Drudge carried this report that was originally carried by Fox news about Republican senators who are questioning the science behind climate change. more questioning of this is making me crazy.

But also, it brings to mind something that I’d like to question here. Maybe I am limited by the narrowness of my scope, but my narrowness doesn’t make my point moot.

I’m wondering what do we have to gain from arguing the science of climate change? As China is innovating in a truly sustainable way, we are questioning the science of climate change? Given that growth and development will happen, let’s guide that development in an environmentally sustainable way.  On the other side of this, what do we have to lose if we continue to ignore this threat? By balancing out potential losses with our potential gains, it seems very clear to me that we must act now.

Paul Krugman at the NYTmes wrote about the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill, and this being indicative of a change that’s (maybe) starting to happen in the United States.

The House passes climate-change bill is huge news to me.

Politico carried this on their article covering the story: “It has been an incredible six months, to go from a point where no one believed we could pass this legislation to a point now where we can begin to say that we are going to send president Obama to Copenhagen in December as the leader of the of the world on climate change,” said Markey, referring to world climate talks scheduled this winter.”

This doesn’t have anything directly to do with China, but indirectly it means global sentiments are changing. This is something that needed to happen though, for sure.

Today, a report by the Geneva-based Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) says climate change “seriously affects 325 million people every year, a number that will more than double in 20 years to 10 percent of the world’s population (now about 6.7 billion).”

According to the report, economic losses due to climate change will reach $340 billion each year by 2030.

If it’s all connected, and we’re all affected, I think Cherry is correct about the importance of turning off the lights.

There hasn’t been much news about the Chinese environmental movement in the U.S. recently, and I have also been thinking about other projects. But, today, Drudge carried an AP article about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi making a visit to Beijing.

Pelosi stresses that climate change is an area where cooperation between the U.S. and China can be further concentrated, because, says Pelosi, “We’re all in this together”. This is true, and super cute.

The article also mentions that human rights abuses and the “fierce public criticisms [that] she has frequently leveled at the authoritarian government” were skirted in her recent visit, instead concentrating on the hopeful and positive ways that the “authoritarian” government in China and the Unites States can cooperate. Focusing on the positives does not negate the bad aspects, it just makes for happier, more agreeable players.

Later in the article, the AP says that Obama told Pelosi that Beijing stands ready to join the U.S. in cutting green house gas emissions.

Regarding human rights, I’m glad Pelosi makes the point that the right to a clean environment is also a very basic human right. This one, we’re all in together.

Rich China, poor China conundrum as clout grows brings up the issue of China playing two games on the global economic market. “China has [caused] raised eyebrows when [the country] appeared to be demanding more rights as an unquestioned economic power while pleading poverty [if] asked to shoulder greater obligations,” writes Paul Eckert, the Asia Correspondent at Reuters. China plays the established economic powerhouse game–China holds 2 trillion in foreign reserves–when this is a convenient game to play–but, simultaneously, the World Bank groups China in lower-middle-income countries, with $936-3,705 in annual per capita income, based on 2007 data.

Considering this aspect of Chinese international economics is beyond my scope. However, it helps me to understand Chinese actors to better understand the framework from which they are operating. This goes back to when Jeff and I wrote about the stories that we won’t tell.

This morning I saw this article, Is Global Warming Not a Big Concern?, and it did not surprise me. Ironically, among the top concerns in the United States are education. Thirty percent of Americans polled say global warming is a top concern, and, says Foxnews.com, “Not surprisingly — the economy is the number one issue. Eighty-five percent said it was a top priority — followed by jobs, terrorism, Social Security and education.”

I’m happy that education is a top concern, because this will solve the problem of apathy about the environment as well.

Further exploring Foxnews, and I see that the outlet reported that China censored Obama’s inaugural address, deleting words like “communism” and references to dissent. I don’t think it’s O.K. to do this. I don’t think it’s O.K. to do much of what happened during the last American administration, but I can express this sentiment in the U.S. safely, and that is what makes me feel comfortable here, my video editor helped me to understand. We need to give China a little more time and space to defend itself.

I am just one positive, hopeful voice about the Chinese environmental movement, and Foxnews is just one other voice. I can be sure that I’m honestly reporting what I saw in China, and it is true that Foxnews could report something completely different accurately. We are only making a movie about what we saw in China, and Jeff brought this up previously, our story is very limited.

NYTimes ran this piece yesterday about how China plans to become the world’s leader in electric cars in three years.

takepart.com linked to the article, commenting that, “And, it seems that because China never really got into the game with gas-powered vehicles, the country is well-positioned to do this, because it’s just skipping the current technology and going straight to the new hybrid/electric technology.” This leap-frogging of development has been brought up by contacts in the field as well, but it’s good to see the idea manifested in an actual quantitative example.

I feel like tides are starting to turn, so I’m not always searching searching for sources to back up my hopefulness about China now. I heard Al Gore speak on Monday at the Boston Speakers Series. Gore made a point that I really liked–he is also extremely optimistic about climate change. crisis or opportunity? Gore made the point that people who are avid to impact change don’t want individuals to think that it’s too late to avert substantial climate change–if it were too late, this would mean more business as usual. We’re not over any kind of tipping point yet, so don’t stop making behavoiral changes because they all add up to something substantial. Chinese kids in environmental education programs tell us that it’s just one plastic bag, but it’s one plastic bag times every person who is mindful of the way that he is impacting his environment.

Gore brought up climate refugees in Bangeladesh and in Darfur, and it made me wonder if it will take being personally affected by climate change to have strong feelings about it. This makes me think of developing our sense of place and how important this is towards fostering our feelings about  sustainability.  I always hold with me the sense of place that I had growing up on the lake in Maine, and this helped me to feel this sense again at Tiger Leaping Gorge in Yunnan, China in 2005. Previously in this web space, I’ve asked how to teach this sense of place?

Drudge carried this China rejects computer spy claims as “ghost of Cold War” and it made me think of something a contact at Brandeis said to me in a meeting prior to filming. I think the Cold War is much more prevalent than I expect, because I’m too young to have felt its impact maybe.

The Chinese spying noticed by the Canadian government has not been linked to the Chinese government. Why are we so quick to say it’s probably the Chinese government? There are people in the U.S. who are hacking hacking all the time. It’s a minority that exists in any population.

“Nowadays the problem is that there are some people abroad avidly concocting rumors about China’s so-called Internet espionage,” said a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry. And he links it back to a “ghost abroad called the Cold War”.

Russia, China cooperate on new currency proposals has interesting implications and is possibly the cause for some of the Western anxiousness. Coupled with Cold War sentiment residue–which I’m excited to better understand–makes it difficult to be really understanding. I wonder where this anti-Sino sentiment comes from in my generation, though.

or maybe I’m wrong.

Reading Drudge this morning, and China is back in his news, but we’re back to news about Tibet.

There are people in China who are marginalized, and some Western writers have romanticized these people to the point that they are romanticized in much of Western culture. There are people in the United States who are marginalized, but they aren’t romanticized in the same way, for better or for worse. But, these marginalized people are a minority in China. The majority in China is not Tibetan. If the United States can act in such a way as to benefit the majority of the Chinese people, this Chinese majority will start to take note of their own minorities, and the United States will not feel such paternalism about Tibet, except because of the romantic aspects of the region.

The majority of Chinese people are not Tibetan, but there are issues that plauge the majority of Chinese people, too. Environmental conservation benefits all of these people–Tibetans, too. In fact, it was near Tibet that I first took note and fell in love with China’s environment.

In Jim Fallows’ April 2009 post in the Atlantic Monthly, “China’s Way Forward“, Fallows continues to be positive about the direction of the growth in China, and in this post Fallows is more focused in his enthusiasm. He focuses on innovation that is starting to happen in China. (This is a piece of China’s growth that was questioned by people who we interviewed in Beijing!) China is worried that its universities are weak by international standards, so the government is approving a plan to build new research centers.

New research centers will spark innovation and this, coupled with the “outspokenness” (Fallows’ word) of the Chinese people will drive further innovation. Writes Fallows, “Westerners who have not traveled in China might be surprised at how outspoken ordinary Chinese people can be. When cars or bicycles collide (often), the parties involved get out to yell at each other and at the cops, and plead their case to the gathering crowd.” It is not safe to be a pedestrian in China.

The pace at which things are changing is important to note. Fallows reports on a conversation he had with a Chinese person about the place that Chinese people are moving away from: “‘I would not be sitting here wearing a necktie and talking to a foreigner.’ Or, ‘Do you understand how different this is? My mother has bound feet!’” Bound feet just one generation back. But it’s one whole generation.

Fallows goes on to connect the United States and China economically. “Outsiders can rightly criticize the Chinese government if it tries to sneak in new export subsidies or push the RMB’s value back down. But no one can criticize its ambition to increase the rewards for its people’s work. Many Chinese companies will fail or make mistakes under today’s intense pressure. But many are using the moment to prepare for their next advance. The question for Americans to think about is how we are using the same moment.”

This is why you should care about China, because we’re all in this together. For this reason and for ginger tea.