Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The lead Chinese negotiator at the 17th UN COP (United Nations Conference of Partygoers) being celebrated in Durban is a man named Xie Zhenhua. He is the Vice Chairman of the Chinese National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC).
Mr. Xie has come to Durban in part to lay out the conditions that would have to be met before China would sign on to any new “Son of Kyoto” treaty. Fortunately for the world, their conditions are stringent.
Here’s the list of the Chinese conditions, as laid out over at PhysOrg:
One is that the European Union and “other countries” sign on to a new round of enforceable pledges under Kyoto.
Europe has signalled its willingness to extend its commitments by five, perhaps eight years, but the chances that it would do so under the treaty’s laborious ratification process seem remote.
So-called “fast start” climate financing for poorer countries of $30 billion for the period of 2010 to 2012 must also be delivered, Xie said.
Likewise a Green Climate Fund that would ramp up to $100 billion per year by 2020.
A raft of nut-and-bolts agreements outlined at the 2009 Copenhagen summit and married into the UN process at last year’s high-level climate gathering in Cancun, Mexico must also move forward.
These include initiatives for technology transfer, adaptation — helping vulnerable nations cope with impacts — and new rules for verifying that carbon-cutting promises are kept.
Finally, China insists that a review of climate science begin as planned in 2013, and that established principles in which historical responsibility for creating the problem of climate change, and the respective capacity of countries to fight it, are respected.
There are three ways to look at the Chinese proposals. Either they are a serious first step in negotiations, or they are deal breakers that the Chinese hope will be met, or they are deal breakers that the Chinese hope will not be met. I say choice (c), “deal breakers they hope will not be met”.
First, they definitely are not described by the Chinese themselves as being a negotiating posture. They were described in the article as “five conditions for China taking on pledges under a new accord that would go into effect after 2020”. So they are not negotiating positions. They are deal breakers.
But are they deal breakers designed to get China the best deal, or to keep them out of a deal? I say the latter for several reasons. The overriding reason is that unlike the EU, the Chinese will not harm their self-interest by signing on to something that will clearly damage their economy … and any “Son of Kyoto” agreement would definitely harm their economy. But that’s not the only reason, there are other indications that are signaled in the conditions.
First, the Chinese won’t sign on unless everyone signs on. The odds of the US signing are not great at the best of times. And at this particular time in the century, the odds of the US signing on to Son of Kyoto, while still non-zero, are approaching zero faster than Zeno’s paradox …
Second, there is little chance that the worlds’ industrialized countries will agree to pony up a hundred billion a year and hand it to poor countries. Most countries are having a hard time staying afloat right now. In addition the EU is not all that thrilled about the plan. The last bunch of money that the EU handed over to the poor countries under the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) was mostly lost in a cesspool of graft and corruption.
Third, the “review of climate science” that uses “established principles” to affix the historical blame for climate change and the “capacity of countries to fight it” is a non-starter at any time. That sounds like the IPCC as envisioned and run by Chairman Mao, which would be a truly terrifying thought for most countries, particularly the US.
So my conclusion is that some of these five conditions are picked specifically because they are deal breakers.
It’s actually not a bad negotiating ploy, though. This way, when one of their claims is turned down, the Chinese can cut right to the chase and say “Sorry, we can’t agree to Son of Kyoto because our conditions are not met, the US refuses to agree to them … but let’s try to achieve at least some of our noble goals. To show you really care about the climate, how about you guys just sign up for the part where you give us poor countries a hundred billion dollars per year, and we can all go home having achieved something noble and long-lasting at Durban?”
That’s my prediction. Wait and see … it wouldn’t surprise me if in all of this, the Chinese are still able to come up with some way to make money out of the overweening guilt of the Greens …
w.
The world’s dirtiest polluter wants to be categorized
as a ‘developing country’ eligible for ‘climate aid’.
How about them threatening to let megatons of greenhouse refrigerants
evaporate unless they get carbon credits, in cash?
At the end of his presentation, I wonder if anyone clapped…
China declines to be hustled. Kipling wouldn’t be surprised.
I agree with you, the answer is ‘c’. The Chinese don’t want to make any such committment, they are much too pragmatic. But you have to consider the chinese philosophy of saving face themselves and allowing others an opt out to also save face in negotiations that might fail, that best fits ‘c’.
There’s a fourth way it can be looked at:
What I see is “we want cash up front, before we actually have another look at the ‘climate change’ issue in case it turns out to have been a farce, at least we got $30 billion up front.”
I see China as like the Ferengi. If they don’t have a direct financial benefit (in conventional ways of measuring economic progress), they aren’t going to do a thing. They will go along as long as they are paid to and the amounts they collect are greater than the costs but they aren’t going to spend any of their own money “fighting” CO2.
[Finally, China insists that a review of climate science begin as planned in 2013, and that established principles in which historical responsibility for creating the problem of climate change, and the respective capacity of countries to fight it, are respected.]
Meanwhile..
