Chimna Top CO2 Producer

[Blue Order]

Group: China top CO2 producer (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/06/20/china.climate.ap/index.html)

BEIJING, China (AP) -- China has overtaken the United States as the world's top producer of carbon dioxide emissions -- the biggest man-made contributor to global warming -- based on the latest widely accepted energy consumption data, a Dutch research group says.

According to a report released Tuesday by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China overtook the U.S. in emissions of CO2 by 8 percent in 2006. While China was 2 percent below the United States in 2005, voracious coal consumption and increased cement production caused the numbers to rise rapidly, the group said.

"It's an expression of their fast industrial production activities and their fast development," Jos G.J. Olivier, the agency's senior scientist who compiled the figures, said Wednesday. The agency is independent but paid by the Dutch government to advise it on environmental policy.

The study said China, which relies on coal for two-thirds of its energy needs and makes 44 percent of the world's cement, produced 6.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2006. In comparison, the U.S., which gets half its electricity from coal, produced 5.8 billion metric tons of CO2, it said.

The group's analysis makes sense and had been predicted to happen by 2009 or 2010, said experts from the United Nations and the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and outside academics.

Bert Metz, a senior researcher at the Dutch agency and a leading expert on efforts to battle global warming, said the analysis was done using methods and data that "are the best currently available."

This means that "Chinese contributions to global CO2 emissions are getting more important," Metz said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Telephone calls to China's State Environmental Protection Agency and the National Development and Reform Commission, the Cabinet-level economic planning agency, were not answered Wednesday.

Earlier figures indicated China would likely surpass the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions as early as 2009, although other predictions said it could happen this year.

Chinese environmental officials have said that while total emissions are going up, they are still less than one quarter of those of the United States on a per capita basis. Because China's population of 1.3 billion people is more than four times that of the United States, China spews about 10,500 pounds (4,763 kilograms) of carbon dioxide per person, while in the United States it is nearly 42,500 pounds (19,278 kilograms) per person.

Olivier said there was not much chance China will now lose its lead.

"China's growth will saturate at some point," he said. But "for now, we don't see a trend (toward) this saturation yet."

Olivier said the research was based on data on fossil fuel consumption from BP PLC's Review of Energy 2007, compiled by the British oil company, and cement production data through 2006 published by the U.S. Geological Survey.

John Christensen, head of the U.N. Environment Program's Center on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development in Denmark, said the figures did not come as a surprise.

"The Dutch agency referred to BP statistics, which is the standard reference tool. We have no reason to doubt that the numbers are right. We have no reason to doubt the methodology," Christensen said. "It's been stated many times that China will overtake the U.S. in emissions."

Other sources of carbon dioxide, such as deforestation and the flaring of gas in oil and gas production, are not included in the data. They also do not include methane from fuel production and agriculture and nitrous oxide from industry.

Fatih Birol, chief economist of the Paris-based International Energy Agency also said the findings were not surprising, given China's economic growth of more than 9 percent annually over the past 25 years.

His agency had estimated China would overtake the U.S. before 2010; in November it sharpened the forecast to 2007 or 2008.

But the issue is not just current emissions, but carbon dioxide stuck in the atmosphere, where it lingers for about a century trapping heat below, said Jay Apt, a professor of engineering, business and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

Apt and a colleague calculated the share of carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere that can be attributed to each country and determined that the United States is responsible for 27 percent, European nations contributed 20 percent and China only 8 percent.

"The planet does not respond to emissions, the planet responds to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," said Apt. "It means the U.S. will have the lion's share of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the foreseeable future. In fact, even if China's exponential growth continues, China will not surpass the U.S. in the numbers of carbon dioxide atoms in the atmosphere, that is concentration, until at least 2050, which is too late to start anything."

The International Energy Agency's Birol said the key message from the emission figures is not who is No. 1, but the need to slow growth in CO2 emissions. "The rest of the world with the help of China needs to find ways for China to reduce CO2 emissions," Birol said.

China has come under growing international pressure to take more forceful measures to curb releases of greenhouse gases.

This month, China unveiled its first national program to combat global warming with promises to rein in greenhouse gas production. While the program offered few new concrete targets for greenhouse gas emissions, it outlined steps the country would take to meet a previously announced goal of improving energy efficiency in 2010 by 20 percent over 2005's level.

