Comments on: China May Be the Death of the Environmental Movement

By: chemicallygreen.com

chemicallygreen.com — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:23:45 +0000

@Johan: Thanks for your comments. Appreciate you adding the link. I have questions for you. If the U.S. does not buy goods from China, what countries will be able to supply the U.S? Why does the U.S. purchase goods from China.

By: Johan

Johan — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:07:50 +0000

Interesting – for me, I think that western countries need to stop depending on China for cheap goods.. It only fuels the rise of pollution from industry. http://www.mindreign.com/en/mindshare/Environmental-Concerns/China-3a-The-Environmental-Rogue/sl36962308bp325cpp10pn1.html has some interesting views on the subject as well.

By: We’re All Getting a Lump of Coal This Xmas

We’re All Getting a Lump of Coal This Xmas — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:56:16 +0000

[...] up to date coal fired plants to produce electricity. From a previous Chemically Green post: China May Be The Death of the Environmental Movement is becoming more true than ever [...]

By: chemicallygreen.com

chemicallygreen.com — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:16:27 +0000

@ John V.: Thanks for your comments.Our pathetic governments have wasted billions of dollars due to greed, corruption and just plain being stupid that could have been used to solve many environmental problems. The amount of money thrown at the corn ethanol lobbyists is staggering and with the collapse of oil prices, we are back to where we started. People will go back to using gasoline as long as the price stays down. But for how long? Oil is definitely peaking or will eventually peak.

Now with a possible complete world financial crisis sucking the wind out of the environmental movement, we have to plan green programs that will give us maximum results for dollars spent.
The world, as well as China, will have to continue to use coal to generate electricity. We are looking at many years of coal use and China just discoved a gigantic coal deposit inside their borders and will continue to use coal for electricity due to a power starved country.

By: John V

John V — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 03:35:18 +0000

The USA did the right thing by not signing on to this farce. Canada has not lived up to it’s Kyoto commitments and won’t. Thankfully we have a re-elected government that is not in the tank with the climate change freaks.

I predict that little will be done to curb pollution because we are in a paradox on this issue. We can clean up the planet and live in a state of world wide poverty, envy and anger or we can adapt and accept that a many of our seven billion people will die as a result of the pollution.

The root of the problem is that we have seven billion people who all want to consume more and more and governments who promise it to them.

By: » Blog Archive » “But it’s working in Europe”

» Blog Archive » “But it’s working in Europe” — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:57:15 +0000

[...] Just ask China. [...]

By: chemicallygreen.com

chemicallygreen.com — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:51:24 +0000

@ Rob: Thanks for your comments.

By: chemicallygreen.com

chemicallygreen.com — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:50:06 +0000

@ cchiovitti: Thank you for your comments.

By: chemicallygreen.com

chemicallygreen.com — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:20:56 +0000

@ Bryce: Thank you for your comment. Please give a few reasons why the U.S. should have signed the Kyoto Treaty.
Setting a good example is not good enough reason. Bryce, you might not be aware of the results of the EU countries meeting the requirements of kyoto. Japan and most of the EU countries had to pay heavy penalties because they could not meet Kyoto’s mandated pollution limits. Tell me who got all the money from the Kyoto payments that were made by the EU countries.

By: chemicallygreen.com

chemicallygreen.com — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:15:30 +0000

@ Brianne: Thanks for your comments. It looks like we are not going to have to worry about green or pollution if our financial institutions keep going bankrupt. Kyoto was really a trap for the U.S. and signing this treaty would have been a disaster for the American taxpayer. The EU moved the requirements for the U.S. to meeting Kyoto to previous years which would have meant more costs to the U.S.