Climate Advocates Look to Totalitarian China for Leadership

Smog hangs over a construction site in Weifang city, Shandong province, Oct 16. 2015. Air quality went down in many parts of China since Oct 15 and most cities are shrounded by haze. [Photo/IC]
Smog hangs over a construction site in Weifang city, Shandong province, Oct 16. 2015. Air quality went down in many parts of China since Oct 15 and most cities are shrounded by haze. [Photo/IC]
Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Trump’s America cancelling billions of dollars of UN climate payments apparently opens the way for totalitarian China to assume the moral high ground in global environmental diplomacy.

Trump Win Clears Way For China to Lead on Climate

The election of climate change skeptic Donald Trump as president is likely to end the U.S. leadership role in the international fight against global warming and may lead to the emergence of a new and unlikely champion: China.

China worked closely with the administration of outgoing President Barack Obama to build momentum ahead of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. The partnership of the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters helped get nearly 200 countries to support the pact at the historic meet in France’s capital.

By contrast, Trump has called global warming a hoax created by China to give it an economic advantage and said he plans to remove the United States from the historic climate agreement, as well as reverse many of Obama’s measures to combat climate change.

He has appointed noted climate change skeptic Myron Ebell to help lead transition planning for the Environmental Protection Agency, which has crafted the administration’s major environmental regulations such as the Clean Power Plan and efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

Beijing is poised to cash in on the goodwill it could earn by taking on leadership in dealing with what for many other governments is one of the most urgent issues on their agenda.

Proactively taking action against climate change will improve China’s international image and allow it to occupy the moral high ground,” Zou Ji, deputy director of the National Centre for Climate Change Strategy and a senior Chinese climate talks negotiator, told Reuters.

Zou said that if Trump abandons efforts to implement the Paris agreement, “China’s influence and voice are likely to increase in global climate governance, which will then spill over into other areas of global governance and increase China’s global standing, power and leadership.”

Read more:

To me this ridiculous positioning of China as the new environmental champion is simply more evidence of the toxic anti-Americanism and anti-Western politics at the heart of the global climate movement, and the moral bankruptcy of some leading climate advocates.

China, which recently announced a three year plan to increase coal capacity by a whopping 20%, an entire Canada worth of carbon emissions, should have been treated as a pariah by the global climate movement. Instead, they are being lauded as heroes and international leaders.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 13, 2016 7:06 pm

Perfect choice on choosing the photo

george e. smith
Reply to  goldminor
November 13, 2016 8:16 pm

Wait up Pilgrim !
Who the hell says that IS the moral high ground ??
I consider it highly immoral to deny poorer folks in developing countries the right to access existing available energy resources; the smallest injection of which, could so materially improve their lives; say with clean water and some electricity so their kids can read at night and start to get an education.
How dare little twerps like Lennie flit all over the place pontificating about how clean green renewable THEY are.
Scumbags come in all colors of the rainbow; and frankly I’m not at all sure that I didn’t just insult pond scum.

Janice Moore
Reply to  george e. smith
November 13, 2016 9:33 pm

You tell ’em, George!
Listen up, pilgrim…

(youtube — John Wayne)
There’s right and there’s wrong.
You gotta do one or the other.
You do the one and you’re living.
You do the other and you may be walkin’ around
but, you’re dead as a beaver hat.

AGWers are now the living dead.

Bob Hoye
Reply to  goldminor
November 13, 2016 11:35 pm

I understand that people who live in big cities like to see the air they breathe.

DC Cowboy
Reply to  Bob Hoye
November 14, 2016 4:24 am

Exactly. I like to taste the air I breathe. A perky little blend that will surprise you with it’s impertinence and contains flavors of benzene, toluene, and a hint of methane.

Reply to  DC Cowboy
November 14, 2016 9:14 am

Some say…… “I don’t trust breathing anything I can’t see”.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bob Hoye
November 14, 2016 1:10 pm

The ammount of methane you taste is directly correlated to the brownness of your nose

Reply to  Bob Hoye
November 14, 2016 3:33 pm

The Chinese should complain to their leaders. Not that it would do them much good. I do feel sorry for the people over there who have no choice but to breathe that foul stuff. I remember the brown air back in the 1960s to early 1970s. It made me feel lousy, almost slightly drugged. I remember looking out from the top of the hills above Silicon Valley and seeing the brown mass of air which stretched across the Bay to the East Bay hills. It looked thick enough to drive on. Thankfully, we solved that problem with catalytic converters.

Russ Wood
Reply to  Bob Hoye
November 15, 2016 7:37 am

A UK version of a poem used to begin:
“I shot an arrow in the air
It stuck.”
(Probably from Spike Milligan)

Reply to  goldminor
November 14, 2016 2:51 am

I may be guilty of being off topic a little here, but I have to say this video encapsulates so much of what my country and the world need, is consistent with my research and I wish we had someone like this for my country.


Reply to  rogerthesurf
November 14, 2016 3:42 pm

Yes, but then he appoints Reince Priebus to be White House Chief of Staff… *sigh*

November 13, 2016 7:08 pm

The most likely outcome is that China agrees with Russia, Japan and Trump. Polls are quite consistent for the last 8 years showing nobody cares about AGW except a few people who have bought into it.

Cold in Wisconsin
Reply to  Harold
November 13, 2016 7:12 pm

More pointedly, their livelihood depends on it. It’s a snooze fest for everyone else.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Harold
November 13, 2016 7:25 pm

Harold — a few people who have been bought by it — fixed — Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Harold
November 13, 2016 7:26 pm

“except a few people who have bought into it”.
Should it not be – “except a few people that are paid by it”.

Reply to  B.j.
November 14, 2016 4:14 am

“except a few people that are paid by it”?
“except a lot of people that are paid by it”

Reply to  Harold
November 13, 2016 8:56 pm

The US printer has been supporting Climate Change rent seekers. Without it they must seek another reserve currency printer. So we can expect SDRs and the renminbi to be espoused as the next great thing. Such a position is unlikely to get traction with the Communist Party. An open market would remove the smoke from China’s economy and all one would see in the mirror is unsustainable debt. It is one thing to have a low exchange rate to the USD, its quite another to see a house of debt and printing based on government edict. A naked China is not pretty. There is no vast savings pool owned “by the people” to cover over any deficiencies. There is no milk of kind democracy in the Chinese breast.
A move to get Chinese support by the Climate Change lobby will not result in anything. China is coming “out of the dark”, financed by the Fed. Warmistas now want China to finance them to force the US back “into the dark”. 0 + 0 = 0.
The US election clearly shows few in Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc wants to get into that cave. There is no light in there, just carbon credits. More credit for the poor supplied by a Democratic government, bankrupt of ideas. They are not alone. Push back on the grand “lets Rob a US Peter to Pay a Chinese Paul” scheme is coming to a town near you.

Reply to  Geoff
November 14, 2016 11:54 am

I wish I had so many coffee breaks…

China is coming “out of the dark”, financed by the Fed.

No. China buys US bonds. The US does not buy Chinese bonds
The Fed is financed BY China.

Larry D
Reply to  Geoff
November 14, 2016 12:21 pm

Yeah, the “activists” are afraid their rents are going to be cut off, so they’re schmoozing up to China. We’ll see how much China is willing to pay for their praise.

Reply to  Harold
November 14, 2016 1:53 am

I care about global warming. I just think its not as critícal as other problems. I do see synergy if we reduce oil consumption. If we can cut oil consumption by 20 %, build more pipelines from Canada, increase refinery gains by converting asphalt into gasoline and diesel, and stabilize USA crude oil and condensate production at say 8 million barrels of oil per day we may actually be independent of energy imports from outside North America. And if efficiency measures sell better because of global warming then that’s a big plus.
I don’t think a knee jerk reaction against global warming control measures is the right way to go, it doesn’t help have a viable long term energy strategy. And given Middle East instability it’s better to have a coherent long term plan which works under both GOP and democrat administrations.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 14, 2016 6:24 am

You “care” about global warming? Why? And why on earth do we need to cut our oil consumption? What do you think we’re going to replace it with? Unicorn farts and pixie dust? Get real.

Doug Danhoff
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 14, 2016 7:02 am

Fernando, you are referring to conservation not global warming. Warming is caused entirely but forces beyond human control, but cleaning air and water resources is within our ability. Perhaps we can now focus on these things we can affect

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 14, 2016 7:17 am

Asphault is what is left over after the more volatile compounds have been refined out.
If it was easy to convert asphault to gasoline, etc, the oil companies would be doing it already.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 14, 2016 8:57 am

I care about it too.
want more of it.
let me tell you -28 deg F nights with wind chills of -45 deg F really suck.
sigh…. February will be here soon…sigh

george e. smith
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 14, 2016 1:40 pm

So tell us a little more about your global warming fears.
Is it that you worry about the North African and Arabian desert sands getting up to over +60 deg. C or blacktop surfaces getting to +90 deg. C, or do you worry about Temperatures in the Antarctic highlands rising from about -94 deg. C to perhaps -93 or -92, which could be disastrous for those icy regions.
I worry that I get weekly weather reports that tell me to look forward next week to daily Temperatures ranging over more than 30 deg. F during the day.
That’s scary man, because the whole planet average Temperature has never gone outside the extreme range from +12 deg. C to + 22 deg. C for over 600 million years now, and I’m going to be getting much more than that. That is only 18 deg. F range and I’m seeing 30 deg. F range.
I don’t even know where I could go to get away from such dangerous extremes. Perhaps down in some old deep mine shaft would be a safer place to be.

george e. smith
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 14, 2016 1:47 pm

Why would the political party in control have any effect on earth’s climate.
Earth Temperatures have remained stably well within the extremes of -94 deg. C to well over +60 deg. C surface Temperatures for eons, and it doesn’t seem likely they will drift out of that range any time soon.
So you can pick any Temperature you want in that extreme range, and go and live in thousands of places that have the Temperature you like.

Bill Treuren
Reply to  Harold
November 14, 2016 10:46 am

They have not bought into it they GET money for their position.

November 13, 2016 7:11 pm

Mo’s home!

Tom Halla
November 13, 2016 7:13 pm

The green blob generally holds most people in contempt, so why does their sucking up to a government with many of of the same attitudes towards civil rights suprise anyone?

Steve Case
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 14, 2016 1:39 am

Green MOB

November 13, 2016 7:15 pm

I thought all the bleeeding warmists were believers in democracy – but they were they. Democracy is just fine – as long as your side is winning.

Reply to  AndyE
November 13, 2016 7:59 pm

Just look at how the left wing has reacted to Trump’s victory.

November 13, 2016 7:24 pm

Christina Figueres declared that the best way to implement the climate change agenda was through a political system like China’s i.e. communism.

Reply to  Mervyn
November 13, 2016 9:52 pm

I don’t see her living there any time soon. Her Western lifestyle would suffer. She can’t have that.

george e. smith
Reply to  Mervyn
November 13, 2016 11:15 pm

And she is whom ?
I generally know the names of most persons who have actually done something; almost anything even !

Reply to  george e. smith
November 14, 2016 2:00 am

Figueres was the UN official who was in charge of the Climate Change Gig. She left the job last year. Figueres is the daughter of a former Costa Rican president and a German inmigrant. The family is very wealthy, and she was educated in very expensive USA schools (I believe she went to Wellesley). Her connections, education, and refined looks got her jobs in the Costa Rican diplomatic service at an early age, and eventually she moved to the UN bureaucracy. She was a candidate to replace Ban Ki Moon. I think she still works at the UN, and she gets lots of interviews and talking head time in Europe.

Reply to  Mervyn
November 14, 2016 2:11 am

Wake up !
China is communist in name only now. It’s a capitalist dictatorship, where people are forced into jobs with terrible hours and conditions, poor pay and have to sign a contract to promise not to try to kill themselves when they start work and factories have nets under the higher windows !!
A capitalist dictatorship is no more attractive than a communist one. That is the future which USA has just avoided , for the moment. Trump’s election has put a spanner in the works of the political elite but it’s not over yet.

Reply to  Greg
November 14, 2016 5:36 am

A capitalist dictatorship is an oxymoron. Capitalism is Marx’s pejorative of free enterprise. A free enterprise dictatorship is nonsense.

Reply to  Greg
November 14, 2016 7:19 am

Some of you guys have a really weird idea of what capitalism is.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Greg
November 14, 2016 8:19 am

Yes, Greg, any dictatorship except for a strictly limited, benign, temporary, one to run a war results in misery for most, blessings for a few (to paraphrase Winston Churchill).
And, indeed, MarkW.
Capitalism (common definition):

an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state

And “private owners” means EVERY-one can own private property and invest their capital as they please.
Private property is essential to have genuine capitalism. (as are liberty and reasonably free markets)
Otherwise, it is CINO (Capitalism In Name Only).
China, run by robber barons and gangs throughout the centuries, hasn’t change one bit. The Chinese Nationalists tried, but, the Communists wiped them out. China today is just a giant slave plantation run by the gang of thugs at the top. Who make a profit — for themselves.
And which is better, all you Democrats (socialists at heart)? If you need help answering that question, compare Hong Kong with mainland China. Compare South Korea with North. Compare the Cuban community in Florida with that in Cuba. Compare Bartlesville, OK with Detroit.

Reply to  Greg
November 15, 2016 2:02 pm

Taking it as true that China is a dictatorship and there’s no reason to say that it isn’t, then the word that fits best starts with “F”. There is no such thing as a capitalist dictatorship.

November 13, 2016 7:29 pm

“Trump has called global warming a hoax created by China to give it an economic advantage”
Sounds about right. China suckered the USA into supporting plans to cut use of the cheapest energy source in favour of high cost unreliable energy. China at the same time said it would start cutting emissions after 2030. Definitely sounds like a hoax pushed by a con-man.

Margaret Smith
Reply to  dudleyhorscroft
November 13, 2016 10:11 pm

China at the same time said it would start cutting emissions after 2030.
No, China said it would reach peak CO2 output (perhaps) by then. Said nothing about reduction that I remember.

Reply to  Margaret Smith
November 13, 2016 11:38 pm

You’re right. China only agreed to stop increasing their emissions after 2030. They also added that they would consider cutting emissions after that point. But that is not a commitment. The warmists just want us to believe it is.

richard verney
Reply to  Margaret Smith
November 14, 2016 1:00 am

I thought that China have only agreed to re-evaluate their position in 2030, not to their being committed to reduce CO2 emissions post 2030.
2030 may not be the peak of Chinese CO2 emissions, and I rather doubt that it will be.
Ditto for India, which is currently the number 3 CO2 emitter.
I am far from convinced that cAGW is a hoax created by the Chinese. I consider the evidence suggests that it was created in the decadent West by those who vilify Western values
Of course the Chinese have been the largest benefactors of cAGW and have played it for all its worth. They certainly got the best deal from the Paris Accord, and now even though they are committed to heavily increasing their CO2 emissions (they are forecast to increase CO2 emissions by 20% in the next few years) they are being hailed and plaudited as the savoirs of the world. This just shows how dumb the elitist liberal left are, and that the world truly is living through the age of stupid. Whatever happened to enlightenment?

DC Cowboy
Reply to  Margaret Smith
November 14, 2016 4:30 am

They didn’t even promise to stop increasing CO2 emissions after 2030. What they ‘promised’ to do was to ‘think about’ whether they would ‘look at’ reducing CO2 emissions based on economic goal attainment.
They did however, promise to get in line for the $100s of billions the ‘developed countries are to pay the ‘underdeveloped’ countries as part of their ‘guilt abatement’ for the industrial revolution.

Reply to  Margaret Smith
November 14, 2016 6:14 am

China aims to cap coal-fired power capacity at 1,100 gigawatts by 2020…
A decrease on all previous figures.

Reply to  Margaret Smith
November 14, 2016 7:19 am

Griff sure is cute when he gets into acolyte mode.

Reply to  Margaret Smith
November 14, 2016 7:27 am

Why are you guys buying into this CO2 crap? It’s still just a smokescreen. The real issue is pollution. Also, I suspect someday we might be managing CO2 levels (sometimes increasing, sometimes decreasing human output) just to manage global plant life as best we can. Plant life could reach such a level that CO2 will decrease, and in the meantime, we’ll be making use of the increased food production capabilities – and will be dependent on it.

November 13, 2016 7:32 pm

This would be a brilliant coup for China to be the “leader” of the CAGW ho-x.
They could demand huge carbon taxes and CO2 sequestration targets against Western governments that would make Western manufactured goods even more uncompetitive, which would force even more Western corporations to move their production operations to China…
As an added bonus, since China is the world’s largest producer of solar panels and wind turbines, Western countries would be forced to subsidize Chinese-built alternative energy imports. All these wind and solar subsidies received from stupid Western counties could be used to finance China’s R&D for LFTRs.
The beauty of this is that the Paris Agreement already allows China a grace period of 15 years to implement any CO2 sequestration policies, so right when the grace period expires around 2030, China will be starting a massive rollout of LFTRs, producing an unlimited amount of carbon-free energy at around $0.03/kWh, which will cause a 3rd tsunami of Western production to flood into China to take advage of near free and unlimited energy..
A very elegant coup de grace of Western economies…

george e. smith
Reply to  SAMURAI
November 13, 2016 8:19 pm

Clue us in. So what are LFTRs and where can I see one ?

Reply to  george e. smith
November 13, 2016 9:54 pm
Reply to  george e. smith
November 13, 2016 10:30 pm

LFTRs are Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.
China’s first test LFTR is scheduled to go online in about 1 year, and they currently expect to have a commercial large-scale LFTR design ready for rollout by 2030.
Here is a brief video on how LFTRs work, and just some of their huge advantages over Light-water Uranium reactors:

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
November 13, 2016 11:18 pm

Well I might not be around in a year, or even in 2030; so where can I go and visit one NOW ??

Reply to  george e. smith
November 14, 2016 2:52 am

Thanks Samauri. One link that came up from that vid:

Leo Smith
Reply to  george e. smith
November 14, 2016 3:07 am

Good puff video. But its very economical with the truth.
Uranium breeders are just as efficient in burnup. And passive safety is possible in many ways.

Reply to  george e. smith
November 14, 2016 6:10 am

The Terrestrial Energy Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR) is a uranium molten salt reactor that is likely to be piloted soon in the US. There is far less development required for this reactor design to be built and then commercialised than for the LFTR which still remains as a concept.
While not a breeder, it is a high burnup reactor and has the inherent negative temperature coefficient common to molten salt fueled reactors

Cyrus P. Stell
Reply to  george e. smith
November 14, 2016 4:57 pm

Leo Smith Nov 14 @ 3:07 am… you only addressed one small item presented in the video, which makes me think you didn’t watch the whole thing. It appears to me that finding a use for the Thorium will turn uneconomical Rare Earth mines into economical ones, a YUUUUGE benefit, and the biggest hold-up seems to be laws and/or regulations. This would be similar to the automobile’s internal combustion engine. The first viable IC automobile constructed in the U.S. was tuned specifically to burn gasoline, a by-product of refining that, at the time, was mostly thrown away in some manner, I guess by incineration on-site. So it was envisioned as much as a way to use up a bothersome waste product as it was a mode of transportation.

Chris in Hervey Bay
Reply to  SAMURAI
November 14, 2016 2:59 am

The Chinese certainly suckered Obama.
By 2030, the Chinese ‘One Child Policy’ will come into effect with the population reaching a plateau. After 2030, the population will start to decline and at that point, so will CO2 emissions.
The Chinese had realised this and have now abandoned the One Child Policy, and now 2 children are allowed. But still, what was done in the past will still show results in 2030.
So, in effect, the Chinese don’t have to do anything at all and still see their CO2 emissions reducing after 2030.

DC Cowboy
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay
November 14, 2016 4:37 am

The reason the Chinese abandoned the ‘one child’ policy is that China now has the most rapidly aging population on the planet. For instance, in the city of Shanghai 75% of the population is of retirement age. They weren’t producing enough young workers to replace the older ones.

Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay
November 14, 2016 7:21 am

You can’t “sucker” someone who is a willing participant.

Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay
November 14, 2016 1:29 pm

In Shanghai 75% of the population is of retirement age??? Do they retire there at the age of ten? That sounds a bit off – and certainly doesn’t match my impressions when I was there several years ago.

Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay
November 15, 2016 7:30 am

I think you can thank Paul Ehrlich for the reduced population in the US, which has created demand for immigration. I’m not sure his deluded screed was ever translated into Chinese though, so another explanation is probably in order.

Reply to  SAMURAI
November 14, 2016 3:04 am

Nuclear power needs Republicans to help deregulation and rule clarification. Republicans (listening to coal lobbyists) first spiked nuclear power in the USA by getting rid of the AEC, and putting the NRC in charge of regulation in 1974 with a one dimensional mandate to make nuclear power as safe as possible (without regard to cost). As soon as the NRC took over regulation new reactor orders stopped. Many reactors with permission were never finished. Reactors which were completed after 1974 were significantly overdue and over budget (compared with earlier reactors). So Republicans have a duty to rescind the harm they did. The anti- A-bomb proliferation hysteria that stopped breeder reactors and reprocessing is also due to Republicans. Namely the neo-Cons, who first promoted this line of anti-nuclear power propaganda in the 1970s.
My advice to Trump on nuclear power (my blog)
Who killed nuclear power and why? (my blog)
The Neo-Cons, Not Carter, Killed Nuclear Energy (pdf)

Reply to  mark4asp
November 15, 2016 7:47 am

Nuclear power was killed by the fossil fuel industry, which had solid Republican backing through the 50’s, 60’s 70’s and into the 80’s.
The anti-nuke movement was funded by, and for the benefit of, the fossil fuel industry. Even today, 60 years later, it has an effect. Those of you who think the election of Donald Trump will make the Global Warming Alarmists (who are also funded by the fossil fuel industry) go away soon are in for a surprise. Study your history.

tony mcleod
Reply to  mark4asp
November 15, 2016 2:25 pm

Global Warming Alarmists (who are also funded by the fossil fuel industry)
Laughable. Have a look through the other end of the telescope.

Reply to  SAMURAI
November 14, 2016 5:11 am

And they will finance the LFTRs by selling carbon credits because their CO2 emissions will drop as a stone.

Reply to  SAMURAI
November 15, 2016 6:18 am
Janice Moore
November 13, 2016 7:33 pm

SHOUT OUT TO OUR NEW ZEALAND WUWTers — Are you okay???!!!

Please let us know, New Zealand Willy and Alex (just returned from China, IIRC) and all the rest of you!
(re: earthquake/tsunami near New Zealand early Monday morning (11/14)
(found via Drudge Report just now))

george e. smith
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 13, 2016 8:25 pm

Janice, my cousins report they are OK but they live mostly in Auckland. Closest folks are in Taranaki, which is still far away.
Sad part is that the Canterbury region does not have much of a history of severe earthquakes. Who in their right mind would build a stone cathedral in a major earthquake zone.
So apparently that part of central East South Island has now become geologically active. The earlier disastrous Christchurch quake was also of real size, and this 7.8 counts as real even to us Californians.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 9:24 am

And why has there not been ONE word about this on WUWT?? We have a lot of New Zealanders who regularly frequent this site! It feels like no one is in the pilot house…..!
(And why is the time stamp STILL one hour ahead?)

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 7:38 pm

Well. No one else appears interested, but, just in case, here is a news link about the earthquake beset people of New Zealand:
I’ve been praying. Take care.

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 8:58 pm

Two casualties unfortunately – one from a collapsed 1880’s era concrete mansion, one from medical complications (heart attack, I believe). Other than that, massive infrastructure damage to road and rail links along the Kaikoura coast in the South Island which will affect movement of freight (and tourists) around the country. Plus side is another massive rebuilding programme which will stimualte the economy for the next 2-3 years!

November 13, 2016 7:33 pm

Today’s treat from Himawari-8 Loop of the Day:
2016/11/11 – Thick smog over the East China Sea – Geocolor HTML5 Loop | Animated GIF | MP4 Video
for more of China’s visible pollution footprint, see:
2016/11/10 – Smog in eastern China
2016/08/12 – Smog and Convection in China
2016/04/25 – Smoke and Pollution over eastern China
2016/02/09 – Smog streaming eastward off China
2015/12/26 – Eastern China Smog
2015/12/07 – Smog in China
2015/11/30 – Eastern China fog and smog

Joel O’Bryan
November 13, 2016 7:49 pm

Once the US funds to the UNFCCC are pulled, China will have no inclination to continue the climate scam on their Yuan dime.
China understands that cheap energy in US (via increased fracking, pipelines from Canada), higher trade barriers, and likely higher US interest rates (as the US economy rebounds back to > 3% GDP growth) will kick them in the balls.
Opening up US coal fields for continued power production frees up more nat gas for other uses, including export as LNG to Europe.
– Higher US treasury rates (interest rates) will devalue their current stack of US Treasury debt and lead to capital exodus from China.
– Cheaper energy will make US-based factory products more competitive at home and abroad.
– And higher tariff trade barriers will make Chinese goods less attractive in the US.
A triple whammy.
Everything Chinese leaders have been planning to use to screw the US and its economy (via the Climate Hustle) has now been upset by a Trump victory.

george e. smith
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
November 13, 2016 8:33 pm

If tariff trade barriers are what I think they are; they are never a good thing. You should read Walter E Williams on trade barrier tariffs. So you put a tariff on inexpensive Chinese steel, because US steel producers dropped the ball. And now you have just increased the materials cost for all US White goods manufacturers, so a US made refrigerator costs too much. There’s a hell of a lot more jobs to lose in US consumer goods manufacturing than there is in US steel jobs. You have to be better than the competition; not merely better subsidized.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  george e. smith
November 13, 2016 8:46 pm

The Chinese have been and are dumping subsidized steel and aluminum on the US market. China exported of a massive aluminum stockpile to Mexico, and faked the origin documents to get them into the US, sans tariffs, are now under investigation by the Obama Dept of Commerce. China almost certainly was trying to dump Al and steel onto US market to drive US manufacturers out of business.
Everyone tries to point to the 30’s when trade barriers exacerbated the Depression. Today, it is China that fears trade barriers more than the US. The US has already transferred so many manufacturing jobs abroad, it is the developing markets that will get hammered in a trade war. And that will likely be the trigger to pop the long expanding Chinese bubble.

Reply to  george e. smith
November 13, 2016 9:38 pm

Free and fair trade is beneficial. Free trade alone is not enough.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
November 13, 2016 11:29 pm

Um ! I don’t recall saying anything about Chinese steel subsidies. I think I referred to the simple fact that US white goods manufacturers trying to be cost competitive with OTHER nations manufacturers, while building their products out of US made steel, at US steel factory costs, would go out of business, and there’s a lot more workers in that industry than the Steel industry.
It’s the same problem with solar panels. It’s not that China may be dumping solar panels on the US market. Even if they weren’t the cost of US manufactured solar panels is too high for PV solar to be economical.
The Chinese could drop the price of their PV panels to zero. That won’t change the cost basis of US made panels one brass razoo.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  george e. smith
November 14, 2016 6:57 am

As long as the American factory worker thinks or believes that he/she deserves to be paid $25/hour plus lucrative entitlements ….. then 96% of all the manufacturing and/or factory jobs that have been moved “offshore” (Far East, Mexico, etc.) can not, ….. and will not, be brought back to the US.
If an American factory worker, earning $25/hour, requires two (2) hours to produce a “Widget-A”, …… then the manufacturer has to sell “Widget-A” to a Retailer for a minimum of $85 in order to stay in business, ….. and the Retailer has to charge a minimum of $100 for a “Widget-A”, in order to stay in business.
But the American public can not afford to, …… and is not going to, ….. pay $100, plus tax, for a “Widget-A”, when they can buy a “Widget-B”, for $36 plus tax, that was imported from China.
And if the US government puts a HIGH tariffs on the importing of “Widget-Bs” from China …… then the American public will just hafta do without both a “Widget-A” and/or a “Widget-B”.

Reply to  george e. smith
November 14, 2016 7:22 am

So the Chinese are taxing their citizens in order to provide us with cheap steel. Which we then turn into cheap products to sell to the rest of the world.
And this is bad, why?

Reply to  george e. smith
November 14, 2016 7:23 am

It’s a fact of life that most socialists and populists refuse to accept.
A worker cannot be paid more than the value of the stuff he is making.

Reply to  george e. smith
November 14, 2016 12:12 pm

No MarkW, the Chinese are using their massive profits from having a huge trade imbalance with the US to subsidies cheap steel and aluminum production that they then sneak into the US market to drive American steel and aluminum out of business, thus INCREASING the trade imbalance in their favor. And once they have done so they will once again increase the price to whatever the market will sustain. (Ideally, you aim for just under a price where it would be profitable for someone else to build a new steel or aluminum mill. This is surprisingly much higher then the price at which you just keep an existing mill in production)
It’s called forming a monopoly, and there are reasons we have laws to prevent and hinder their formation in the US. Once they are formed it can be notoriously difficult for new players to get in on their business, even with better products or cheaper practices.
Not impossible, though. Which is why the US tries not to put too heavy a thumb on the scales of business. It’s a fine line, and needs to be refigured on occasion. The fact we’ve caught the Chinese trying to get around our laws already in this instance tells us it’s time to do so.

Reply to  george e. smith
November 14, 2016 2:30 pm

schitzree, I can see from your post, that you have never actually tried to think this through.
They sell us stuff, and use that money to sell us more stuff?
Sheesh, Who cares if they form a monopoly. That monopoly, like all others, will only last until the moment they use it to try and generate above market profits. At that point, hundreds of others will jump in and take market share away from them.
The only time monopolies have ever worked, is when the monopolizer has the power to force others to stay out of the market. China can do that in China, it can’t anywhere else in the world.
As you admit, they can only benefit from their monopoly so long as they keep prices low.

Reply to  george e. smith
November 14, 2016 6:31 pm

“If tariff trade barriers are what I think they are; they are never a good thing.”
Good point! (in the absolute)
But if those barriers are out of balance, does the aggrieved party not have the right to petition to restore equity?
Buick is the favorite car in China; but GM cannot build Buicks in America and ship them to China because of import tariffs.
Maybe that trade agreement with China needs re-negotiation .
Let’s see, who is qualified to renegotiate a deal?

November 13, 2016 7:49 pm

I’m pretty sure China has been the UN ‘s preferred government model. Much like how well the UN ‘s climate models work.

Reply to  rishrac
November 15, 2016 8:02 am

I’m pretty sure China is the UN’s preferred Climate Model, Political model, and Economic Model. I’d venture that China exemplifies the UN’s vision of World Government.
Now, if they can just put someone on the Moon in the next 10 years they’ll have won the prize hands down? It should be easy since they have all the plans. Just another knock off.

November 13, 2016 7:57 pm

Bit far fetched imagination on the world climate, if Trump leads US in different direction!
Well, how about EU & Britain? Even if it falls on the shoulders of China to take care of the mother Earth, will it oblige? Fast emerging imperialist China may do so & here I agree with the author but to what extent economically, to be seen!
Deteriorating environment has only one solution; production for people’s use & not for profit!

Reply to  kk16085
November 13, 2016 8:25 pm

Trump has given even more energy to the anti-EU groups in Europe. There won’t be an EU by 2030.

george e. smith
Reply to  kk16085
November 13, 2016 8:37 pm

Mother earth is doing just fine all by herself. Yes there are still problems; such as the blatant Chinese air pollution depicted in that picture. Those are fixable even by the Chinese.
Don’t imagine problems where there are none to be found.

Reply to  george e. smith
November 14, 2016 2:11 am

That Chinese air reminds me of Los Angeles 1970s.
Of course it can be cleaned up. Fast, too.
I have been on many self funded working trips to China.
My view of people and policies there is rather more gentle than some depict here.
My worry would be that as a group, Chinese are rather more intelligent than most.
That is how they are formidable trade competitors.
Keep them as friendly competitors would be my tip.

Reply to  george e. smith
November 14, 2016 7:25 am

More intelligent, or just culturally inclined to work harder?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  george e. smith
November 14, 2016 11:38 am

The Chinese air pollution depicted in the above picture of Weifang city, Shandong province, …… which is located a tad south East of Beijing, ……. and Beijing is located a tad south East of Mongolia, ….. as defined on this map, to wit:
And the Gobi Desert is situated right between Mongolia and Beijing, ….. as defined on this map, to wit:
So, you have to ask yourself, ….. “Which direction is the wind blowing” …… when it blows up one of these monsters, to wit:
“Calm before the dust storm in the Gobi Desert, Mongolia
So, is the above depicted Chinese air pollution ….. nature’s fault …… or human‘s fault?

Reply to  kk16085
November 13, 2016 8:49 pm

“Deteriorating environment has only one solution; production for people’s use & not for profit!”
Because? . . Magic?

Ross King
Reply to  JohnKnight
November 14, 2016 12:39 am

This is incomprehensible.

Reply to  JohnKnight
November 14, 2016 1:01 pm

Do you have some idea why this would be true, Ross?;
“Deteriorating environment has only one solution; production for people’s use & not for profit!”

Janice Moore
Reply to  kk16085
November 13, 2016 9:38 pm

kk (leaving aside the rest of your comment which I’m not sure of the meaning of — forgive me if you are actually agreeing with the below):
If production is not done for profit, it must be done by slave labor.
Think about it.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 13, 2016 10:47 pm

Janice Moore November 13, 2016 at 9:38 pm
“If production is not done for profit, it must be done by slave labor.”
My last place of employment manufactured Dental Chairs. There was a Need for a type of chair that dentists could carry to remote areas to treat people who normally would never receive care. Our Engineers on their own time designed it. Materials were donated by local venders, our machinists and assembly people came in on the own time and manufactured assembled the chairs. No profit
They along with the stools for the dentist and assistants could be back backed. No Janice not for profit not as slave labor but for a higher calling.

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 13, 2016 11:09 pm

that’s funny.
janice was right but mr morlock
and you just triggered some serious cognitive dissonance because she is perfectly prepared to argue your point at the same time…lol
who will be first to do battle with his own hallucinations, then?
it’s been the motherlode of schadenfreude this past few days- let’s get it all out…lol
drain it, debride it, heal it.

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 6:13 am

Mike the Morlock, November 13, 2016 at 10:47 pm
gnomish, November 13, 2016 at 11:09 pm
To rebut Janice’s comment you deliberately took kk’s comment out of context. Charity is a noble activity, however, it is a mechanism within the economic structure, it is not the economic structure.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 8:24 am

Thanks, Flyover Bob — I don’t need to reply, now. 🙂 +1

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 8:47 am

Mike the Morelock,
They were able to give free labor and donate materials because their other activities were profitable enough and productive enough to allow them to be generous.

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 3:30 pm

morlock demonstrated something done with a motive quite obviously not ‘for profit’ and that was done voluntarily.
and who is not indoctrinated with the notion of charity as a virtue?
so you just hop around the contradiction as you would walk around something you don’t want to step in.
*sigh* the earfinger lala method of resolving contradiction was the way around it, then?
that is so bold and incisive trump could grab a double handful

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 5:32 pm

gnomish November 13, 2016 at 11:09 pm
Janice and I are old friends and she would understand the point I was trying to make, Another example is a “Barn Build”
Who every has helped a friend move?
Flyoverbob November 14, 2016 at 6:13 am
interesting but KK’s comment was not what I was referring to.
joelobryan November 14, 2016 at 8:47 am
Really? Time, you are forgetting that, it is taken from your family your hobbies and happiness.
Yes there is always contradictions.
gnomish November 14, 2016 at 3:30 pm
Indoctrinated? Not sure, everyone picks their own path, and decides if and when and where they will act.
The odd thing is I was just nudging a friend’s elbow, but look at the response.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 5:44 pm

Dear Mike (not a Morlock),
I misread your comment (and wrongly assumed you were augmenting a trollish gnome). Yes, indeed, volunteer labor for a good cause is the best paid work there is. Money cannot buy a joyful heart. 🙂
And good — for — you.
Glad we ARE friends.
Your WUWT pal,

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 5:52 pm

Okay. Okay. Money CAN buy what makes a heart joyful, but, that is rare. Happiness and joy are not the same thing. The deeper, more enduringly satisfying emotion called “joy” wouldn’t come from the thing (the ring, the car, the prime rib (I’m hungry)). Joy would come from the feeling of being loved and cared for by the one buying it for you or, perhaps, from the satisfaction of achieving a dream — not the thing itself. The thing itself would bring only happiness — the delight in sparkling beauty or of driving (fast!) or of delicious flavor).
Giving yourself as a volunteer brings joy (and,usually, some happiness, too!).

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 6:48 pm

well thanks, both.
i really was interested to see how that turned out.
i had a ‘feeling’ but you responded so now i know.

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 2:14 pm

Profit today is job tomorrow. Profit may or may not be money; but all money is simply human ingenuity and energy made easily tradable. Wealth resides in human minds. Stuff is the result of that being put to valuable use in the minds of others.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2016 6:30 am

Fine by us. They want to march in lockstep off a financial cliff because of some fantasy, let them. Doesn’t mean we have to.

Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2016 12:01 pm

Airpane tickets are cheap.
Hop on one.

Reply to  kk16085
November 14, 2016 7:24 am

Hey numbskull, if people don’t use it, there is no profit.
Sheesh, how stupid are you?

Reply to  MarkW
November 14, 2016 7:31 am

Ha ha! You seem to have never heard of a society working for itself, for its own use & no profit? Incomprehensible?
Calling me a numbskull & stupid? Do you work in your family on profit against your parents, children? I am sure philistinism has no logic beyond Private Property!

Janice Moore
Reply to  MarkW
November 14, 2016 8:28 am

kk: A family is not “society.” You make false comparisons and end up with incorrect conclusions.
If you have an entire society working for nothing, for the common pot, it is called a “commune.” A mainly religious/philosophical organization. Its members voluntarily give up their rights to participate. It allows only very limited individual liberty and private property. And it is certainly not what a free people should be FORCED to adhere to.

Reply to  MarkW
November 14, 2016 11:03 am

The only societies that I have ever heard of that work for nothing, are the kibbutz’s. They all failed.
On a larger scale, communism not only failed but killed 10’s of millions in the process.
The truth is that people don’t work if they don’t get paid. And profit is how business owners are paid.
Not only are you a numbskull, but you excel at doubling down on stupid.

Walter Sobchak
November 13, 2016 7:59 pm

If they think that the Chinese are going to pass out billions to every tinpot dictator in the third world, they will be sorely disappointed.

David Chappell
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 13, 2016 8:24 pm

Well, that’s pretty much what they are doing already.

November 13, 2016 8:06 pm

China is beginning to flex its muscles. It may be trying to pry Canada away from the US. Consider its very warm welcome of Trudeau Jr. as compared with its deliberate snub of Obama. Consider also its aggressive island building in the South China Sea. It’s a clear violation of international law.
Strangely, The Donald cosying up to the Russians kind of makes sense. A militant China could cause all kinds of trouble. It could annex Taiwan and might go after Japan. If The Donald causes too much trouble for Mexico, I see China taking the opportunity to expand its sphere of influence there as well. We need all the friends we can get … politics makes strange bedfellows … the enemy of my enemy is my friend … etc.

Reply to  commieBob
November 13, 2016 8:16 pm

The Donald may try to cozy up to Russia but, I think it will be a futile effort. The Russians have more in common with the Chinese than they do with the US.

Reply to  SMC
November 13, 2016 8:28 pm

I’m not sure that ‘not trying to start WWIII’ and potentially ‘working with Russia against ISIS, instead of working with ISIS against Russia’ really counts as ‘cozying-up’.
Though maybe he will feel more included now he’s been made an honorary Cossack.

Reply to  SMC
November 13, 2016 10:03 pm

Maybe Steven Seagal, another honorary Cossack, will save the US against ISIS in a new film.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  SMC
November 13, 2016 10:25 pm

They fought some nasty border battles during the the cold war. They did not play well together.
It one point the question was quietly broached proposing that maybe the USSR and the USA should remove the common threat. Look at the number of icbms that the Soviets had pointing at us verse the the numbers of irbm aimed at China, Plus the medium bomber bases on the border. A war with China has always been USSR/Russia’s nightmare. The trans-Siberian railway can not carry the necessary freight to support more the 20 division equivalents.
The Russians need us as a counter weight other wise any future conflict with China is ether accept China’s terms or Nuclear War.
We never get all the news, take a look at the link, it is of a event back in 1969 It will show you how palsy walsy the two countries really are. I first learned of this stuff back in the late 1980s through conversations with visiting West German Officers and USA officers who were speaking at a seminar for a Graduate level class on Nato.
Strange days indeed…

george e. smith
Reply to  SMC
November 13, 2016 11:33 pm

Yes they have all of that uninhabited land in Siberia that the Chinese would just love to move 3/4 of their people to.

Reply to  SMC
November 14, 2016 2:15 am

The Russians have very little in common with the Chinese. You guys have been brainwashed in a campaign by neocons and the military industrial complex to take USA into a very dangerous posture. Trump is much more sophisticated in this area than many of you grasp, and he seems to be have dealt with the lobbies very well until now. Hillary Clinton, on the ther hand, is a pure unadulterated neocon and complex creature, and was extremely dangerous.
I should clarify: I’m not particularly fond of Trump, he has a really big mouth, his sexual predator antics are disturbing, and I don’t care for politicians who fire up racists when I have a Texas born daughter who looks like she came out of a Mexican soap opera.
Let me be blunt: Americans are being fed a line of baloney about Russia and Putin, in a sense very similar to the industrial strength baloney you were fed by Bush, his neocon handlers, and the very cooperative USA media when they lied about the Iraqi WMD to talk you into foaming at the mouth, and backing the Iraq invasion, which was one of the greatest blunders in USA history.
Trump seems to grasp very well how to maneuver the USA into a more pro US stance rather than the global empire dreamed by neocons. And this means I’m willing to defend his positions and ignore his rather distasteful behaviors. Let’s hope he surrounds himself with professionals to help him deal with the shark tank in Wahington, and can straighten out USA foreign policy. I’ve spent decades working outside the USA and watched USA blunder after blunder ever since Bush father left the presidency. Let’s hope that 24 year run of idiocy ends with Trump.
For those of you who wish to hear a bit more about my unconventional ideas, I suggest you read American Conservative Magazine, found at a

Reply to  SMC
November 14, 2016 7:51 am

Mike the Morlock November 13, 2016 at 10:25 pm wrote: “A war with China has always been USSR/Russia’s nightmare.”
Yes, I agree with that. The Russians do not trust the Chinese, and that is wise of them.