Beijing also indicated an unwillingness to enforce mandatory emissions caps.

Ma Kai, the minister heading the National Development and Reform Commission, said economic development is a priority for China, but efforts would be made to raise awareness about global warming.

China signed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which caps the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted in industrialized countries. But because China is considered a developing country it is exempt from emission reductions -- a situation often cited by U.S. President George W. Bush's administration and Australia for not accepting the treaty.

Yang Ailun of Greenpeace China called on the country to take more steps to protect the environment. "Due to the urgency of climate change, China has the responsibility to take immediate actions to reform its energy structure and curb its CO2 emissions," Yang said in a statement.

She noted that Western consumers use products made in China.

"All the West has done is export a great slice of its carbon footprint to China and make China the world's factory," she said. "This trend has kept the price of projects in the West down, but led to a climate disaster in the long term."

[cerewa]

I have an easy question for y'all: when will China have a higher per-capita CO2 emissions than the USA does now?

[wahoonc]

I have an easy question for y'all: when will China have a higher per-capita CO2 emissions than the USA does now?
If they keep going at the rate they are now... and they don't run out of oil or coal? I would guess in about 3-5 years. But a guestimate that I saw on peak oil was it is going to get ugly in about 24-30 months. Some of the more radical Peak Oil Pundits are saying 30 weeks:eek:

Aaron:)

[maddyfish]

What, that can't be, it's not possible, it's not true, if it was KYOTO would address China more thoroughly.

[acroy]

the fun with China (and India, and... well, all the rapidly industrializing "3rd world" countries) has barely started...
we are seeing our own Industrial Revolution happen in fast-forward, on a larger scale. It's amazing.

[gosmsgo]

I dont think that global warming is caused by man.

BUT....

China's per capita CO2 emissions would not be 1000th of the USA's if they did not make EVERY SINGLE THING WE BUY.

Ever tried to buy any American made cycling stuff??

[Robert C]

One thing is that here in China there is no real concern about air polution. It is just not something people think about. Currently water polution is a much bigger problem and even that has no real solution in sight. I live in a town that is noted for the quality of its water and even here the water must be boiled before use.

The sewage treatment is very good for China. This means that in the newer parts of town the sewage goes through pipes to be dumped in the river instead of simple covered trenches (I live in the covered trench part of town, and yes, sometimes it smells bad); however, almost al of the trenches are covered.

A tremendous number of the scooters are two-stroke (the ones that mix oil in the gassoline and smoke something awful) the roads are filled with vehicles with no polution (or noise) control devices at all.

I am not trying to say that all is bad. However, CO2 is just not on peoples minds. I talk to the college students and the attitude is that they have heard all about that global warming stuff but there are much bigger concerns.

[not a zombie]

One thing is that here in China there is no real concern about air polution. It is just not something people think about. Currently water polution is a much bigger problem and even that has no real solution in sight. I live in a town that is noted for the quality of its water and even here the water must be boiled before use.
So outside of water pollution, what else is a larger concern in China than air pollution? Living conditions/freedom?

[Roody]

I dont think that global warming is caused by man.

BUT....

China's per capita CO2 emissions would not be 1000th of the USA's if they did not make EVERY SINGLE THING WE BUY.

Ever tried to buy any American made cycling stuff??
Your first statement is wrong, but you hit the nail on the head with your second sentence. The west has exported pollution and carbon emission to China, along with a lot of our jobs.

Now China is deconstructing the village economy that has sustained it for thousands of years. What a damn mess!

[vulpes]

Your first statement is wrong, but you hit the nail on the head with your second sentence. The west has exported pollution and carbon emission to China, along with a lot of our jobs.

Now China is deconstructing the village economy that has sustained it for thousands of years. What a damn mess!

Can you say, "globalization"? I knew you could. ;)

[bragi]

the fun with China (and India, and... well, all the rapidly industrializing "3rd world" countries) has barely started...
we are seeing our own Industrial Revolution happen in fast-forward, on a larger scale. It's amazing.

