CLIMATE CHANGE AND SINOPHOBIA
by Madam Miaow
![[UN-Climate-change-meeting-002.jpg]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2VKcfW6tpWM/Sy1cBjsef0I/AAAAAAAAA_4/C00-V2Bsbh0/s1600/UN-Climate-change-meeting-002.jpg)
Well, I used to be a fan of The Independent, what with having Robert Fisk and being so brilliant on the Iraq war. But with a recent article headlined, “China’s delaying tactics threaten climate deal” by Chris Green, and allowing racist epithets in their comments threads, has The Indy jumped the shark?
You know what came next. I couldn’t resist posting a reply to their US BS:
That is an appalling bit of US spin and I’m amazed that Chris Green has swallowed this wholesale. I wonder just who his “sources inside negotiations” are. We can make an educated guess.
After wasting ten years under Bush, obfuscating and setting up obstructions to the talks over the past two years, Clinton rides in six-guns blazing, holding the world to ransom by demanding that the $100 billion fund for the developing world’s climate change technology is contingent on China jumping through hoops of America’s choosing while Obama has nothing to offer. The US is the nation who refused to ratify Kyoto — the ONLY legally binding instrument in the world that can require countries to cut emissions.
MEANWHILE … China is soaring ahead in green technology: it has revolutionised wind turbines (using electro-magnetic principles); the entire city of Dezhou in Shandong of 5.5 million people have their appliances powered by solar energy; it has planted the biggest area of man-made forest in the world; it is charging each household $64 towards the $30 billion it needs [to pay for its cuts in emissions]; it’s leading the world in electric cars and makes a key component of the car batteries. And yet you make this unfounded, unfair, bad-tempered attack. How does this help except to let the US off the hook?
I’m not the only one to observe that Obama has come naked to the table and some are speculating that he has been set-up to fail by right-wing elements in government.
Wen Jiabao has said that any internationally supported cuts will of course be subject to international scrutiny — meaning legally binding global decisions made through a successful treaty. He is refusing to be browbeaten by the world’s worst polluter per capita over China’s voluntary national mitigation action which will be legally binding within China.
If he’s heard Scott Ritter admit the Iraq WMD teams were also espionage groups I dare say this might also have swayed him. Who’d want the agents of such a warmongering nation swarming over their country?
China has pledged that its cuts (40-45 per GDP unit) will be adhered to even if Copenhagen fails, unlike others such as Japan that says its cuts are contingent on a deal. If China sticks to its targets it will set the international benchmark for looking after the environment. If it doesn’t, then go ahead and poke them with a sharp stick.
Yet another article is headlined, “China holds the world to ransom“.
The fan-boys gushed breathlessly:
It was unforgettable political theatre. Like a poker player with a sudden new bet, the power-dressed Mrs Clinton changed the game instantly as she pulled her gigantic sum out of the US back pocket and slammed it down on the negotiating table.
Er … it’s not actually America’s money, though, is it? This is the combined world fund to help the third world develop green technology and meet climate targets.
Let’s remember it’s not China that’s been belching out carbon emissions for over a hundred years. America has cheated the Kyoto figures, claiming to aim to cut emissions by a measly 17 percent by 2020. But this is against 2005 levels and not the Kyoto base year of 1990, meaning if we’re lucky, the US will have made cuts of only 4 percent. No wonder they put the rat into ratify and refused to sign up.
Currently producing four times the emissions of China per capita, even if all had gone well at Copenhagen, the US would still have been allowed to pollute at twice the rate of the poor countries for each man, woman and child by 2050.
In another Independent article, “Tony Juniper: China is a country that dislikes being told what to do“, the Chinese are accused of that old colonialist cliché, being “inscrutable”. What is this, the 19th Century?
Is Tony Juniper — environmentalist and director of Friends of the Earth — aware that a third of all China’s emissions are produced making goods for … guess where? How about Western markets picking up the carbon bill?
To top it off, The Indy ignores its own moderation policy. The moderators may be off getting some seasonal cheer but perhaps someone should be awake when posts titled “Obama and the Chinks” come in. Would they allow equivalent racist epithets for other minorities or are we a special case?
The Guardian has also evidently been briefed along the same lines but it is the Independent that’s picked up this particular bone with gusto and run with it, such as with this vicious article today.
John Prescott in The Guardian is good, though.
But the atmosphere was soured by the US, first by its climate change special envoy, Todd Stern, who said emissions “isn’t a matter of politics or morality or anything else, it’s just maths”, which completely ignored the per capita argument. President Obama’s speech blaming China didn’t help either. The US has pushed the Chinese hard on emissions cuts. Fine when you’ve had your industrial revolution. But China and the other developing countries need that growth. Understandable when more than half of the planet is living on less than $2 a day.
This from Joss Garland sounds right on the money: Historic failure that will live on in infamy
UPDATE: I’ve just remembered that the new Indy editor, Roger Alton, was the editor of the Observer when bizarrely it was part of a media bloc that kept trying to stitch up the UK Chinese community and blame it for the Foot And Mouth Disease outbreak which devastated large swathes of Britain in 2001. MAFF minister Nick Brown stated that this was nonsense and completely untrue. So what’s going on at The Independent?
Madam Miaow on the Copenhagen climate change summit
Johann Hari, the Indy’s one remaining journalist worth reading, gives an overview of the truths Copenhagen ignored here
China is often posed as being one of the world’s top polluters. Actually, per head of the population, the US is much worse. In the US they are still having a stupid debate over whether climate change is happening - as if consensus among 99% of the world’s scientists is somehow not enough. In China no time is wasted on such nonsense. It is surging forwards on environmental issues as Madam Miaow mentions.
Imperialism is very anxious to use whatever means it can to attack the Chinese workers’ state and arrest its economic growth, which in the long-term poses a direct non-capitalist threat to US domination of the world. To this end it offers us its usual miserable stream of distortions.
Comment by little black sister — 21 December, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
I agree that the US is trying to use other nations as scapegoats (primarily China), however, sovereignty has been eroded as international capital has become unfettered from previous restraints - since the 1970s.
I doubt that the politicians in China or the US represent the majority of their populations: they represent the few rich elites that can buy them to represent their interests (the capitalist elite’s interests). You admit to this link when you say that a third of China’s pollution (I would like you to provide reputable links to evidence) is due to production of goods for Western markets. Those who make goods for Western markets are interested in profit, whether they are indigenous Chinese or not - that is irrelevant - profit rules.
It is necessary - well, it seems necessary to me - that people be taught to question and investigate this system that - like it or not - they are part of. Through education, understanding, they must unite internationally in opposition to something that (again, only my opinion) is well past its sell by date. If those in business circles can unite to exploit cheap labour, the environment etc. internationally, then I think people outside those circles can unite in opposition (civil disobedience).
“China has pledged that its cuts (40-45 per GDP unit) will be adhered to even if Copenhagen fails.” % of GDP does not necessarily equate to a cut: if GDP rises fast enough, then the supposed “cut” could - in fact- be an increase. This is just spin: a real cut is based on present levels & their reduction.
Comment by jan — 21 December, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
If you’re serious you cut from the 1990 rate. The US is using China as a scapegoat, but this doesn’t mean that China is pure as the driven snow on this issue. Environmental situation in China is appalling. The Three Gorges Dam is an abomination and the Yangtze river dolphin has been driven to extinction by pollution.
Comment by attila — 21 December, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
little black sister:
“Imperialism is very anxious to use whatever means it can to attack the Chinese workers’ state and arrest its economic growth, which in the long-term poses a direct non-capitalist threat to US domination of the world. To this end it offers us its usual miserable stream of distortions.”
China is a capitalist country, viciously so: Chinese capitalists are hand in glove with those from the West when it comes to exploiting cheap Chinese labour & Chinese resources. “the Chinese workers’ state”: tell that to all the workers from the countryside who are forced to go to the cities & rarely see their children; tell it to all those who can’t afford to pay private medical fees since the exemplary health system - that once provided for them - was dismantled.
Capitalism is an international system.
Comment by jan — 21 December, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
#4: ‘China is a capitalist country, viciously so: Chinese capitalists are hand in glove with those from the West.’
This has nothing to do with it. Existence of capitalists in a country does not mean that that country is capitalist.
You also seem to confuse ‘workers’ state’ with ‘a country where no workers experience hardship’. This is utopianism on your part and not a scientific analysis.
Attacks from imperialism on China for any unfounded opportunistic reason will increase as the Chinese economy continues to grow. Opposing imperialism means clarifying why China is considered a threat to Western capital.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 21 December, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
#5:
“This has nothing to do with it. Existence of capitalists in a country does not mean that that country is capitalist.
You also seem to confuse ‘workers’ state’ with ‘a country where no workers experience hardship’. This is utopianism on your part and not a scientific analysis.”
1. Have you ever visited China yourself? China is a capitalist country.
2. China is not a ‘workers’ state’ - no confusion, nor any hint of utopianism on my part: it is run by a rich elite.
I have spoken to dozens of Chinese people, I speak Mandarin, & I base what I say on direct experience.
Comment by jan — 21 December, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
‘I have spoken to dozens of Chinese people, I speak Mandarin, & I base what I say on direct experience.’
How this proves that you are right I have absolutely no idea. It’s completely subjective.
There are rich people in China. There are poor people in China. This information on its own is insufficent to ascertain the class character of the Chinese state. There is a bourgeoisie in China, but it has a minority stake in the economy - in fact, it struggles to compete with state-owned enterprises.
China has made many mistakes and often does little to inspire confidence among socialists. But this doesn’t mean that it is not a workers’ state.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 21 December, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
#3:” The Three Gorges Dam is an abomination and the Yangtze river dolphin has been driven to extinction by pollution.”
Absolutely. Plus the air in some of the cities is so bad that a Chinese filmmaker I know had to leave Shanghai after three weeks because her lungs couldn’t take it. I suspect this has all been a wake-up call and is part of the reason China is taking climate change so seriously.
One point I was making on recent BBC broadcasts is that the market economy means that whatever global agreement we come to, pollution is part of the current capitalist system. Very crudely, production for greed not need ensures disaster.
#2: ” … a third of China’s pollution (I would like you to provide reputable links to evidence) is due to production of goods for Western markets …”
You can get your laughing gear around this for starters:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/23/china-co2-emissions-climate
Comment by Madam Miaow — 21 December, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
More on China tomorrow, when I finaly publish my review of Jenny Clegg’s book “China’s Glibal Strategy”
Comment by Andy Newman — 21 December, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
I’m still catching up with what happened at Copenhagen, and who is to blame, but did anyone else notice that in the film of Fantastic Mr Fox, the dead rat was described as another dead rat in the dustbin of a Chinese restaurant?
Comment by ross bradshaw — 21 December, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
Future generations will damn this conference..but did anyone really expect anything different? Human civilization sleep walks to a massive crisis somepoint this century. If any event demonstrates the current crisis in politics, this is it.
Comment by Mark — 21 December, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
Why does jan make the ludicrous remark that China is a Capitalist country? It is confusing the debate. China is embarking on a wide range series of measures to reduce carbon emmissions, they cannot be done overnight. It has started the largest reforestation programme in the world aimed at covering a quarter of its landmass. It has planted an immense “green wall” of trees and shrubs to stop the deserts enroaching any further. It is investing heavily in green technology. This only possible because China is a basically Socialist country with state planning and investment. Such a programme as above is impossible for the US or Britain ever to contemplate. There is not the will power because the powers that be are in cahoots or driven by the ruling classes. If cutting carbon emissions means cutting profits for the US and Western capitalist clases then they will fight it tooth and nail.
China is a threat to US hegenomy which is why they spread lies and distortions against them. Which is why they want Afghanistan as a US puppet state and base from which they can threaten and ferment trouble in China’s northern territories.
Hugo Chavez was correct when he said that only socialism not capitalism can arrest global warming.
Comment by Alfie — 21 December, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
Thanks Madam Miaow for this excellent article.
Is China a ‘workers state’ or is it a capitalist country?
These are not mutually exclusive categories. For example- Venezuela is a workers’ state, in that the government acts on behalf of, with the participation of, & in the interests of the poor & working class majority. But that country is still mainly capitalist.
China is also mainly capitalist. The majority of urban workers are employed by privately-owned firms, there is job insecurity, unemployment & widespread poverty, health care has to be paid for on an individual basis, there is a class of multi-millionaire ‘entrepreneurs’ etc etc.
However. The economy is largely state-directed, the Communist Party remains in power, and China’s international role is very different from that of the USA, Japan & EU. China is not part of the imperialist bloc, and in some crucial respects it undermines that bloc- eg in its very positive economic and political relationships with Cuba, Venezuela, and the rest of revolutionary & left Latin America.
Comment by Noah — 22 December, 2009 @ 12:05 am
One point I was making on recent BBC broadcasts is that the market economy means that whatever global agreement we come to,
Comment by Nike basketball shoes — 22 December, 2009 @ 1:23 am
Friendly Lefty warns us not to confuse a workers’ state with a country in which workers experience no hardship. Perhaps he (or she) should not confuse it with a country in which workers have no control whatsoever over the means of production or the state. By what means do working class people in China exercise direct democratic, collective control over their workplaces, the army, the judicial system or the government?
Comment by dennis — 22 December, 2009 @ 2:29 am
The main polluter is at home!
But, rather than letting the issue turn into a trade war between the US government and China, a good approach would be to tackle the question of Chinese industrial pollution from a union perspective.
Otherwise the left risks being embroiled in the arguments of the subsidised state apologists who lurk around the left.
Despite its record of developing renewables, China’s coal mining industry is the biggest issue as far as global warming is concerned.
China produces of 35% of the world’s coal, but does so with a very low productivity of labour (about 2.2% of that in the USA) It also has an apalling record of industrial accidents. (100 times the level in the USA)
In 2005 there were 5,986 deaths in Chinese coal mines.
It’s the exploitation of the Chinese miners that provides the power it uses to produce the cheap consumer goods it exports to the West. This exploitation is neither in the interests of the Chinese working class, nor the workers in the industries which it undercuts here.
So why don’t those unions who are interested in stopping global warming and defending their members livelihoods start a fraternal campaign to organise the Chinese Miners?
British Miners have long had international links with their fellow workers. The NUM has a long record of organising on health and safety issues and could provide training and advice to Chinese Miners, who should have equal rights to unionize.
This isn’t a call for a protectionist boycott, but an offer of assistance to workers.
If the Chinese state is a “workers state”, why would it be opposed to such an initiative?
If it’s internationalist why would it want to undercut the conditions of workers elsewhere?
If it’s seriously interested in reducing world C02 emissions, why would it be interested in perpetuating cheap labour coal production?
Comment by prianikoff — 22 December, 2009 @ 9:43 am
#3 ” The Three Gorges Dam is an abomination and the Yangtze river dolphin has been driven to extinction by pollution.”
#8 “Absolutely.”
Far be it from me to defend the Three Gorges Dam as perfect, but its abominability is far from an open & shut case.
Yangtze river floods used to be among the biggest death toll natural disasters of all - historically many of these were downstream of the dam site.
And it generates a lot of power in a country reliant on coal for its domestic supplies.
Thinking about Prescott’s “it’s OK when you’ve had your industrial revolution”, who would go to California and call the Hoover Dam an abomination? Its environmental impact on the River Colorado has no doubt been dodgy, but it’s kept Calif. in water for 60 years. You might say the same about the Three Gorges Dam.
Comment by Strategist — 22 December, 2009 @ 10:31 am
Dennis: ‘By what means do working class people in China exercise direct democratic, collective control over their workplaces, the army, the judicial system or the government?’
What class is in charge in China? The bureaucracy? Do me a favour, sunshine.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 22 December, 2009 @ 10:39 am
Friendly Lefty, it’s a pretty simple question - if the class in control in China is the working class, by what means and mechanisms are they exercising this democratic control from below?
Comment by dennis — 22 December, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Nobody said that the working class were exercising democratic control from below. We may want this to occur but it is not the definition of a workers state
Comment by Anonymous — 22 December, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
It’s a workers state becasue workers aren’t exploited by individual capitalists (oh, wait…)
Comment by chjh — 22 December, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
China’s a workers state because Venesuala says it is and their both mates so they must be right. I’ve just declared the NHS a workers state because I used to work for it and I’m a socialist and it’s xmas.
Comment by Ray — 22 December, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
Well precisely what IS a definition of a workers state is an interesting question. Debates about this in the first one that ever existed were, in the early 1920s, not couched around questions of economic system, but the degree to which which worker power existed whether directly or indirectly, in that situation of siege, isolation and retreat. It was only in the latter half of the 1920s that you begin to see a discussion in terms of economic system related to planning. This was I think a departure from Marxism and the deep flaw in Trotsky’s adaptation to pressing realities. In China workers have never held power, and indeed never played much of a role in the establishment of the State itself. Therefore the discussion must be of a state thats never had anything to do with workers being a workers state. How does this work?
Comment by johng — 22 December, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
The other crucial part of Trotsky’s definition was that the USSR remained a workers’ state because it had arisen out of a real working-class revolution, and the gains of that revolution had not been entirely erased by Stalin’s betrayal. We can argue about when that ceased to be true, but it’s a fundamentally different definition than that applied by the post-war Fourth Interntional to the Stalinist states in Eastern Europe and China
Comment by chjh — 22 December, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
Dennis - #20 has it about right. It would help me to explain why it’s a workers’ state if I knew what you thought it was.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 22 December, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
If we say that a state is a ‘workers’ state’, but then deny that the role the working class exercises in that state has any real relevance, then I’m not sure what meaningful definition you can end up working with.
The membership and weight of the working class in the Chinese Communist Party from the late 1930s was negligible to almost non existent, unlike Russia at the time of its revolution. There has never been any working class democracy in either the Chinese CP or society at any time. China’s recent development as the world’s factory has rested largely on horrific levels of exploitation of millions of internal migrants, denied the most elementary rights workers might enjoy in even a bourgeois democracy, let alone a state run in their own interests. Labour activists who have protested and attempted to organise are likely to be beaten up by state sponsored thugs. Workers’ state, my arse.
Comment by dennis — 22 December, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Why don’t you answer my question Dennis? Or maybe you think you have done and you think China is a capitalist country run by a Communist Party that came to power in a socialist revolution that overthrew imperialism in that country and that you’re just not going to say so explicitly?
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 22 December, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Friendly Lefty, Your comments at #5 and #7 etc are totally on the ball.
Too many people on Socialist Unity are stuck on this utopian rubbish - if a country is not some sort of workers’ paradise then it cannot be a workers’ state.
Capitalist states take many forms. They can range from, say, Scandinavian social democracy to Nazism. All of these forms are capitalist.
Socialist states also take many forms. Venezuela holds bourgeois elections, the Stalinist USSR was a repressive bureaucracy, etc. I would prefer direct workers’ democracy. But what is decisive is which class runs these states, in whose interests.
The majority of the Chinese economy is state-owned and it is the welfare of the working class, not of the increasingly squeezed Chinese bourgeoisie, that is being prioritised by the bureaucracy. E.g. the lifting of 600 million people out of poverty which is objectively one of the greatest human achievements of the last few decades. Nuff said.
If you can’t even tell whether or not China is a socialist state or not then what on earth CAN you get right?
Comment by little black sister — 22 December, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
a useful clarification has occurred above-as to what is or what is not the class nature of china-but as a poor but developing country that is only part of the issue
as usual in this imperialist world-the oppressed nations are blamed for their own exploitation, and any nations who dare oppose this-politically, economically , ideologically are blamed even more so-
similarly witness growing racism and islamophobia in the west- something sadly the left in the west are not immune to-
-please recognise the nature of class conflict- it occurs on a global scale-a basic lesson of Lenin-the notion of oppressed and oppressor nations-sadly some on the left have not learnt this basic tenet of marxism-and are therefoe not internationalist-living in an imperialist country their small national political framework capitulates to imperialism
understand the class nature of the climate change debate and you will have avoided this disastrous ultra-left error
you could do no better than starting here:
http://www.socialistaction.net/Copenhagen-talks-lay-bare-the-class-conflict-at-the-heart-of-climate-change.html
understand history and its dynamics and the distinction between imperialist and other nations- and recognising what side to take in the distorted global debate
Comment by sylvia ebberly — 22 December, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
Have any of the super-revolutionaries on this thread - so certain in their characterisations and condemnations of China’s efforts to build socialism - (a) been inside a factory in China; (b) had a discussion there with Chinese workers, trade unionists or Communists?
Thought not.
But when you do get round to it, please don’t fail to offer them advice on how to make a revolution and build socialism, based on our rich experience and success here in Britain.
Oh, I forgot. They can’t build socialism in one country, because it says so in a book. Not even in a country of 1.3 billion, apparently.
Give me strength …
Comment by Commie traveller — 22 December, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
Ok. Mao’s revolution was a socialist revolution, despite the fact the active involvrment of the Chinese working class was nil. State control of an economy equals socialism and the welfare of the working class is the highest priority of the Chinese government as it marches ever onwards towards the glorious socialist future.
As Woody Allen remarks to someone in Annie Hall - you’ll have to excuse me now, I’m due back on planet earth.
Comment by dennis — 23 December, 2009 @ 2:44 am
So socialism can take on different forms? That’s not what Marx wrote and that’s who the Chinese Communists claim to follow. So if they aren’t adhereing to Marxism then it has to be something else.
Capitalism does take on many forms and one of them is Stalinism. It’s still capitalism but in a different form.
It’s one thing defending oppressed nations from imperialists but it’s quite another claiming that they are socialists states. If that definition is used then Tibet would most definitely be socialist. Not to mention Iran, Afghanistan and a few others in the US gun sights.
China didn’t have a workers revolution and no amount of camoflage can cover that up. Workers have never been in control and right now they are being exploited as never before. Just because some of them can afford iPods doesn’t mean they are liberated. Just look at the West for confirmation of that.
Comment by Ray — 23 December, 2009 @ 7:59 am
#29 So “Socialist Action” is back “off-hiatus” again.
Very interesting.
The article referenced, by Paul Lewis, explains the historical imbalance between the developing nations like China and the advanced capitalist countries like the USA and Britain. This is a valid justification for the argument that the developing nations shouldn’t have to bear the full burden of reducing use of fossil fuels.
But leaving it at that evades the question of how the working class can intervene in the situation on an internationalist basis, which I’ve tried to outline a perspective for at #16.
It should also be pointed out that the climate system is doesn’t “know” anything about per capita emissions and can only respond to absolute global levels of atmospheric C02. So if India and China with there 2,500 million populations industrialise along the same route that Europe and N.America did, then global warming will negate their efforts.
What’s needed is a different approach, using different technology, different concepts of transport, housing etc. The unions and other mass organisations have a vital role to play in promoting this at an international level.
There is absolutely NO Socialist justification for the 5,000-6,000 deaths a year in Chinese mines, or for cheap labour exploitation in the Chinese economy. Class conscious workers won’t be hoodwinked by arguments that cover up the role of the Chinese bureaucracy and local capitalists in perpetuating this situation.
Socialist Action of course is a bureaucratic Pabloite current which is why it has buried itself without a public face for the past decade. Why it covered for Livingstone’s scabbing on the RMT, why it tail-ended the KPRF of Zyuganov in Russia, why it is currently tail-ending everything China does today and why it has such a poor name amongst union activists in Britain.
Comment by prianikoff — 23 December, 2009 @ 8:50 am
Ha! Comment is Free, only if you agree. The Guardian removed my comment below from their Mark Lynas thread, “How Do I know China Wrecked the Copenhagen Deal? I was in the room” which I posted 22nd December 9.23pm. Not only mine, but I notice some other very good posts robustly rebutting Lynas’s assertions and errors have been removed.
http://www.gurdian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas?showallcomments=true
Comment by Madam Miaow — 23 December, 2009 @ 11:36 am
Oops!
That Guardian link is:
“How Do I know China Wrecked the Copenhagen Deal? I was in the room”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas?showallcomments=true
Luckily, I blogged my comment here:
http://madammiaow.blogspot.com/2009/12/sinophobia-and-copenhagen-open-letter.html
Comment by Madam Miaow — 23 December, 2009 @ 11:38 am
If people want a green world.
then stop buying Chineese products.
No more “made by china” unless approved by a green label.
China frustrated the COP top, now people act themselves.
No more “made by china” unless approved by a green label.
Start yourselves, start today, start small!
If governments want to join, they shloud implement green labels.
We make china transparent! That should be done anyway.
How can you expect your government to take responsibility if you do not even bother about a green
label ?
Imagine a green label, next to “made by china” (hi hi)
People who care act. Hypocritical to ask your covernment and at the same time you want to buy communist party polluting toys
Comment by ab — 23 December, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
The real reason Copenhagen failed but without the sinophobia:
“Pressure on poor at Copenhagen led to failure, not diplomatic wrangling
The summit was a culmination of attempts by rich countries to steamroller the G77 into accepting a deal not in their interests”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/23/g77-copenhagen-bernaditas-de-castro-muller
Comment by Madam Miaow — 23 December, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
Thanks for enjoying this article.
Comment by ED Hardy clothing — 20 April, 2010 @ 5:28 pm