Reply to  SMC
November 14, 2016 11:07 am

A few years back I read that China was encouraging it’s “citizens” to cross the border and settle in Siberia.
The idea is that the area is too remote from Moscow for it to adequately control. It’s a form of stealth usurption. At some point China will point to the fact that most of the people in the area are of Chinese descent and that because of this they need control, or at least a lot more influence over what happens there.
After what the Russians pulled with the Ukraine et. al., the Russians won’t have any room to complain.

Reply to  SMC
November 14, 2016 12:33 pm

“It’s a form of stealth usurption.”
You summed it up nicely, MarkW.
The Chinese like to steal other people’s land, and Russian land is no exception. It’s ironic that Russia is aiming to steal land on its western border, while China has the desire to steal Russian land on Russia’s eastern border.
Dictatorships can never leave well enough alone.

Reply to  SMC
November 14, 2016 2:36 pm

Dictatorships need two things.
An enemy to focus their people’s anger on (and away from the dictatorships shortcomings).
Land to ship the malcontents to. In the short run, killing them is easier, however in the long run this is usually conter productive as it radicalizes the friends and family of the newly deceased.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  SMC
November 14, 2016 6:16 pm

Okay here we go again.
The Areas people are fired up as having been “stolen” from the Ukraine were never part of the “historic” Ukraine.
The Ukraine was absorbed by Russia in late 1600s
The area in question was absorbed into the Russian Empire 1800.
The Map you are all familiar with is is a creation or Joseph Stalin for administration purposes and to present what would look like a real country to the western powers when forming the UN.
When the Ukraine left the USSR after its break up it defined its borders to Stalin’s map Not the historic Ukraine. Russia was not in a position to stop them from taking historic Russia lands. The people in those lands rectified thee situation. Yes with help from Russia.
Maps help

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
November 14, 2016 6:35 pm

Western MSM is aligned with its’ own ideology and Russia is still a villain. Yes folks, we’re not in Kansas anymore and the new world requires new alliances. Russia/US appeals to me and possibly the only paring capable of neutralizing China.

george e. smith
Reply to  commieBob
November 13, 2016 8:41 pm

You want to explain that prying Canada away from the USA thing to us. Izzat only a 4,000 mile border we have in common.
As for China, even Sarah Palin Can’t see China from her back porch.

Bill P.
Reply to  george e. smith
November 13, 2016 9:34 pm

Or Tina Fay either.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  george e. smith
November 13, 2016 9:38 pm

As a Canuck, methinks CommieBob is adventuring in dreamland. Canada sees China as a great market for our raw materials but we (mostly) understand she can’t be trusted. If it was up to me the West wouldn’t trade with undemocratic countries at all.

Reply to  george e. smith
November 14, 2016 2:37 pm

The US used to sell wheat to the former Soviet Union.

Reply to  MarkW
November 14, 2016 4:12 pm

The last time we were suppose sell wheat to Russia was when they invaded Afghanistan. They will need wheat again. The world has been blessed with great weather since the 1970’s. It nearly bankrupted American farmers, they were urged to plant ” fence post to fence post”. And we had 2 back to back super harvests. So Carter in his infinite wisdom, supported the people who hate us and boycotted the Russians. The world food reserves were down to a couple of months. It was almost panic time time.

Reply to  commieBob
November 13, 2016 8:56 pm

I believe our ‘Liberal’ Boy King has expressed admiration for China’s totalitarian government. I’m sure he wishes he could just tell people whatever he wanted and see it done, too.

Reply to  commieBob
November 14, 2016 11:09 am

george e. smith November 13, 2016 at 11:33 pm
Yes they have all of that uninhabited land in Siberia that the Chinese would just love to move 3/4 of their people to.

Vast areas of China are sparsely populated, et. Gobi Desert, Tibet. They are at least as attractive as most of Siberia. 🙂

November 13, 2016 8:07 pm

Leadership is do as I say, not do as I do.

November 13, 2016 8:09 pm

Wow China the “”new and unlikely champion”:
Anybody who has actually been to China and seen at first hand their appalling pollution might feel the new champ maybe won’t hold the Title for too long.
These idealogues will grab at anything it seems. It is almost becoming a reportable illness.

Reply to  nankerphelge
November 14, 2016 5:52 am

I had a pickup golf game with a man a few years ago who had his Chinese wife riding the cart with him. She took pictures of the SKY – she couldn’t get over what it looked like; she had never seen anything like it at home.

Lew Skannen
November 13, 2016 8:11 pm

Well if the West is daft enough to produce a bunch of clueless ninnies as politicians and voters then I really cannot blame the Chinese for taking advantage of our stupidity.

November 13, 2016 8:12 pm

We know how The Left works and AGW is very much their thing. Remember when “working for peace” was their excuse for supporting undemocratic regimes. Now it’s. Working for the Climate. Just a simple change in semantics.

November 13, 2016 8:14 pm

Nothing more than the same bloviating codswallop from the CAGW faithful, I hope. These people are fools. Nothing new, I guess.

November 13, 2016 8:22 pm

Trump claims ‘Climate Change’ is a Chinese plot to destroy US industry.
Warmists claim that’s ludicrous.
Trump cuts climate spending.
Warmists look to China to continue the scam.
I am, like, shocked.

November 13, 2016 8:39 pm

““Proactively taking action against climate change will improve China’s international image and allow it to occupy the moral high ground,” Zou Ji, deputy director of the National Centre for Climate Change Strategy and a senior Chinese climate talks negotiator, told Reuters.”
Proactively taking what action? The Chinese are not going to reduce their CO2 emissions until 2030, if then. The Chinese are sitting there doing nothing and pretending they are doing something.
Let the Chinese have the UN. They deserve each other.

Reply to  TA
November 14, 2016 7:30 am

Are the moral high grounds good for growing crops?

Lee L
November 13, 2016 8:40 pm

The Chinese actually stand to benefit from the Paris ‘agreement’. Astonishingly, they’re still counted as a ‘developing nation’ by the UN and they have already built massive coal generating capacity so even if they agree to go to ‘renewables’ they’re running on coal for decades to come.
They have also captured the bulk of world solar panel manufacturing so if everyone goes solar, guess who wins?
Wanna think about nuclear? This ‘developing nation’ already runs at least 2 of every kind of design.
China operates TODAY 35 nuclear reactors with 20 more actually under construction.(World Nuclear Association). 50 more are in the planning or siting stages.
China has 2 construction streams. One stream works with Western providers of nuclear technology and the other is all Chinese, designing and installing all Chinese designs, engineering and labor.

November 13, 2016 8:42 pm

Most of the poorer nations joined the climate accord because they thought they were going to get a lot of money from the U.S. and Europe. When Trump pulls out of the accord, a lot of these nations will probably pull out, too, since there is no longer any money in it for them, and China is not going to pay them anything.

November 13, 2016 9:08 pm

Why don’t they get it? Too many people on the planet makes more heat. China got it and restricted births to 1 child per family. The rest of the countries government would rather freeze their citizens which will reduce population. I understood in the 60’s and did not have children.

Reply to  Eve
November 14, 2016 7:32 am

The Earth could easily support 3 to 5 times as many people as we have at present. Regardless in a decade or two the population is going to peak and start falling rapidly.
As for you not having children. Thank you.

November 13, 2016 9:12 pm

More power to China
Electrical power that is
Let China lead
The dumb UN bureaucrats will learn the hard way.

Bill P.
November 13, 2016 9:30 pm

Hm. You say “climate advocates” and “totalitarian” as if they were mutually exclusive. As if the juxtaposition were ironic.
Seem perfectly simpatico to me.

