We Aren't Watching China Closely Enough

Jun 2014
59,512
33,982
Cleveland, Ohio
#1
NOBODY has more urgent climate change and population explosion issues than China, and nobody has more money and freedom to spend as they wish than China. Ergo, it is worth watching how they are attempting to solve their problems and see whether any of these feats of engineering might be worth replicating here, on a more affordable scale.

The Midwestern United States is most threatened (via violent weather) by two water-based events: flooding, which occurs in urban areas primarily due to the inadequate sewer system we have here, and pollution, again related to the sewer system. High levels of rainfall can cause the release of untreated sewage into the Great Lakes, where it is not sufficiently treated before being piped back into the urban areas for human consumption. Rural areas of the state also face threats to water, as the aquifer is polluted by the chemicals released during "fracking",a method of extraction of natural gas from the upper crust of the earth. The Midwest also has other water-related issues that threaten people such as landslides, earthquakes, other forms of ground water contamination, lakefront erosion, etc.

As I sit here this morning, Thursday 11/07/18, the greater Cleveland area is under warnings and advisories for small crafts (no pleasure boating on Lake Erie), flooding, wet snow, snow and high (gale force) winds. Everywhere between the Mississippi River and the Atlantic Ocean is under threat today, apparently.

2017climatechangeus.jpg

This Op poses the question, should the US be watching the Chinese more closely, so we can benefit from their engineering discoveries as regards managing or mitigating threats to human lives caused by violent weather?

Recent flooding in Mumbai was blamed in part on unregulated development of wetlands, while hastily built urban areas are being affected by flooding across India, Nepal, and Bangladesh.This is not a trend only in developing countries; floods in Houston, United States, highlighted the risks of development in environmentally sensitive and low-lying areas. In 2012, a severe flood in Beijing wreaked havoc on the city's transportation systems, and in 2016 floods overwhelmed drainage systems in Wuhan, Nanjing, and Tianjin.The challenges are clear.
Groundwater over-extraction, waterway degradation, and urban flooding are forcing China's cities to address a vicious cycle. Sprawling urban development and use of impervious material prevent soil from absorbing rainwater, prompting further investment in infrastructures that typically impede natural processes and worsen flood impacts.

China's "sponge city initiative" aims to arrest this cycle through the use of permeable surfaces and green infrastructures.

However, the initiative faces two challenges: lack of expertise of local governments to effectively coordinate and integrate such a complex set of activities, and financial constraints.

The concept

Engineering solutions are popular interventions, but cities cannot simply pipe away flood risks.

To address the issue, China's sponge city initiative has an ambitious goal: by 2020, 80% of urban areas should absorb and re-use at least 70% of rainwater.

*Snip*

Launched in 2015 in 16 cities, the initiative seeks to reduce the intensity of rainwater runoff by enhancing and distributing absorption capacities more evenly across targeted areas. The resulting groundwater replenishment increases availability of water for various uses. This approach not only reduces flooding but also enhances water supply security.

The initiative is similar to the North American concept of low-impact development (LID), which according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mimics natural processes in order to protect water quality.

The case of Lingang, a planned city in Shanghai's Pudong district, illustrates typical sponge city measures. These include rooftops covered by plants, scenic wetlands for rainwater storage, and permeable pavements that store excess runoff water and allow evaporation for temperature moderation.

With ambitions to be China's largest sponge city project, the Lingang city government has invested $119 million in retrofits and innovations that could be a model for the majority of Chinese cities lacking modern water infrastructure.

Chinese cities are making noteworthy efforts. In a pledge to expand coverage of urban greenery, Shanghai announced in early 2016 the construction of 400,000 square meters of rooftop gardens.
The project is a collaborative effort among city regulators, property owners, and engineers. Sponge city projects in Xiamen and Wuhan have performed effectively during heavy rainfall.

Improved policies and budgets

The sponge city initiative requires a holistic and sustained effort, including effective environmental governance. However, concerns persist about weak regulations and selective enforcement. Local officials cannot simply turn the other way when violations are discovered.

The unsung tedium of tightening controls is less exciting than bold innovations, but equally crucial for managing water. Gains from sponge city programs should not be offset by poor environmental governance.

Funding is also a persistent constraint. To date, more than $12 billion has been spent on all sponge city projects. The central government funds roughly 15-20% of costs, with the remainder split between local governments and the private sector.


