China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, has just called the USA “selfish” for wanting to remain economically competitive.
Trump must be urged to save climate deal
Source:Global Times Published: 2017/3/30 0:13:40 Last Updated: 2017/3/30 7:14:23
…
Leaders from China and the US reached an agreement on climate change at the end of 2014, which paved the way for the signing of the Paris Agreement the next year. China and the US are the world’s two largest emitters of carbon dioxide. China is poised to reduce the emissions per unit of GDP by limiting the use of fossil fuels. However, what the US is doing undermines the other countries’ dedication to implement the Paris Agreement.
…
Some Western media now pin their hopes on China to fill the vacuum left by Washington in the fight against climate change. But no matter how hard Beijing tries, it won’t be able to take on all the responsibilities that Washington refuses to take.
China will remain the world’s biggest developing country for a long time. How can it be expected to sacrifice its own development space for those developed Western powerhouses?
Western opinion should continue to pressure the Trump administration on climate change. Washington’s political selfishness must be discouraged.
American opinion has enabled the country’s political and legal authorities to freeze the president’s Muslim ban. If it keeps up the same vigor, the Trump administration may not be able to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement.
Read more: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1040255.shtml
Ever since Donald Trump won the US Presidency, Greens have been desperately shopping around for a new global climate leader. China is the main focus of this effort, though other countries have been mentioned. China’s abysmal environmental track record, and the fact China is a dictatorship with a brutal human rights record doesn’t seem to matter. All greens seem to care about is China’s ability to pay the bills.
I guess China just refused this honor.
There’s no difficulty at all. We’re already “out of the Paris agreement”.
It was non-binding to start with, and never ratified by the US Senate. Regardless of whether they want to call it a voluntary executive agreement or what, it is an agreement between US and other countries and that makes it a treaty, by definition.
So either way, there is no US obligation: if it is a treaty, then it is null and void because it was never ratified. If it’s not a treaty, then it’s just an “executive agreement” it’s non-binding and Trump can nullify it by simply ignoring it. It wasn’t his agreement in the first place.
No, it’s important to get out of the Paris Agreement–otherwise if the Democrats ever get back in, they simply reintroduce their executive order. Getting out of the UNFCC (just a one-year process Trump could start any time) would also do it, although again future administrations could join up again. Best is to submit it to the Senate as required for any treaty. Recall what happened to Kyoto when that happened–98-0 and it was never heard of again.
http://s14.postimg.org/5tp1cglb5/gravy-train.png
Kyoto was never presented to the Senate. The 98-0 vote was a sense of the Senate resolution.
Had Kyoto been submitted, the actual vote would no doubt have been very close to 98-0.
Mr. Wallace — How many times do you have to be told? The United States is not in the Paris deal made sua sponte by the former president. The Dems cannot “reintroduce” a former president’s executive order.
Remember: “To defend is to admit.” To “get out” of what is not is to give it a legitimacy it never had.
Dear Mr. Wallace,
I beg your pardon for my exasperated tone. You deserve to be respected and valued. I was wrong to speak to you in that manner.
Your sheepish ally for science truth,
Janice
Janice, I believe that Mr. Wallace’s point was that if it’s a presidential order getting us in, and a presidential order getting us out, then a mere presidential order could get us back in, in the future.
We need something more substantial that will be harder to over turn.
Actually the USA is the largest, and almost the only large net carbon sink (on land).
Zealandia may be the largest net carbon sink, since Henry’s Law, and ocean Temperature gradients result in continuous pumping of CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean depths, and Zealandia has plenty of ocean depths within its borders.
Zealandia’s land area is also a net carbon sink; but it is too small to amount to anything.
Most large land areas besides the USA are either near carbon neutral or are net sources.
The USA is not a net carbon source.
G
The large island off the west coast of Nuh Zilund is also a net carbon sink.
The Australian landmass has also been described as a net sink. It has roughly the same land area as CONUS.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/05/22/4009078.htm
Geoff.
Is China actually Whining about the USA not wanting to commit economic suicide?
Well OK China but before you can say anything negative about the USA using coal, you must STOP using it first
Bryan A: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-china-global-energy.html
David
It is clear China is doing much (Out of country) to bring these low energy density behemoths to the rest of the world, and while I don’t know much about the quality of their solar panels I certainly have first hand experience with the lack of quality in many other of their manufactured products so I fear much of their worldwide work will not stand the test of time. But, until they no longer burn coal for either domestic energy or to sell cheap power to Europe they have absolutely No Business shaming the USA or any other country for utilizing coal energy too
And why exactly is China doing this?
ProphetProfitBryan: like you I have much first hand experience with the poor quality of reproduction parts manufactured in China. I believe that our technological civilzation will soon come apart at the seams if we cannot re-develop a source of reliable, high quality spares for our myriad of gadgets.
Now why would China be at the forefront of the fight for ‘Climate Change’? It couldn’t be economic, could it? China has roughly 60% of the world market for the manufacture of PV solar panels, I’m sure they didn’t consider the increased demand for their product in their ‘fight’ against “Climate Change’. They also have most of the world’s supply of rare earth metals used in the manufacture of wind turbines & (recently) acquired roughly 60-70% of the world’s supply of Cobalt, a key metal in the manufacture of Lithium Ion batteries.
They also stand to get a few hundred billion from those wicked, evil, developed countries as part of the Paris Accord to make up for the eco-imperialism of the West.
All that aside, I’m sure they favor the fight against coal (in the West, certainly not in China) for pure, noble reasons.
Being a “developing country” notwithstanding it having the second largest GDP in the world (soon to be first BTW) China has no obligation to do anything whatsoever under the Paris accord. China has suggested that they might try to peak their greenhouse gas emissions in 2035 … maybe .. if it is convenient to do so. Not a big deal. By 2035 the Paris accords will likely have long since collapsed. And if they haven’t, China would be under enormous pressure to reduce CO2 emissions by 2035. It’s a cheap promise.
My belief is that the Chinese are enjoying this whole farce immensely.
I do think they are planning to tackle their infamous air pollution problems and we should all wish them luck with that.. That may have a side effect of reducing their emissions below what they otherwise might be. If that happens, there is scant chance the Chinese won’t take credit for saving the planet.
China’s main pollution-reduction effort (AIR pollution only) is the gasification of coal. It LOOKS as though they are “doing something” for the climate. But that produces more CO2 than simply burning the coal.
‘They also have most of the world’s supply of rare earth metals used in the manufacture of wind turbines’. Not sure but I think it might be more accurate to state that they have most of the supply of rare earth metals that is permitted to be exploited. Greenies and other lobby groups are preventing exploration and mining in other jurisdictions, like Northern Ontario for example. It’s OK for them to mine in China because the government censors the environmental result. They’re like little children who want to eat a tasty hot dog, but they don’t want to see how the meat is processed.
Exactly. They call the USA selfish because we’re going to stop buying next-to-worthless solar panels and windmills from them.
Actually, that is not true. Wetern US and Australia have large reserves. But China has no environmental regulations, so accounts for most of the world’s present production.
this is part of Lenin’s doctrine. China does not have to do anything significantly before 2035. Meanwhile they can build their economic world dominance while suppressing economic growth in socialist Europe (totally lost cause anyway) and the USA. Very clever strategy – Lenin and Marx live on.
Bill,
The China-USA accord of November 2014 (one year before COP 21) gave China the right to increase emissions until 2030.while the U.S. agreed to cut back its emissions by 26-28%. Of course, China supports the Paris accord. It doesn’t have to do anything to curb emissions and its global dominance in the production of PV solar panels and rare-earth metals is an added incentive to support COP 21.
So devious and hypocritical.
Jan Christoffersen @ 12:49
But so typical…
I am ok with the chinese tax payers funding all of it.
We fund it through the interest payments on all of our debt that the Chinese own
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Meanwhile, China opens a new coal-fired power station every week. With 2,500 more in the pipe by 2030 (the exact year the Obama/China ‘Emission cap’ takes place).
Epic greenwashing propaganda by the Chinese. But all told, they are winning the propaganda green game with green activists the world over, including Greenpeace China, praising China for their “unreliable” energy (wind/solar) efforts!
Hilarious how far the West and eco-nuts are being taken for a ride.
Nice one China. You still got it ! (Propaganda wise that is!) 🇨🇳
“Meanwhile, China opens a new coal-fired power station every week.”
Many or most of these are replacements for dirtier coal power plants. Still, there’s little reduction in CO2 emissions from them.
A new plant a week?
Source please.
“China’s demand for coal power is growing so fast, the country will build a new coal power plant every week until at least 2020, according to analysis published Wednesday by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/03/what-global-warming-china-still-plans-to-build-new-coal-plant-every-week-in-2020/
Even Greenpeace has a “source”
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/07/13/china-keeps-building-coal-plants-despite-new-overcapacity-policy/
More:
“How China is adding one idle coal plant every week” (The Australian)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/how-china-is-adding-one-idle-coal-plant-every-week/news-story/a53b5bf16202ca60a9bb01f12e64ccac
And that’s just China. Google India. They are on a similar trajectory of energy sanity.
Doug
Without trying to be rude to you. Get off your lazy arse and try googling something. It’s really easy. They have this little box at the top that you type your question into and , as if by magic, answers appear. You also have the ability to refine your search.
Isn’t the internet and technology marvellous?
I lost it on my lazy ass Grandpa the other day. Get ON your arse Pop, and Google something up. Use Bing even! This was really funny.
The current Chinese government has a good many faults, but being self-destructively stupid is not one of them. The greens may run out of suckers.
Maybe Trump was right when he said that AGW was just a scam cooked up by the Chinese. That would also make Gore and Mann felons for failing to disclose under 22 U.S.C. § 611.
It is the Russians and the Arabian Peninsula states. The Chinese are late to the game.
Wait a minute. China is already burning 47% of the world’s coal, and will increase their dependence on coal until 2030.
That is the problem with the Paris accord.
US commits to actual reductions in the near and medium term of CO2 emissions.
But China promises only in 2030 to stabilize their emissions or emissions per economic output.
So they get an economic advantage (rapid development, reliable expanding industrial production) for 13 years, and only a vague promise even then. We get draconian cuts and destabilizing of our electric griod and energy infrastructure.
Now why would China be so keen on the US hobbling it’s industrial base? One might think they would want the US to be rich and prosperous so we could buy more stuff from them. This does not seem to be the case, for some reason. Perhaps they are up to something, and a weak US is in their interests.
From Cdr. Salamander, a retired US Naval Commander. He keeps a sharp eye on all things naval and geopolitical:
From here:
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2017/03/keeping-eye-on-long-game-part-lxix.html
Read the whole thing. Really, it’s fast, only half a page or so.
This whole Global Warming / Climate Change thing is getting way bigger than any domestic political issue for any one country.
Was he drinking buddies with Col. Blimp?
Looks like China is hoping the U.S. energy costs will rise, making their products even more competitive. We saw what happpened in Germany, now land of expensive energy and lots of emigrating manufacturers
The worrying thing is that China has noticed that the American legal system seems to be able to defy Trump.
China hopes the same procedure will happen with fossil fuels and the Paris undertakings.
What an unholy alliance!
McCain Soros China Clinton Obama and the American legal system.
We care if China calls us “selfish” why?
+1
The US is selfish for burning the coal that China wants.
China …. has just called the USA “selfish”
(Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/08/report-china-had-worst-year-ever-for-human-rights-abuses-in-2015/ )
“Selfish”?!
Translation: We build and sell solar and wind “power” parts. If you do not force your people to buy them from us, U.S., you are selfish. We also want more coal for ourselves.
*************************************************************
The HEIGHT of hypocrisy:
1. Chinese “selfishness” (i.e., violations of the Golden Rule, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18)) is vastly more widespread and diabolically deeper than any shortcomings of the U.S. gov’t..
2. Moreover
“Selfishness” is a
concept.
A Godless, religion-persecuting, nation using a religious tenet to coerce cooperation with its demands.
Laughable if it were not so vile.
******************
Okay, “People’s Republic.” Here’s one for YOU:
“You shall not covet.” (Exodus 20:17)
(and one more, for good measure: “Greed is idolatry.” (Colossians 3:5))
Janice:
That is outstandingly the best post on WUWT today.
Richard
Richard!
Thank you. Given the level of commenting at WUWT every day, that is high praise, indeed. Such encouragement is badly needed by me, so, I am very grateful to you for taking the time (and making the effort — hang in there!) to tell me.
I hope all is well with you.
Praying for you,
Janice
Socialists believe that selfishness is defined as wanting more than the socialist believes you should be allowed to have.
My faith in socialism just hit an all-time low (the bar was set pretty low already) when I discovered that we Aussie taxpayers are paying through the nose for public servants to go to the gym:
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/taxpayers-paying-millions-for-gym-memberships/news-story/3dfa60517c160ec335133fee8241b1fd
1. What an outrage that we have to pay for thus!
2. If you want to get fit, just exercise. No equipment is required, body weight is all you need.
These are lazy good-for-nothing leeches on society. If they don’t have enough self-control to eat sensibly and exercise sensibly, they expect us to foot the bill for their gym membership!
Idiocy is defined as not laughing at any of the untrue nonsense the MarkW bot is programmed to post on WUWT.
Idiocy is defined as anything that RichardSCourtney posts. Troll.
On constant with the Courtneys, they both believe that screaming your wrong along with an inane insult or two is sufficient to refute anything they choose not to believe.
And if that doesn’t work, they cak always squint their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and go na na na na na na
cube:
You – an anonymous troll – calls me a troll because I refuted a lie from the MarkW bot.
Ooooh! I am hurt! (not)
Richard
Janice
The chinese are not a Judeo Christian culture. Their philosophy is based on confucionism and underlies all their thinking. It has little to do with communism. You should not be trying to compare apples to oranges.
As to all your ‘Christian’ values, that you feel that ustasian people live by, I suggest you burst the little bubble you live in and look around you.
Hostile to Christianity, aren’t we?
Climate Otter
Absolutely not. I actually live by those principles, unlike others who claim to be christian and live by some other standard. I think this standard they live by is called ‘hypocrisy’. Lip service.
I was brought up in the Christian faith (strict). I even studied for the priesthood. I overcame this aberration while still in my teens. Now I am a person of no religion. I just follow various philosophies. Strangely, I am more christian than most christians. The interesting thing I have found is that the people who bleet on about christianity the most are the greatest hypocrites
Alex:
I write to suggest that you would benefit from some self reflection.
ClimateOtter asked you
and you have replied
.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Richard
Richard
My first two words were ‘Absolutely not’. Cherry picking? Of course you aren’t.
Alex,
Does it bother you, even in the slightest, that Christianity is a religion that implicated living “Christ Like”, that they believe that Christ was the Son of God, that they Pray to Jesus instead of God.
This is in violation of the First of the Big 10 Rules
I am the LORD thy God, Thou shalt have No other gods before me
Thou shalt make No graven images or likenesses (Catholics)
Not take the LORD’s name in vain
Remember the sabbath day (Saturday)
Honour thy father and thy mother (Unless you are a Scientologist)
Thou shalt not kill (Unless it is in the name of, sanctioned by the Church)
Thou shalt not commit adultery (Unless you are Poligamist Mormon)
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness
Thou shalt not covet
Bryan,
Jesus instructed his listeners to pray to God the Father, not to Himself, the Son. I suppose there are Christians who sometimes pray to Jesus, but actually that is heterodox.
Many people pray “In Jesus name”. And many churches have his likeness (icon/Idol) on a cross at the head of the altar
Alex:
I tried to help you by offering the advice that your words demonstrate you would benefit from self-reflection.
I did not “cherry pick” but quoted your words which – if you were to reflect on them – demonstrate that you would benefit from the self-reflection.
You have rejected the advice which, of course, is your right. But that saddens me because it is clear that you would be happier if you were to address your problem that Climate Otter pointed out to you.
Richard
Comparing US generation from coal to China’s electric generation from coal tells one story (which may be bad enough), but what’s left out is China’s extensive use of coal for winter heating and even cooking. My understandings supplemented by direct observation is that the steam heating (which works because of population density) often utilizes very crude “burn” processes that result in very high particulates and gas emissions.
It seems to me that the PRC has taken the concept of “Projection” to its ultimate height here.
Having been to China several times over the last year, I can tell you that the cognitive dissonance is deafening. The air in china has a metallic taste and the smog is ever present. I use a CPAP at night and I must change my filter one every few days just to breath at night inside the hotel no less inside. This is in one of the smaller cities (7 million). The expats that come here are amazed at the blue sky and the stars you can see at night.
This is just Communism at its finest……..
