From Dr. Benny Peiser and The GWPF:
China Pledges To Peak CO2 Emissions – But Only After ‘Around 2030’
Today, the Presidents of the United States and China announced their respective post-2020 actions on climate change, recognizing that these actions are part of the longer range effort to transition to low-carbon economies, mindful of the global temperature goal of 2℃. The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%. China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030. Both sides intend to continue to work to increase ambition over time. —U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change, 12 November 2014
The joint statement by the United States and China on climate change, issued on Wednesday, is more important for its political and diplomatic symbolism than any practical effect it might have in reducing emissions. The statement reiterates policies China and the United States have been developing on their own and contains no new binding limits on greenhouse emissions. The joint announcement employs language very carefully. Throughout, the operative word is “intend” or “intention”, which makes clear the statement is not meant to create any new obligations. –John Kemp, Reuters, 12 November 2014
By adopting emissions targets on its own terms, China can influence negotiations leading up to the 2015 climate summit and head off pressure for tougher targets. China can point to its self-adopted targets as well as the principle of “common and differentiated responsibilities” to block any attempt to erect carbon tariffs or other border adjustment measures by the United States and the European Union to protect energy-intensive trade-exposed industries. Finally, the 2030 target should be fairly easy to meet. By then, the most manufacturing-intensive phase of China’s development will be complete and hundreds of millions more people will have been lifted into the middle class. Emissions are likely to stabilise by that date even without the joint statement. –John Kemp, Reuters, 12 November 2014
China is considering setting itself a new target to stop increasing overall emissions by 2025, according to Lord Stern of Brentford. He said that consumption of coal in China, which is the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, could reach a peak before 2020, much earlier than previously predicted. –Ben Webster, The Times, 25 September 2013
The man responsible for maintaining India’s power supply says he wants the country’s coal production to double within the next five years. Piyush Goyal, Minister of State for Power, Coal, New and Renewable energy, says India needs to dig twice as much coal as it does today if it is to meet its soaring energy demand. By 2019, it is expected to be consuming two trillion units of electricity annually, with one unit equalling one kilowatt hour. Describing coal as “an essential input for power”, Goyal said: “I see Coal India production doubling in the next five years. It makes about 500 million tonnes hopefully this year. We [will] do a billion tonnes in 2019.” –Alex Kirby, Climate News Network, 7 November 2014
Climate negotiations in the run-up to the global deal in Paris next year may not to be on predictable lines. After trade, the Narendra Modi government is now contemplating a strategic shift during talks, delinking India’s position from China. Although India will continue to insist that the global climate deal should have the principles of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and Kyoto Protocol that call for only rich nations to cut emissions while demanding money for poor countries to take voluntary action, it may now start questioning the idea of keeping the world’s highest carbon emitter China in the same league as the other developing countries. –Vishwa Mohan, Times of India, 5 November 2014
Crop producers and scientists hold deeply different views on climate change and its possible causes, a study by Purdue and Iowa State universities shows. Associate professor of natural resource social science Linda Prokopy and fellow researchers surveyed 6,795 people in the agricultural sector in 2011-2012 to determine their beliefs about climate change and whether variation in the climate is triggered by human activities, natural causes or an equal combination of both. 66 percent of corn producers surveyed said they believed climate change was occurring, with 8 percent pinpointing human activities as the main cause. —Purdue University, 11 November 2014
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“As the campaign was turning against the Democrats last month, Mr. Obama quietly dispatched John Podesta, a senior adviser who oversees climate policy, to Beijing to try to finalize a deal.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102176057
“Last night, President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping jointly announced crucial new actions to protect our climate. And because of American leadership, China is making critical new commitments….. “John Podesta, Counselor to the President, The White House,@Podesta44”.
Podesta founded (with brother Tony) the powerful Washington lobbying and PR company Podesta Group (long enmeshed in Democratic strategy and responsible for many Obama appointments) also founded Center for American Progress whose creature, Joe Romm’s “Think Progress” and “Climate Progress” serve as “objective arm’s length” propaganda conduits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Podesta
Those behind the curtain seem currently tasked with “reputational preservation” for the exit strategy.
I loved the juxtaposition on the AOL news feed. This agreement was the number one news story. The unseasonably cold temperatures sweeping over much of the United States was the number 2 news story.
Perhaps we have to come up with a new name: The Gorbama Effect.
The Gist of the agreement seems to be
China: We will carry on growing our economy and raising living standards to lift our
people out of poverty.
Obama: We will carry shrinking our economy and make energy more expensive destroying
whole industries and making millions poor.
You are correct.
That’s what you get from a social organiser. A pathetically niave clown that the rest of the world’s leaders use for the fool that he is.
AGW biased ABC Australia the China-USA agreement top story…
HOWEVER…Newspaper this morning, I could not even find anything about it at all!
(Unless I missed a very small item hidden somewhere!)
It’s across all media outlets. Last few days we’ve had 3 or more articles about climate change in the run up to the G20 meeting being help in Brisbane.
So from 1.5 gigatons of CO2 in 1980 to 7.5 gigatons in 2009 and they are going to “peak” at 2030? Maybe? Too funny.
Okay just a simple extrapolation of that rate (5 x in 30 years) gives us an improvement in CO2 of roughly half that. So they will be up to 10.5 gigatons annually. That will be great for plants and agriculture.
Of course then they “might” not stop. Depending on how their LFTR research goes.
The climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans. There is no evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. Such an agreement will have no effect on climate. No matter what action we take, the current interglacial period will end and another ice age will begin but that may take thousands of years. The real problem in terms of the Earth’s ecology is Man’s out of control population. If Man does not learn to control his own population, Nature will, catastrophically.
All 7,000,000,000 people would easily fit inside less than half of the Grand Canyon. That number itself is not the problem. So what is the real problem? disease? poverty? unequal distribution of resources? Denying the third world access to affordable energy because of climate change condemns them to a sorry future – and they know it and don’t much like it.
You can see the look on the face of China’s leader and it just says >……..
I think it would be prudent if China focused on decreasing soot, aerosols and water pollution right now, and let CO2 fend for itself later.
(Quoting)
“the most manufacturing-intensive phase of China’s development will be complete and hundreds of millions more people will have been lifted into the middle class.”
While how many become poor in other places, because of the current politics of climate change?
it’s all smoke and mirrors!
11 Nov: Bloomberg: China Blocks Smog Data After Failing to Clean Skies Before APEC
After failing to rid Beijing’s skies of pollution before a gathering of world leaders this week, Chinese officials took a different approach to smog control –***limit the data.
Phone and Internet apps that display readings of air pollution started excluding a U.S. Embassy feed yesterday. Wang Jun, co-founder of the Air Quality Index app for Apple Inc.’s iOS, said authorities told him to stick to the city’s data. “We had no choice,” he said by phone.
Government efforts to control smog ahead of the Nov. 5-11 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation events in Beijing had gained so much attention that the clearer skies got a nickname, “APEC blue.” …
“Upon orders from higher-ups, this month’s air quality index will use data provided by Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau,” the owners of the website beijing-air.com said in an Internet statement. “Wishing APEC Summit great success!” …
The phrase “APEC Blue” began to catch on as the APEC leadership summit ended today. One shop on Alibaba Group Holdings Ltd.’s Taobao online mall offered a string of beads whose color it describes as APEC blue. The same description was given to a pair of GPS-equipped sneakers designed to track a child’s whereabouts.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-11/china-blocks-smog-data-after-failing-to-clean-skies-before-apec.html
There seems to be a general consensus among Americans that Obama is incompetent and not up to this task. Please consider the alternate theory that his actions are deliberate. Obama wants a multi-polar world. He believes the world will be a better place if the USA is just one among many. Obama doesn’t want the USA to be a leader in anything, except perhaps redistribution of income and property.
Just read his books. Listen to his speeches. Look at his backgrounds, his mother, his role models and his mentors.
Very true.
The expressions on this news photo are painfully telling:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/12/1415771401199_Image_galleryImage_U_S_President_Barack_Obam.JPG
Thought bubbles, from left to right: “Is anyone actually buying this?” and “I know I’m not.”
Much more like: “I can keep my supporters happy now” and “Jolly good, I feel like the cat that swallowed the canary. With a bit of luck he’ll give me the cream as well.”
Under the “Supremacy Clause” of our Constitution, treaties cannot override the Constitution but do trump state laws. So signing treaties with other countries or the UN does two things. It provides a way for distant world bodies and the Federal Government to change domestic policy by fiat, and it gives the activist judges and courts everywhere an international document to refer to in deciding local and state cases. Courts in the US are known to refer even to unratified treaties. This they justify by saying it is “international law.”
Next, Beijing’s continuing clamp down on Hong Kong shows that these are communists and not reformed in any way. These clamp downs have cost Hong Kong in investments. Likewise the mere threat of litigious action and hostile environmental regulations on farming, ranching, and energy are going to change our business.
Perhaps a little perspective on the Boomers having secret meetings with Maoists in Beijing to set domestic policy for energy and agriculture is needed. They are also making gun control agreements IN BERLIN:
“The next meeting of the states that are parties to the Arms Trade Treaty — including the United States — is scheduled for November 27-28 in Berlin, Germany.”
Berlin and Beijing. In broad daylight.
Obama is the Kenyan word for douchebag…
Do you know that Tonto went to his grave not knowing that “Kemosabe” meant “arsehole”?
Don’t you mean, the Lone Ranger went to his grave, etc.
Actually, in a language of the Luo people, the ethnic group to which Obama’s dad belonged, it means “He Who Is Bent”, or something along those lines. “O” means “he” & is a common prefix. “Bam-” means “lean” or “bend”. The name might originally have been given to a boy baby by his mom who thought one of his limbs was crooked. Or something. Among the Luo, who, like most Kenyans, are predominantly Christian or follow a syncretic religion, “Obama” is traditionally a Muslim family name. Or so I’m told by East Africans of my acquaintance. Baraka (blessed) & Hussein (diminutive of beautiful) are of course names of Arabic origin. Obama’s dad pronounced his name “Bear-ick”.
haha…
12 Nov: UK Telegraph: China-US climate change deal a ‘giant leap for mankind’, says IEA
Landmark accord an important step towards a global climate deal in Paris, without which “we may well say goodbye to the world we have today”, says energy watchdog
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/11226716/China-US-climate-change-deal-a-giant-leap-for-mankind-says-IEA.html
12 Nov: BBC: Matt McGrath: Will Obama’s climate surprise deliver a global deal?
So where is the history in all these histrionics?…
But the deal doesn’t stem from a philosophical determination to save the planet.
It is based on the naked political necessities of both countries.
President Obama needs to show the US Congress and public he can create a level playing field for American industry to compete with China…
But in terms of steering the world to below the 2 degree C target that scientists believe is the threshold of danger, this agreement doesn’t cut the mustard…
Taken together with the EU’s recent announcement of new climate targets for 2030, you could be forgiven for thinking that a deal in Paris is in the bag.
If only.
Cutting emissions is just one part of the negotiations, and for many countries, the least important bit.
For many, the bigger questions are about cash to cope with the impact of climate change.
Many nations want a financial mechanism that would put a legal responsibility on those who have done most to cause climate change to compensate those who suffer most from it. This is a potential iceberg for the whole process.
“There is a need for the developing countries to see that there would be certainty in terms of future flows of finance, otherwise we won’t see much ownership of this process from many of the parties in Paris,” said Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu, a senior negotiator from the Democratic Republic of Congo, speaking to me earlier this year.
And no deal without it, I ask?
“I’m not afraid to say so,” says Mr Mpanu-Mpanu.
“No money, no fund, no deal in Paris.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30019902
Science deniers = Confederacy of Dunces
This Obama sure is a fast worker. He’s been secretly working on this “let’s do nothing to China” statement for 9 months. Just imagine what happens to USA industry be 2025 when China’s power cost is about 25% of that of the USA?
Obama has achieved nothing with China in 9 months, just imagine how much he could achieve during a global temperature pause (18 years). The mind boggles!!!!!
We have the pleasure of his presence here in Australia for one night on Saturday 15 November. He is being accompanied by >1,000 people assisting – at this rate, the USA unemployment situation should soon be OK.
For anyone who was raised and educated by Boomers, you may have never heard of China’s Great Leap. I had to educate myself and this may help you too. Much of the environmentalism which glorifies an impoverished, agrarian society is just Maoist Five Year Plans dressed up in Green. In fact, Rio +20 was organized and lead by known Communist Chinese who hate the US and are planning for its downfall. Please, look before you Leap.
http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Liberation-History-Revolution-1945-1957/dp/1620403471/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415836115&sr=1-1&keywords=the+tragedy+of+liberation+a+history+of+the+chinese+revolution+1945-1957
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
79 of 83 people found the following review helpful
“Liberation or Liquidation?
By Ronald P. Ng on September 19, 2013
Format: Kindle Edition
I was born and brought up in Hong Kong at the time when Mao conquered China and Hong Kong was still a British colony flying the British flag. I remember as a kid, my mother used to admonish me to eat all my food and to study hard. “If the communists come, the food you have eaten and the knowledge you have gained, they cannot take them away from you. Everything else, they could take away from you.” I was curious who were the communists and what she meant by those words.
I still have in my mind’s eyes these words in Chinese “共產黨到家散人亡”,(when the Communist Party comes, people will die and families will be broken up), written on the slope along the road going from Kowloon to Shatin.
Also as a kid, I remember the stories of massive illegal immigrants coming from China into Hong Kong, something in the order of 100,000 a month.
This latest book by Frank Dikotter, Professor of History at Hong Kong University answered all those questions I had in my mind when I was a kid. From primary source, Dikotter documented how the Communists confiscated land and property from all and sundry – thus my mum said, they will take everything from you except for the food which you have already eaten. They burnt books and heavily controlled the flow of information, controlled what your thoughts should be. Hence my mum said, study hard, retain knowledge, they can’t take that away from you. Quotas were given by Mao at every campaign, the Rectification Campaign, the High Tide, in the aftermath of the “Let a Hundred Flower Bloom” campaign for the number of people to be executed. People in order to survive, had to make up stories and point to name other people as “counter-revolutionaries”, as “rightists” and so on, turning friends against friends, even sons against father, accounting for those Chinese words painted as graffiti on the wall along the road to Shatin.”
And there are people who want us to be like China. It is just too sad.
With any luck, it will be the other way ’round.
In 2011 China consummed 3.8 billion tonnes of coal. In 2013 it was 3.7 billion tonnes. It seems they have already reached one of their goals! – five years early! Now that is the way to make a five year plan!
The five year plan is a construct of “business planners” that can’t get their clients to produce a five day plan.
Assuming energy use increases at anything close to the same rate as the past few decades, this means at best overall the CO2 output from China would remain the same. Most likely even if they met their goal of using 20% non-fossil fuels for energy consumption by 2030 their CO2 output would increase.
The point is moot however since according to alarmists, the situation is “irreversible” since at current CO2 levels we are doomed anyways.
Thats the way the fortune cookie crumbles.
If republicans oppose this deal, it means they are not stopping the climate from changing. The Democrats supporting this will claim they have successfully stopped the climate from changing, which makes them look like morons.
You have to have stupid and hubris in equal and monstrous measure to state you can stop the climate from changing.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/12/phooey-on-us-china-climate-announcement
PS: That’s Friends of the Earth saying Phooey.
Promises, promises and utter pretentiousness, but excellent support for the cagw propagandists even if nothing eventuates even after 2030.