9/14    Regarding to thread regards to VW in China and environment.
        It is unfair to blame China or other developing nation for
        pollutions, as the reason why world is in such mess is because
        Britian and US of A has been doing more than their share of
        polluting for the past 150 years.  Ultimately, issue of pollution
        is closed related to energy use per capita, but developed nation
        is not going to give in upon this fundamental fact, as
        they are too happy with the lavashing life style at the expense
        of global environment.  Like farm subsidies, environment issue
        is another instrument to achieve wealthy nation's economic
        agenda.
        \_ Your analysis is flawed. You need to read up on how technology
           and development affect pollution levels. The relationship you
           draw between per-capita use and pollution is not well correlated.
        \_ It's not 'blame'.  There's an economic theory called 'the advantage
           of backwardness'--essentially, developing economies are able to
           leapfrog entire developmental steps, thereby avoiding being
           saddled with 'legacy' sectors and infrastructure (like steel and
           coal in the US).  A lot of the beef people have with China
           (and you can put a lot of this blame at the door of western
           manufacturers who don't supply Chinese consumers with goods meeting
           similar environmental standards) is that it's reaping the fruits
           of rapid development, without taking environmental responsibility
           accordingly.  And remember, energy use does not necessarily equal
           pollution (although very often this is sadly the case.)  -John
           \_ John, just to give you an example of CFCs, as you know, CFC
                is the stuff that kills ozone layer.  USA was pressing
                China to use CFC replacement and establish CFC recycle
                program on all its refrigerator and air conditioning.
                Could China leapfrog the CFC and uses CFC replacement
                directly?  in principle, yes.  But CFC cost more to
                and which nation USA or China,  contributed more to the
                destruction of ozone layer?
                If USA really care about environment, or actually
                manufacture.  Who is going to be asked to bear the
                extra cost?  China does.  who is the major manufacture
                of CFC replacement and its technology?  United States.
                Granted, if USA really care about environment, or actually
                show any sign of remorse on how much it has contributed to
                the destruction of ozone, you would think that USA and
                expand its market to China.   Another example.  You would
                think China can leapfrog the coal burning stage of
                industrial revolution.  Guess what, coal is the only form
                of fossil fuel which China has plenty of (and plenty is in
                a relative term).   China's coal, by comparison, is relatively
                "dirty" because it has high sulfur content, but what are
                the alternatives?  import natural gas from Canada, and
                petro from companies which US dominates?   You may have
                the best intentions, but in the end, it's always the lobbiest
                of the industry prevail.        --OP
           \_ John, as you can well imagine, the company that sells Chinese
              equipments see it as an ideal dumping ground for products that
              no longer satisfy stringent environmental regulations of the
              West.  I don't think there are a lot of Chinese who would like
              to pollute their own environment.  However, most officials in
              China in a position to decide what to purchase, whether in the
              public or private sectors, do not have much clue about what is
              ecological sound and what is not.  They are pressed between the
              stick of stern and often politically motivated criticism (there
              people who make a living by criticizing) and carrots (often
              bribes) waved by profit driven greedy companies.  Guess
              which side appeals to them more?  And the same thing happens to
              other developping countries as well.
                other developed nation would provide those CFC replacement
                at the regular CFC cost.  But no.  The opposite is happening.
                The administration at the time, pressued by the lobbiest and
                compaign contributor, was leveraging this CFC issue trying to
                expand its market to China.   In the end, it's all about
                who is making that extra buck.   Another example is the
                power-saving light bulb.  Those things are pretty popular
                in USA because it cuts power consumption  thus, energy use.
                But the manufacturing of this light bulb involves mercury and
                other exotic and toxic metals.  When you flick the light
                switch
                \_ If China cared about the environment, they'd pay the same
                   non-CFC costs as everyone else.  They live under the same
                   ozone layer and should care as much.  Or more than us if
                   you buy the claim below that having more people means they
                   care more about the environment.
                   \_ Everyone cares about the environment, as long as it's
                      not hitting their wallet.
        \_ I think it's perfectly fine to attempt to get china to
           conform to sane environmental policy, just like I think
           the bush administratin should regnize that we all live
           on the same planet and that paving it with reckless abandon
           with only regard to how it increases shareholder value is
           not the wisest way to govern.
           \_ China in some pervert way more concerned about environment
              simply because they got too many people and they would face
              the consequences of it a lot more quickly.
              \_ Wow, what an amazing bit of propoganda.  This is a flat-out
                 lie.  The Chinese government's actions speak infinitely louder
                 than their words on the environment issue.  The truth is they
                 don't give a shit.  Chinese environmental policy doesn't
                 exist.  The US has very strong laws compared to China and most
                 of the rest of the world.  Some parts of western Europe have
                 stronger laws but not across the board and a little money to
                 grease the wheels will get you over any little environmental
                 little bumps in the road there.  Back to China: the leaders
                 don't give a shit about the people.  If they lost a few
                 hundred million they could temporarily end the very unpopular
                 one child policy and improve the standards of living for the
                 rest.
                 \_ now, that is a lie.  just look at USA's carbon dioxide
                    emission.  by all account, USA is the worse pollutors
                    on face of the earth, and that is the fact.  You can
                    have all the environment law you want, it still doesn't
                    change the fact that USA is the worse pollutor on the
                    planet.
                    \_ I never said otherwise.  I said we have some of the
                       toughest laws and we enforce them.  No lie.  If you'd
                       like to stop consuming and can convince 270+ million
                       others to do the same then we'll be the least poluting
                       country on the planet.  You can start by turning off
                       your incredibly toxic computer and paying to have it
                       disposed of safely which will cost more than the market
                       value of the computer today.
                       \_ Nah, I think I will start by defacing a few SUVs.
           \_ Frankly, not enough of the world is paved.