Slashdot Mirror


China Using 'State Secrets' Label To Hide Pollution

eldavojohn writes "More problems have surfaced as people attempt to bring soil pollution problems to light in China. From the article: 'When Pan sued the Hebei Department of Environmental Protection in 2011, he was given access to the environmental impact assessment that the environment ministry claimed it had done in the village. Pan discovered that the assessment, carried out by the Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, had names of people who had left the village two decades previously and even a person who had been dead for two years — all "expressing favor" for the project. Pan surveyed 100 people in his village, showing them the purported environmental impact study. The majority of them gave him written statements that declared: "I've never seen this form," according to documents seen by Reuters.' Reuters has also discovered that China uses 'state secrets' labels to hide environmental studies and pollution numbers as well as using strong arm tactics to silence residents attempting to do their own studies."

149 comments

  1. fantastic ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    another place where environmentalism is being oppressed :(

  2. China Using 'State Secrets' Label... by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Funny

    Gee, welcome to the club.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:China Using 'State Secrets' Label... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US will be suing for patent infringement in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ...

    2. Re:China Using 'State Secrets' Label... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are u complaining about the job creators? Our small business thrives around the first of the month.

    3. Re:China Using 'State Secrets' Label... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "Gee, welcome to the club."

      Yes, exactly. Our own government has used the "state secrets" lie to cover much of its own misdoings... why should we be surprised -- much less alarmed -- that China would be doing the same thing?

      Hey, fellow Americans! Yes, our country (and especially government) can use a lot of improvement. Let's not be hypocrites, okay?

    4. Re:China Using 'State Secrets' Label... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I mean we only use it to cover up murder, fraud, war crimes. Pollution is an entirely different animal.

    5. Re:China Using 'State Secrets' Label... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Hey, fellow Americans! Yes, our country (and especially government) can use a lot of improvement.

      People on slashdot *love* pointing out flaws in America, sometimes to the point of ridiculous extreme. In fact residents of $foocountry generally seel to love pointing out flaws in $foocountry in general. It's one of the advantages of free speech that many of us enjoy.

      Just because my country is prefect, does not make it hypocritical to point out flaws in other countries.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:China Using 'State Secrets' Label... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      My point was that it is hypocritical for someone to be berating the flaws of other countries (as opposed to just pointing them out), when their own country has the very same flaws. Unless of course they berate their own country, too.

  3. And this is surprising how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When haven't western governments labeled reports and studies as secret to avoid embarassing or otherwise harmful information to reach the public

    1. Re:And this is surprising how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When haven't western governments labeled reports and studies as secret to avoid embarassing or otherwise harmful information to reach the public

      Aside from a few military things, there is almost no harmful information ever. But there is information that makes egotistical politicians look bad.

      If there really is a literal Hell, it is stuffed full of politicians, PR people, marketers, and the jack-booted thugs that work for the politicians.

  4. I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Come on, the issue here isn't abuse of a state secrets process.

    The issue is the Chinese government (national level) is not based upon any principles of openness. They hide anything and everything that might threaten their place in power. The only time it comes out is when trying to keep it secret would hurt even more (i.e when a coverup is exposed).

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by Mystakaphoros · · Score: 2

      In the long term, the trend of hiding things that threaten their power will likely be a threat to the Party's power.

    2. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by hoggoth · · Score: 2

      While I agree that a government of secrets and deception is a terrible problem, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You half remember a quote you heard once about Marx and opium and have made up a story to explain your fuzzy recollection instead of taking the barest effort to find out what you are talking about before spouting your uninformed opinion. Go look up Marx and opium right now so that in the future, on this one point, you will no longer sound ignorant.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    3. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anything, the US is following China's lead, as it also corresponds to protecting the corporate worldview as well as its own power fetish. Corporations are People, and they're more equal than the other people (the rest of us).

    4. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the fact that they actually answered and replied to Pan's query, means that the rule of law is becoming more and more important and developed. If rule of law was not important, the government wouldn't have even replied back, but now they have to give some sort of justification as to why he can't get the data.

    5. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh. Somebody missed the tongue-in-cheek nature of that remark. Maybe I should have added a "Sarcasm" tag.

    6. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by anagama · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They hide anything and everything that might threaten their place in power.

      And this is distinctive from America how? In America, the State Secrets Doctrine has its roots in a wrongful death suit by the widows of some RCA engineers who were working for the US Air Force when they died in a plane crash in 1948. During discovery, the widows sought the accident report. The Air Force said that it contained information vital to national security and would not turn it over. Eventually, the case got to the Supreme Court, and without actually looking at the document, ruled that it could be kept secret. 40 some years later, it was declassified. It contained nothing in it beyond what was publicly known about the project, but it also revealed that the Air Force had negligently failed to install manufacturer recommended heat shields in the engines, among other issues with the plane, and that the engines caught fire leading to the crash.

      http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/383/origin-story?act=2#play

      So you tell me, is our State Secrets doctrine, the one that Obama has used to prevent people from suing for unlawful detention, unlawful torture, unlawful wiretapping, and unlawful execution, based in anything but an attempt to avoid embarrassment and liability? How is it that we are morally superior to the Chinese government on this issue?

      Examples:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/10torture.html?_r=0
      http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/10/obama-administration-invokes-state-secrets-privilegeagain/
      http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0811/Obama_admin_asserts_state_secrets_privilege_to_dismiss_Muslims_suit.html
      http://www.salon.com/2010/09/25/secrecy_7/

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    7. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by AK+Marc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just like Marx wrote, isn't it? He was all for using opium to delude the masses. And what country went to war to avoid opium? China.

      Wait, so because China refused opium, they are following Marx by doing the opposite? Seems the US is more Marxist in that regard, with drugs everywhere.

    8. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by zrelativity · · Score: 1

      Just like Marx wrote, isn't it? He was all for using opium to delude the masses. And what country went to war to avoid opium? China.

      Can you post a reference to this "Marx quote"? You are either trolling or ignorant AC.

    9. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Whoosh" only applies if the joke was actually funny. Work on your delivery.

    10. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by interval1066 · · Score: 2

      In other news the sky is blue, communusm is oppressive, and both the US & PRC governments don't like bad press. Nothing to see here.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    11. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone must have had their dose of church this morning.

    12. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      And this is distinctive from America how?

      Let's assume for a moment that it's exactly the same as America. What do we have then? We have two problems instead of one. It means the world is worse than it could be. It means now China AND America need to be cleaned up. Either way, China still has problems.

      The surprising thing about this story is how much information this guy was actually able to get.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by khallow · · Score: 2

      nd both the US & PRC governments don't like bad press

      In other news, once again Slashdotters instinctively drag the US into a discussion of China. It's like a really big province of China, right?

    14. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, what? First they gave him faked documents, and now they're giving him the finger. How does this translate to "the rule of law is becoming more and more important and developed"? It's the rule of "lie, even when confronted with the undeniable facts" getting fine tuned.

    15. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by anagama · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree with you that China should clean up its act. But what bugged me was the parent poster's seeming attitude that China was different somehow. I should have quoted the comment more fully:

      The issue is the Chinese government (national level) is not based upon any principles of openness. They hide anything and everything that might threaten their place in power. The only time it comes out is when trying to keep it secret would hurt even more (i.e when a coverup is exposed).

      I would have no issue with the comment if it read "The issue with government in general" -- or "The issue is the Chinese government (national level), like that of most, is not based ..."

      It strikes me as hypocritical to suggest that China has some distinctive secrecy evil that one's own government steadfastly avoids (specifically, that secrecy is usually about protection from embarrassment, liability, or corruption/special industry favors). It's like a crack head denigrating a heroin addict as a dope fiend. Maybe I read too much into it, but that was my impression.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    16. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh always applies when somebody takes seriously a facetious remark.

    17. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      The issue is the Chinese government (national level) is not based upon any principles of openness.

      You can replace the word "Chinese" with "American", "British", or any other national government without changing the message, the message would still be true.

      I was almost laughing when I read the summary, as its tone was derogatory against the Chinese government (and rightfully so), but we have the exact same problems in our own countries.

    18. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody else missed the sarcasm, eh?

    19. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Actually it is worse in that many, if not all, of the Western governments as many are actually elected on platforms of openness and then once elected they're worse then the preceding government. As far as I know, the Chinese government did not become the government by promising openness whereas my government did run on a platform of openness.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    20. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by khallow · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call it "hypocritical" to suggest that China has some distinctive "secrecy evil". It does after all have that along with every other such authoritarian government. I also find it interesting how some people seem more concerned about hypocrisy than about genuine evil. I didn't know successful evil was about lowering expectations.

    21. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by khallow · · Score: 1

      And this is distinctive from America how?

      Why ask this question. Not everyone in the world resides in the US or China.

    22. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by anagama · · Score: 1

      Again, not my point. I'm concerned with hypocrisy because it shines a light on the evils we need to correct in our own house. Hypocrisy is a tool helpful in illuminating those problems, but is definitely not a tool to excuse them.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    23. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by kermidge · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

      Gee, that wasn't so hard, was it?

    24. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Hey, sorry for the snark, not doing so well today, and it spilled over.

    25. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by dissy · · Score: 1

      Pretty easy questions to answer.

      No one here at all, including the person your "replied" to, claimed the US was doing any better. The point is about China. Way to go off topic.

      Second, I assume by your complete refusal to address the parent posters concerns, or the topic at hand, that you are giving China a free pass here?

      Why do you feel it's wrong for the USA to do this, but is OK for literally all other countries to do so?

    26. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's assume for a moment that it's exactly the same as America. What do we have then? We have two problems instead of one.

      Nope. It means we have one problem and it's a problem we've had all along. Sure it's a big problem, it happens with every state. Much bigger than this stupid problem of finger pointing at China which is so popular these days.

    27. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by shoemilk · · Score: 2

      I'm surprised they didn't try to blame it on Japan again.

    28. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh. Somebody missed the tongue-in-cheek nature of that remark. Maybe I should have added a "Sarcasm" tag.

      Sarcasm is almost useless as a form of communications. At best, it's useful for in jokes among people who entirely agree on everything (echo chambers). At worst, it's just a way to always be right. When someone points out your mistake, you just say, "I was being sarcastic!"

    29. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'm concerned with hypocrisy

      I'm not. Hypocrisy gives us a means for correcting bad behavior. The subject may not care if its behavior is evil or incompetent, but it does care if such hypocritical behavior is revealed. The relative transparency of the US to hypocritical actions is something where the US is superior to China FWIW.

    30. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about China or the US?

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    31. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hypocrisy gives us a means for correcting bad behavior. The subject may not care if its behavior is evil or incompetent, but it does care if such hypocritical behavior is revealed.

      Not really. There's this thing called cognitive dissonance. When people's own hypocrisy is revealed to them, instead of accepting that they might be wrong and correct their behavior, they would rationalize and make up excuses/explanations to justify continuing their bad behavior.

      This is how despite all the failures of socialism, the True Believers still insist that it will work someday, if only we "get it right"

      The relative transparency of the US to hypocritical actions is something where the US is superior to China FWIW.

      Yes, the US is more transparent, but as said above, it actually doesn't correct bad behavior very well. You can reveal scandals, government bloat, corruption, inefficiency, and even violations to the Constitution, but change (*picture of Obama*) is slow if it ever does (and even more rare is change that's beneficial)

      A more direct and often effective way to correct bad behavior is violence and coercion. It works for government all the time, and it could work for the people if they exercised their Second Amendment rights.

    32. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't traveled very widely if you equate the US's secrecy to China's.

      Typical lefty American extrapolates from 'America is bad' and goes from there. Truth is these dictatorships like China are a LOT more secretive than the US.

      Sheesh. Where do you come up with this crap. Oh, I see, the NY Times that objective organ of truth.

      PS. I am not American. And have lived in some of these shit holes. You don't know what you are talking about.

    33. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by khallow · · Score: 1

      When people's own hypocrisy is revealed to them, instead of accepting that they might be wrong and correct their behavior, they would rationalize and make up excuses/explanations to justify continuing their bad behavior.

      And what does everyone else think of that? I doubt everyone will agree with my excuses when my hypocrisy is revealed.

    34. Re:I'm only surprised they bothered to label it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what does everyone else think of that? I doubt everyone will agree with my excuses when my hypocrisy is revealed.

      Simply not "agreeing" with you won't stop you from continuing your bad behavior. You're a big boy. You're a free individual. You do not need everyone else to give you permission to do things.

      As I said, someone else will have to pick up a gun and actually force you to stop. If "everyone else" don't have those guns, even if they disagree with you, they can't do shit about it.

  5. Lousy REDACTED. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can't imagine living in REDACTED country where REDACTED was allowed to REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED. You'd think in the US, the REDACTED of Information Act would REDACTED this sort of thing but instead we find REDACTED REDACTED.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Lousy REDACTED. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, instead of blacking out redactions, governments should white them out and underline the space where they used to be, and indicate the type of word that used to be there. Mad Libs -- Secretive Government Edition!

    2. Re:Lousy REDACTED. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the USA, most government information IS open. But don't try to find out what chemicals frackers might be pumping down oil wells and into your groundwater. THEY are very much protected from public scrutiny.

    3. Re:Lousy REDACTED. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can be a hacker and convert your car to run on electricity produced by solar panels on your roof like I am doing. Take back control.

    4. Re:Lousy REDACTED. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      That's a step in the right direction but it will not totally replace fuel. At night, you burn fuel.

    5. Re:Lousy REDACTED. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the environmentally champion Governor of Colorado Democratic Mayor Chickenpooper said that he drinks fracking liquid ALL the time!!!

      So it must be good and yummy and good for you, just think of it as a groundwater flavor enhancer!!!

    6. Re:Lousy REDACTED. by Mystakaphoros · · Score: 1

      This is a brilliant idea! Recently, the U-2 has taken several _PRICKLY_ pictures of _PENIS_ development off the coast of _YOUR MOM_.

    7. Re:Lousy REDACTED. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but those fracking chemicals are trade secrets. You've got to protect those businesses from others learning their trade secrets. /sarcasm

    8. Re:Lousy REDACTED. by khallow · · Score: 1

      THEY are very much protected from public scrutiny.

      That isn't government information. As another replier noted (sarcastically), it's a trade secret. You need a better reason than merely being nosy to know that sort of information.

    9. Re:Lousy REDACTED. by houghi · · Score: 1

      So wherever they are, the decision makers go free.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    10. Re:Lousy REDACTED. by gagol · · Score: 1

      In Quebec, a petroleum company is developing a technique that uses water for the first fracking and uses extracted petrol to continue the fracking process. Thing is, when you go green with your industrial process, it usually means you save money too. Lazyness is the only reason an industrial process is dangerous for the environment.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    11. Re:Lousy REDACTED. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Lousy REDACTED. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the name of this company? I'm interested in finding out more about their process, thanks.

    13. Re:Lousy REDACTED. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Thing is, when you go green with your industrial process, it usually means you save money too.

      Not in my experience. Sure, there is some benefit to making an effort to make your process more efficient or to the PR you might get from such activities. But the rest of the "green" program is oversold.

  6. Their loss... by Mystakaphoros · · Score: 1

    It's sad, but burying these sorts of reports rather than responding to them with higher pollution standards is their loss. And, when it comes to air pollution, ours as well.

  7. up next high speed rail issues and crashes by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    up next high speed rail issues and crashes

  8. the usa did this as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in area 51

  9. First I was surprised by arielCo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    At first I was surprised that they even cared about public opinion at all. Then I remembered that this is SE Asia, where the importance of "saving face" is taught along with potty training. Remember the 1996 rocket crash in China? A small village was razed, they detained journalists for hours, and days later Xinhua only admitted to six deaths, blaming failure on a "sudden gust of wind". Then you have the tragically comical DPRK.

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  10. This will only work by kilodelta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Until China starts experiencing a massive die off due to the pollution. Eventually they'll probably wake up to the fact and require manufacturing to install preventive measure. By that point manufacturing in China will be as expensive as it is in the United States. I wonder what big business will do then?

    1. Re:This will only work by GeneralTurgidson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Africa

    2. Re:This will only work by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually - China is working on a controlled die off anyway. They got to many people. They have limited the right to reproduce. One couple, one child. That is not a sustainable birth rate. China is intentionally decreasing their population, right now, as we sit and chat about it. A few catastrophes aren't going to deter them.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:This will only work by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      China has enough population that if they'd die off quietly and cheaply, it wouldn't hurt China. And when China is expensive, everything will move to Africa. There's still plenty of cheap labor on the planet. The only question is where the cheapest place (and educated workforce reduces cost, as does solid infrastructure, one reason why China is cheaper than India, despite higher labor costs in China).

    4. Re:This will only work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is the problems with Africa because on a cost per hour basis they take less money and be happy to get it.
      1. Political Stability, African countries do not have very stable governments you're invested dollars can disappear very fast when civil war breaks out. Also it will leave you hunting for new suppliers.
      2. Other Industries or lack of industrialization. In China if you need a new model for a plastic part you can call several local suppliers and have it made and delivered in a reasonable amount of time. In Africa, good luck getting parts for conveyor belt same week.
      3. Middle class for management, You can find educated people when you need them in China.

    5. Re:This will only work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does Africa have the resources to actually produce, the infrastructure, or the knowledge? Is it at a state China was 30 or 40 years ago? I know Africa is good for dumping old tech... but... anything else? I think that question needs to be asked. Destroying China may not be in anyones long term interests. Unfortunately we seem to be very short sighted. I guess this partly has to do with who runs things. People with money and people who are older. They are frequently the same people and neither care about the long term. Not in the USA, not in Europe, and not in China. Africa, South America, and other countries don't even seem to know these problems exist yet.

    6. Re:This will only work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You speak as though China would consider a massive die-off event as unfavorable.

    7. Re:This will only work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a population control measure. And the ones who survive are those who are able to withstand the pollution. Evolution in action.

    8. Re:This will only work by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

      India.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    9. Re:This will only work by altgeek · · Score: 1

      Yep, I've been there many times on business since the mid-80's. Not only is the air "apocalyptic" in the major city/manufacturing zones, most of the population is addicted to the products of the state-sponsored/invested cigarette companies. Upon their ivory (uhhhh... jade) tower, the politburo figures that this will keep the population down so they don't end up like India. And if the population gets uppity, well, that is what the army is for.

    10. Re:This will only work by sjames · · Score: 1

      Options include

      • Use pro[per workplace safety and pollution controls, make 50 point margin
      • Screw that, cause millions to die off in accidents and pollution somewhere else, make 51 point margin DING! DING! DING!
    11. Re:This will only work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      India is probably even more insular/protectionistic of their economy than china. Granted, it doesn't have state-owned enterprises...yet, but its environment of bribery makes it similar in practice.

    12. Re:This will only work by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      chinese companies are already outsourcing to africa.

      being where china was 30 years ago sounds like the perfect place to move manufacturing to for a variety of companies.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    13. Re:This will only work by shoemilk · · Score: 1
      I only reply because there are mods as clueless as you.

      [The one-child policy] restricts urban couples to only one child, while allowing additional children in several cases, including twins, rural couples, ethnic minorities, and couples who are both only children themselves. In 2007, according to a spokesperson of the Committee on the One-Child Policy, approximately 35.9% of China's population was subject to a one-child restriction.(wikipedia)

      Granted, when the population is in the billions, 35.9% is a lot of people, but still it's not as far reaching as you are thinking. I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me if 35.9% didn't equate to the number of one (or no) child households in western countries.

    14. Re:This will only work by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      That's interesting, and all, but still, the government is discouraging population growth - am I right, or wrong? And, it seems to have had an effect: the overall fertility rate of mainland China is close to 1.4 children per women.[42]

      1.4 children per female is not a sustainable rate in the long run. Sustainable is a little more than two, as I recall.

      Had the government not intervened, and set no policy, what would China's population be today? Assuredly, it would be higher than it is now, by possibly another 3/4 billion.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    15. Re:This will only work by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1
      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    16. Re:This will only work by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Well yes, and there's the female problem in China too. It'll be a nation where the number of males is hovering around 70%. That's going to causer massive instability.

    17. Re:This will only work by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      Specifically: Mali, Mauritania, Algeria, Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, and Ghana.

  11. Predictable Replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Expected replies for China article on /.

    1. "It's not like ______ didn't do it before/isn't doing it too."
    2. "Why is this news, we expect this from China."
    3. "So what, it's their country. We have no right to judge."

    Let us embrace such wisdom and apply it consistently, for US/Europe articles too!
    No country should bear criticism on Slashdot!
    Join me in extending these fallacies EVERYWHERE my brothers and sisters!

    1. Re:Predictable Replies by noh8rz10 · · Score: 2

      Expected replies for China article on /.

      1. "It's not like ______ didn't do it before/isn't doing it too." 2. "Why is this news, we expect this from China." 3. "So what, it's their country. We have no right to judge."

      I thought you were just being douchey, but then i read some of the comments below and realized you were spot on! saw lots of #1 mostly.

    2. Re:Predictable Replies by anagama · · Score: 1

      No country should bear criticism on Slashdot!

      This is confusing because it feels like sarcasm, yet in the larger context of your comment, it seems like not-sarcasm. Obviously, every country should be criticized for its faults, recognizing the difference between the governed and those who govern. Even in first world democracies, it is _not_ easy to say that the government represents the people's wishes. It is easy to say that the government represents what a majority see as the least worst options for public office, which is not a distinction without a difference.

      1. "It's not like ______ didn't do it before/isn't doing it too."

      Taking care to be aware of one's own sins, is the first step in helping others improve themselves without at the same time, sounding like a completely self-ignorant twit. Further, such self-awareness can be very valid as a basis for an argument about why certain actions are unwise, and thus may form part of a non-fallacious argument.

      2. "Why is this news, we expect this from China."

      Apathy never gets anything changed for the better, but often allows change for the worse. Views like this should be challenged, not least of all because without expectations that an entity can do better, there is a great likelihood it won't. I'm not sure how this is a fallacy of any kind, because a fallacy requires some argument. This is a "give up" attitude, and attitudes aren't arguments, thus can't be fallacies.

      3. "So what, it's their country. We have no right to judge."

      While we may have no right to intervene, there is no reason we cannot judge China's wrongs, just as others, and ourselves, should feel free to judge and point out our wrongs. Without feedback on how you're screwing up, the process of improvement is prolonged. This I could see as a fallacy because it is used as argument against even comment, when really, it should apply only to intervention.

      I'm not really sure what you want to see in a discussion of this type of news. A bunch soviet russia jokes? Beowulf clusters? A few links to goatse or tubgirl? A wide-ranging, on-topic discussion is actually healthy, not something to be sneered at.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    3. Re:Predictable Replies by kheldan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about this reply:

      Between China and India they have, what, somewhere between a third and half the population of the world? Has it occurred to anyone else that between them with their more or less uncontrolled polluting, they're undoing everything that every other industrialized country is doing to reverse global warming?

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    4. Re:Predictable Replies by TopSpin · · Score: 2

      but then i read some of the comments below and realized you were spot on

      I noticed this behavior a few years ago when the Apple+Foxconn stories started to appear. After hunting through the comments of a few of those stories I came up with a comprehensive list of rationalizations.

      We are comfortable office people steeped in self-loathing. We can equivocate any evil by dismissing criticism as hypocrisy. The fact that in the case of Chinese industry these arguments happen to align with the desire for low cost products produced well outside "the environment" is purely coincidental...

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    5. Re:Predictable Replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From the horse's mouth,

      http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/

      And all the envirowhackos are protesting "nukular" while coal usage alone increased 10% between 2010 and 2011.

            7,600,000,000 tons of coal, half mined and burned in China.

      So all the bullshit that politicians talk about "limiting Global Warming" is just that - bullshit and hot air. What is even more sad, is the envirowhackos protesting things like Transcanada pipeline (tarsands) while completely ignoring the real problem - coal.

      Someone said there is enough oil, gas and coal to turn Earth into another Venus. I guess full steam ahead on that plan!

      In 2011 coal was the fastest growing form of energy outside renewables. Its share in global primary energy consumption increased to 30.3% - the highest since 1969.

    6. Re:Predictable Replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Between China and India they have, what, somewhere between a third and half the population of the world? Has it occurred to anyone else that between them with their more or less uncontrolled polluting, they're undoing everything that every other industrialized country is doing to reverse global warming?

      YES. This. Precisely this. Whenever I hear the environmentalists spout their screed about conservation, cutbacks and carbon I want to smack them upside the head for completely ignoring what's going in China and India. They either take the rest of us for complete fools or are fools themselves. Either way, I want nothing to do with them. However, just in case there are some out there reading, riddle me this. The Chinese and Indian governments have already said that they will do essentially nothing on climate change. They want their 100 years of pollution and development and have basically told the environmentalists in the United States and Europe to go f*** themselves. There is zero chance that the Chinese and Indians are going to tell their people, "We know that you want that house with the two car garage, a gas guzzler vehicle and that big ass TV, but we cannot let you have these things because of climate change." They would have a revolution on their hands or what the Chinese call "social instability". So any sacrifices that you greens make here in the United States and Europe are meaningless as regards global temperature rises from greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, you're wasting your time because China and India will never agree to cooperate in any meaningful ways. You stand on principles if you want to, but I'd rather just enjoy what time we have left.

    7. Re:Predictable Replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Here's how Slashdot works:

      Article about US:
      1. Provide insightful criticism of US -- get modded Insightful
      2. Replies to 1 deflecting to another country modded Troll

      Article about almost any other country:
      1. Provide insightful criticism of that country -- 50/50 chance of Insightful/Troll
      2. Replies to 1 deflecting to US modded Insightful

      It seems like only the rational people congregate in the US articles.

    8. Re:Predictable Replies by khallow · · Score: 2

      Someone said there is enough oil, gas and coal to turn Earth into another Venus.

      I think that's outright wrong. There's roughly 80 times as much carbon dioxide in Venus's atmosphere as there is total atmosphere on Earth. That's a lot of carbon. But even if there was enough carbon, there isn't enough oxygen in the atmosphere. We're about two orders of magnitude too short.

    9. Re:Predictable Replies by furbyhater · · Score: 1

      This is confusing because it feels like sarcasm, yet in the larger context of your comment, it seems like not-sarcasm. Obviously, every country should be criticized for its faults, recognizing the difference between the governed and those who govern. Even in first world democracies, it is _not_ easy to say that the government represents the people's wishes. It is easy to say that the government represents what a majority see as the least worst options for public office, which is not a distinction without a difference.

      Agreed. Not all governement officials are democratically elected, only a tiny part of them is actually. The CIA, FBI, FCC, IRA, the police system, the school system, the prison system, the army, etc. All people employed by these entities are public officials. Only a handful are actually elected officials. They are simply the scapegoats who bear the brunt of the popular anger.

      Taking care to be aware of one's own sins, is the first step in helping others improve themselves without at the same time, sounding like a completely self-ignorant twit. Further, such self-awareness can be very valid as a basis for an argument about why certain actions are unwise, and thus may form part of a non-fallacious argument.

      Wrongs should be openly and vehemently critisized, irrespective of one's own past "sins". By the hand, those "sins" you're talking about aren't mine, and if you aren't part of the people making the decisions which lead to pollution (in this particular case) they aren't yours either.

      Apathy never gets anything changed for the better, but often allows change for the worse. Views like this should be challenged, not least of all because without expectations that an entity can do better, there is a great likelihood it won't. I'm not sure how this is a fallacy of any kind, because a fallacy requires some argument. This is a "give up" attitude, and attitudes aren't arguments, thus can't be fallacies.

      What the GP is trying to say is that such statements are worse than useless and contribute nothing to the discussion.

      While we may have no right to intervene, there is no reason we cannot judge China's wrongs, just as others, and ourselves, should feel free to judge and point out our wrongs. Without feedback on how you're screwing up, the process of improvement is prolonged. This I could see as a fallacy because it is used as argument against even comment, when really, it should apply only to intervention.

      Do you think the chinese governement is reading slashdot? How old are you? (I'm late 20's btw).

      I'm not really sure what you want to see in a discussion of this type of news. A bunch soviet russia jokes? Beowulf clusters? A few links to goatse or tubgirl? A wide-ranging, on-topic discussion is actually healthy, not something to be sneered at.

      It's exactly because a wide-ranging, on-topic discussion is actually healthy that the type of comments that the GP has mentioned aren't welcome...

    10. Re:Predictable Replies by furbyhater · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At least the environmentalists in your country get up from their ass and try to improve SOMETHING. You can't really expect them to move to China in a completely foreign environment to protest coal plants there. What are you doing, except sitting on your ass working, consuming and trying to get everyone into the same hopeless and jaded state of mind that you are in? Congratulations, genius!

    11. Re:Predictable Replies by flyneye · · Score: 0

      I just can't believe that if the Fed can give NASA Hubble class binoculars and we have so many 3 letter intelligence agencies that they're fighting bands for names ,they are just now figuring this out.Jeeeeeeeez!
      Somewhere in Argentina ,a hydrophobic penguin already knew China was a bubbling ,seething mass of Hazmat waste ,eroding slowly into the Ocean.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    12. Re:Predictable Replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't really expect them to move to China in a completely foreign environment to protest coal plants there.

      Nobody is asking them to, but talking about unicorn farts and fairy dust, or "doing something" in your lexicon, is really becoming quite tiresome. If you can get China and India to agree to a treaty and abide by it, which would be no small feat because the Chinese are liars and deceivers, then I will be the first to celebrate but I won't be holding my breath in the meantime. I think that the problem will solve itself eventually and that the human race or parts of it may survive but it won't happen through peace and international cooperation. We already cannot stand each other now so how much less concerned for our fellow man will we be when resources are scarce and it's every nation, tribe and family for themselves?

    13. Re:Predictable Replies by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I'm confused, are you saying that's a common response or that you're actually criticizing China in that way. If it's the first, I've never seen that suggested before. If it's the second: the US is a bigger contributor to global warming with less than 5% of the world's population. Which might be why I've never seen anyone suggest that here before.

    14. Re:Predictable Replies by able1234au · · Score: 1

      At least the "envirowhackos" are not a coward... an Anonymous Coward.

    15. Re:Predictable Replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe his point was the US has done, and probably is (to some extent) still doing the same in hiding these studies. And even prevented people, from doing there own studies, people asked during the industrial revolution what is all this poisoning going to lead us? And the answer!! Do not worry nothing bad is going to come from this. And the government had studies done on the impacts of the pollution but kept it hidden from the public.

      Citizens, and other entities can and do these studies, but the media/press either takes the governments side of things, or the government decides to hide or lie about the truth. The Media/Press is also only interested in making a buck or pretending like they actually give a flying monkey turd about the possible impact the study may have, they blow it up, fail to find any truth, which leads to more hysteria by documentaries or the public that will lead to more unknowns, or lack of truth..

      The only difference is obvious, China flat out ban citizens, or any outside government entity from doing further studies. But you cannot keep this repressed citizens or other Chinese (concerned) Scientists will defy the government and sneak there own studies into the fold. But the US was not that far behind what China does, they both fail to have any honesty.

    16. Re:Predictable Replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well since it's India that is likely to be hurt most by global warming (being flooded and becoming part of the ocean floor) i'd assume they would want this the most. But if they are okay with loosing most of their land, well why shouldn't i be okay with that.

    17. Re: Predictable Replies by ender89 · · Score: 1

      Supposedly if you ask people in China about the smog levels in Beijing they'll respond with "well, LA is pretty bad too". Scientists have done studies on the smog that gets caught in the snowline above LA and it turns out something like two thirds of the smog in LA comes from China.

    18. Re:Predictable Replies by Rabenblut · · Score: 1

      Thanks. It's easy being jaded and lazy, no one should get credit for that.

      I accidentally downvoted this comment, posting something to remove moderation.

    19. Re:Predictable Replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think democracy is good? Then shutup and listen to the top 2 countries of the world.

  12. Reframing! by mha · · Score: 1

    Nice spin, Mr - what does your reply have to do with the text you replied to? Nothing of course. You opened a completely different topic merely to distract, or what does not being able to get the information @Shavano asked about have to do with oil in the mid east?

    1. Re:Reframing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice spin, Mr - what does your reply have to do with the text you replied to? Nothing of course. You opened a completely different topic merely to distract, or what does not being able to get the information @Shavano asked about have to do with oil in the mid east?

      1. The USA has more oil than the middle east. USA just refuses to drill for it on any appreciable scale. 2. Domestic fracking on any appreciable scale is a potential alternative to depending on Middle Eastern oil. 3. You're an idiot for commenting on something you obviously have not looked into.

  13. It's just one village. What's all the noise about? by LostMonk · · Score: 1

    It's not like the government is going to run out of cheap labor any time soon.

  14. POLLUTION?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't those silly Chinese know that 'state secret' powers are only for the most serious of issues where disclosure poses a serious, legitimate & present threat to the lives, security, etc of people in said nation? as an American I am PROUD to say MY government uses this power with the upmost discretion and ONLY for things that clearly pass the "think of the children!" test! you know, things like this:

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10195547-38.html

  15. Tell me again about that bill... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    that outlaws the use of secret footage taped at large agricultural companies, e.g. for animal mistreatment.

    There's about 10 states passing such bills in the US right now.

    So please, stop whining about china doing this.... clean up our own mess first.

  16. This will never come back and bite them in the ass by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

    Yeah, burying waste and information will never, ever come back to haunt them.

    It is an environmental time bomb. And there is plenty of blame to be spread around.

  17. Okay, we get it. by erroneus · · Score: 1

    We, the Pots, are calling the Kettle black.

    The crap we have going on in the US pales in comparison. We've got far more serious corruption at every turn and we've got problems which even exceed that.

  18. So what's so remarkable about that? by ErnyCowan · · Score: 5, Informative

    In Canada our Conservative government has very similar policies. Using legislative process that suppressed scrutiny and debate it scrapped many environmental protection laws and regulations, eviscerated government science and oversight programs. It muzzles what scientists still remain buy requiring anyone in the civil service or or on contract with the government to receive approval from the Prime Minister's office before making any statement to the public. It even imposes these restrictions on non-Canadian agencies that need government approval to do research in Canada. That's what happens when ideologues get in control. - Erny

    1. Re:So what's so remarkable about that? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      They're innovative though. The latest arguments about why studies can't be released is to protect IP.
      http://www.canada.com/Scientist+calls+confidentiality+rules+Arctic+project+chilling/7960894/story.html
      At least the Chinese government didn't get elected on a platform of openness.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  19. NEW in China: Active dishonesty! by DavidClarkeHR · · Score: 1

    The issue is the Chinese government (national level) is not based upon any principles of openness. They hide anything and everything that might threaten their place in power. The only time it comes out is when trying to keep it secret would hurt even more (i.e when a coverup is exposed).

    Yeah, and you'd think they'd be honest enough to simply say "None of your business". That's the interesting thing - The general thought is that the chinese government does not usually go out of it's way to actively deceive citizens, it just denies.

    --
    - Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
  20. Welcome to Canada by jfbriere · · Score: 2

    Not exactly "States Secrets" labeling, rather an "obsessive information control" about environmental issues.
    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/canadian-scientists-continue-muzzled-harper-government-234902614.html

  21. So does the country of Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Try getting any info about the tar sands and pollution in the province of Alberta, Canada. That is some of the dirtiest oil in the world to extract and the effects are very damaging to the ecosystem. But, if you listened to the government of Alberta or even the government of Canada, it is all fresh and flowery.

    1. Re:So does the country of Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, the info on both sides of the debate is grossly exaggerated, and you’re not getting accurate info from the hippies either.

    2. Re:So does the country of Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been there. I've seen it from the air and I've seen it on the ground. I know who is telling the truth.

  22. Re:This will never come back and bite them in the by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    If the Tiananmen Square massacre didn't bother them I don't think some toxic waste will concern them either.

  23. Spoiler Alert! by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Right back at you though... tomorrow, in remedial English, you and the other kids will have a pop quiz. The answers will all be A, B, C, and D.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  24. Re:It's just one village. What's all the noise abo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's just one village.

    No, it isn't just one village.

  25. In China, corruption is a state secret by kawabago · · Score: 1

    If someone reports corruption in China, they go to jail for revealing state secrets. The 'People's Republic' my arse! It should be called 'The Ruling Elite's Republic of Oppression of the People of China'. That would be a far more accurate name than the patriotism they attempt to wrap their misdeeds in today.

    1. Re:In China, corruption is a state secret by anagama · · Score: 1

      Kiriakou is the sole CIA officer to face jail time for any action involving the federal government's torture program. Ironically, Kiriakou, the whistleblower on the program, will go to prison, while the agents who implemented it will not.

      http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/44-2013/2554-ciatorture-whistleblower-john-kiriakou-reports-to-prison-today

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  26. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course. That's why we need drones.

  27. Poster child, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, China serves as a great poster child for where we are headed.

    But a 2000 year old Jewish heretic argued for fixing your own shortcomings before condemning your neighbor's - not that that point isn't lost on most of of his current claimed adherents...

    1. Re:Poster child, but... by khallow · · Score: 1

      But a 2000 year old Jewish heretic argued for fixing your own shortcomings before condemning your neighbor's

      Why do we have rules and punishments for breaking those rules, if the solution is as you indicate to completely fix our own problems first?

  28. You Have to Han it to The Chinese by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    China has the totalitarian control many in government and other positions of influence are looking for. Your reasonable expectation of truth and honor in your overlord's conduct hinders his ability to serve you properly. The bright, shining light in all this seems to be that the Chinese are going to the trouble to cover it up... this at least implies they care what their indentured populace thinks of them. I, for one, welcome the day when their malfeasance is their undoing.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:You Have to Han it to The Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your title supposed to be a pun?

    2. Re:You Have to Han it to The Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aye.. nice grab.

  29. Re:This will never come back and bite them in the by Zumbs · · Score: 1

    Tiananmen Square is bothering them. If it did not, they would not be trying to keep it quiet.

    --
    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
  30. China misrepresented overfishing w/ similar reason by eyenot · · Score: 1

    [from an academic paper I wrote in 2010]

    During the 1990's, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization stated fish catches were increasing yearly. In 2001, two researchers revealed catches actually declined since the 80s. Chinese officials had overstated their national statistic, their operations of government subverted beneath operations of industry: the officials were promoted only if statistics reflected increased production. The Chinese officials had recorded "by-catch" (a term for unsalable fish) as productive (Clover; Cousteau, 149). As a direct result of their inventiveness, fishing was not done as if a scarcity were underway, which it was. Jacque Cousteau (page 94) explains the cause of overfishing between 1950 and 1985, "by including vast tonnages of 'trash fish', authorities camouflaged collapses of the major commercial fish stock." ...

    Cousteau gasps that "such lapses by those who lead nations bewilder explorers who have led a team", and illuminates that the world catch statistics are misleading in another way: they did not reflect that the number of fishermen needed to catch each next year's harvest have had to grow significantly (between 1971-83, growing from 136,500 to 223,000 fishermen in America alone, aboard over 8,000 more vessels managing to catch statistically less fish than were caught in the 1950's), nor did they account for increasing technological prowess.

    [/paper]

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  31. Re:China misrepresented overfishing w/ similar rea by eyenot · · Score: 1

    oops, sorry:

    Clover, Charles. "The End of the Line." New York: The New Press. 2006. Print.

    Cousteau, Jacques and Susan Schiefelbein. "The Human, the Orchid, and the Octopus." New York: Bloomsbury. 2007. Print.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  32. Yet another example by no-body · · Score: 2

    Where the instinctual drive in humans of "caring for others" is overwritten by some other neural plugin, downloadable on many places and then run as religious. illusion, political doctrine, corporate capialistic ideology and alike.

  33. Trust by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    It's all about the luxury of trust, and of faith. If the governed trust the governors, then the governors will have the necessary freedom of action to pursue the right course, and not be constantly interrupted by whiney peasants who haven't the slightest idea of how hard it is to guide a nation into a new millennium of blessed prosperity.

    Contrast this with democracy, where the voters are expected to use their best judgement based on the limited local information they have at hand, and then watch, aghast as their judgement is diluted by unthinking, uncaring, and downright traitorous elements who have different ideas.

    1. Re:Trust by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      You're right. It all comes down to trust in order to maintain a cohesive and functional society. That's why a culture based on trust is so important. But it's a two way street between those that govern and those that are governed. This why it's so important to (A), have democracy and (B), maintain that democracy. Ronald Reagan said it best when he said "Trust, but verify". I would surmise that the American voter has done an awful lot of trusting with little to no oversight. This goes for regardless of party affiliation. In China, the people have no choice but to accept all forms of corruption in their society as they don't have a representative government. And like gravity, power will coalesce when left unchecked.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  34. Laziness for efficiency. by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    come on,

    it's obvious why the report was what it was. the guys who did it had skimmed through university by cheating and making up reports from made up facts.
    so.. when they get to work, what do you expect of them? that they travel 20 hours in a stinky train to the site to do the study? no fucking way!

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  35. If every country was like the US by flying_fortress · · Score: 1

    I forget if we (the United States) are currently the number one or number two polluter in the world? Considering it's a close race between us and a country with... 3 or 4x our population??? Ehhh Not so good for the US when the history books get written, unless we just nuke all the other nations first so they can't contradict us. In fact, the US getting in anybody's business about pollution is about as comedically hypocritical as if, say, the nation that 1) Invented weapons of mass destruction, 2) Is the only nation to have ever deployed weapons of mass destruction and 3) Comes pretty damn close to having more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the world combined - Were to, oh say, get up in the rest of the world's back yards because they chose to follow our example?? Oh Jesus - That'd be freaking hilarious! 8 ) Why would we ever focus on cleaning up our own back yard or, say "Leading by example" on any of the important issues of our time? That'd be boring : ( Let's just keep calling other people names - Much more fun! : )

  36. Re:This will never come back and bite them in the by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    They still state no one died there. That's why the US government loves them. They make the lying SOB's in Washington look like honest people.

  37. Oh Dear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wind born aerosols, dust 'sand' have been leaving China throughout the Holocene !

    Egads !

    "State Secrets" have been leaving willy-nilly even well before the current Genus' Offices' ancestors were born !

    Now the HIgh Supreme Excellency Stupendous Super Power Ranger Council of the Supreme Heavens Soviet must find a 'body' to kill before the masses.

    OH My DICK ! What an insufferable suffrage to be had !

  38. THis is funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    About 1-2 years ago, I spoke about what my ex-gf had told me. And when I did, I had all sorts of ppl speaking about how I was wrong and that the UN and Europeans scientists would nullify what I wrote. Basically, my ex-gf and her team were allowed into China to do air-pollution measurements all over the nation. However, it was with the proviso that it would not be published, but would be reported to the Chinese gov. They were then allowed to run around from place to place relatively freely without telling the polluters that they were coming (they DID have a soldier with him, but he was not phoning ahead; his job was to keep them out of certain restricted areas where no outsiders are allowed). Sadly, when the UN and other groups go there to measure, they tell the gov. and the gov. shuts down their top polluting plants. In addition, they force all of their power plants that have pollution control to turn them on. Otherwise, all pollution control is turned off.

    So, what did they find? Basically, that the CO2 and other pollution levels are MUCH higher than anybody could ever believe. In fact, not just CO2 but many other pollution levels are so far off the chart as to be terrifying. They make lake erie, chicago, detroit, and pitsburgh in the 70's to look positively alive and clean. Once OCO2 is up in space and doing accurate measurements, real CO2 numbers will be shown. The fact is, that China is already way over Europes average CO2 emissions on a per capita basis. And pretty close to what America is. So, what it amounts to, is that all of the work that West has done over the last 10 years to lower their emissions is a fraction of what the Chinese goes up YEARLY.

    And the pollution is all over. Anybody that eats chinese food is absolutely crazy. While the group was not allowed to sample other pollutants such as Mercury and Lead, it was obvious that with all of the pollution control turned off on cement and coal plants that China emits many times the amount that the west has ever done.

    Windbourne (moderating).

  39. not that this is important, it is. but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it really belong here??

    What ever happened to "http://web.archive.org/web/19981212032831/http://www.slashdot.org/"
    I really and truly hope this is not turning into a vehicle for crap, the likes that FOXNews Lost control of..

    my 2c

    1. Re:not that this is important, it is. but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for all the thing s that are going on around the world, it makes you wonder how deep that may be

    2. Re:not that this is important, it is. but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I agree the good Old days..
      where did they go. :(
      I do wonder if this may be turning into a perverted form of what places like FoxNews have left behind..
      Since the "change of hands" of /. i have noticed the level of serious and or relevant to the audience diminishing.
      I realize things change, we change, society changes, the world as we know it changes.
      But I have to agree, how does that really reflect the avg. reader to this forum??

      tgk

  40. Here's the difference by Su27K · · Score: 1

    You're quoting American media and website to support your points, good luck finding similar information on China in Chinese media. If you even try to publish these stuff on Chinese media, you risk being sent to labor camps.

    No matter how you try to drag the United States down to China's level, it just won't work, democracy is not at the same level at dictatorship, no matter how corrupt it is.

  41. well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what about http://web.archive.org/web/19981212032831/http://www.slashdot.org/

  42. The remarkable thing is this by Su27K · · Score: 1

    You have a chance to elect this Conservative government of yours out of office in the next election, no such chance for the Chinese.

    1. Re:The remarkable thing is this by ErnyCowan · · Score: 1

      O, I agree. I am just trying to express my dismay at the recent trend in many western countries to tolerate parties and elect them to govern when they follow the Chinese model for ways to hold and increase their power. Ideologically driven politicians are more alike than different, no matter what theiir nominal orientation, be it 'socialist' or 'capitalist'. As are religious fanatics, be they 'Muslim', 'Christian', 'Hindu' or 'Jew'. And I can still express my opinions on forums such as this, using my proper name, with little fear of reprisals from the government. - Erny

  43. pollution: 2 words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    L.A
    What a joke

  44. Re:China misrepresented overfishing w/ similar rea by Farmer+Pete · · Score: 1

    Thanks. I'm sure I was just one of many Slashdot readers who was really interested in manually looking up those references. I mean, reading TFA may not be common on Slashdot, but we all enjoy a good trip to the library to sift through aisle after aisle of dead paper books. I'm on my way there now!