It is amazing, but not nearly as amazing as what we'll see if this continues unabated. Two countries, India and China, with a combined population that almost equals that of the entire world in 1960, are working heroicially to achieve a level of consumption comparable to those of Europe and North America. But they're too late. There is no way on Earth -literally- that 800 million westerners (Europe, NA and Australia), 1.3 billion Chinese and 1.2 Billion Indians can all have cars, giantic refrigerators, big-ass houses, and fly all over creation to get a tan in winter. Something's going to give eventually, and my guess is that it's going to be spectacular, but not in a good way.

[bragi]

Your first statement is wrong, but you hit the nail on the head with your second sentence. The west has exported pollution and carbon emission to China, along with a lot of our jobs.

Now China is deconstructing the village economy that has sustained it for thousands of years. What a damn mess!

I've been talking to a friend who frequently travels to China on business, and he tells me that the Chinese he's spoken with, at least those lucky enough to have good jobs in the larger eastern cities, are thrilled with their new lifestyle. They get to eat better food, live in better housing, have electricity, go out to eat and party once in a while, and maybe, if they save their money, buy a motorcycle or even a car. They're starting to live like us, they like it, and there's no way in hell they're going back to the village, and who can blame them? The village sucks. (Until the cities run out of food and water.)

[wahoonc]

Good perspective on China from the cyclist's (http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/joff1) view...

Aaron:)

[maddyfish]

I've been talking to a friend who frequently travels to China on business, and he tells me that the Chinese he's spoken with, at least those lucky enough to have good jobs in the larger eastern cities, are thrilled with their new lifestyle. They get to eat better food, live in better housing, have electricity, go out to eat and party once in a while, and maybe, if they save their money, buy a motorcycle or even a car. They're starting to live like us, they like it, and there's no way in hell they're going back to the village, and who can blame them? The village sucks. (Until the cities run out of food and water.)
well maybe there is hope that they'll kick out the communist dirtbags, and take over their own country.

[bragi]

well maybe there is hope that they'll kick out the communist dirtbags, and take over their own country.

Communist dirtbags? As far as I can tell, the Chinese have been acting a lot like capitalist dirtbags for quite some time now. In addition, their government appears to have the enthusiastic support of the vast majority of their people. A man with a job, a family and a refrigerator is not a revolutionary.

[cerewa]

Communist dirtbags? As far as I can tell, the Chinese have been acting a lot like capitalist dirtbags for quite some time now. In addition, their government appears to have the enthusiastic support of the vast majority of their people. A man with a job, a family and a refrigerator is not a revolutionary.

Ah, the eternal conundrum: to have communist dirtbags or capitalist dirtbags? Of course we could go and be anarchist dirtbags, but i guess i'm just tired of dirt right now.

[Robert C]

This is a country that has a civil war, that cost millions of lives, in living memory. The buzword is, "A harmonious Society." People are much more concerned with living conditions than the meaning of the word "freedom."

Goverment has very little impact in most peoples lives and it takes a sharp eye combined with a lot of patience to see any communism. Goverment is seen more as a box of rocks on an unseen ledge. If it falls on someone, well, bad luck for them, good thing it didn't happen to me; but in all, it is unavoidable that it will fall on someone.

I mentioned water quality as something that is seen as more important than CO2 here and was asked what was next on the list on big issues. Well, Water isn't even on top. Any fool knows that water is not, and will not be, safe to drink. On top is making money, getting a car or petrol bike, and looking important (this way you are not as affected by "little people" rules and laws).

The Chinese know that the ecology is a mess and is getting worse. However, action is out of thier hands. The decisions will be made by the people who make decisions and will be obeyed by those whose place is to obey (and ignored by those who can make a profit by ignoreing). In daily life, the ecology is not even a talking point.

Seeing as we are shareing China bolg links, here's mine myspace.com/robert_crawford (http://www.myspace.com/robert_crawford) . There is some cycleing stuff in it but that it not really the focus.

[maddyfish]

Ah, the eternal conundrum: to have communist dirtbags or capitalist dirtbags? Of course we could go and be anarchist dirtbags, but i guess i'm just tired of dirt right now.
NO conundrum. In my country, if I don't like the government I can run for office, and change it. IN China, if you don't like the government you are quiet, or you complain and end up as a forced organ donor.