I have and am still living in China for 12 years. There is no cognitive dissonance about air quality. People complain about it loudly. What they have here is capitalism, perhaps authoritarian capitalism with Chinese characteristics.
The National government sets various standards, but there is conflict with the Provinces and Major cities, whose main interest is taxes from factories and workers. The cities prefer to pay the fines imposed by the National government rather than shut down polluting industries
If that is ‘capitalism’ then what do we have here in the US, with power-plant scrubbers that remove 98% of pollutants and Trump in office planning to reduce taxes and improve middle-class conditions?
Climate Otter
Capitalism is about making money. It has nothing to do with the environment. Unless, of course, you can make money by promoting environmental things.
Alex, it is just their own form of national socialism/communism/no difference. Could be a real mess when it collapses, hope I’m not around.
Brett
Absolutely agree. It’s on a knife’s edge at the moment. It’s an exciting time here. I may be old but I like my stimulus. Don’t really care to much about survival these days. It’s better than dying of old age in Australia.
Alex, by that definition, there is nothing that is not capitalism.
In Beijing, even those who have homes and/or shacks heat and cook with dirty coal. There were numerous times I saw residences with stacks of coal bricks. It is all about being cheap in china. You even have people with an open pit fire de-soldering components off scrap PCBs looking to sort and resell parts. We’ve been scammed many times by fabricators in China. Cheap, Cheap, Cheap, and unethical.
The smog is horrible on most days. You can’t see buildings that are 50 feet away. There is no credence in their comment.
The USA should subsidize hi-tech manufacturing instead of wasting money on solar/wind/etc.
All they see, if they can see anything thru the cloud of pollution in china, is a well of money about to dry up, Let them take the lead and let them pay the bill. We can keep our money and our technology here.
It’s obvious to anyone paying attention that AGW = Redistribution of National Wealth = Globalization with China being the primary recipient. China has been called an example of the “perfect state” by the UN because it isn’t hampered by voting and the people’s will to carry out their Marxist programs. No matter that some of those programs are responsible for killing more people than both world wars combined. China has continually been outspoken against Capitalism and the United States. Why do we need to be friends with them again? They are neither an ally nor supporter of the US and should be regarded as such. Enemy? No. Friend? No. Competitor? Yes and welcome to Capitalism on a level playing field.
China has loaned Venezuela $60 billion, which is what is paying for the troops and militias that are propping up that country’s oppressive dictatorship.
(That funding may actually be counterproductive, as it is in effect exposing another oppressive communist state to worldwide scorn.)
Over several visits to China working at near Provincial Governor levels, I was brought to believe that what goes on with the Communist Party is for International posturing mainly, while the provincial governments get stuck into the job of modernising with minimal politics. The rate of change of personal comfort since the 1980s has been extraordinary for a country with such a large population. To pull off the massive changes requires a skill level in the population in general that some countries seem unaware of. One conclusion I reached was that, as a group, Chinese are smarter than people in any other country I had visited or resided in. (That is quite a few countries).
Hear, hear.
Oh noes!! Chastised by a dictatorship!! Whatever shall we do? Meh.
This reminds me of Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose.
Thidwick ends up ‘hosting’ a bunch of critters in his antlers. The critters eventually feel they have the right to keep Thidwick from swimming across the lake in search of food and Thidwick is too nice to assert the rights he needs to survive. They bring him to the brink of perishing at the hands of hunters. Finally Thidwick sheds his antlers and swims away to safety, leaving the critters at the mercy of the hunters.
A generation of American workers has had their lives ruined by the stupid thinking and greed of various elites. Those workers rose up in revolt and elected President Trump. The anguished wails of those elites sound a lot like the anguished wails of the critters parasitizing on Thidwick.
Reminds me of a variation of Henny Penny that I read years ago. After baking her muffins, without the help of any of the other animals, they then ask Henny Penny to share with them. In the original story Henny says no and keeps all of them for herself. In the variant, the other animals call in a government agent who declares that Henny is a hoarder and then confiscates all of the muffins and passes them out to the other animals.
MarkW,
Reminds one of the many variations of political systems described using cows –
SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.
NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.
BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away…
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.
SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead………
More at http://www.economywatch.com/in-the-news/economics-humor-cows-explain-complex-political-systems.17-05.htm
Geoff
How did a socialist take ownership over a cow to begin with? I call bullshit.
I do always love how the left cozies up to the groups of people most likely to throw them in jail or chop off their heads. I guess they admire the like-mindedness in terms of thought control.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/03/29/has-china-faked-its-coal-data/
pot calling kettle
When totalitarian states tell us that the US is going the wrong way, I take heart knowing that we’re going the right way …
w.
So what do you think about a non-totalitarian state telling the USA it’s going the wrong way? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-accord-idUSKBN13A12Z
France might well join the US in recognizing climate reality after its elections. But if not, who cares? And even less what the totalitarian-dominated UN has to say.
Well, Pres. Hollande should not be taken at the word. He himself stops in not too long. What should Pres. Trump around the words of this failure?
Gloateus, when you say “the totalitarian-dominated UN ” I’ll remind you of the fact that the Security Council is comprised of 60% non-totalitarian states. Secondly, from an economic/funding position, it is dominated by a non-totalitarian state. So, please explain the rational you use to justify calling the UN “totalitarian dominated.
David Dirkse March 30, 2017 at 1:52 pm
Thanks for asking, David. I think that anyone who pays the slightest attention to the pluted bloatocrats at the UN and the candy-assed President of France needs to get out of their basement more often.
Seriously? Your authorities are Hollande and the UN?
They are urging us to spend TRILLIONS to perhaps cool the earth by a tenth of a degree in fifty years … and you think that is a brilliant plan, and we should just bow to their superior wisdom???
Yeah, that’s the ticket …
w.
David Dirkse March 30, 2017 at 2:05 pm
A majority of the General Assembly represent authoritarian and totalitarian states. The sooner the US gets out of the UN, the better.
Americans support Trump’s plan drastically to cut our financial support of the UN by 50-33%. Rasmussen didn’t ask how many want the US out of the UN entirely.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/united_nations/50_favor_major_cutback_in_u_s_funds_to_un
Any future international organization including the US should be limited to minimally democratic states, with no dictatorships allowed. China can form its own dictatorships-only league, not that Vietnam would want to join.
Gloateus, the UN General Assembly is not where the power is, it’s in the Security Council. Take sanctions….they aren’t imposed b[y the General Assembly (like the ones against Iran.)
…
Oh Willis, thank you….” I think that anyone who pays the slightest attention to the pluted bloatocrats at the UN and the candy-assed President of France needs to get out of their basement more often. ” …….. Does this mean you reject UN Resolution 181?
Gloateus: ” minimally democratic states”…..that excludes the USA, since the US is not a democracy…..What’s your take on plutocracies?
David,
The GA is where the objectionable resolutions come from, and the CACA-spewing Secretaries General.
If you seriously believe that the republic of the USA is not minimally democratic, please state which nations meet your high standards of popular government. Are you aware that bribing legislators is legal in Germany?
The good news for the worse than worthless UN bureaucrats is that they’ve made a comeback in US public opinion. In 2007, 66% of Americans said they were doing a bad job, but in 2017 only 60% think that.
Gloateus, when did the legality or illegality of bribery stop it from happening in the USA? Don’t forget, in the USA, they have the SCOTUS “Citizens United” decision.
PA Gloateus, who needs to pay a bribe when all you need is to hold a large mortgage note on a piece of real estate owned by the elected official?
David,
The difference is what is legal. In the US, members of congress often go to jail for what is legal in Germany and elsewhere.
What don’t you like about Citizens United? You think that union bosses should enjoy the right to free speech, ie make donations via the forced contributions of their rank and file, but not corporate shareholders? The US, unlike most European countries, still has free speech.
DD: “composed of,” not “comprised of” (a solecism); “rationale,” not “rational.”
The EU is rapidly becoming as authoritarian as is China.
David, we are a representative Democracy, not a plutocracy.
What is it about socialists and their desire to believe that any system that doesn’t steal all the wealth generated by the rich is being run by the rich?
David, since the bank can’t do anything to the politician, there is no potential for corruption.
Willis
This totalitarian state you speak of. Is this the one that the police are only armed with radios and mobile phones? The one where you don’t get your head blown off for arguing with a cop? The one where children refer to the police as ‘uncle policeman’? The one where everyone is free to make a buck as long as it isn’t too illegal?
You seem to be living in the past where we all feared the ‘red peril’. That ended 40 years ago.
You seem to be one of those people that dismisses MSM as BS except for when it mentions China, because when it mentions China , it is the absolute truth.
Alex, where is this mythical country where people get killed for arguing with cops?
If you argue with a cop in China, you’re liable to end up dead.
China executes far more people annually than all other countries int the world combined, averaging around 5000. By contrast, governments in the USA executed 20 people.
That should have read “executed 20 people last year”.
In the US capital punishment was suspended for over a decade, 1967-77, and has been used sparingly since then.
And in utopian of China, the benevolent state sends the executed prisoner’s family a bill for the bullet placed in his or her brain stem.
It’s not nice there to mess with Uncle Policeman.
All in China is faked. If you go on a trip to China, you will be shown only Potemkin villages, never the true China. But, the US citizen knows this deep inside. None of the Greens and neither of the Hollywood stars said he wanted to go to China after the (unlikely) election of D. Trump. Strange. I would give them a permit to the real China. That would be better for her ideas than the best Obamacare on the couch of a psychiatrist. And would cure them in the shortest possible time and with low cost.
Well, I explain it: the whole ideology of the AGW cult is per se Fascist and Communist at the same time. And we know what happened in the years after 1933 from this combination. Under Obama, the United States was the leader of this uniformly cult, peculiar to a democratic nation. Under Trump, the US has been canceled. So the Security Council is dominated by states that either (still) adhere to this cult, and members like China, who are really totalitarian (fascist and communist at the same time). The US has lost the majority and leadership (for the time being). But does not deceive yourself; this still changes in not so long time.
But you repeat yourself
China is selfish for wanting to keep selling us windmills and solar panels while they burn dirty, low-BTU coal.
David Dirkse March 30, 2017 at 2:41 pm
…
Since I never heard of UN Resolution 181, nor would 99.7% of the world population recognize it, I fear I’d have to look it up. Hang on …
…
… OK, 181 was the post-WWII partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Islamic states.
Having read it, I’m not sure what you mean when you ask if I “reject” UN Resolution 181. You’ll have to explain what “reject” means. Are you asking if I think that was a good idea? Sure it was, although it has led to lots of strife. What does that have to do with the UN and climate?
You seem to misunderstand my comment. I didn’t say that the UN never did a good thing. Both my grandmother and my mother worked for the UN after the war. However, as they say in Hollywood, that was then … this is now.
In any case, note what I did say. I did say that giving weight to a claim backed by the UN and Hollande was stupid. Neither one of them has any record that would give me the slightest reason to give any notice of their opinion.
And this is particularly true regarding the climate. The UN has violated most every scientific rule in setting up the IFCCC. In any case, at present it is illegal for us to be a member, we just haven’t gotten out yet. And Hollande? He has absolutely no credibility on climate, nor would he be expected to in a sane world. he is a politician.
So David, if you want to take advice on what fuel to use from the UN and Hollande, all I can say is, that is as foolish as asking your barber if he thinks you need a haircut …
My regards to you,
w.
The UN has almost four times as many members now as in 1945.
“….The UN has almost four times as many members now as in 1945….” And why shouldn’t they? There’s been four times the number of wars/conflicts that they completely failed to stop and so many other global humanity needs that they are engaged in despite not being in their charter. Anyone that has read and understands Agenda21 knows what their real goal is….. world governance by the UN. One doesn’t need to be a conspiracy theorists to realize this.
And many of them, more than in 1945, are totalitarian states. 1971, e.g. The Democratic Republic of China (Taiwan) in the Security Council was simply replaced by the totalitarian PRC. Simply so, presumably Resulution 007.
First of all the UN did not set up the IFCCC. I don’t know what time of day you start imbibing, but I’m going to assume you mean the UNIPCC. Secondly, neither the WMO nor the UNEP violated any scientific principle in setting it up in 1988. The UN General Assembly endorsed the IPCC with Res 43/53 ( http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r053.htm ) So, in the course of creating and endorsing the IPCC, could you please let me know what “scientific principles” that they violated? Also note that the IPCC itself is not tasked with doing any actual scientific work, so again, please tell me what principles they violated. All they do is report on existing published literature. Is reporting published literature a violation of scientific principles?
It is a violation if they report in a biased fashion, as they do. See Donna Laframboise’s Delinquent Teenager book at https://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Worlds-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1490923778&sr=8-1&keywords=the+delinquent+teenager, and her follow-on Into the Dustbin . You can get free samples of e-book versions that will give you a good taste of her ammo.
David Dirkse March 30, 2017 at 5:19 pm
Thanks, David. Sorry, typing too fast. I meant the UNFCCC.
Sure. The UNFCCC was set up to determine how high a level of atmospheric CO2 was dangerous. This contravenes scientific practice because we do not know even today IF CO2 is dangerous.
It would be like setting up an organization to find out just how high a level of vitamin C is dangerous … when in fact excess vitamin C is excreted by the kidneys.
You don’t start out a scientific search by setting the question in advance “how much is dangerous”. You need to start with “IS IT DANGEROUS” and move on from there.
They violated their own principles and guidelines. For heaven’s sake, they don’t even ask for statements of conflict of interest from their “scientists”, many of whom work for watermelon “green” organizations. Clearly you’ve not been following the story. You might start by learning about Caspar and the Jesus Paper …
w.
Even worse, the IPCC is charged with investigating man caused climate change.
Without bothering to find out first if climate change actually is man caused.
Now Willis, if you meant the UNFCCC, it was an agreement among countries. You don’t use scientific rules in setting up an agreement among the participants. So, tell us what scientific rule was violated in setting up the agreement. I have never heard of a connection between scientific rules and negotiating……but I’d love to hear them from you.
Oh yeah Willis, you say, ” In any case, at present it is illegal for us to be a member” uh….no, you’re confusing membership and funding. The Funding thing might be a valid point due to the Palestinians being members, but membership in the Convention itself is not illegal.
David Dirkse March 30, 2017 at 6:01 pm
You are correct. I was writing too fast. It is illegal for us to spend a dime on the UNFCCC.
However, it’s not clear to me how we would be a member if we cannot spend a dime on it … so I fear you’ve pointing out a difference that makes no difference.
w.
Coal fired power generation at Hazelweood in Victoria, Australia, was shutdown yesterday. That is 25% of power needed by the state, and South Australia too. Australia, the lucky country, lucky to have lights at night!
I have in my hand a clipping from yesterday’s Australian. It says:
====
Hazelwood shutdown to lift power bills 20pc
(Andrew White, The Australian, March 30, 2017)
Wholesale electricity prices jumped in anticipation of yesterday’s closure of the Hazelwood power station, with analysts forecasting 10 to 20 percent increases in household power bills next year.
Wholesale electricity prices have more than doubled to $120 per megawatt hour in NSW since September and to $80MWh in Victoria since January as generators take advantage of declining supply”
=========
Doesn’t anyone in remember Enron closing down generators in California so they could steal Grandma Millie’s life savings?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/us/tapes-show-enron-arranged-plant-shutdown.html
That’s where we’re at in Australia today.
I remember California not paying their bills and costing my province nearly 1 billion dollars:
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-utility-settles-energy-prices-dispute-with-california-from-2000/article13813512/
I remember those tapes. Criminal! Yes, this is what our politicians are doing to us.
If China is whining about it, then we must be doing the right thing.
China’s being a leader in the fight against global warning is as likely as the Russian Mafia being a leader in stamping out the international arms trade. China has asserted that its coal use and associated emissions will continue to rise until 2030, and it has given no guarantee that they will start declining after that date. So a likely scenario is that it will at best reach a plateau and then stay that way for years. Besides, once China and India see that the US is scaling back its climate commitments, it’s a safe bet they will follow suit, especially since the Paris deal is strictly non-binding.
Oh, I just have to say this SOMEWHERE!!!
(Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/29/article-50-triggered-brexit-eu-theresa-may-watch-live/ )
HIP — HIP —
#(:))
Go, Brexit!
Go, you wonderful Brits!
(take a lesson, France, Italy, Netherlands,…..)
HOORAY! +1
Wheeeeeee! Thanks for that affirmation,
. 🙂
And so say all of us!!!!
This is not necessarily the official position of the Chinese Government….
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/global-times-and-beijing-nuanced-relationship
“The Global Times is a subsidiary of the People’s Daily, the principal propaganda publication of the Chinese Communist Party. While this implies a degree of official sanction, it is difficult to measure the extent to which Global Times represents the official position of the Chinese government.
It does appear, however, that the Global Times has a special license to push positions and voice sentiments that other state media operations are reluctant to air openly. The publication’s bellicose editorials do echo from time to time Beijing’s increasingly assertive foreign policy stance.”
.
And what would the China Times write other than the unmasked position of China? Nothing can be published in China, which is not acceptable to the highest state institutions. There is only the mainstream press in the sense of the rulers. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of course, would better fit these words into Chinese cotton, as well as diplomats. But the position of China is nothing to blame: we are burning the coal that you are promoting. And brand yourselves for it. .
Alex March 31, 2017 at 1:16 am
“Totalitarianness” is often measured by the “Polity Score“. This goes from +10 for a democracy to – 10 to pure totalitarian. China runs around -7 …
So yes, Alex, China is indeed a totalitarian state. The fact that you actually believe the BS about “Uncle Policeman” tells me everything.
w.
Climate Otter
Capitalism is about making money. It has nothing to do with the environment. Unless, of course, you can make money by promoting environmental things.
By that definition, there is nothing that is not capitalism.
Willis
I don’t know about this ‘ Polity Score’. Is this some BS score that has been determined by the US state department? If so, I will take it with a grain of salt, nay, two grains of salt. If you venture outside the US you will find that the majority of people resent the US. Most countries bow down to the US bluster and superiority complex because of the threat of US sanctions of one form or another. We all know it’s the American Way. Its a well known fact that you guys set a lot of rules so that you can win. When you can’t win then you change the rules to suit yourself.
The US is very big on making proclamations about world wide human rights abuse yet doesn’t include itself.
The Chinese issue their own human rights abuses of the US. It makes interesting reading.
To conclude: I like you Willis but you can be a real dick sometimes. I have lived in China for 12 years and have seen and heard a lot. By no stretch do I consider China a ‘perfect place’. The reality, for me and my wife, is that China is a much safer place to live than the US .
If the only thing you can find wrong with my previous comment is that kids refer to police as ‘uncle policeman’ and hinge your whole argument on that, then I find your response quite pathetic with no legs.
What a lot of nastiness this post has been subject to. Perhaps it is March? Never mind, Britain is on the right road, and so is USA under Trump.
Brett
I don’t think it’s nasty. There is a difference of opinion but it is reasonably polite. Willis has his opinions based on his opinion (limited because he hasn’t lived here). I am basing my opinions on my life and experiences here. I have a slight resentment that Willis thinks I am a blind fool. But that’s ok. He is ignorant. I mean that in the technical sense of lacking knowledge. I don’t mean that he is stupid because he is definitely not that
Alex March 31, 2017 at 2:24 am
Obviously …
No. Go google it so you don’t look so foolish.
No, it’s not a “well-known fact” that we set rules so we can win, it’s just what you losers usually say … and since it is generally said without examples, just as you’ve done here, that’s just whining.
And no, the Polity score is not a “rule so that we can win”, that’s mindless paranoia. Do your homework.
Anyone who believes what the Chinese say about human rights is not well suited for the modern world.
True. So what? Doesn’t make me wrong.
Yes, and Yogi Berra said “you can observe a lot by just watching” … but the question is, did you understand what you saw?
But we weren’t talking about which place was safer. We were discussing which was more totalitarian. The Polity Score gives the answer, but you’re either too clueless or too lazy to study up on it, so you want to pretend the question was personal safety. Nice try.
If you think that is the only thing I find wrong with your argument, you need to learn how to read more closely. My main problem with your argument that China is NOT totalitarian is that it is simply not true, as shown by the Polity score.
w.
Willis
Point one
Thanks for getting me off my arse to google Polity point. It confirms my statement that it is the usual US BS that comes from some American University, Much like Mann from Penn State.
Point two
Thanks for confirming to us that we are losers, we are truly humbled. I am in front of my computer on my knees at the moment.
Point three
I never connected polity point to rules that you can win. In the words of Willis ‘quote what was said ‘
Point four
Anyone who dismisses a communication without reading it is a fool. You can dismiss it if you like , but you have to read it first.
Point five
Doesn’t make you right , either.
Point six
You assume that I am your typical unobservant American. I consider that the greatest insult of all. In another time I would give you the choice of weapons, Sir. How dare you say that? You know nothing about me. I have been advised by many people that I am deep and very perceptive about many things. I will take their word over yours because they are educated and perceptive people themselves.
Point seven
I won’t address your further points because you are just a drowning man clutching at straws
Alex March 31, 2017 at 3:43 am
No, your statement was NOT that “it is the usual US BS that comes from some American University”.
Your claim was that it was “some BS score that has been determined by the US state department”. In other words, your statement, that this was from the US State Department, was 100% wrong.
So your claim, that your statement is “confirmed”, is a flat out lie.
Sorry, Alex, but that’s the end of this discussion. When I point out that a man is wrong, and he returns to lie about what he said and falsely says that his statement was “confirmed”, I’m no longer interested in discussing anything with them.
Lie to me once, that’s as far as it goes. After that, I’m afraid you’ll have to find someone else to lie to. I will not discuss anything with a man who is willing to lie to me. As Megan McCardle famously said:
That’s where you stand with me, Alex. You’ve got me convinced.
Sadly,
w.
Wow, Alex, do you really believe the drivel you’ve been feeding us?
Just because you feel like pushing totalitarian nonsense, don’t expect anyone else to buy it.
Typical socialist, can’t accept that his system is fails so he has to invent evil boogeymen to blame for it.
“Thanks for getting me off my arse to google Polity point. It confirms my statement that it is the usual US BS that comes from some American University, ”
Alex thank you for confirming that you don’t bother thinking. rejecting the polity score based on nothing more than the fact that it was calculated by an American university.
Regardless, most American universities are further to the left than the leadership of China.
But your anti-Americanism doesn’t allow such fine distinctions. America, bad. That’s all you know and all you need.
Willis, one point I’ve noticed about Alex is that he never actually gets around to proving any of the points he keeps returning to.
For example, at no point did he give any evidence that the Polity score was bogus, he just claimed that it must be bogus because it was invented by the US State Dept, then when that was demonstrated to be wrong, he claimed that it was wrong because it came from an American University.
Essentially an ad hominem argument.
Of course anyone who believes you can disprove the charge of totalitarianism by claiming that children trust the police has already demonstrated that he has no intention of engaging in a serious discussion.
The only reason why China does not stand on -10 is the Chinese cotton, into which the diplomats of the giant empire pack their words. And the necessity of the West in the interests of trade relations to overlook many things. However, the reality of life there is -10.
And you know this reality how? Newspapers?
Some things are also overlooked: http://www.newsweek.com/china-forces-its-political-prisoners-sell-body-parts-421799
Does that somehow point up in 1933?
But these are only Chinese ………. And in the interest of the great all-encompassing plan such trifles can be forgiven.
Mengele ist living!
Hans
You are truly funny
It is easy to be fun if you do not live in China as a Chinese. However, the fun of the Chinese has probably already passed decades ago. Since the times of the great MAO Tse Tung. Sure LMAO.
Back in the 1930’s a lot of foreigners visited Russia and returned telling tales of how wonderful the country was and how everyone loved Uncle Stalin. How everyone was rich and prosperous and there were no problems.
Meanwhile in other parts of Russia millions were being starved to death and anyone who dared question the new authority were being sent to gulags or killed outright.
Alex reminds me of those individuals who because of their support for the ideology allowed themselves to be blinded to the truth.
Nothing is stopping China from returning to the stone age and abandoning coal. The hypocrisy is overwhelming, but also telling. The real intent of all this CO2 centric nonsense is to allow China and the developing world to catch up to the US. All the efforts are to speed the development of China and India and others, and slow the growth of the US and Europe. If you can’t beat them, convince them to beat themselves. CO2 promoters are a 5th Column of useful idiots,
Useful Idiots don’t rely on facts, the politics of AGW
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/19/climate-science-on-trial-useful-idiots-dont-rely-on-facts/
Coal does not have a bright future, regardless. It will gradualy be replaced as an energy source, no matter if Trump or Obama, dems or reps are at the helm.
What China is worrying about is most likely being at an economical disadvantage if they are to follow treaties that the US disregard. They can just disregard it, too. But they are clever enough to try to score a few political points in the process.
Is everyone here pro-coal? I doubt that. There are better sources of energy.
At least coal workers are coal. I think there was a reason why Trump was elected in the Rust Belt, or many states changed their electoral behavior to the Republican candidate. This is precisely what makes me most worried about all other discussions. In the USA, no one can understand the concerns of others in other parts of the country. The country is too big and probably too demographically developed. Everyone is cooking his own local soup. This does not work well in the long run. I mean also, there are better sources of energy, but not wind and solar and also not Hydropower. These energies are too expensive for developing countries and work halfway in the developed states only with state financial support. The point will be whether nuclear fusion will succeed us, and for the transitional period, I would have fought for more nuclear fission with more and safer power stations. However, only a wishful thinking in the general demonization of nuclear fission.
What are these better sources of power?
Natural gas is for now because of all the recent discoveries has driven the price down. What happens when all the increased demand drives the price of nat gas back up?
Why can’t we get past this and begin to produce energy cheaper than coal using liquid fluoride thorium reactors?
The Youtube video is much shorter than the book, which on pdf is 430 pages.
http://misc.weedwhacker.org/misc/tectc.pdf
What I wonder is whether WUWT has become just a forum for the proponents of fossil fuel.
The nuclear articles posted here always seem sub-par since the authors never seem to know about LFTR technology. Consequently nuclear always gets short shrift.
LFTR technology makes the CO2 argument moot. I guess people here just want to spend their futures bashing the CO2 hypothesis till the cows come home, and really don’t care about advancing energy that makes the CO2 issue totally evaporate from the public consciousness.
Let’s move on to a less contentious world. Please somebody with knowledge of lifter promote LFTR on this website and write an article that does it real justice.
If we had LFTR we wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about lectures from China or anywhere else (not that we should anyway).
Who is it that is preventing people from spending their own money and building a few of these?
China is no longer a developing country in this respect. Its CO2 emission was 7.7 tons/per capita in 2015, while one of those Western powerhouses, the UK had 6.2 tons/capita.
Talking BS is never a good strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Even more BS:
http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/numbers-china-us-climate-agreement
“China has announced its intent to peak carbon dioxide emissions around 2030, and to strive to peak earlier. The announcement did not specify at what level China’s emissions would peak, though multiple scenarios that peak around 2030 show peak emissions around 10 billion metric tons per year.”
China’s CO2 emission was in fact 10.64 billion tons in 2015. That much about it peaking around 10 billion tons in 2030. Some are neither deaf, nor blind or dumb.
Given how Britain has hollowed out it’s manufacturing base in recent decades, I’m not sure that per-capita comparisons are valid.
A better comparison of developed vs developing is per capita economic output in total.
So much for rising seas beyond the BS statements…..
https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-says-no-thing-man-made-islands-south-111615122.html