Davos Globalist Elite Bet on Trump Climate Failure

Davos Congress Centre
Davos Congress Centre. By World Economic Forum [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The invitation only World Economic Forum, a gathering of politicians and billionaires in Davos, Switzerland, is betting they can brush aside President-elect Trump’s efforts to stop the climate cash juggernaut.

Davos Elite Focus on Climate Change, Ignoring Trump’s Skepticism

by Javier Blas and Jess Shankleman

15 January 2017, 10:01 GMT+10 16 January 2017, 10:05 GMT+10

Donald Trump has often ridiculed global warming and promised to withdraw the U.S. from the global accord signed in Paris in 2015. Yet despite the change of political weather in Washington, the captains of business and finance gathered in Davos this week will spend a lot of time talking about climate change — and how to make money from it.

The World Economic Forum is devoting 15 sessions of its 2017 annual meeting to climate change, and nine more to clean energy — the most ever on the issues.

It reflects how much is at stake. For global business leaders, it’s not just a question of burnishing their green credentials, but about billions of dollars — maybe even trillions — in potential profits and losses. Insurers are starting to price-in more frequent flooding and droughts; energy giants are shaping their business for a world that’s moving away from oil and coal; car makers are putting real money into electric vehicles; banks want to lend money for renewable electricity projects.

“The good thing is that the Paris agreement raised the bar for everyone,” said Ben van Beurden, the head of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe’s largest oil group. “Everybody feels the obligation to act.”

With money-making opportunities rising, traditional climate change advocates — Al Gore and Greenpeace executive director Jennifer Morgan — will mingle in panel discussions with executives such as HSBC Holdings Plc Chairman Stuart Gulliver and Patrick Yu, president of Cofco Corp., the largest food company in China. They will discuss the nexus between the fight against global warming and business — both how to stop climate change and how to profit from it.

Global Fight

Michael Oppenheimer, a professor at Princeton University who will help to explain the exhibit, said despite the arrival of Trump, the fight against global warming will continue.

“No matter what the U.S. president says, the progress on climate change can have many routes,” he said. “The U.S. can harm progress, but will not stop progress.

China Flip

China, which for years sought to derail global efforts to tackle climate change, has flipped its role and is now lecturing the U.S. and Europe on the importance of the issue. Xi Jinping will be the first sitting Chinese president to attend Davos, after making green finance a key topic for China’s presidency of the Group of 20 nations last year.

Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-15/ignoring-trump-s-skepticism-davos-elite-bets-on-climate-change

Why would China suddenly want to talk up Climate Change? Some greens are even calling for China to assume global climate leadership. Yet at the same time, China are ordering an entire Canada worth of extra coal capacity to be built in the next 3 years.

As WUWT reported in November, the new Chinese energy plan calls for a 20% expansion of coal power over the next 3 years.

Under the terms of China’s feeble Paris “commitment”, China has a free hand with CO2 emissions until the 2030s.

… Based on its national circumstances, development stage, sustainable development strategy and international responsibility, China has nationally determined its actions by 2030 as follows:

  • To achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early;
  • To lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% from the 2005 level;
  • To increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20%; and
  • To increase the forest stock volume by around 4.5 billion cubic meters on the 2005 level.

Read more: http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/China/1/China%27s%20INDC%20-%20on%2030%20June%202015.pdf

But China appears to already have far more coal capacity than they need;

Comment: New coal power plants in China – a (carbon) bubble waiting to burst

While China’s coal consumption growth has slowed down, and fell in 2014, coal-fired power generating capacity continues to grow rapidly. This apparent contradiction has led some observers to conclude that China’s coal consumption growth is bound to resume.

But the evidence suggests otherwise. Instead the continued buildup of coal-fired power plants represents an investment bubble that will burst as overcapacity becomes too large to ignore.

Read more: http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/02/23/comment-new-coal-power-plants-china-carbon-bubble-waiting-burst/

What is the solution to this paradox?

I have a theory – a speculative theory, but one which I believe is supported by the evidence.

China probably didn’t originally intend for there to be a coal capacity bubble – China have been running a loose monetary policy for a long time. Bubbles and resource misallocation are a common consequence of easy money. By the time the Chinese government noticed there were too many coal plants, it was probably too late to stop them being built.

But as WUWT previously reported, China has a plan to utilise their enormous excess of coal capacity – they want to export their electricity, maybe all the way to Europe.

The amount of wasted energy would be ridiculous – by my very rough calculation, even using ultra-high voltage DC power transmission technology, at least 30% of the transmitted electricity would be lost on its 6000 mile journey to Europe.

But as long as Europe continues to attempt to adhere to their Paris agreement pledges, and continues to inflict expensive renewables onto European consumers, Chinese electricity is so cheap that even a 30% transmission loss is acceptable.

It would be cheaper and less wasteful to transport the coal to Europe, and burn the coal in European power plants, but this would violate the Paris agreement. Under the terms of the Paris agreement, China is allowed to burn the coal, but Europe is not. So China gets to burn the coal Europe used to burn, and the Chinese electricity is shipped to Europe, without violating European or Chinese Paris agreement pledges.

Of course, if President-elect Trump wins his battle against the green blob, if the Paris agreement collapses, if Trump and Brexit and Le-Pen in France cause the Paris agreement to unravel, the Davos corporates who have cynically helped to finance and facilitate this audacious scheme to mine European government stupidity stand to lose their shirts. The Chinese coal bubble will burst, maybe along with the Chinese economy, and the Chinese plan to loot the west will come unravelled – leaving America standing tall above the broken rubble of a nasty scheme to profit from the misery of electricity consumers in Europe.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 15, 2017 6:47 pm

“Dissent is not illegal, but persecuting dissenters probably should be.”
Anonymous Heins

January 15, 2017 6:47 pm

Good for them. Now go pay for it yourself. The chaotic world of misdirection plays with other people’s money just collapsed into a simpler set. Thinking people of the world just got a chance to evaluate the truth without as much funded noise.

January 15, 2017 6:54 pm

They mean Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, right? Or more correctly, the prophecy of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Despite their effort to influence our election, Americans chose to place science and America first. Clinton lost. The Artificial Green Blight will be assessed for its value based on science, not the double edged-scalpel of environmentalist propaganda. The Arabs are unhappy too. Their investment in Obama will have a short life. On the bright side, an end to social justice adventures (e.g. progressive wars), an end to immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises), and the world unsettled by numerous coups, extrajudicial trials, and the axis of terror from Benghazi to Aleppo to Kiev can rest assured that World War III is not forthcoming.

Reply to  nn
January 16, 2017 8:39 am

When China cleans up their environment we can discuss how we can improve the air in the USA.
When Australia and every country in Europe and Asia ( including Russia ) each takes in 5 million – 10 million Muslim refugees, as the US has done with legal and illegal Hispanics, then we will talk about which peoples have done their part to help the downtrodden.
Not one country is even close.

January 15, 2017 6:55 pm

The theory that China wants to export energy to Europe isn’t crazy. If you want to find out what is going on, follow the money.
The other thing is that China is still an underdeveloped country. Its rural impoverished population is about half a billion. The extra electricity is possibly intended as part of the development of that population. link As evidence, consider the large unpopulated ghost cities the Chinese are building. link
The other thing I notice with some amusement, is that the Chinese have committed to reduce their CO2 per dollar GDP. That means that, as their GDP goes up, their CO2 emissions can still go up like crazy in absolute terms.

M Courtney
Reply to  commieBob
January 16, 2017 1:00 am

Exporting electricity from Choina to Europe is crazy.
The energy losses are dwarfed only by the diplomatic losses. Look at the regions you need to put cables through.
Now making aluminium and exporting that to the rest of the world? That’s not crazy.
And I’m sure there are other energy intensive materials that China can export.

Reply to  M Courtney
January 16, 2017 5:34 am

This is the core of the Poodle – Frei after Goethe. China does not sell energy to Europe, but utensils to set up the expensive renewable energy. No wonder China will be honored by the (yet) World leaders in Davos. It could prove to be a partner against the realism of energy and climate, which is now emerging in the USA. The principle that you have to look for a new partner, if the old one falls away, also applies to the money thieves and deceivers of the renewable energies. Therefore, but not only, is in the highest interest that he understands with Russia. Russia is only a military power, but it is also a sleeping giant in the economy. Trump is clever, he has recognized this, and is also beginning to push this against the eternal opponents of Russia in his party and in the bloated intelligence services. But, he should not forget to pay attention to his safety. Last night I saw a documentary about the murders of John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. I trust something to both his opponents in the USA and his global opponents.

Janice Moore
Reply to  M Courtney
January 16, 2017 7:07 am

Hans-Georg, I’m going to use your comment to try a third time to post what I tried to post last night around 7:30pm (hard to let all that effort and time go to waste) by doing it in two posts instead:
Part 1
Why would China suddenly want to talk up Climate Change?
Answer: Money.