[Bikepacker67]

I have an easy question for y'all: when will China have a higher per-capita CO2 emissions than the USA does now?

I think a more important stat is China's CO2 output in relation to its GDP.

[Bikepacker67]

The Chinese know that the ecology is a mess and is getting worse. However, action is out of thier hands. The decisions will be made by the people who make decisions and will be obeyed by those whose place is to obey (and ignored by those who can make a profit by ignoreing). In daily life, the ecology is not even a talking point.


Whoa... that's damn depressing.

those whose place is to obey

???!

WTF is that?

[maddyfish]

Slavery is depressing. Even if the standard of living is increasing for some of the people. A gilded cage is still a cage.

[twobikes]

There have been some news stories lately based on the long experience of climatology scientists who turn upside down the basic assumption rampant in this thread that more CO2 produces more warming. They say exactly the opposite is true. More warming precedes increased CO2. There was also a news story yesterday that a significant number of our official temperature sampling stations are in close proximity to the exhaust openings on air conditioning units, which skews temperature readings and leads to false conclusions. Keep your powder dry. Before the end of your lives you may well see that human caused global warming was a big hoax. Just because there is a lot of buzz about something and it comes to be thought of as orthodoxy does not mean it is true. Michael Crichton has written a book about this sort of thing. He mentions that in the early 1900's everyone believed certain races were by nature incapable of the same intellectual achievements as other races. It was so established that no serious person dared to challenge it.

[maddyfish]

I'm still waiting for the ice age that climatologists were predicting in the late 70's

[Roody]

And I'm still waiting for proof that the earth is round. After all, if scientists were wrong about one thing they must be wrong about everything, according to the logic of the last two posters.

Air conditioning vents, lol!

[gwd]

See, the Chinese are taking steps to save energy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6252586.stm

"It is aimed at encouraging Chinese to wear fewer clothes so they can turn
down air conditioning and save energy."

I just moved into a new office. My coworkers have decided that the AC keeps the room too cold. Their solution? Keep sweaters and blanket handy. I got the deer in headlights stare when I mentioned the thermostat and on-off switch.

[C Law]

^ are your co workers chinese?

[gwd]

^ are your co workers chinese?
No, I meant to contrast their American attitude with the article. The Chinese leaders are asking people to wear less clothes and use less AC while my co workers have the attitude that if the AC is too cold it is too much trouble to walk across the room to turn the switch, so they add clothes. One puts a blanket around her shoulders and the other puts a sweater on. There is hope. One asked me about bike shops. The family has decided to pull the bikes out of the garage and start riding them this summer.

[Bikepacker67]

I wish folks (on both sides of the aisle [ain't it convenient that we're so evenly sliced?]) would stop concentrating on GW/climate change.

Our lifestyles are a helluva lot more poisonous than simply adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

The oceans are dying, acid rain is still killing freshwater ecosystems, species are going extinct at 1000X the rate that they were before humans became dominant...

I mean WTF people? Are we so damn foolish as to kill the goose?

[Bikepacker67]

The Chinese leaders are asking people to wear less clothes and use less AC.

Not because of any environmental altruism.
Energy spent on the comfort of workers is $$$ wasted.

[vulpes]

I wish folks (on both sides of the aisle [ain't it convenient that we're so evenly sliced?]) would stop concentrating on GW/climate change.

Our lifestyles are a helluva lot more poisonous than simply adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

The oceans are dying, acid rain is still killing freshwater ecosystems, species are going extinct at 1000X the rate that they were before humans became dominant...

I mean WTF people? Are we so damn foolish as to kill the goose?


The Earth's ecology continues to deteriorate as the overriding drive for profit outweighs the wisdom of managing natural resources and ecological balance in a way that will preserve them for all succeeding generations. Eliminate production for profit, replace it with production for use, add democratic control of collectively held resources and you eliminate the problem. What's so hard about that?

[Bikepacker67]

The Earth's ecology continues to deteriorate as the overriding drive for profit outweighs the wisdom of managing natural resources and ecological balance in a way that will preserve them for all succeeding generations. Eliminate production for profit, replace it with production for use, add democratic control of collectively held resources and you eliminate the problem. What's so hard about that?

Other than construction can only follow destruction?
Nothing. Let's start tearing it down.

Ohh wait... We'll get killed if we try that.
:D

[cerewa]

The Earth's ecology continues to deteriorate as the overriding drive for profit outweighs the wisdom of managing natural resources and ecological balance in a way that will preserve them for all succeeding generations. Eliminate production for profit, replace it with production for use, add democratic control of collectively held resources and you eliminate the problem. What's so hard about that?

Communism as it existed in the USSR and USSR-inspired governments did not involve a lot of "democratic control of resources." But that was the basic idea that inspired their government at first and it did not turn out well.

I don't think the failure of the USSR was simply in its undemocratic government, but in the fact that giving wholesale power to a government (even one that is given feedback through meaningful elections) to control resources is going to put too much power in the hands of too few people, with an important factor being the fact that the government just won't have enough information to make economic choices as well as private individuals trying to save or earn money.

What we need is not to throw out capitalism in favor of unproven hopes for a money-free economy, but to take away the right to a totally free market as in every situation where the free market system is known to fail.

The free market does nothing to solve problems such as one person's dumping more than his fair share of chromium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium#Precautions) into a body of water. Maybe he gets something really useful out of having a spot (the shared body of water) to let his pollutant go, but other people may be poisoned. Coal-fired powerplants give us a similar problem.

One possible solution is to come up with a level of pollution that is tolerable, and auction off right-to-pollute credits up to the tolerable level or put a big enough tax on polluting to reduce levels of pollution to what is tolerable. (Either option has the same effect-- the more you pollute the more you have to pay and a lot of people will have to quit polluting because polluting costs too much.)

This problem of "externalities" might be the biggest failure of the free market system, and the idea behind taxing pollution is to "internalize externalities". To take away the "free lunch" that one person gets at another person's expense. Or, in other words, to make people pay for the harm they do to other people.

I think it's possible to put an approximate money value on the harm done by (for example) power plant pollutants, and simply billing the power plant for that harm makes perfect sense.

If they decide to shut down the coal plant and replace it with solar because of the tax then good for them. But if they just give us so much money that we don't mind that they also gave us a mild case of asthma, that's okay too. (Almost all of you use electricity so you may as well not get indignant that powerplants are polluting your air.)

Like many things, the benefits that electricity provides have saved or prolonged countless lives, even as electricity has killed many people. Overall I suspect electricity has contributed to the increase in lifespans we see in industrialized countries (relative to pre-industrial times). But making electricity-makers pay for the damage they do would help to make sure that we stop using it when the harm outweighs the benefits.

[Bikepacker67]

This problem of "externalities" might be the biggest failure of the free market system

Ain't that the truth!

Hell, most profit margin is gained by foisting the true cost of doing business on to the powerless.

[vulpes]

Communism as it existed in the USSR and USSR-inspired governments did not involve a lot of "democratic control of resources." But that was the basic idea that inspired their government at first and it did not turn out well.

I don't think the failure of the USSR was simply in its undemocratic government, but in the fact that giving wholesale power to a government (even one that is given feedback through meaningful elections) to control resources is going to put too much power in the hands of too few people, with an important factor being the fact that the government just won't have enough information to make economic choices as well as private individuals trying to save or earn money.

Exactly! That's why a stateless system is necessary. The "communism" of the USSR was not socialism. It was just a form of state capitaism. That's why it failed.

What we need is not to throw out capitalism in favor of unproven hopes for a money-free economy, but to take away the right to a totally free market as in every situation where the free market system is known to fail.

I just don't think it is possible to reform capitalism. By its very nature it is destructive to human life and the environment. If it were reformed enough to solve the problems it is currently causing, it would no longer be capitalism.

The free market does nothing to solve problems such as one person's dumping more than his fair share of chromium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium#Precautions) into a body of water. Maybe he gets something really useful out of having a spot (the shared body of water) to let his pollutant go, but other people may be poisoned. Coal-fired powerplants give us a similar problem.

One possible solution is to come up with a level of pollution that is tolerable, and auction off right-to-pollute credits up to the tolerable level or put a big enough tax on polluting to reduce levels of pollution to what is tolerable. (Either option has the same effect-- the more you pollute the more you have to pay and a lot of people will have to quit polluting because polluting costs too much.)

This problem of "externalities" might be the biggest failure of the free market system, and the idea behind taxing pollution is to "internalize externalities". To take away the "free lunch" that one person gets at another person's expense. Or, in other words, to make people pay for the harm they do to other people.

Since the rich and powerful are one and the same, i.e. the corporations own the government, a system like this would never be proposed, much less inacted.

I think it's possible to put an approximate money value on the harm done by (for example) power plant pollutants, and simply billing the power plant for that harm makes perfect sense.

If they decide to shut down the coal plant and replace it with solar because of the tax then good for them. But if they just give us so much money that we don't mind that they also gave us a mild case of asthma, that's okay too. (Almost all of you use electricity so you may as well not get indignant that powerplants are polluting your air.)

Like many things, the benefits that electricity provides have saved or prolonged countless lives, even as electricity has killed many people. Overall I suspect electricity has contributed to the increase in lifespans we see in industrialized countries (relative to pre-industrial times). But making electricity-makers pay for the damage they do would help to make sure that we stop using it when the harm outweighs the benefits.

Why not just remove the profit motive entirely? It is the relentless pusuit of profit that does the damage.

[HoustonB]

... I think it's possible to put an approximate money value on the harm done by (for example) power plant pollutants, and simply billing the power plant for that harm makes perfect sense. ...
(Simplified view) So the power plants pass on the cost to the consumer. The government receives more tax revenue - and what does the government do with the money - ostensibly, it spends it on things needed by the people (the people being the same consumers). So other than the multiplier effect, what have you really achieved?

My preference is not to create yet another revenue stream for the government - they already waste far too much. The power plants should simply not be allowed to pollute. This would result in very expensive power that reflects the true cost of it's creation.

In the same way; if driving a car meant having a large container of pollution at the end of each month, that you had to pay to dispose of - then we would see the change hoped for by many.

[cerewa]

The part where power plants pass the cost on to the user of power is critical. Coal-electricity users will then either pay the raised rate or decide it's not worth the price and conserve. They'll have to pay extra if they want to cool their house to 67deg. instead of 77deg. in the summer or

Meanwhile power producers will have an automatic incentive to build nonpolluting power stations (wind, solar, etc) because those are unaffected by pollution taxes... so the cost per unit of power will stay the same while the coal plant's cost per unit of power goes up. More and more locations will find that the cheapest way to generate power (taxes considered) is a nonpolluting way.

I just don't think it is possible to reform capitalism. By its very nature it is destructive to human life and the environment. If it were reformed enough to solve the problems it is currently causing, it would no longer be capitalism.

I'll agree to a point that capitalism is destructive to human life and the environment, but entirely removing money from the country (with or without a government trying to control the economy) is just going to make it hard to get stuff done. If you're a furnituremaker and you want a shoe, you have to find a shoemaker who accepts furniture in trade. People will tend to start using something as a medium-of-exchange (money) anyway. Possibly pieces of shiny metal, possibly shoes, possibly vodka.

Suggesting that we should all give away our stuff to make sure that everybody has enough sounds nice, but it quick feedback to tell people what is needed (i.e. things folks will give a high trade/money price for) so everybody in their quest to be helpful might turn to farming when what we really need are a few more good lumbercutters and barnbuilders.

[twobikes]

If you think capitalism in the USA is destructive to the environment and human life, check again the ecological disasters Communism left behind in the former Soviet Union and in East Germany. Those far outstrip anything in the USA.

[Wogsterca]

Communism as it existed in the USSR and USSR-inspired governments did not involve a lot of "democratic control of resources." But that was the basic idea that inspired their government at first and it did not turn out well.

I don't think the failure of the USSR was simply in its undemocratic government, but in the fact that giving wholesale power to a government (even one that is given feedback through meaningful elections) to control resources is going to put too much power in the hands of too few people, with an important factor being the fact that the government just won't have enough information to make economic choices as well as private individuals trying to save or earn money.

Communism's basic ideology, that all individuals share resources, and no one does without, isn't in itself a bad idea, the problem is that people can not implement it well, because you tend to get some people more equal then others. That is why the USSR failed, and so have most other implementations, that didn't have A heavy military presence to keep control over those who were less equal.

[twobikes]

Communism's basic ideology, that all individuals share resources, and no one does without, isn't in itself a bad idea, the problem is that people can not implement it well, because you tend to get some people more equal then others. That is why the USSR failed, and so have most other implementations, that didn't have A heavy military presence to keep control over those who were less equal. Gene Vieth authored a book called Modern Fascism that contains a chapter on "Beautiful Ideas That Kill." The idea basic to communist systems of all types that those more able would supply enough to support also those less able ("From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs.") is a beautiful idea. But, it does not work. In the early days of Colonial America food production was organized around a collective idea very much like communism. Everyone nearly starved. The strong producers saw no reason to produce if it was to be taken from them and given to people who refused to produce. When each family was given its own plot of land and told they could keep the excess beyond their own needs for personal profit, there was suddenly plenty of food. That is a basic aspect of human nature that capitalism understands and communism does not.

[Roody]

In the early days of Colonial America food production was organized around a collective idea very much like communism. Everyone nearly starved. The strong producers saw no reason to produce if it was to be taken from them and given to people who refused to produce.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Most early European settlements in North America followed the pattern of Jamestown. They were "plantations" that were huge tracts of land, granted by the monarch to his buddies. The settlers were no better than slaves, working off debts or paying for petty crimes with years of indentured servitude. they were required by their owners to search for gold, and later plant tobacco for the owner's personal wealth. They often starved because they were not allowed to spend time with agriculture, shelter and the like.

Remember, there was no democracy at the time, and actually no capitalism either. The government was a monarchy, and the economic system was mercantilism, or a state-supported system of monopolies and corruption. And certainly no communism!
The theories underlying capitalism would not arise for another 125 years, or more, and Marx came another 50 years after that. So nice try, but your'e off by way more than a century! :)

[vulpes]

If you think capitalism in the USA is destructive to the environment and human life, check again the ecological disasters Communism left behind in the former Soviet Union and in East Germany. Those far outstrip anything in the USA.
So, you didn't read my post? "The "communism" of the USSR was not socialism. It was just a form of state capitaism. That's why it failed."

What I'm saying is we need something totaly, yes, revolutionarily, different. True socialism has NEVER been implemented on this Earth. It is the answer. It will alleviate most of the problems capitalism has saddled us with. But it is so hard to explain and to get people to undersatnd that I doubt that it will happen before the earth is, well, maybe not a lifeless cinder, but close to it.

[Platy]

Twobikes may be referring to an incident that occurred early in the settlement of Massachusetts Bay Colony. An account by someone who was there:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s1.html

Both Roody and Twobikes have valid points, but about different places and different contexts.

Edit: Plymouth Colony, not Massachusetts Bay Colony. :rolleyes:

[lyeinyoureye]

I think a more important stat is China's CO2 output in relation to its GDP.
GDP has got to be the most worthless statistic 3v4r, unless you happen to make money off of activity for the sake of activity. We could nuke our entire country and rebuild it in one year for some spectacularly high GDP, but that don't mean action for the sake of action is worthwhile.

Going back OT. Reducing Carbon emissions in the states to per Capita levels in China, or maybe even lower, is relatively simple. Most Carbon emissions come from electricity production/use, ~40% iirc, so halving your electric bill drops your Carbon emissions by a fifth on average. Transportation and everything else are both ~30% iirc, so halving those cuts average emissions by a third. And really, how hard is it to halve electricity use, minimize meat consumption, wear stuff out, or go from a vehicle that averages ~25mpg to one that gets 50-100mpg? Imo, all these could be done with no quantitative loss in living standards.

[twobikes]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. And certainly no communism! The theories underlying capitalism would not arise for another 125 years, or more, and Marx came another 50 years after that. So nice try, but your'e off by way more than a century! :)
This is what I had in mind when I wrote about thinking similar to Marx's ideas in the Colonies stifling individual incentive and how that was changed to allow people to profit for themselves:

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."


Click here for the link. (http://www.mises.org/story/336)

I also remember seeing a special on PBS a few years ago that made the same point the linked and quoted article makes.