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 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.