The United States of America, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, India, and others have requested that China work with them, within established principles of history, with regard to who was responsible for the creation of a non-Japanese dominated Eastern Asian Mainland; and the how China will provide compensation to pay for this actions and how compensation will be paid for the benefits accumulated by this action for the past 65 years, and in future. A growth enablement fee of 64 Yuan ( $10) per person per year has been proposed as a levy on the Chinese people, with the initial payment covering the past 65 years to be made prior to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November 2012.
I want to see China agreeing to drop back to 20% less emissions than they emitted in 1990. That would be a real commitment to the cause.
One outcome of this would be that third world countries would be more likely to look favourably on China. Not so dumb, those Chinese.
“China’s concession to start cutting its greenhouse gas emissions won’t change Canada’s decision not to sign on to a second phase of the Kyoto Protocol, Environment Minister Peter Kent said Monday.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/12/05/pol-kent-kyoto-durban.html
🙂
If Obama commits to this nonsense, he may as well not run for office in 2012.
…China is going to agree to open inspections, and some bureaucracy like the UN telling them what to do?
I don’t think so………….
The trick here is to
1) Put out a proposal that nobody would agree to, but it would still be to your benefit if they did.
2) Make it appear is if you’re being reasonable and willing to compromise.
3) Blame everybody else when nobody agrees to your proposal.
So far, the Chinese are playing it very well.
HI Wiilllis you might like this insight Xie let slip at a non-Western conference.
The chinese lead climate negotiator – doesn’t even believe in man made global warming……
from the Guardian: Climate change: Chinese adviser calls for open mind on causes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/24/china-climate-change-adviser
“China’s most senior negotiator on climate change said today he was keeping an open mind on whether global warming was man-made or the result of natural cycles.
Xie Zhenhua said there was no doubt that warming was taking place, but more and better scientific research was needed to establish the causes.”
———————————–
Unless You give us, One hundred billion dollars…’ That’s one of Dr.Evils lines, straight out of an Austin Powers movie, But he wasn’t asking for “a hundred billion a year” No, that would have been too over the top for Dr.Evil. Ha… It’s amazing how much reality is mimicking comedy parody movies these days.
Give them One Hundred Billion gad-zillion dollars a year for being hilariously funny, if not original.
So delusional are the western media/politicians no-one seems to have picked up on he significance.. of Xie’s little slip. (no westerners present)
Telegraph: China has ‘open mind’ about cause of climate change
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7067505/China-has-open-mind-about-cause-of-climate-change.html
China’s most senior climate change official [Xie Zhenhua] surprised a summit in India when he questioned whether global warming is caused by carbon gas emissions and said Beijing is keeping an “open mind”.
“There are disputes in the scientific community. We have to have an open attitude to the scientific research. There’s an alternative view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature itself. We have to keep an open attitude,” he said.
“It is already a solid fact that climate is warming. The major reasons for this climate change is the unconstrained emissions produced by the developed countries in the process of industrialisation. That’s the mainstream view [but] there are other views. Our attitude is an open attitude”.
———————
“India and South Africa’s environment ministers appeared to be baffled by his comments”
——————–
the West are being played for fools by China.
The Chinese are well aware that they are playing poker with a group of retards who just got their allowance canceled (the EU), a guy in loaned clothes without a penny to his name (the US), a handful of thieves (the UN kleptocrats) and three other guys unwilling to slide back on their standard of living (Brazil, India and Russia).
China is a ‘poor’ country?
China and Brazil etc know who has control of the financial instruments meant to make trillions from trading carbon dioxide:
2 Dec: Irish Times: China and Brazil threaten to block carbon offset trade
PILITA CLARK in Durban
“The issue now is to avoid countries getting away with murder,” said Andre Correa do Lago, Brazil’s chief envoy, in a separate interview. “You cannot think you can have the instruments of the Kyoto protocol without belonging to the Kyoto protocol.”…
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/1202/1224308474749.html
5 Dec: Energy Collective: India Rejects EU Plan for New Climate Treaty
Before India announced its opposition, China had already rejected the plan, saying that a new mandate before the Bali Roadmap was complete was “too much.”…
http://theenergycollective.com/paigeandrews/71675/india-rejects-eu-plan-new-treaty-after-kyoto
talk of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is just that…talk:
2 Dec: Mail & Guardian, South Africa: Dirty energy financiers shamed
by Lloyd Gedye
Other major coal energy financiers include JP Morgan Chase with €16.5-billion, Citi Bank with €13.75-billion, Bank of America with €12.6-billion, Morgan Stanley with €12.1-billion, Deutsche Bank with €11.5-billion and the Royal Bank of Scotland with €10.9-billion…
According to the World Development Report 2010, “if all coal-fired power plants scheduled to be built in the next 25 years come into operation, their lifetime CO2 emissions would be equal to those of all coal-burning activities since the beginning of industrialisation”…
http://mg.co.za/article/2011-12-02-dirty-energy-financiers-shamed/
then there is the sheer audacity of the EU, which is unilaterally imposing an Aviation Tax on airlines worldwide, when all countries fly in and out of everywhere, so surely everyone should be able to impose the same tax, making the tax meaningless.
then there is the UN now trying to impose a shipping tax worldwide…nice.
the MSM of course is conveniently ignoring China’s “per capita” emissions, but as China’s negotiator at Durban said:
“China remains a developing country. Per capita GDP is only $4,300, and we have 128 million population living within $1 a day.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/05/china-eu-plans-kyoto-durban
Dollars are in short supply since the worldwide Great Recession, so I propose giving developing countries 100 billion quatloos annually. Or 100 billion carbon credits. But they would probably prefer quatloos.
Ha ha, China. Jokes on you.
If you want $100 billion a year, where do you think the rest of the world’s going to get it?
Just write yourselves a big fat climate check, then declare yourselves the “Greenest,” most Climatically Ethical Country on Earth.
Brilliant plan from China, and stupid retarded Western politicans buy it lock, stock, and barrel:
A) Get the West to fork over $30 to $100 billion per annum to useless third world countries and dictatorships.
B) Build 77 nuclear reactors producing 84 billion MWe of electricity. But also continue building coal plants with little hesitation.
C) Watch Western countries such as the USA build 8 (eight) nuclear plants with 10 MWe capacity.
D) Buy oil, uranium, copper, and other deposits globally, as stupid retarded Western politicians suck their collective thumbs and worry about bogus “climate change.”
E) Manufacture and sell pathetic windmills and windmill components to stupid retarded Western politicians **and their famiilies and business associates at the expense of Western taxpayers.”***
It goes on and on and on, but a good place to start is right here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html
David Chamness says:
December 5, 2011 at 11:53 am
Oh, very good. Yeah, you can see why they love Kyoto not applying to them.
w.
You know what’s really scary? The West might agree!
How does the old saying go… “If you look around the [poker] table and can’t tell who the chump is, it’s you.”
~More Soylent Green!
If the funding that China wants were to see the light of day it would be the first steps in splitting the planet in 2. On one side the Declining West, with enough cash left to give to the rest, and drain its strength. The other, the emerging economies, led by China, Supplied by China, and Influenced by China. With capital funding from the west.
Beautiful, from a Chinese perspective. They see their window of opportunity within the next 50-75 years, I’d be guessing.
One day someone, who is has mountains more influence than I, is going to look at all this from the context of a battle for dominance and stop with fluffy tree hugging crap.
Once all this leaves the rhelm of NGO’s and is in the hands of those power and decision making influence, it ceases to become a benign movement just making a lot noise.
All this becomes a tool for control, dominance and influence in the holders best interest.
“historical responsibility for creating the problem of climate change, and the respective capacity of countries to fight it”
They want to identify who caused it, and make them pay, while ignoring who is now leaking the most.
China just don’t wont to pay homage, by proxy, to EU socialists, just like US.
The plot being that if China and US pay a bunch of money to poor countries who are then supposed to invest in green tech… Thing is most green tech companies have an uncanny tendency to be located in EU or otherwise in countries other ‘an China and US. It doesn’t seem to be no different then the World bank scenario who will only lend money to poor countries for building power plants if they build green and buy from companies in EU. But it’s all for saving the planet, weee prooomissse, now let’s sing: The wheels on the bus…
One of the things that convince me those arguing for carbon taxes, cap and trade and other carbon footprint reduction policies are beyond reason is their inability to do simple math.
I’m not talking about the math inherent in modeling, physics and statisical analysis. Plan simple arithmatic.
As in those Durban proposals for reducing US levels to 50% of 1990 by 2020. Which arithmatic tells us would require shutting down every coal fired generation plant and removing half of the automobiles from the highway – in eight years.
As in $100 billion a year from economies currently facing staggering debt.
As in the fact that two of the top three producers of CO2 not only refuse to agree to any reductions, at least one of them has stated publically they have doubts as to CO2 driving warming.
Even if everything they say will happen does, they don’t understand that there is nothing we could do about it anyway which would matter. At least not without the risk of committing economic suicide.
“In addition the EU is not all that thrilled about the plan. The last bunch of money that the EU handed over to the poor countries under the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) was mostly lost in a cesspool of graft and corruption.”
I thought that was the plan all along.
The only way is to stop the entire green scam immediately.
Europe is going down the drain anyhow and it’s fall will trigger a world wide economic crises.
From that moment on the Chinese have other worries to attend do and so have we.
From the article: “Second, there is little chance that the worlds’ industrialized countries will agree to pony up a hundred billion a year and hand it to poor countries. Most countries are having a hard time staying afloat right now. In addition the EU is not all that thrilled about the plan. The last bunch of money that the EU handed over to the poor countries under the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) was mostly lost in a cesspool of graft and corruption.”
————————————————————————–
Well, duh. The reason poor countries are poor is because of bad government. There is no correlation between wealth and natural resources. For example, North Korea has far more resources than South Korea. Hong Kong and Singapore are rich without natural resources. Environmentally, northern Mexico is similar to Arizona; the huge difference in wealth is caused by different government. But our Socialist masters keep wanting to take tax money from hard working people and give it to corrupt governments. That’s only fair, you know.
Nick says:
December 5, 2011 at 2:00 pm
“Once all this leaves the rhelm of NGO’s and is in the hands of those power and decision making influence, it ceases to become a benign movement just making a lot noise.”
Nick, the NGO’s are paid by the EU; they are simply cheap shock troops – remember how they freely shouted down skeptics in the conference rooms at COP15. This was what the EU wanted. Also see Donna’s revelations about the IPCC-Greenpeace-WWF entanglement.
The Chinese are not fools.
“When all is said and done, much more will be said than done.” — Lou Holtz
Let’s get our illustrious (Australian) leader to go over there and sort them out with some Aussie ‘logic’:
As we are the highest per-capita emitters of CO2 in the world, we will move towards ‘renewable’ power, get ourselves off of that nasty coal-fired power BUT SELL SQUILLIONS OF TONNES OF COAL TO CHINA. If coal is burnt in another country and Australia doesn’t see it, does it emit CO2? One of life’s mysteries.
India needs uranium to build more nuclear power stations (rather than coal-fired) in order to drag its populace into the 21st century. Even though they have not signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, let’s sell them Aussie uranium to help them BUT WE WILL NEVER BUILD A NUCLEAR POWER STATION IN AUSTRALIA. We’ll put conditions on the sale so that they cannot use it for weapons so, no problems there. We won’t process it in Oz either to get the value-add benefits.
There is no problem our politicians cannot solve as the blinkers are firmly installed on the eyes of both their faces.
Both the Chinese and the Indians must be amazed that we would do this to the detriment of our own country so why wouldn’t they try the same tactic on the rest of the world?
I bet they will just print some paper-money, say, a 100 billion, and give it to whoever wants it.
The chances of the USA signing any Kyoto 2 agreement are slim to none, and slim left town!
For some reason the lame stream media and the dopy NDP got the word (conditions) mixed up and called them concessions. The Chinese want us to hobble our economy and hand billions over to third world backwaters, while they, the Chinese sell them windmills and solar panels. These are neither conditions or concessions. They do however look like the terms of surrender.
China wants other countries to believe in, and work to stop, “climate change”, because then those countries will mandate things like windmills and solar panels and tax people for subsidies for them, and right now China has done whatever they can to make sure that they are the major supplier of those.
China itself, however, won’t work to stop “climate change” since it would hurt their economy, they need all that dirty coal power to make all those “green” things, not because they want them, but because they want us to pay them for them.
Basically, China doesn’t care one bit about “climate change”, they merely see it as a way to milk other countries out of money.
Currently, they have the small problem that, like all socialist countries, they are running out of other peoples money. Normally that would be other peoples money in their own country, however, for some time now, they have been able to keep that and get our money instead. However, the regulations and taxes for subsidies are drying up the source, our economy. Therefor, while China would like to keep other countries (and only other countries) believing in climate change so that they will buy Chinese stuff (since it involves transfers of wealth to “developing countries” like China, and also involves transfer of capitol, specifically technology and whole factories to China due to power being too expensive in the home countries to run them), they have the problem that the regulations to “prevent” “climate change” are hurting the economies of the countries that buy from China and thus lowering China’s profits (in some cases, even to the point of loss).
China thus may be interested in canceling the whole Kyoto thing since they see that they have milked this (specifically, us) about as much as they can. They will only go for it if they can get such concessions that they will continue to profit from it. This is rather unlikely under the current conditions, hence their rather extreme demands. They might be willing to still go for it, despite it hurting their economy, if they get something they consider more valuable, like, say, using the “crisis” to exert control over other countries, political and military power in exchange for economic power. This also is rather unlikely.
Once you understand that China is totally self centered and doesn’t give a rats a$$ about “climate change”, it all becomes clearer.
There is a clear Kyoto signal in the CO2 numbers.
The trend changed from an increase of 1.98 ppm/yr accelerating at 0.008 ppm/yr/yr to 1.98 ppm/yr accelerating at 0.008 ppm/yr/yr. A subtle change but one that the environmentalists and the climate scientists at CRU can probably calculate.
——–
So let’s say we have to cut emissions by 50% by 2045 (and have no increase each year after that). CO2 levels will then stabilize at the “magic” 450 ppm / +2.0C warming level with those emission rates. But how do we do that?
Throwing billions around to developing countries will not do anything as it has not done so to date.
We need new non-solar, non-wind electricity-generating technology that can be rapidly deployed over 20 or 30 years. Put the money into developing that technology or put it into breeding more horses and more oxen because that is the only way we get to -50%.
My friends,
Here in Brazil. There is no disposition to fall into English scams. The last was in 1808.
Although not official government position.
We will do as much as possible. To be kind to WWF and Greenpeace.
Ambition is the Brazilian people. Having a standard of living similar to the Americans.
Well, it’s our turn to burn and destroy our forests on the planet.
Most people I know. Live on $ 2 per day.
Sorry to European friends. This craziness is not ours.
Rev. Sorry for the rudeness,
and
sorry for the bad English
Barry Woods says:
December 5, 2011 at 12:38 pm
‘the West are being played for fools by China.’
Why not? What else *are western governments on this issue but fools (with the heartening exception of Canada).
the money has run out on most of the CAGW scams:
6 Dec: Reuters: UPDATE 2-Vattenfall drops carbon capture project in Germany
* Vattenfall blames lack of political will
* UK scrapped a leading CCS programme in October
Swedish utility Vattenfall on Monday abandoned plans for a 1.5 billion euro ($2 billion) carbon capture and storage (CCS) pilot project in Germany, due to popular opposition based on environmental fears…
“Vattenfall has emphasised that a clear legal framework is needed and that the existing draft for the CCS law is, without substantial improvement, insufficient for multi-billion investments in further development of this technology,” the company said…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/05/vattenfall-carbon-idUSL5E7N53PG20111205
——————————————————————————–
R. de Haan says:
December 5, 2011 at 2:39 pm
The only way is to stop the entire green scam immediately.
Europe is going down the drain anyhow and it’s fall will trigger a world wide economic crises.
Wait, wait!, that crisis it´s only for you, up there, to enjoy: You are not accustomed to scarcity any more, you don´t even remember it!, instead we are specialists in survival. You have forgotten that capital comes from work. Party is over, kids!
You must realize that occidental countries have unconsciously fallen into hedonism( remember Rome?): “After laughing comes crying” said the sages of old.
I will tell you an example how, as you wish, a part of the green scam will stop: The BBC and its continuous green mantra will have to be sold, and much of the rest of government owned agencies of Europe and the US. Remember the “Washington consensus”? The more you delay taking the needed decision the more painful it will be.
After all…you know, there is no “free lunch”…
Who will win the big game? The Go master, or the Chess master? 🙂
In an interesting side note it seems that any reference to http://www.wattsupwiththat.com on the CBC site in Canada (cbc.ca) in their weather stories gets mod’d out of existence.
Reading the comments for the CBC’s Durban story 2 things become clear:
1) More down votes for Pro-AWG comments by a large margin
2) Lots of people still passionately believe humans cause global warming via CO2.
John Trigge says:
December 5, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Let’s get our illustrious (Australian) leader to go over there and sort them out with some Aussie ‘logic’:
As we are the highest per-capita emitters of CO2 in the world, we will move towards ‘renewable’ power, get ourselves off of that nasty coal-fired power BUT SELL SQUILLIONS OF TONNES OF COAL TO CHINA. If coal is burnt in another country and Australia doesn’t see it, does it emit CO2? One of life’s mysteries.
India needs uranium to build more nuclear power stations (rather than coal-fired) in order to drag its populace into the 21st century. Even though they have not signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, let’s sell them Aussie uranium to help them BUT WE WILL NEVER BUILD A NUCLEAR POWER STATION IN AUSTRALIA. We’ll put conditions on the sale so that they cannot use it for weapons so, no problems there.
_______________________________
First Australia is NOT the highest per-capita emitters of CO2 in the world. I just did the research on that yesterday.
2nd India is going to thumb her nose at the rest of the world who would not allow her in the “Nuclear club” She is going to go with thorium not uranium
pat says:
December 5, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Swedish utility Vattenfall on Monday abandoned plans for a 1.5 billion euro ($2 billion) carbon capture and storage (CCS) pilot project in Germany, due to popular opposition based on environmental fears…http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/05/vattenfall-carbon-idUSL5E7N53PG20111205
“citing fears that leaks could be uncontrollable and that the CO2, which is noxious in high dosages, could impair the quality of drinking water.”
Sounds more like it’s too late.
“…CO2, which is noxious in high dosages, could impair the quality of drinking water.”
Perrier will be surprised to hear that.
John from CA says:
December 5, 2011 at 12:05 pm
If Obama commits to this nonsense, he may as well not run for office in 2012.
__________________
Oh, but that is not true John,
“In a Yale poll in May 2011, 66 percent of Americans endorsed signing an international treaty “that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90 percent by the year 2050.” The Council on Foreign Relations said it so it MUST be true… /sarc>
Heck that means going back to the technology in use before 1800! BEFORE kerosene lamps, BEFORE factories or even iron plows!
The average for the USA today is 335.9 million BTUs per person. (Total population: 246,081,000) The U.S. in 1800 had a per-capita energy consumption of about 90 million Btu. (Total population: 5,308,483)
If the USA reduces its energy consumption by 90% it equals 33.59 million Btu. per person IF THE POPULATION WAS THE SAME.
see comment: http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/45086#comment-380871
Fernando (in Brazil) says:
December 5, 2011 at 4:31 pm
My friends,
Here in Brazil. There is no disposition to fall into English scams. The last was in 1808…..
_____________________________
GOOD
Brazil needs to take care of her own people.
The truth of where the smog is:
http://www.youtube.com/user/HokaYona#p/u/87/032HGAT6XOI
A taxi drive in China.
Over here, they have to photoshop the images to make them appear even slightly smoggy.
Over there, you can’t photoshop the smokestacks because you can’t even see them through all the smog (you do see a few breifly).
If we were really serious about ‘saving theplanet” from all this pollution, we would impose a tarrif on goods from China to use to pay for cleanup. We should not be paying them, they should be paying us.
“China insists that a review of climate science begin as planned in 2013, AND that established principles in which historical responsibility for creating the problem of climate change, and the respective capacity of countries to fight it, are respected.”
Willis assumed that the “review” was to investigate historical responsibility etc. I think there are two (or three) disparate requirements, one of which is relevant to China’s “open mind” on the attribution issue.
The diplomat’s reference to “begin as planned in 2013” must surely refer to the 5AR planned by the IPCC. Most of us have assumed that will be a business-as-usual warm-fest stating its very likely to be worse than we thought. But maybe China intends to see that there is a bit more rigour behind the next effort??
It was a surprise when the BASIC countries suggested last month the adjournment of the whole treaty-making process until 2015 – with one of their reasons being the need to see the outcome of the 5AR. Recall that India has set up its own studies of Himalayan glaciers and has said it will duplicate some of the work being done by the IPCC. Who knows what work is being undertaken by China?
Until now, the powerful developing countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) have had no quarrel with the Western view of “the science” because it was delivering big competitive bonuses like the Kyoto Protocol and (maybe) $100 billion a year. But now the worm has started to turn and the “South” is doing some cost/benefit work on whether they should continue pandering to the myth.
More Soylent Green! says (December 5, 2011 at 12:13 pm)
I agree. The Chinese, whatever else you may think about them, are very good indeed at playing the long game, unlike our ca$h driven, short-termist Western governments. Whatever happens, they’re not going to screw things up for themselves.
Unlike the U.S., China has a rational foreign policy. It promotes and supports only that which is in China’s economic and strategic interests. The largest beneficiary of “green energy” by my reckoning has been China. While Western nations poured $ billions into foolish subsidies for solar power consumption, for example, what country dominates the solar cell manufacturing and export business? China. What country has subsidized solar manufacturing but not solar consumption? China. Why would China insist on long-term guarantees of Western nations’ commitment to “green” consumption before joining in on the insanity parade in it’s own country? Because China calculates the the net benefit (balance of trade) of such a commitment will accrue to China.
Note also that China has been very busy tying up long-tern supplies of fossil fuels from countries such as Venezuela , Nigeria and Iran while the U.S. fails to nail down foreign fuel supplies as it dithers over development of its proven domestic fossil fuel sources and postulates a “brave new world” of horrendously expensive solar energy dominated by Chinese made solar cells.
Barry Brill says:
December 5, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Thanks, Barry. I think that you are right about the Chinese referring to AR5. I don’t see anything about science in their proclamation, however. All they have called for is to:
1) Assign blame to the industrialized countries, and
2) Assign responsibility for payment to the industrialized countries.
Pretty surprising, huh?
I don’t see anything in there about more “a bit more rigour”. Just blame and money.
Thanks,
w.
Claude Harvey says:
December 5, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Very well put. Subsidize the manufacture, but only on the condition that someone else will subsidize the consumption. It’s enough to make a man weep at the foolishness. The Chinese must love us, and hope that we never come to our senses.
Thanks,
w.
The Chinese are perfectly happy to keep Kyoto or Son of Kyoto going. They have a big vested interest in seeing the west destroy it’s industrial base in the questionable name of saving the planet. Such an outcome would be to growing industrial powerhouse China’s advantage after all.
Gail Combs
Just a reminder that Fort St Vrain used to be a thorium reactor
China looks hundreds of years into the future to make its plans. They want developing countries to thank them for help, which will come from developed countries NOT China. We do the work and pay the money they get the credit.
China wants agreement to get the West to pay and knowing the stupid Western representatives they will agree to anything to be politically correct.
Canada confirms not renewing its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/05/canada-wont-renew-kyoto-commitment-kent-confirms/
Also: Mood of Canada survey finds 63.5% of Canadians agree with the country’s direction.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/05/mood-of-canada-survey-finds-63-5-of-canadians-agree-with-the-countrys-direction/
Another Ian says:
December 6, 2011 at 12:58 am
Gail Combs
Just a reminder that Fort St Vrain used to be a thorium reactor
_________________________
Thanks Ian. I was aware the USA had looked at and abandoned Thorium.
In a quick peak look for Fort St.Vrain this very interesting tidbit came up ~ FUSION???
The Chinese are paraphrasing the deal that the Huns made with the Romans: Hand over all your money, annually. Then we will talk peace. Maybe.
@R. de Haan says:
December 5, 2011 at 2:39 pm
The only way is to stop the entire green scam immediately.
It´s really incredible how the media propagandizes it. We all know that everything in the media is paid, so there is big money behind it. Of course, there are also the ever present fools who advocate it repeating its mantras like parrots; curiously mostly from the left, the same ones who defended the communist system when the soviet union existed. They ignore that in every case they worked for free for a business.
History shows its peculiar origin:
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/janet.html
Hmm…
“West” has been for a long time the first front of “new technology” provider. This cannot be stopped because of the nature of the productivity of the WEST.
The problem is the local rules and regulations in western countries that are in opposite direction to job development.
GM got $25bn bailout only spent %13 in US, and before the deadline for the repayment, and in just %50 of its time table, cleared its debts to the US govt plus all the interests.
How did it come? So China for the companies is not so bad.
WEST wants to take rest and work for just less than 40 hours a week China is working 24×7. They need to work, but WEST still is thinking to take rest.
This is the story of the Turtle and the Rabbit. The Rabbit slept during the game but the Turtle walked along the rally, and the Turtle WON.
Capital is looking for the best market to compete and get more, where are the US investors. For sure in China. Look at around you we wear DEBENHAMS made in Vietnam.
WEST has lost for every $1.oo thinking that is nothing but Chinese were working for $2.00 a month, this is the difference. Boasting on money against hard working.
Climate Changes is very important issue, I know some of you here and I am glad that I have written the same way as what I did in the past in discussions I participated in.
China and India are the countries very thirsty to drive cars, when I say “cars” this is just as a symbol. They need energy, who does not need? Should we blame them? NOT AT ALL.
They might say ” HEY WEST! now that we are JUST STARTING! to understand what is the meaning of your living styles, you say GLOBAL WARMING?”.
Now, of course, we have found that the atmosphere is “GLOBAL”, the time that WEST was driving as fast as possible is now over.
Energy Consumption is a real issue too. Whether it makes the globe warmer or not, VERY YES, WEST should go on and make it possible for the EARTH to breath, because WESTs have been the only creatures living on the earth by now, we have touched the red lines.
It’s time to see what’s going on:
1st. Finally, is the global warming/CO2/etc because of solar activity or it is man-made;
2nd. Regardless of what is/are the reasons for making problems, should we do something( this is important one);
I have seen some of our friends saying, oh these greens, they think CO2 and the problems behind it, is due to human’s faults, they don’t know that’s because of solar activities (disasters).
We are measuring CO2 by PPM now, who can imagine what would happen when China, India and the others, go on making the world BLACK, non stop.
Fuel rate increasing, what’s happening now, has forced us to change our Blazers with 30lit/100km to small cars with 4lit/100km. Not bad if we continue we would make the world clean regardless who is green, red, yellow or whatever, forget about GREENS, this is economy. Technology can provide a place for Chinese/others to drive their cars.
We are asking China to do the same as we did, what would happen to GM, Caterpillar, Japanese and EU manufacturers, and the world markets. We are increasing prices in the whole world. Renovation of China, India and other countries industries would cost them lots of money. Behind this would be jobless problems, they have man power more than we can expect. We must consider the differences between the cultures and possibilities.
We can send back and transfer some factories or industries to where they were working US/EU/wherever. Rate of $/YUAN is one issue, the other one is cost of man power energy and etc, what should we do next? The problem is much deeper than one can expect. So jobless in US/EU is because of clear realities.
I look at the China proposal as their proposal on table. What was the answer of WEST to that?
Did WEST say how much or in how many steps should the world go on and do something?
Boasting about money but no MONEY? WEST does not have money just orders for the table.
Besides, is there any solar, wind, renewable or whatever technology in the world that we can give it to China and the Chinese rejected that proposal?
Yes, Chinese are pragmatic, I know if they have such ability, they would never go to Gillard and ask for one gram of COAL. They have JUST STARTED! (like just married). Of course they would not pay any penny to anybody when they have solar ….energy. So don’t worry, they know what to do. One day they come to WEST and knock at our doors not to burn anything because of CO2, I am sure.
ACCKKII :We are measuring CO2 by PPM now, who can imagine what would happen when China, India and the others, go on making the world BLACK, non stop.
That`s the origin of all this mess: CO2 it is NOT BLACK, it is TRANSPARENT, it is what we espire and plants breath with delight, giving us in return the oxygen we need to breath. If the greens succeed in their foolish purpose, there will be no CO2, no plants, NO YOU!
“BAD”-“GOOD”, “WHITE_BLACK”, “NIGHT-DAY”: these are just comparisons, who does not know the CO2 is not BLACK, at least the people here all know, you are not so clever, please do not quote all these anywhere else.
Now to you Mr. Freedom with respect, there is no need to blame anybody by saying “foolish”, I don’t know how the observer that moderates what we are writing, let us send wrong impolite wordings.
CO2 recycling needs plants, some records may show some growth in green areas, but this doesn’t mean there is a balance between CO2 and recycling plants system. Your assumption is more CO2 means more O2, do you have any records showing the CO2 in world waiting lists before absorption to GREEN PLANTS is positive?
Amazon as the largest green part of the earth is UNDER CONSTRUCTION! Why I say the more green the more wealthy. If you expand this formula you’ll find all you need, you need more CO2, if we have green plants why not. There must be plants before any increasing in CO2. We have excellent factor to make CO2 for us don’t forget the solar activities, there is no need to blame “foolish” greens or whoever.
And if we don’t worry about CO2/global warming/climate changes, why we sit together with Chinese, Indians, and the others, when the Chinese are doing well!. We need more CO2 they are with pleasure, making it easily! Then what is the purpose of this blog!
The Chinese ROBOTS will come to you and take your MATCHES not to burn anything, don’t worry. They just need time, they are pragmatic.
enneagram said:
“That`s the origin of all this mess: CO2 it is NOT BLACK, it is TRANSPARENT, it is what we espire and plants breath with delight, giving us in return the oxygen we need to breath. If the greens succeed in their foolish purpose, there will be no CO2, no plants, NO YOU!”
Check list:
.CO2 is not BLACK ok
.CO2 is TRANSPARENT ok
.We espire wait a minute…
.PLANTS! breath with delight wait a minute…
.Giving in return oxygen wait a minute…
.If the GREENS! succeed in… wait a minute…
….there would be no CO2, no PLANTS, NO ME! just a SECOND!
what is wait a minute for?
We have reached to an agreement what is that?
WE NEED FIRST TO HAVE GREEN LANDS, no need to think green.
YOU say ASPIRE, PLANTS, DELIGHT, OXYGEN, NO ME!… without saying WE NEED PLANTS.
PLANTS are GREEN not transparent. PHOTOSYNTHESIS happens in GREENS.
I am quite happy that everything is ended to one point it is nothing except the GREEN.
What is The World CO2 waiting list?
It is the free CO2 that cannot be absorbed by the plants, if we do not have enough GREEN LANDS. The earth can handle CO2 in case it is not greater than its capacity. We do not know about the actual capacity of that, but we have seen the ultimate limits and consequences.
And about DISASTERS:
Like earthquakes, Volcanoes and Tsunamis, SOLAR ACTIVITIES would affect the atmosphere. The performance of high/low activities beyond the capacity of the earth is a disaster. If it continues that would be really terrible.
Back to man-made CO2:
The consequences of man-made CO2 are primarily economical before being environmental. Because FBF (Fossil Based Fuels) have their strong roles in the cycle of formations.
Willis,
…it wouldn’t surprise me if in all of this, the Chinese are still able to come up with some way to make money out of the overweening guilt of the Greens …
Willis, I laughed hard because immediately below your statement this advertisement appeared!
Chinese Girl Dating Website
http://www.ChineseKisses.
Seems they are way ahead of you! 🙂 GK
The Canadians were trading with the Chinese much longer than most. They learned.
JOKE: Canada was forewarned by their deep cover, triple agent mole, Maurice S (whose name must never be spoken) GK
Gail Combs says:
November 7, 2011 at 11:18 am
REF:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/07/no-fair-dinkum-in-australias-carbon-tax-today/#comment-790459
“You are correct to remind us of how brutal and short life was for the majority of people living in the 1800′s. I read some where they want to reduce us to 20% of the CO2 used today.
This is my analysis of that misbegotten idea based on life in the USA.
The average energy use for the USA is 335.9 million BTUs per person. (Total population: 246,081,000) http://www.nuicc.info/?page_id=1467
In 1949, U.S. energy use per person stood at 215 million Btu. So this is still too high. epb.lbl.gov/homepages/rick_diamond/LBNL55011-trends.pdf
The U.S. in 1800 had a per-capita energy consumption of about 90 million Btu. Twice the target energy consumption of 45 million Btu. (Total population: 5,308,483) http://www.bu.edu/pardee/files/2010/11/12-PP-Nov2010.pdf
If the USA reduces its energy consumption by 80% it equals 45.18 million Btu. per person IF THE POPULATION WAS THE SAME.
Given the increase in technology and hydro power lets use the 1800 consumption level of about 90 million Btu.
What does that mean? The site http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfarm4.htm helps us figure that out.
Farmers made up about 90% of labor force in 1790 and 69% of labor force in 1800. (2.6% in 1990) About 250-300 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, sickle, and flail in 1830. This is the same thing you talk of in your article. In 1987 with modern equipment it took 2-3/4 labor-hours to produce the same amount, 100 bushels.
1810-30 saw the transfer of “manufacturing” from the farm and home to the shop and factory. It wasn’t until the 1840′s that we saw factory made farm machinery, labor saving devices and chemical fertilizers became common. It was in the 1860′s Kerosene lamps became popular.
Also up until the 1850′s dung and wood were the major source of energy. http://dieoff.org/page199_files/image002.gif
In other words for the USA to use HALF the energy per person for that was used in 1800 we must abandon ALL factories and 90% of the population must return to subsistence farming using animals. Remember in 1800 there was only 2% of the current population. Solar and Wind just are not going to produce enough power to keep us in anything but a few lights and if we are lucky a refrigerator. FACTORIES use an huge amount of power and that is why cotton mills and other primitive factories were built on rivers.
Graph of Ag energy imputs: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/archibald_oildown_fig9.png
Anyone who tries to tell you differently is talking baffle gab because at present less than 9% of the US labor force is in manufacturing. The USA shipped its factories to China.
The only other option for energy is Nuclear because Solar and wind are not going to do anything but transfer money into the Scammers pockets. Carbon credits are also a scam, a very nasty scam.
see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/
AFRICA OWES Australia: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/“
Willis, pls plug the JAXA IBUKI satellite results into that fine logical machine between your ears. The developing nations are the actual CO2 sources; the West is a sink.
Now compute the compensation flows.
Actually, since CO2 is valuable, the West should maybe be paying for each tonne of output it receives. Unfortunately, the underdeveloped nations might use it to industrialize, and ruin their value as generators of CO2-benefits. That must be discouraged.
Brian H says:
December 10, 2011 at 12:36 pm
I can’t even begin to make sense of the IBUKI results. Until I do, I have nothing to say.
Thanks,
w.