Surprise, Surprise: China Rejects Emissions Pledge Review

Green Blob’s Annual Ritual Hits Rift Over Pledges, Climate $Trillions

China has rejected the scrutiny of efforts to limit carbon emissions, a key tool that the US says is necessary as more than 190 countries work to come up with a new deal to fight climate change. Chinese negotiators sought to delete provisions in a draft text that would have paved the way for other countries and non-governmental organisations to submit questions about its carbon-reduction plans, according to environmental groups that are official observers to the talks. —South China Morning Post, 8 December 2014

Obama-Xi_ClimateDealIndia on Friday refused to take a deadline for capping its emissions unlike China, saying the ongoing climate meet in Lima was not to discuss peaking year and hoped the world would reach a deal to cut down carbon emissions. The main issues which are dividing countries are centred on the excessive focus on mitigation which is opposed by the developing countries. Most developing countries were favouring a review process to assess contributions, though India remains totally opposed to such a process. —Press Trust of India, 7 December 2014

Benny Peiser, of the climate-sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation described the summit as the “green blob’s annual ritual” and “an expensive form of mass tourism, never mind the carbon footprint. More importantly, the ritual gathering isn’t going to overcome the underlying deadlock,” he said. “The developing world will ask for a high price which will sink the deal in the US.” He said he believed any deal would not be legally-binding and that this would lead the EU to renege on its own carbon-cutting pledges. “In short, the deal that is now in the making won’t slow CO2 emissions and won’t bind any nation. But it will be sold as a breakthrough – as all agreements have been sold in the past,” he said. –Emily Gosden, The Sunday Telegraph, 7 December 2014

As somebody who has championed science all his career, carrying a lot of water for the profession against its critics on many issues, I am losing faith. Recent examples of bias and corruption in science are bad enough. What’s worse is the reluctance of scientific leaders to criticise the bad apples. Science as a philosophy is in good health; science as an institution increasingly stinks. –Matt Ridley, The Times, 8 December 2014

Negotiators at the UN climate talks in Lima have encountered yet another stumbling block with nations divided over including finance and adaptation commitments in national action plans. The European Union and Japan want national offers to be focused only on mitigation actions to reduce planet-warming emissions. Brazil, on the other hand, wants countries to be able to put adaptation and finance in their national contributions. Countries like Nicaragua have warned that a Paris deal could fail unless adaptation is included in the draft text expected to come out of the Lima talks. —International Business Times, 8 December 2014

So carried away are the warmists by their quasi-religious belief system that, when it was again proposed in Lima that richer nations should pay poor countries $100 billion a year to protect them from runaway global warming, the UN’s chief spokesman, Christiana Figueres, dismissed this as “a very, very small sum”. What is needed to decarbonise the global economy, she said, is “$90 trillion over the next 15 years”. It makes the £1.3 trillion we Brits are committed by the Climate Change Act to pay to halt global warming within 36 years look like chicken feed. –Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 7 December 2014

Thanks to Dr. Benny Peiser of the GWPF for this compilation

0 0 votes
Article Rating
56 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CodeTech
December 8, 2014 5:50 am

$90 trillion over the next 15 years.
Tell me again… WHAT could POSSIBLY be the motive for these people to lie?

Reply to  CodeTech
December 8, 2014 7:17 am

I think she might be low with the $90T.
But, she’s right $100B is nothing but so is $90T.
They will need $90,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.87 by my calculations.
While they’re at it can these brilliant economists raise the minimum wage to $700 per hour?
(since it doesn’t affect commerce)
I’m looking for part time work during my retirement and I could use the money.

Stuart jones
Reply to  mikerestin
December 8, 2014 5:26 pm

or fro $30to $70 Billion a year (depending on your calculations) https://hungermath.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-world-hunger/
weo could end world hunger…completely….but why would we want to do that?

Reply to  mikerestin
December 9, 2014 1:49 am

mikerestin,
You greedy evil capitalist. The minimum wage should be at least $100,000 an hour. With an additional $100,000 per hour for every hour worked so the greedy capitalists can’t make too much profit from what you learn on the job. After only 9 hours of work people will be making $1 million an hour. Two thousand hours of work (one year) and people will be earning $200,000,000 an hour. The jet plane market will do very well wit those kinds of wages. And the national debt will be paid off in short order.

looncraz
Reply to  CodeTech
December 8, 2014 8:02 am

+1

December 8, 2014 6:00 am

What on earth is the Fox doing in the Henhouse? Environmental-group scrutineers? WTF? They have gone mad.

Alan Robertson
December 8, 2014 6:02 am

Well hell, honey, no need to call me cheap, let me just write you a check.

Bill Illis
December 8, 2014 6:10 am

$90 trillion over 15 years would be equivalent to 8% per year of global GDP. Waste 8% of GDP per year on non-productive green energy?
GDP fell by about the rate in the early 1930s. Do we want to impose an early 1930s depression just so that the green blob can feel better. They won’t feel so good when they are in a soup line.

chris moffatt
Reply to  Bill Illis
December 8, 2014 7:02 am

well they don’t think they’ll be the ones in the soup lines. And as long as they’re in the lifeboat they don’t give a rat’s patoot if the ship sinks. In fact they’d welcome it as an unpleasant but necessary population reduction event. Remember these people are on record as saying the optimum planetary population is about 300 million people.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  chris moffatt
December 8, 2014 8:05 am

Well said.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Bill Illis
December 8, 2014 8:04 am

Nevertheless, that is exactly what the green blob wants to do so they can feel better. The 90 trillion is so they don’t have to feel the effects of what they are doing.

Louis
Reply to  Ernest Bush
December 8, 2014 8:25 am

If the 90 trillion is provided in small bills, I suppose developing nations could burn the money as a renewable resource in place of coal. But I fail to see what else they would do with the money other than buy private jets and other luxuries for their government elites. The UN’s motto might as well be, “Burn all you want, we’ll print more.”

tgmccoy
December 8, 2014 6:17 am

Gee I wanted to see a shot of the harbor at Lima-with all the tall ships at anchor
for the conference. Oh wait. Never miind..

Reply to  tgmccoy
December 8, 2014 7:34 am

The tall ships are at the airport…with the somewhat smaller private jets.

latecommer2014
December 8, 2014 6:21 am

No soup for you!

Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2014 6:46 am

There appear to be rumblings of another Copenhagen. Dare we hope?

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2014 6:14 pm

Last time there was ClimateGate just before Copenhagen. We remember there is a heck of a stash of emails still under wraps. 220,000?
Maybe one of the custodians will give us a Lunar New Year surprise with some discussions and iron clad proofs that will aid Mark Steyn, the delegates in Paris, and the CBC journalists long suffering under the false impression they had a clue what they were talking about.
How about it, Custodians of the Galaxy?

Resourceguy
December 8, 2014 6:46 am

Mislead, and do not verify…..by mutual consent

Reply to  Resourceguy
December 8, 2014 12:40 pm

LOL

Tom O
December 8, 2014 6:50 am

And to think, this entire conference could have been carried out via the internet for next to nothing. I do believe they truly show their true colors with these sojourns to new and different “vacation” spots at public expense. Why anyone has any faith in what they say is far beyond my ability to comprehend. I realized as science specialized, the viewpoint narrowed, but I hadn’t realized it had narrowed down to the width of a dollar bill or a pound note or whatever currency you choose.

Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2014 6:57 am

Fake deals, fake pledges, all based on fake science. What’s not to like?

Jim Francisco
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2014 8:04 am

Soup nazis

Brian H
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 10, 2014 8:03 pm

The working out of the illogic of their positions is entertaining.

December 8, 2014 7:20 am

China has not changed its position over global warming by one iota since well before Copenhagen. When you’re up against a weak president, why would they?
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/cancun-and-the-chinese-perspective-on-it/
Pointman

Jim G
Reply to  Pointman
December 8, 2014 7:33 am

Just like Iran, Russia, N Korea, etc. Military might runs the world but only if there is a fear that one might use it.

Brian H
Reply to  Pointman
December 10, 2014 8:07 pm

They’re all for the West paying for past sins, not for deflecting their own plans.

Jimbo
December 8, 2014 7:43 am

And when they fail they will blame sceptics – again. What the heck have sceptics got to do with the negotiations? Of course the answer is they need someone else to blame for their impotency. Even is CAGW sceptics had shut their mouths since Climategate there would be no meaningful breakthrough, and co2 levels would continue rising merrily. That is that. Live with it.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Jimbo
December 8, 2014 7:55 am

impotency – LOL (saw that after my comment below)

Scottish Sceptic
December 8, 2014 7:53 am

There will soon be childhood started, grew up and ended in these climate talks.

Scottish Sceptic
December 8, 2014 7:54 am

Correction:
There will soon be those whose childhood started, grew up and ended in these climate talks.

TonyK
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
December 8, 2014 12:38 pm

Conceived too? Germans will keep their clothes on and the lights off.

William Astley
December 8, 2014 8:00 am

Where is blazes is the money going to come from ($90 trillion) to spend on green scams? There will obviously be unintentional consequences to spend $90 trillion dollars on green scams.
The polls that asked ‘Do you think climate change is an important issue?’ should have asked ‘Do you support massive cuts in health care, education, policing, infrastructure, retirement programs, social assistance, and defense spending to spend money on green scams that do not work to address the extreme AGW problem that does not exist?’. Spending money on green scams to address a problem that does not exist is not win-win.
The developed countries have reached the absolute end of the road for deficit spending, their GDP growth does not support their current future program spending, and they have reached the limit of taxation. Many developed countries (France, Spain, Greece, and so on) have been forced to start the process of reducing their yearly deficit by cutting programs. As Churchill said when we run out of money then we really need to think.

cnxtim
December 8, 2014 8:01 am

Yawn…

Gamecock
December 8, 2014 8:06 am

Those guys are dressed like they are on the bridge of the Enterprise.
“Beam me up, Scotty. There’s no intelligent life here.”

December 8, 2014 8:13 am

Our ‘friends’ over at RealClimate have a new provocative feature article:
The most popular deceptive climate graph
The “World Climate Widget” from Tony Watts’ blog is probably the most popular deceptive image among climate “skeptics”. We’ll take it under the microscope and show what it would look like when done properly.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/the-most-popular-deceptive-climate-graph/

hunter
Reply to  vukcevic
December 8, 2014 8:46 am

If only those darn skeptics would do what enlightened lords of climate tell them to, then the climate obsessed would be OK and the world would not roast.

Billy Liar
Reply to  vukcevic
December 8, 2014 1:41 pm

The first comment from that post:
Eric Steig says: 8 Dec 2014 at 6:04 AM I’ve been asked a number of times why I once used the work “disingenuous” when referring to Watts and his apologists. Stefan’s post provides a very good explanation. –eric
Oooooh, the irony!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/29/steig-et-al-falsified/

Billy Liar
Reply to  Billy Liar
December 8, 2014 1:42 pm

Forgot to close the italics after ‘-eric’

Taphonomic
December 8, 2014 8:38 am

P. J. O’Rourke nailed it on his two paragraph summation of climate change, especially when it comes to China and India:
http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com/2010/10/pj-orourke-on-climate-change.html

Reply to  Taphonomic
December 8, 2014 2:50 pm

Taphonomic,
Thanks for the link!
Allen in Fort Worth
The Whited Sepulchre Blog

hunter
December 8, 2014 8:40 am

The obsession on mitigation is strange. Mitigation is the most expensive, least effective route to attempt to accomplish what the climate concerned claim to care about: Making the world safer from the alleged threats of increased CO2. There are *no* mitigation plans working today. The entire forcus of the climate concerned has been a dead end, a blind alley, a waste of significant resources. The developing world and Australia get this. It is time we get leadership in the West willing to stand up to big climate and expose their madness.

garymount
Reply to  hunter
December 8, 2014 4:01 pm

It’s not about what is effective, it’s all about power and money,

Louis
December 8, 2014 8:47 am

The NY Times hailed the China agreement as a tremendous breakthrough that should be used as a model for future climate agreements. They claimed that China agreed to “decrease” emissions by 2030. They did no such thing. They agreed to increase emissions without limit until 2030. At that time they will try not to go any higher and will then reevaluate circumstances to see if any cuts can be made. But there is nothing in the agreement that requires China to make any actual cuts before or after 2030. It’s no different than making an arms agreement with Russia that would have the U.S. cutting its nuclear arsenal by a set amount while allowing Russia to increase theirs without restriction until 2030. Such a one-sided agreement would be extremely foolish, but the NY Times would still hail it as a “significant breakthrough.”

Joseph Murphy
December 8, 2014 9:20 am

Bureaucrats tripping over bureaucracy? You don’t say. China strategically using the West’s stupidity for its own benefit? What are the odds.

Andyj
December 8, 2014 11:35 am

$90T.. Great! Who is the recipient?
$90TN from 7BM people is $12,857 from every human being on this planet. Most on $15 a week.
$12,857.14 into 15 years is over $857.14 a year or $16.48 a week.
Methinks the tree of Liberty needs watering.

Katherine
Reply to  Andyj
December 8, 2014 4:05 pm

It’s not “$90TN from 7BM people.” It’s $90T from the population of the “wealthy nations.” So 7B people less the populations of China, India, Brazil, Africa, and all the other countries that have their hands out. Which would make it more like “$90TN from 3BM people.”

Resourceguy
December 8, 2014 12:53 pm

The money schedule:
Fridays $90T for climate mitigation facade
Mondays $16.4B for world’s most needy
Tuesdays………

Resourceguy
December 8, 2014 12:56 pm

There is undergraduate level Grubering of “stupid Americans” and graduate level Grubering of diplomats and their “stupid constituents” back home.

Resourceguy
December 8, 2014 1:08 pm

Mutually Assured Destruction……..of science process and public trust

Alan c
December 8, 2014 1:17 pm

Could someone tell Obahma, who is obviously illiterate in an engineering context, to stop dishing up the nonsense his spin doctors trot out for him to read. He is really a total embarrassment to listen too.

Another Ian
December 8, 2014 1:28 pm

A way with words!
“That was over faster than a knife fight in a phone box. One minute the US and China are ready to join forces to save the world, the next they split on the precise mechanism for measuring that modest aim.”
More at http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/08/UN-Climate-Commitment-in-Tatters-Due-to-Chinese-Secrecy

george e. smith
December 8, 2014 3:07 pm

Well at least that Chinese Preacher man is wearing his ecumenical white collar, under his uniform.
I think Obomina, is wearing a Nehru Jacket. Nobody told him that Mahatma Gandhi never had a shirt to wear; he didn’t want to get tank tracks on his loin cloth when he laid down in the streets.
Well Obomina just bows to the tanks anyway.

rogerthesurf
December 8, 2014 3:33 pm

“$90 trillion over the next 15 years”?
If that’s all it needs, why don’t they pay it?
Haha
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

December 8, 2014 4:00 pm

Thanks, Dr. Peiser.
The good work of the GWPF is greatly appreciated.

Stuart jones
December 8, 2014 5:35 pm

I think I have finally worked this out, there is an invisible Alien spaceship that has contacted the worlds top leaders and threatens to disintegrate tghe earth unless we stop producing CO2. The leaders are not allowed to tell the people so they have to make irrational decisions to ensure we comply with our (invisible) Alien overlords.
This is the ONLY rational reason I can think for governments and government run science pulling these scams

Mac the Knife
December 8, 2014 9:38 pm

No surprise at all. The Chinese treat our US leader with the dismissive contempt he has earned. I wonder if he and Hillary are still futilely ‘pressing the Russian reset button’ also?

%d bloggers like this: