China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, has just called the USA “selfish” for wanting to remain economically competitive.
Trump must be urged to save climate deal
Source:Global Times Published: 2017/3/30 0:13:40 Last Updated: 2017/3/30 7:14:23
…
Leaders from China and the US reached an agreement on climate change at the end of 2014, which paved the way for the signing of the Paris Agreement the next year. China and the US are the world’s two largest emitters of carbon dioxide. China is poised to reduce the emissions per unit of GDP by limiting the use of fossil fuels. However, what the US is doing undermines the other countries’ dedication to implement the Paris Agreement.
…
Some Western media now pin their hopes on China to fill the vacuum left by Washington in the fight against climate change. But no matter how hard Beijing tries, it won’t be able to take on all the responsibilities that Washington refuses to take.
China will remain the world’s biggest developing country for a long time. How can it be expected to sacrifice its own development space for those developed Western powerhouses?
Western opinion should continue to pressure the Trump administration on climate change. Washington’s political selfishness must be discouraged.
American opinion has enabled the country’s political and legal authorities to freeze the president’s Muslim ban. If it keeps up the same vigor, the Trump administration may not be able to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement.
Read more: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1040255.shtml
Ever since Donald Trump won the US Presidency, Greens have been desperately shopping around for a new global climate leader. China is the main focus of this effort, though other countries have been mentioned. China’s abysmal environmental track record, and the fact China is a dictatorship with a brutal human rights record doesn’t seem to matter. All greens seem to care about is China’s ability to pay the bills.
I guess China just refused this honor.
China is selfish for wanting to keep selling us windmills and solar panels while they burn dirty, low-BTU coal.
David Dirkse March 30, 2017 at 2:41 pm
…
Since I never heard of UN Resolution 181, nor would 99.7% of the world population recognize it, I fear I’d have to look it up. Hang on …
…
… OK, 181 was the post-WWII partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Islamic states.
Having read it, I’m not sure what you mean when you ask if I “reject” UN Resolution 181. You’ll have to explain what “reject” means. Are you asking if I think that was a good idea? Sure it was, although it has led to lots of strife. What does that have to do with the UN and climate?
You seem to misunderstand my comment. I didn’t say that the UN never did a good thing. Both my grandmother and my mother worked for the UN after the war. However, as they say in Hollywood, that was then … this is now.
In any case, note what I did say. I did say that giving weight to a claim backed by the UN and Hollande was stupid. Neither one of them has any record that would give me the slightest reason to give any notice of their opinion.
And this is particularly true regarding the climate. The UN has violated most every scientific rule in setting up the IFCCC. In any case, at present it is illegal for us to be a member, we just haven’t gotten out yet. And Hollande? He has absolutely no credibility on climate, nor would he be expected to in a sane world. he is a politician.
So David, if you want to take advice on what fuel to use from the UN and Hollande, all I can say is, that is as foolish as asking your barber if he thinks you need a haircut …
My regards to you,
w.
The UN has almost four times as many members now as in 1945.
“….The UN has almost four times as many members now as in 1945….” And why shouldn’t they? There’s been four times the number of wars/conflicts that they completely failed to stop and so many other global humanity needs that they are engaged in despite not being in their charter. Anyone that has read and understands Agenda21 knows what their real goal is….. world governance by the UN. One doesn’t need to be a conspiracy theorists to realize this.
And many of them, more than in 1945, are totalitarian states. 1971, e.g. The Democratic Republic of China (Taiwan) in the Security Council was simply replaced by the totalitarian PRC. Simply so, presumably Resulution 007.
First of all the UN did not set up the IFCCC. I don’t know what time of day you start imbibing, but I’m going to assume you mean the UNIPCC. Secondly, neither the WMO nor the UNEP violated any scientific principle in setting it up in 1988. The UN General Assembly endorsed the IPCC with Res 43/53 ( http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r053.htm ) So, in the course of creating and endorsing the IPCC, could you please let me know what “scientific principles” that they violated? Also note that the IPCC itself is not tasked with doing any actual scientific work, so again, please tell me what principles they violated. All they do is report on existing published literature. Is reporting published literature a violation of scientific principles?
