Reuters: Blame Consumers, Not China for Global Warming

Smog hangs over a construction site in Weifang city, Shandong province, Oct 16. 2015. Air quality went down in many parts of China since Oct 15 and most cities are shrounded by haze. [Photo/IC]

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to Clinton Climate Initiative backed green group C40, heavy emitters like China are not responsible for climate change; consumers in big cities who provide the demand for China’s products, especially rich consumers, are responsible for the CO2 emissions China produces fulfilling their needs.

Look at consumption when assigning blame for global warming, study says

Sebastien Malo

Calculating emissions of greenhouse gases, which are blamed for global warming, traditionally looks at where goods such as cellular phones or plastic cups are produced, they said.

But consumption-based emissions presents a fuller picture by attributing emissions to the consumers rather than the manufacturers, said Mark Watts, head of C40, an alliance of more than 90 global cities.

Traditional calculations put manufacturing countries such as China and India amid the lead emitters of greenhouse gases.

Using consumption-based calculations, emissions in 15 affluent cities were three times more than they were with traditional figuring, the researchers said.

Using consumption-based emissions is “revolutionary” although still “on the periphery,” said Debra Roberts, a co-chairwoman on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“But … these are ideas whose time is probably almost imminent,” she told the Thomson Reuters Foundation on the sidelines of the Edmonton summit.

Read more:

Greens have been telling us for years about China’s huge investment in green energy and China’s global climate leadership.

In retrospect the next step, cutting demand for Chinese products, should have been obvious. If it wasn’t for out greedy ongoing consumer demand for Chinese products, China would long ago have been able to shutter all their remaining fossil fuel assets.

Buying American will help China to realise their vision to become global climate leaders.


114 thoughts on “Reuters: Blame Consumers, Not China for Global Warming

  1. LOL, and, as I argued with a Canadian ‘friend’ once, we should assign CO2 emissions to the people who pull it out of the ground, not the people who ultimately use it. If they left it in the tar sands there wouldn’t be a problem.

    • I told him that if he lambasted the US for CO2 emissions that were the result of purchase of Canadian tar sands, it was hypocritical. Until they left it in the ground, they had no room to complain. Haven’t heard him complain in a while

      • This is similar to the AGs’ lawsuit against Exxon. Trying to blame Exxon for selling me gasoline for my automobile. I doubt that SCOTUS could ever uphold a ruling like that, assuming it ever makes it that far through the lower courts.

      • these are ideas whose time is probably almost imminent,” she told the …

        Take heart, these ideas are probably … almost …. imminent. ie not really all that imminent at all. aka far away and on the fringe.

      • There is no tar in the “tar sands”. The proper term is oil sands, as it is composed of bitumen (heavy oil), sand, water and clay.

      • As “tar” is more of a generic term it is often used interchangeably with all sticky, viscous, petroleum and coal based products/substances. My searches indicated the terms are somewhat synonymous, while bitumen is a more specific grade of “tar”.
        “I don’t drink alcohol, I prefer a single malt ethanol…”

      • This could be the political undoing of the whole CAGW movement. How do you tell Americans that it’s all their fault when they want a new can that encourages China to pollute as they make the steel. Or, it’s all your fault for wanting a pair of ‘new green sneakers.’ Or, it’s all your fault for wanting a new sweater or jeans – you’re causing the polluting orient to put more CO2 into the air.

        While there may be a large contingent of lunatic Americans who will believe that nonsense, I expect that most American voters, if presented a choice between more & cheaper things or a third world lack of stuff to buy, will choose the higher standard of living. Hopefully, skeptic candidates will be smart enough to start presenting the issues that way.

      • Earthling2, one of the more liberal justices on the SC once declared in a speech that it was very important for a justice to keep in mind how his/her ruling would impact people, when deciding cases.

        That is, helping people was more important than what the law or the constitution actually said.
        If a law is having a bad impact, it’s up the legislature to fix it, not the courts.

      • Please please – there are no tar sands in Canada. If you are referring to the Oil Sands – then yes we have them. However for Americans to complain about the Oil Sands then maybe they SHOULD look to their own backyard before telling us to keep it in the ground.

    • I agree, the CO2 emissions should also be assigned to those who build the airplanes, cars, etc. Using your logic, if they were never built then no CO2 emissions.

    • RocketScientist.
      The definition of tar indicates that the substance is heated by destructive distillation to boil off all the more valuable products that are recovered from the Canadian oil sands to make an often light crude. Tar need not be petroleum based and it is incorrect to call the Oil sands Tar sands.
      “any of various dark-colored viscid products obtained by the destructive distillation of certain organic substances, as coal or wood.”

    • Currently reading a history of the world, China has been a major producer of luxury goods for well over a thousand years, gleefully feeding the trade demands of the Middle East and Europe. They are doing nothing unusual. The amazing thing is that, as silk is such a delicate and fine industry, they produced enormous amounts of woven silk and have been doing so for many centuries. That means that silk factories back then were ramped up just like factories are today to feed whatever demands they see. But, then again, they do not have to respond to demands and can sit back and starve. Yeah, that’s a plan. I would put the onus on the demand.

    • Neomarxist and postmodernist do not accept The Western culture, economic system and laws that has been handed down to us. Critical theory is used to attack any and every side of the Western World. Environmental NGO’s, UNEP and UNFCCC is a part of this critique. Their problem is that we have about 100 million dead people as the result of this ideology the last 100 years. It’s a failed and corrupt ideology that does not work.

      • Ice core studies show that temperature drives CO2 levels in the atmosphere with a lag about 800 plus/minus 200 years. That means that UNFCCC claim that CO2 drives temperature is like claiming that lung cancer leads to smoking.

  2. The Clinton foundations are actually spending money on something other than Chelsea’s wedding and Hillary’s aides salaries? Will wonders never cease!

  3. More drivel from the big lie brigade. And maggots are consumers. Cockroaches are consumers. When did humans become known as consumers? It’s contemptuous. It’s how a hostile, advanced alien race might refer to us. Or a hostile group of rich psychopaths.

    • I think humans became known as consumers when it became inconvenient for us to think of ourselves as citizens, with all the attendant responsibilities. (It sounds like more Marxism when I put it that way.) That, and they probably wanted to avoid drawing any more attention to the distinction between citizens and illegal immigrants.

    • “Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.”
      – Adam Smith

  4. Blame rich consumers? Then blame AlGore and DeCaprio – they have large carbon footprints. I know, I know, their production of CO2 is justified by their noble motives.

  5. Our ‘demand’ for Chinese ‘products’ is what keeps them afloat. If that ceased they’d fall into a depression worse than the 30’s. It’s why their ‘threats’ to cash out their US bond position is a false narrative. They can’t do it at the risk of their own economy. It’s why we really should be close allies…

    • they can’t dump bonds on the market since that would undermine the value of their assets. What they can do is is invest in real estate world wide. Especially by buying up large tracts of land in mineral rich countries.

      This is exactly what they are doing in an attempt to get out of the dollar before its value goes down the drain.

    • It appears that China has a national debt equivalent to ours and they could not afford to call in any debts as their debts would be called. Game over.

      • People are willing to put up with a lot as long as they believe the future will be better.
        If the economic growth were to falter, the hold the Party has on government could be shaken.

  6. I guess this means the oil companies are blameless for hurting the environment, too. After all, they are just fulfilling a need.

  7. New Zealand Greens want to destroy our farming industry. They are worried about the methane produced by our cows. They should really be blaming the rest of the world for needing protein.

    • That is really messed up critical thinking. But then most Greens I know are very young and idealistic, immature and/or ignorant in both their intelligence and knowledge of how things really work. Or just anarchists at heart. If that same grass the cows are eating and digesting was just left to rot or compost back into the soil, a similar amount of methane is going to be created anyway. Which turns to CO2 and H2O fairly quickly in the scheme of things. It is already part of the carbon cycle, and essentially a moot point over a short time frame. How did things get that messed up so quickly in NZ by thinking that destroying its agricultural industry will somehow cure the planet’s fever? (and as if the planet has a fever) Sounds like NZ has a very ignorant political establishment if it allows faulty policy like this to impair or destroy one of its chief exports at the expense of its economy.

      • destroying its agricultural industry will somehow cure the planet’s fever?
        no different than salvation via a hair shirt or scourging.

        to be saved on must truly suffer to be proven worthy.

      • Rest assured that no gas at any concentration if the atmosphere has any detectable effect on the climate. It is thermodynamically impossible for CO2 and water vapor at altitude (-17 deg C) to “trap” IR radiation and send it back to the surface (15 deg C). A cold source cannot heat anything warmer; the IR would be reflected.

        Also, all the climate models completely ignore the water cycle and its convection that carries warm moist air to altitude and accounts for about 85% of Earth’s energy budget. This is the “missing heat” that Trenberth keeps trying to claim has mysteriously snuck into the ocean depths and will jump out at us at a later date. Truly junk science on his part and assumes the public is terribly stupid.

        Any policy based on the concept of decreasing CO2 emissions is by definition based on junk science and should be rethought. CO2 is plant food and we need more not less. A policy based on saving energy would be just as good, but any policy that assumes carbon-based energy is the logical target is assuming junk science, again.

      • What you say is true for conduction, but it is not true for radiation.
        A cold source can heat a warm source, if the cold source is covering a source that is even colder.

    • Hilarious – the amount of methane produced by New Zealand’s cows is literally a fart in a windstorm.

      Even if viewed strictly in terms of methane production, India has an estimate 199 million cattle) 285 million if you include Buffalo), while New Zealand has roughly 10.4 million cattle

      FWIW the U.S. has roughly 94 million cattle and Brazil has 226 million….

  8. This is just a version of the idea behind ‘six degrees of separation’. Every process that adds to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is no more than 6 steps away from some white capitalist, preferably a male.

    That is always where the blame lies.

      • Dig coal, produce electricity, produce steel, create steel products, use steel products.

        All these steps are done in developing countries as also in Western countries, but only the part with a white male in it is evil.

        If a Trump voter, the better. The idea is not to stop carbon dioxide emissions, but to fight the old good SJW fight. My money is mine, and your money is also mine, you white Christian male capitalist oppressor!

        Note that using products created by steel products is OK for these warriors. They don’t really want to give up coal.

    • They just made the argument for stopping all foreign aid…dtop trying to help those poor countries…and let them stay sh1tholes

  9. Now correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t those same products used to be made in those countries that now import them? The only reason that many are not is because the price of fuel and regulation went up so much that it was cheaper to move production overseas.
    So how can they give China a free pass but not their own countries?

    James Bull

  10. What a bunch of hooey but what would you expect from “The Clinton Climate Initiative”? This shows you how deep the bull shit is.

    • “Revolutionary but still peripheral” idea. Destined to remain so. Hillary lost and the Clinton [F]oundation pay to play game is over.

      [Fixed it for you. -mod]

      • It is revolutionary, although it move to the periphery for a while.

        This looks like a choreographed “re-pivot” by the certain politicians (and their backers) that see energy (CO2) as a significant source of control & income.

        The lawsuits against the producers will fail & the only option will be going back to the idea of piling onto the end consumers.

      • That came out completely wrong …

        Should say “It is NOT revolutionary, although it did move to the periphery for a while.

  11. Sanctimonious nonsense. I thought that our objective was to improve as many lives as possible. How is that worthy goal to be achieved without more and better manufacturing, worldwide? Finally, after decades of dead-end Communism, China is finding its legs, and lifting living standards, So also India, & South America. But no … Mr Worrell isn’t happy that ‘capitalism’ has lifted billions out of poverty. He seems to think a ‘consumption tax’ would be a better way. There isn’t one. Been there, done that. End of story.