… Hu Guodng, deputy general manager of wind farms developer China Datang Corporation Renewable Power, said large state-backed firms like his may shift more resources to developing projects abroad
… “In 2018 and 2019, we expect a decline in domestic installation and China’s large central government-backed firms may have to seek growth more aggressively overseas,” he said on the sidelines of a wind power conference in Beijing on Thursday. “Our domestic market is facing growth bottlenecks.”
Beijing has proposed to cut subsidised solar power tariffs by up to 30 per cent …
Hu said China Datang is mainly looking for opportunities in North and South America, and Australia. …
Sun Jianzhong, chairman of turbines and parts maker CSIC (Chongqing) Haizhuang Windpower Equipment, a unit of state-owned China Shipbuilding Industry, said his company also has a preference for developed nations. … “Why the US? Because if our products can be demonstrated to be successful in a high-end market, then we should stand on firm ground when opening doors in other markets,” he said. …
“Chinese equipment makers cannot only rely on the domestic market, they must go abroad to win orders in order to sustain growth,” { } said {Chen Jun, chairman of CSIC’s rival Dngfang Electric Wind Power}. …
developing nations also have higher risks and challenges, such as complex and lengthy regulatory approval procedures, higher credit risks, cultural differences and sometimes higher incidences of land ownership disputes.
“One of the problems with some Chinese firms is their lack of understanding and preparation to comply with foreign regulations such as customs clearance procedures and technical standards, … a certain firm’s solar panels shipment was stuck at a port for so long that the warehousing fees exceeded the panels’ price,” {said, Cui Yaping, vice president of Zonergy, the renewable energy unit of Shenzhen-based telecommunications equipment giant ZTE}. …

(Source: Chinese Renewable Energy Firms Look Abroad …, October 23, 2016, http://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/2039364/chinese-renewable-energy-firms-look-abroad-growth-offset )

Janice Moore
Reply to  M Courtney
January 16, 2017 7:09 am

Part 2 {Note: Part 1 should appear just above this — at this moment, it is for the third time, in moderation}
(Also see: China’s Wind Power Industry Faces Slowdown as Tariff Cuts Loom —
profitability will also be hit by grid bottlenecks and intensifying competition amid capacity oversupply
, October 20, 2016, http://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/2038694/chinas-wind-power-industry-faces-slowdown-tariff-cuts-loom )
The Chinese may lack understanding and preparation to comply with foreign regulations, but, they are well informed about how taxpayer subsidies/rebates/conventional power rate surcharges for solar and wind and electric/hybrid cars in the free world are an easy way to make MONEY.
The game’s up in the U.S., guys.
No more American patsies:
Report from Davos, January 16, 2017 — Due to drastically revised upward risk estimates, Big Insurance, Big Wind, Big Solar, and Big Electric Auto abruptly left town this morning. Stock prices for companies X, Y, Z, A, B, and C fell over 50%. With shaking hands, the CEO’s flagged down taxis and fled for the airport. In response to our queries, Mr. Wood-Ailai screamed, “NO ONE WILL BUY MY WORK IN PROCESS INVENTORY!!!!”
In other news, Donald Trump adopted a new dog.

Reply to  M Courtney
January 16, 2017 1:15 pm

” Look at the regions you need to put cables through.”
Russia and – possibly – Outer Mongolia and Belarus. Then you are in Europe. Both Mongolia and Belarus are de facto russian satellites.

Reply to  M Courtney
January 16, 2017 4:30 pm

“Exporting electricity from Choina to Europe is crazy.”
Them crazy Choinese electrical engineers don’t seem to think so!
China’s proposed investments in long-distance, ultra-high voltage (UHV) power transmission lines will pave the way for power exports as far as Germany, the head of the national power grid said on Tuesday as he launched an initiative for cross-border power connections.
“The energy losses are dwarfed only by the diplomatic losses.”
The energy losses are coming down fast.
Today, a long distance 800 kV HVDC line loses just 3.5 per cent per 1000 km, and is able to transmit many gigawatts of power.
That’s using HVDC. The new ultra-high voltage (UHV) transmission lines at 1,100 kV and above will be even more efficient.

old construction worker
Reply to  commieBob
January 16, 2017 8:56 pm

I read about that plan back in the early 80’s along with Bill Gate’s money losing idea of hard wire Asia with internet cable. Can’t remember of the name of that company, but a lot of investors lost a lot of money.

Roger Clague
Reply to  commieBob
January 17, 2017 3:50 am

China has had this sensible CO2 per GDP measure for a long time.
As you say, as long as their GDP is increasing then so can their CO2

Eric Simpson
January 15, 2017 6:59 pm

Davos is a gathering of elite leftists.
Climate “science” is bs propagated by these people. It’s politicized science. Which has no credibility as it isn’t truth seeking but straight out advocacy for a leftist cause. The “97% consensus” is only a consensus of leftists. If we correct for ideology then there is zero consensus. And among conservative scientists we can expect a 90% consensus against the leftist climate loons. It’s a consensus of ideology, not science.
Tom Nelson ‏@tan123 55m55 minutes ago
OMG, whatever would we do if all climate cult scientists left the U.S.?! [we’d rejoice!] https://twitter.com/tan123/status/820812696698372096

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 15, 2017 7:13 pm

Among the tweets on the page you linked I noticed: Leading scientists urge (British Prime Minister) May to pressure Trump over climate change. If it does happen I bet it won’t work. ROTFL

Eric Simpson
Reply to  commieBob
January 15, 2017 7:28 pm

commieBob It’s funny that “conservatives” in other countries, especially Europe, are typically leftist loons when it comes to climate, especially Europe.
Maybe that has something to do with the freedom of speech that we have in the USA, or something to do with our frontier spirit and us NOT looking dumbly up to an elitist stodgy orthodoxy to guide society (and it looks like Europe is being guided into intercultural mayhem, with a bunch of ugly expensive worthless windmills thrown in just as the slimy icing on the awful cake).

Eric Simpson
Reply to  commieBob
January 15, 2017 7:35 pm

Btw, I should have added that I think that that’s the best source on twitter for skeptical climate links and news: Tom Nelson https://twitter.com/tan123

Reply to  commieBob
January 15, 2017 7:52 pm

it looks like Europe is being guided into intercultural mayhem, with a bunch of ugly expensive worthless windmills thrown in just as the slimy icing on the awful cake

They got their priorities wrong for sure. Roman history teaches us that the modern mixture of alienated guest workers and refugees is really bad news. link

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
Reply to  commieBob
January 15, 2017 8:22 pm

I see that one of the alleged signatories is UEA’s recently retired star, Phil Jones. Newcomers might be interested in knowing that Jones’ famous fast words include:
I totally agree with Peter [Gleick] on Yuck.
I’ve never requested data/codes to do a review and I don’t think others should either. I do many of my reviews on travel. I have a feel for whether something is wrong – call it intuition. If analyses don’t seem right, look right or feel right, I say so.
All together now … Feelings, nothing more than feelings …
That aside … perhaps my mouse missed it; however, I do wonder why the Guardian neglected to include a link to the actual “petition”. Perhaps the purported author – in this instance, Science editor, Ian Sample – was simply sifting samples from a press release?!
Or perhaps the Guardian‘s primary readership is of the low-level kind, so readers cannot be trusted to view actual documents – and draw their own conclusions.
Then again, considering the timing of this “petition” … Perhaps the unnamed initiator(s) didn’t want to burden any “high level” Davosians who may – or may not – have been privy to the actual document text and signatories. Gaia forbid that such bigwigs be so bothered and/or burdened, eh?!

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  commieBob
January 16, 2017 12:57 am

commieBob It’s funny that “conservatives” in other countries, especially Europe, are typically leftist loons when it comes to climate, especially Europe.
Maybe that has something to do with the freedom of speech that we have in the USA, or something to do with our frontier spirit and us NOT looking dumbly up to an elitist stodgy orthodoxy to guide society (and it looks like Europe is being guided into intercultural mayhem, with a bunch of ugly expensive worthless windmills thrown in just as the slimy icing on the awful cake).

sorry to say but had it been that easy, it would already had changed.
biggest issue in europe was: while the refugees were coming in, europe, the IMF and the worldbank were having countless reunions in order to see how to rip off Greece, while they should have done the same for the incoming refugees.
in answer to that Italy and greece did blow up the dublin treaty saying they can’t cope. (which they couldn’t as the IMF and worldbank depleted all their means to do so)
so it’s the technocratic regimes that were installed there that did provoke the swing to the left. or in short a similar but opposite response in what trump achieved in the USA.
that’s in very short and uncomplete what happened in europe. but it’s nowhere near the mechanism you tell. Better dig a bit in the european disaster of the last 10 years….

Gareth Phillips
Reply to  commieBob
January 16, 2017 2:09 am

Eric Simpson
“commieBob It’s funny that “conservatives” in other countries, especially Europe, are typically leftist loons when it comes to climate, especially Europe.”
You have to remember Eric that all politics in the US are pouched to the right in comparison with the rest of the West. The people you think are lefties in the west, such as the LibDems in the UK are considered centrists in their political stance, while we see people like Obama as right of centre. This probably gives you some insight as to how most people in the West outside the US view the politics of Donald Trump.

Reply to  commieBob
January 16, 2017 4:34 pm

“The people you think are lefties in the west, such as the LibDems in the UK are considered centrists in their political stance”
Only by Lefties.

old construction worker
Reply to  commieBob
January 16, 2017 9:10 pm

conservative and liberal in Europe means: conservative = fascist. Liberal = socialist. Both want to rule your life. To them the less individual freedom the better. Maybe with Brexit libertarianism is starting to take hold.

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 16, 2017 5:14 am

This AM on Bloomberg Business ( leftist ) network an interview with the CEO of Unilever, Paul Polman, underscored the persistence of Business Leaders still caught up in this Faux Science mantra. You might be able to access this on the network’s website–chilling. I almost bought a position in Unilever last month but fortunately I’m not sold on this Sucker’s Rally. All my positions are defensive and have trailing stops for quick exit.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 18, 2017 12:55 pm

They say: “The U.S. can harm progress, but will not stop progress.”
Not necessarily. The incoming EPA Chief could say: “Since the CO2 Endangerment Finding had a legal requirement that EPA conduct a Science Evaluation of their own – and this was not done – then:
1. The Endangerment Finding for CO2 is rescinded,
2. All Regulations based on the Endangerment Finding are rescinded, and
3. The EPA will conduct an investigation to determine whether to request the DOJ to file criminal or other charges against former EPA chief Gina McCarthy for what appears to be willful disregard for the law.”

January 15, 2017 6:59 pm

“A humble scientist should never be an oxymoron.”
Anonymous Heins

UK Sceptic
Reply to  Steve Heins
January 16, 2017 12:43 am

Shame those CAGW wallahs didn’t get your memo.

January 15, 2017 7:02 pm

Oooh two new ones for my climate crap monastic chant file:
Climate failure
and Climate cash
Here it is in all its new “glory” or turd-ness:
Climate action
Climate action plan
Climate advocate
Climate agenda
Climate agreement
Climate ambition
Climate anxiety counseling
Climate blueprint
Climate budget
Climate cash
Climate catastrophe
Climate challenge
Climate change action plan
Climate change training
Climate chaos
Climate consciousness
Climate coyness
Climate crisis
Climate danger
Climate d*nier
Climate disruption
Climate election
Climate emergency
Climate engineering
Climate enthusiast
Climate failure
Climate fatigue
Climate finance
Climate genocide
Climate hawk
Climate interference
Climate justice
Climate leadership
Climate literacy
Climate loss
Climate mitigation
Climate mitigation services
Climate movement
Climate opposition
Climate plan
Climate pledge
Climate policy
Climate preparedness
Climate proponents
Climate protagonists
Climate punishment
Climate questions
Climate reduction
Climate refugees
Climate resilience
Climate risk
Climate scenarios
Climate summit
Climate talks
Climate thwarting
Climate timeline
Climate wars
Climate weirding

Eric Simpson
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 15, 2017 7:19 pm

climate loons, climate clowns, climate leftists, climate nuts / nutcases / bozos / imbeciles, chicken littles, scare- / fear-mongers, fear-mongering chicken littles, Bullsh|t Artists, BS Experts, doomers, doomsters, Prophets of Doom, ecoloons, doom and gloomers, Cry Wolfers, climate deceivers, climate fascists / freaks / tyrants, purveyors of: -bs -propaganda -deception -fear -mumbo jumbo -baloney -idiocy], leftists, masters of deception, propagandists, carbon hucksters, methane mafia, Kyoto Con-Men [substitute alarmist or warmist for ‘climate’ or mix and match prefixes etc!]

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 15, 2017 7:23 pm

And then there is climate change’s Siamese twin: global warming.
Thanks for growing laundry list of climate change.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 15, 2017 9:28 pm

add robber baron to that list, rent keeping is definitely one of their methods..

Jimmy Haigh
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 15, 2017 7:37 pm

My favourite is “climate bollocks’.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
January 15, 2017 10:15 pm

How about Climate Seance?

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
January 16, 2017 6:05 am

Climate Scientology.

Reply to  philincalifornia
January 15, 2017 7:46 pm

Is a cli-mate some sort of transgender?

J Mac
Reply to  imoira
January 15, 2017 8:27 pm

Cli-Mate Change (?)
(By Arthur C. Clarke I think, sung to ‘Home, Home On the Range’)
Oh give me a Clone,
a clone of my own,
with it’s Y chromosome changed to X.
And when we’re alone,
just me and my clone,
we will both think of nothing but sex!

Pop Piasa
Reply to  imoira
January 16, 2017 12:36 pm

…Clones, clones are deranged
So the ‘queer stuff’ no longer seems strange.
Then seldom is heard
That “transgender” word,
Cause now that can all be arranged!

Reply to  philincalifornia
January 15, 2017 8:50 pm

Also, the same list with “carbon” replacing “climate”. (Only more so.)

UK Sceptic
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 16, 2017 12:44 am

All designed to pick up the Climate turd from the clean end.

Reply to  philincalifornia
January 16, 2017 7:21 am

… just a few more suggestions. (^_^)

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
January 16, 2017 7:47 am

You know how there are specific words to describe various fears ? … Well, I propose a new word for the fear of climate changecaelumetumia.
This way, we could start pursuing treatment options. People could then make money on ELIMINATING the fear (Doctors/drug companies are you reading this?), instead of making money on PROPAGATING the fear.
Caelumetumia IS a disease. I used to have it, but I cured myself with mega-doses of truth. I need to start a motivational-speaker tour, I guess, … or start a twelve-step program, … write some grants to set up clinics in rich neighborhoods, … etc.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
January 16, 2017 7:52 am

Climacteric :-p
Now somebody use it in a sentence, climate related.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
January 16, 2017 8:11 am


Jim G1
January 15, 2017 7:02 pm

If the US does opt out of the green bandwagon, in spite of Tillison’s previous lickspittle position on the subject, our lower energy costs will put us in a better position to compete. If the rest of the world wants to piss their money away, let them, as long as we do not. This should eventually turn the tide in our favor, starting with China. No one has ever accused the Chinese of being spendthrifts with their own money. Now, if they can spend some other fools’, that’s a different story.

Tom Gelsthorpe
Reply to  Jim G1
January 15, 2017 7:40 pm

Well said.

Eric Simpson
Reply to  Jim G1
January 15, 2017 7:56 pm

“in spite of Tillison’s previous lickspittle position on the subject”
I remain concerned about TIllerson. I’m not so concerned that he’s probably going to be nominated, but that there’s nobody (or few) protesting his explicitly leftist positions on climate change.
Warmism was becoming commonplace in the GOP before ClimateGate, but after ClimateGate the GOP did a 180° as **most** of us realized we were being duped by the data manipulating / peer-review rigging leftists. Almost certainly Tillerson will be nominated, but at least put his feet to the fire in saying the we do not want to give him a free pass on his unabashed leftism on climate (true, Tillerson says the science is not ‘conclusive’ on drought and storm attribution, but all the Republican warmists like Christie say the same thing, and in fact many leftist alarmists agree with that, so that’s little consolation). Our greatest strength is unity against the climate leftists, but if we start letting the warmists into the GOP without complaint it could start hurting our cause as the fear-mongers work to divide and conquer us.

Rex Tillerson Oct 2016: “At ExxonMobil, we share the view that the risks of climate change are serious… [and favor] the Paris agreeement.”

4 days ago Tillerson reconfirmed that those leftist climate views our his own, and said he wants international cooperation to solve “the problem,” and said he actually wants to try to influence Trump on climate, like he dragged Exxon left on climate.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 15, 2017 8:20 pm

I understand your concern, Eric, but I am not worried.
When Mr. Tillerson said that, he was obligated to act in the best interests of Exxon shareholders — i.e., there, to take advantage of the Obama administration’s climate-sc@m promoting policies to increase profits.
As Secretary of State, Tillerson would be violating his fiduciary duty to the U.S. taxpayer and be guilty of violating conflict of interest rules (loyalty to a past client at the expense of a current one is a serious ethics violation) to promote a pro-Paris deal/pro-“gotta fight AGW,” Exxon-serving, policy. Tillerson will do no such thing. Further, he was VERY CLEAR that he would put America’s interests first.
Also, remember, Exxon fought the AG climate clowns in “Exxon knew” — and won.
All is well!
Rest easy.
(I saw that you liked that cute little tea party photo — thanks 🙂 — that was a fun comment to create “… hide behind the table … I can hear the squish of {the troll’s} brains.” lololol).

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 15, 2017 9:39 pm

Be careful where you accept claims from.

Former ExxonMobil CEO told lawmakers Wednesday he did not see global warming as an “imminent national security threat,” though he thinks humans are contributing to that warming.
“I don’t see it as the imminent national security threat as perhaps others do,” said Tillerson, who is President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to head the Department of State. Tillerson was responding to a question from Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/12/tillerson-global-warming-is-not-an-imminent-national-security-threat-video/#ixzz4Vts2qTSe
Further into the questioning, Tillerson made it clear that there is research that does not confirm “global warming” and CO2 is evil.

Eric Simpson
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 15, 2017 10:52 pm

Janice Moore If there’s someone’s position that I respect, for both its hard-line and soundness, it’s yours.
Anyway, I’m not “worried” per se about Tillerson’s effect on policy that he controls (like perhaps a relation to the Paris Accord and even other possible international agreements), but about the seemingly nonchalant approach to accepting a warmist into our little group (the GOP). If we want to be an effective group we need to rout out that type of difference of opinion on this key issue (at least denigrate it to provide resistance to it), like the Dems have done on almost every issue (abortion, gay rights, immigration, climate change).
Again I’m fine that he’ll probably be confirmed (I kept saying nominated before but meant ‘confirmed’). Tillerson also supported Jeb Bush for president so Tillerson must share Jeb’s lax immigration views as many “Chamber” types do, and hopefully that doesn’t play a role at State, imo.
ATheoK I think that Tillerson saying “it’s not a national security threat” is the same thing that other Republican warmists like Kasich say. But Tillerson remains a warmist that accepts almost to the letter the bullsh|t politicized (leftist) science (sure, with minor caveats). Once you accept the science that opens the door to the inevitability of having to accept their whole insidious chicken little program. That Tillerson accepts the science is a big enough objection to be a deal breaker for me, but I certainly respect everyone else’s opinion.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 16, 2017 5:27 am

Janice, sorry, but Exxon did not Win, in fact they have lost the last round.
Corrupt Justice System strikes again.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 16, 2017 6:51 am

Thank you, A.C., for the disgusting news. Indeed, Exxon lost that bush league round, but, a county Superior Court’s decision is a small win for the climate hu$tlers. Exxon will certainly appeal and, barring corruption up to the highest level (which, could be the case, for the pro-AGW tentacles reach far and wide), will win.
I wouldn’t have written here at all, but, this fact needs to be repeated often: there is NO merit, not one rational basis, for the lawsuit against Exxon concerning “climate change.” It all stems on what Exxon “knew.” What the evidence, i.e., data shows is, human CO2 emissions have NEVER been proven to cause climate change, not — even — close. All the AGWers have is speculation, failed models, anti-correlation (CO2 UP –> WARMING STOPPED), and the travesty of no lower troposphere “hot spot.” Thus, because NO one can know of any significant harmful information concerning “climate change,” the lawsuit against Exxon is FRIVOLOUS and should be dropped immediately with costs to the defendant.

“It’s not enough to show that Exxon had internal knowledge of climate change when external knowledge was widespread. The government would have to show that there were things that only Exxon knew and that were material to investors and that Exxon kept from investors. …” {says Michael Gerrard, a law professor at Columbia who directs the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. }

(Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-07/will-exxonmobil-have-to-pay-for-misleading-the-public-on-climate-change )

… Exxon Mobil has also filed a complaint for preliminary injunction in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas … bar enforcement of the {Massachusetts} CID and requested a declaration that this case violates its federal constitutional rights. {Judge} Brieger stated in her opinion that “[t]his matter involves the Massachusetts consumer protection statute and Massachusetts case law arising under it, … .”