It is a violation if they report in a biased fashion, as they do. See Donna Laframboise’s Delinquent Teenager book at https://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Worlds-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1490923778&sr=8-1&keywords=the+delinquent+teenager, and her follow-on Into the Dustbin . You can get free samples of e-book versions that will give you a good taste of her ammo.
David Dirkse March 30, 2017 at 5:19 pm
Thanks, David. Sorry, typing too fast. I meant the UNFCCC.
Sure. The UNFCCC was set up to determine how high a level of atmospheric CO2 was dangerous. This contravenes scientific practice because we do not know even today IF CO2 is dangerous.
It would be like setting up an organization to find out just how high a level of vitamin C is dangerous … when in fact excess vitamin C is excreted by the kidneys.
You don’t start out a scientific search by setting the question in advance “how much is dangerous”. You need to start with “IS IT DANGEROUS” and move on from there.
They violated their own principles and guidelines. For heaven’s sake, they don’t even ask for statements of conflict of interest from their “scientists”, many of whom work for watermelon “green” organizations. Clearly you’ve not been following the story. You might start by learning about Caspar and the Jesus Paper …
w.
Even worse, the IPCC is charged with investigating man caused climate change.
Without bothering to find out first if climate change actually is man caused.
Now Willis, if you meant the UNFCCC, it was an agreement among countries. You don’t use scientific rules in setting up an agreement among the participants. So, tell us what scientific rule was violated in setting up the agreement. I have never heard of a connection between scientific rules and negotiating……but I’d love to hear them from you.
Oh yeah Willis, you say, ” In any case, at present it is illegal for us to be a member” uh….no, you’re confusing membership and funding. The Funding thing might be a valid point due to the Palestinians being members, but membership in the Convention itself is not illegal.
David Dirkse March 30, 2017 at 6:01 pm
You are correct. I was writing too fast. It is illegal for us to spend a dime on the UNFCCC.
However, it’s not clear to me how we would be a member if we cannot spend a dime on it … so I fear you’ve pointing out a difference that makes no difference.
w.
Coal fired power generation at Hazelweood in Victoria, Australia, was shutdown yesterday. That is 25% of power needed by the state, and South Australia too. Australia, the lucky country, lucky to have lights at night!
I have in my hand a clipping from yesterday’s Australian. It says:
====
Hazelwood shutdown to lift power bills 20pc
(Andrew White, The Australian, March 30, 2017)
Wholesale electricity prices jumped in anticipation of yesterday’s closure of the Hazelwood power station, with analysts forecasting 10 to 20 percent increases in household power bills next year.
Wholesale electricity prices have more than doubled to $120 per megawatt hour in NSW since September and to $80MWh in Victoria since January as generators take advantage of declining supply”
=========
Doesn’t anyone in remember Enron closing down generators in California so they could steal Grandma Millie’s life savings?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/us/tapes-show-enron-arranged-plant-shutdown.html
That’s where we’re at in Australia today.
I remember California not paying their bills and costing my province nearly 1 billion dollars:
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-utility-settles-energy-prices-dispute-with-california-from-2000/article13813512/
I remember those tapes. Criminal! Yes, this is what our politicians are doing to us.
If China is whining about it, then we must be doing the right thing.
China’s being a leader in the fight against global warning is as likely as the Russian Mafia being a leader in stamping out the international arms trade. China has asserted that its coal use and associated emissions will continue to rise until 2030, and it has given no guarantee that they will start declining after that date. So a likely scenario is that it will at best reach a plateau and then stay that way for years. Besides, once China and India see that the US is scaling back its climate commitments, it’s a safe bet they will follow suit, especially since the Paris deal is strictly non-binding.
Oh, I just have to say this SOMEWHERE!!!
(Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/29/article-50-triggered-brexit-eu-theresa-may-watch-live/ )
HIP — HIP —
#(:))
Go, Brexit!
Go, you wonderful Brits!
(take a lesson, France, Italy, Netherlands,…..)
HOORAY! +1
Wheeeeeee! Thanks for that affirmation,
. 🙂
And so say all of us!!!!
This is not necessarily the official position of the Chinese Government….
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/global-times-and-beijing-nuanced-relationship
“The Global Times is a subsidiary of the People’s Daily, the principal propaganda publication of the Chinese Communist Party. While this implies a degree of official sanction, it is difficult to measure the extent to which Global Times represents the official position of the Chinese government.
It does appear, however, that the Global Times has a special license to push positions and voice sentiments that other state media operations are reluctant to air openly. The publication’s bellicose editorials do echo from time to time Beijing’s increasingly assertive foreign policy stance.”
.
And what would the China Times write other than the unmasked position of China? Nothing can be published in China, which is not acceptable to the highest state institutions. There is only the mainstream press in the sense of the rulers. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of course, would better fit these words into Chinese cotton, as well as diplomats. But the position of China is nothing to blame: we are burning the coal that you are promoting. And brand yourselves for it. .
Alex March 31, 2017 at 1:16 am
“Totalitarianness” is often measured by the “Polity Score“. This goes from +10 for a democracy to – 10 to pure totalitarian. China runs around -7 …
So yes, Alex, China is indeed a totalitarian state. The fact that you actually believe the BS about “Uncle Policeman” tells me everything.
w.
Climate Otter
Capitalism is about making money. It has nothing to do with the environment. Unless, of course, you can make money by promoting environmental things.
By that definition, there is nothing that is not capitalism.
Willis
I don’t know about this ‘ Polity Score’. Is this some BS score that has been determined by the US state department? If so, I will take it with a grain of salt, nay, two grains of salt. If you venture outside the US you will find that the majority of people resent the US. Most countries bow down to the US bluster and superiority complex because of the threat of US sanctions of one form or another. We all know it’s the American Way. Its a well known fact that you guys set a lot of rules so that you can win. When you can’t win then you change the rules to suit yourself.
The US is very big on making proclamations about world wide human rights abuse yet doesn’t include itself.
The Chinese issue their own human rights abuses of the US. It makes interesting reading.
To conclude: I like you Willis but you can be a real dick sometimes. I have lived in China for 12 years and have seen and heard a lot. By no stretch do I consider China a ‘perfect place’. The reality, for me and my wife, is that China is a much safer place to live than the US .
If the only thing you can find wrong with my previous comment is that kids refer to police as ‘uncle policeman’ and hinge your whole argument on that, then I find your response quite pathetic with no legs.
What a lot of nastiness this post has been subject to. Perhaps it is March? Never mind, Britain is on the right road, and so is USA under Trump.
Brett
I don’t think it’s nasty. There is a difference of opinion but it is reasonably polite. Willis has his opinions based on his opinion (limited because he hasn’t lived here). I am basing my opinions on my life and experiences here. I have a slight resentment that Willis thinks I am a blind fool. But that’s ok. He is ignorant. I mean that in the technical sense of lacking knowledge. I don’t mean that he is stupid because he is definitely not that
Alex March 31, 2017 at 2:24 am
Obviously …
No. Go google it so you don’t look so foolish.
No, it’s not a “well-known fact” that we set rules so we can win, it’s just what you losers usually say … and since it is generally said without examples, just as you’ve done here, that’s just whining.
And no, the Polity score is not a “rule so that we can win”, that’s mindless paranoia. Do your homework.
Anyone who believes what the Chinese say about human rights is not well suited for the modern world.
True. So what? Doesn’t make me wrong.
Yes, and Yogi Berra said “you can observe a lot by just watching” … but the question is, did you understand what you saw?
But we weren’t talking about which place was safer. We were discussing which was more totalitarian. The Polity Score gives the answer, but you’re either too clueless or too lazy to study up on it, so you want to pretend the question was personal safety. Nice try.
If you think that is the only thing I find wrong with your argument, you need to learn how to read more closely. My main problem with your argument that China is NOT totalitarian is that it is simply not true, as shown by the Polity score.
w.
Willis
Point one
Thanks for getting me off my arse to google Polity point. It confirms my statement that it is the usual US BS that comes from some American University, Much like Mann from Penn State.
Point two
Thanks for confirming to us that we are losers, we are truly humbled. I am in front of my computer on my knees at the moment.
Point three
I never connected polity point to rules that you can win. In the words of Willis ‘quote what was said ‘
Point four
Anyone who dismisses a communication without reading it is a fool. You can dismiss it if you like , but you have to read it first.
Point five
Doesn’t make you right , either.
Point six
You assume that I am your typical unobservant American. I consider that the greatest insult of all. In another time I would give you the choice of weapons, Sir. How dare you say that? You know nothing about me. I have been advised by many people that I am deep and very perceptive about many things. I will take their word over yours because they are educated and perceptive people themselves.
Point seven
I won’t address your further points because you are just a drowning man clutching at straws
Alex March 31, 2017 at 3:43 am
No, your statement was NOT that “it is the usual US BS that comes from some American University”.
Your claim was that it was “some BS score that has been determined by the US state department”. In other words, your statement, that this was from the US State Department, was 100% wrong.
So your claim, that your statement is “confirmed”, is a flat out lie.
Sorry, Alex, but that’s the end of this discussion. When I point out that a man is wrong, and he returns to lie about what he said and falsely says that his statement was “confirmed”, I’m no longer interested in discussing anything with them.
Lie to me once, that’s as far as it goes. After that, I’m afraid you’ll have to find someone else to lie to. I will not discuss anything with a man who is willing to lie to me. As Megan McCardle famously said:
That’s where you stand with me, Alex. You’ve got me convinced.
Sadly,
w.
Wow, Alex, do you really believe the drivel you’ve been feeding us?
Just because you feel like pushing totalitarian nonsense, don’t expect anyone else to buy it.
Typical socialist, can’t accept that his system is fails so he has to invent evil boogeymen to blame for it.
“Thanks for getting me off my arse to google Polity point. It confirms my statement that it is the usual US BS that comes from some American University, ”
Alex thank you for confirming that you don’t bother thinking. rejecting the polity score based on nothing more than the fact that it was calculated by an American university.
Regardless, most American universities are further to the left than the leadership of China.
But your anti-Americanism doesn’t allow such fine distinctions. America, bad. That’s all you know and all you need.
Willis, one point I’ve noticed about Alex is that he never actually gets around to proving any of the points he keeps returning to.
For example, at no point did he give any evidence that the Polity score was bogus, he just claimed that it must be bogus because it was invented by the US State Dept, then when that was demonstrated to be wrong, he claimed that it was wrong because it came from an American University.
Essentially an ad hominem argument.
Of course anyone who believes you can disprove the charge of totalitarianism by claiming that children trust the police has already demonstrated that he has no intention of engaging in a serious discussion.
The only reason why China does not stand on -10 is the Chinese cotton, into which the diplomats of the giant empire pack their words. And the necessity of the West in the interests of trade relations to overlook many things. However, the reality of life there is -10.
And you know this reality how? Newspapers?
Some things are also overlooked: http://www.newsweek.com/china-forces-its-political-prisoners-sell-body-parts-421799
Does that somehow point up in 1933?
But these are only Chinese ………. And in the interest of the great all-encompassing plan such trifles can be forgiven.
Mengele ist living!
Hans
You are truly funny
It is easy to be fun if you do not live in China as a Chinese. However, the fun of the Chinese has probably already passed decades ago. Since the times of the great MAO Tse Tung. Sure LMAO.
Back in the 1930’s a lot of foreigners visited Russia and returned telling tales of how wonderful the country was and how everyone loved Uncle Stalin. How everyone was rich and prosperous and there were no problems.
Meanwhile in other parts of Russia millions were being starved to death and anyone who dared question the new authority were being sent to gulags or killed outright.
Alex reminds me of those individuals who because of their support for the ideology allowed themselves to be blinded to the truth.
Nothing is stopping China from returning to the stone age and abandoning coal. The hypocrisy is overwhelming, but also telling. The real intent of all this CO2 centric nonsense is to allow China and the developing world to catch up to the US. All the efforts are to speed the development of China and India and others, and slow the growth of the US and Europe. If you can’t beat them, convince them to beat themselves. CO2 promoters are a 5th Column of useful idiots,
Useful Idiots don’t rely on facts, the politics of AGW
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/19/climate-science-on-trial-useful-idiots-dont-rely-on-facts/
Coal does not have a bright future, regardless. It will gradualy be replaced as an energy source, no matter if Trump or Obama, dems or reps are at the helm.
What China is worrying about is most likely being at an economical disadvantage if they are to follow treaties that the US disregard. They can just disregard it, too. But they are clever enough to try to score a few political points in the process.
Is everyone here pro-coal? I doubt that. There are better sources of energy.
At least coal workers are coal. I think there was a reason why Trump was elected in the Rust Belt, or many states changed their electoral behavior to the Republican candidate. This is precisely what makes me most worried about all other discussions. In the USA, no one can understand the concerns of others in other parts of the country. The country is too big and probably too demographically developed. Everyone is cooking his own local soup. This does not work well in the long run. I mean also, there are better sources of energy, but not wind and solar and also not Hydropower. These energies are too expensive for developing countries and work halfway in the developed states only with state financial support. The point will be whether nuclear fusion will succeed us, and for the transitional period, I would have fought for more nuclear fission with more and safer power stations. However, only a wishful thinking in the general demonization of nuclear fission.
What are these better sources of power?
Natural gas is for now because of all the recent discoveries has driven the price down. What happens when all the increased demand drives the price of nat gas back up?
Why can’t we get past this and begin to produce energy cheaper than coal using liquid fluoride thorium reactors?
The Youtube video is much shorter than the book, which on pdf is 430 pages.
http://misc.weedwhacker.org/misc/tectc.pdf
What I wonder is whether WUWT has become just a forum for the proponents of fossil fuel.
The nuclear articles posted here always seem sub-par since the authors never seem to know about LFTR technology. Consequently nuclear always gets short shrift.
LFTR technology makes the CO2 argument moot. I guess people here just want to spend their futures bashing the CO2 hypothesis till the cows come home, and really don’t care about advancing energy that makes the CO2 issue totally evaporate from the public consciousness.
Let’s move on to a less contentious world. Please somebody with knowledge of lifter promote LFTR on this website and write an article that does it real justice.
If we had LFTR we wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about lectures from China or anywhere else (not that we should anyway).
Who is it that is preventing people from spending their own money and building a few of these?
China is no longer a developing country in this respect. Its CO2 emission was 7.7 tons/per capita in 2015, while one of those Western powerhouses, the UK had 6.2 tons/capita.
Talking BS is never a good strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Even more BS:
http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/numbers-china-us-climate-agreement
“China has announced its intent to peak carbon dioxide emissions around 2030, and to strive to peak earlier. The announcement did not specify at what level China’s emissions would peak, though multiple scenarios that peak around 2030 show peak emissions around 10 billion metric tons per year.”
China’s CO2 emission was in fact 10.64 billion tons in 2015. That much about it peaking around 10 billion tons in 2030. Some are neither deaf, nor blind or dumb.
Given how Britain has hollowed out it’s manufacturing base in recent decades, I’m not sure that per-capita comparisons are valid.
A better comparison of developed vs developing is per capita economic output in total.
So much for rising seas beyond the BS statements…..
https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-says-no-thing-man-made-islands-south-111615122.html