Wetland restoration being carried out in Denver, Colorado in 2016.

Unfortunately, the initiative coincides with a burgeoning municipal debt crisis spurred in part by restrictive financial reforms, bond ratings cuts, and nervous bond markets. China's cities may soon find borrowing costs even higher and avenues for reducing debts narrower.

Investment in sponge city initiatives is also proving to be an increasingly difficult sell, with only tepid interest from domestic private investors. The government should improve conditions that encourage investment, including tax incentives, better project transparency, and looser credit markets.

Until this happens, sponge city initiatives will have to compete against visible and familiar infrastructure such as roads, transit, and utilities. They will also have to be attractive in a market with numerous other investment options.
Innovative water initiatives have been adopted worldwide, including wetland restoration in the American Midwest, flushing systems using collected rooftop water in Oregon USA, bioswales in Singapore, and public spaces as flexible water retention facilities in the Netherlands.

*Snip*

China has an opportunity to strengthen its emerging global leadership role in urban sustainability.

However, it must first implement an effective vision for how sponge city initiatives complement broader environmental governance efforts.

Improving regulatory enforcement and reviving interest in related private investment opportunities are two steps it can take.
If we "should" be watching the Chinese, how would we do this? Is there a Journal of International Engineering we should be reading? Or some Nobel Prize for Engineering type award we should track?

Asking our science and technology nerds, this time. I honestly don't know.



 
Nov 2018
54
32
UK/Spain
#3
Theres a connection, which ive not explored yet -

1. China is a communist state (the largest in fact)
2. The UN is a communist organisation intent on world socialism.

As well as watching China, we need to watch what these two are up to behind closed doors, They have a common aim, and both have zero regard for democracy and freedom.

We need spy satellites over China. Did you know they are trying to steal a large chunk of the South China sea by building artificial islands, which allows them to extend out thier 12 mile limit? They are encroaching on Japans outer islands.
 
Likes: Madeline
Jun 2014
59,512
33,982
Cleveland, Ohio
#4
Theres a connection, which ive not explored yet -

1. China is a communist state (the largest in fact)
2. The UN is a communist organisation intent on world socialism.

As well as watching China, we need to watch what these two are up to behind closed doors, They have a common aim, and both have zero regard for democracy and freedom.

We need spy satellites over China. Did you know they are trying to steal a large chunk of the South China sea by building artificial islands, which allows them to extend out thier 12 mile limit? They are encroaching on Japans outer islands.
Yes, I am aware of the artificial islands. I am concerned about Australia, which needs that trade route as much as Japan does. Not to mention, I do not want a war with anyone, least of all with China. I don't think I know much of anything about that nation's culture to even begin to guess what they are up to, but they seem determined to keep their land habitable for humans. I wonder, if they succeed, what they plan to do about climate refugees from Africa and elsewhere in Asia?

I agree with you that the U.N. should not be trusted without a lot of verifying. I am disgusted by the way the Security Council treats Israel.

Nice to meetcha, BTW. May I ask, where do you live, if not in the U.S.? Are you retired overseas?
 

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
11,393
12,245
Work
#5
Theres a connection, which ive not explored yet -

1. China is a communist state (the largest in fact)
2. The UN is a communist organisation intent on world socialism.

As well as watching China, we need to watch what these two are up to behind closed doors, They have a common aim, and both have zero regard for democracy and freedom.

We need spy satellites over China. Did you know they are trying to steal a large chunk of the South China sea by building artificial islands, which allows them to extend out thier 12 mile limit? They are encroaching on Japans outer islands.
So the John Birch society is still going strong, huh?

The UN is a communist organization, even though there are only 5 countries left in existence that could be considered Communist by any sense of the word, which has programs to promote free market capitalism, and gives 5 free market democracies seats on the UN security council, giving them veto power over any decision endorsed by the Security council's sole communist (market communist, that is) member, China.

The idea that giving every country a seat at a international diplomatic organization is somehow "world government" is plainly absurd. Just look at the US's record with the UN. Whenever the UN reaches a decision that goes against US plans (usually to bomb or continue economic warfare against some much weaker nation) the US does what any powerful country would do. It ignores the UN. The US only uses the UN as a weapon, not as a guide for following international law or avoiding war crimes (which it periodically commits in direct defiance of the UN).

