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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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…