China Environmental Law

A discussion of China’s environmental and energy laws, regulations, and policies

China Environmental Law header image 2

World Resources Institute’s China FAQs

November 12th, 2009 · 2 Comments

The World Resources Institute has launched a wonderful new resource for those interested in China’s response to climate change.  In its own words China FAQs is designed to provide “insight into critical questions about Chinese policy and action on energy and climate change. ChinaFAQs is a portal to policy-relevant data and analysis informed by a network of leading U.S. research institutions, business groups, and civil society.”

It is already chock full of useful information and its Expert Blog is off to a promising start.  I can’t say I agree with everything posted on the site, but it wouldn’t be doing its job if I did.  It is a great place to start if you want to find out more about what’s going on in China on the climate change and energy fronts.  CEL is happy to be on its blog roll, and welcomes this new resource from a group that was already doing more than its fair share in this important space.

Tags: miscellany

2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Peter Woof // Dec 20, 2009 at 9:27 am

    China emits 71t/person/year of carbon dioxide
    The USA emits 1098t/person/year of carbon dioxide. I rather suspect that the whole world is waiting for the USA to show how the citizens of that democracy will adjust to a 71t/year/person regime. Of course, as China democratises, the ability of China’s leadership to compel its citizens to use less fuel will be about as great as the ability of the USA to do so. Sorry, the USA really does have to take the lead by example on this one, and show the entire world how to live on very little carbon, just like the Chinese and Indians (’south asians’) do…

  • 2 Greg // Dec 22, 2009 at 10:44 am

    @ Peter

    The per person argument can be easily balanced out by the GHG/GDP argument, showing that the developed world is far better than the developing world in terms of efficiency.

    Your argument is weak, pathetic and just makes excuses.

Leave a Comment