![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]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/chinese-haze-city.jpg?quality=83)
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: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/trump-win-china-to-take-climate-leadership-role-20870
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More power to China
Electrical power that is
Let China lead
The dumb UN bureaucrats will learn the hard way.
Hm. You say “climate advocates” and “totalitarian” as if they were mutually exclusive. As if the juxtaposition were ironic.
Seem perfectly simpatico to me.
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.”
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. …
This will be good. China the leader for the rest of the world to reduce their CO2 output. The hypocrisy oozes.
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
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)
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.
http://www.ecosense.me/index.php/key-environmental-issues/10-key-environmental-issues/208-key-environmental-issues-4
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.
Excellent and right on point.
Thank you Troe.
Typo in my line 1: enviros, not environs
‘It is anti-free enterprise.’
It is decadent as well. It is free enterprise that keeps them alive.
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.
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%.
Actually, the price would drop to zero, because there wouldn’t be any.
🙂
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.
You know how stupid the average person is, right?
Well, half of them are stupider than that!
– George Carlin
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.
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.
Maybe you should look up the definition of “isolationist” some day soon..
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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”
@Amber
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.
@RichardTol
Looks like China isn’t even able to hold the hearts and minds of its own people:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/hong-kong-protests
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.
The USA should be ok if Europeans want to admire the Chinese dictatorship for its enviromental leadership.
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.
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.
Brett,
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)
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…
How about the precipitous loss of Arctic sea ice or is that fruit hangin’ too lo fer ya?
If we could find any precipitous loss of ice, it might be worth while to study it.
You’d find it if you looked. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
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’.
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”.
‘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.
Totalitarian China? Capitalist China you mean don’t you.
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.
“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.
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.
I think you mean the immoral high ground. The bit previously occupied by Obama with enthusiastic bancrupt EU support.
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.
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.
” . . . 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!
+1!
Only an idiot would put a fox in charge of his hen house.