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.
…
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.
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.
The smog in the picture isn’t from power plants.
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!!!!
The war on capitalism is in the highest gear.
Prepare for full blown eco-munism within a generation.
yep.
and with an embracing of Islam and criminalization of Christianity.
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.
” 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.
Wow, the misanthropic ignorance of the climate/green extremists really shows strongly this week.
Recall that Clinton first colluded with China a long time ago.
This “study” is just a new chapter in that corrupt relationship.
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.
It’s about power, here all power. For the people that means tyranny and slavery.
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.
Slightly OT – death on a wind farm
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43099751
If this happened at a nuclear site then a 3-mile-island type media circus would already be in full swing. Wind will get a pass of course.
Okay, and let’s ask consumers, reporters, and mayors if CO2 is what hangs over city skylines as a visual pollutant.
Since RICH consumers are responsible for the CO2, the solution for the Democratic Party, and for CAGWers in general, is to make everybody POOR!
Some outspoken piggies will be less poor for the good of all
So Soylent Green is their goal
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.
EU is going to fall apart like USSR when they run out of other people’s money.
Proof (within the limits of known science) that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is at http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com .
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.
The endless nonsense of gloom & doom from “scientists” is proof that they don’t have anything real.
~1.3 billion people in China.
~1 billion people in India.
These people don’t count as consumers?
Well the Clintons are shooting themselves in the foot in China suggesting this. I never thought them to be particularly smart.
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.
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.