Dave’s article falls into the common trap of making gross over simplifications about the incredibly diverse population of an enormous country:

“The Chinese are pre-occupied with “mianzi” to the point that decisions made in life are all about appearance.”

People get carried away by the impact that "mianzi" has on the Chinese character. Yes saving face is often very important in Chinese people's social, political, diplomatic and business interactions, however the examples that Dave provides in his article show that Chinese people are human, not displaying some uniquely Chinese characteristic. Just two examples:

“Some of my students who argue in favour of conservation, when asked about the possibility of turning off all of the neon lights around the city firmly said it just wouldn’t be China without the lights. They are part of Chinese culture.”

How many Australian cities are shrouded in darkness after nightfall?

“Electricity consumption continues to skyrocket even though nearly every resident in China knows there is a problem.”

Last week Melbourne’s electricity consumption broke the previous record for a single day. This is in spite of the media every day being full for dire predictions about climate change and government funded advertising with lots of black balloons.

China is a poor, (rapidly) developing country. It is only natural that the Chinese people aspire to all the trappings of developed Western nations (even as many living in Western countries realise that they will not, after all, bring happiness and security).

Encouraging China and all developing nations to become more responsive to environmental concerns is crucial to the survival of our planet. Providing a positive example of how development can be achieved without resorting to environmentally damaging practices, and working with other countries to develop such technology globally would be a good start.

Banging poor nations over the head and blaming them for all the world's environmental ill's, as Dave has done, is not merely the height of hypocrisy, but will ultimately be counterproductive

Butters,
“Banging poor nations over the head and blaming them for all the world's environmental ill's, as Dave has done, is not merely the height of hypocrisy, but will ultimately be counterproductive”

Blaming it all on the developed world – as has been the mantra up till now, is equally as foolhardy.

“ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE” didn’t just start with the rise of the west.
It has been going on since time immemorial. Many of these ‘poor’ nations were once the alpha empires/nations of the world, and have a long history of over-clearing,over-farming & over-population.

This is David DuByne the author of the article. I wrote the piece hoping that anyone reading it would see similarities between consumption patterns of China and most countries in the rest of the world. I wrote it, not to “bag” on China but use the example of today’s China to highlight the point that societies across our globe are the same with extravagant usage of resources and instant consumption disposable lifestyles. I hope you saw the parallels.

The switch over to other sources of energy to power our economies is still in its infancy, we basically have no other sources of energy to replace but the tiniest fraction of fossil fuels used worldwide every day. As oil production decreases there will be a substitute to generate electricity that will be coal. Now how much coal do you think we can burn each year before it’s too much and we reach peak production on that resource or pollute our skies to the point of what I see in China?

That’s just for electric generation to keep our cities lit and factories running, we also have the gargantuan task of finding a replacement for liquid fuels to power our transportation systems that keep goods flowing to our stores. Seventy percent of a barrel of oil is refined into transportation fuels which include gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, maritime fuel and railroad fuel. The real problem is that 98 percent of the world’s logistics and transport is run using liquid fuels, for which there is no substitute, except electric vehicles and maybe natural gas if the engines are re-fit and tanks installed.

I wrote to show, "this is our future" if we continue down the business as usual avenue. Sure I used China as an example, its plain for all to see the pollution here and as a message that this environment is literally headed your way. This is a global problem that requires global solutions from each individual on earth. I am just trying to put a problem on the radar screen to plant the seed of a future solution.

China is taking a wise path in developing its coal and nuclear based generation capacity. For a nation that is rapidly developing a modern commercial and industrial industrial economy, adequate energy is essential.

China can never power its economy with renewable energy; the dream of China having a renewable energy powered future should and will remain a fantacy. That China is even considering a niche use of renewables is more a political reality of joining the IPCC bandwagon than agreeing with the hypothesis of anthropogenic induced climate change.

The one renewable that will be significant, but never a dominant supply of energy, is hydro. Hydro in China comes with a huge human cost and considerable engineering hazard. The adoption of Clean Coal Technologies with nuclear supplementation will see China meet its energy demand with acceptable environmental outcomes over the next twenty years.

China should be supported with its wise energy policies.

Michael Clarke (Dr.)
Brisbane

Dr Clarke, could you please explain to us in broad outline, what is involved with these "Clean Coal" technologies that everyone keeps talking about. I have studied chemistry and thermodynamics a long time ago, but I am somewhat bewildered. Nuclear, I can understand, probably better than most.

David

After doing a little bit of research on "Clean Coal" if have come to the conclusion that it is largely somewhat of a furphy designed to pull the wool over the eyes of the unwashed, scientifically illiterate members of the population.

David