  12. Communists, Socialists, Venezuelans, and Cubans are not consumers. They struggle just to survive. Poverty is their virtue. A studio apartment for a family of five, their birthright. All hail want, and worship need. And may the sinful consumers of Capitalism DIE of their wickedness. Amen. – The Gore’s Prayer (as delivered from his mansion in Montecito, CA) [sarc. finished]

    • well if we take all the money away from all those big BADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD consumers by highhhhhhhhhhhh taxation including carbon taxes they wont have any money to spend on any products that rely on CO2 being released to produce those products in the 1st place. The problem is that there aren’t enough caves to live in these days because there are too many people. So the endgame of this madness is to have 1 child policies everywhere. However that policy doesnt work because many societies will abort their female babies. Thus an imbalance that exists in China today. I’m afraid that female sex robots just doesnt cut it with young lusty guys. The whole leftest socialist green philosophy leads to a world without many women. Maybe the global warmers are hoping for the invention of the artificial womb. then the 1 world government they envision will be able to completely control the birth of babies. Then we wont even need women . Men were already obsolete when sperm banks were created. So in the end a world without sex except with a robot. Maybe that was the goal along. Aggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggh

  13. This is jus the sort of selective enforcement arrangement I’ve come to expect from our would-be overseers, with a totally customizable attribution logos. Of course we must believe them, if they are victims of our crimes . . ; )

    • Yes, but only in the real world. The opposite is true in the academic world, the activist world and the media.

  14. “Look at consumption when assigning blame for global warming, study says”

    Look for click bait consumption too!

  15. “But … these are ideas whose time is probably almost imminent,”

    You mean like Cities not suing Big Oil for satiating their consumers’ inhabitants but Cities getting stuck into their ratepayers instead? I can foresee a few problems but as you were Big Oil.

  16. OK then Trump’s tariffs increases are the greatest idea ever, right?

    Will slow down China’s growth and minimize the amount of coal needed to make steel there.

  17. Googles robot for every job is a huge threat to China. Robots have zero wages. Imagine every washing machine, every fone and everything else the USA consumer needs being made in the USA. The number of sites required would be staggering and the number of human supervisors and observers equally huge. You would need to employ just about everyone in the country and then some. The idea is to make the product near the customer to vastly reduce transport CO2.

  18. The problem with this argument is that the Greens never take the logical conclusion. This would be to propose very high, prohibitive tariffs on imports from China. Perhaps a sliding scale according to the CO2 intensity of the product.

    Inquiring minds want to know why this is. If the problem is, we are buying goods which lead China to emit hugely, then obviously we must stop people from buying them. Well, one way would be an outright ban on Chinese imports. But another, probably better way would be a prohibitive tariff.

    The fact is that the Green persuasion never advocates this. It also never advocates China making any reductions in emissions.

    So ask yourself: if the problem is Chinese emissions, and the remedy is so simple, its just getting them reduced, why do the Greens not advocate either of the two policies which would actually reduce them?

    My own answer: no-one believes in the necessity of reductions. So why do the Greens continually argue for them, while advocating things that will not do it?

    Because for the Greens, emissions are simply a marketing device to be used in marketing a general radicalization program. They are not a program which they want to see implemented.

    What is needed is something that can be used to point blame locally. This is the only kind of issue you can use as the basis for organization. So, we refuse to call for Chinese reductions, despite their being required by what we claim to believe, because that does not blam any local political actors.

    We also refuse to call for measures to address the problem locally, ie ban or tax imports.

    The reason is, we want to be able to blame. Because as long as there is an un-addressed problem, and blame, there is a cost-free something to organize around. Start advocating a tariff and you would have to debate consequences and implications.

    The last thing the Greens want is to be in charge of any program, and the last thing they want is for any of their demands to be met with agreement to implement anything. As soon as that happens, they will carry some responsibility and the argument will shift from the evils of the system to the merits of the program and its implementation.

    Watch for this in these debates. The key move is when the lobby either refuses to advocate measures which will do what they claim to want, or when they advocate things which will not have any effect, and which are most unlikely ever to be doable politically.

    Like, for instance, the UK 80% reduction in emissions.

    • Carbon intensity (or alternatively, “carbon cost”) of a particular good?

      Not only the cost of anything that is produced by a process that produces two different products (worthy of being sold) is not a well defined concept (mines produce many minerals, f.ex.), but even without that conceptual issue, tracing the cost of goods would be prohibitively expensive esp. given China’s notorious opacity (I read that China doesn’t even give visas for safety inspectors for its pharmaceutical factories).

      But we (the US, the UE…) could have a global tariff on any export of China (that must be implemented by other countries, or they get those tariffs too), starting high, then getting lower as they stop using coal so much…

      • Yes, if people really believe that our reckless consumption is causing other countries to emit dangerous levels of CO2, why is there no debate, ever, in the alarmed media about how we go about stopping this?

        I suggest the answer is that no-one making the claim that the problem is our consumption has any wish to curtail it. They know perfectly well that this is politically impossible.

        But politically impossible goals are exactly what you need if your aim is to organize rather than to change policy. You positively want something that no-one will consider doing, as then you can proclaim all the evils of the system that is not doing it, and lambast the vested interests that are corrupting what you will claim to be a fake democracy.

        The more unlikely it is to get done, the better. It means the efficacy of whatever you advocate will never be tested.

        So, sue Exxon, but without any intention or expectation that this will lead to any result or any lowering of production. Demand that emissions are reduced by 80%, the more the better, because the higher the target the less likely to be achieved, and thus the more grounds for complaint. Demand that all energy become renewable…. It won’t happen, so you can keep complaining. Demand all power generation be decentralized onto rooftop solar. Claim that levelized costs are a good basis for comparison.

        The madder the better. Then when informed analysis refutes your demands and claims, you will resort to explaining that this is due to vested interests muddying the water.

        As a detached observer analyzes these antics, he or she cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that no-one believes in any of this. Not the greens, not the Chinese, not the UN. No-one has any intention of doing anything that will really lower emissions anywhere.

        But what they have found is a great organizing issue, one that has been running for years, and still has life in it.

    • If The U. S> Federal Reserve was shut down — Or, at least brought under control — So that their magic currency was no longer being magically conjured out of their magic hole in the air in order to finance consumption by Americans of products of all kinds that are being produced in other countries then consumption in the U. S. would have to be equaled by production in the U. S. That would put a damper on everything, CO2 and methane emissions included. But then the drivers of the politics of GDP as measured would certainly become a bit tenuous.

      • As the economy grows, the dollars in circulation need to grow with it, otherwise you will have massive deflation.

    • If you buy into AGW/AGCC then it leads into what is the real driver? It’s globalism and global economic development given the growth model is manufacture stuff and sell it to developed world. It seems ironic that many who espouse sustainability and buy local when it comes to food seem to have no problem buying stuff with massive production channels through multiple countries using high GHG emitting coal and then shipping same many thousands of miles to Europe and USA. When I see the UN push for a Carbon Tariff on all global trade permitting the buying nation to charge a tariff based on GHG input in manufacturing and shipping, I’ll will think someone is really serious about CC. Such a tariff could be used for green energy in recipient country while creating inducement for exporting country to accelerate conversion to green energy. Everything proposed to date is pure redistribution of wealth.

    • I’m not sure if I believe in seasonal forecasts, but Its been an interesting Summer in Australia. Where I live just south of the tropics, there has been some very hot periods, but also lots of moody dark wet weather.

      Multiple occasions of out of season snowfall in the Southern highlands.

  19. I always said that, if we were to be serious about limiting carbon emissions, it would be most sensible to tax goods according to the CO2 emitted in their production and use. This would level the competitive playing field and directly incentivise efforts to reduce emissions.

    • I’d agree with that too but the kicker is would we get countervailing tax reductions elsewhere to compensate and therein lies the problem. Trading off income taxation and other frictional taxes like State stamp duties on housing transfers, payroll taxes and the like for a broad based consumption tax would have some real positives but not if it’s simply an excuse for a bigger tax grab.

  20. Well, a ton of steel produced in China emits twice the amount of CO2 compared to a ton of steel produced in Sweden.
    But the chinese steel in often less costly.

    • …and we should celebrate Chinese steel because ton for ton, it grows more plants than Swedish steel (and the lower cost is bonus!)

    • If you use tarrifs to make Chinese steel more expensive, than all products that are made from steel, such as cars and washing machines, will also become more expensive.
      For every job that is saved in the steel industry, at least one job will be lost in industries that make stuff from steel.

  21. I will play devils advocate here. When you buy a product from China you are almost guaranteed a product that does not have to live up to the safety standards set on products made pretty much anywhere else. Lead, in child’s toys. Poison in baby’s milk. Poison fumes from flooring, walls and wood. You support slave labor. You support the pollution China has become famous for.

    How does a country with paid laborers, safety rules and pollution standards ever hope to compete? The consumer needs to have standards too. I personally miss quality and products that weren’t designed to be tossed out in a year.

    • You mean you still think that the air pollution in china is something that is worse than anything else ever seen?

      My impression after several visits in dozens of Chinese cities and in different seasons, is that they surely have some problems with the air quality, especially in the winter, but that these are hugely exaggerated in the western media.

      The pollution problems I have seen is comparable to what we experienced in many western cities in the 1970’ties. It is not as bad as Eastern Europe in the 1980’ties or the London smog in the 1950’ties


      • Jan

        I concur

        The photo at the top of this article was taken during the biomass field stubble burning event which takes place each year. It is not ‘coal power’ pollution at all. It is renewable biomass pollution from the (illegal) burning of whatever remains in the fields after the harvest.

        It lasts about 3 days and is acrid. When it comes to misrepresenting China, nothing surprises me. Getting up and going there reveals lots of problems, but the the association of biomass smoke with an article on CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is pretty low, even for an alarmist, given that they advocate switching to biomass combustion. The photo is at least one reason not to. Burning something badly makes smoke….who knew, eh?

  22. Once the Chinese build more HELE and nuclear plants they won’t have that awful smog shown in the picture. New technology ICE cars will also help with the particulate count.

  23. CO2 isn’t the problem. The problem is particulate pollution from diesel vehicles which generate dense smog blankets over big cities (particularly under conditions of temperature inversion). Even in the West – the growing number of diesel vehicles are a major cause of air pollution in populated centres. The CO2 IS not a problem at all. It is of net BENEFIT to the environment and to humans (more vegetation means more scrubbing of particle pollution from air and more oxygenation, more ecological production and better crop yields). And fortunately the data show more CO2 is NOT making the climate more dangerous – on the contrary – during this warming phase, the climate has become more benign. So STOP the CO2 (low cost energy) scam!!!!

  24. The irony is the ‘rich’ are the least likely to turn to China for products , for example cars .
    Do you think the wealthy look to German , Italy or China to buy their luxury cars ?
    Clothes, do you think those with cash say no to Paris or London and yes to Beijing?

    It shows how rubbish this is , in that they pick totally the wrong target , for if anyone turns to China for products , far from being the rich who not have to worry about the costs , its the everyday person who share does.

  25. ” consumers in big cities who provide the demand for China’s products, especially rich consumers, are responsible…”

    Especially rich consumers? They have a lower buying footprint than the rest of us. Not sure how the author of the article defines ‘rich’ but that should have been discussed as a per capita consumption rate, which is lower than the per capita consumption rate of the people on my street and the street to the west of me. While I would agree that high density population areas (big cities) have a high rate of consumption as a group, the overall population rate of consumption in surrounding suburban areas is probably equal to that of the inner cities, although gardening to cut the grocery bill is catching on in many places.

    Gardening is a greenish thing, too, and I am quite in favor of that kind of thing. It is happening in neighborhoods in Chicago that are former gang zones, with the demolition of abandoned houses and derelict buildings.

    ‘Big cities’? That’s a rather 5th-grade term for major metropolitan areas. On the other hand, I am unimpressed by anything at all produced by the clintoon politgroup. This is just a ‘groupthink’ article trying to imply that the clintoons are keeping up with the times.

    • Compared to the average Chinese consumer, all of us are rich. However I doubt that is the standard the author was using.

  26. Recall that Clinton first colluded with China a long time ago.
    This “study” is just a new chapter in that corrupt relationship.

  27. So the solution to the human-caused CO2 problem is for people to stop consuming! And the Green group thinks this is a viable solution that is “imminent”. Talk about being detached from reality!

    I hate to burst their bubble but it’s not going to happen. Consumers will not stop consuming on their own. Someone would have to force them to stop consuming, which is the ultimate goal of these Greens, I assume.

    • To what extent did Prohibition stop people consuming alcohol? I presume that there are books and theses on the outcome of that particular experiment.

      • Overall alcohol consumption in the US did decrease during the Prohibition years, so in that respect it was a success. It was repealed not because it was an abject failure, but because we just changed our minds about it. Pity we didn’t change our minds about the other “progressive” era amendments too.

  28. Bejing has a population of 21 million. It would take perfect pollution controls to substantially reduce the sort of emissions that plague Bejing, along with power generation that takes place hundreds of miles away. Blaming the situation on overconsumption is laughable on its face. Other than transportation, heating and a/c, what are talking about in Bejing?

    Unfortunately it’s not a perfect world for environmentalists and anti-capitalists. WIth large concentrations of people it takes energy intensive modes of generation that cannot and will not be adequately supplied by wind and solar generation. More nuclear would help, but enviros don’t like that either.

    The Clinton crowd and their ilk need to decide on what they really want. They should make some difficult choices and join the real world.

  29. Okay, and let’s ask consumers, reporters, and mayors if CO2 is what hangs over city skylines as a visual pollutant.

  30. Since RICH consumers are responsible for the CO2, the solution for the Democratic Party, and for CAGWers in general, is to make everybody POOR!

  31. Greenies just love playing the blame game, because first of all, it simply assumes that CAGW is true. Beyond that though, they’ve suddenly “discovered” that people’s wealth is what drives CO2 emissions. Duh. So, what to do? Well, by switching energy systems to “green” energy you get a double-whammy effect: “green” aka “renewable” energy, in addition to emitting less “carbon” is also way more expensive and less reliable, which hurts economies, and ultimately lowers living standards, meaning less consumption, and even lower “carbon” emissions. Win-win for Warmunists. Mission accomplished. And by waging a gigantic, world-wide propaganda campaign, they get sheeple onboard thinking they are helping “save the planet”, when in fact all they are doing is making everyone poorer, with exception of Big Green, of course. It is a diabolically clever plan they’ve concoted.
    Fortunately, it is all collapsing despite their pretenses and loud protestations to the contrary.

    • I wish I could share your optimism about it all collapsing. Here in the EU in general and The Netherlands in particular, the global warming madness is still strong and even growing stronger. Europe will be the next lost continent if they succeed with their econocide.

  32. especially rich consumers
    go to China. they have more rich consumers than any other country on earth.

    tourists in China buy knockoffs. the Chinese consumers want and buy the real thing. the Chinese in the shopping centers in chinese major cities make the tourists look like penniless bums.

  33. Well the Clintons are shooting themselves in the foot in China suggesting this. I never thought them to be particularly smart.

  34. Millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty by their country becoming the world’s factory. As usual the misanthropic greens want to cut consumption without any remorse for driving those Chinese workers back into poverty, and all to appease the mythical global warming genie.

  35. It’s not like they can guilt trip China out of their money. They have to keep the sin/penance narrative aimed at where the most accessible wallets are.

Leave a Reply - if your comment doesn't appear right away, it may have been intercepted by the SPAM filter. Please have patience while our moderation team examines it.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s