(Source: http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/01/massachusetts-court-orders-exxon-mobil-to-turn-over-climate-change-documents.php )
I did not review the Mass CPA (Consumer Protection Act), but, most states’ acts are modeled on the federal act and it requires injury to the consumer from a deceptive act or practice. With “climate change” — there is none.
The only reason Exxon would not win this, de jure, is:
1. as you said, corrupt judges (the system is fine, it is the judges who can warp it — and they can be removed, that is part of the system, too, but, all this is within a context of broad political/public deception-based (on junk science) corruption. NO system, no matter how well designed, can completely eliminate injustice done by humans bent on doing wrong); or
2. Exxon settles to avoid millions in litigation costs to win out in the end (their shareholders may, iow, say, sorry, but while you are clearly in the right, Exxon, we’re just looking at the bottom line, here).
One thing is for certain (given the state of the science as it now stands): Exxon will NEVER lose this case, de facto. The other side simply has NO EVIDENCE for its charges.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 16, 2017 2:44 pm

From here, Tillerson appears to be a Luke-warmist like many of us at WUWT.
So far it occurs to me that our next President is staffing his cabinet with people “money can’t buy”. (Priceless)

Walter Sobchak
January 15, 2017 7:10 pm

“China, which for years sought to derail global efforts to tackle climate change, has flipped its role and is now lecturing the U.S. and Europe on the importance of the issue.”
When your enemy is committing suicide, don’t stop him. In this case, China is standing on the stre4et below and yelling jump.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
January 16, 2017 12:03 am

You nailed it, Walter. Of course China is promoting ALL OTHER countries to reduce carbon emissions and build more solar and wind while crippling their economies. Who benefits? China with all its excess cheap power and labour to export your iPhone, iPad, iMac or many of the other devices you are reading this post on along with steel for wind turbine towers and other structures, solar panels, and tons of other gadgets. And the looney left politicians can’t see through the smog. Amazing.

JP Miller
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
January 16, 2017 5:54 am

Bingo! China realized that acting as though they believe in CAGW would add even more global unanimity to the idea and drive the West into economic decline by supporting its transition to unsustainable energy sources. It’s so obvious…..

Pop Piasa
Reply to  JP Miller
January 16, 2017 2:52 pm

You bet! Once they laid down their own ground rules to give them immunity from the crush to reduce CO2, they became the cheerleader for change. Obama gobbled it up and never got the joke.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  JP Miller
January 16, 2017 3:41 pm

By the way, climate change is the “change” that Obama promised in 2008.

January 15, 2017 7:19 pm

It’s worth noting that China doesn’t have to start reducing emissions until 2030, according to the Paris agreement. What nation would sign an agreement with China, let alone one 14 years from now?

Jimmy Haigh
January 15, 2017 7:36 pm

Are any of the Davos ‘elite’ non-leftists/liberals?

Chris 4692
January 15, 2017 7:39 pm

Since the Senate has not ratified the agreement the US is not part of the agreement and is not bound in any way. A withdrawal by Trump would only be acknowledging the status quo.

Reply to  Chris 4692
January 15, 2017 8:47 pm

I would like to see Trump send it to the Senate for ratification. They won’t ratify it, of course, but doing it that way would show a great deal of respect for both the institution and the primacy of constitutional procedure.

Reply to  wws
January 15, 2017 9:53 pm

Sending it to the Senate would also have the effect of spreading the credit around. Then Trump’s critics can’t blame Trump alone when the Paris Agreement is rejected.
The U.S. Senate voting against it (and they will) would say to the world that not only does Trump think CAGW is a ho ax, but so does the majority of the U.S. Senate and the people of the United States who are represented by those Senators.
The Senate hearing would also be a good way to shine some light on the subject of CAGW and AGW. A real teaching moment.
Btw, Scott Pruitt’s EPA confirmation hearing is scheduled for Jan. 18. That might be a good one to watch! You can bet the Democrats are going to come down on him hard.

Reply to  wws
January 16, 2017 3:28 am

Eric, I disagree with you strongly.
We should have no fear of a free and open debate on the floor of the Senate. In fact this is absolutely what we should want the most!
Until now, everything the global media has reported about The Treaty is based solely on the pronouncements and pontifications of the proponents. A free-for-all in the Senate is exactly what the world needs.
It would put the entire subject of climate science up for debate.
It would force the “debate is over” faction to publically defend their science.
It would expose all the dirty details of the agreement to worldwide scrutiny. Especially the Green Climate Fund – Who plays (China) and who pays (us).
If the warmists win the debate because they have logic and solid proof on their side, and the Treaty is ratified by two thirds of the Senate – then it would become the legitimate law of the land – and I would accept that. That’s democracy, but I’m not afraid of that happening. Are you? (if you’re uncertain have a look at the electoral map again)
IMO. the most productive thing the skeptic community could be doing right now is to make every effort to bring the Treaty before the Senate. Rejection will kill the beast. Let the games begin!

Roger Knights
Reply to  wws
January 16, 2017 5:58 am

Eric Worrall January 15, 2017 at 10:53 pm
Risky IMO. They might ratify it with the help of a few RINOs.

I think it’s likely that a few RINOs would vote for the treaty—but the wouldn’t cause the senate to ratify it, because 66 votes would be needed for that. I agree with THAN and KenW. The public has been propagandized, and the warmists have done so by avoiding debate. In order for Trump to really win on this issue, I not enough for him to issue an executive order, or even just rely on a mostly party-line vote in the senate. (If a majority votes to ratify, like 54-46, Trump would lose the propaganda war. The public (and the media) need to be exposed to the contrarian case. By doing so, Trump would demonstrate his open-mindedness and good faith. This is vital for bringing the country together and winning long-term public trust.

Reply to  wws
January 16, 2017 7:33 am

In a Senate hearing, the American public would be made aware of just how much money the U.S. is obligated to spend in other countries under the Paris Agreement. I don’t think American taxpayers are going to like the fact that they are paying huge sums of money to “upgrade” the rest of the world while the U.S. infrastructure deteriorates for lack of money.
I think the unfair money issue alone would kill the Paris Agreement in the Senate.
I really think the climate change issue needs to be changed from “Trump against the World”, to “The U.S. against the Elites”, and that can only be done with a Senate rejection of the Paris Agreement. Otherwise, Trump gets all the heat from the Left.

Reply to  wws
January 16, 2017 7:38 am

Friends, The Treaty is absolutely toxic outside of about 10 states in the northeast and left coast. It would combust spontaneously if exposed to daylight. The MSM and Dems are punch drunk and flailing on the ropes. Now is the time to make them drink that poison.
We really need to DEMAND that that treaty go to the Senate – and then come out fighting when it does! Unto the Breach!

ferd berple
Reply to  wws
January 16, 2017 8:46 am

send it to the Senate
Rejection by the Senate would be more permanent than an Executive Order:
Byrd-Hagel Resolution
July 25, 1997
Considered and agreed to
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that–
(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would–
(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or
(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and
(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.
SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the President.

January 15, 2017 8:00 pm

One thing is sure and that is Climate Change is now big business and those businesses see dollars.
Where will these dollar come from?
Well the article tells us some sources.
“For global business leaders, it’s not just a question of burnishing their green credentials, but about billions of dollars — maybe even trillions — in potential profits and losses. Insurers are starting to price-in more frequent flooding and droughts; energy giants are shaping their business for a world that’s moving away from oil and coal; car makers are putting real money into electric vehicles; banks want to lend money for renewable electricity projects.”
It is big business who have the lobby, and big business who want globalisation. Its little people like us and the rest of the population of the world who pay those dollars.
Why is China appearing to go green? Well my theory is that when you are in the position of China or perhaps Russia, and you see your competition in trade, resources and even military etc. self destructing well why ot help them along a bit. The Chinese have been there done that, still too many people alive that remember the Cultural Revolution, but it wont hurt them to allow the west to have a cultural revolution of their own.
The biggest fear that I have is their attitude towards Donald Trump. “Morgan of Greenpeace. “If President-elect Trump doesn’t want to go,there then he is going to be very out of step.”
To me that means, if he dosent fail of his own accord, we, (The Economic Forum), will make sure he fails.
Scary, but Donald Trump will need every bit of suport he can get!
Yes we have all the same influences in my country as well. Some of these are discussed in my blog.
We don’t have a Donald Trump though!

Reply to  rogerthesurf
January 15, 2017 10:09 pm

“We don’t have a Donald Trump though!”
No, noone has another Trump. He is a unique individual. But I’m certain all nations have very good talent, if they can just get the right person in the right place at the right time.
Trump’s success will show others what is possible. Trump is a trailblazer, showing us a new way of doing things, and others will follow in his footsteps. Four more days.

Reply to  TA
January 16, 2017 7:57 am

Yes, Trump is a unique individual. Only a huckster like him can run 4 companies into bankruptcy, shaft small businesses and hire foreigners over Americans – and then sell himself as the great job creator.

Reply to  TA
January 16, 2017 8:20 am

and hire foreigners over Americans …… he couldn’t even find an American wife

Reply to  TA
January 16, 2017 11:10 am

The bitter snowflakes are swirling around, it seems.

January 15, 2017 8:15 pm

“It would be cheaper and less wasteful to transport the coal to Europe. . .”
Aren’t we (in the USA) shipping coal to China?
/Mr Lynn

Mick In The Hills
January 15, 2017 8:40 pm

What’s the expression “being played off a break” in Chinese?

J Mac
January 15, 2017 8:44 pm

“The good thing is that the Paris agreement raised the bar for everyone,” said Ben van Beurden, the head of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe’s largest oil group. “Everybody feels the obligation to act.”
Au contraire, mon frere!
The US is not obligated to ‘act’.
The US Congress did not ratify that ‘agreement’…..

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  J Mac
January 15, 2017 9:34 pm

Does ‘raise the bar’ mean ‘let loose the kracken’?

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
January 16, 2017 1:34 am

“Cry ‘Havoc!’, and let slip the dogs of war”

January 15, 2017 8:44 pm

A pretty obvious problem with the China-sending-electricity-to-Europe plan: The transmission lines would either have to run though Putin’s Russia (and why would he like that? He wants to sell Europe NatGas) or though Jihadi land. Don’t see either option working out well for the Chinese.
So why did the Chinese allow a coal capacity bubble to develop? Because China has a top-down command economic system, and systems like that always stink at efficient resource allocation. You don’t need any fancier explanation than that.

J Mac
Reply to  wws
January 15, 2017 9:50 pm

So why did the Chinese allow a coal capacity bubble to develop? Because China has a top-down command economic system, and systems like that always stink at efficient resource allocation. You don’t need any fancier explanation than that.

