Just to address these for those who have never been to Beijing.  Pushing.  Does he mean entering and leaving buses?  Yes, you have to push through crowds.  When I lived in Boston, you had to do the same thing on the subway if you wanted to get on or off.  Tokyo is famous for it.  San Francisco buses can be included (many are the times I heard people pushing their way through practically screaming at people to get out of their way.) Maybe Mr. Blanchard has never taken mass transit outside of China?  Generally, the Chinese do it without shouting,  yelling or anger, which puts them ahead of people in America who imagine they are more "civilized".  (Ever watch crowds at sports events, or rock cocnerts?)

   As for spitting, most people don't carry tissues (expense, if you are very poor).  Everyone knows the streets are dirty (people generally don't walk barefoot).  Spitting is better than rubbing it on your sleeve (though some foreigners are forever unnerved to see it), and is probably more sanitary (since the cold germs don't come in contact with anyones hands, most likely place to spread them).  That said, I have seen people spit in America as well, and England, and Canada, and ... well, every country I have ever been too.  For some reason white people are obsessed with yellow people who spit.  Curious.

   As to shouting, compared to New Yorkers?  Or people from Chicago?  Or what?  This was actually the first time I ever heard Beijingers accused of shouting a lot.

   If people want to know about China, they should read Chinese sources as well as foreigners, or they could see how Americans are depicted in Chinese tv (must be accurate, eh?  HAHA!).

patrick in beijing

But it is frustrating to read yet another example of pooh-poohing the planting of trees.  This has already been discussed a fair amount in Gristmill.  I believe a consensus was sort of reached, to the effect that the planting of trees in the right local circumstances, especially in tropical latitudes, can have a positive effect as part of a carbon-offsetting program; but it cannot be the entire solution; and in fact the professional facilitators of carbon offsetting, such as that learned gentleman, Adam something?, who wrote at length in Gristmill, do not rely exclusively on tree-planting.

A small point that I had made, I think in a thread begun by Gar Lipow, was that the planting of trees and other vegetation, even when it does not directly offset the emission of CO2, nevertheless may to some extent counteract the effects of global warming in certain places, however indirectly, e.g. the creeping desertification of the Sahara margin and the Sahel in North Africa, and the threat to biodiversity in North America as the Boreal Forest is increasingly compromised.

Planting mangroves and other native plants in Florida belongs to this consideration.  As Ken Caldeira said, planting trees "is probably a nice thing to do."  That is certainly true in South Florida, a region whose unique natural hydrology, supporting the Everglades and adjacent wetlands, has been damaged and altered by on-going development.  The increasing intensity of hurricanes -- the relation of which to global warming is of course a Gristmill topic -- is one more threat to that environment.

Never mind that "An Inconvenient Truth" famously shows a projection of the whole region being inundated as sea levels rise.  Meanwhile, at least, it seems justifiable for the NFL to continue with the mangrove-planting project, and to connect it to the specific dangers Florida faces from global warming, even as they make clear that it is not meant to be "a quantitative solution to the real problem."

Of course, still better would be for them to tell everybody to stay home and watch the thing on TV.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

       Thanks so much for defending New Yorkers, I don't think they shout (none of my friends or relatives), I merely wanted to point out the absurdity of making sweeping generalizations about the people of any city.  Alas, I mistakenly told one of my students about the comments about Beijing, and she looked like she was going to tear up, couldn't understand why people say these things about the city she loves.  Ah well, part of the George Bush school of diplomacy and international relations (you mean, if I insult people, they won't love me?).

      Florida is interesting.  I was there last summer visiting.  Stayed in a small community of macmansions and boats.  Canals parallel the streets, so people can either drive their SUVs or their boats.  Mostly well off retirees.  

      There were protected areas nearby, but the brutal march of "civilization" was steadily encroaching on them.  When we talk about planting trees, we should remember that in some cases, we are replacing trees (or trying to), and this is not a bad thing.

      I am off to the train station to sit my aging bones on a hard seat for many hours.  At least I will have some lovely young students to accompany me.

pace,

patrick

The sustainability statements by the Olympic Delivery Authority about the 'Greenest games ever' are just hype.

We are a local group called Games Monitor based  around the Olympic site who are looking for the complex truth behind the hype.

Below are some stories we our website carries to help redress the balance of truth.

They say: "Climate Change: Aiming to minimize the carbon emissions associated with the Olympic Park and venues through a 50 percent reduction in carbon dioxide by 2013. This will be achieved through a combination of on-site energy generation and renewable energy with the project future-proofed so it can go even further as new technology allows."

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/01/25/london-rele ...

See: http://www.newbuilder.co.uk/news/NewsFullStory.asp?ID=126 ...

They say; "Transport and mobility: To prioritize walking, cycling and the use of public transport to and within the Olympic Park and venues, including building over 80km of walking and cycling routes and to aspire to 50 percent of construction materials to be transported to the Park by water and rail."

We say:
British waterways are embarking on a plan to impound a two mile stretch of the River Lea which runs through the Olympic site. Despite their hype about reducing carbon emissions by transferring waste removal to the River Lea their prime reason for impounding the largest tidal stretch of river in London is to create a `Water City' which will enhance property values considerably.

This `gentrification' will have the effect of pricing the poor who rent their homes on six month leases out of the area. These households are counted in thousands in one of the poorest and most deprived areas in the UK.

Impounding the river will destroy the unique ecology of a huge tidal basin and add a considerable toxic load to this water from upstream sewage discharges. British Waterways do not even need to subject this scheme to public democratic scrutiny because they `own' this stretch of river.

The River Lea see: http://wildweb.london.gov.uk/wildweb/PublicSiteViewFull.d ...

See; http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/node/47

Sustainabil ...  
and; http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/node/99  
and ...  
and; http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/node/95
and:

Keep watching

Martin Slavin

Games Monitor

However check out our website topics list under 'Environment' for the uncomfortable truths behind their hype.

Martin Slavin