California’s “leading” climate change fighting partner China funds coal plants in Indonesia violating Paris agreement

By Larry Hamlin

Governor Brown who claims that China is “leading” the fight against climate change alongside California seems incredibly oblivious to the reality that China is committed to building hundreds of new coal plants as addressed in a recent New York Times article.

clip_image002

Adding to the Governor’s embarrassment over his phony China climate change fighting claims The Christian Science Monitor has just published an article charging that Japan, China and South Korea are violating the Paris climate agreement by funding coal projects in Indonesia.

clip_image004

clip_image005

The Monitor article notes that: Governor Brown owes the people of California an explanation concerning the ridiculous claims he makes about China “leading” the fight against climate change and the global irrelevancy of the state’s climate campaign.

The reality of what China is actually doing does not support at all the enormously costly and bureaucratically onerous climate alarmist schemes Brown is foisting on our state which Bjorn Lomborg says are useless and estimates will cost Californian’s many tens of billions of dollars every year.

California’s state legislature also seems to be as totally out of touch with reality as the Governor as illustrated by AB 1184 which seeks to extend low emission vehicle subsidies another seven years with a price tag of $3 billion.

clip_image007

But as addressed in an L A Times article the bill fails to deal with where the money will come from – other than it will come from the people of California.

The Times article notes the following regarding the many problems with this bill:

clip_image008

There seems to be no end to the number of costly, onerous and worthless climate alarmist schemes that Governor Brown and the legislature can devise to impose tens of billion of dollars each year in completely unnecessary costs and bureaucracy upon the citizens and businesses of California.

But as long as the people of the state keep putting these people in office that’s what they will continue to get.

Advertisements

120 thoughts on “California’s “leading” climate change fighting partner China funds coal plants in Indonesia violating Paris agreement

  1. I think the subtext amounts to “better to ally with Communist China than Donald Trump”.

    • Here’s the real problem and we’ve known it since the 60’s.

      Human population growth, like a bacteria, will pollute itself, expand as it can and consume everything.

      Or realize, “its not the big bits you need to big be concen3r

      • Your last line completely lost me. If you are an actual human who sent that comment, would you mind explaining it?

      • You can still take every human alive today and place them on the Hawaiian Islands with lots of room to spare

      • So it isn’t actually “climate change” that’s the problem. It’s humans that are your problem?

      • Don Perry July 22, 2017 at 7:11 pm

        Is your comment a bit too close to the cuff?
        I suggest it is.

        Please reflect.

        Auto

      • Population growth isn’t the problem you imagine, John M.

        Two videos from Hans Rosling give a new perspective on growth and its consequences.

        Long one:

        Short one:

      • Auto,

        I understand your sentiment but I think you are taking Don Perry’s comment too seriously. I read it to be “Reductio ad Absurdum”.

        Specifically, when John M presents the proposition that the population needs to be reduced, the fallacy, or hypocracy, of that position can be made apparent by suggesting that he go first. It is obvious the he will not.

      • We’ve known since the 70’s that the growth rate of the human population is plummeting and will soon fall below replacement levels.

  2. Good Heavens, don’t you understand this is Gov. Brown’s attempt to deal with the 30 year bonds which were floated without a vote in the tragic cause of UN sustainability?

    The cost implications, for the State of California, for the next 30 years is nothing short of insipid.

    CARB and all related efforts are an attempt to cover the past debt using carbon taxes.

    Dumb and Dumber comes to mind!

      • The problem with the term “Idiocracy’ is in proper spelling and origin.

        The problem in these comments, with Scientists, is Dumb and Dumber allowed to stand for 300 billion in waste?

      • There’s no problem with spelling or origin. It’s spelled as we both have spelled it and it originates with a Hollywood movie produced by Ternion and distributed by 20th Century Fox.

      • Just for ducks, “Dumb and Dumber” was also a film? As was “Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry met Loyd”?

        I wasn’t planning on a spelling bee…

      • Bartleby,
        Focus, this post is about cost implications and not about your “diapers” nor who changed them long ago. Kid films are trash fun – 300 Billion in waste is a very BIG Diaper.

      • Bartleby,
        Are you a sad soul you lifts his leg like a dog?

        Obvious ask: who cleans up after you?

      • $300bn is a far lesser waste of funds than the $Trillions currently required to be funneled into the UN Climate Slush Fund over the next 15 years. Climate Reparations is tantamount to financial rape.

    • John.
      California and Ontario Canada governments are 2 peas in a pod both rotten to the core and both don’t give a damn how much it cost or how badly hurt the people or their economy suffer, till it comes voting time.
      Filthy socialist infest and always destroy whats good!!!

    • Clever, keep Canada “low carbon” by buying a coal powered station in the US. Smart politician.

  3. China has only pledged to “peak” greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. After that, they might consider making reductions. The only reason they support the Paris Agreement is because they hope to benefit from the promised transfer of wealth from developed countries to developing countries.

    If doing nothing to curb emissions for over a decade makes you the leader in the fight against climate change, sign me up. I’m willing to do nothing as well.

    • Louis writes: “The only reason they support the Paris Agreement is because they hope to benefit from the promised transfer of wealth from developed countries to developing countries.”

      I don’t buy that Louis. China is using Paris for the purpose of free virtue signalling. No entity in China is going to sue the government for failure to meet its implied obligations. In the meanwhile, China appears virtuous in the eyes of Marin, Portland, San Francisco and Seattle, all communities deeply committed to the communist manifesto.

      China has done all the “benefiting” they’re ever going to do from US wealth transfer. They already own more US debt than any other country on the planet, and the US gleefully transferred its entire portfolio of manufacturing tech to China, completely free of charge, during the 90’s and ‘naughties.

      • China is capable of virtue signalling and demanding benefits at the same time. For example, China once demanded offset payments for abortions, claiming their high abortion rate reduces future emissions. Why do you think China will not demand their share of the UN Green Climate fund? It was established “to assist developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change”? China is a developing country and is still one of the poorest countries in the world on a per capita basis. Obama contributed $1 billion to the GCF. Why wouldn’t China have any expectations about getting some of that money? If they don’t get paid, you can watch them ignore any climate commitments they make. Actually, even if they do get paid, they will probably do nothing to curb emissions other than to lie about doing so.

      • No , China is not interested in virtue signalling, they just reached a deal with Obama who agreed to cripple US and let China do all that it wanted to do anyway , like being more efficient in using energy.

        That was a game changer for the pushing some kind of a deal through to Paris since the Chinese had long opposed what they rightly saw a crock.

        Recall, we have the Chinese to thank for blocking Copenhagen.

      • They already own more US debt than any other country on the planet

        “US debt” are US treasury securities.

        China buys US treasury securities with the USD profits it makes from selling us stuff. That’s all.

        When China sells $10 billion worth of tires to Walmart, Best Buy, and Target, the American companies pay China by wiring–via FedWire–the $10 billion payment to China’s checking account at the Fed. [How the national payment system works.]

        China then has four choices:
        (1) Exchange the USD for Yuan and wire it home.
        (2) Buy US goods and services.
        (3) Leave the money in checking earning zip interest (0.25%)
        (4) Earn interest.

        China chooses Door #4.

        China instructs the Fed to move its $10 billion in USD profits from checking to savings and buy treasury securities.

        When China wants to cash them in, it instructs the Fed to sell its treasury securities and move the capital and interest from savings back to its checking account. The act of moving money from savings to checking is called “Paying off the National Debt.”

        ====================
        FYI
        A Fed checking account is called a reserve account. A Fed savings account is called a securities account.

      • If China doesn’t exchange its USD profits to Yuan and write them home, it has no other choices than those I’ve listed above.

        No USD can leave the US banking system, by law.

        All Chinese USD profits remaining are parked in its accounts at the Fed in NYC.

    • I guess my question is exactly what are the consequences of “violating” the Paris Agreement? I would bet as with most of the Agreement there are none. So much for the “coming into force” pronouncements written far and wide by the likes of The Guardian and other Green rags…

  4. Electric vehicles fascinate me. I have no place to charge one at home, no garage for any vehicle, and no outlet that could possibly be used to keep the silly thing going. So that means that an EV is completely out of the question. And because we have very fierce winters that will freeze any battery if conditions are right, the only viable vehicle is one that burns gasoline.
    The idealism under which these people operate is as close to a complete disconnect from reality as you can get.
    Therefore, is it valid to say that a belief in all that crap is a mental disorder?
    Just askin’, because Volvo is going to export all-electric vehicles to the US, and I’m in no mood to buy a lemon.

    • Mental disorder? That’s a stretch I suppose. Ignorance is an excuse and so is stupidity. Stupidity is a physical disorder than manifests as a mental deficiency.

      You’re left then with the willfully ignorant, which I think probably is a mental disorder.

      • The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
        —H.L. Mencken

      • People like Brown are unable to cope with Trump winning and his hate of Trump is driving him to do anti-Trump actions trying to spite Trump even though they are suicidal and destructive to the economy of California. I am not a psychologist but it looks like a mental illness to me.
        I don’t think he would be doing all these crazy things if Hillary had been elected.

      • I’d just like to add that true stupidity is nothing to be laughed at or made fun of; it’s no less a disability than being born with ALS or without a limb. It’s a tragic defect of birth.

        I don’t believe this is a claim alarmists can hide behind.

      • @Catcracking, who writes: “I am not a psychologist but it looks like a mental illness to me.”

        In the immortal words of Joseph Heller, “itse catche twentey twoe!”

        It’s either a mental illness or it’s congenital stupidity. Neither would be a recommendation for high public office. Do we agree?

      • Bartleby: “It’s either a mental illness or it’s congenital stupidity. Neither would be a recommendation for high public office.”

        It may be a requirement, however.

      • Oddly enough, it seems to run in families which have ruled over the centuries in various countries. Am i wrong?

      • Sheri writes: “It may be a requirement, however.”

        And I’m very certain that would be the worst possible outcome. I can’t really express how much I hope you are wrong, but I can comprehend the idea you may be right.

        Thankfully I’ll be dead long before this is ever important to anyone. Good luck!

    • Ignorance (willful or not) of basic math, science and economics combined with SJW passions (fanned by elite controllers) gives you CA. When the schemes collapse, the mobs will not care who caused it. I assume the Feds will bail them out, albeit with a much lower standard of living.

      • Dave writes: “Ignorance (willful or not) of basic math, science and economics combined with SJW passions (fanned by elite controllers) gives you CA.”

        Dave, I believe it’s deeper. Your explanation is simple, I agree there and I suppose it would win the Occam Award if there were such a thing, but I think it’s much more complex.

        When I was young, we were taught to fear a freezing Earth and “Peak Oil”, the later referring to running out of fossil energy. My children now have been taught to fear a warming Earth and too much fossil fuel (energy).

        The fears of my generation were logical in some sense. We had Malthus and Paul (whatshisname, Ehrlichman?) to make us fear overpopulation and death by freezing and starvation. That didn’t work out. My belief is the plan changed. Nothing more; the facts remained. They had no idea what was going on at the time so they made stuff up.

        Personally, I prefer the “too warm, too much energy” scenario to the “too cold, no energy” version popular in the seventies. I honestly don’t understand the angst being expressed by my children (at least the one who refuses to be corralled by propaganda). What caused this? Why do my children have such a bleak view of their own future? The world they were born to is lush. Where have we gone so wrong that their only view is one of disaster?

      • Children are sent to public schools, after school activities, fed by the schools. Parents gave their parenting over to the government. That their children are depressed and fearful is not at all surprising. You send your child to be raised by wolves, the results are rarely good.

      • Catcracking is confusing Psychology with Psychiatry. The first is a quite respectable study of behavior. Has nothing to do with mental illness.

        The latter is simply witch doctoring; best put by Ricky Ricardo, as Pee-sick-ee-a-trist, with the accent on the sick. You have to be sick to get your jollies listening to the most personal secrets, of victims, who often have partners who believe their secrets are never going to be blabbed to somebody who is simply making an income stream off their victim.

        I’m not aware of ANY physical emanations that issue from a human brain that can be translated into the exact thoughts going on in that brain. There is no scientific validity to any of it.

        G

      • George, normally I respect your posts, but I found this description of Psychology in Wikipedia, which I don’t normally trust, but I think Brown’s irrational behavior, mental functions and actions stems from his hate of Trump and an attempt to embarrass or defy him. A psychologist might understand his motives for his behavior?:

        “Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, embracing all aspects of conscious and unconscious experience as well as thought. It is an academic discipline and a social science which seeks to understand individuals and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases.[1][2]

        In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist and can be classified as a social, behavioral, or cognitive scientist. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and biological processes that underlie cognitive functions and behaviors.

        Psychologists explore behavior and mental processes, including perception, cognition, attention, emotion (affect), intelligence, phenomenology, motivation (conation), brain functioning, and personality. This extends to interaction between people, such as interpersonal relationships, including psychological resilience, family resilience, and other areas. Psychologists of diverse orientations also consider the unconscious mind.[3] Psychologists employ empirical methods to infer causal and correlational relationships between psychosocial variables. In addition, or in opposition, to employing empirical and deductive methods, some—especially clinical and counseling psychologists—at times rely upon symbolic interpretation and other inductive techniques.”.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

    • Actually lithium ion batteries dont freeze.
      And they soon warm up in use.
      I take the rest of your points, though :-)

    • The Volvo statement often gets misquoted. I can’t whether they intend to export just EVs to the US. What they said that was that from 2019 there will be no new models released that are powered by fossil fuels alone. Every new design will either be an EV or a hybrid – and that could mean the engine turns the wheels or just charges the battery. They will continue to sell any fossil fuel model already on sale, until I presume in their mind the demand dries up. Of course Volvo has no shareholders as it is owned by the Chinese company Geely, and so they are free to commit commercial suicide. As a note, Volvo Trucks is a separate company.

      • Volvo stated all their vehicles would have an electric motor. They may produce some electric vehicles, but most will be hybrids.

        A hybrid has an electric motor. Why? Because the hybrid uses an electric generator to slow the car, an electric brake rather than a friction brake. At that point, the car has ‘generated’ electricity. There being no convenient way to convert that electricity to hydrocarbons, the car puts the electricity in a battery, and then later feeds it to an electric motor.

        My point – rather belaboured I will admit – is that the only fuel added to the car is fossil fuel. The vehicle is 100% fueled by fossil fuels. There is some moving around of joules within the vehicle going on, including some electric energy, which is rather clever. But Volvo intends to continue manufacturing vehicles powered 100% by fossil fuels.

  5. You know Charles, there was a movie (and I believe a book) on this subject back in the 60’s called “The Manchurian Candidate” that describes the arc of Jerry Brown’s political career rather well. Maybe worth looking into for explanations of this insanity?

    • Skepical, you write: “That’s one 8th of their total generating potential.”

      When you say “potential”, what are you using as a measure? China’s surface area or their total amount of natural resources needed (i.e. silver, lithium, etc.)?

      • Skipper writes: “Wow. You need to read the referenced article.”

        No. I need you to explain exactly why you think there’s a “potential” and what that potential is?

        Come on Skip, play fair? Talk it out. What’s your beef?

      • reallyfakeskeppie obviously believes the unofficial China fake news from a dubious web site.

        No word on solar actual electricity generation, or what they are using it for.

        Unreliable, inconsistent electricity that industry can not depend upon. Partially good for daytime lighting, sometime hot water and shortening the life of electric motors.

        According to the overly renewable optimistic IEA.org:

        “Electricity production more than doubled between 1987 and 1997 to 1134 TWh, with coal-fired generation the overwhelming source of electricity in China.”

        Way back in 1997, China’s generating capacity was 1124 TWh. reallyfakeskeppie’s numbers are already bogus; his 100 GWh 1/8th claim is busted using 1997 electricity production.

        Getting actual numbers from China is extremely difficult; before considering China’s veracity.

