rises in global temperatures.

“If developed countries set a barrier in the name of climate change for trade, I think it is a disaster,” Mr Li said.

Scepticism

Working out quite how to put Mr Li’s suggestion into practice would be a logistical nightmare, other delegates in Washington said, even if the idea was ever agreed in principle.

Asking importers to handle emissions “would mean that we would also like them to have jurisdiction and legislative powers in order to control and limit those,” top EU climate negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger said.

“I’m not sure whether my Chinese colleague would agree on that particular point,” he said.

“I think the issue here is we take full responsibility and we… regulate all the emissions that come from our territory,” said Mr Runge-Metzger.

The delegates were attending a forum hosted by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

World economic woes are expected to dampen progress toward climate change initiatives, but organisers said progress could still be made in Copenhagen.

Japan’s chief negotiator Shinsuke Sugiyama pointed out that whatever deal emerged from Copenhagen, it was vital that it involved the US and China this time around.

“Japan will not repeat Kyoto,” Mr Sugiyama said.

“At Kyoto we were not able to involve the biggest emitters in the world by now - and that means the United States of America and China,” he said.

Original Post : http://massmediaus.com/?p=620
hunnyhiteshseth
Thats a crap logic according to me. Instead it should be producers who must pay for cost. Obviously, they can pass on that cost to consumer. So, in this case China must buy carbon credits and assume thats part of cost of producing semi conductors and increase that price accordingly.

According to me, per capita emission is a better method to see who need to reduce how much.
deanhills
OK, if carbon dioxide emission negotiations should be a prerequisite for export of goods, it would make sense that China will have to drop the price of the products it is manufacturing and dumping all over the world. Better yet the world should sharply reduce/stop importing cheap Chinese goods which have been upsetting the world trade balances. By doing that the world will really relieve China of its carbon dioxide emission problem. I believe part of the problem is China's over-production of goods in its "cheap" factories per square inch using cheap fuels, cheap transport, cheap everything, cheap manpower. China has been scoring very well all the time with enormous growth figures. So what a cheek now to act like a victim and wanting to make the world responsible for its carbon dioxide emission.
coolclay
Yup poor China, I feel so bad for them.
deanhills
coolclay wrote:
Yup poor China, I feel so bad for them.
Combine this with China Navy harassment of USNS, the relationship between China and the US has taken a dip. Wonder whether Hilary Clinton has written to China about environmental regulations that need to be updated. Or perhaps China is just posturing to test the new US Government leadership? More info about the USNS Impeccable that is doing surveilance of China's submarine fleet especially in view of China building nuclear ballistic submarines in the Website below:
http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/usns-impeccable-harrased-by-chinese-ships/
harismushtaq
I think when a company bids for a cost of manufacturing some particular product, it has its profit in its plans. No company bids with a loss in mind. Now the margin of profit can be redued to win the bid. European, US and Japnenese manufacturing companies usually have higher costs because they do not only have to make money but also to pay high salaries and bear extra costs to comply with different standards posed by thier government or other international organisations that certify them. Chinese companies on the other hand have cheaper bids because they can reduce thier profit margin mainly because the labour is cheap and there are few additional costs to maintain standards. That is probably the reason that chinese manufacturing firms are winning so much business and now they are the leaders in the world. Now, if there are consequences, like environmental, because there is no expenditure on the side of manufacturer to improve performance of the process, it is another way to say instead of and increase in the costs of services to say that the buyers should pay for the environment saving expenditures. The end result will be the same, the cost of manufacturing in China will increase and the drastic difference with other manfacturing giants will reduce.

Most of this is based on my speculation as I have seen similar problems with textile industry in Pakistan. it may be wrong.
deanhills
harismushtaq wrote:
The end result will be the same, the cost of manufacturing in China will increase and the drastic difference with other manfacturing giants will reduce.
This is totally on the mark and you are right. Cost of manufacturing and selling was due to increase anyway. Cheap prices can be maintained for just so long. Cost of living increases, people want higher salaries, and equipment needs to be replaced. That is a fact of live in business all over the world. Perhaps the Chinese are trying to mask this reality and trying to play with the bottomline to see what they can get in terms of minimizing decrease in profits.
icecool
deanhills wrote:
OK, if carbon dioxide emission negotiations should be a prerequisite for export of goods, it would make sense that China will have to drop the price of the products it is manufacturing and dumping all over the world. Better yet the world should sharply reduce/stop importing cheap Chinese goods which have been upsetting the world trade balances. By doing that the world will really relieve China of its carbon dioxide emission problem. I believe part of the problem is China's over-production of goods in its "cheap" factories per square inch using cheap fuels, cheap transport, cheap everything, cheap manpower. China has been scoring very well all the time with enormous growth figures. So what a cheek now to act like a victim and wanting to make the world responsible for its carbon dioxide emission.


why is china able to "dump" cheap products on the world market?

only because the world market buys them. and thats people like YOU. before international transport and trade became economical most of the things you bought were made wherever you lived or nearby.

then the western world discovered the advantage of importiung cheap labor from poorer countries to keep costs down. this didn't start with the slave trade as we know it but well before. but the practice has continued and still is. you find cheap labor all over the world doing the jobs nobody local wants to do for that price.
usa - mexicans
western europe - eastern europeans
australia - chinese and phillipines
and on and on

then the western world discovered a new, even more economical system. why nor EXPORT manufacturing to a place where there are cheap resources - including labor - and then import the finished goods. china was the obvious contender with its poverty and massive population.

how many factories have closed down over the last 10 years and opened up again in china?
how many have closed down where YOU live?
they have been closed down by international corporations.
why?
to keep costs down and profits up.
to keep YOU the consumer buying their goods.

we have to stop passing the buck and take responsibility - EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US ON EVERY LEVEL.

not be hypocrytical about it and saylike coolclay:

Quote:
Yup poor China, I feel so bad for them.


come on, be true to your statement.

next time you go out, do NOT complain about other people - the chinese worker who doesn't know anything of the global problems the world is facing but has no choice but to work for us$ 4 per DAY to feed his family in a factory owned by a global corporation - but YOU buy a similar product made in the usa if you can find it. THEN YOU pay the price.

TY
deanhills
icecool wrote:
why is china able to "dump" cheap products on the world market?

only because the world market buys them. and thats people like YOU. before international transport and trade became economical most of the things you bought were made wherever you lived or nearby.
Be careful icecool, I don't buy anything from China. I have a policy against that. Unless I am forced to and that has not happened to me yet. But I get your point.

icecool wrote:
how many factories have closed down over the last 10 years and opened up again in china?
how many have closed down where YOU live?
they have been closed down by international corporations.
why?
to keep costs down and profits up.
to keep YOU the consumer buying their goods.

we have to stop passing the buck and take responsibility - EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US ON EVERY LEVEL.

These are very good comments. I can also understand why you are making them with a certain amount of frustration, as it would seem that nobody is really paying attention to this. Both the US and China are to be made responsible here. They must be the two worst polluters in the world. Think someone else in this thread mentioned that one way to get them to cooperate is to focus on the same incentive that got them to produce the way they do. And yes, we are individually also responsible. All of us need to do more than what we are doing. I feel quite guilty in that regard.
icecool
deanhills wrote:
icecool wrote:
why is china able to "dump" cheap products on the world market?

only because the world market buys them. and thats people like YOU. before international transport and trade became economical most of the things you bought were made wherever you lived or nearby.
Be careful icecool, I don't buy anything from China. I have a policy against that. Unless I am forced to and that has not happened to me yet. But I get your point.

icecool wrote:
how many factories have closed down over the last 10 years and opened up again in china?
how many have closed down where YOU live?
they have been closed down by international corporations.
why?
to keep costs down and profits up.
to keep YOU the consumer buying their goods.

we have to stop passing the buck and take responsibility - EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US ON EVERY LEVEL.

These are very good comments. I can also understand why you are making them with a certain amount of frustration, as it would seem that nobody is really paying attention to this. Both the US and China are to be made responsible here. They must be the two worst polluters in the world. Think someone else in this thread mentioned that one way to get them to cooperate is to focus on the same incentive that got them to produce the way they do. And yes, we are individually also responsible. All of us need to do more than what we are doing. I feel quite guilty in that regard.


this is nothing personal in terms of an accusation. but to clarify this point.

there is nothing these days that is not influenced by this new "china" syndrom. so many things are now made in china, phillipines, mexico, vietnam and more - all so called emerging economies but in fact investment opportunities ofr global corporations to take advantage of cheap labor and a hungry population.

you sit on a computer - one part or another has been made in china.
maybe you drive a car - same thing.
you like nikes? - probably made in china
you wear a shirt? - the fabric most likely made in china
just bought a new dvd stand? - made in china.

there is no way that we can AVOID buying chinese.

in terms of pollution i.e. ommissions into that air.
yes china as a whole has overtaken the usa. but there are many factors involved. one big one is that alot of manufacturing technology in china is quite old using very inefficient energy generation. also on a domestic level most people still use fossil fuel to cook and heat - wood, cow dung, starw etc. this is again very inefficient and highly polluting.

however, on a per capita level the usa is by far the highest polluter globally.
deanhills
icecool wrote:
this is nothing personal in terms of an accusation. but to clarify this point.

there is nothing these days that is not influenced by this new "china" syndrom. so many things are now made in china, phillipines, mexico, vietnam and more - all so called emerging economies but in fact investment opportunities ofr global corporations to take advantage of cheap labor and a hungry population.


Quote:
you sit on a computer - one part or another has been made in china.
Which parts? I was unaware any were manufactured in China Shocked
Quote:
maybe you drive a car - same thing.
which parts in a car? Interesting thought.
Quote:
you like nikes? - probably made in china
New Balance, and yes, just checked, you're right icecool. They're made in China. I bought them in Canada. Thought they were US-made.
Quote:
you wear a shirt? - the fabric most likely made in china
After the above check, this is probably more likely now
Quote:
just bought a new dvd stand? - made in china.
No, that is definitely Canadian, and expensive of course. Even when I bought it in the nineties.

icecool wrote:
there is no way that we can AVOID buying chinese.
OK what is your suggestion then for trying to avoid buying Chinese then? Other than banning their products?

icecool wrote:
in terms of pollution i.e. ommissions into that air.
yes china as a whole has overtaken the usa. but there are many factors involved. one big one is that alot of manufacturing technology in china is quite old using very inefficient energy generation. also on a domestic level most people still use fossil fuel to cook and heat - wood, cow dung, starw etc. this is again very inefficient and highly polluting.
You have to visit that country, and I was in a fairly low-density industrial area Ghangzou. These people are aggressively profit-driven and their environment is aggressively being eroded, right down to using old trucks that would definitely not be licensed in the United States and are spewing clouds of dense petrol smoke. Just to explain on a very small way. Big scale would be a bigger version of this in their factories.

icecool wrote:
however, on a per capita level the usa is by far the highest polluter globally.
I would agree with it. Think it could also be directly related to the US needing the most electricity in the world. It's a major consumer of resources.
hunnyhiteshseth
I am bumping this topic for two reasons:

1) In response to post by Blasterhere
2) Secondly, to highlight how much tables have turned post Trump's election. China is now vying for being a global leader to lead fight against climate change.[/url]
deanhills
hunnyhiteshseth wrote:
I am bumping this topic for two reasons:

1) In response to post by Blasterhere
2) Secondly, to highlight how much tables have turned post Trump's election. China is now vying for being a global leader to lead fight against climate change.[/url]
Welcome back Hunnyhiteshseth. Great to see you posting.

I think there's a great irony that China - one of the most aggressive manufacturers and dumpers of cheap junk all over the world, should vy for being a global leader in fight against climate change. Between China and India they are VASTLY overpopulated, they follow the worst of cheap manufacturing policies that are harmful to the environment, they exploit people, they have no respect for the environment or scarce resources. It's only when their big industrial cities have become almost unlivable because of the smog that they are starting to wake up. They're about the last candidates for leading the fight against climate change.
pipecort
ilie88 wrote:
Quote:
China has proposed that importers of Chinese-made goods should be responsible for the carbon dioxide emitted during their manufacture.

China’s top climate change negotiator, Li Gao, said his country should not pay for cutting emissions caused by the high demands of other countries.

In recent years China has overtaken the US as the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases.

Mr Li was in Washington for talks ahead of a major conference in Copenhagen.

Envoys from Japan and the EU were also in the US capital for preliminary talks aimed at paving the way for the Denmark talks.

That meeting, scheduled for December, will see the start of negotiations on a new international treaty on climate change.

Participants hope to reach an agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. Neither the US nor China ratified the Kyoto deal, with each believing the other needed to do more.

Fair deal?

China’s latest suggestion would see its own huge export sector be exempted from any new treaty.

These products are consumed by other countries… This share of emissions should be taken by the consumers but not the producers
Li Gao, China’s climate change negotiator

Beijing argues that rich nations buying Chinese goods bear responsibility for the estimated 15-25% of China’s carbon emissions that are created by its production of exports.

“It is a very important item to make a fair agreement,” Mr Li said in Washington.

He argued that it was unfair to put the highest burden on China.

“We are at the low end of the production line for the global economy,” he said.

“We produce products and these products are consumed by other countries, especially the developed countries. This share of emissions should be taken by the consumers but not the producers,” he said.

Mr Li also criticised proposals by the US to place carbon tariffs on goods imported from countries that do not limit those gases blamed for a rises in global temperatures.

“If developed countries set a barrier in the name of climate change for trade, I think it is a disaster,” Mr Li said.

Scepticism

Working out quite how to put Mr Li’s suggestion into practice would be a logistical nightmare, other delegates in Washington said, even if the idea was ever agreed in principle.

Asking importers to handle emissions “would mean that we would also like them to have jurisdiction and legislative powers in order to control and limit those,” top EU climate negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger said.

“I’m not sure whether my Chinese colleague would agree on that particular point,” he said.

“I think the issue here is we take full responsibility and we… regulate all the emissions that come from our territory,” said Mr Runge-Metzger.

The delegates were attending a forum hosted by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

World economic woes are expected to dampen progress toward climate change initiatives, but organisers said progress could still be made in Copenhagen.

Japan’s chief negotiator Shinsuke Sugiyama pointed out that whatever deal emerged from Copenhagen, it was vital that it involved the US and China this time around.

“Japan will not repeat Kyoto,” Mr Sugiyama said.

“At Kyoto we were not able to involve the biggest emitters in the world by now - and that means the United States of America and China,” he said.

Original Post : http://massmediaus.com/?p=620



I think that, rather than limiting carbon emissions in China, the world`s governments could use levying a tax on the carbon emissions. It’s a more market-friendly approach, especially if the carbon tax starts relatively low and increases only gradually. But, it 's possible that the market its self will increase the price on the final consumer making it less competitive and the companies and industry will collapse.

Thinking on this, it' s probably in a long-term better to start regulating the consume and demand of products and guarantee there is enough time to maintain a sustainable ecosystem with the environment importing fewer products through reducing the import of goods.

In my perspective, the USA is the major contributor to the world`s carbon emissions and its government turns its back on the fight against climate change. On the other side China, the EU, and many others governments and countries are forging ahead to find a way of producing an industry with fewer climate emissions.

At the of the day we are all responsible for what we consume and where we get it from ,and as we are living in this world we have to look after it.
hunnyhiteshseth
deanhills wrote:
hunnyhiteshseth wrote:
I am bumping this topic for two reasons:

1) In response to post by Blasterhere
2) Secondly, to highlight how much tables have turned post Trump's election. China is now vying for being a global leader to lead fight against climate change.[/url]
Welcome back Hunnyhiteshseth. Great to see you posting.

I think there's a great irony that China - one of the most aggressive manufacturers and dumpers of cheap junk all over the world, should vy for being a global leader in fight against climate change. Between China and India they are VASTLY overpopulated, they follow the worst of cheap manufacturing policies that are harmful to the environment, they exploit people, they have no respect for the environment or scarce resources. It's only when their big industrial cities have become almost unlivable because of the smog that they are starting to wake up. They're about the last candidates for leading the fight against climate change.


Thanks deanhills. Glad to be back.
Unfortunately now US is moving in that direction where it will allow exploitation of its natural resources and its people at the same time when China & India have started to improve upon their record.
Related topics
AMD, China Ink x86 Agreement
China's economy - crash imminent?
African Exports to USA/China
Anyone seen the Made In China danger list?
Emirates work on first zero-carbon city
should we care about antartic ice melting?
What is the sink for Carbon Dioxide
With White House Push, U.S. Arms Sales Jump
China History
Asia’s Future and the Financial Crisis
The prices in China
currency war betwent china & usa
How can we improve the relationship China & Japan?
Creationism & ID (split from sticky)
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.