Reply to  wws
January 16, 2017 2:13 am

You never get bubbles in a capitalist economy, do you??? !!!

Reply to  Roy
January 16, 2017 10:06 am

Of course you get bubbles, but they are self correcting, as Schumpeter described better than anyone.
The problem with command economies is that they are NOT self correcting, and an error such as the Chinese have made tends to get locked in place, since to change government policy means uprooting a host of political players who have found ways to gain power from the policy.
In capitalist societies, when a glut develops, the price drops, and investment in that area grinds to a halt. Of course it is painful for those in the sector, just as it has been painful for those in the oil and gas fracking sector the last couple of years – but it works to correct the glut, and it doesn’t take a huge amount of political maneuvering to make it work.
The worst bubbles in a capitalist society (such as the housing bubble in 2008) always happen when Government has acted in such a way as to prolong and extend the bubble far longer than it ever should have lasted. ie, mandating that low income borrowers with weak credit be extended loans with very low downpayment amounts, and even financially rewarding those financial outfits which took the greatest risks. In a capitalist system, crony capitalism will always be behind the greatest crashes.

Reply to  Roy
January 16, 2017 10:10 am

Sure you do and if left alone the bubbles pop, the offending companies go out of business, entrepreneurs step in a buy up the pieces and put them back to work. The whole thing is over in a short period of time. Unfortunately governments usually feel the need to step in and bail out those miscreant companies, keep them afloat (to save the jobs of the poor workers) and enter into a form of socialism that puts the entire economy into a depression for the next 20 or 30 years or until the next war makes everyone forget what happened. The lesson learned isn’t that government intervention is bad but that the appropriate job of government is to intervene in business to make the economy better . . . which is pretty much an unconstitutional policy in the first place.

Kenneth N. Shonk
Reply to  Roy
January 16, 2017 12:01 pm

Only part of the US economy is a market economy. The FED (which has a monopoly designed to protect and make money for the banks) not the market controls interest rates, and its the FED that has promoted capital misallocation and bubbles, especially the housing bubble. However, that being said, oscillations between optimism (demographic up cycles) and pessimism (demographic down cycles) play a role as well as Harry Dent has demonstrated.

Reply to  wws
January 16, 2017 8:48 am

the CO2 will of course remain in China.

Rhoda R
Reply to  wws
January 16, 2017 10:53 am

Europe may not be the target. Africa is much closer and would really see their lives improve if ‘gifted’ with abundant energy – from any source – that China could supply. And that the western nations seem hell-bent on keeping Africa from getting.

January 15, 2017 8:48 pm

Michael Oppenheimer is the guy who came with the idea that we could tackle climate change if the rich industrialized countries paid the poor undeveloped countries to stay undeveloped. of course its implementation is shrouded in sweet bureaucratese and the pretense that we really want to help the pooe countries. SDG for example.

Reply to  chaamjamal
January 15, 2017 9:41 pm

Club of Rome. I think part of the point of AGW is to keep the undeveloped countries undeveloped.

jim heath
January 15, 2017 8:48 pm

In Trump we trust!

January 15, 2017 8:55 pm

Any business management worth its munificence would be planning how to make its fortune out of the collapse of the global warming hoax, not its perpetuation. Sometimes early adopters are rewarded, and this might be an opportunity to be in on that.

Reply to  gnome
January 16, 2017 5:00 am

and yet the likes of Royal Dutch Shell, Enel, NRG are basing their strategy on renewables being the way forward, because of cliamate change… why is that?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 5:53 am

Are you really as dumb as you sound Griff? Or just disingenuous? They obviously still see it as being to their advantage to play the “climate” game. The writing is on the wall though, even if they have yet to see it.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 5:59 am

No, not because of “cliamate [sic] change.”
Look up the term “rent-seeking.”

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 7:19 am

Skankhun42, I respect the fact that you are allowed on this site because “denier” sites do not limit access – we leave that to the CAGW sites who will edit and finally shut down challenges to their cause. However that being said, you are a troll and I will continue to challenge every one of your responses to show how bad your responses truly are.
Money doesn’t talk, it screams or swears. Or both. Unfortunately the energy giants of the world have to take the high road on this topic, either by remaining silent or stating that they are doing, …. , something. We saw that in it’s glory in Alberta, Canada, when four supposed energy leaders stood beside our wonderful socialist Premier, when she rolled-out her totally ridiculous “Climate Leadership Plan”. These four individuals were not doing this because they wanted to destroy the industry that they have invested billions of their shareholders dollars into, they were doing it to garner favors from the incompetent incumbent.
Sold out the industry in Canada, IMHO. I still lose sleep over that photo-op.

January 15, 2017 8:55 pm

The World Economic Forum, no meeting between the Chinese President and the Trump team, a Limerick.
The Globalists gather in Davos’
Hear all of the insiders bravos.
Chinese President Xi
goes to meet Trump, say hi.
No Trump team went there, Xi can’t shove us.
With Chinese President Xi Jinping set to headline the attendees as a speaker on opening day of this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, those handling his messaging and his calendar indicated that channels of communication were open and that there was the possibility of a meeting between China’s staff members and those of President-elect Trump.
However, “Trump won’t send an official representative to the annual gathering of the world’s economic elite in Davos, taking place January 17 – 20, the days leading up to his inauguration.” The stated reason by a senior member of Trump’s transition team is that “the president-elect thought it would betray his populist-fueled movement to have a presence at the high-powered annual gathering in the Swiss Alps.”
Heads of state, who’s who of multinational corporations, prominent academics, philanthropists, U.S. Senators and Congressmen, world bankers and a retinue of journalists, celebrities and hangers-on will attend the three day conference and enjoy such culinary delicacies as a thirty-six dollar hot dog and a thirty-two dollar ham and cheese sandwich. One can just imagine what a hasenpfeffer with all the trimmings and lubricants will cost. There are 2200 attendees, and with all their entourage and with all the needed service people the population of Davos will swell from 11000 to 31000.
One of the subjects coming up is their cherished Climate Change Control debate.Getting to Davos is no easy task. It is nested among mountains, and nearby airports are small and with very little capacity to accommodate the 1700 private jets, so the jets have to deliver the dignitaries, then disperse over Switzerland, France, Germany and Italy. The dignitaries need limousines, maybe exceeding existing limos in Switzerland, so limousines will come from surrounding countries to serve them. All this in the name of saving the planet from the evil of Climate Change. https://lenbilen.com/2017/01/15/the-world-economic-forum-no-meeting-between-the-chinese-president-and-the-trump-team-a-limerick/

Reply to  lenbilen
January 16, 2017 1:40 am

It would seem to me that such a consolidated area of rich and powerful would be the prime target for a potential terrorist attack.
Let us hope the authorities have taken steps, we wouldn’t want any of the local innocent people harmed after all.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Felflames
January 16, 2017 6:40 am

A nice snow storm would do.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Felflames
January 16, 2017 4:00 pm

Ooh! Climate Terrorism! Has that been added to the “climate” list?

January 15, 2017 9:03 pm

All the ‘elites’ are anti Capitalist, pro Socialist, and pro One World Government. Trump understands AGW is about destroying Capitalism and that won’t fit his agenda. I believe we can count on Trump to take advantage of the pending energy crisis just like China has. I also believe Trump sees the energy void being artificially created and understands why China wants to promote it. He sees the same opening for America and won’t play the political game to let it happen….. because he doesn’t have to. He’s already said he will push fossil fuel extraction and exploration because he knows that will be a kick starter for the economy. Watch as other nations see the positive impact and line up to be part of the progress and growth and put their own critical eye on AGW. I think the ‘elites’ have bit off more than they can chew. A lie is still a lie no matter how it’s told or who tells it.

Steve T
Reply to  markl
January 16, 2017 5:50 am

Forrest Gardener
January 16, 2017 at 1:38 am
Not too many are anticapitalist. How do you think they got their wealth?

Capitalist and Capitalism are not necessarily alike.
Capitalism is the free market application of capitalists exercising their rights to make a profit in an open and competitive environment. This leads to wealth production and shares that wealth more equitably.
Capitalists can take part in the above, but many prefer to have the competition removed by onerous government regulations etc. which remove the level playing field to the advantage of existing players and against any new (possibly innovative) ones. This allows the cartels created to maximise profits at the expense of the ordinary consumers as happened prior to WW2 and has continued more recently around the world government globalisation theme. This increases profits (including the subsidies) that stem from lack of competition.

Reply to  markl
January 16, 2017 8:01 am

It is not excessive government regulation that keeps out new entrants. That hasn’t stopped Amazon from hurting bricks and mortar stores, Google and Facebook from taking revenues away from traditional advertising mediums (TV, print) or Tesla from building electric cars.

Reply to  markl
January 16, 2017 9:15 am

They are nouveau anti Capitalists because they have already made their money and now want to prevent others from doing the same and secure their place in the hierarchy to come. Wealth redistribution is not altruistic.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  markl
January 16, 2017 4:06 pm

Steve T,
“Capitalist and Capitalism are not necessarily alike.”
I wish the Pope understood this, the rest of the world seems to understand the difference between capitalism and ‘crony capitalism’.

Reply to  markl
January 16, 2017 8:30 pm

Your definition fits any business or government program. Where the ‘capital’ comes from delineates the disagreement. “Capital” that’s been appropriated can’t really be called capital…. can it? I agree politics/social has entered into the definition but by necessity, not accident.

J Mac
January 15, 2017 9:08 pm

Also planning an ’emergency meeting’ in DC later this year, to ‘discuss how to handle Trump.’
“Last year, the world elites gathered in Davos were certain that British voters wouldn’t vote to Leave the European Union and that Donald J. Trump would never be elected president of the United States—and that all these fears of populist uprisings around the world would never materialize. But they were wrong, and now Davos attendees are scrambling to try to figure out why.”

January 15, 2017 9:22 pm

“Insurers are starting to price-in more frequent flooding and droughts”
Really? Sounds like fraud to me, seeing as how there is no evidence of more frequent flooding or droughts.

Reply to  TA
January 16, 2017 5:02 am

Insurers and actuaries are driven more than any other industry by the figures.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 7:23 am

The vast majority of commercial and residential insurance policies renew annually, at which point new rates come into effect (assuming they pass review by regulatory agencies). Warren Buffet has explained this is why climate change, even if real, is not a long term threat to the insurance business.
What typically happens is rates rise after a natural disaster. So insurer losses in the year of a major payout event are made by premium increases in following years.
Of course insurance companies would love to have an excuse to raise rates now, so it is not at all surprising to find them among the choir singing the gospel of future climate disaster.

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 11:17 am

No, actuaries now depend on projections tainted by failed climate models.

Crispin in Waterloo
January 15, 2017 9:30 pm

Take a minute to look at this visualisation of real time wind and ‘air pollution’. It will show you why it is so cold in Davos right now.
It worked better in Chrome. You can rotate and zoom in.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
January 16, 2017 1:17 am

This is the Northern Hemisphere at 09:15 hrs Jan 16
• blue = 0°C & below
• white = -10°C & below
• red = – 30°C & below

Reply to  1saveenergy
January 16, 2017 1:19 am

Typo: should be 09:15 hrs Jan 17

Reply to  1saveenergy
January 16, 2017 1:58 am
Pop Piasa
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
January 16, 2017 4:46 pm

Toneb, do you always soil yourself during a january thaw? Wait and see what the rest of winter brings before assuming 2017 the hottest year yet.

January 15, 2017 11:29 pm

It may well be a whole new world during the next four years… Global cooling may have a real chance of commencing with the upcoming solar min (after weak solar max). Along with it, the atmospheric co2 growth rate will plummet as it has during every cool spell (over the last 59 years). On top of all that our next recession is already underway a la the federal reserve (raising interest rates). Trump won’t be able to stop it, as the fed trumps trump, so the first thing that may go are these useless green schemes. (he’s already on the record as saying that such schemes will have to make economic sense, certainly during a recession they won’t) And God only knows what else will come down the pike during the next four years. It may well be a whole new world…

January 16, 2017 12:18 am

I watched a discussion of Davos on CNBC last night, the talking heads getting it wrong as usual, they conflate Climate with Air Pollution, a favourite trick of greenies. China already has a lot of coal capacity, but it is in the wrong places, not near the major smog-prone cities. To fix the smog problem China needs MORE low-cost coal capacity near the smog, and/or natural gas, so that people can stop burning coal in their homes for heat, which is a major cause of the smog.
Another interesting thing about smog is that it reveals the weather conditions in the area. Smog needs very light winds, i.e. wind power is not the solution.

Ex-expat Colin
January 16, 2017 12:34 am

Heard on BBC Radio 4 this am that 100 UEA signatories have written to Mrs May…please keep the money coming.

January 16, 2017 12:53 am

Never was the saying, “FOLLOW THE MONEY !! ” ever so true!

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Streetcred
January 16, 2017 4:59 pm

The trail seems to lead towards cronyism and markets manipulated for profit! Hmmm!

Bob Osborn
January 16, 2017 1:02 am

The law of unintended consequences strikes mercilessly. Europe can import coal produced electricity at a 30% loss of efficiency than if they burned the coal themselves. This is why World Government cannot work if these morons can’t figure that out from the first day what hope is there? What will Trump say? Your Fired!

Reply to  Bob Osborn
January 16, 2017 1:55 am

You are fired becomes you’re fired, not your fired.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Perry
January 16, 2017 5:02 pm

“The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe” – F. Zappa

richard verney
January 16, 2017 1:16 am

I suspect that the over capacity of coal powered generation in China is twofold. First, the government failed to predict the economic slow down such that coal powered generation increased in line with earlier predictions of sustained economic growth. Second, China is a huge country and unless economic activity is to be concentrated in just one or two small areas, which would be detrimental and would create a very uneven society, it is inevitable that there will be investment in infrastructure across the land some of which will never be needed, or will be taken up more slowly than other areas which may benefit from better geographical links, rail networks and shipping.
China is in it for the long game. It knows that the 21st century belongs to it, and its time will come. All the coal powered stations will find a use as economic activity once more picks up. If nothing else, they will be used to build the wind turbines and solar panels which China will ship to the West as West nations continue to destroy their energy and industrial infra-structure.
TrUMp has no choice but to pull back from the Paris Accord. He is a business man, and this is where reality reigns supreme. TrUMp has committed himself to bring jobs back to the heartlands of America. If he does not keep that commitment he will be toast in 2 or 3 years. If he keeps that commitment, as I expect him to do so, then America’s CO2 emissions will rise significantly as more emphasis is given to jobs in the coal mining and steel industries, and as infrastructure investment/construction takes place. We have already seen F0RD pull back from locating a car plant in Mexico but instead keeping production in the States. Whilst that was only one small action, it has already impacted upon the future CO2 emissions, and one can expect to see more and more of this type of action. America is not going to offshore as much of its industry as it would have done so under a ClINt0n administration, and that means that America’s CO2 emissions will rise.
TrUMp is no one’s fool. The reality is that TruUMs commitment to jobs makes it inevitable that America’s CO2 emissions will rise, and therefore TrUMp has no choice but to ditch the Paris Agreement. Politically, it will assist him to undermine the science/scare behind cAGW and to suggest that the model predictions are way off base and that Climate Sensitivity, if any at all, is low, and that there is nothing to be feared about a rise in CO2. It will assist him for him to present evidence that suggests that US temperatures have been tampered with and exaggerated. If the elite business leaders of the world do not see that TrUMp will make an assault on cAGW and ditch Paris in his pursuit of American jobs, they are fools.

January 16, 2017 1:53 am

In 1962, when coal was burned in steam locomotives to haul coal 600 ton trains in the UK, it was cheaper to transport coal 100 miles to be burned in a local power station & generate electricity, rather than generate electricity adjacent to the coal field & send it 100 miles down the transmission lines. What would be the cost of an INVULNERABLE infrastructure to transmit electricity 6,000 or more miles from China to Europe?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Perry
January 16, 2017 5:11 pm

“…INVULNERABLE infrastructure to transmit electricity 6,000 or more miles from China to Europe”
Dream on, Sol can fry it at will.

Kenneth N. Shonk
January 16, 2017 1:54 am

First time on this site. Lots of comments on GHG promotional money angles that I had never though about previously. My thoughts on the subject:
Davos is a billionaire’s Juke and Jive dance to distract us
while they slither into the pocketbooks of each dumb cuss
CO2 doesn’t cause climate change as Al Gore’s preachin’
his religous superstition to deny the truth – ozone depletion
from the impact of CFC’s and volcanic aerosol emissions,
a mavelous dance between oxygen’s photodisassociation
from UVB radiation and ozone’s creation and distruction.
Check out https://WhyClimateChanges.com for a lesson,
and you will conclude Davos is a conspiracy of high treason
worthy of a racketeering and corrupt practices conviction.
Copyright: MH Publishing – freely distribute with attribution

January 16, 2017 2:00 am

It would be truly amusing to see China burn coal in their super duper ultra critical boilers, so that they could supply Europe with politically acceptable electricity, losing 30% of the energy along the way as heat!

Roger Knights
Reply to  Asp
January 16, 2017 6:12 am

I suspect that some of these new coal plants are for replacement of old inefficient, dirty plants, not for new capacity.

Gareth Phillips
January 16, 2017 2:03 am

It will be interesting to see what effect the early summer melt has on the Davos politicians. It won’t happen while they are there, but it seems likely it will happen much earlier than usual and from a much lower level of refreeze. Effects of this phenomenon on the Northern hemisphere’s weather ( if any) may well concentrate their minds on the issue of climate change. On the scale of investment versus outcomes, it does not take much to affect the balance.
I see IKEA are suggesting they will withhold substantial green investment from the UK unless it gets its act together. Will such pressure increase I wonder in the face of events?

January 16, 2017 2:47 am

Do ‘We The People’ still have power or have multinationals taken it away from us? Never wonder why elections only change faces not politics. Remember HOPE and CHANGE. So can Trump break the power these Multinationals have or is he just one of them? Do you think he’ll abolish the Federal Reserve? If he doesn’t nothing will change.

Reply to  Robertvd
January 16, 2017 2:57 am

comment image
This tells you what you are. A Slave a Guinea Pig and Cannon Fodder.

Harry Passfield
January 16, 2017 2:52 am

The Chinese are playing the long game. They have a free pass until the ’30s so they can do and say anything the like until then – by which time they must figure that the whole rotten scam will be over, and they get to walk away with their economy intact. (well, OK, their energy supplies).

Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 16, 2017 6:18 am

Yes, that’s basically it. But while giving tacit approval of the Obama feel good agenda they also did their fair share of territory grab in the South China Sea to match the Putin grab in Crimea. They know an easy mark when they see one.

January 16, 2017 2:55 am

The. Chinese are choking on the pollution caused by their scrubberless thermal power plants, and this seems to be a huge driver in their current behavior. They have a mixed system, a communist dictatorship trying to sustain itself using a capitalist economy, but they retain the central planning mania, and the citizenry can’t articulate the suffering and misery caused by dirty air to the upper caste oligarchs.
I also want to point out that sending electricity from China to Europe is beyond bizarre, and that China will have an increasing tendency to focus on energy security. Depending on Australian coal, Iranian oil, and LNG from Qatar, Russia, and Australia isn’t a recipe for success.

Reply to  fernandoleanme
January 16, 2017 3:32 am

I call the Chinese system “rich slaves”. A system that maintains shackles on its people but allows them to have jobs that pay enough for buying nice stuff. Which is what the Davos oligarchy wants as well.

Roger Knights
Reply to  fernandoleanme
January 16, 2017 6:15 am

Maybe China is considering selling electricity to Japan or Taiwan.

Reply to  Roger Knights
January 16, 2017 7:03 am

Seriously doubt they would buy it. Why would a developed nation rely on electricity generated by a communist dictatorship with imperial ambitions?

Reply to  Roger Knights
January 16, 2017 9:00 am

developed nation rely on
The EU relies on Russian gas and oil big time. Why would they place themselves at the mercy of Putin? If Russia turns off the gas and oil to the EU in winter, how many days would it take for the EU to fall?

Kenneth N. Shonk
Reply to  fernandoleanme
January 16, 2017 1:04 pm

The Chinese plan for energy self-sufficiency and becoming an energy superpower is electricity from thorium powered molten salt reactors fueled with thorium from Bayan Obo, the largest rare earth and thorium deposit on the planet. Thorium-based molten salt reactors operate at atmospheric pressure, are scalable, the fission by-products cool rapidly (~100 years), “burn” uranium reactor waste, operate at a temperature 200deg C higher than uranium reactors and so are more efficient thermodynamically, have no potential for run-away core meltdowns, are scalable from 1MW to 1GW, and have estimated electricity production costs of $0.01-0.02 per kilowatt-hour. The Chinese have over 1000 engineers working on this technology. The USA, perhaps 3-10. Europe probably 0. The major problem to be solved is a materials problem with regard to pumps and piping required to circulate the molten salt or finding a less corrosive “salt” molten at the appropriate operating temperatures. Current piping and pump lifespan with current materials technology is estimated to be10 years. Needs to be 50+ years. Once the Chinese have solved the problems, they will have the patents, and reactor production capacity to undercut every other form of power production in the world. They will sell or provide for “free” the thorium fuel and reactors and charge a royalty on all electricity produced, making all other counties uncompetitive with China on an energy basis. It will be a new form of “bondage”, especially for Europe and possibly Canada. With carbon taxes, the energy costs in Ontario are already at $0.17 per kilowatt hour – a true competitive disaster since Canada is also selling hydropower to New York state for $0.04 per kilowatt hour under a long term contract. The USA nuclear research program demonstrated the feasibility of this reactor technology in research programs from the 1960’s to 1980’s and then the US gave the technology to the Chinese (in the early 2000’s I think). Check out the Thorium Energy Alliance website for details (http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/).for the full story. The Chinese should have the technology problems solved by 2030 and then be able to reduce CO2 emissions without a problem. Never mind that CO2, is not the

Kenneth N. Shonk
Reply to  Kenneth N. Shonk
January 16, 2017 1:15 pm

I apologize for hitting the post button too soon. The last part of the post should be: Never mind that CO2 is not the controlling variable with respect to climate change, it’s “Ozone Depletion”. See Dr. Peter Langdon Ward’s website https://www.WhyClimateChanges for the full story. Dr. Ward provided this information to the UPCC and nearly all climatologists and paleoclimate scientists in the world in direct e-mail communications so the Chinese already know this. They are not stupid.

January 16, 2017 3:23 am

The Davos Elite are the ultimate rent seekers. They have settled on Global Warming to gain control of the wealth of nations, a step toward World Government with themselves in power. They are not above fomenting violence to further their cause.

Reply to  pochas94
January 16, 2017 3:41 am

That’s just conspiracy theory

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 11:20 am

No, it’s a reasonable conjecture and nothing like the crazy mindless drool you regurgitate here regularly.

January 16, 2017 3:29 am

Davos has effectively become the center of a multinational oligarchy of the most powerful and most wealthy. They have invited the ruler of a country that is manipulating them to become their leader. This alone makes me more comfortable with the election of Trump than just about anything that has happened

Reply to  hunter
January 16, 2017 4:41 am

Yes. They need a figurehead. Be wary of those to whom they channel their donations.

January 16, 2017 3:40 am

The ‘Chinese export power to Europe’ idea is just a mirage.
Yes, there is a contradiction between existing Chinese coal plant construction plans (already drastically watered down each year in the last 3) and the capacity needed. China recognises this: most of that coal plant won’t get built.
It may be difficult to take on board, but China has rapidly changed tack on coal power and is heading for truly massive renewable investment. The change is so recent and continues so fast that any analysis or article even a year old is out of date.
Meanwhile, the world’s largest manufacturing, consumer goods, insurance, financial and energy companies fully accept the science of climate change and the Paris agreement and are moving and investing based on that premise.
The only people not on board with this are the incoming US administration and the fossil fuel interests in the US which funded it.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 16, 2017 5:05 am

And that plan makes no sense, because it would lead to overcapacity.
Already their plant seems to be operating at 50% capacity…
Stupid they ain’t.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 16, 2017 5:09 am

See also:
A 6% reduction in proportion of demand met by coal by 2020 and a coal cap for 2020 are incompatible with continuing expansion of coal, in the above labelled as leading to coal plants being stranded assets…

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 16, 2017 5:33 pm

Stupid they aren’t, just dumb like a fox.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 16, 2017 5:55 pm

Oddly enough Eric, our friend Griff comes to comment most when the subject of discussion is the economics of renewables and their feasibility. I smell that he is employed by from the very entity being discussed n this thread

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 5:30 am

Griff: “Stupid they ain’t.”
Lots of things they do are stupid -> one child policy for instance?

Roger Knights
Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 6:26 am

Griff says:
Meanwhile, the world’s largest manufacturing, consumer goods, insurance, financial and energy companies fully accept the science of climate change and the Paris agreement and are moving and investing based on that premise.

“Fully” is projecting and hoping. There’s no way to judge their sincerity and depth of commitment. There’s more reason to believe they’re playing along, drifting with the current, speaking goof to power, being lemmings, etc.

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 6:26 am

“Lots of things they do are stupid”
Especially their militaristic puffery in the South China Sea, which will serve only to antagonize their neighbors (and the US) and to make impossible useful trade negotiations which would benefit them. Stupid, stupid, and stupid.

K. Kilty
Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 8:46 am

You mock others for conspiratorial ideas, yet you are certain that the fossil fuel companies fund Trump or fund skepticism, I am not certain which. There is no news according to you about this rapid Chinese pivot on coal versus renewables, but you somehow know all about it. Insurance companies according to you are brilliant with assessing risks, as long as they are climate risks that aid your cause, but otherwise would be ripping off the gullible to raise their rates. Griff, you add amusement at times.

January 16, 2017 3:58 am

Yes, China is in an economic down turn, but I always thought that the surplus coal plants might just have been a green negotiating tool. Build 100 more than you need and then get green credits for not using them.

Reply to  Matthew W
January 16, 2017 5:53 am

The so-called “Greens” do not depend on the climate or on the nature, it is important to build a socialist world through the back door. Here in Germany one calls then people, which for such a thing can be clamped useful idiots.

January 16, 2017 4:35 am

Well, of course there are billions to be made and lost from climate science. Why, the US government are spending billions and the lobby groups are making billions. I always found it fascinating that greenies and so called climate scientists could be somehow trusted to be holier than though, when in any business in the World you need to make money. Climate science is just one of those and until they think they can make money from another aspect of climate, it will continue.
I remember I had a job in my early twenties in an IT support role, which really didn’t need to exist. Did I tell my explorer? Eem, no, I actually spent my free time justifying my existence and actually creating problems to fix.

January 16, 2017 4:53 am

“Insurers are starting to price-in more frequent flooding and droughts”
What about pricing in the benefits — have they done that?

Nikola Milovic
January 16, 2017 5:37 am

In my language “choke” means “strangle”, Davos, meaning one who strangle.
There is organized a collection of those who prepare the noose poor that they strangle their “innovations”.
It is strange that many conscious people accept this nonsense that man is to blame for global warming. Who and what is much that silenced so many scientists that have lost their connection to the natural laws. They suggest that it does not know the power of the mutual influences of the planets and the sun and the influence of magnetism on the change in the behavior of the sun and planets, going to change the temperature of the Earth itself and its tread. Mali is ztačenja influence of the sun, or magnetic fields and their fluctuations (see the cycles of sunspots) are the main cause climate change in general.
I hope that’s enough Tramp aware of this and that, as an influential man, stop this avalanche of stupid theories, which are designed to enrich the individuals that will receive energy from natural gases from the births of their wells.
Tesla’s technology will win all these lunatics, which would have destroyed all of humanity for his own benefit.

January 16, 2017 6:06 am

Is it like a George Soros bet?

Roger Knights
January 16, 2017 6:29 am

The Davos agenda was set many months before the US election, much of it even likely before Brexit. This may be warmism’s last hurrah.

January 16, 2017 6:32 am

1. Global Warming
2. ???
3. PROFIT !!
This business model only works with government intervention, because only government has its hands in the pockets of taxpayers.

January 16, 2017 6:42 am

The Davos Elite are whistling past the graveyard.

January 16, 2017 6:42 am

The World Economic Forum is being subsidized by taxpayers in the US through US Aid grants. Likely not the only country doing this. Considering who attends these meetings and their expensive location that says it all.
Let us hope that the Trump asministration defunds the thing.

January 16, 2017 6:57 am

Urban sprawl in the mountains….for the cause of course.

January 16, 2017 6:59 am

Why would the high tech loving clowns need a physical meeting to plan their war against humanity? Do they realize how much carbon it took to fly their pampered asses to Davos?
They are partying their asses off on the backs of the poor.

Reply to  fred
January 16, 2017 7:27 am

The Devos guys have to meet in person to take and receive bribes.

Rhoda R
Reply to  emsnews
January 16, 2017 11:10 am

Also to keep their discussions off line and with no written record.

Jim G1
January 16, 2017 7:21 am

China will play both sides of the street and ultimately go along with anything that benefits China. They are not hard to read. Trump has been right about China all along. And as far as Putin, he is similar, though not as smart and if I hear one more “Russia hacked the election” comment I’m gonna barf. SOMEBODY got some emails from the DNC. That is not hacking the election as the msm likes to propagandize it. Lord have mercy!

Reply to  Jim G1
January 16, 2017 7:24 am

Yes, so far any concessions are well into the future and they are free to do what they want until then. After they get to the deadline years, they could just say “We aren’t following this because of x did that and y did this”. Doing anything prior just gives a huge economy an advantage for the next 15 years. All sold on a good faith agreement being honored then. Yeah, right.

Reply to  Jim G1
January 16, 2017 9:00 am

Jim, I agree with you except for one statement “somebody”? I suspect that a NUMBER of people hacked into the DNC emails since it was so easy, in addition to the Russians, and there is a possibility that Assange is correct in that he did not get the emails from the Russians. The DNC refused to give access to the server to the intelligence community so how could they be so certain that it was only the Russians. Of course I could be wrong just like the claim that ISIS was the JV team and the top intelligence doctored the field intelligence to make the President look good.

Reply to  Jim G1
January 16, 2017 9:50 am

The Horror!: Truth defeated Hillary.
The only hacking that could have made any difference in the election were the hacks of the DNC and Hillary cronies, and all we got out of the hacked emails was the truth. I have no problem with someone revealing the truth to me, no matter who it is. OTOH, the Left has a BIG problem with the truth being revealing, as demonstrated by their screaming about its release. Understandable, since the truth makes them look real bad, but whose fault is that, other than their own.
Sorry, I’m not going to be outraged over the truth being revealed. I like it that way. More, more, more.

January 16, 2017 7:27 am

A 30% loss is trivial compared to losses by Thames Water. Distribution systems somehow know how to remain profitable, no matter how high the loss.

January 16, 2017 7:45 am

Whe China gets up to the quality levels of the Clean Air Act of 1963, we can talk.

January 16, 2017 8:06 am

China supports the Paris agreement because they don’t have to abide by it and they’ll manufacture have the stuff used for alternative energy. It’s a no brainer.

January 16, 2017 8:13 am

As far a excess coal plants, they spend a lot of time trying to keep people employed so they are not just thinking about what they need.

January 16, 2017 8:17 am

China can be involved as its strategic solution to enrgy supply and pollution, maybe climate change, is simple and very public. All nuclear and hydro. Because they prefer energy science fact to green science fiction, what can deliver adequate power in the future at any level required 24/7 after fossil.
Facts of generation are that renewables are technically inadeqaute on the basic characteristics of the density and intermittency of their energy sources, excluding the waste of farmland/more than coal CO2 emitting “bio fuels”. Add to that the environmental impact of renewables massive resource use per unit energy in materials and land use to collect much lower density energy, as well as visual environmental impact and natural environment effects of wind turbines, water damming and growing bio fuels. Nuclear is wholly insignificant by comparison. And, as any high school student with the national energy production data can check, using renewables to offset fossil on the grid actually makes CO2 emissions expesnively worse than simply replacing coal with gas and nuclear replacing both. No renewwables are needed to achieve the biggest and fastest decarbonisation of grid electricity supply. Science fact. No consensus required. It’s not climate science
The only part of renewables policies that works reliably and as advertised are the Billions regressively added to bills to make every measurement of climate change and enrgy supply worse in fact. Sure, the Chinese will also export into that easy money market as long as that state legalised extortion racket can be maintained. But it isn’t what they plan for their own end game.

January 16, 2017 8:19 am

Yet at the same time, China are ordering an entire Canada worth of extra coal capacity to be built in the next 3 years.
China ARE? Eric, this mangling of grammar has to stop. The noun China is singular, not plural. It’s a single country so you must write China IS, not ARE. Lately, I’ve seen a trend to misnumber the verbs that go with singular subjects, as in saying “the team are…” Teams, like China, are collections of individuals, but they themselves are single units so their accompanying verbs must be singular. You can look it up.
This may seem a small thing (and it is). Yet, the fate of the language hangs in the balance through misuse (/sarc). Just please be more careful in the future.

Jim G1
Reply to  Gary
January 16, 2017 12:51 pm

You are working under the delusion that everyone uses northern US grammar. There’s lots a folks what is usin other rules.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Gary
January 16, 2017 3:12 pm

You’re right about “China” being singular everywhere, but wrong that “team” is necessarily singular. In the UK it (and similar collective words like “company”) is treated as a plural.

January 16, 2017 8:50 am

China seems to want the rest of the world to be at an energy disadvantage by being dependent on expensive renewable energy. It’s hard for industry to be competitive when your energy costs are so much more than your global competitors.

Reply to  Gmak
January 16, 2017 9:05 am

Good point, why is it that a portion of our elected leaders cannot grasp this simple concept, it is so obvious. Of course excessive regulations also play a role also which are not a problem in China.

Jerry Henson
January 16, 2017 9:17 am

Trump’s pick of Scott Pruitt for EPA and possibly Dr. Will Happer as science czar
convinces me that he intends to keep his promises on climate.
Tillerson’s past positions as Exxon’s CEO simply reflect the reality of dealing with
One World Government types.

January 16, 2017 9:31 am

[blockquote]Insurers are starting to price-in more frequent flooding and droughts; /blockquote]
And if these things don’t happen… hey, free money and everyone told them to expect it, so it’s not like they’re gouging people….

Roger Knights
Reply to  kcrucible
January 16, 2017 3:13 pm

Use angle brackets on your tags, not square brackets.

Ian Macdonald
January 16, 2017 10:19 am

Didn’t Dav(r)os say, “I am exceedingly difficult to kill.”
Though in the finish his own creations turned on him.

Kenneth N. Shonk
January 16, 2017 11:39 am

First time on this site. Lots of comments on GHG promotional money angles that I had never though about previously. My thoughts on the subject:
Davos is a billionaire’s Juke and Jive dance to distract us
while they slither into the pocketbooks of each dumb cuss
CO2 doesn’t cause climate change as Al Gore’s preachin’
his religous superstition to deny the truth – ozone depletion
from the impact of CFC’s and volcanic aerosol emissions,
a mavelous dance between oxygen’s photodisassociation
from UVB radiation and ozone’s creation and destruction.
Check out https://WhyClimateChanges.com for a lesson,
and you will conclude Davos is a conspiracy of high treason
worthy of a racketeering and corrupt practices conviction.
Copyright: MH Publishing – freely distribute with attribution

Stephen Richards
January 16, 2017 11:56 am

CEO for Unilever was on CNBC today saying that trump has to stay on bord with climate change. He will have no choice.
Unilever and all the other big EU corporations, that depend on the EU commission for their money, are desperately trying to keep Europe on the train. Thing is, there is so much corruption around europe and stupid politicians , that they will stay on track until their economies collapse. Fighting a dominant US and a renewed UK will destroy them.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
January 16, 2017 12:53 pm

“CEO for Unilever was on CNBC today saying that trump has to stay on bord with climate change. He will have no choice.”
Trump should send the Paris Agreement to the U.S. Senate. Then the CEO of Unilever can threaten the entire Senate over CAGW and tell them how they have to get on board.
A majority of Americans do not support CAGW. The CEO should demand they get on board, too, since he knows what is best for the rest of us.
I think the CEO of Unilever should stick to running his business and stay out of the business of others.

Roger Knights
Reply to  TA
January 16, 2017 3:17 pm

“A majority of Americans do not support CAGW. ”
Unfortunately, two-thirds of them think the government should “do something” to fight climate change. Multiple congressional subcommittees need to thoroughly air this issue to re-educate the public. If Trump or the GOP acts unilaterally, there will be immense pushback.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
January 16, 2017 1:55 pm

…while the Greeks sell off their last properties and possessions and dependent on aging grandparent pensions for three generations worth of needs.

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
January 16, 2017 3:10 pm

Somewhat O/T but … just for the record …
In my earlier comment above, I had speculated on possible explanations as to why the Guardian‘s Science editor, Ian Sample, neglected to include a link to the actual “petition” [from “100 scientists” to PM May] in his recent article.
As it turns out, it very much seems that there was – what many might consider – a good reason for Sample
to exclude any link to the actual “peitition”. The prime mover and shaker behind this “petition” may well have been none other than …. Bob Ward!
Shub has gathered all the details in one post that’s well worth reading, IMHO:
Letter to British PM from climate scientists authored by Bob Ward?

January 16, 2017 3:46 pm

Here is a rather good opinion on the efficacy of Davos….

January 16, 2017 4:16 pm

China will do with their coal generation bubble and overcapacity what Germany did when they unified and inherited vast uneconomical east German industry. They will exploit and leverage this run-down of carbon emission – which happens for purely economic, not enviro-altruistic reasons – to force other nations to perform matching carbon emission cuts which in their cases will economically irrational abd damaging; and paint themselves as environmental saints and heroes in the process. It is a cynical and hypocritical act of economic warfare.

Reply to  ptolemy2
January 17, 2017 1:22 am

In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if China cultivated the coal generation bubble specifically for this purpose.

January 16, 2017 5:11 pm

“using ultra-high voltage DC power transmission technology, at least 30% of the transmitted electricity would be lost on its 6000 mile journey to Europe.”
The long haul offsets the high tech DC, but nothing new in the 30%. That’s the average line loss in the US grid.

Pamela Gray
January 17, 2017 6:14 am

Money chasers always cash in on silly but profitable ideas. Take bottled water. In the US, well and watershed potable water, sans lead pipes, out of the tap is perfectly good water. In fact most bottled water is from those taps. Yet people continue to pay for bottled water. Cashing in on AGW business is like buying bottled water. China knows a good thing when it sees one. Eventually the market will go away, but till then flexible money chasers will make dough. Don’t blame them one bit. In fact my biggest China gripe has to do with pencils. Don’t get me started on that one.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
January 17, 2017 8:11 am

There is one thing tap water is not good for: it makes tea unpalatable. Tea makes for about 90% of my water intake, the rest balanced with milk, tomato juice, and occasionally beer. I almost never drink just water, and if I do it is also distilled because now, after 50 years of using only distilled water I am attached to how it tastes (or does not, rather). So does everybody in my family. I notice that we are not the only idiots out there, as about 10-20% of bottled water sold at places like Walmart or Jewel is distilled (from eyeballing the shelves with 1-gallon jugs).
We were shocked when we moved to Scotland and then England and could not find distilled water sold anywhere except in minuscule quantities available at automotive supplies stores. It was not drinkable quality either, and extremely expensive. Fortunately, two brands of bottled water they sell (one is Eden Falls, I recall, the other is from roughly the same area) are close enough to distilled to make good tea (stated analysis is 10 mg/L Ca, which seems true). That is especially shocking as ground water quality atrocious in most of England. Now I understand their habit of drinking tea with milk. Without milk, it is outright disgusting. Scotland is different. Their tap water is close to distilled — much closer than 10 mg/L, I am estimating. But outside Scotland and a few other small countries situated on exposed basalts and granite, with all their drinking water coming form yesterday’s rain, there will always be a strong market for pure water.
Buying bottled tap water is insanity, I agree.

Johann Wundersamer
January 19, 2017 7:55 pm

It’s us voters doing us harm.
Longing to be counted with the dogooders elite we elect our Merkels and Obamas.
So if BritishPetrol wants to sell their stuff why not dressed like dogooders.

Verified by MonsterInsights