world

China finds nearly 2,000 firms in breach of anti-pollution rules

21 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

21 Comments
Login to comment

There communists. Communism teaches you how to cheat the system. What do you expect?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

How surprising, they only found 2000 firms cheating the pollution rules, maybe they are the ones who didn't pay enough back handers to the authorities, I am pretty sure that if they wanted they could easily find 1,000s more.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Seriously, only 2000? I feel like there's unquestionably more, given that Chinese pollution even crosses the Sea of Japan to mar the otherwise beautiful skies of Niigata.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

China's growth has brought a great leap in pollution.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Let's hope that "finds" soon changes to "fines" or "closes".

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I believe a lot of officials who lined their pockets with brives are laughing to the bank.

PRC is known for it's corrupt officials as well.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

If any of you visited Eastern Europe some years ago you can see what Communism teaches. Corruption, skirt the system, black market......

Pollution in China.....Communism. Look out for myself and pass the buck.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There communists. Communism teaches you how to cheat the system.

China is not communist, and none of the tenets of communism teaches cheating the system.

While oligarchies (of which China is one) have their bad points, the good points are that they can easily walk in and make sweeping changes like this. While I hold out very little hope of a democracy like the US being able to make major sweeping reforms to improve their environment that would cost industry, I could see it actually working in China. Time will tell.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

While I hold out very little hope of a democracy like the US being able to make major sweeping reforms to improve their environment that would cost industry, I could see it actually working in China.

Oh my dear sweet Lord, did you REALLY just insinuate that there is a higher probability of the corrupt wasteland that is China reforming their industries to pollute less than however much they want, than the U.S. which has taken multitudes of steps over the last several decades to clean up the environment? How many different kinds of things are you smoking?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

They are missing at least two zeros.....

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Oh my dear sweet Lord, did you REALLY just insinuate that there is a higher probability of the corrupt wasteland that is China reforming their industries to pollute less than however much they want, than the U.S. which has taken multitudes of steps over the last several decades to clean up the environment?

I don't believe I insinuated it, I believe I directly stated that. The thing about an oligarchy is that they don't have an opposition party fighting them the whole way, turning their government into an ineffective mess that shuts itself down due to not wanting to agree with anything the other side says. So when they decide on sweeping reforms, the sweeping reforms happen, whether anyone likes it or not. Now granted, that comes with it's own set of issues - usually a violation of personal rights and freedoms, so it's not like it's all sunshine and roses. But there is no denying that oligarchies can make these changes faster than democracies.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

China admits to 2,000 "breaches" of pollution, poisoning the environment, child and prison labor practices, feeding Japanese food grow in pig shit... that means.. 20,000 or more actual offenses that you are never going to hear about.. what a third world country... what a third world peasant country that maybe in 20 years will be ruling the world...? Hahahaha... its in the blood these are not people who can take out their own trash let alone help the world live together in harmony, prosperity or peace.. in the lifetime of anyone reading this...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

But there is no denying that oligarchies can make these changes faster than democracies.

By that logic, Oligarchies can also most quickly become the most perfect havens of peace, love, and harmony, but there's a little thing called history that shows what happens to countries run by them.

China has no reason to make reforms because they are making too much money off of not making them, and the world is continuing to enable this by not saying enough is enough. Whereas the U.S., in its painfully slow, trudgingly tedious democratic process, has made sweeping reforms over the last several decades.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

But there is no denying that oligarchies can make these changes faster than democracies.

By that logic, Oligarchies can also most quickly become the most perfect havens of peace, love, and harmony, but there's a little thing called history that shows what happens to countries run by them.

"By that logic"? You must not understand logic very well, because your extrapolation does not follow my comment. Being able to make changes faster does not mean that the changes will always be made faster, nor that the changes made will be good ones. All it means is that there are less barriers to making wide sweeping changes than exist in a multi-party democracy.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

StrangerlandApr. 11, 2014 - 10:56AM JST China is not communist, and none of the tenets of communism teaches cheating the system.

No one is going to take your arguments seriously if you keep repeating this near psychotic mantra. The CCP Politburo itself would ask you what you're smoking.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No one is going to take your arguments seriously if you keep repeating this near psychotic mantra.

It's not an argument, it's fact. Are you trying to say you are one of those people who doesn't take facts seriously?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"By that logic"? You must not understand logic very well, because your extrapolation does not follow my comment. Being able to make changes faster does not mean that the changes will always be made faster, nor that the changes made will be good ones. All it means is that there are less barriers to making wide sweeping changes than exist in a multi-party democracy.

Ah, so your main argument failed and you are swapping to a scarecrow. A pretty flimsy one at that.

You said that you expected China to make environmental reforms faster than the U.S.A. because they were an oligarchy. Do you still stand behind that statement? Because it's positively laughable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah, so your main argument failed and you are swapping to a scarecrow. A pretty flimsy one at that.

No, I was simply pointing out your inability to extrapolate accurately from a given statement. It either showed a lack of ability to use logic, or a willing intent to exaggerate and create a strawman. Neither of which show you in a great light.

You said that you expected China to make environmental reforms faster than the U.S.A. because they were an oligarchy.

No I didn't. What I said was this:

While I hold out very little hope of a democracy like the US being able to make major sweeping reforms to improve their environment that would cost industry, I could see it actually working in China. Time will tell.

Note the bolded part. It very clearly shows that I give it the possibility, but as to whether or not it will happen, I still don't know. It very clearly doesn't say that I expect it. If you are going to make claims of things people said, you should probably quote the words, and try to address them accurately. In doing so you may that you have incorrectly interpreted what is being said, preventing others from having to point it out to you.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It very clearly doesn't say that I expect it.

In response to my question,

did you REALLY just insinuate that there is a higher probability of the corrupt wasteland that is China reforming their industries to pollute less than however much they want, than the U.S. which has taken multitudes of steps over the last several decades to clean up the environment?

You responded,

I believe I directly stated that.

I'm done here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, you said:

did you REALLY just insinuate that there is a higher probability

To which I agreed that I had directly stated that, and followed up with:

I could see it actually working in China. Time will tell.

Note the bolded part. It very clearly shows that I give it the possibility, but as to whether or not it will happen, I still don't know. It very clearly doesn't say that I expect it.

So I agreed what you said, then went on to say much of the same thing. Then you misquoted me.

Since you seem to be having some comprehension problems, not just with what I'm writing, but with what you're writing yourself, it's probably a good move you are making by being done here.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No bickering please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites