Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A senior member of the Chinese dictatorship has demanded that Donald Trump renege on his commitment to the American People to tear up the Paris Climate Agreement, if he wins the Presidency.
China criticises Donald Trump’s plan to exit Paris climate deal
In a rare comment on a foreign election, veteran climate chief says a wise political leader should make policy in line with global trends.
China on Tuesday rejected a plan by US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to back out of a global climate change pact, saying a wise political leader should make policy in line with global trends, a rare comment on a foreign election.
The world is moving towards balancing environmental protection and economic growth, China’s top climate change negotiator told reporters, in response to a query on how China would work with a Trump administration on climate change.“If they resist this trend, I don’t think they’ll win the support of their people, and their country’s economic and social progress will also be affected,” Xie Zhenhua said.
“I believe a wise political leader should take policy stances that conform with global trends,” China’s veteran climate chief said.
…
Xie’s comments come as China plans to launch a national carbon trading scheme in 2017.
The scheme is on track and pilot programmes have already traded 120m carbon allowances with total transactions amounting to 3.2bn yuan ($472.29m), he added.
…
At first glance it might seem that Xie Zhenhua is being completely unreasonable, but in my opinion the person who is really to blame for the confusion which led to this outrageous Chinese demand is President Obama.
Obama did everything in his power to convince the world that his signature on the Paris Agreement meant something. But without ratification by the US Senate, President Obama’s signature on the Paris agreement is just an autograph, without legal force or standing.
Donald Trump is going to be president of the United States of America, he has, thus, a fiduciary duty to do what is in its best interests.
China: We are your masters (Obama makes that very clear). Obey us.
Trump: Sure, pal — NOT!
*******************
Man — a — LIVE, those Chinese are hilarious. As IF. lololololol
How true, Janice. Trump is certainly nobody’s idea of a globalist.
But all this stuff from the Chinese is actually pretty tame stuff. I remember back in the day, the Chinese would have running screeds against the US, calling us “Running Dog Capitalists” bent on world domination. Then they would call us “Yankee Imperialists”, also bent on world domination. And “Militaristic Cowboys” bent on …. In other words, they were accusing us of acting exactly like they are acting now in the South China Sea.
Ahh, those were the days.
Whenever you want to know what a leftist is planning to do, just check out what he is accusing others of doing.
It might depend on how much of the US Debt Paper ther hold and when they decide to call it in
They can’t call it in. The debt is due on the date specified on the paper.
If they get tired of holding it, their only option is to sell it to someone else.
Regardless, even if they did call it in, we would just do what we do every time one of these things expire. Pay for it by issuing new debt.
Or we could just crank up the printing presses and pay them with currency that is becoming worthless anyway.
The only goal for China is to destroy what’s left of our manufacturing sector. Who in the hell is going into China to check their CO2 emissions as per agreement. Nobody from the west will be able to monitor them. Maurice Strong via the UN and China planted China climate change scientists in the west to create mathematical models to convince our dumb politicans that we have a problem to reck our economy. They have done an excellent job and now want to put the nail in the coffin.
“The only goal for China is to destroy what’s left of our manufacturing sector.” Add a few other western countries populated with clueless politicians. China is carrying out continuous devaluation and building an industrial base to destroy in particular western manufacturing. Our only hope is Trump as long as he does what he has been promoting as presidential candidate. We simply need to put China back in its box in so far as it is possible at this late stage. Cannot believe the extent we in the west (including USA) have allowed our industrial base to be shifted out on the back of one sided trade agreements and a destructive desire to increase energy prices on the back of unreliable and heavily subsidised renewables.
@Joghn and Taxed to death. In the context that both of you mention, nobody has talked about the influence they have and devastation China is doing in Africa. Why is this never talked about? The wreckage they are leaving behind is unbelievable.
“Taxed to Death November 2, 2016 at 9:18 am
The only goal for China is to destroy what’s left of our manufacturing sector. ”
That is incorrect. The goal for our politicians and corporations is;
1. Reduce CO2 emissions (Politicians).
2. Increase profits. (Corporations).
Politicians make doing stuff harder due to “climate policies” on energy use. Corporations look to reduce costs. Solution? China. And China is laughing all the way to the bank. But be careful having all you credit and debt in one “basket” (China) is risky.
An example of this I can draw on is the Wall St. crash of 1929 that eventually lead to WW2 in 1939. Germany was being funded by American funds until 1929.
Of course China wants Trump to stick with the Paris accords. The accords are resulting in massive transfers of wealth from the west, to China.
Regardless, getting in a fight with the Chinese dictators can only help Trump. Especially over Global Warming, which most Americans have already seen through.
If everyone took this stance:
“I believe a wise political leader should take policy stances that conform with global trends,”
there would be no innovation, no leadership… nothing but communism. Hmmm…
…. no one to steal technology from….
Like land grabs in Crimea and sea claims and artificial islands (military bases) in the South China Sea
“Like land grabs in Crimea and sea claims and artificial islands (military bases) in the South China Sea”
And don’t forget the Chinese rape of Tibet. The ongoing rape of Tibet.
The Tibetans are pacifists and easy marks for the Chinese takers. I sure hope the ole Karma comes back to visit the Chinese on this one. They need to get just what they gave. That would be fair. I would enjoy seeing that.
The Chinese may not have as easy a time stealing land in the South China sea. The people who own that land are not pacifists like the Tibetans.
China better watch out who they take on militarily. The Chinese haven’t won a military victory in a very long time. Tibet doesn’t count since that is a theft, and a murder, not a military fight. Japan kicked the hell out of them in World War II. The U.S. and its allies kicked the hell out of them in the Korean war.
The last time the Chinese tried to steal someone else’s land was in the early 1980’s when they tried to encroach on northern parts of Vietnam. The Vietnamese military kicked the hell out of the Chinese military, and China was unsucessful in stealing their land.
So the only modern example of Chinese battlefied prowess ended in a military defeat. They are batting zero. I’m not impressed. They’ve got the goosestepping down pat, but that’s about all, as far as I can see.
A good military is more than weapons and numbers. It’s also attitude. An attitufe you get when you win all the time. Like when Americans go and fight somewhere. Yeah, I know we technically lost a couple of wars, but it wasn’t because the U.S. military didn’t kick the hell out of the enemy. No, the U.S. military defeated the enemy military, and then Leftist politicians in the United States gave it all back to the enemy. Doesn’t change who came out on top militarily.
We have the military and it works just fine. If we have the proper civilian leadership, we are unstoppable. Just keep the Leftists away from the levers of power, and we will be safe and sound, and get to keep our military victories, too, while making the world a safer place.
China and Vietnam fought a short war about 20 years ago. I seem to remember it ending in a draw.
“China and Vietnam fought a short war about 20 years ago. I seem to remember it ending in a draw.”
Yeah, that’s what I said: The Chinese were unsuccessful in stealing Vietnam’s land. The Vietnamese were not interested in invading China, just interested in stopping China from invading Vietnam, which they did. China was unsuccessful in their military efforts.
Also in the Guardian, this morning, commentary by John Abraham, on Obama’s Clean Power Plan, China US deal, and Paris pledges.
Barack Obama is the first climate president
A look back over last eight years shows that a president really does matter
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/nov/02/barack-obama-is-the-first-climate-president
John Abraham is a nasty little turd and has lost all credibility years ago. Along with the grauniad
Here’s the deal. Donald Trump LIKES China. He just wants them to play by the rules of fair play and honest dealing.
“I like China” — Donald Trump
(youtube)
Really, likely all Trump would do upon reading the above statement by the Chinese official is: smile, shake his head, and chuckle, “Sure. Whatever.”
The Chinese are not mainly about dominating the world to dominate (as other ethnic groups have been). The main thing for the Chinese is: money.
Trump gets it.
And UN-official China, with few exceptions, likes Trump:
(youtube — CNN report)
I agree with Marcus. Tell China we’ll match their 30 year plan and call their bluff. The only thing China is worried about is losing their edge in trade that they currently enjoy. Nothing more.
They were obviously happy when Obama ham-stringed the American economy. If Trump is elected that goes all away and we’ll be on a much more even playing field.
Mass immigration from poor African countries is a direct consequence of IPCC influenced western governments (EU mainly) who impose biased global warming policies on these poor countries preventing them from exploiting their considerable coal reserves for power generation which would lead to their prosperity.
Doesnt matter if its Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton or anyone else. It is a non-binding agreement that needs no further discussion. Just ignore it. Unless its ratified by the Senate it means nothing and its all lip service to make it seem like we will do something. There isn’t another government out there that will follow thru especially when it comes to sending big checks to whining governments. Currently China heads the list of whiners.
The Chinese have no more intention of abiding by the climate agreement than they do to international law of the seas.
The Chinese are smart. They know they will be making most of the stuff we would need to buy to keep going down this insane renewable energy path. In the mean time, Trump should tell them that he’d listen to them after they stop building new islands and after Beijing’s toxic smog problem is under control, just to prove they know what they’re talking about.
That’s rich. #1 taking advice from #2 is good business? Yea, for #2!
“If they resist this trend, I don’t think they’ll win the support of their people, and their country’s economic and social progress will also be affected,” Xie Zhenhua said”
Economic and social progress will be affected alright
One-word answer to China’s “demand”:
Nuts!
I believe a wise political leader should take policy stances that conform with global trends
*******************************
so democracy in china??
The Chinese are probably right.
Democracy is hardly a “global trend”
http://www.eiumedia.com/index.php/latest-press-releases/item/2127-democracy-in-an-age-of-anxiety
Nope.
Chinese soot or Iceland volcanic ash ?
Just watching BBC2’s reporter flying in a helicopter over a glacier in the south of Greenland. The glacier looks not only surprisingly filthy, it was black! never expected it to be so dirty, I felt a bit upset about it.
If it is Chinese carbon soot it is dreadful, if it is Iceland volcanoes ash accumulation on the surface from the years of melt, it might explain a lot about Greenland’s ice.
Its bacteria, not soot. Perfectly natural but I’m sure its because of________ (insert buzz word here)
Went onto the BBC’s website and found it on the IPlayer, captured the screenshot, here it is.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GreenlandGlacier.jpg
Surprisingly the BBC reporter did not refer to the blackness of ice, don’t know how he missed it.
If it is Chinese soot, I am even more upset, I’m thinking of boycotting ‘made in China’ stuff if I can do without it.
I always try to buy Australian made/owned, but it is increasingly difficult these days, even food. A few years ago I got a head cap from Ethiopia. It was made in China!!!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/01/study-accelerated-melting-of-the-lower-greenland-ice-sheet-due-to-bacteria-darkening-the-surface-albedo/
well, if so then proliferation of the ice bacteria may have ended ice age, but how do you start it?
Remember in the 80’s when CFC’s released in the northern hemisphere gravitated over Antarctica creating the hole of doom?
yes… and then we had international treaties to reduce CFCs and the problem was resolved…
gosh – imagine if we had an international agreement on reducing CO2…
There never was a problem to resolve. As subsequent science showed, the ozone hole was 100% natural and CFCs played no role in the destruction of ozone.
But of course, Griff believes whatever his masters tell him to believe.
“Griff November 3, 2016 at 5:46 am”
Too funny Griff, something else you know nothing about. Keep ’em coming funny boy!
Yeah Griff just imagine it…Trees start dying off from suffocation. Cereal crop yields diminish by 40%. Ethanol must be removed from fuel because corn yields have dropped to the point that it is no longer capable of being both a food source and a fuel source…Wait, If it gets ethanol out of gas…
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/23/bacteria-speeding-up-darkening-greenlands-ice-climate-change
China controls the market for wind turbines and solar panels.
That is why China wants the US to abide by the Paris agreement.
If the US leaves a large part of the rest of the world will also eventually exit.
That is billions that China won’t be making off of the irrational CO2 fear.
The stated, main objective of the Paris Climate Agreement is a front. The real objective is to establish sustainable development around the world, while equalizing the greatly unbalanced standards of living.
(Over) developed countries like the US, must cut back on their use of natural resources, especially efficient fossil fuels, while less developed countries like China(based on their much lower standard of living) are allowed to increase their burning of fossil fuels.
The (over) developed countries are also the ones contributing to the Green Climate(and other) funds. This money goes to the less developed countries, supposedly to be used by them to adapt to climate change caused by the developed countries ruining their climate. Despite the fact that the last 4 decades have featured the best weather and climate on this planet, since the Medieval Warm Period ~1,000 years ago.
Life benefiting CO2 emissions from burning energy efficient fossil fuels are one of the best measures of a country’s standard of living and productivity.
If you objectively look at how life on this planet has done, going back eons, it’s crystal clear that it has always done better at this temperature to several degrees warmer vs anything cooler.
Atmospheric CO2 levels 150 years ago were dangerously low and life would prefer CO2 levels to be higher than the current 400 ppm.
So the increasing global temperatures and CO2 levels have pushed the atmosphere into the “sweet spot” for most of life.
Don’t agree with that? Consider what would happen if we cooled off 1 degree C and dropped CO2 levels to below 300 ppm.
The plunge in crop production and plant productivity, being something like 20% would result in widespread starvation.
There has been nothing unusual about recent extreme weather or climate, with the exception of an increase in high end/extreme rain events because warmer air holds more moisture. The authentic question that should be asked is: how much warmer and how much higher can CO2 go before these indisputable benefits no longer dwarf the detrimental effects that will start increasing?
The biggest problem to getting the right answer is the falsely perceived view/assumption of today’s climate being worse than the climate of 100 years ago because of the increase in CO2 from human emissions.
Fascinating how some people are so conceited that they actually believe that they are entitled to determine who is over developed and who isn’t.
Mike, I have quite a few things to tell you, but all of the would get me moderated, so let’s settle for this.
Sod off.
Thanks Xie for helping out Trump during the last push. If China is anti-Trump, he must be a good choice.
Should be easy enough to handle for a putative Trump POTUS. “If you want us to stick with the Paris sham – which you were foolish enough to sign up for – all you have to do is provide the empirical evidence refuting the null – i.e. that what we observe is natural variation”.
Updated October 22, 2016.
The U.S. debt to China is $1.185 trillion, as of August 2016. That’s 30% of the $3.948 trillion in Treasury bills, notes, and bonds held by foreign countries. The rest of the $19 trillion debt is owned by either the American people or by the U.S. government itself.Oct 22, 2016
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-debt-to-china-how-much-does-it-own-3306355
China likes the deal because they are exempt, so European companies to meet emission goals dismantle factories and have the products made in China, which often uses more co2 in the process.
The racket is quite beneficial to.China and they don’t want it to stop.