        This IEA.org report is from 2016.
        NB where the solid line ends and where speculative plans continue.

        “China renewable energy targets evolutions under the 12th FYP and final 13th FYP targets:
        GW
        12th FYP 2011‑15, targets by 2015
        13th FYP 2016-20, targets by 2020

        Hydropower —- 290 GW —- 380 GW (including 40 GW of PSP)
        Onshore wind — 100 GW —– 205 GW
        Offshore wind —– 5 GW ——— 5 GW
        Solar PV ———- 34 GW —– 110 GW (including more than 60 GW of distributed solar energy systems)
        CSP/STE ———– 1 GW ——– 5 GW
        Bioenergy ——— 13 GW —— 15 GW
        Geothermal ——- 0.1 GW —- 530 MW”

        A) These are targets, as illustrated in the previous graph.
        B) NB 60GW of distributed solar; e.g. hot water heaters, not electricity

        About as accurate a power generation chart actually released by China: NB the actual numbers and dates roughly matches previous charts; i.e. released generating numbers versus plans or promises.

      • What he the article he references probably means is that the name plate capacity is one eight of the total nameplate capacity of China’s grid.

        So that one day in a decade, in summer at midday, that’s what it contributes.

        Greens get their panties all wet whenever they look at solar output at midday in summer. They seem to come with peak reading minds.

        Britain has around 8GW – that’s about one seventh of its total capacity – of solar.

        Its average contribution however is less than 5%.

        http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

    • Potential means squat. The only number that counts is Capacity Value. That’s the output of a power plant when demand is within 90% of maximum. For nukes & hydro it’s 95%, for others like coal nat gas it’s at least 90%. For solar and wind it is ZERO.

    • Isn’t solar’s “nameplate capacity” higher than what it actually delivers, and doesn’t what it delivers decline over time, to the point where at 80% it’s no longer viable?

      • No, and yes.

        I operate a solar plant I installed in 2009. The “nameplate” on the plant is 10kW. That figure historically measures between 3kW (Winter solstice) and 60kW (Summer solstice). The true story is most solar companies don’t really know how to do the math. My plant should have broke even at 10 years, instead it broke even at 6. I’m in the money and I’m happy. For me, solar works great. I’m a fan of tax subsidies and I’d like to express my personal appreciation to all of you who’ve volunteered to underwrite my attempts to make obscene amounts of money off your labor. You, who are about to die, salute me. Thank you.

      • For the less literate, “You, who are about to die, salute me” is a play on the original “Ave, Imperator, morituri te salutant”, attributed to Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum (“The Life of the Caesars”, or “The Twelve Caesars”).

      • I operate a solar plant I installed in 2009. The “nameplate” on the plant is 10kW. That figure historically measures between 3kW (Winter solstice) and 60kW (Summer solstice).

        It would help if you were to further explain the figures.

        For example, is a 10kW system supposed to produce the equivalent of 10kW 24/7 365 days a year,? or
        10kW per sunshine hour? What is a 10kW system supposed to do/how much energy is it supposed to produce.

        When you refer to winter solstice and 3kW, is this the entire amount of energy produced during the course of the day? or is it the energy being produced per hour during the daylight hours of the day, or the energy produced during the sunshine hours on that day?

        Ditto, the summer solstice figure of 60kW.

        Has the energy produced over the 8 years declined? if so, by how much?
        How often do you clean the panels?
        Where do you live and how many sunshine hours per day is usual in your area?

      • Hi Richard –

        When I sized the system with the vendor back in 2009 I asked them to provide a minimum of 10kW during daylight operation. My place is at 32N. What I got was a system that delivers about 3kWh on the winter solstice and 60kWh on the summer solstice. The system (SMA Sunny Island/Sunny Boy) reports energy produced in kWh over a 24hr period, but obviously it only produces when the sun’s high enough to illuminate the arrays. My system is made up of three separate arrays, each having a different orientation, generally aimed south.

        The production has declined about 10% over the past 8 years and it’s been cleaned once by the installer, but that’s a bit misleading since the house is in a rain forest. In a drought year it sees about 50 inches of rain, in an average year closer to 80 inches an a wet year (like last winter) we’ll see 120 inches. So the array is kept pretty clean just by normal rainfall.

      • Bartleby said;

        I’m a fan of tax subsidies and I’d like to express my personal appreciation to all of you who’ve volunteered who have been forced to underwrite my attempts to make obscene amounts of money off your labor. You, who are about to die, salute me. Thank you

        There, I fixed it for you. By the way, was this just a lame attempt at humor or do you actually take pride in having leeched off of society for your own benefit? It would not surprise to me find that it is the latter since you also seem to fancy yourself as Claudius.

        What I got was a system that delivers about 3kWh on the winter solstice and 60kWh on the summer solstice….In a drought year it sees about 50 inches of rain, in an average year closer to 80 inches an a wet year (like last winter) we’ll see 120 inches.

        I can believe the 3kWh per day figure in winter but have a hard time believing you can consistently generate 60kWh per day in summer, especially with the amount of rain you are reporting. Would you care to share the monthly generation figures over a single year? I doubt they support the level of output that you are implying.

    • They’re forcing people into high-density ghettos in order to make room for low-density energy converters. The artificial green blight is a first-order forcing of catastrophic anthropogenic ecological disruption and packing human beings like sardines.

    • 100 gigawatts of solar CAPACITY. That has nothing to do with the real world. Looks great on paper.

      • Skip went off the deep end with this one Sheri. I know, she knows better and all of us are “for the lesser” as a result.

        The sad part is that scientific discourse is intended to reveal the truth, not obscure it. Skipper is involved, wholeheartedly, in obscuring the truth.

        I’m completely unable to support that goal in any way, shape, or form.

  6. China seems to be helping energy-poor Indonesia. The Christian Science Monitor thinks that it violates the Paris Agreement. One more reason to abolish it.

  7. “Governor Brown who claims that China is “leading” the fight against climate change…”

    He’s not called “Moonbeam” for nothing. (horrible grammar but you get the point)

    • I believe his parents called him “Moonbeam”. You may want to research that further, but that’s my understanding. It’s his “secret” Hippie name.

      • While the NYT may often be guily of fake news, the following link refers to the source of the guv’s nickname and it sounds credible to me.


        The nickname was coined by Mike Royko, the famed Chicago columnist, who in 1976 said that Mr. Brown appeared to be attracting “the moonbeam vote,” which in Chicago political parlance meant young, idealistic and nontraditional.

        “Wacky” in my opinion.

      • “* http:// *www.*nytimes.*com /*2010*/*03/*07/*weekinreview/*07mckinley.html*”

        I don’t know why the link displays NYT logo instead of link itself but the above is my last attempt to show the link. If it displays as a “link”, remove asterisks and quote marks to see original. Is a puzzlement to me.

      • Thanks for the reference. I still believe that’s speculation and I’ll continue in my belief Moonbeam was actually named by his parents, but it’s a good story and I’ll keep it on the back burner. :)

  8. I trust Trump is not allowing federal tax deductions of any kind for this. I used to boil up bog water for tea on geological survey work in northern Canada and the water bugs would begin swimming faster and faster as the water heated. They would then organize themselves seeking areas of cooler water in the convecting liquid until in total disarray, they whizzed about and fell silent. A small handful of tea thrown in would settle carrying the bugs to the bottom and leaving a wondrously clear amber liquid with a pleasant herbal over tone to the black tea infusion. I think of this image whenever I read the evermore hysterical, terminal climateering articles.

  9. There’s a delicious irony there, where information from a GreenPeace offshoot ‘Australian-based environmental finance organization’ Market Forces is used to skewer Gov. Brown.

  10. “California Bill will boost electric car rebates by $3 billion dollars, but where’s the money coming from?”
    Sun Moon of Moonies’ fame,when asked where the money was coming from for one of his dodgy schemes, replied: ” It’s coming from wherever it is now!”
    Governor Brown should use that reply.
    Its indisputable.

