China defends its one-child policy: Hey — at least it cuts carbon emissions

posted at 4:07 pm on August 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

Brilliant. Expect more of this in the future — human rights abusers being criticized by the international community for dubious practices and parrying the thrust with an appeal to the left’s tippy-top-most social virtue.

China says its one-child policy has helped the fight against global warming by avoiding 300 million births, the equivalent of the population of the United States…

“Population is clearly an important factor,” said Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, at U.N. talks trying to plan a new deal to combat climate change after 2012.

China, which rejects criticism that it is doing too little to confront climate change, says that its population is now 1.6 billion against 1.3 billion if it had not imposed tough birth control measures in the late 1970s…

But avoiding 300 million births “means we averted 1.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2005″ based on average world per capita emissions of 4.2 tonnes, [Su Wei, a senior Foreign Ministry official,] said.

I wonder, does this verrrry compelling “population = warming” logic implicate any major U.S. policy debates? Hmmm.

Then again, survey says — there is no consensus.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Steyn claims China will face the same pop. issues as W.Europe and other indus. nations–only somewhat later. And he doesn’t think they’ll be the last ones standing

Already not enough females to marry in China.

No brothers/sister/aunts/uncles/cousins. Crap
As China gets richer, they have more kids and willingly pay the fine. Still prob. won’t get urban chinese to have children at replacement rate. Flat screens are cool but expensive.

Just gov. propoganda to explain why they should pollute like hell but not be held responsible.

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 4:14 PM

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 4:14 PM

I’ve always meant to ask you the meaning of your username. Jianxi being the province?

amerpundit on August 30, 2007 at 4:15 PM

I say about 30 years until a “Cold War” with China.

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 4:17 PM

re. that major US policy debate…

1. If we didn’t have illegals, we’d be letting in just as many legally anyway. US born don’t have children at or above replacement rate. i.e. we’re disappearing too.

2. Some guy posted that when the sh** hits the fan, we’ll want the illegal hispanics now here to be conscripted, as we won’t have enough guys otherwise.

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 4:19 PM

I suppose if global warming would have been an issue during the World War II era the holocaust could have been defended as cutting carbon emissions too. This really lays the global warmers agenda bare, it is anti-human. Now the environment is not thought of something that serves man, but the reverse is true and perhaps mankind needs to go away so the environment is no longer damaged. Of course the elite will work to survive whatever befalls the rest of us, because someone must continue to “manage” the earth.

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 4:19 PM

New Lib argument coming; Abortion=less CO2

AZCON on August 30, 2007 at 4:20 PM

amerpundit -

where my kids were born.

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 4:20 PM

OK, well, we heard it from our beloved, Chinese-Communist, trade superiors first -

exterminating your female babies is ecologically sound.

But, then again, don’t drowned, female babies, in Chinese lakes and rivers, constitute their own kind of pollution? Now I’m all mixed-up.

:O(

OhEssYouCowboys on August 30, 2007 at 4:20 PM

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Thought so. Our little one’s from Hunan.

amerpundit on August 30, 2007 at 4:21 PM

I say about 30 years until a “Cold War” with China.

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 4:17 PM

Less time than that I think, and it will be a hot war. Terrorism is no threat at all compared to China.

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 4:22 PM

Less time than that I think, and it will be a hot war. Terrorism is no threat at all compared to China.

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 4:22 PM

IMO, yes and no. The Chinese don’t want to die. Terrorist do. Just like with the USSR, there’d be assured mutual destruction. The economies rely on each other, so it would really erase many of their gains.

amerpundit on August 30, 2007 at 4:24 PM

amerpundit- nice

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Allah,

U.S. fuel efficiency policies designed to reduce American car sizes should help us reduce “car born emissions” also.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 30, 2007 at 4:47 PM

AlGore to announce a plan for manditory abortions after the first child in 5…4…3…2

conservnut on August 30, 2007 at 4:48 PM

I always knew it was people, not massive coal-burning pollution, that was at the root of China’s contribution to GW.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 30, 2007 at 4:53 PM

Aren’t Chinese women the ones that primarily work the textile factories?

I think China’s OCPC policy has less to do with controlling population growth and more to do with creating female textile workers that never need a pre-natal break.

Exit question: Where are all those Chinese males going to go when they’re looking for a bride?

gabriel sutherland on August 30, 2007 at 4:54 PM

I blogged this one back in May.

At the time I said that the Chinese women have freedom of choice. Either walk to a clinic for a forced abortion or be transported by the state.

BelchSpeak on August 30, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Hey ChiComs, did ya ever stop to think that you might just be aborting the girls who were destined to be the scientists responsible for solving the global warming “crisis”? Nah, didn’t think so.

JiangxiDad and AmeriPundit. God bless you for adopting those little girls from China, you are true lifesavers!

Tony737 on August 30, 2007 at 4:56 PM

I wonder, does this verrrry compelling “population = warming” logic implicate any major U.S. policy debates? Hmmm.

I was thinking abortion. Planned Parenthood is keeping our carbon down…

Theworldisnotenough on August 30, 2007 at 4:57 PM

“parrying the thrust with an appeal to the left’s tippy-top-most social virtue.”

I won’t be surprised if the pro-abortion group picks up on China’s logic as a way to bolster their cause.

Since the loony left is so concerned about the environment shouldn’t they be concerned about the effects of all that smug in the air in San Francisco?

Guardian on August 30, 2007 at 5:05 PM

If one child is good enough for BJ and Hill, then China should take a cue from its American comrades.

saved on August 30, 2007 at 5:30 PM

China says its one-child policy has helped the fight against global warming by avoiding 300 million births, the equivalent of the population of the United States…

Am I the only one who thinks most of these births were not simply avoided?

VolMagic on August 30, 2007 at 5:51 PM

What I find contradictory is most of the Chines publicity pictures show pretty girls, yet they are slaughtering female fetus’ at rate that even makes the U.S. slaughter rate pale by comparison.

Well, hooray for women’s liberation, or whatever.

Rode Werk on August 30, 2007 at 6:44 PM

Most environmentalist are basically anti-human, seeing us as a stain and virus on the planet. I’m sure they loved the one-child policy even before this nonsense.

Clark1 on August 30, 2007 at 7:43 PM

I have long believed that the environmental movement is dominated by two groups. One is the “watermelon” environmentalists, Green on the outside but Red on the inside, who use environmental policies to restrict private property rights and convert the economy to socialism. I consider Al Gore and the Democrat leadership to be of this group. The others are the neo-Luddites, who always find an excuse to sue to block any project ever undertaken, regardless of its actual environmental effects or the relative effects of the alternatives. This group is noted by their insistence that our civilization must revert to primitive stone-age technology while they themselves live with the most advanced technology their upper and upper-middle class incomes and credit lines can afford.

Lancer on August 30, 2007 at 8:50 PM

JiangxiDad

amerpundit

My nieces are from Hunan, and I have lived in China for 4 years now (2 of those in Hunan). Congratulations both of you.

p40tiger on August 30, 2007 at 10:27 PM

Nothing to see here people, just a big coincidental non-conspiracy thing, move along move along. *Waves hand*

angryoldfatman on August 30, 2007 at 10:58 PM

China’s one-child is second only to it acceptance of capitalism as why China may be a positive for the future. Have any of the opponents of China’s stopped for one second to think of the environment in China? How much environmental devastation is permissible for fetal idolatry?

I have to talked to well over a hundred Chinese in America–where presumably they have freedom of speech–and all but one were in favor of the one-child policy. Admittedly, the one opposed was rather fervent, insanely fervent, but one percent of any group is going to be unbalanced.

thuja on August 31, 2007 at 1:17 AM

China’s one-child is second only to it acceptance of capitalism as why China may be a positive for the future. Have any of the opponents of China’s stopped for one second to think of the environment in China? How much environmental devastation is permissible for fetal idolatry?

I have to talked to well over a hundred Chinese in America–where presumably they have freedom of speech–and all but one were in favor of the one-child policy. Admittedly, the one opposed was rather fervent, insanely fervent, but one percent of any group is going to be unbalanced.

thuja on August 31, 2007 at 1:17 AM

Sure. Hey, if its so great, why don’t we implement it here? The feminists would love to kick those breeders where it hurts, they could even offer a spaying program for their political opposition. After all, why should anyone else have kids that will eventually vote and undermine them when big government allows them to slaughter any family who doesn’t take their “enlightened” willfully barren path.

While we’re at it, why don’t we bring back Sparta’s policy of throwing born children off cliffs or the Roman Policy of leaving them out in the wilderness for the wolves to eat. Those would be “progressive.”

But I suppose 1.3 billion people can’t be wrong.

BKennedy on August 31, 2007 at 7:27 AM

one percent of any group is going to be unbalanced

Yikes. To me, that reads like you managed to interview a gaggle of Chinese where only 1% was _sane_ ! That doesn’t speak very well to their [absent] understanding of liberty.

Jeez.

Ochlan on August 31, 2007 at 10:58 AM