November 13, 2016 9:35 pm

I agree with them, the solution to every problem is to give all the money and power to me!
Well, it’s a *sort* of agreement. Perhaps “I sympathize” would be a better phrase.
As I say so often, it was never about climate, it was always about power and control. If it was about climate, all the solutions wouldn’t be “power and control.”

November 13, 2016 9:35 pm

The future of Chinese research
…There is increasing excitement over China’s scientific rise. The nation has more researchers than any other country and it is rapidly catching up with the United States in the number of scientific papers published. …

November 13, 2016 9:36 pm

This will be good. China the leader for the rest of the world to reduce their CO2 output. The hypocrisy oozes.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 13, 2016 9:44 pm

It is a wrong notion to refer to China as “environmental champion”. The pollution levels [CO2 is not a pollutant] are raising day by day and unable to control it. Also, when there is little green fund what will China do as climate change proactive group leader?
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

November 13, 2016 10:09 pm

Is this the same China that is under reporting their emissions by an amount that is 70% of America’s *total* emissions? (according to the Dec-15 Senate Hearing)

November 13, 2016 10:29 pm

The radical environs are the same “useful idiots” who used to call themselves Marxists, until they were discredited by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the FSU. They then took over the environmental movement. Some call them watermelons.
Here is their story, as written in 1994 by Dr. Patrick Moore.
Excerpted from “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement”
written in 1994 by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace
The Rise of Eco-Extremism
Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
· It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.
· It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tradgedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.
· It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are critisized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?
· It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is adsurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.
· It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are sucessful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.
· It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.
· It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
November 13, 2016 10:53 pm

Excellent and right on point.

Reply to  troe
November 14, 2016 7:59 am

Thank you Troe.
Typo in my line 1: enviros, not environs

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
November 14, 2016 6:15 am

‘It is anti-free enterprise.’
It is decadent as well. It is free enterprise that keeps them alive.

Reply to  Gamecock
November 14, 2016 3:11 pm

86% of global primary energy is fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas. Less than 2% is renewables, despite trillions of dollars in direct subsidies.
Fossil fuels keep most of our families from freezing and starving to death. It IS that simple.

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
November 14, 2016 11:11 am

I’ve lost track of the number of young socialists that have told me that if we could only get rid of profits, everything we buy would immediately drop in price by at least 50%.

Reply to  MarkW
November 14, 2016 3:06 pm

Actually, the price would drop to zero, because there wouldn’t be any.

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
November 14, 2016 11:19 am

An anarchist I once debated described his ideal society like this.
Basically if you need a house, you just look around for an unused house and move in.
Where, I asked, would these houses come from?
They would come from people who like to build houses. They would just go down to the lumber syndicate and get take what they need. The lumber being created by people like to make lumber.
Everybody creates whatever they want to, and just leave it around for others to take if they need it.
What, I asked, about people who take more than they need?
That he replied would be handled by neighborhood committees who would monitor what people are using and would take back if they thought someone had too much.

Reply to  MarkW
November 14, 2016 3:13 pm

You know how stupid the average person is, right?
Well, half of them are stupider than that!
– George Carlin

November 13, 2016 11:49 pm

These people must really like leaders who “lead from behind” if they like the idea of China assuming the leadership role on climate change. China won’t even reach the starting gate until 2030. That is leading so far from behind that no one will be aware of their leadership. The only role they will assume for the next decade or two is to condemn other countries for doing what they are doing.

November 14, 2016 12:01 am

What did you expect? Trump is elected on an isolationist ticket. China steps in to take the US’ place as leader of the world. The US’ position as leader of the free world was always conditional on the US behaving like one.

Reply to  Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
November 14, 2016 2:35 am

Maybe you should look up the definition of “isolationist” some day soon..

Reply to  Marcus
November 15, 2016 12:25 am

Maybe I should. Does tearing up military alliances with East Asia, Europe count as isolationist? Does tearing up TTIP, TTP and even NAFTA count as isolationist? Does promoting autarky in energy and manufacturing? Does non-interference with Russia count as isolationist?

Reply to  Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
November 15, 2016 5:54 am

One of the people who was behind NAFTA was the Dean of Economics at Princeton University. It was unsuccessfully argued that NAFTA would not be a benefit and cot American jobs. The result has been that NAFTA has cost American jobs and has put America at a huge disadvantage. He has since changed his mind. Are you suggesting that as an American, we should continue with this ? I can agree with treaties that are mutually beneficial. I can not with ones that are one sided.
Among the many jobs I have done, I worked with a woman supervisor from Uruguay. One of the more striking things she said was ” you don’t need this job ” .. I needed that job. From working with these people, they seem to think all Americans are rich enough that we don’t have to work. Everybody should be doing something. Work itself is honorable. Whether you’re the janitor or CEO.
If you are going to feel bad for an entire group of of people, change the situation there. Don’t put me poverty to bring in the entire country. A work ethic has no meaning if it’s not profitable. As Ram from India said to me after presenting him with a bill for work to be done, ” that’s the problem with Americans, they don’t won’t to work “, I said no, ” it’s foreigners who think we should work for free “.
By the way, I consider some companies that hand there employees forms for food stamps, section 8 housing, and the like, back door corporate welfare.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
November 14, 2016 6:40 am

Except that the rest of the so-called “free world” hates the US. Additionally, they are acting cuckoo for cocoa puffs on this “climate change” issue. They are delusional. The US, by virtue of electing a leader who understands that is actually acting in a way not only beneficial to the US, but ultimately, for the rest of the world. We are, in short, acting like true leaders.

Reply to  Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
November 14, 2016 8:07 am

Richard Tol (@RichardTol) November 14, 2016 at 12:01 am wrote: “What did you expect? Trump is elected on an isolationist ticket.”
Trump won’t be isloationist at all. American interests overseas will be enhanced by Trump, not gravely harmed like Obama has done.
Richard: “China steps in to take the US’ place as leader of the world.”
Hardly. Most of the other nations on Earth don’t trust China, either. They will take China’s money, though.
Richard: “The US’ position as leader of the free world was always conditional on the US behaving like one.”
Trump *is* behaving like a leader. He is leading the world away from a very costly fairytale called CAGW.

November 14, 2016 12:50 am

China will be the same smog dump or worse in 20 years that is why they have punted any commitment down the road a further decade . Hillary lost Richard get over it. The Democrats sold out to their bankers and did a “fly -by ” of many of their taken for granted former constituents .
The over exaggerated global warming scare industry is not a priority nor should it be .

November 14, 2016 12:54 am

With all the hire powered visits that China has had from Soros, Strong and others their bureaucrats need to remember how their country has dealt with people who have been “corrupted” by “western values”

November 14, 2016 1:03 am

Rightly or wrongly, global warming is a priority to many governments around the world. Trump has given China the opportunity to gain hearts and minds at the US’ expense. The art of the deal, eh.

Reply to  Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
November 14, 2016 1:28 am


Trump has given China the opportunity to gain hearts and minds at the US’ expense.

Looks like China isn’t even able to hold the hearts and minds of its own people:

Reply to  Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
November 14, 2016 6:57 am

When environmentalism started out, it had some real and important objectives — dealing with dirty air and dead, stinking rivers. Its success in all countries that deserve to be called civilized has improved quality of life for everyone.
China is 60 years behind the times with respect to controlling environmental pollution, and its inept government seems not to care a whit. If this government tries to position itself as the “champion of environmentalism”, and the greenies in the West are dumb enough to go along with this, that will result in the exact opposite of “winning hearts and minds” — it will show up environmentalists as the cynical hucksters they have become.
So, I’m all for it — let China assume Obama’s legacy of environmentalist shysterism.

Reply to  Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
November 14, 2016 7:06 am

The USA should be ok if Europeans want to admire the Chinese dictatorship for its enviromental leadership.

Barry Sheridan
November 14, 2016 1:06 am

Moral high ground! China!! A country that under Mao Zhedong consigned as many as 70 million of its own people to death through a mix of intolerant barbarity and insane policies that induced mass starvation.
I agree that this is in the past and China is different now, but it is still controlled by those who will ensure their rule first over the well being of the wider populace. This will not include providing money to sustain foolish westerners and their ridiculous green mania’s.

Brett Keane
November 14, 2016 1:42 am

Just one small thing. Much of the haze seen in China can be the seasonal glacial Loess yellow fine dust blown around dryish continental States (Oz red bulldust, Okie/Texan etc. etc.. So what we see is based on deception from climatists, like the smokestack false darkening techniques…..Last I heard, China was trying to hold it down with Sea Buckthorn.
A huge job, but doable in time one way or another.

Reply to  Brett Keane
November 14, 2016 3:42 am

Dust & smog have different origins, making it easy to discriminate between the two from a satellite view – e.g:
2016/02/09 – Smog streaming eastward off China
(MP4, ~10 Mb)
2016/04/21 – Large Gobi Desert Dust Storm moving into northern China
(MP4, ~4 Mb)

Dodgy Geezer
November 14, 2016 1:51 am

Cut to the chase! Get Trump to fund real research into the tropospheric hot-spot. Do the fundamental research needed to show whether global warming is true or not…

tony mcleod
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
November 14, 2016 3:08 am

How about the precipitous loss of Arctic sea ice or is that fruit hangin’ too lo fer ya?

Reply to  tony mcleod
November 14, 2016 7:36 am

If we could find any precipitous loss of ice, it might be worth while to study it.

tony mcleod
Reply to  tony mcleod
November 15, 2016 2:21 pm

You’d find it if you looked. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

November 14, 2016 2:44 am

Yes, in the topsy-turvy world of global warming, a country that will probably double its emissions by 2030 can be regarded as a ‘climate leader’.

November 14, 2016 2:55 am

By freeing US industry from the shackles of global warming, Donald Trump has ensured that there will be a fantastic economic recovery in the USA. This will ensure that he is a two term President. Remember Bill Clinton said:” it’s the economy stupid”.

November 14, 2016 2:55 am

‘Beijing is poised to cash in on the goodwill it could earn by taking on leadership in dealing with what for many other governments is one of the most urgent issues on their agenda.’
Key words: CASH IN.

tony mcleod
November 14, 2016 3:06 am

Totalitarian China? Capitalist China you mean don’t you.

Reply to  tony mcleod
November 14, 2016 3:20 am

Totalitarian and capitalist aren’t mutually exclusive. The Chinese regime is totalitarian, it also advocates capitalism ruled by a very centralized nationalistic power. I think it can be called a neofascist dictatorship. This seems to be the final stage of communism when it’s allowed to evolve over time. It happened in China, Vietnam, to some extent in Russia, and is what seems to be happening in Cuba.
Interestingly, the mature or evolved form of communism we see in China, and is preferred by Raul Castro, is preferred by left wing intellectuals ranging from Figueres to Bergoglio, the Red Pope.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 14, 2016 7:43 am

“This seems to be the final stage of communism when it’s allowed to evolve over time.”

These governments have not “evolved” but simply abandoned communism because it never worked the way it was supposed to.
The Chinese political and economical system is not defined by some specific principle or ideology but simply by corruption. Anything goes, as long as those in power are paid off.

Reply to  tony mcleod
November 14, 2016 7:39 am

While China has elements of capitalism, only someone with no understanding of economics would label China capitalistic.
Capitalism means individual people and companies get to decide for themselves how to run their lives and businesses.
While the Chinese government no longer demands 100% control of everything, they still demand final say in way too many decisions.

Steve Borodin
November 14, 2016 3:36 am

I think you mean the immoral high ground. The bit previously occupied by Obama with enthusiastic bancrupt EU support.

November 14, 2016 3:55 am

Mainland China looks at the US with both admiration and a subtle feeling of inferiority. They try to replicate US behaviour and businesses as best they can (usually very successfully). Their interest in CAGW is almost certainly only because the US was interested in it. I seriously doubt it was really thought of as a way to beat US manufacturing, they already have won that war.
As the US looses interest in CAGW so too will China.
Now if the CAGW dependent folks around the world want to use China as a source of funding they are in for a very rude shock because if they can pry money out of China there will be very strict and very carefully enforced rules associated with any loaned money. I.e. They will have to work their asses off for it.
As a side note I was in Shanghai when Trump was elected and there was considerable admiration for both the US election and Trump. Many folks saw the corruption on one side v.s. the strong but politically incorrect business guy on the other and had no problem deciding which they prefer.
P.S. I spend a considerable amount of time in China for my job.

November 14, 2016 4:11 am

There’s an old French song, Parlez-moi d’amour, where the chick asks the guy to say all the usual sweet words, even though she doesn’t believe any of them. The climatariat’s relationship to China is like that.

November 14, 2016 6:25 am

” . . . the moral bankruptcy of some leading climate advocates.” SOME OF THE LEADERS!!! ARE YOU INSANE??? Anyone PIMPING CO2 from burning fossil as driving climate change fall into the morally bankrupt category!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Flyoverbob
November 14, 2016 8:32 am


November 14, 2016 6:32 am

Only an idiot would put a fox in charge of his hen house.

Bruce Cobb
November 14, 2016 7:04 am

This is hilarious. China is playing them like a fiddle. The Paris-ites are desperate now though. They need to have a leader, and without the US, China has “nobly” agreed to step in. This allows the Climate Liars in Marrakesh to put on a brave face, and to say “See? We’re soldiering on, even without you”. The pretense is that they didn’t really need the US, but of course they did. Plus, the hope is to try to shame us into reconsidering.

Bruce Cobb
November 14, 2016 9:03 am

Craig Rucker of C-Fact writes:
“I wish you could see the long faces of the climate activists and bureaucrats wandering around the UN climate summit here in Marrakech!
As I mentioned in my email to you late last week the Green Climate Left thought they had everything wrapped up for advancing their terrible Paris Agreement, only to have the Trump election throw a YUGE monkey wrench in their plans.”
Their depression is our delight!

November 14, 2016 10:13 am

Trump has called global warming a hoax created by China to give it an economic advantage
I’ve always assumed that it was welfare for the “Consultanting Class”

David S
November 14, 2016 2:10 pm

I think all countries should follow China’s lead . Do nothing about emissions for the next 15-20 years and then think about it. If that is taking the lead on climate change , let’s follow.

November 14, 2016 4:14 pm

Here’s a funny comment from the Reason magazine site today:

“You libertarians refused to address climate change! So the rest of us are moving ahead without you! With Obama, and the executive orders, and the Paris Accords, and the Martin Act, and …. ”
* Crushed by falling piano with Trump bumper sticker *

Reply to  rogerknights
November 14, 2016 9:47 pm

Very funny … but I think Johnson was too busy trying to cram down on his geography, than to read an IPCC report and embrace ‘global governance’ (totalitarian state ‘led’ by China). I still wonder whether he can point to Aleppo on an atlas without flipping out in a fit, biting his tongue, and rambling about ‘illegal’ immigration, as if the concept of a national border was never sacrosanct to people such as Thomas Jefferson.
Libertarians in the modern sense are complete looney toons, and their left wing counterparts are just EVIL.
Go Trump !!! (love from Australia) The U.S.A, made the RIGHT choice. I’m a little jealous that you have people left in your country who love your country and national character (heartland) so much as to put their own reputation and fortunes on the line to fight for your freedoms and liberties … but I know that all modern wars against true Evil will be won or lost in the U.S.A., because it has forever been the same since 1776 !!! Your Electoral College system and diversity of States opinions, is unique in world history, and a testament to the wisdom of the men who spilled their blood to earn that beautiful, God given word: “NATION”.
Just like in Genesis, the Tower of Babel is falling, and everyone will now get their NATION, and this SECOND SHOT HEARD AROUND THE WORLD came distinctly from the Rust Belt … and western countries around the world are now listening to the sound of that shot, and the globalists are scared sh*tless about the implications. Go Trump!!!

November 14, 2016 9:27 pm

>>> “To me this ridiculous positioning of China as the new environmental champion is simply more evidence of the toxic anti-Americanism and anti-Western politics at the heart of the global climate movement, and the moral bankruptcy of some leading climate advocates.”
So true … the Chinese just see this agreement as a mechanism for their developed world competition to slit their own wrists whilst they continue to grow any way they can, whilst partnering up with western inner city moguls like Gore, Gates, Turner, and Buffett, who are selling their own nations out for a paycheck, and a future of sweatshops (if you were lucky to even get a sweatshop job).
These ‘Climate Saviors’ are the most intellectually and morally decrepit creatures to even walk the face of this planet, and Trump is exposing not only the hypocrisy and detached reality of the MSM and Establishments, but he’s literally stripped the clothes off of the Emperor WORLDWIDE for everyone to see the nakedness of this hubris.
GO TRUMP !!! (love from Australia)

November 14, 2016 11:35 pm

Hey China… go for it!…..
Lead the world as the savior in “Climate Change” .
Kiss you economy bye, bye and oh btw…we know you’re just kidding anyway.
And darn, all those billions we were gonna make in “carbon credits”……

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights