Obama's Climate Deal with China Backfires

Emboldened China Plays $100 Billion Trump Card

hu-obama-pokerChina offered new details on its commitment to rein in greenhouse gases and called on rich nations to speed up delivery of the $100 billion in annual climate-related aid they’ve promised by 2020. Su Wei, China’s lead climate negotiator, coupled his comments on China’s commitment with a call to accelerate funding for climate aid, shifting the pressure to industrialized nations, led by the U.S. and European Union, to do their part toward reaching an agreement next year.  The “$10 billion is just one 10th of that objective,” and “we do not have any clear road map of meeting that target for 2020,” Su said. Climate aid is “a trust-building process,” he added. Alex Morales and Reed Landberg, Bloomberg, 5 December 2014

Rich nations’ pledges of almost $10 billion to a green fund to help poor nations cope with global warming are “far from adequate,” particularly Australia’s lack of a donation, the head of China’s delegation at U.N. climate talks said on Thursday. Su Wei also urged all rich nations to deepen their planned cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, signaling that a joint Chinese-U.S. announcement of greenhouse gas curbs last month does not mean an end to deep differences on climate policy. —Reuters, 5 December 2014

Source: Dr. Benny Peiser and the GWPF

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 5, 2014 4:45 am

You mean it’s about the money???

Reply to  Dobes
December 5, 2014 3:29 pm

“When a fellow says, it hain’t the money but the principle o’ the thing, it’s th’ money.”
Kin Hubbard

Reply to  Dobes
December 5, 2014 7:12 pm

Money is no problem.
Mr. Obama will be happy to have the Fed “quantitative-ease” all the required billons.

James the Elder
Reply to  BernardP
December 6, 2014 2:32 pm

Just did that with the trillion dollar note the Chinese called in. Their response to another hit on the RMB will be interesting I’m sure.

Reply to  Dobes
December 6, 2014 1:38 am

The “deal” the US brokered with China is so bad as to be almost unbelievable. Giving away the farm to gain a legacy.
China’s strategy is clear to anyone that takes the time to listen to them. The Chinese have not forgotten the humiliating concessions they were forced to grant the developed nations 150+ years ago. They intend to repay the humiliation with interest.
With their agreement with the US, China has now placed itself above reproach. China can continue expanding emissions as fast as it wants for at least 16 more years. The developed nations can cut their emissions to zero and China will be more than happy to make up the difference.
In return China has repeatedly made it clear that it will lead the developing nations in demanding that the developed nations pay the $100 billion a year they have promised. How soon folks forget China led the 132 country walk out of the Warsaw conference. Clearly a trial run for 2015.
It is clear that China intends to humiliate the developed nations in 2015 for failing to make good on their $100 billion a year commitment, and thereby shift the blame for the collapse of any climate agreement on the west. Even though they are the worlds biggest source of emissions, China is completely free of controls for the foreseeable future.
In return, the developed countries will be left with no choice. Either they will have to pay up, or they will be blamed for any future damage due to climate change, with the possibility of greater claims for damages going forward. Extortion 101. Payback time.

Reply to  ferdberple
December 6, 2014 1:55 am

No wonder, it’s the Chinese style.

Reply to  ferdberple
December 8, 2014 5:51 pm

Can you really blame China for exploiting the stupidity of Western governments? The Chinese government wants economic growth and a better standard of living for its citizens.

December 5, 2014 4:50 am

I always said it was going to end up with a pile of rabidly converted 3rd worlders with hands out for funds..
for climate events that are NOT happening.
so lets see all the greentards start handing their pretty lavish funding over, WWF oxfam and all the rest sucking up taxfree handouts for spurious warming, better to hand it over to the poor now..really;-)
Petard , hoisted

Bill Marsh
December 5, 2014 4:55 am

Given that China now has the largest economy in the world, are they not amongst (if not the ‘leader’ of) the ‘rich nations’?

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Bill Marsh
December 5, 2014 5:04 am

China is 2nd richest and a long way behind the USA, for the moment. Another 6yrs of socialism in the west will see that change.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
December 5, 2014 5:47 am

No, china has now passed the US, and we are funding them. Thanks, O!

Richard G
Reply to  Stephen Richards
December 5, 2014 10:06 am

I believe China just passed the U.S. in GDP.

Mark T
Reply to  Stephen Richards
December 5, 2014 5:25 pm

Not even close to the “2nd richest.” They have around 5 times as many people, and nearly the same GDP. Do the math, that’s rather poor.

John S.
Reply to  Stephen Richards
December 5, 2014 5:50 pm

You want do go for GDP per capita, then the U.S. is in 10th place.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
December 6, 2014 2:54 am

China has as many billionaires as the US and more millionaires.

Reply to  Bill Marsh
December 5, 2014 5:23 am

No, no, no. China is a poor developing country, this has been decided by the UN itself, when it comes to dividing the world into rich and poor in the climate discussion. South Korea is also a poor developing nation, which has nevertheless heroically offered to host the Green Climate Fund secretariat. No doubt they buckle under the pressure, but some sacrifices must be made to save the planet.
The money which has trickled in so far, has at least made it possible to set them up in style, but not sure how much has beeen allocated to other poor cousins.
“The commitment from developed countries is meant to ramp up to the already-promised $100 billion per year in climate aid by 2020.”
I doubt very much that this “promise” is anything more than a vague intent. Not even climate negotiators have anything like that power to promise such sums from their governments.

Reply to  ConTrari
December 5, 2014 8:40 am

The sums do not come from governments , but from voters and taxpayers . Do we not have a say?

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  ConTrari
December 5, 2014 10:18 am

I want register as someone who needs help coping with climate change. My Ontario hydro bill has tripled in recent years to fund windmills and solar panels on remote farms. It is incredibly cold and heating the house is a lot more expensive that it used to be.
Where do I apply?

Reply to  ConTrari
December 6, 2014 3:03 am

Do we not have a say?
every four years you get a choice. do I elect a crook or an incompetent?

Reply to  Bill Marsh
December 5, 2014 6:07 am

Largest economy on an absolute basis, on a per-capita basis, they are well down the list.

Reply to  MarkW
December 5, 2014 11:28 am

We’re catching up (or is it down?) fast!

Reply to  MarkW
December 5, 2014 11:45 am

I totally agree we pay them based on a per-capita basis.

Rank 	Country 	        Int$
1 	 Qatar 	               145,894
2 	 Luxembourg 	        90,333
3 	 Singapore 	        78,762
4 	 Brunei 	        73,823
5 	 Kuwait 	        70,785
6 	 Norway 	        64,363
7 	 United Arab Emirates 	63,181
8 	 San Marino[6][7] 	62,766
9 	  Switzerland

[Rather, “I totally agree THEY pay US based on a per-capita basis.”?? .mod]

Evan Jones
Reply to  Bill Marsh
December 5, 2014 11:55 pm

They are indeed relatively poor, per capita, and that’s because there is not enough electricity generation. It’s surprisingly naive of the west to imagine that China has any bigger issue than that or that they will bargain with us in good faith over that issue at the present time.
Don’t get me wrong. I wish China (and India, Africa, et al.) the best of luck. A rising tide lifts all boats. America will in all likelihood see its golden age — as the #2 power. Moreso than if we were #1, in absolute terms, at that.
But in our current situation, it is not realistic that we can expect to deal with China (or India) in what we consider to be good faith on this issue. Especially not with deals that bring the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement forcibly to mind.

Reply to  Bill Marsh
December 6, 2014 1:59 am

China just surpassed the US as the largest economy on earth. With much higher growth rates than the US, the RMB is poised to become the global currency to rival the USD, and to end US political dominance via the World Bank. Need to build a new coal fired power plant? World Bank will only lend money to buy solar panels and windmills? Talk to China, they have money to lend.
Unless something changes drastically, the Chinese economy by 2030 will dwarf the US and EU combined, on a scale we don’t fully appreciate. The pace of development in China is a modern marvel. Forget labels like socialism and capitalism. China is a consumer economy, with 400 million online shoppers, and another 600 million in waiting. The chance for a better future drives society. Ideology simply holds people back.

December 5, 2014 4:59 am

Australia will lead! In the sanity department. IN the climate wars, Abbott is the new Churchill.

Roger Alsop
Reply to  philjourdan
December 5, 2014 5:22 am

I agree!

Reply to  philjourdan
December 5, 2014 7:35 am

How about a Churchhill bumper sticker:
Warming at the observed rate has been beneficial.
The only thing we have to fear is fear (mongering) itself!

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
December 5, 2014 3:31 pm

Very dangerous and expensive.
Here in Australia if you put anything other than a leftist bumper sticker on your car, you will be paying a very expensive repair bill after your car is vandalized.
As is always with the left, free speech for all provided you all speak left.

December 5, 2014 5:02 am

Since most of the candidates he supported lost the November election, perhaps Tom Steyer could pony up the funds to combat climate change, no doubt something that concerns him deeply.

Al McEachran
Reply to  Dave
December 5, 2014 7:37 am

China has overplayed its hand. Steyer and company have been given a free ride because no one cares about the rhetoric. Nations have simply made a pledge to contribute 10b$ to the green fund. When it comes time to pass legislation to actually spend this money heads will roll. Multiply this tenfold and you have armageddon for the AGW scam.
Maybe I am underestimating China and this is their end game.

Reply to  Al McEachran
December 5, 2014 10:14 am

China has probably played its best hand. If there is a failure to deliver the pledged money then China can renege on it’s pledge to stabilize it’s co2 emissions by 2030. Why do you think they have come out with this statement now?

Reply to  Al McEachran
December 5, 2014 10:22 am

Grrrrr, I meant “its” not “it’s”.

Reply to  Al McEachran
December 5, 2014 11:45 am

“If there is a failure to deliver the pledged money then China can renege on its pledge to stabilize it’s co2 emissions by 2030.”
And also it poses as being a friend of the third world with this “call,” trying to forestall their criticism of it when it refuses to sign on to any binding deal in Paris.

Reply to  Al McEachran
December 6, 2014 2:32 am

any binding deal in Paris
are we going to start bombing countries that fail to live up to their emissions agreements? or maybe sanctions? maybe obama can give them a stern talking-to.
how exactly is any “binding deal” actually going to be binding?

Stephen Richards
December 5, 2014 5:03 am

Obama is a clown. What did anyone expect from a social organiser. Total, utter, complete halfwit. LoL The chinese and the russia are piss taking and the idiot hasn’t noticed.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
December 5, 2014 7:57 am

They peed in his boots and told him it was unprecedented rains triggered by runaway global warming.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
December 5, 2014 12:29 pm

And he still hasn’t figured out how to empty them, even with the instructions on the heel.

December 5, 2014 5:05 am

In short China is not merely happy for other to shoot themselves in the foot ecomonically they have some suggestions as to where people can put the bullent too.

December 5, 2014 5:06 am

“$10 billion is just one 10th of that objective,” and “we do not have any clear road map of meeting that target for 2020,”
But…the agreement is that rich nations shall give 100 billion dollars EVERY YEAR, it is not the captial of the fund which has this amount. Or if it is, it must be completely renewed every year. Has anyone seriously believed this could be remotely realistic?
“The fund is meant to be the biggest single funding route for the $100bn (£63bn) that developed countries have pledged should flow to poor nations each year by 2020, to help them cut greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the effects of global warming.”
How large would a fund which provides 100 bilion a year in surplus need to be? 2000 billion at least I should think. Well it’s soon Christmas time, but still!

December 5, 2014 5:16 am

China now largest economy http://on.mktw.net/1BksiJG

Bill Illis
December 5, 2014 5:16 am

Lots of countries pledge $billions to UN-led efforts but they rarely provide the actual funds. The Green Climate Fund received only $55M in real contributions by the end of June,2014.
Let’s watch to see how much actually gets provided over time.

George Tetley
December 5, 2014 5:17 am

Can anybody help this idiot out? I want the name of just one of the Presidents advisers that joined the dots together and give him the right advise in the last 6 years!!!!

Alan Robertson
Reply to  George Tetley
December 5, 2014 5:35 am

It was all Left advice.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Alan Robertson
December 5, 2014 6:52 am


December 5, 2014 5:23 am

China are playing Western politicians for the fools they are, quite beautifully.
* Disregard all invitations to commit to any serious cuts in carbon. This drives Western politicians crazy.
* Hold back from making any premature commitment whatsoever to ascertain precisely how stupid your opponents are (and don’t interrupt them while they’re making their mistakes).
* Having established you’re dealing with jaw-dropping, planet-sized stupidity, request more cash than you could possibly imagine for ‘climate reparations’.
* Strike a serious-looking pose and state; ‘this is a serious problem created by the West’!
* Sit tight-lipped while your commercial opponents agree to hand over untold tens of $billions – to pay for infrastructure you would have installed yourselves anyway.
* Nod approvingly, bow deeply and remind the West that ‘while this is a start, it cannot be the finish’ and that you’ll be back soon for some more cash to Save The Planet From The Problem Caused By The Wicked, Selfish West.
* Go home, count the money and laugh yourselves hoarse.
* Rinse, repeat.

Reply to  cheshirered
December 5, 2014 5:29 am

“* Strike a serious-looking pose and state; ‘this is a serious problem created by the West’!”
Well yes, it is that. Mann and all his men made it.

Reply to  cheshirered
December 5, 2014 9:03 am

Good one, red. I have been watching the Chinese play our governments for years.

December 5, 2014 5:27 am

“a joint Chinese-U.S. announcement of greenhouse gas curbs last month does not mean an end to deep differences on climate policy.”
Hello, Paris! And may you live in interesting times.

December 5, 2014 5:33 am

It has always been about money and control . The science was manipulated and corrupted to support the demand for money for United Nations . Where is this money going to come from? More taxes.. North America is going to be taxed more to fight global warming even though the North American climate has actually been cooling for nearly two decades as annual temperatures in United States have been declining since 1998 or 17 years , so it has very little to do with science or protecting the environment . People all over the world are waking up to this fact. as we saw in this world wide poll.
GLOBAL TRENDS 2014 SURVEY by IPSOS –MORI OF 16,035 persons in 20 countries between September 3 and 0ctober 15 in 2013 found the following . The question was
US 50%

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  herkimer
December 5, 2014 10:23 am

The Premier of Ontario said early this week that a carbon tax would be used to raise money to pay for additional programs the province needs – nothing to do with ‘climate change’ mind you, just a way to get more money.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
December 6, 2014 2:38 am

end climate change – tax the co2 in beer
end poverty – tax the poor
end stupidity – tax politicians

Reply to  herkimer
December 5, 2014 10:52 am

herkimer: Of course the government is using the environment to tax us more, as per:
United Nations – Our Global Neighbourhood – 1995
“To keep global resource use within prudent limits while the poor raise their living standards, affluent societies need to consume less. Population, consumption, technology, development and the environment are linked in complex relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the global neighbourhood. Their effective and equitable management calls for a systemic, long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable development, which has been the central lesson from the mounting ecological dangers of recent times. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of global governance.”
Give us ‘Your Money’ and we will make the world a better place for you!!!
One world government is the ultimate end game!

Jerry Henson
December 5, 2014 5:34 am

Define poor.
China+Hong Cong has a reserve of over 4.2 trillion in USD. Us currency reserve is $448 billion, according to current world bank numbers.

Reply to  Jerry Henson
December 5, 2014 7:20 pm

China+Hong Cong [sic] has a reserve of over 4.2 trillion in USD. Us currency reserve is $448 billion, according to current world bank numbers.

As of Septmber 2014, China’s treasury securities holdings are $1,266,300,000,000. Hong Kong’s are $159,000,000,000 for a total of $1,425,300,000,000, or $1.4T.
Even though the Fed now holds more treasury securities than Chinabecause of Quantitative Easing,* it’s completely immaterial. The US federal government issues the currency. There is no factory in downtown China making USD that we borrow. Does. Not. Happen. That’s the equivalent of a global-warming-causes-honey bees-to-buy-igloos argument.
The US Treasury trades $500 billion to nearly $1 trillion in treasury securities every single day.
I don’t know what the World Bank could be referring to for US holdings, could be part of the amount the US donated to the World Bank.
Quantitative Easing (QE) is not what the know-nothing TV pundits have been telling you. The Federal Reserve has two types of accounts: checking and savings, just like your own bank. (Forget the Fed’s fancy names) Treasury securities are always held in Fed savings accounts, or your bank’s savings account at the Fed, even if you buy them as an individual. Always. Think of them as government CDs. For QE, the Fed buys treasury securities on the open market from ‘primary dealers’, the only ones allowed to sell them (great work if you can get it). The Fed now owns the treasury security, and the seller has the cash. The majority of sellers who put their treasury securities up for sale with the primary dealers are banks, who park their cash savings ***in excess of $250Gs*** in treasury securities because the FDIC only insures commercial bank accounts up to $250Gs.
As I said, the Fed now owns the treasury security, and it is now getting the monthly interest, instead of the seller in the private sector. That means QE actually removes that interest money from the real economy. Last year that interest was around $100 billion. At the end of the year, by law since 1947, the Federal Reserve returns those interest profits to the US Treasury, extinguishing $100 billion in currency. So why does the Federal Reserve do this ridiculous thing, essentially moving money from savings to checking? Because Democrats and Republicans have ZERO IDEA how the monetary system works and even less idea that it is their constitutional duty as Congressmen to enact fiscal policy and create jobs.
Here’s the golden rule: when the economy is in the tank (no sales) and unemployment is high, you do two things. (1) Increase spending, i.e. the deficit. (2) Cut taxes. Unemployment is always, always, always a sign that the deficit is too small.
[And I’m not buying the new job figures. It was hiring for Black Friday, etc, sales, which unfortunately turned out to be 10% below last year.]

December 5, 2014 5:41 am

If you think it is the science is settled and we should listen to the scientist , here is what the world said about that in the same survey.
US 43 %
So what is really happening ?
US 52 %

Reply to  herkimer
December 5, 2014 6:05 am

If certain climate-obsessed groups get their way perhaps we won’t have to worry anymore about that pesky, annoying and waste-of-time process of asking citizens what their opinions are on matters of importance…

Reply to  PiperPaul
December 5, 2014 11:33 am

It seems that is already the way it is in Europe, as the EU functions unelected.

December 5, 2014 5:44 am

Every so often on this site we see comments to the effect “oh please just talk about the science, don’t talk about politics.” Well, this kind of story is proof (as if any more was needed) that MONEY is what this entire “global warming” scam is about, and politics is all about how that money will be procured and divvied up. The “science” is now an almost trivial sideline to this story; it only exists as a way to provide a thin, gruberized cover for the actions of those who are striving for power and money.
We also hear people who wish we wouldn’t go into “motivations”, but when the motivations are so transparently about seizing power over the rest of us, then their motivations need to be pointed out – as Tim Ball did, and was sharply criticized for doing.
Now I don’t really blame the Chinese for taking advantage of all of this – that’s what the Chinese government has always done and will always do, and is a strikingly rational course of action from their point of view. The ones I blame are the charlatans in the US and western Europe who aid and abet this thievery, in the hope that they can grab a few personal crumbs of wealth in exchange for selling all of their fellow citizens out. Because that is exactly what they are doing.

Reply to  wws
December 5, 2014 8:02 am

@WWS – I do not think China is unique in that respect. Most countries would take money freely offered with no strings attached.

Reply to  philjourdan
December 5, 2014 3:05 pm

Badfinger…. or a Paul demo.

December 5, 2014 5:46 am

Wealth redistribution for global warming damages that do not exist. Awesome. This is perfectly part of the UN’s Agenda 21. Their plan is to make undeveloped countries dependent on charity from the developed countries such that they will never develop.
First, most of the funds will go to the governments and dictators and not to the people
Second, it would be counter-productive, from the point of view of the dictators or governments, to actually use these funds to decrease the poverty of their people. If they did so, their share of the charity pie would decrease. Instead, their goal will be to further impoverish their own people, feigning all kinds of normal weather events as unusual and extreme, to be able to demand a greater portion of the pie.
This is the UN’s plan to cripple poor countries from ever developing, while fatally bleeding the economies of developed countries to bring them down to the standard of living of the undeveloped, poor countries.
Their goal is to de-develop the Western World which they see as unsustainable. What they refuse to recognize is that it is developed countries that have the wealth, resources, and time to clean up environmental problems and put in place policies to prevent future problems. It is the poor countries who simply do not have the time or wealth to not pollute as their goal is to live through each day somehow.
The UN is Evil Incorporated and should be dissolved. It’s true agenda from its inception is now out in the open. Their 40 chapter Agenda 21 is even on their website for all to see.
Few people actually read the plan and even fewer are willing to believe that the UN is out of conquer the world and retire the human race to an agrarian, dirt-scratching society ruled by a powerful elite. As in Hunger Games, the elite (slave masters) will be partying 24/7 at the expense of the isolated Districts (the slaves), that are purposely cut off from each other to make them totally dependent not he largesse of the Capitol (slave masters).

