If only we were more like China…
Eric Worrall writes:
The Guardian, a green British newspaper, has published yet another green sneer at democracy, with reference to the recent climate agreement between China and America, contrasting the efficient obedience of the Chinese government, with the “difficulties” Obama will encounter, when he faces the democratically elected representatives of the American people.
According to the Guardian,
“While Chinese apparatchiks will, presumably unquestioningly, jump to realize President Xi Jinping’s order to reduce carbon emissions in an ambitious deal with the United States, Barack Obama will come home to a newly elected Congress that will probably tell him to neuter his climate change agenda or be prepared for the kind of knock-down, drag-out fight that could potentially end with a government shutdown.”
This is not the first time greens have expressed open contempt for democracy. Who can forget former NASA GISS chairman James Hansen’s glowing praise of the Chinese way of doing things http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/18/hansen-would-rather-have-us-ruled-by-china/ , or even more blatant calls for anti-democratic extremes, such as Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki’s call for people who disagree with him to be jailed? http://www.nationalpost.com/Jail+politicians+ignore+climate+science+Suzuki/290513/story.html
The utter contempt greens hold for democracy, or for anything which empowers ordinary people to obstruct their ruthless pursuit of their goals, is in my opinion a trait they share with other villains from the pages of history.
A belief in imminent catastrophe is a moral slippery slope – if someone truly believes the world is on the brink of destruction, what wouldn’t that person do to stop their nightmare from being realised? What crime could possibly be more awful than a horrific vision of the whole world dying?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. In the case of deep greens, that road to hell is paved with their utter, unshakeable belief that they know better than other people what is good for them, and with a totalitarian willingness to override the concerns and rights of others, in a singleminded effort to realise their warped vision of global salvation.
obama the anti-American president trying to do as much damage as he can. He is doubtless jealous of the control the communist party has over the Chinese people.
Let’s not forget that the Anthropocene Age Paradigm is a scientific paradigm. In this model, all human activities trigger “tipping points” in natural systems, on a “fragile earth.”
This scientific paradigm shift began in the 60’s. In her book Apocalyptics, Edith Efron revealed the early science which began with the assumption that all chemicals are guilty carcinogens. This includes 10,000 chemicals used in modern applications, which are being studied solely for the purpose of convicting them of causing cancer or harming the environment.
It is only natural that this scientific paradigm has now fingered carbon dioxide from power generation, methane from cattle, nitrous oxide from crops, and various refrigerants, etc. as harmful to the environment.
The imagined, fantasy scientific results of the harm of chemicals we have used also does not respect dose; in other words, if a chemical can be proved to be harmful in high doses, then it always must be reduced to zero exposure by environmental policy. That is the science.
Again, this scientific paradigm shift has been a long time in the making, and has nothing to do at all with religious people, who in most cases are the victims of these endless abstracts of pot-smoking hippy drivel, and in any case can be demonstrated to be vigorously excluded and slandered by the practitioners who have been developing this paradigm. I would advise the Anthropocene Age is more a poster for paradigm shifts, as Kuhn envisioned them in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions. AGW and ghg is only a subcomponent of this scientific paradigm shift. It extends to all of agriculture and many harmless substances used to protect plants and domestic animals.
Religion is not to blame for this. Why don’t you look at the history of top down scientific paradigm shifts such as Lysenkoism and eugenics, and agricultural disasters in China started by government scientists, and be honest about the real history of science? Then people might benefit from the discussion. Recatagorising this as if it is religion is cute. It is also not the case. Not to pick on E. Worrall, who is using spiritual terms such as “salvation” to describe the Science of the Anthropocene Age. A lot of people here are committing this same misattribution.
+97
The agreement, is that China does not have to reduce emissions until “around” 2030, 16 years from now, while the US severely cuts carbon emissions, by 28% by 2025 (from 2005 levels).
Kerry says the new, clean energy that will replace fossil fuels will create jobs and grow the economy.
Like global climate models that are based on a theory that hasn’t held up in the real world, the replacement of fossil fuels with expensive, unreliable energy will also fail miserably.
We live in Indiana, where 84% of our electricity comes from coal fired power plants.
It is an absolute certainty, that shutting down coal fired power plants will impose great and painful costs………to the economy and especially the poor.
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=IN
Facts:
“Indiana ranked seventh among the states in coal production in 2012, and coal-fired electric power plants provided about 84% of Indiana’s net electricity generation in 2013.”
“Indiana’s industrial sector, which includes manufacturers of aluminum, chemicals, glass, metal casting, and steel, consumed more energy in 2011 than the residential and commercial sectors combined.”
Incredible that the country which has the worst pollution problem is doing the least and the country that has made great progress in severely cutting REAL pollution of the last 5 decades is doing the most………..and the opposite of what it should do, which is to provide more, not less CO2 to benefit life on this planet.
I believe that China will be spending the next 16 years working on cutting their real pollution, not the beneficial CO2 stuff. Unlike many countries led astray by the completely false, CO2=pollution scam, China clearly knows better.
It’s clear that they will be the clear, number 1 world power in short order.
Not that I care, other than wanting my country to make wise decisions that help its citizens to do well and at the same time, practice good stewardship of the planet. Wasting 10’s of billions fighting a beneficial gas that could be spent fighting real pollution in the air, water and soils is a ruinous policy for all creatures on this planet, especially the humans.
lest we forget:
PoliticalHumor.about.com: Funny Audio Clips of Classic Bushisms
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” (LAUGHTER)
President-elect George W. Bush, at a photo-op with congressional leaders during his first trip to Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000…
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-dictatorship.htm
in 2011, NYT claimed Obama said similar, but it was never sourced, tho it attracted a lot of MSM coverage. research suggests an anonymous aide said he once said it to “aides”:
NYT: Obama Seeks a Course of Pragmatism in the Middle East
By MARK LANDLER and HELENE COOPER
Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/world/africa/11policy.html?_r=0
With Obama and the green mafia making a deal with China I can help but think of the old poker adage. ” if you’re at the table and you don’t see a sucker, it’s you.” From the comments on the gordian it’s as if they live in some alternate universe.
NYT Graphics: Charting carbon emissions targets pledged by President Obama & President Xi Jinping of China
https://twitter.com/nytgraphics/status/532626387468050433/photo/1
12 Nov: Reuters: UPDATE 2-China, US agree limits on emissions, but experts see little new
“The statement is a upbeat signal to motivate other countries but the timeline China has committed to is not a binding target,” said Li Junfeng, an influential Chinese climate policy adviser linked to China’s state planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission…
Li, the climate policy adviser, said Beijing was not expected to make any significant new commitments next year, adding that it would also be wise not to expect too much of the United States.
China will not look to America to take action against climate change, he said…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/12/china-usa-climatechange-idUSL3N0T21YK20141112
US is on the trend anyway, if not lower 🙂
Yahoo also report a lack of substance.
“China’s top climate change negotiator on Friday defended the vagueness of Beijing’s target to peak carbon emissions “around 2030”, suggesting developed nations may need to make more ambitious cuts.
China, the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide which scientists say causes global warming, has resisted pledging to cut emissions but this week announced a rough date by which it aims to stop them rising.
“The state of our economy in 2030 is still uncertain, so as a responsible country we also need to make responsible targets which we can be sure to meet,” Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of China’s powerful National Development and Reform Commission, told reporters in Beijing.
Xie added that the target, announced on Wednesday during a visit by US President Barack Obama, was not yet legally binding and would have to be approved at five year intervals by China’s rubber-stamp parliament, the National People’s Congress.”
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/china-climate-negotiator-defends-flexible-carbon-target-073210530.html#lod5SNx
All greens should move to China. Not in the major cities but out in the rural areas where they can learn first hand what it’s like to live without all the modern conveniences they currently enjoy.
I don’t think the ChiComs are looking for more citizens.
Especially citizens that feel compelled to speak out against their government in nasty ways.
Look at what china is actually doing. Heavy investing in ALL types of energy. They lead in renewables recently but also continue to do so with coal. Is this energy security or a green mindset? Well air pollution and water pollution barely register there so the much more transient co2 driven warming surely doesnt either. 670k humans die there a year from air pollution Ive read.
they are making the worlds biggest carbon trading scheme! Except the goal of it is to lower carbon per unit of GDP. If you look at the data, then they are close to the worst on this stat, and the literally could continue to use more coal for decades and if they continue to gain wealth at the expected rates they will MORE THAN meet this target even though they expect to continue to close to double use of coal in the next 15 years. Its smoke and mirrors. Heck if they had a true compulsion to meet this stat and otherwise failed they could just inflate their currencies value and meet it that way if they wanted to. It is interesting to note the US is pretty good on this stat in global terms, meanwhile carbon per capita is much much higher then most places here. In fact it is unlikely china EVER matches us in this stat, even though per person they are very unlikely to ever come close to matching us. WUWT should run the numbers on all that, I have, its very clear propaganda.
So if anyone thinks china is doing good? My take is they are either lying and want to end the argument that we have no reason to act when others wont, OR this isnt about the environment at all and they just like chinas authoritarianism. Otherwise pretending china is on a green track when they are 50 plus years behind the US with basic obvious enviro controls like legitimate air or water pollution, just doesnt add up.
“670k humans die there a year from air pollution Ive read.”
Jostein Nygaard (World Bank) says it is more like 850,000 but in both cases the figures are based on linear extrapolations with tiny exposure causing a few whole deaths.
But is there a sting in the tail? Suppose a price is put on emitting CO2 and China is emitting the most, and the USA is cutting the most. It means China has to pay the US, maybe by cancelling some of the national debt. Maybe this is a way to deal with the Federal debt crisis.
Fortunately there’s no way President Obama can get the 2/3 vote in the Senate he needs to adopt this thing. Even the outgoing Senate has only 52 Democrats out of 100 members.
The Guardian has it wrong again.
US is an oligarchy, not a democracy. That’s what peer reviewed science says.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
So it is not necessary to convince the American people or Congress, but only the Neocon oligarchs.
That can only be done by proving that action against so called climate change will hurt “our” so-called enemies, such as Russia, Iran Syria or South American countries (who, in a democracy, would actually be our natural allies).
Linda2001
November 13, 2014 at 1:59 pm
“So it is not necessary to convince the American people or Congress, but only the Neocon oligarchs.”
99 year old David Rockefeller would object to describing him as anything “Neo”.
The US constitution (assuming it matters after this president) defines the US as a “representative democracy”.
The Federalist Papers were published in newpapers by authors of the draft constitution to educate the public and encourage ratification of the constitution; they go to great lengths to explain the differences between a “democracy” and a “representative democracy”.
Yes,let’s definitely go with the settled science of two obscure professors who’ve made a career out of publishing leftist screeds decrying income and influence inequality.
Here’s a free tip: when someone does a ‘scientific study’ to ‘prove’ a nebulous theory that they’ve already published either academically or worse, commercially, as fact, then it’s prudent to regard that study with a boatload of skepticism.
As rants go, that was a pretty good one.
No wonder Scotland wanted to get out of Britain with the Guardian around.
MCourtney,
I am much with you minus the left-wing part. Socially, I’m quite liberal, but fiscally almost 180 degrees the opposite. I self declare as an “independent”. Having said that, when I need feedback or wish to discuss issues to garner others perspectives, I find it of no value to be in a room with those who think like I do. I find it much more educational to get a “feel” for what’s behind the thinking as opposed to the just the “thinking”. Sometimes I find just vitriol, but often I find substance. For me, this applies on both sides of the climate discussion, and I think you and I are exceptions.
It would be refreshing to get the “scientists” in the same room, remove the chairs, put up a white board and have them go at it. This, it seems, would bring us closer to settling the unsettled science.
I don’t think this would work. As long as we have people in the green camp, who seriously argue that we should accept the CO2 theory as the default argument, even though there is a much simpler theory – natural variation – which can easily accommodate climate shifts of the magnitude which have been observed, the two sides are not even speaking the same language.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/22/occams-razor-and-climate-change/
We are speaking the same language.
They just have to define Occam’s Razor. And then we do also.
Then we start talking about risk.
Danny Thomas, I’m actually quite socially conservative (as the traditional family has a proven track record of bettering the lot of the next generation) but fiscally a Marxist. And I do find that material dialecticism is a helpful approach to issues.
So I guess we ain’t that alike in opinions.
But testing our opinions is the first step towards knowledge. I truly respect your humility and courage in seeking debate on “foreign turf”, Awkwardly, this means I acknowledge you are smart and yet I still disagree with you. Hmm.
Helpful humility forced all round – Huzzah!
MCourtney,
Hmmmm. Diametric opposites, in the same room? All we need is that white board! Socially I’m more from the “I don’t care what you do and you shouldn’t care what I do, as long as we don’t injure each other” camp. Fiscally, it’s “don’t spend it without good reason” but then who’s the arbiter of “good reason” eh?
Eric doesn’t think this would work. But maybe we’ve shown that it might. Even if coming at it from two opposite political ends, it appears our methods are similar. Interesting.
Danny Thomas, it seems we aren’t as far apart as we thought.
Socially I’m also in the “I don’t care what you do and you shouldn’t care what I do, as long as we don’t injure each other” camp but also the “Nuclear families work best and should be presented as the first to be considered before alternatives” camp. From my personal experience that even people who have gay lifestyles don’t wish homosexuality for their grandkids’ parents.
Completely agree.
Yet, I think enabling more opportunities allows most potential benefits. And the poorest in society benefit most per £ they have to spend – most new opportunities given. As an optimist about people’s goodness I like progressive taxation (although my fiancé prefers less so).
To me, transferring opportunities to the poor is the best reason. As resources provide opportunities.
Oh, I am very left-wing. Perhaps we are as far apart as we thought.
This white board seems to be a fairly effective communications tool. By removing the labels, we seem to indeed be finding common ground. My “nuclear” family was a bit disfunctional. But my siblings and I are reasonable contributors to society. My extended family has folks of all sorts from traditional, to gay, to bi-racial and on. And I love them all.
I also believe we should assist those less fortunate by helping them lift themselves up, but part of that is selfish in that I see in it a benefit to us all.
Maybe we should implement this white board experiment elsewhere? It would be interesting to observe the results.
MCourtney
November 13, 2014 at 2:48 pm
“To me, transferring opportunities to the poor is the best reason. As resources provide opportunities.”
You mean transferring money. Well I try to maximize my effectiveness. Meaning Marxism has turned me into a slacker. (The German tax system is Marxist. Progressive taxation was one of the 10 demands in the Communist Manifesto.)
Oh aye; helping my fellow man helps me, yes I know.
Nothing wrong in being that selfish.
I want to help others I love too.
Glad your family are doing OK. Good luck to them, and to all.
DirkH, Yes. Progressive taxation is required by the Communist Manifesto. And also by me.
Opportunities without requiring money would be the alternative. That loses the efficiency of a shared currency. Their punishment is failure – harsh (meh).
Would people having and wasting the opportunity be an objection?
Not in my opinion.
The mean average result will be people having and making the word a better place, as they seek to grab it. They could just cling to the life raft and never seek to reach the tropical island beaches… but why would they?
I believe the best about people.
Anybody notice how China is stealing our military technology but not our clean air technology? Yes, I am sure our air was once as bad as China’s, but we hadn’t yet figured out how to clean it up. China has three options. They can steal the technology, they can buy the technology or they can live in pollution. They have decided on the third option because that is how a dictatorship functions.
In a free country you are free to protest bad living conditions but most often it’s taken care of by the election process. In China you have Tiananmen square.
The US “clean rtechnology” was exporting dirty industries to China.
China can continue to open one coal fired power station per week until 2030. By then they could have enough breeder reactors producing power to stop increasing and even close some old CO2 producers.
Any senator not in a liberal bastion who would vote for this “deal” should expect to loose his/her job in the next cycle.
A veto proof senate would be nice.
And what total RUBES the US, the State Department and Ohbombus are! The Chinese will sign anything, say anything, and turn around and do WHATEVER IS BEST FOR CHINA. (Which, of course, means burning as much “fossil fuels” as it takes to run their country, USA be damned or ignored.
Someone I know well, with a 20 year career at Motorola (retired 10 years ago) has kept me apprised of the
fact that in about 2004, what was left of Motorola (1996 – 270,000 employees, 2006, 15,000 employees, bye bye MOT) sued their Chinese contractors in World Court for $2 Billion in damages. “You took all our intellectual property and used it for your own purposes…” They (MOT) whined. The world court AGREED WITH THE CHINESE: “Trade Secrets, Patents, actual lithography masks for semi-conductors, methods, production equipment..you sent/gave us all of them.” We gave you the production you contracted for, but the fact is you GAVE IT ALL TO US, and we intent to use it.” Morality? OUR “standards” of “fair play”, regulations, etc. SO SORRY, not the way we work.
This in NO WAY means the Chinese cannot do good production. Cannot be trusted on work, say, maintaining jet engines (their engines are maintained at the same facilities). BUT it’s like, “YOU GIVE US THE FARM, WE ARE GOING TO FARM IT…” How can I make it more clear. They’ll “agree” to anything. (FOR FACE AND SHOW.) What they will do, is ONLY that which net benefits them. Ohbombus has
given them the FARM and all the equipment with it. They are going to PLANT and HARVEST…and laugh at US while we are starving
I alway though it was a bad idea for Apple to move it’s production to China and I see they now agree. My next computer will be made in another country – Texas.
Actually, it was Russia who guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Curious George, non sequiteur..
But, on the irrelevant subject, it was the UK who guaranteed Israel’s territorial integrity.
Is the UK going to send a column into Jerusalem and (think about this generally) why not?
Wasn’t it the Soviet Union. (A Wall Street creation)
I thought we were discussing how much we should trust governments.
You refuse to argue? That means I win.
Max; the deal was always, if you want to play in China you enter a joint venture with the Chinese state and China gets 51% of the shares.
So, what do you or Motorola complain about? Why would anyone who wants to keep control enter such a contract? The Chinese have not broken their word. They told you beforehand that they’ll have control.
BTW, don’t wear light colored clothes in Beijing.
Jo cut right to the chase with respect to 2030. Once again proving the US has a vacuum of leadership!
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/11/why-did-china-pick-2030-oh-look/
America always does the right thing – after exhausting all alternatives. (W. Churchill)
There were no pictures during this recent foray abroad, which showed Obama in a deep bowing posture before the Chinese President. However, in light of the measures which Obama willingly agreed to subject the US citizenry, it is certain that he bent over.
The hard core AGW ,we’re cooking , just you wait , reminds me of California preacher Harold Camping predictions of it all ending . It staggered from one failed date to next and i suppose it did end for him ,eventually .
VERY WELL SPOKEN! And they think that communism is the way to achieve their goals, their own version of communism, of course.
Thanks, Eric Worrall. This is sad.
The Guardian, of what?
Country’s concern with AGW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country
It’s not the Chinese obedience that surprises me, it’s that they have such powerful Jedi mind skills over the US President to make him give away the farm in return for symbolic gestures.
Steven Goddard shows how absurd Obama’s “deal” was, in chart form.
KTM
November 13, 2014 at 2:58 pm
“It’s not the Chinese obedience that surprises me, it’s that they have such powerful Jedi mind skills over the US President ”
Probably not mind tricks but simple clout. They own JP Morgan’s headquartes (and 60% of Manhattan commercial real estate) (and maybe you should consider renaming the Fed to the People’s Fed…)
Not only will the new Congress use this ridiculous agreement for toilet paper, the lame duck Senate is desperately trying to drop a Keystone Pipeline authorization on Obama’s desk in order to save a single Louisiana senator.
Once again I do not blame democrats for acting like politicians, I blame organizations such as the WaPo and NYT for pretending for generations to provide journalism instead of naked advocacy. If there is blame to be heaped, look no further than our 4th estate.
I had the impression that China was applying their very much needed air pollution correction as a hedge against the West’s green agenda, which is very clever indeed. Of course if the U.S. and Europe even discern this, it will still be politically spun to support the Greenies.