La gauche aura réussi ce double tour de force: avoir détruit la culture bourgeoise au nom du non élitisme et la culture populaire par préjugé bourgeois !
Yessss!
Par ailleurs, et comme en réponse au propos de Mme Poligny: l'essor économique chinois suit un modèle non durable (non pérennisable) :on épuise les Occidentaux en leur achetant leurs savoir-faire, c'est à dire
en les dépossédant de leurs atouts tout en les vidant de leur tissu industriel (le modèle managérial des Chinois n'est pas du tout le win-win américain mais le
win-kill) Les industriels chinois, et c'est le plus éclatant des paradoxes de cette civilisation, ont toujours marché à l'opposé de la pérennité et du très long terme qui font l'honneur, le blason de la civilisation chinoise : seul existe pour eux le profit-qui-tue, qui tue la concurrence, toute possibilité de partenariat mais qui, à très court terme, vous enrichit. La figure du "marchand" chinois, qui détruit pour s'enrichir, a été toujours été méprisée, honnie par cette civilisation qui en connaît tous les vices et tous les travers -- plus que cela, plus qu'honnie, cette engeance de rapineurs a toujours été considérée comme marginale par rapport à la nature chinoise véritable, à son âme, polie, pérenne, lentement bâtisseuse, exemplaire et
vertueuse en tout. Si cette frange marginale que représente l'entrepreneur-voyou a en Chine aujourd'hui "le vent en poupe", si c'est elle qui aujourd'hui conduit les affaires de la Chine, c'est parce que -- on s'en est aperçu à la fin des années 70 -- elle seule, cette classe méprisée par les politiques chinois, pouvait damer le pion aux Occidentaux, offrir à la Chine sa revanche dans un proche avenir; le régime alors, a misé sur elle, lorsqu'il comprit que la Révolution mondiale qui abattrait l'Occident se serait pas pour demain; cette classe de chevaliers d'industrie fut appelée à la rescousse. Des tentatives avaient été faites en ce sens du temps de Zhou En-lai et même avant, dès le début des années 50, mais le défaut de résultats immédiats que les "capitalistes chinois d'outremer ayant volontairement réintégré la patrie en reconstruction" montrèrent dans les délais irréalistes qu'on leur avait impartis pour réussir, et l'urgence cannibale des communistes chinois a faire la démonstration de leur toute-puissance sur ces moutons facilement appâtés, retardèrent de trois à quatre décennies l'émergence de ce "capitaliste chinois" que l'on voit s'imposer aujourd'hui dans ses formes les plus sauvages et les plus fiévreusement canailles.
Un exemple tout récent: les crédits carbone, objet d'un marché mondial de plusieurs milliards de dollars; si votre usine, qui pourra être une usine émettant un gaz (le HFC-23) sous-produit de ceux que l'on utilise dans les climatiseurs, dont la nocivité dans l'échelle des gaz à effet de serre est plusieurs milliers de fois supérieure à celle du CO2, traite, neutralise et recycle une partie importante des volumes de HFC-23 qu'elle produit, ces volumes traités pourront, avec profit, être commercialisés sur ce marché: d'autres industries et industriels vous verseront de l'argent pour le retraitement de ce gaz et ce faisant "achèteront" un droit de polluer. Cela n'a pas manqué: des usines chinoises, en un clin d'oeil, se sont spécialisées dans la production massive de ce gaz, massives
et sans destin industriel aucun à la seule fin d'en retraiter des quantités tout aussi massives qu'elle commercialisent comme susdit, s'enrichissant ainsi; le système vertueux, mais ô combien naïf de nos ingénieurs de la finance formés dans nos universités occidentales (merci au passage à nos "mathématiciens français"), du
carbon offset ou
carbon credit trading a été détourné par cette maudite engeance que je vous ai présentée au paragraphe précédent. La connerie et la naïveté de nos "experts en ingénierie financière", à qui l'on a confié ainsi le destin de l'atmosphère de notre planète lorsqu'on les a chargé de créer un "marché mondial du carbone" n'ont d'égales que le sans-gêne, la ruse et la rapacité de ces industriels-voyous qui commandent la Chine de 2010.
Ci-dessous un article du NYT qui vous éclairera sur le cas du HFC-23 en Chine:
BRUSSELS — Manufacturing a gas commonly used for cooling and air-conditioning turns out to produce another unwanted gas that can contribute inordinately to the warming of the planet.
This byproduct from making refrigerants has several thousand times the potential of carbon dioxide — the most common greenhouse gas — to trap heat in Earth’s atmosphere.
As climate regulation spreads, destroying the gas, known as HFC-23, has become a lucrative business, and over the past five years, financiers and industrial companies have begun turning those streams of waste into hefty returns.
That business was made possible by the Kyoto Protocol, which was agreed upon in 1997 and which encourages investors from the developed world to offset their own emissions by paying for reductions in developing countries.
China has been among the biggest beneficiaries by generating offsets under a program known as the Clean Development Mechanism that is overseen by the U.N. climate office in Bonn.
Critics have warned for years that this form of offsetting would encourage profiteering, with little or no value in efforts to curb climate change.
More recently, opponents of offsetting have likened the system to the kind of financial engineering on Wall Street that helped precipitate the recent banking crisis.
The business works as follows: Factories producing refrigerants install equipment to transform the waste gas so it has less warming potential and then apply to the United Nations for permission to sell credits.
The factories sell credits in proportion to the overall amount of gas destroyed to buyers that include governments, banks, trading companies and utilities. Buyers can sell the credits again on emissions trading markets or use them to meet their legal or voluntary obligations to cut emissions.
Most of the demand for those credits is in the European Union, where polluters have operated under a mandatory cap-and-trade system since 2005.
Europe dominates a market for greenhouse gases worth $144 billion worldwide in 2009.
About 12,000 factories and installations in Europe must meet annual requirements to cap their emissions.
If those factories and installations undershoot their quota, they can trade in their surplus. But if they overshoot, or if they anticipate producing more emissions in the future, one of the cheapest ways to make up the difference is to invest in these international offsets.
Many climate experts say encouraging the trade in HFC-23 offsets makes economic and environmental sense. One molecule of HFC-23 that is allowed to vent into the atmosphere has the potential to trap about 12,000 times as much heat as a molecule of CO2.
Last year, companies operating in the European Union used credits from HFC-23 projects worth €552 million, or $703 million, to meet their obligations under the bloc’s Emission Trading System, according to calculations by the Environmental Investigation Agency, a London-based nonprofit organization.
HFC-23 credits also make up about half the supply of international offsets approved by the United Nations to date.
But in March, another nonprofit organization, CDM Watch, which is based in Brussels, raised allegations with the United Nations’ climate office that some plants were producing more refrigerant than they needed to meet market demand to cash in on credits for HFC-23.
CDM Watch also contended that some plants were failing to improve their processes to avoid unnecessary production of HFC-23.
This month, apparently in response to those allegations, the United Nations stopped issuing further offsets from five chemical plants in China while it investigated their practices and assessed whether the rules needed to be revised.
As part of its inquiry, which is continuing, the United Nations has asked for a decade’s worth of data on the gases from the plants in China.
The controversy over offsetting is the latest blow to emissions trading, which has been racked by a spate of problems in Europe including cyberattacks, tax fraud and recycling of used credits.
Even so, the latest brouhaha is not entirely bad news.
The price of international offsets has risen about 12 percent, and the price of E.U. permits has risen by about 9 percent since mid-August because of concerns about future supplies of offsets, according to Emmanuel Fages of Orbeo, a carbon-trading unit in Paris owned by the French bank Société Générale and the French chemical company Rhodia.
“There is some good, as this gives a more meaningful price to carbon at a time when everyone was complaining it was too low,” Mr. Fages said. “But that benefit is largely outweighed by the bad because, once again, we’ve seen doubts cast over the way that carbon markets are working.”
Some buyers of HFC-23 offsets are concerned that the suspension by the United Nations is creating uncertainty in the market. Others, like the World Bank, responding to allegations by CDM Watch, said projects in which they participated had strictly followed U.N. rules.
The bank — which guarantees funds to buy credits from one of the contested projects on behalf of Deutsche Bank, Tokyo Electric Power and a number of other companies — said there was no indication that offsetting was driving production of excess refrigerants in China, partly because of huge and growing demand for air-conditioning and refrigeration systems.
The bank also said contentions that plants were producing unnecessarily large amounts of HFC-23 had been “refuted by scientific reports.”
CDM Watch had based its analysis “on a narrow and simplistic approach drawing from selected parameters” that excluded operating conditions and technical capacity, according to a fact sheet issued by the bank’s Carbon Finance Unit in early August.
CDM Watch had not offered “sufficient evidence to support the allegations,” the bank said.
The activists remain adamant that the market needs to be investigated and that changes are needed.
“The World Bank’s position is both scientifically and morally indefensible,” said Clare Perry, a senior campaigner for the Environmental Investigation Agency. “It would be far cheaper and more effective to directly finance the factories to deal with the HFC-23 problem rather than use this kind of byzantine financing.”