December 5, 2014 5:47 am

No problem. Since the U.S. doesn’t have the money they can just borrow it… from China.

David A
Reply to  H.R.
December 5, 2014 5:55 am


Reply to  H.R.
December 5, 2014 7:50 am

I’ve got a hunch that’s actually the plan. Or, just print what they need…

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
December 5, 2014 11:07 am

The U.S. just did that. Print the money, that is.

Reply to  H.R.
December 5, 2014 8:05 am


David A
December 5, 2014 5:55 am

Wow, China agrees to INCREASE their emissions for two decades.
Obama takes credit for this great deal, and agrees to try to inflict more expense on the US NOW.
China then asks for funds NOW to support their increase in emissions and new coal fired power plants.
Obama is the smartest man in the room, if his goal is to cripple the US.

Coach Springer
Reply to  David A
December 5, 2014 8:20 am

If you’re a fundamentally harmful buffoon, goals are secondary to what comes natural.

Reply to  Coach Springer
December 5, 2014 10:26 am

No, this is not the case, no one is this stupid. When Michelle O. states just after her husband was elected that “this is the first time I have been proud of my country” you get an idea about these people. They have hate in their hearts. No buffoon could script what has happened to the USA in the last 30 years, this kind of power grab can only be attained by very, very smart people. Who are these people and what is really driving them, like these dudes: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2oczj8/science_ama_series_we_are_dr_david_reidmiller_and/

Ernest Bush
Reply to  David A
December 5, 2014 11:09 am

That is the goal of the Democrat Progressivist Party and they set up Obama to carry that out.

Scottish Sceptic
December 5, 2014 6:08 am

China saw Obama coming and took him to the cleaners. There’s only one country that wins when China “negotiates” and its not the US.

December 5, 2014 7:05 am

According to the International Business Times, US exports to China rose 300% in the last ten years and run at $100 billion/year, plus $35 billion/year to Hong Kong and they rose 100% for exports to the rest of the world.
Other sources show China is the third largest buyer of US goods and services, whereas, with the exception of HK (China’s biggest export destination – presumably it gets shipped onwards?) the US is China’s biggest market at about $370 billion/year. After 10 years, China gains $2.7 trillion from the US alone. And it tries everywhere to spend the current surplus (State money) of about $4 trillion – for example in Africa and Brazil, on projects that will earn it even more money.
A substantial proportion of this trading power has been built with Western and Japanese/Korean capital flows that also expect a good return (5-8% was once common). In reverse flow, Chinese investment abroad, particularly in the US, is strongly focussed upon real-estate ($14 billion/year) seen as a safe investment compared to China’s home property market bubble which many expect to burst.
Obama’s advisors are all aware of this dynamic, of course. One way of seeing it is to say that the US has to be sweet with China – and both know that $100/billion a year to impoverished climate-vulnerable states will never materialise (total was $55 million last year)! So it is all smoke and mirrors! I ignore the facial characteristics and past histories – and focus instead upon the same-same business suits and global capital flows. Now is the China of Everywhere! Only the office location of the bank managers has changed. And will change again when the Chinese bubble bursts – which should be about the same time as the globe cools and the global warming bubble bursts too!

Reply to  Peter Taylor
December 5, 2014 8:53 pm

US exports to China…run at $100 billion/year, plus $35 billion/year to Hong Kong and…the US is China’s biggest market at about $370 billion/year.

So, we’re $235 billion/year ahead?
Exports are a cost to our country (because we are outsourcing our resources). Imports are a benefit (because another country is using their resources to sell to us). Assuming full employment of our citizens, of course.

December 5, 2014 7:09 am

China treated Obama the way a powerful country treats a weak one: a vaguely stated face-saving photo-op so the weak leader can look good while the strong country commits to nothing it wasn’t already going to do. We have become a bankrupt banana-republic dependent on Chinese money to fund our debt–how else would you expect them to behave.

Reply to  tgasloli
December 5, 2014 8:25 pm

China treated Obama the way a powerful country treats a weak one: a vaguely stated face-saving photo-op so the weak leader can look good while the strong country commits to nothing it wasn’t already going to do.

Got that right, but I would say that China is laughing at the US. President, mocking him (which is very un-Chinese), even as it occupies the lesser position to the US. But George Osborne just opened up the first western market in Renminbi last week, the first step in the loss of reserve currency status for the US, so China is feeling its oats. It must be crowing over western stupidity.

We have become a bankrupt banana-republic dependent on Chinese money to fund our debt–how else would you expect them to behave.

Not a chance. China does not fund our debt. Not in a million years.
And we are not bankrupt. We, the US, are monetarily soveriegn. We cannot go broke. Unless Paul Ryan (an economic idiot) and Rachel Maddow (an insufferable bootlicker and polemicist) can convince the American people to demand the Government default.

David A
Reply to  policycritic
December 6, 2014 6:27 am

When the US dollar is no longer the world’s reserve currency our “sovereign” dollar will mean very little.

James the Elder
Reply to  policycritic
December 6, 2014 2:49 pm

Zimbabwe is also monetarily sovereign.

Reply to  policycritic
December 6, 2014 3:04 pm

David A December 6, 2014 at 6:27 am
When the US dollar is no longer the world’s reserve currency our “sovereign” dollar will mean very little.

Sure it will. It did in 1939 and 1940 when three US government economists used the fact that the US was no longer strangled by a gold standard domestically (1934) to plan for the war and do it effectively.
Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and Japan all have “sovereign” currencies. What sovereign means is that the countries issue their own currency, their own state ‘units of account’. Sovereign means they do not have to borrow money from other countries, banks, or bond vigilantes, to pay for debts incurred in their currencies.
The United States government can pay for anything in USD that the American people authorize it to spend on. No debt to children or grandchildren involved. The problem is the majority of the American people don’t know this; neither does Obama, Jacob Lew, and the majority of Congress. The blind leading the blind.
But the bankers know.
[If we cease to be the reserve currency, it will be no more momentous than the Britain Pound ceasing to the be the reserve currency in the 1950/60s. But it will mean the US federal government will no longer be able to buy fuel for its military with keystrokes, nor will it be able to pay for anything it wants to buy in USD from around the world…again, with keystrokes, because the sellers will be demanding payment in the new reserve currency. Hope I’m being clear.]

Reply to  policycritic
December 6, 2014 3:20 pm

James the Elder December 6, 2014 at 2:49 pm
Zimbabwe is also monetarily sovereign.

No, it isn’t. “Convertible currencies such as the South African Rand, Botswana Pula, British Pound, Euro, and the US Dollar are now used for all transactions in Zimbabwe.” Since 2009. Zimbabwe experienced it’s first real growth year in 15 years, 6%, in 2011. It has the world’s supply of platinum, and the diamond field discovered in 2006 was the greatest find in the last century. Still, it has a long way to come back to what it was before Rhodesia became Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe ditched the Rhodesian Dollar in 1980 when Mugabe came into power as PM. Domestic (mis)politics and involvement in other African wars reduced its value on the open market. A complete disaster, exacerbated by Mugabe’s destructive policies, which I’m sure you know led to the worse hyperinflation seen in modern history.

Reply to  policycritic
December 7, 2014 6:54 pm

Rubbish, you need to stop listening to economic theory which has no bearing on reality.
The ability to print a sovereign currency does not mean you cannot go broke. It means you have a choice between printing and default when that time comes, and the end game is ultimately the same (excessive printing leads to a devalued currency and implicit default).
It becomes a politcal choice of default now and take the pain, or print now and take the pain later. You cannot simply print ad infinitum without consequences, this is amply demonstrated over thousands of years of monetary debasement.
As for China’s GDP, GDP rises as debt rises. China’s debt has increased massively as they build for the sake of building. GDP figures are not a good basis for comparing economies.

Reply to  policycritic
December 8, 2014 6:08 pm


It means you have a choice between printing and default when that time comes, and the end game is ultimately the same (excessive printing leads to a devalued currency and implicit default).

I don’t know what country you’re from, but the US has a sovereign non-convertible currency with a floating exchange rate. It doesn’t “print money.” It did before 1933 when it was constrained by the amount of gold backing the paper currency up, but not since. In the US, Congress (per the constitution) appropriates spending. That enters ‘new money’ (or net financial assets) into the economy. on the non-government side, the people create new money called ‘credit money’ every time they take out a loan or use a credit card. The US cannot default unless some idiot in Congress gets his remaining congressmen to go along.

As for China’s GDP, GDP rises as debt rises.

GDP is Gross Domestic Product. It’s the simple measure of the domestic sale of all goods and services in an economy. Debt has nothing to do with it, in the sense that it is not tied to GDP.

December 5, 2014 7:19 am

And just to add – when trying to track how much the US gains from Chinese growth – with a particular interest in electric turbine technology…..that’s pretty murky too! All the major turbine makers – most especially those for wind turbines, now use parts from China. But Chinese makers are set to dominate the market with a $15 billion loan fund for projects overseas. European and US renewable energy companies can build cheaper products now thanks to China and compete better with fossil fuels, and China will provide cheap loans for development. My guess is that Europe and the US still lead on larger turbine technology, but renewables are where China takes the lead. That $100 billion/year global banking fund (based in Korea?) has to be spent and managed – but according to what criteria? It would buy a lot of Chinese turbines! Or is that also American turbines with Chinese parts financed by Chinese loans? Tricky, no?

December 5, 2014 7:23 am

China realizes they need customers to buy Chinese products and the best way to ensure they have a healthy customer base is to demand the industrial nations use money that could be used for manufacturing be given in fistfulls to third world populations so they can buy Chinese goods. That has the added benefit of keeping the cost of entry into manufacturing so high these poor nations will never be able to dig themselves out. Sweet.
We went through this with Obama’s “Cash for Clunkers” program which was a scheme to save the failing Japanese auto industry. That created huge piles of reclaimable raw materials that were shipped to China where they were converted to cheap junk they sold back to us. The Cash for Clunkers program was an impulse for Japan but not one of any useful duration and was a failure like all short-view programs.

December 5, 2014 7:27 am

The belief in the AGW Lysenkoism addles many Western political brains, but that AGW fraud has one beneficial side effect: “Global warming did serve a couple of useful purposes. The issue has been a litmus test for our political class. Any politician who has stated a belief in global warming is either a cynical opportunist or an easily deluded fool. In neither case should that politician ever be taken seriously again. No excuses can be accepted.”
To wit: http://tinyurl.com/ptgrz34 & http://tinyurl.com/ot2hlp4 & http://tinyurl.com/q4rtmvf

December 5, 2014 7:40 am

Confucius say; Man who speak with forked tongue able to tell twice as many half-truths.

William Astley
December 5, 2014 7:41 am

Our Asian friend China advises the Western countries to spend money they do have. The developing country climate mitigation fund ($100 billion/year) will be sent to an ineffective UN bureaucracy which will in turn after their cut, will send what funds are left to corrupt developing countries. What every climate mitigation scam money is left after the many, many middle men take their cut will be spent to purchase Chinese manufactured solar cells and wind turbines for developing countries (P.S. Developing countries need coal plants which do work to work rather than green scams.)
From China’s standpoint the climate ‘crisis’ agreement scam is win-win. China promises to continue to construct coal power plants until 2030 at which time they will reach their peak power demand.
The West promises to race to economic apocalypse due to a steady loss of jobs to Asia, massive unfunded liabilities, and a promise to spend trillions of dollars on green scams that do not work.
(P.S. China, unlike the spend like there is no tomorrow and make unfunded commitments for programs that are impossible to fund Obama administration, can see the US economic train wreck in the near future. China have just made – December, 2014 – the second largest sale ever of US treasuries. Perhaps the Obama administration can print more money to save the day. Ha! Ha! The joke gets better the planet is about to abruptly cool due to the solar cycle 24 interruption, there is no global warming crisis. If only reality would change if it is ignored for long enough.)

U.S. National Debt: $1.1 Million Per Taxpayer
Each U.S. taxpayer now has a federal-debt liability of $1.1 million—and rising.
The public tends to focus on the total national debt, which just passed the $17 trillion mark—up from $10.6 trillion when President Obama took office. But that figure pales in comparison to the federal government’s long-term unfunded liabilities—money the government is obligated to pay over and above the revenues it is estimated to receive.
According to the U.S. Debt Clock, total long-term unfunded liabilities are at $126 trillion, a $1.1 million liability for each U.S. taxpayer. The main driver of that astronomical number is two of our major entitlement programs: Social Security and Medicare.
GOP members of the Senate Budget Committee report that cumulative spending on welfare during the Obama years [$3.7 trillion] has been five times greater than what’s been spent on transportation, education and NASA—combined. quoted


China Sold Second-Largest Amount Ever Of US Treasurys In December: And Guess Who Comes To The Rescue
The chart below shows holdings of Chinese Treasurys (pending revision of course, as the Treasury department is quite fond of ajdusting this data series with annual regularity): in a nutshell, Chinese Treasury holdings plunged by the most in two years, after China offloaded some $48 billion in paper, bringing its total to only $1268.9 billion, down from $1316.7 billion, and back to a level last seen in March 2013!

Reply to  William Astley
December 5, 2014 10:20 am

Might be Eurostream again, another Belgian Bulge, they helped in selling off US treasuries held by Russia, now maybe for China. They sit in Belgium, they’re a private entity, but their holdings for some reason appear in this treasury statistic. They’re like a sink for nations who want to sell their US treasury holdings.
More importantly: China obviously sees a diminishing need to hold US treasuries. Why would one hold them in the first place? TO PAY FOR OIL. And that’s over now. Which also means that the US can stop assassinating presidents of nations who decide to sell their oil for non-Dollars: IT IS OVER.

ferd berple
Reply to  William Astley
December 5, 2014 1:31 pm

U.S. National Debt: $1.1 Million Per Taxpayer
a nation of millionaires

Reply to  ferd berple
December 8, 2014 8:01 am

Debt going up, taxpayers going down. It was inevitable.

December 5, 2014 7:42 am

Obama: “$100 Billion? Not a problem.”
China (aside) to the Third World: “Never give a sucker an even break.”

December 5, 2014 7:43 am

There is no mention of $ aid for China. The reading does not support such an interpretation.
Instead, China is building a case for its own industrial policy, that is, point your CO2 fingers at your own hypocritical shortcomings if you want remediation.
This is just public maneuvering. Of course China knows the Obama deal is all show.

Bruce Cobb
December 5, 2014 8:02 am

Silence! Obama is busy building his “legacy”.

Baa Humbug
December 5, 2014 8:06 am

Proud to say the Oz PM refused to give any cash and I have the secret video linked to below.

Warning, the Aussie PM uses a bit of language

December 5, 2014 8:30 am

Obama is only good at bullying and shoving stuff off on Americans. He is seen as a fool by the international community.

Reply to  hunter
December 5, 2014 3:17 pm

Absolutely! Also, known as an empty suit, Zerobama, and many other phrases that would get moderated away. Even the “progressives” know he’s a complete idiot.
It’s mind boggling to me that anyone would have voted for him… and yet they did. Mind boggling.

December 5, 2014 8:32 am

This “deal” was more like capitulation. Reminds me of the Chamberlain “peace in our time” agreement with Hitler (not to impugn China) and has put a dagger in the heart of the climate movement.
Obama’s “leading by example” is a joke. Suppose he had said, “You developing countries are having too many babies. So we in the US are going to show you how to fix the problem – henceforth all American men are going to be required by the government to cut their… castrate themselves. I’m sure that you will want to follow our great example.”
When they stop laughing, they’ll have *extra* babies, just to keep the joke alive and rub it in. Just like China is doing right now. If China is a developing country, why shouldn’t every developing country follow their example?
Anyway, check out the (Gore Effect) weather forecast for Lima, Peru. They must have a whole staff of meteorologists just dedicated to finding new ways to describe clouds (from the seven day forecast, duplicates removed):
– mixture of sun and clouds
– Scattered clouds
– Broken clouds
– More sun than clouds
– Passing clouds
In the 14 day forecast, only one with pure sun – the 14th day. They probably throw that in to give people hope and certain that they will not remember when that day is – wait for it – cloudy.
Funny how the Gore effect works so reliably…

December 5, 2014 8:52 am

Look at it this way: we’re not really paying for this as it’s all deficit spending!!!! It’s more of a rebate on China’s treasury purchases!!!!

Mumbles McGuirck
December 5, 2014 9:03 am

Why is Red China getting ANY of these funds? One of the most rapidly expanding economies in the world and one our largest lenders, they should be PAYING into this fund. Talk about a con job.

Matthew R Marler
December 5, 2014 9:17 am

The only thing that Obama promised was to keep nagging the US about CO2 and continue his administration’s administrative war on CO2. He can’t give any money to China without a Congressional appropriation.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Matthew R Marler
December 5, 2014 11:12 am

Congress hasn’t stopped him so far in his executive actions.

Reply to  Ernest Bush
December 5, 2014 1:28 pm

Let’s hope that changes with the numbers the next 2 years. Not to mention public disapproval.

Reply to  Ernest Bush
December 6, 2014 10:03 am

The worse Obama’s approval numbers become, the less incentive he’ll have to not try to push his policies through ‘executive orders’.
Congress should defund Air Force One and let him walk to his next golf game. That would get his attention.

December 5, 2014 9:29 am

China has enough money to pay for this crap.

Reply to  Ron Scubadiver
December 5, 2014 10:26 am

But they won’t. What you’re gonna do about it?

Reply to  DirkH
December 5, 2014 10:41 am

Vote republican, that’s what.

Reply to  Ron Scubadiver
December 5, 2014 10:37 am

Yes, but this will allow them to build up their military even faster. And then who is going to ask them for their climate aid money back when they choose not to abide by their agreement in 2030?

Reply to  Louis
December 5, 2014 10:42 am

The problem is the Chinese can add as much as they want by 2030.

Reply to  Louis
December 5, 2014 1:40 pm

If the US does not redirect it’s attention away from the diversion of predicting the global future and changing it at will, the Chinese could own this country by 2030.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
December 5, 2014 3:36 pm

Isn’t that the truth….some one needs to re-read “The Art of War”.

December 5, 2014 9:30 am

Can’t the UN just print a few trillion like the US and EU do and leave tax payers out of it? They could just print up enough to build a fleet of starships and use them to drag Earth a bit further back from the Sun, and then the UN could just bugger-off to the other side of Andromeda or something. Solved!

December 5, 2014 9:48 am

“Rich nations’ pledges of almost $10 billion to a green fund to help poor nations cope with global warming are “far from adequate,” particularly Australia’s lack of a donation..”
Thank God for Tony Abbot. The world looks to Australia for leadership in the fight against climate alarmism, why are so many nations in the rest of the world still being fooled?

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Klem
December 5, 2014 11:14 am

The governments of those nations aren’t being fooled at all. They KNOW its a political game with big payoffs for wealthy friends. Don’t kid yourself about what’s going on.

December 5, 2014 10:05 am

This is beyond insane. Since America borrows a lot of money from China, China is essentially demanding we borrow their money, hand the cash to them, then pay off the money we borrowed, which we already handed back to China.

December 5, 2014 10:10 am

Obama the (incompetent) poker player:
‘Don’t call my bluff’
What an idiot.

December 5, 2014 10:12 am

$10 Billion? Chump change if the UN has its way and we blindly follow in spite of the mounting evidence that questions the UN’s AGW position. But with this much money and power at stake you can bet that they will double down on their fear mongering narrative.
“Investment and financial flows to address climate change: an update (26 Nov 2008)”
UNDP: Adaption: $83 Billion pa (Page 23 Table 6)
UNDP: Identified Adaption Projects: $1,506,075,974 (Page 25)
UNDP: Mitigation Funds $363 Billion (Page 53)
If you keep reading you will also see the road map laid out by the UNDP and which is apparently being followed by this administration.
“Regulatory standards, Taxes and charges and non-climate related policies (that) focus on poverty, land use and land-use change, land rights, energy supply and security; international trade, air pollution and structural reforms (in order to) achieve synergy between sustainable development strategies and climate-related goals”. Table 23
Note “land rights, land-use and water rights” and the Government recent actions in regard to all three of these issues. Also note the section within the “Update” regarding China being a major beneficiary of these funds.
And we are just supposed to bend over and take it? Think not.

David S
December 5, 2014 10:18 am

Its funny Global warming activists were so pleased with the China deal with Obama they should also rapidly embrace the payment by their debt stricken nations contributing to the development of one of the worlds richest as they continue to increase emissions for 16 years.
Fools and their money are soon parted.

December 5, 2014 10:19 am
December 5, 2014 10:24 am

China is now the biggest economy in the world and also the biggest emitter of green house gasses, and we’re supposed to pay THEM climate aid? If this doesn’t convince people that climate change is political and simply a ruse to redistribute wealth, nothing will.

Glenn Koons
December 5, 2014 10:26 am

Well both the Chi-coms and Bama and the lib Dems are as crazed as each other. They deserve each other. And since China is now No.1 economically, the legacy of Bama is going to be even worse if historians are not brainwashed on all of these issues that this man has made worse with his anti-capitalist, anti-American policies. None of this climate stuff has anything to do with real life or issues which affect both nations.

December 5, 2014 10:29 am

No one knows where all the money is going in this country. The role of the House of Reps has been compromised by blanket required funding of federal bureaucracies. What you see here in plain view is the motive and means to set up a World Empire for the price of $100 billion per year.
And what will dear sweet China will be doing in this One World Empire which requires $100 billion dollars per year to run? Does anyone think one-child, firewall, church-demolishing China plans on being quiescent?
Since the Cannabis Generation is stripping out and selling the Western English-speaking countries’ coal, electricity, personal transportation, personal weapons, mass manufacturing, flight, education, plumbing, and agriculture, may I suggest one option is to just skip straight to the part where there is a gold image of the leader to bow down to, his picture in every home, and a little red book which is sacred text and taught in schools? That happens a lot.

December 5, 2014 10:55 am

I see the rhetoric has changed from ‘developing’ to ‘rich nations’ now………….

December 5, 2014 11:06 am

Only our naked emperor could get in on a “deal” like that. What a class 1 moron.

December 5, 2014 11:18 am

What do you expect from a country that invented chess (Check out the Chinese chess variant sometime! Very cool and a mind warp to be sure). So USA = poker and China / Russia = chess (varying types) ….
I wonder who will analyze the situation better? Plan better? Adjust along the way?
Oh by the way Russia is stopping the south stream pipeline and selling the gas to Turkey! So everyone in southern Europe will now pay the “Turkey Transit Tax”. I’m sure the Greeks don’t mind paying a tax to Turkey.
Right now it is late 4th quarter and the USA is down 55-3 and punting.

Robert W Turner
December 5, 2014 11:18 am

Our POTUS is either gullible and ignorant or evil and purposely undermining this country.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
December 5, 2014 12:50 pm

Why not “all of the above”?

December 5, 2014 11:27 am

We’re the fools if we think anything has backfired on Obama. If anything, it’s a bump in the road. He and his buddies will spin this as ‘America / Capitalism BAD, Kabuki actors against Man Made Global Warming / Climate Change GOOD’. (Wrong culture, I know, but just sayin’…)
But it’s probably not even a bump in the road. Remember during the ’08 campaign how Obama said that he liked how the Chinese do things? When he leaves office, he’ll sail back to Hawaii — which in a few more years will probably belong to China.
I hope the Republicans and sane Democrats have the backbone to stop this ship.

Ivor Ward
December 5, 2014 11:28 am

This is an interesting site. It shows the US National Debt in real time. Perhaps Obama should have it up on his wall.

December 5, 2014 12:22 pm

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:


December 5, 2014 1:00 pm

Reblogged this on SiriusCoffee and commented:
Who do you think is going to be the biggest recipient of those funds to build out the supposed “green infrastructure” projects for these so-called developing countries? China of course!
More crony-capitalism, more corporate welfare, more robbery of the western middle class to fund the global elites.

December 5, 2014 1:31 pm

This president of yours had led you from being the No 1 economic power to being No 2 and the economic slide continues on skid row.
“It’s official: America is now No. 2
Make no mistake. This is a geopolitical earthquake with a high reading on the Richter scale.”

Reply to  Richard
December 5, 2014 1:34 pm

“There’s no easy way to say this, so I’ll just say it: We’re no longer No. 1. Today, we’re No. 2. Yes, it’s official. The Chinese economy just overtook the United States economy to become the largest in the world. For the first time since Ulysses S. Grant was president, America is not the leading economic power on the planet.
It just happened — and almost nobody noticed.
The International Monetary Fund recently released the latest numbers for the world economy. And when you measure national economic output in “real” terms of goods and services, China will this year produce $17.6 trillion — compared with $17.4 trillion for the U.S.A.
As recently as 2000, we produced nearly three times as much as the Chinese.”
Hats off Obama

December 5, 2014 2:16 pm

calm down. we created CAGW for one reason – the dream of a trillion dollar CO2 trading market, with derivatives, from which we would then hand over $100 billion a year to all the other countries for playing the game. the market would create this CO2 bubble by soaking up the pension/retirement funds of the baby boomer generation. FORTUNATELY, CLIMATEGATE HAPPENED, & THE PLAN FAILED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ANNUAL $100 BILLION BRIBE IS OFF TOO. play your part in ensuring this remains the case by contacting your retirement fund managers and letting them know, in no uncertain terms, you don’t want a cent of your money invested in anything remotely connected to CAGW. don’t just be a passive CAGW sceptic:
September 2009: CNBC: Carbon Trading May Dwarf That of Crude Oil
“I’m estimating carbon markets could be worth $2 trillion in transaction value – money changing hands – within five years of trading (starting),” says Bart Chilton, a Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) commissioner, who’s also chairman of its energy and environmental markets advisory committee. “That would make it the largest physically traded commodity in the US, surpassing even oil.”
Chilton’s estimate is based on futures activity in commodities. “It’s a fairly reasonable to estimate 10 times the expected cash market,” he says, pointing to a multimillion dollar voluntary carbon market in the US in 2008…
The OTC market once dominated this voluntary carbon trading, but as tracking and trading infrastructure has grown, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) took off…
Chilton’s estimate is based on futures activity in commodities. “It’s a fairly reasonable to estimate 10 times the expected cash market,” he says, pointing to a multimillion dollar voluntary carbon market in the US in 2008…
NYDEC’s Grannis has greater expectations for Copenhagen.
“With [President] Obama, we’ll go as an actor and not as people sitting on the sidelines like for the last decade,” he said.

December 5, 2014 3:33 pm

5 Dec: EconomicTimesIndia: AFP: Developing world may need annual $500 billion for climate by 2050: UN
LIMA: Developing countries may need as much as $250-500 billion (203-406 billion euros) per year by mid-century to deal with the fallout from climate change, a UN report warned Friday…
“The impacts of climate change are already beginning to be factored into the
budgets of national and local authorities,” UNEP executive director Achim Steiner said in a statement.
“The escalating cost implications on communities, cities, business, taxpayers and national budgets merit closer attention as they translate into real economic consequences,” he added…
Steiner said the new report “underlines the importance of including comprehensive adaptation plans in the agreement.”…
“The report provides a powerful reminder that the potential cost of inaction carries a real price tag. Debating the economics of our response to climate change must become more honest,” said Steiner.
“We owe it to ourselves but also to the next generation, as it is they who will have to foot the bill.” …
5 Dec: RTCC: IETA: Jeff Swartz: Carbon markets need to matter more in Lima
Jeff Swartz is International Policy Director at the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)
Delaying work on the role of carbon markets in a 2015 climate deal is foolish, argues international trade body
What needs to be remembered is that markets require a lot of technical infrastructure that can’t just materialise overnight; elements such as registries, emissions unit tracking software, emissions accounting standards and safeguards are essential for robust, efficient and, most importantly, credible carbon markets. These critical pieces of architecture could all emerge via the UN climate process, if negotiations continue – and if not, they will happen elsewhere. Global emissions trading systems (ETSs) covering some $30 billion-worth of emissions in 2013, according to the World Bank’s State and Trends of Carbon Pricing report, and even more markets are set to come online in the next few years…
Markets are the best way to deliver on these objectives, to spur the technological innovations needed, to cut emissions without hindering competitiveness, to drive countries forward on a sustainable development pathway…

December 5, 2014 5:30 pm

President Obama is not very good at maths. All the “experts” have agreed for years that to stop dangerous warming of greater than two degrees global emissions must be reduced back to at least 1990 levels as quickly as possible. By 2020, even if China and India meet their commitments (which China probably will) global emissions will be double the 1990 level with those two countries providing two-thirds of the increase.
China’s new target is to stop the increase in emissions by 2030. By then, using conservative a forecast of economic growth and emissions per unit of economic output, China’s emissions per capita could still be significantly lower than that of the USA in 1990 AND total emissions exceed the global 1990 figure.
This is not to bash China (or India). What needs to be realized is that in 1990 half global GDP and emissions came from about one eighth of the world’s population. China and India each contain one sixth of global population. The rapid growth of China, India and (to a lesser extent) SE Asia and even Africa, has reduced global inequalities in both output and energy usage. This has been achieved in the best way possible – through economic growth in the poorer countries exceeding the growth in the richer countries. Post 2050, economic growth (and emissions growth as well) should primarily be coming from the poorest countries – India first, then Pakistan, Bangladesh and Africa.

Reply to  manicbeancounter
December 5, 2014 5:39 pm

And your point is? No need to do anything at this point in time as given time all will be resolved? One would like to think so…but I suspect alarmist rhetoric will try and muddy the waters.

December 5, 2014 6:21 pm

Good grief — we just throw money away. I’m 67 years old, and in a way, I’m glad that our years on this Earth are limited.

Reply to  littlepeaks
December 5, 2014 7:44 pm

Don’t be too confident of that. Scientists already know how to reverse ageing in laboratory conditions, the big stumbling block is ageing may be our body’s main defence against cancer.
One theory of ageing is that ageing occurs when our cells stop dividing – some cells, such as the cells which become our children, effectively live far beyond our lives, and maybe have children of their own, which continues the line indefinitely – because the biological clock which stops cells dividing is reset when a child is conceived. But this biological clock may be our main defence against cancer. Most genetically damaged cells never become cancers, because the biological clock limits their ability to replicate. Only cells which contain very specific mutations which disable the telomere clock gain the ability to replicate without limit.
So if scientists applied what they know about ageing to a living person, their body would most likely explode with cancer, as all the failed cancer cells responded to the rejuvenation therapy, along with the normal cells.
The good news if we figure out what to do about the cancer, the rejuvenation treatment might be viable. So we’re maybe a few cancer cure breakthroughs away from medically extended longevity.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 5, 2014 7:58 pm

Eric Worrall
Don’t be too confident of that. Scientists already know how to reverse ageing in laboratory conditions, the big stumbling block is ageing may be our body’s main [defense] against cancer.

OK. So, what is the effect of three MAJOR recent changes to people’s lives: 1) A very large percent of women have “started to reproduce” (their body obviously responding to pregnacies) but chose to abort the baby without a normal end to the full term . (Some 63 million in the US, many hundred million worldwide.) How does the “body” respond when there are “partial” pregnancies? Each time resetting?
2) What happens with the significant “excess” hormones in the water and food – are not both male and females being affected since birth, then fed these extra hormones through an ever-longer but less exercised, less physical life of much greater obesity in all “civilized” countries?
3) If humans evolved through 250,000 years in a dirt-filled, disease-ridden, low-food short-lived 25 – 35 year lifetime, what is now going to happen as today’s youth spend 85 years sitting on their tailpipes eating high-calorie excess foods?

Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 5, 2014 9:17 pm

If the telomere clock was responsible for cancer, young children would be most prone, since they have the longest telomeres.
My cousin in an oncologist. She knows that there are effective cheap treatments that the cancer industry (in which she has carved herself a niche in life) won’t discuss or promote.
In fact, a mitochondrial deficiency is the reason why cancer cells don’t commit suicide:
Not a single Australian media outlet reported that finding, btw.
The ABC breached their own charter by refusing to answer my letter on the topic, because, they said (by phone), “You wouldn’t like our answer, so we aren’t giving you one.”

December 5, 2014 8:58 pm

Isn’t what the Chinese do, while they let their economy develop,
PRECISELY the definition of “egging on the West”?

December 6, 2014 12:54 am

“$100 Billion Trump Card”
I think you mean Chump Card

December 6, 2014 4:24 am

Precisely what one would expect from this weak excuse of a man and a president (lower-case “P”).

Mike Bromley the Kurd
December 6, 2014 4:35 am

What a sleazy debacle.

John Robertson
December 6, 2014 4:00 pm

About the only way the developed world can reduce CO2 emissions is to destroy their industrial infrastructure. And wouldn’t that be a net economic benefit to China! The old adage of “Follow the money” still holds…

December 6, 2014 7:54 pm

I think our dear leader, the failed community organizer has been schooled. The deal the Chinese got on climate change adjustments has us tooling down while they tool up. Our biggest tool is in the White House now. We can only be better off once Valerie Jarrett and BO leave the White House, what an expensive lesson in how many Americans can be taken for suckers this administration is.

Reply to  Thomas Georgetown
December 9, 2014 6:25 am

To be “schooled” one has to be open to learning. That is not the case with the Community Organizer in Chief. He knows everything so has nothing left to learn.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights