Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Top Chinese Climate Negotiator Xie Zhenhua has responded to a parade of official reassurances about the Paris Climate Agreement, by demanding to know when “developed” countries will start paying China the money which was promised in Paris.
Signatories to climate change agreement in dispute over financing
China’s negotiator says developed countries have not met their commitments.
A gap of at least $40bn in financing commitments is hampering efforts to combat climate change, signatories to the Paris agreement have warned, as they try to keep the agreement going in the face of doubts over US support under President Donald Trump.
Disputes over who will foot the bill comes as the Trump administration’s energy secretary, Rick Perry, scuppered a joint statement about climate change at a G7 energy meeting in Rome this week.
…
The Paris agreement to limit global temperature rises to under 2 degrees Celsius includes financial commitments from developed countries to help developing nations deal with climate change. Before its adoption it was agreed this amount should reach $100bn a year. However, it has been estimated that only $60bn has been committed so far.
Climate ministers from Europe, India, Brazil and South Africa have gone to Beijing in recent weeks, hoping to sustain momentum from the Paris talks despite the Trump administration’s dismantling of US regulations meant to limit American emissions. But discussions have quickly run up against the issue of financing.
“Developed countries have not met their commitments. In their reports a lot of their commitment is in the form of development aid. That doesn’t meet the commitment to contribute to new funds,” China’s top climate change negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, told a briefing on Tuesday. “A lot of countries don’t want to chip in. I said to the European minister: that’s your problem as developed countries. It’s your responsibility to work together and sort it out.”
…
Meanwhile, red tape prevents funds that have been committed from flowing to developing counties, said Ravi Prasad, India’s minister for environment, forest and climate change, calling the $60bn in commitments “highly suspicious” since the sum included previously allocated funds including aid. “When we go behind the numbers we find there has been a reclassification of the bilateral flows,” Mr Prasad said.
Mr Xie said: “Enthusiasm isn’t the problem but there are some doubts. I believe other countries feel the same.”
Read more: https://www.ft.com/content/f492d56e-1eb4-11e7-a454-ab04428977f9
This bizarre diplomatic pantomime reinforces my view that the entire international climate movement is a mirage funded by US taxpayers.
In my opinion the only reason China signed up to their non-commitment to do something about CO2 emissions, is they expected the USA to borrow money from China, then return that money back to China as climate aid – which would have left US taxpayers an international laughing stock, paying off loans which have already been paid back to China.
Now Trump seems likely to cancel the payments, China wants to know why they should keep pretending.
European ministers might have the “enthusiasm”, but so far at least they aren’t putting up their own cash.
So global warming can cause mirages as well?
Is there anything that amazing CO2 can’t cause?
sanity
…..LOL
Sanity…. that came to mind before I could read the next line!
Realistically a dividend dollar value should be placed on the savings incurred from using fossil fuels vs the much more expensive renewables, then subtract that amount from the funds that China feels it’s due under the Paris agreement. This cheap energy dividend should more than cover their reported $40bn promise. Also, any $$$(€€€) they receive from selling cheap coal power to European Union countries should also be deducted as part of their climate payments.
And what an all mighty con.
Lower fuel bills!
“Is there anything that amazing CO2 can’t cause?”
Intelligence
I really gotta admire the chutzpah of the Chinese here – not only do they want to take all of our manufacturing plants and jobs, now they have worked a deal to get us to just gift them all of the money they need to do that! Only a great nobel prize winning Genius like Obama could have bargained us into that one!!!
I’m thinking when the freeloaders to NATO make their 2% contribution with suitable backlogs caught up to date then the US can think about the Paris agreement.
Discussion terminated…..
The US should pay Obama’s commitments at Paris shortly after shrimps whistle.
Be careful, they’ve already learned how to snap.
If peas can….
This just in – “Climate scientists discover that global warming is causing shrimp to whistle.”
/sarc
And why the sea is boiling hot,
A whether pigs have wings.
“The US should pay Obama’s commitments at Paris”
Obama should pay Obama’s commitments at Paris. After all, he’s the one that signed the invalid deal. No U.S. Senators signed onto the deal. The only signature on it is Obama’s. Pay up, Barack.
Someone needs to print up play money labeled “Obama’s stash” 🙂
Just print a whole bunch of Chinese ¥uan and pay them with that
Wouldn’t it be lovely if such agreements could be enforced that way? If the new/currant government decides that the agreement was not actually supported/approved by the appropriate authority (in this case, the Senate) and/or citizens, the person(s) who signed/approved/ordered the agreement is (are) on the hook for fulfillment?
I suspect our government would be much more careful about making such commitments, if those involved knew they could be responsible for any promises made.
http://media3.picsearch.com/is?lllDPKLZ8pofA3Z4-xxHTslVwCKcxrw7pWXXBsBu-0U&height=240
Certainly Algore would be willing to chip in…
Given the current exchange rate, $40bn would equate to ¥275.5bn. We minted 28bn coins in Y2K alone. Shouldn’t take to long to mint ¥280bn one Yuan coins
See: Leo Kottke.
They got to meet the Grifter himself. Tough luck about them thinking they could make money off his fraud, too. That seems to be a common element in con games’ victims.
If you want to pick him up, put him on trial, and convict him, long with any number of the fraudsters, be my guest. Might make some money on the video rights, especially with particularly imaginative executions.
European ministers might have the “enthusiasm”, but so far at least they aren’t putting up their own cash.
Except it isn’t their money. It’s our money, our hard earned tax money.
Maybe they should write checks on (failing) European banks. Italy’s Monte dei Paschi comes to mind. Then it’s an ECB problem.
the moment you let it out of your pocket it’s not yours anymore.
It’s not even yours before you put it in your pocket.
Surely folks like Leonardo DiCaprio, Al Gore, Obama, Kerry+Heinz, Soros, etc, can help contribute to these coffers.
Or they could leave the country and go live with Miley Cyrus.
Miley Cyrus, like the rest of the Watermelons, hasn’t left the country. Another broken promise by the Left…go figure.
I’m sure di Caprio would gladly donate his private jet to the Chines planet savers.
“European ministers might have the “enthusiasm”, but so far at least they aren’t putting up their own cash.”
Leftists never use their own money.
Bulls Eye
Margaret Thatcher’s famous quotation. “Socialism ends when you run out of other peoples money”
Peter s:
You say
Yes, she said that as a smokescreen for the fact that she was buying votes with other people’s (i.e. tax payers’) money by selling council houses at far below market value. This caused several problems including the lack of ‘affordable housing’ which still exists in the UK. Eventually the resource exhausted and her own party then dumped her as Prime Minister.
The ploy is not unique to the political right.
An important current example is the claim that climate data needs to be protected from destruction by the Trump administration in the US. This claim is a smokescreen for the existing loss and destruction of climate data by so-called ‘climate scientists’. The Thatcher example that you cite provides a lesson on how to – and how not to – combat the ploy. Effective opposition to the ploy requires ignoring the falsehood and making a fuss about the reality which the falsehood is in tended to obscure. Arguing against the falsehood only helps the smokescreen by supporting suspicion that ‘there is no smoke without fire’ so creates a debate about the falsehood.
Richard
My corollary to that is, “Nothing is so unimportant that you can’t spend someone else’s money on it.”
In the Manchurian Candidate, Senator Iselin tells the Press there are “X number of” communists in the Senate. And every time he tells the story, he purposely quotes a different number for X. The story in the Press quickly change from “are there communists?”, to “how many communists are there?”
Perhaps Al Gore can sell a free of his SUV’s to help pay Obuma’s share😳
Few of his SUV’s
“when “developed” countries will start paying China”…../snark
That lets the USA out of the equation, we are still developing. We’re developing all kinds of things
It seems to me that China (and others) tends to claim whatever position on the development spectrum that will be most useful at whatever moment. So if trying to convince businesses to come to China, the claims all focus on how many amenities are available, how new and modern the factories are, how global and cosmopolitan the country is. If being a poor/undeveloped country can get international funds, suddenly everyone is impoverished, starving, no one has modern conveniences of any kind, blah blah blah. Like most things, the truth is somewhere in between.
Regardless, China has absolutely no business demanding money from other countries UNLESS there is legitimate debt (which is why we are screwed, but that is another discussion). The fact that the country itself is not really poor makes it more offensive. Plenty of poor people (happens when you have such a massive population), but the government has money. If they are so in need of cash, perhaps they should stop “investing” in Africa.
If China wants to sit at the big table, they can’t keep playing the “developing” card. Kiddie-poos don’t get to sit with the adults.
Xie speaking a few years back at a ( non Western ) conference….
“There are disputes in the scientific community. We have to have an open attitude to the scientific research. There’s an alternative view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature itself. We have to keep an open attitude,” he said.
“It is already a solid fact that climate is warming. The major reasons for this climate change is the unconstrained emissions produced by the developed countries in the process of industrialisation. That’s the mainstream view [but] there are other views. Our attitude is an open attitude”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7067505/China-has-open-mind-about-cause-of-climate-change.html
China is really playing the West for fools/money…..
Also reported by the Guardian..
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/24/china-climate-change-adviser
Xie China’s lead negotiator is really playing the West for fools.
“China is really playing the West for fools/money…..”
Was. There’s a new CEO in town. No more Uncle Sucker. Speaking for the USA anyway, I don’t know what the other western leaders are going to do. They very well may continue wasting their taxpayer’s money on these CAGW schemes.
Like the unconstrained emissions in the developing world does nothing at all…
OK well emissions in general have little limited effect beyond greening the biosphere
Emissions is Emissions regardless of which country produces them or their source.
Chinese Climate Negotiator Xie Zhenhua:
With the Chinese, it is all about money.
And that is, in its way, a good thing.
Offer them BETTER deals, trading with the U.S. and others in bona fide endeavors, and China will happily agree.
Trump, et al.: Here ya go, dear Chinese trade partners. A better deal for you!
Envirostalinists: Hey! Wait a minute, Chinese people! What about climate change??
Chinese: (loosely translated) Climate change, schmimate change. This is business.
Yes, perfectly dead on. One tenth of a yuan in the right pocket and you are friends. Before it was greenbacks talking. Now it is Yuan or RMB. Very useful !
Not so much. My best advice to anyone doing business in China is to avoid all shady behaviour. The penalties can be wicked. You can get away with all kinds of crap, and then you can’t.
The Chinese tend to like doing business with people they know. It might be a year or two before someone will feel like entering into a business relationship.
Janice, an excellent point. It has been reported that TRUMP is using these trade deals with China to convince them to deal with the problems with North Korea. The report indicated that the economic trade lever has never been used before in such negotiations.
Catcracking:
You say
Perhaps not by the US, but the UK obtained an empire that circled the globe by using trade and espionage.
Richard
I suspect this whole business of crazy, nuclear N. Korea may be a put-up job. N. Korea may be China’s catspaw, acting up precisely in order to make the US give China concessions in order to solve our N. Korea problem for us.
N. Korea may be a put-up job.
===============
Most certainly. The Chinese want to be paid to solve the problem. And to this end they have no reason to solve the problem and every reason to make it worse until they do get paid. And every time they get paid, they have an incentive to make the problem even worse, so they can get paid even more the next time.
There is no solution in expecting China to solve the problem. If the shoe was on the other foot, and say Trudeau announced that Canada was developing nukes and missiles to launch at China, would the US step in to prevent it? Sure the US might make a noise publicly, but privately a whole lot of folks in the US would likely be cheering for Canada.
“…N. Korea may be a put-up job….” or China may be afraid of the consequences of NK losing a war and China getting another adversary on its’ border. Think Korean war again except this time with nukes being dropped next to them. NK is China’s buffer right now.
Not wrong … I have ethnic Chinese clients and am constantly astounded at their concentrated focus on accumulating money whatever the cost to others.
I think the Chinese have a point.
They were promised money to get on board this climate gravy train and they want to know where their payments are. History records they have always been a practical people and it is practical to say “show me the money!” (great movie by the way)
Guess t he’ll just have to be content with their 60% share of the Solar panel manufacturing market, their 60% ownership of African Cobalt supply (critical component of Lion batteries), and their almost complete monopoly on sources of rare earth metals used in wind turbines.
The Chinese have a point?
If they were so stupid not to know Obama did no have the authority, they deserve nothing. It is Propaganda unless you can convince Kerry and Obama to personally make the payments they promised without authority
While the U.S. is going to help its own steel industry to recover for awhile, thus, the tariffs on Chinese-origin steel raw materials like rebar, there are many ways to offer the Chinese “a better deal” in other areas:
For example, things like this:
(Source: http://la.curbed.com/2017/1/4/14166864/purple-line-subway-extension-metro-century-city-funding )
(Source: http://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2017/04/14/chinese-company-to-build-rail-cars-for-la-metro/ )
The above is not cited as an especially wonderful example, just an example to make the point that the U.S. (and the U.K., too, now that they can do what is BEST, based on science facts! — Yay for Brexit!! 🙂 ) can offer China better deals (U.S. buys ~ 18% of Chinese exports) to make the “climate change” junk trade irrelevant to them.
“steel {products} like rebar”
If China makes the right choices and manages to reign in North Korea’s Kim Jung Un, then they will get a lot of good deals from the United States. And giving them good deals will be worth it because they will be saving the world a lot of pain, suffering and death if they can bring Kim to heel.
Bottom line: Kim does away with both his nuclear program and his missile program. We can’t allow this guy Kim to have nuclear weapons. Period. China has offered to guarantee North Korea’s security if they did so. They should take China up on the offer.
It would be wonderful to solve this problem without a general ground war in Korea. That would be worth a lot and is worth paying for.
Paying the Chinese to solve the problem is no different than paying blackmail. It will only serve to make the problem worse while buying time for the NK.
There is only one solution to blackmail, and it doesn’t involve paying the blackmailer. You must destroy the source of the threat, or see yourself destroyed.
“Paying the Chinese to solve the problem is no different than paying blackmail. It will only serve to make the problem worse while buying time for the NK.”
If the Chinese solve the problem permanently, then it will be worth paying them a large amount of money. That will cost us less than a ground war in Korea.
China allowing North Korea to make matters worse is not solving the problem. Trump will see through such an insincere gesture.
Trump said North Korea is a problem and he is going to solve that problem. I don’t think Trump is going to accept half-measures from either China or North Korea. North Korea is going to have to give up its nuke program or suffer the consequences. If the U.S. has to do it by itself, then everybody in the region is going to suffer conseqences, including the Chinese. Allowing the North Koreans to get deliverable nuclear weapons would be even worse for the area.
In case you think Trump is a johnny-come-lately on the North Korea policy, Trump has been advocating for years against North Korea’s WMD programs and has advocated taking military action if it is necessary. I think he even outlined his position in one of his books. All this long before he decided to run for president.
North Korea and China should be taking Trump *very* seriously right now. Trump said he is going to fix the problem. You shouldn’t doubt him. China should accept that Trump is going to fix this problem one way or another and should do things which make the situation better for themselves, which means reigning in the North Korean dictator and not allowing him to provoke Trump into taking military action.
Janice
If the USA is importing rebar, who is doing the certification. If the importer is relying g on the supplier in China, then there is a high probability that the standards are not being g met.
I’m surprised to read USA only constitutes 18% of Chinese exports. I assumed Walmart alone did that much business…
Javert Chip:
You say
It seems you are not aware of the size of the (still rapidly growing) Chinese economy.
China has gained economic growth to have – depending on how GDP is estimated – the world’s largest or second largest national GDP behind only the USA;
See http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp.php
Continued Chinese economic growth requires continued growth of Chinese imports and exports.
Richard
Here is a reference for you Mr. Javert:
China’s main export partners are the United States (18 percent of total exports), Hong Kong (15 percent), the European Union (16 percent, of which Germany, the UK and the Netherlands account for 3 percent each), ASEAN countries (12 percent, of which Vietnam accounts for 3 percent), Japan (6 percent), South Korea (4 percent) and India (3 percent).
(Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/exports — about half-way down that page in the “China Exports — Notes” section)
Janice, you should look at those numbers you post and use your common sense. The European Union and Hong Kong each get 16 and 15 per cent of China’s trade. Hong Kong has a population of just a bit over 7 million people, and the EU has a population of over 500 million. Now….one of two things are happening here. Either the people of Hong Kong consume 70 times the amount of goods that Europeans do, or a lot of that 15 percent trade is going elsewhere.
Javert, the two biggest trading partners of the USA are Mexico and Canada.
And about 75 percent of US GDP is generated internally.
Most Climate Scientists including Chinese Climate Scientists are smart enough to know that Conflating air pollution and CO2 is dumb and attempting to limit carbon emissions is even dumber. So Chinese politicians are trying to con the U.S. into paying them to reduce their Carbon Emissions. Both Chinese and the Russian Scientists know full well that the next ice age is bearing down on the Earth. That’s why the Chinese are building infrastructure like crazy in Africa and Russia is attempting to annex countries on it southern border.
After Donald Trump pulls the plug on ‘Climate Funding’, and the Chinese stop pretending to support ‘Global Climate Alarmism’, everyone else will be free to do the same.
If Trump can use the Climate Change thing to make a deal, then he will.
That’s the way he operates.
Forget what he said on the campaign deal and focus on what he is doing now.
That should be “campaign trail”…
There’s no percentage in dropping the faux climageddon support for the Chinese. Just keep it rolling and the dopey westerners will cripple their economies whilst continuing to buy Chinese turbines and panels and all the rest of the paraphernalia they can’t do without. Maybe the hyper-loony Europeans will even actually give them some money in ‘reparations’ anyway – if they have any spare after dishing out housing, cars, mobile phones and benefit payments to every fighting age Muslim male in the third world. Any climate finger-of-doom pointing at China itself is always easily dealt with by playing the ‘developing’ country card – while building aircraft carriers, space programs and nuclear tech of course.
Sometimes I simply despair. The west is now stupid at a level no one could ever have even remotely conceived of only a few decades ago. We appear to be obsessed by blasting away at both feet with a belt-fed shot gun while busily hacking away at our own throats with rusty box cutters.
Janice Moore: A gap of at least $40bn in financing commitments is hampering efforts to sell Chinese-made solar and wind “power” parts to poor countries in Africa (and elsewhere)
Cute, Vukcevic. (thanks for sharing that great cartoon)
A Chinese man in his green pajamas, choking on real air pollution, using a solar panel as a shield and a pinwheel for a “weapon” striking terror into the hearts of us all — not**. lolololololol
Green is so OVER. Yay! 🙂
Oops. the “**” was a footnote about South Australia. Left off because there are others who are still trembling in their boots about “climate change” and I didn’t want to point the laughing finger at SA only — and I didn’t want to take the time to come up with a good list!
Our Chinese business associates have been rolling around laughing for years.
As the new “climate leader” of the world, it is high time they take on their new leadership role in earnest, by leading by example, falling on their own economic sword, and jumping off the economic cliff first. We’ll all follow. We plomise.
It most certainly isn’t all funded by U.S. taxpayers. European, Australian etc. taxpayers are being ripped off too!
This distinction matters, not only because us non-American climate realists don’t like our fellow victimhood being ignored, but because one can’t understand the climate change movement except as a manifestation of the flaws of Western culture as a whole. False guilt, neo-Marxism and so on are not distinctively American failings, they are degrading the whole Western world.
Philip, I could be wrong but I assume the leaders of the countries you listed had the authority to sign on to the Paris Agreement, Obama clearly did not, there is a big difference. When Gore negotiated the earlier deal it was submitted to the Senate and it was turned down 98-0 as I recall. If Obama followed the Constitution, the this US Senate would not have approved the deal either. Two-Thirds votes are required to ratify a Treaty in the US Senate. I don’t ignore others victimhood, but feel sad that the citizens of these countries are so uninformed to continually vote these scoundrels in power.
it is a trifle more complex than that. From discussions on this site, and some research, executive agreements in the US are not binding on a later president. Kyoto was not submitted to the Senate, but the Senate passed a resolution condemning it anyway. Paris became a dead letter January 20 if Trump decides to not follow the agreement.
The Paris Climate Agreement is pretty much dead on arrival especially now that the USA has signalled it will definitively not be participating. That will curtail quite a few other nations from even bothering with any follow through, and will collapse under its own weight. It would have anyway sooner or later, when it is shown over time that CO2 doesn’t have a whole lot to do directly with global climate trends. At which point we will see whether countries reverse carbon pricing and taxes.
Sadly, we probably have to wait another 10-15 years to see that present warming is not in lockstep with CO2 especially if a cooling trend starts that can be traced to solar forcing. Even though historic warming had no correlation with previous warming. Makes me wonder what future generations will say about all this crying wolf about climate predictions with “boiling oceans” and “burning cattle alive” statements by certain so called climatologist prophets of doom clowns.
Don’t hold your breath on reversing carbon taxes. Once governments find a nice juicy source of revenue and redistribution to their “constituents” it is next to impossible to wean them off of it. Think GST or VAT or gasoline taxes or …
Exactly. Furthermore the left will never stop. They have already rebranded to ‘climate change’ which is forever utterly unfalsifiable and therefore antiscientific and they will keep on pushing this religion now until the end of Phanerozoic time. If the ice sheets were grinding down 5th Avenue they would say human greenhouse gasses done it.
Don’t give China anything because that country’s economy is strong enough to finance their own emissions reductions attempts—not that they planned to do anything anyway. They’re just using the failure of the US to cough up funds as a convenient excuse. Likewise with many of the other developing countries. Just give them the money and watch it disappear as much of the rest of foreign aid does.
4/14/17
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, has called for America to “exit” the Paris Climate Agreement signed by Barack Obama last November.
In an interview with FOX and Friends, Pruitt said that “Paris [agreement] is something that we need to really look at closely. It’s something we need to exit in my opinion.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/14/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-calls-for-exit-of-paris-climate-agreement/
It’s another great day for the United States Of America and all who love Her!
J Mac
Scott Pruitt will be pleased to know I’ve already left the Paris agreement
J Mac:
It is reported that Pruitt accurately observed about the Paris Accord
Yes, but he failed to state that China and India are not obliged to any “costs” because intentions for 2030 are meaningless: 5-year plans are possible but longer plans are not because circumstances change with time.
Politicians agreeing to action in 2030 are agreeing to do nothing except provide pious words.
Richard
This ‘deal’ from the Obozo stable is the thing that finally convinced me – against my normally strict anti-conspiracy filters – that Barry is in fact a Muslim mole placed in order to bring down the West. It is so monumentally stupid that there simply is no other rational explanation.
Also related….
3/27/17
(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch today announced it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia asking the court to compel the U.S. Department of Commerce to turn over all records of communications between a pair of federal scientists who heavily influenced the Obama administration’s climate change policy and its backing of the Paris Agreement (Judicial Watch v. Department of Commerce (No. 1:17-cv-00541)).
The suit was filed after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), a component of the Department of Commerce, failed to respond to a February 6 FOIA request seeking all records of communications between NOAA scientist Thomas Karl and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren. The FOIA request covers the timeframe of January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2017.
Karl, who until last year was director of the NOAA section that produces climate data, the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), was the lead author of a landmark paper that was reported to have heavily influenced the Paris Agreement.
Holdren, a former director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, director of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and long-time proponent of strong measures to curb emissions.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/climategate-update-judicial-watch-sues-records-key-obama-administration-scientists-involved-global-warming-controversies/
No doubt taking this FOI request to court will be touted as “harassment” of
a noted scientist (Karl) and retribution visited upon a hard working former
public servant (Holdren).
Can’t you hear Mann’s testimony (again) on the abuse the poor folks like
Karl, et al. have to put up with ?
To the best of my knowledge the Commerce Department doesn’t get any
kind of a “pass” or a “pause” on responding to FOI requests in a timely
fashion based on a change in their post-election administrative personnel
… or the lack of appointments to the top administrative spots.
I hope Judicial Watch won’t let this issue slide into oblivion like FOI’s on
governmental research did in Virginia.
J Mac
Thanks for the heads up on this.
The Judicial Watch complaint:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-commerce-noaa-karl-holdren-complaint-00541/
Philip Arlington above says: ‘one can’t understand the climate change movement except as a manifestation of the flaws of Western culture as a whole. False guilt, neo-Marxism and so on are not distinctively American failings, they are degrading the whole Western world.’
Yes. It is almost embarrassing. What must the Chinese et. al. think of us behind closed doors. And Obama!
Just a minute. I don’t think anyone is reading very carefully today.
And what does India, Brazil, China and South Africa spell?
Exactly, BRICS.
This is a very serious matter. Not only is this climate aid an eye-watering cash payment from the free, English-speaking countries to the BRICS, but it is also a commitment to destroy manufacturing, conventional agriculture, and transportation of the English-speaking republics.
Many younger people will not recognize that this fulfills a certain historical paradigm and prediction that was held mainly by the Baby Boomers.
ref below
Looks like there’s going to be a little hitch in the giddyup for global wealth redistribution. With relatively few countries being donors to the scheme…. and the US the largest donor…. this won’t take long to go into hibernation which can possibly last 4 years but not 8. The UN must be neutralized or crap like this will go on forever.
You are right. The UN are pure poison and must be eliminated at all costs or they will continue to work towards the complete destruction of western civilization.
“Spengler predicted in his book The Decline of the West that western civilization was in the winter of its cycle, and would die by the twenty third century, to be superseded either by a Slavic (Russia) or a Sinic one (China), which were in the Spring of their development.”
And there are several other historicist philosophies that predicted the fall of free market/competition economies and the rise of centrally planned economies. This has been repeated so often in history books and college courses that there is an air of inevitability about the BRICS rising up and supplanting the west. Aren’t these predictions now being deliberately and arbitrarily accomplished by environmentalist schemes?
Is it too much to ask that at the very least people recognize and acknowledge the results of their own ideas?
What ever happened to world-beating, 10-foot-tall Japanese taking over 1st place?
I was hoping to get some shush (well, real sashimi) out of that.
Japanese taking over 1st place
==========
that was certainly the prediction in the 70’s.
Do you find this funny? In fact, we have not necessarily stopped any of this from coming to pass. We still have hundreds of courts, agencies, NGOs, boards, CEOs and municipal governments that will be referring to these international agreements, ratified or not. We are still up to our eyeballs in alligators.
And it happens to hobble the English-speaking countries in energy and agriculture, and benefit the BRICS.
And still no pattern recognition.
We are still up to our eyeballs in alligators.
===============
regulators. up to our eyeballs in regulators.
Zeke,
The western world may well be decadent and on the way out, not noticing it happening because of the comforts of its earlier success, but if it’s the BRICS that take over it certainly won’t be a rise of centrally-planned economies. What you are seeing in all this are most definitely NOT centrally-planned economies taking over.. Superior political acumen, yes. Central planning, no.
Russia, China, India all WERE communist or socialist-inspired regimes, and Brazil not far behind. But their dramatic rise has been due solely to a liberalisation of their economies. Brazil’s 100 percent tarriffs have mostly gone, Russia no longer labours under a soviet yoke (although still suffers from its aftermath), and Indian industry is gradually losing some of its appalling red tape and corruption, and is opening its formerly closed markets to the world.. China saw the wonderful example of Hong Kong and decided to roll out that model nationwide, in the process creating one of the most amazing economic successes that the world has seen. (South Africa I’m not so sure belongs to this group- signs are bad!)
You missed the boat with China. Just because it has recently allowed the semblance of Capitalism …..only because it couldn’t manage the rapid industrial growth it experienced under globalization…. doesn’t mean it is giving up Communism. It will be back to business as usual as they slip back into their normal pace.
See how this works:
We now are full apprised of the fact that the academics, environmentalists and globalist politicians are in the process of destroying our manufacturing and agriculture, plus sending 100 billion in carbon tax to the BRICS.
And those who hold the paradigm of the inevitable Decline of the West make the observation that the US, UK, Canada and Aus are in fact “decadent and on their way out,” and moreover that China has displayed “superior political acumen.”
It’s these self-fulfilling theories that I have a problem with.
Besides, the repetitive claim that China’s economy has actually reformed — and is a pattern of great glorious third way success — is probably just an empty platitude of wishful thinking, again because of the “Decline of the West” Boomer template.
First it is largely based on self-reporting by China, which is not all that transparent. Reforms are often reforms in name only and involve protection of state monopoly on production. I will provide one ref link but the reforms are fake and China is not doing so well.
https://www.aei.org/publication/the-surest-measure-of-how-chinas-economy-is-losing/
China is running a massive trade deficit with the US and the present Administration is (or was) not happy with this arrangement. Germany is also being looked at for this. And that is part of both country’s RACKET.
What is missing from this equation is 1slam. No one ever imagined that the West would, entirely of its own politically correct volition, insist on replace its own populations and cultures with an an alien, primitive and utterly hostile ‘culture’. What beckons is not the rise of BRICS but the onset of a new dark age from which there may be no dawn.
I am amazed they were able to collect 60 billion. I find that a difficult to believe… skeptical even. GK
Apparently part of the reason they raised $60B was donors simply re-classed other payments, so they probably haven’t really raised $60B.
Josh’s cartoon is fantastic.
It is “committed”, which means “We’ll pay, sometime, circumstances permitting”.
But we’ve been buried before, and are still here. Our detractors haven’t fared so well….
Command economies cannot work longterm.
“Climate ministers from Europe, India, Brazil and South Africa have gone to Beijing in recent weeks, hoping to sustain momentum from the Paris talks despite the Trump administration’s dismantling of US regulations meant to limit American emissions. But discussions have quickly run up against the issue of financing.”
Any money ‘given’ to South Africa will go straight into its despot dictator Zuma’s back pocket … in fact that would be the case with most 3rd world governments. They’d be salivating at the thought of $billions for free!
Only 60 billion dollars? Where’s the rest?
If the idea of this much money in the hands of Congress (and BRICs) does not make your eyes mist up or cause some physiological distress, then you are not an American and you also should probably not be voting.
We the USA are a poor, almost bankrupt, debtor nation. To send aid to China, China will have to lend us the money interest free with no promise on our part to ever pay it back. I am waiting for China to supply me with a free electrical car and a free solar powered changing station. According to the Paris agreement, the richer nations, like China, are suppose to fund the poor nations, like the USA. We are still waiting for China to fund a greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan for the USA. When is China going to supply the USA with the money to get this done?
“…According to the Paris agreement, the richer nations, like China, are suppose to fund the poor nations….” No. The developed nations, not richer. It’s supposed to be penance for spewing out CO2. Get the picture? Prosperous developed countries ….. the West …. are indebted to the undeveloped countries because of their greed at the expense of the environment. Total scam.
This is antediluvian thinking. Get it out of your head. Has nothing to do with reality. We don’t borrow USD from China. Never have. As I wrote elsewhere on this thread, there’s no factory in downtown China illegally counterfeiting USD that we borrow.
We (the US federal government) create our dollar. We are the only entity worldwide that is legally allowed to. We create the physical dollar and the more widely used cash equivalent, treasury securities.
The $1.7 trillion that China holds in US treasury securities are the profits China earned from selling us stuff. When Walmart pays China $100 million for tires and TVs, Walmart wires the $100 mill to China’s checking account at the Fed per our national payment system rules.
China then has four choices:
1) Exchange the $100 mill on the open market (like you and I would have to) for Yuan, and wire it home.
2) Buy US goods and services, stocks, or real estate (by law, no USD can leave the US banking system so China has to spend it on US stuff).
3) Leave it in checking earning no interest.
4) Earn interest.
China chooses door #4. It tells the Fed to move its $100 mill from checking to savings (at the Fed) and buys $100 mill in treasury securities at the US Treasury’s public auction. This is called buying the National Debt.
Later, when China wants to cash its treasury securities in, it notifies the Fed who sells them through “primary dealers” and returns China’s capital and interest to China’s checking account. That’s called paying off the National Debt. That’s the technical term.
Now I’m really getting worried. What moron has already committed/promised the 60 Billion? I sure hope it’s none of the EU countries! Did they really commit to paying the developping world 100 B just to do basically nothing?
China and India are allowed to simply grow their output unlimited, just curbing the growth percentage to be a bit lower than ‘official’ economic growth estimates.
So China has (say) 6% actual growth this year, but claims it is ‘officially’ 8% and then they promise they keep the CO2 emmission growth to just 6% ….
Hence everybody else needs to pay them (say) 30% of that 100 B per YEAR !!!
LMAO
What moron has already committed/promised the 60 Billion
===================
Trudeau promised $ 2.65 billion and slapped a carbon tax on Canada to pay for it.
Wasn’t it supposed to be 100 billion per year?
‘follow the money’ plus addendum:when that path seems incorrect you are mistaken.
The Paris Climate Accord is much like the John Kerry negotiated Syrian deal to eliminate their chemical weapons.
The IPCC was about money transfers to developing countries from the very start. The IPCC is driven by politics, and the science follows.
This is absurd. Maggie perhaps knew the free market economies will eventually be rescued from their own command based planned economy proponents. But doubtfully even she knew the flagship would be a command based planned economy, China. Oh boy the times our generation is currently witnessing.
“they expected the USA to borrow money from China”
Those were precisely my thoughts before reading this.
I say we opt out of giving our wealth away for nothing, and as a consolation we send the Chinese one crate of hand-crank operated flashlights.
Why would we borrow from China? Is there a factory in downtown Beijing somewhere counterfeiting USD that we then borrow?
The USA creates its own dollar. Period. In fact, it is the monopoly creator of the USD worldwide. And anyone but the US federal government caught creating the USD is guilty of counterfeiting.
“…Why would we borrow from China?….” We already do. China owns1/4 of all outstanding US debt…. the largest holder of US debt in the world.
Markl,
With all due respect, you dont understand what it means to own what you call “outstanding debt.” See my explanation at April 16, 2017 at 9:52 am.
Federal “debt” is not the same thing as your or my “debt” or any business’s “debt.” We have to put up collateral, pay interest, and pay it back on time.
The federal government has no such constraint.
It’s unfortunate that they use the word “debt” in two such divergent meanings but they do. Stuck with it.
Even more worrisome is that congressmen dont understand this, and neither do most economists who do not study banking and US Treasury transactions in school.
“…We have to put up collateral, pay interest, and pay it back on time…..” We sure are lucky to have knowledgeable people like you to explain everything to us stupid people. So what is the “collateral” you refer to? And if we don’t pay it “on time” or when asked what recourse do they have?
Markl,
Hunh? Haven’t you ever taken out a mortgage, student loan, or a car loan, from a bank?
If you borrow to buy a house, the bank calculates the LTV (Loan-to-Value) based on your creditworthiness and credit score. LTV could be 65%, meaning you have to put up 35% of what you need, or it could be 90%, meaning you only have to put up 10%. If you keep missing payments, you get charged a penalty usually. Certainly, your credit score drops. What recourse do they have? They can foreclose on you and take your house.
Do you live in the US? Are you a teenager or student? Perhaps I misconstrued the life experience of who I was talking to. Most adults understand this process as a matter of course; it doesn’t have to be explained.
This got off track. After rereading your previous reply I see where I was in error with your statement about Federal debt. I thought you were saying Fed debt….”we” as in US… was secured and questioned what the collateral is. We both believe the same thing. It isn’t. Goodbye gold, hello fiat. Carry on.
Let’s Institute a tax on the income of every person supporting the Paris Agreement. We could tax their income or tax their net worth each year. With all of the rich people from Hollywood and business that should go a good way towards providing at least a good portion of the necessary funds. I know that putting your money where your mouth is is a new concept for most of these individuals but I for one would love to see their reaction to such a proposal.
If surprised that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren aren’t sending money from the Democratic Party coffers to help out the Paris Climate Agreement. Why not take the billions donated for the election and send it to China to help prevent Climate Change?
Hopefully european countries wise up to stop burning money through the roof.
Great Britain already pulled the emergency brake.
What a scam. $100bn annually to put up windmills and solar parks in developing countries and kill their possible first-world development and advancement? Or is the dough gonna’ wind up in the top head-knockers’ pockets?
Why is my comment in moderation? It’s innocuous. What triggered it?
The “payment” is in the several dozen low priced items purchased this week to go with the hundreds of other items sitting around the house, garage, and dumpster. The embodied energy and petroleum products is not insignificant.
So, the Chinese want money for nothing? I suppose next they’ll want our young women for free…