Emboldened China Plays $100 Billion Trump Card
China 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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
Our POTUS is either gullible and ignorant or evil and purposely undermining this country.
Why not “all of the above”?
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.
This is an interesting site. It shows the US National Debt in real time. Perhaps Obama should have it up on his wall.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
Oops
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.
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.”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-official-america-is-now-no-2-2014-12-04
“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
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.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/32540966
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.” …
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/developing-world-may-need-annual-500-billion-for-climate-by-2050-un/articleshow/45390177.cms
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…
http://www.rtcc.org/2014/12/05/ieta-carbon-markets-need-to-matter-more-in-lima/
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.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2014/10/29/britains-folly-in-attempting-to-save-the-world-from-global-warming/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html
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.”
Isn’t what the Chinese do, while they let their economy develop,
PRECISELY the definition of “egging on the West”?
“$100 Billion Trump Card”
I think you mean Chump Card
Precisely what one would expect from this weak excuse of a man and a president (lower-case “P”).
What a sleazy debacle.
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…
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.
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.