China, climate and growth; a shift?

Quoted on Climate Progress, the Chinese Premier, Wen Jibao:

We must not any longer sacrifice the environment for the sake of rapid growth and reckless rolll-outs, as that would result in unsustainable growth featuring industrial overcapacity and intensive resource consumption.

The environment minister, Zhou Shengxian:

In China’s thousands of years of civilization, the conflict between humankind and nature has never been as serious as it is today. The depletion, deterioration and exhaustion of resources and the worsening ecological environment have become bottlenecks and grave impediments to the nation’s economic and social development.

Sunday Greens

St Petersburg Times – traces the recent history and political consequences of large-scale oil disasters.

Dot Earth – on the shifting narrative of oil in the US after the Gulf spill.

Xinhua – reports on China’s continuing commitment to the climate change principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” According to Xie Zhenhua, one of China’s leading climate negotiators:

Developed countries discharged a great amount of greenhouse gases during their industrialization in the previous two centuries. That is the main cause of global warming…[T]hat’s why they should take most of the responsibility to reduce carbon emissions… Developing countries are now beginning to industrialize. It is unfair to limit their development.

According to Xie, developed countries should transfer green technologies to developing nations and dramatically increase their aid to poor nations.

John Vidal – reviews the latest in a long line of books focused on how to reconcile prosperity/growth with ecological concerns. That establishment economists such as Paul Collier are prepared to tackle this conundrum is, in a way, heartening. Vidal is, however, highly critical of Collier’s diagnosis.

(Easter) Sunday Seven

ABC’s Clive Hamilton on the report by the Science and Technology Committee in the British House of Commons into ‘climategate’. Hamilton concludes that there was:

[N]o conspiracy, no collusion, no manipulation of data, no corruption of the peer-review process, no scandal; just an understandable reluctance to hand over data to dishonest people with a history of misrepresenting it.

Squibs don’t get much damper than “Climategate”. The most worrying aspect of the drama was the way in which most of the media ditched any attempt at assessing the claims and became caught up in the frenzy, when a couple of hours spent reading the emails and talking to one of two of those involved would have made the conclusions of the House of Commons inquiry entirely predictable.

New York Times - victory for clean water campaigners in NY state.

Treehugger – on the new cooperation between Beijing and the White House over clean energy.

Huffington Post – How Green is Apple’s iPad?

The Times – on the Tories and “eco-caviar”.

The Observer – on why despite selling to Unilever in 2000, Ben and Jerry are still fair trade poster boys.

Fast Company – on McDonald’s and the great April Fools Day joke. This story, as some in the media like to say, ‘has legs’.