  11. Chinas economic success is in large part based on coal, roads and railroads. Now they are exporting this recipe for economic success to other developing countries. Let us hope they succeed, because it may lift billions out of poverty and make the world a better place to live.

    They have also started to replacing coal with nuclear and renewables at home. I will guess that is a path other countries will follow when they experience the benefits of better economy and their citizens demand cleaner air.

    /Jan

  12. I am not clear why providing finance to a foreign country is a violation of the Paris Accord. Which provision forbids this.

    This may be against the spirit of the agreement, but if that is all then the story is fake news.

    • @Richard, I think they are using “If you are not for the Paris Accord, then you are against the Paris Accord” logic. The Paris Accord is about wealth transfer and de-carbonisation. Anything than goes counter to those items is “bad” and a “violation”. That’s the beauty of the Paris Accord. It’s un-enforceable, but you can still use it to “shame” those that violate the spirit of the Accord. No fines, no tribunals, just finger pointing. Like that works…

  13. So when California goes Bust, who bales them out?

    I may be wrong but isn’t it US tax payers in general?

  14. There actually is an interesting analysis of this over at the Greenpeace energy desk. Although I doubt that the WUWT crowd would dare venture that far out of their corner of the internets ;)

    Cheers
    Ben

    • We know all about Greenpeace over here. We certainly know enough to not bother paying attention to any of their insipid, planet-saving idiocies.

    • Ah yes, spoken like a true believer. I tend to check out a whole bunch of opposing viewpoints, rather than just log on to the next internet to affirm my own beliefs. Much more interesting.

    • Ah, Greenpi$$…

      Employer of Gene Hashmi (who, incidentally, carries a knife), famous for his quote “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few” and who doubtless knows where our children go to school too, such a pleasant gentleman.

      Not to mention wilfully causing massive damage to the ancient designs on the Plain of Nazca for a publicity stunt.

      https://news.vice.com/article/drone-footage-shows-extent-of-damage-from-greenpeace-stunt-at-nazca-lines

      Yes, I’d imagine the likes of you supports an organisation like that.

      • oh my god catweazle, do you dare read such a horrible liberal outlet like vice? Sacrilege!

  15. All along China has been only seemingly to go along with the Paris accord only to the point where it is beneficial to them. So far we have been letting them to get away with it.

  16. Apparently Pat Brown lives on some extra-terrestrial estate – he is actually proposing subsidies to encourage people to buy electric vehicles, primarilly home-grown Tesla vehicles, as he has said so often, while Tesla has a 600,000-strong waiting list for their Model 3 , a demand that will require several years of full production to
    satisfy. So which idiotic Californians are leading which idiotic Californians here ? No person, much less a governor, has a right to be this dumb and still be quoted in the dumb and dumber mass media. Exactly why is Brown such a complete fool? Is it the health food that he consumes?

  17. The best cure for socialists is to give them want along with the bill. If Californian liberals want to keep voting in imbeciles like Brown then the best of luck to them, the rest of us can stand on & laugh at them from a distance. Other states should start courting Californian businesses asap.

  18. The sentence “The Monitor article notes that:” was intended to be placed above the quote box describing that article but was inadvertently placed below the quote box.

  19. Any law firms out there that would be willing to take on a pro bono case to sue California and Governor Brown to compel it to roll back and/or vacate all legislation, rules, regulations, judicial decisions, taxes and subsidies that are justified primarily by climate change concerns due to Co2 emissions? There’s no money to be made, but the prestige of winning a case like this will be unprecedented.

    The grounds are that in order for the presumed climate change concerns to arise, the laws of physics must be violated and that no legislative, executive or judicial body has any standing to overrule the laws of physics. This should also serve as precedent to vacate the SCOTUS decision on the endangerment finding.

    I can demonstrate this with testable theory and data that supports it and I have a multitude of ways to falsify claims of any sensitivity within the range claimed by the IPCC.

  20. as long as the average
    american emits more CO2 than
    the average chinese,
    americans have no right to
    complain.

    and as long as america has
    emitted more CO2 than has china (it’s
    now 2-1, USA), americans
    have no right to complain.

Comments are closed.