So maybe other countries can worry about the UN superseding their own law, but certainly not the US.
 
Likes: Madeline
Nov 2018
54
32
UK/Spain
#6
So the John Birch society is still going strong, huh?

The UN is a communist organization, even though there are only 5 countries left in existence that could be considered Communist by any sense of the word, which has programs to promote free market capitalism, and gives 5 free market democracies seats on the UN security council, giving them veto power over any decision endorsed by the Security council's sole communist (market communist, that is) member, China.

The idea that giving every country a seat at a international diplomatic organization is somehow "world government" is plainly absurd. Just look at the US's record with the UN. Whenever the UN reaches a decision that goes against US plans (usually to bomb or continue economic warfare against some much weaker nation) the US does what any powerful country would do. It ignores the UN. The US only uses the UN as a weapon, not as a guide for following international law or avoiding war crimes (which it periodically commits in direct defiance of the UN).

So maybe other countries can worry about the UN superseding their own law, but certainly not the US.
The UN is not the world government. but there plan is to create world socialism, Thats the entire thrust of agenda 21 and Agenda 30.

The single most striking feature of Agenda 2030 is the practically undisguised roadmap to global socialism and corporatism/fascism, as countless analysts have pointed out. To begin with, consider the agenda’s Goal 10, which calls on the UN, national governments, and every person on Earth to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” To do that, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.”


As the UN document also makes clear, national socialism to “combat inequality” domestically is not enough — international socialism is needed to battle inequality even “among” countries. “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources,” the document demands. In simpler terms, Western taxpayers should prepare to be fleeced so that their wealth can be redistributed internationally as their own economies are cut down to size by Big Government. Of course, as has been the case for generations, most of the wealth extracted from the productive sector will be redistributed to the UN and Third World regimes — not the victims of those regimes, impoverished largely through domestic socialist/totalitarian policies imposed by the same corrupt regimes to be propped up with more Western aid under Agenda 2030.


Wealth redistribution alone, however, will not be enough. Governments must also seize control of the means of production — either directly or through fascist-style mandates. “We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services,” the document states. It also says that “governments, international organizations, the business sector and other non-state actors and individuals must contribute to changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns … to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production.”


In plain English, the Agenda 2030 document is claiming that today’s “consumption and production” patterns are unsustainable, so we’ll need to get by with less. How much less? It would be hard to find a more clear and concise assessment than that offered by the late Maurice Strong, the recently deceased Canadian billionaire and longtime UN environmental guru who led the 1992 Earth Summit, in a pre-Earth Summit document: “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and ‘convenience’ foods, ownership of motor vehicles, numerous electrical appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning ... expensive suburban housing … are not sustainable.”

any plan for building international socialism would be lacking without also targeting the next generation with global-socialist propaganda. And so an entire goal of Agenda 2030 is devoted to ensuring that all children, everywhere, are transformed into what the UN calls "agents of change," ready to push forward the plan for the new global order.

"Children and young women and men are critical agents of change and will find in the new Goals a platform to channel their infinite capacities for activism into the creation of a better world," the agreement explains. The sort of activists that the UN hope to make your children into is also explicitly defined in the agreement.

"By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture's contribution to sustainable development," the global plan for 2030 states. Considering what the UN means by "sustainable development", ie

-population control
-central planning
-global governance,
...and more, the agenda for your children takes on an even more sinister tone. Theres much more to this, you can read it in the Agenda documents which you can download from UN. Its an evil, sinister plot.
 

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
11,393
12,245
Work
#7
The UN is not the world government. but there plan is to create world socialism, Thats the entire thrust of agenda 21 and Agenda 30.

The single most striking feature of Agenda 2030 is the practically undisguised roadmap to global socialism and corporatism/fascism, as countless analysts have pointed out. To begin with, consider the agenda’s Goal 10, which calls on the UN, national governments, and every person on Earth to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” To do that, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.”


As the UN document also makes clear, national socialism to “combat inequality” domestically is not enough — international socialism is needed to battle inequality even “among” countries. “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources,” the document demands. In simpler terms, Western taxpayers should prepare to be fleeced so that their wealth can be redistributed internationally as their own economies are cut down to size by Big Government. Of course, as has been the case for generations, most of the wealth extracted from the productive sector will be redistributed to the UN and Third World regimes — not the victims of those regimes, impoverished largely through domestic socialist/totalitarian policies imposed by the same corrupt regimes to be propped up with more Western aid under Agenda 2030.


Wealth redistribution alone, however, will not be enough. Governments must also seize control of the means of production — either directly or through fascist-style mandates. “We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services,” the document states. It also says that “governments, international organizations, the business sector and other non-state actors and individuals must contribute to changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns … to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production.”


In plain English, the Agenda 2030 document is claiming that today’s “consumption and production” patterns are unsustainable, so we’ll need to get by with less. How much less? It would be hard to find a more clear and concise assessment than that offered by the late Maurice Strong, the recently deceased Canadian billionaire and longtime UN environmental guru who led the 1992 Earth Summit, in a pre-Earth Summit document: “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and ‘convenience’ foods, ownership of motor vehicles, numerous electrical appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning ... expensive suburban housing … are not sustainable.”

any plan for building international socialism would be lacking without also targeting the next generation with global-socialist propaganda. And so an entire goal of Agenda 2030 is devoted to ensuring that all children, everywhere, are transformed into what the UN calls "agents of change," ready to push forward the plan for the new global order.

"Children and young women and men are critical agents of change and will find in the new Goals a platform to channel their infinite capacities for activism into the creation of a better world," the agreement explains. The sort of activists that the UN hope to make your children into is also explicitly defined in the agreement.

"By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture's contribution to sustainable development," the global plan for 2030 states. Considering what the UN means by "sustainable development", ie

-population control
-central planning
-global governance,
...and more, the agenda for your children takes on an even more sinister tone. Theres much more to this, you can read it in the Agenda documents which you can download from UN. Its an evil, sinister plot.
Well you've done an excellent job of cutting and pasting that (without attribution to Alex Newmann) from a screed in "The New American". For those who want to see just how far into outer space right wing conspiracy gets and want to read the article in it's entirety:

UN Agenda 2030: A Recipe for Global Socialism

And sonofabitch if there isn't an ad for the John Birch Society right there beside the article! Are you a member? I was only kidding before—I didn't think they still existed!

 
Jun 2014
59,512
33,982
Cleveland, Ohio
#9
So the John Birch society is still going strong, huh?

The UN is a communist organization, even though there are only 5 countries left in existence that could be considered Communist by any sense of the word, which has programs to promote free market capitalism, and gives 5 free market democracies seats on the UN security council, giving them veto power over any decision endorsed by the Security council's sole communist (market communist, that is) member, China.

The idea that giving every country a seat at a international diplomatic organization is somehow "world government" is plainly absurd. Just look at the US's record with the UN. Whenever the UN reaches a decision that goes against US plans (usually to bomb or continue economic warfare against some much weaker nation) the US does what any powerful country would do. It ignores the UN. The US only uses the UN as a weapon, not as a guide for following international law or avoiding war crimes (which it periodically commits in direct defiance of the UN).

So maybe other countries can worry about the UN superseding their own law, but certainly not the US.
I do not anticipate that U.N. Refugee agencies, World Health Organization, etc. will be pristine, humanitarian, utterly unconcerned about the shift in power that climate change will cause, etc. I think expecting the nations of the world to experience camaraderie and support one another is completely unrealistic.

None of this has a thing ti do with the John Birch Society or "world socialism". In fact, I rather think engineering is largely impervious to such concerns and is limited really only by the scope of human imagination and natural laws that dictate how materials respond in various conditions.

I don't think the U.S. should wait for the U.N.to offer us engineering solutions to climate change. Time is of the essence, for starters.

The nefarious intentions of humans (if any) as to political power are mostly irrelevant, I would think.
 
Apr 2012
10,639
4,336
East coast USA
#10
Hell no, it's communist and rife with fraud.
They have built crap cities in the middle of no where with bank loans that cannot be paid back.
Seriously, they are falling apart before even moved in yet.
The water works they have completed are polluted, they value industry ahead of people which means industry pours chemicals into rivers. The people have zero recourse.
They are also not allowed to move, they need permission for that which will not be granted.

I urge OP to read up on China water.
 
Likes: Madeline