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.
“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.