China Demands USA Give Money to China Because Climate Change

Chinese Minister Xie Zhenhua. By U.S. Department of State – Cropped from File:Secretary Kerry Poses With Chinese National Development Vice Chairman Xie and Special Envoy Stern (12538003013).jpg, original source Secretary Kerry Poses With Chinese National Development Vice Chairman Xie and Special Envoy Stern, Public Domain, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

China is demanding that the USA and other developed countries give China large sums of cash, because the USA owes China and other developing countries for historical US greenhouse gas contributions.

China is also demanding lenient “developing country” accounting oversight over how those climate cash transfers from the USA to China are spent.

China demands developed countries ‘pay their debts’ on climate change

Key sticking point at UN negotiations is how countries should account for their greenhouse gas emissions

China called on rich countries to “pay their debts” on climate change at global talks on Thursday, criticising developed countries for not doing enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide finance to help poor countries do the same.

The trenchant intervention by Xie Zhenhua, the minister who leads the Chinese delegation and a veteran of the UN climate negotiations, came as China faced increasing pressure to shift its stance on some of the key rules required to implement the 2015 Paris agreement.

He told a small group of journalists: “Developing countries are not comfortable or happy. [We need to] see if developed countries have honoured their commitments. Still some countries have not started their mitigation efforts, or provided financial support [to poor nations]. We strongly urge them to pay up on their debts.

Developed countries prefer strict standards but developing countries have historically been allowed some leeway, in recognition that their governance structures and capabilities may lag behind.

But the EU and other developed countries are concerned that large rapidly developing economies such as China are not agreeing to adequate transparency in accounting for their emissions.

Xie said the talks were “deadlocked”, but maintained that China should continue to be treated as a developing country, and that developing countries should have flexibility over transparency rules.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/dec/13/china-demands-developed-countries-pay-their-debts-on-climate-change

The situation is even more ridiculous when you consider that the US Federal Government is in severe deficit, they borrow billions of dollars every year. Much of that borrowed cash comes from China.

So the Chinese negotiator Xie Zhenhua’s position amounts to a demand that the USA borrow money from China, gift the principle back to China, then repay the loan that they just gifted to China.

My question – would President Obama have agreed the Chinese demand?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
137 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Taphonomic
December 14, 2018 10:10 am

Nothing like the world’s largest emitter of CO2 demanding money to continue increasing their CO2 emissions because, climate change.

Latitude
Reply to  Taphonomic
December 14, 2018 12:14 pm

….and less transparency in reporting

I didn’t think you could get less transparency in China’s reporting

Bryan A
Reply to  Latitude
December 14, 2018 10:18 pm

Simple solution…USA prints up a boatload of Yuan and pays China with it

Menicholas
Reply to  Taphonomic
December 14, 2018 4:13 pm

Exactly!
What debt is it and what for?
For past emissions?
They currently emit for more than we ever did, ever, and their emissions are climbing steeply.
This position statement from China is warmista jackassery at it’s finest.
Self-serving and bereft of facts.

Bryan A
Reply to  Menicholas
December 14, 2018 10:23 pm

How has Chinese rice yields reacted to the increased CO2 from USAs fossil fuel usage. I would imagine that since the start of the industrial revolution per acre/hectare yield of rice in China has increased dramatically from our atmospheric fertilization efforts

Sam Pyeatte
Reply to  Menicholas
December 15, 2018 8:20 am

Tell China to “sit on it and spin”. Not one dime to that den of thieves. Do not do what Obama would have done…he would have given away the store.

Jim Moran
Reply to  Menicholas
December 15, 2018 9:26 am

It seems appropriate for the US to calculate the value of all Chinese cyber theft, including our nuclear weapon design and F-35 design, and submit the bill to China. I think we will be way ahead.

ghl
Reply to  Taphonomic
December 14, 2018 6:39 pm

I stopped thinking of China as “Developing” when they started exploring the moon with their “Jade Rabbit” vehicle.

Bryan A
Reply to  ghl
December 14, 2018 10:24 pm

Excellent point. Once a developing country has developed technology capable of reaching another world they are developed

Jim Moran
Reply to  Bryan A
December 15, 2018 9:30 am

China likely stole most of the technology. They develop very little of their own technology.

Guy
Reply to  Jim Moran
December 16, 2018 2:24 pm

Any carbon debt that could be imagined has been paid so many times over by technology transfer, opening our universities to Chinese citizens, opening markets, showing the way in terms of economic structure…

KaliforniaKook
Reply to  ghl
December 15, 2018 4:46 pm

[China] as a ‘developing’ country? One of the largest militaries in the world, spacefaring, nuclear powerplants and bombs, ICBMs, stealth fighters, aircraft carriers, one of the largest economies, colonizing… hey! Maybe the US should be asking for ‘developing country’ status, so we can demand money from the Europeans, Africans, Chinese, and Maldovians.

Fredar
Reply to  KaliforniaKook
December 16, 2018 5:03 am

Well, technically every single country is “developing”. I don’t think that can ever stop.

ResourceGuy
December 14, 2018 10:14 am

While this argument is normally crafted around historical emissions of developed countries, it sidesteps the fact that all these virtue signalling Americans and Europeans are complicit in the everyday shifting of CURRENT emissions to China as a direct byproduct of NIMBY attitudes in policy, regulations, lawsuits, and consumer purchasing. The funds transfer is already taking place along with this massive emissions transfer in current activities.

Dave Fair
Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 14, 2018 10:24 am

Just the Western capitalist democracies killing themselves over the long term. Only President Trump is attempting to stem the destructive past practices.

commieBob
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 14, 2018 1:12 pm

“Yes we can” lead to nothing. MAGA, on the other hand is an actual policy.

But as Donald Trump turns up the heat on Sino-US trade relations and China scrambles for ways to offset the effects, it becomes apparent that this Republican fiscal reform was designed to build a fortress around US growth, from which an attack could be launched. This was cunning, and may eventually prove ingenious.

China’s biggest miscalculation was to underestimate Trump. Through waging an ideological war against China via the proxy of trade imbalances, he saw clearer than anyone the path along which this war would unfold, and the inevitable casualties that the US would also have to suffer along the way.

I think their response may not be nuanced. For instance, they have turned up the heat on Canada over the arrest of a Chinese executive for likely extradition to the US. That’s unfortunate. I think they may need all the friends they can get.

commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
December 14, 2018 1:33 pm

‘lead’ should be ‘led’

Latitude
Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 14, 2018 12:16 pm

While this argument is normally crafted around….per capita

The loons that say that have no idea how many people are in this world

J Mac
Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 14, 2018 12:22 pm

While this argument is normally crafted around historical emissions of developed countries, it sidesteps the fact that CO2 is not pollution! CO2 is the gas all humans exhale at 20,000ppmv with every breath. CO2 is the gas essential for all plant growth on the planet.

Focus on those undeniable paramount facts and all else becomes laughably trivial.

Menicholas
Reply to  J Mac
December 14, 2018 4:15 pm

+

ResourceGuy
December 14, 2018 10:16 am

Any new carbon tax should be on imports from China.

Fred Middleton
Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 14, 2018 10:37 am

Solar panels

Latitude
Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 14, 2018 1:18 pm

Made in China…….

comment image/revision/latest?cb=20140704100635

December 14, 2018 10:16 am

This is a bogus demand. The data says CO2 has little if any effect on climate. Temperature is now about what it was in 2002. CO2 has increased since 2002 by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002.comment image
By similarity, none of the other ghg (except water vapor) have any significant effect on climate either.

marlene
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
December 14, 2018 11:16 am

It’s a shakedown. They know it’s bogus.

December 14, 2018 10:18 am

I have a grudging admiration for such chutzpah.

pochas94
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 14, 2018 10:24 am

It shows the Chinese think we’re stupid.

Greg61
Reply to  pochas94
December 14, 2018 10:56 am

Related – http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=378609 or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baizuo
They have a word for white liberal virtue signalling SJWs

Reply to  Greg61
December 14, 2018 10:58 am

I was trying to remember that term. Very appropriate for certain watermelons.

Trebla
Reply to  pochas94
December 14, 2018 11:25 am

We ARE stupid, letting our leaders agree to this shakedown in the first place.

KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Trebla
December 15, 2018 4:50 pm

[China] as a ‘developing’ country? One of the largest militaries in the world, spacefaring, nuclear powerplants and bombs, ICBMs, stealth fighters, aircraft carriers, one of the largest economies, colonizing… hey! Maybe the US should be asking for ‘developing country’ status, so we can demand money from the Europeans, Africans, Chinese, and Maldovians.

KaliforniaKook
Reply to  KaliforniaKook
December 15, 2018 4:51 pm

Wow. Did that get put in the wrong place.

John Endicott
Reply to  KaliforniaKook
December 17, 2018 10:40 am

Don’t forget, we’d want money from the tuvaluans as well

Editor
Reply to  pochas94
December 14, 2018 11:35 am

The trouble is that all the evidence shows we are.

Reply to  pochas94
December 14, 2018 12:40 pm

We are ,our( politicians) that is. And no Surprise China wants to milk that stupid cow.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  pochas94
December 14, 2018 1:10 pm

They have a very sound basis for thinking we are stupid. We have behaved like complete morons towards China for the last 30 years. We have been all too happy to ship our productive capacity to China in return for an unremitting supply of plastic crap, adulterated foods, and cadmium fake jewelry.

John Endicott
Reply to  pochas94
December 17, 2018 10:31 am

It shows the Chinese think we’re stupid.

They certainly have reason to think that based on how past US administrations have dealt with them

2hotel9
Reply to  John Endicott
December 17, 2018 6:06 pm

The Chinese think everyone else is stupid, that has always been their opinion of “barbarians” and it ain’t changed. The lowliest peasant squatting in a paddy in Guangxi or herding goats in Quinghai considers themselves the moral and intellectual superior to anyone who has the bad grace to be born anywhere outside the Chung kwoh and that will never change.

Dr. Bob
December 14, 2018 10:21 am

The correct response of environmentalists to China’s GHG emissions is to totally stop buying Chinese goods and services, including wind and solar equipment. The GHG emissions increases in China from such purchases are not included in the GHG reductions calculated for these instillations in the US. Therefore, I would propose that there is no net global GHG reduction for the billions spent on Chinese equipment. We should then propose to China that what we have given them in trade value for GHG “mitigation” devices, solar panels and wind turbines, constitutes a transfer of wealth as these devices essentially have not real value in the US therefore the funds were a gift to China for essentially nothing in return.
Twisted logic, but no worse than the same type of logic used by proponents of wind and solar.

Lee L
Reply to  Dr. Bob
December 14, 2018 3:08 pm

Your ‘twisted logic’ is unfortunately close to being right on.

Left out of ALL the analysis of installing stupid solar and stupid wind in the West is the resulting transfer of western currency to China for the equipment. How much of the ‘price of solar dropping fast’ is due to sourcing from China? Pretty much all I would say. Further, what happens to that western currency? Well part of it goes to making loans to African countries that want to build a cheap coal fired electric plant, the loan courtesy of China with the stipulation that Chinese equipment and labor be used in the installation.

And really, it is just a little fishy that the old Chinese idea that you are responsible for 7 generations of your ancestors debts is pretty much the same as ‘climate debt’.

Screw it I say.

December 14, 2018 10:28 am

“My question – would President Obama have agreed the Chinese demand?”

Obama was one of the weakest Presidents we have ever seen regarding international relations. His ideological convictions about globalization superseded logic and the interests of Americans and he would have surely cow towed to the Chinese, especially if the excuse was climate change.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 14, 2018 10:35 am

Good question. It depends on how much donations came in to the Obama Foundation, Party election accounts, and other pet project accounts.

marlene
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 14, 2018 11:23 am

You’re right, co2. Obama would have given China as much of other people’s money as he could steal and made China his poster boy for climate change. China doesn’t know our President well enough or they wouldn’t expect Trump to fall for this shakedown. Perhaps they’re counting on their communist partners in the House to do it…

WXcycles
Reply to  marlene
December 14, 2018 6:44 pm

You’re missing the wider aim Marlene, they don’t expect to get any money, they know they’ll never get that.

They only want to make this a global polarization focus point, of ‘Rich’ against ‘Poor’, Socialists (Commie-light) against Capitalism (see IPCC related comfort to the enemy), with Beijing amping the divisions with nonsense and the ‘championing’ socialism with Chinese characteristics (Communism), against the evils and greed of Capitalism, with USA characteristics.

I see this as one of the opening shots in a wider global polarization effort to push communism on to the rest of the world (to save them with debt) in order to hinder Western influence and access.

It’s got absolutely nothing to do with AGW.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 14, 2018 1:12 pm

“he would have surely cow towed to the Chinese”

Wikipedia:

“Kowtow, which is borrowed from kau tau in Cantonese (koutou in Mandarin Chinese), is the act of deep respect shown by prostration, that is, kneeling and bowing so low as to have one’s head touching the ground.”

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 14, 2018 1:14 pm

He would have done it and said: “Thank you, Sir. May I have another”.

December 14, 2018 10:30 am

“China demands developed countries ‘pay their debts’ on climate change”

LOL, and what will the developing countries do with their cash? They will use it to help pay off their debts, allowing them to borrow more money, which will speed their economic development, which will lead to an increase of … CO2.

sycomputing
December 14, 2018 10:34 am

My question – would President Obama have agreed the Chinese demand?

You may have meant to say, “have agreed to” and it seems to me there’s every reason to believe that pallets of cash could have suddenly appeared on the tarmac of some Chinese airport in the deep night had President Obama been afforded the opportunity to participate.

Dave Fair
Reply to  sycomputing
December 14, 2018 10:40 am

Obama gave $1 billion in two tranches to the Green Climate Fund. This was done without Congressional Appropriation of such funds and is technically a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.

He got around that by saying it was from excess State Department funds. At the time, I suggested we cut the State Department budget if they had cash laying around.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 14, 2018 10:58 am

Obama gave the Mad Mullahs of Iran $1.4 billion in cash as part of his Iran nuclear deal.

A good question to ask is: Where did that cash come from?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 14, 2018 11:12 am

Claim is that it was seized, impounded, or something, but was their money. Could have been money they paid for US planes that were not delivered. Something about a disposed Shah and a revolution. Should be easy to find the specifics of the money.
Question is, why was it delivered in the manner it was?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 14, 2018 11:53 am

The once popular term for the source of such largess was “Obama’s Stasch.”

sycomputing
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 14, 2018 12:41 pm

A good question to ask is: Where did that cash come from?

Tom:

I might have something of an answer for you. Check out the following document penned by Julia Frifield, Assistant Secretary of Legal Affairs, to Mike Pompeo, then Kansas Congressman. Pompeo has written to the Obama administration asking for answers regarding from where the money came.

http://www.thestupidithurts.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Ransom-Iran-Kerry-Reply.pdf

Of particular note (at least in my view), is the admission by Ms. Frifield (see p. 3, par. 3) that at the time the United States had pending unresolved counterclaims against Iran that could have been settled from the very fund the Obama administration used to fund the aforementioned payments.

Meaning, of course, that the claim that “it was their money” by those who supported the payments was untrue, at least in the sense that because there were also unresolved claims by the U.S. pending against Iran, those claims could’ve been settled first before these payments were made, thereby adjusting the amount due.

Naturally (or so it seems to me), that wasn’t the intent at all. The intent was to give $1.7B to a terrorist nation for whatever nefarious purpose (I’m not sure anything but speculation can be asserted with confidence) the then sitting President thought it wise.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  sycomputing
December 15, 2018 11:05 am

”My question – would President Obama have agreed the Chinese demand?

You may have meant to say, “have agreed to” and it seems to me there’s every reason to believe that pallets of cash could have suddenly appeared on the tarmac of some Chinese airport in the deep night had President Obama been afforded the opportunity to participate.”

It is ”dead of night”..

TinyCO2
December 14, 2018 10:45 am

It’s not the US’s fault that China chose to run down an ecnomic black hole called communism. Something which resulted in China’s massive population growth. THat will have far great impact on CO2 than America’s development, much of which the World benefits from.

Tom Abbott
December 14, 2018 10:50 am

From the article: “He told a small group of journalists: “Developing countries are not comfortable or happy. [We need to] see if developed countries have honoured their commitments.”

What’s this “we” stuff? Got a mouse in your pocket? Do you think you are fooling anyone?

D Anderson
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 14, 2018 11:28 am

We never committed to this insanity. Solly.

Tractor Gent
December 14, 2018 10:51 am

What’s Mandarin for FOAD? The polite version, of course…

Robert Long
Reply to  Tractor Gent
December 14, 2018 11:04 am

Put it where the sun don’t shine.

Robert Long
Reply to  Robert Long
December 14, 2018 11:07 am

把它放在太阳不发光的地方

Reply to  Robert Long
December 14, 2018 11:55 am

‘Get stu…d’ in mandarin?

R Shearer
Reply to  Robert Long
December 14, 2018 5:39 pm

屁股

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Tractor Gent
December 14, 2018 12:02 pm

The New Jersey tough guy version: Hey China; got your climate contribution – right here.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 14, 2018 5:33 pm

(said while grabbing one’s crotch)

Jon Scott
December 14, 2018 10:55 am

Who is surprised? You set up a stupid wrong system with no basis in reality and you are surprised when those who live permanently in left field see an opportunity in your pathetic virtue signalling? China can go sling their hook as far as I am concered but I want those responsible in the Obama admin in the dock pretty damned quick!

Tanstafl
December 14, 2018 10:55 am

To the Chinese representative:

Wow, such chutzpah!

I extend my hand to you, though my fingers 1,2 and 3,4 are fully flexed.

Tanstafl
Reply to  Tanstafl
December 14, 2018 11:02 am

Oops! Should have stated fingers 1,2 and 4,5 are fully flexed.

markl
December 14, 2018 10:57 am

This would be like illegal immigrants demanding cash payment for not allowing them in the country.

December 14, 2018 11:00 am

Suppose that the objective were to INCREASE the emissions of CO2, how would you achieve that? Simple, just give money to developing countries so that their carbon footprint per person can rise to the levels enjoyed in the developed countries.

This is not even snake-oil for a genuine ailment, it is just wealth transfer, and politics by proxy.

brians356
December 14, 2018 11:05 am

When shrimps learn to whistle. When pigs learn to fly. But, what can it hurt them to demand? As in golf, “Never up, never in.” Roll the ball, it just might find the hole.

Bill Powers
December 14, 2018 11:26 am

No greater evidence that China is a communist country. They want to redistribute our earnings to them because they want it and don’t want to have to work for it themselves. Of Course!

Shoshin
December 14, 2018 11:31 am

We should definitely pay China for CO2 emissions related deaths. As long as they agree for killing 100,000 North Americans per year with fentanyl.

They should be expecting their first check on the 5th of Hellfreezing Over in 20,000,000 CE.

Bill Powers
December 14, 2018 11:34 am

We are not in severe deficit we are in severe DEBT.
Severe Deficit is planning to overspend by a quarter billion.
Severe Debt is already being 20 Trillion Dollars in DEBT with another 70 TRillion in Unfunded non-discretionary spending coming due with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the course of the next 20 years
Severe Delusion is continuing to overspend (deficit) when we are obligated to pay back an amount of money (debt) that we won’t be able to retire in 5 generations if we stop discretionary spending today.

Editor
Reply to  Bill Powers
December 14, 2018 11:43 am

BIll

if you really want to make Yourself depressed, here is the American debt clock in real time

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Your country would be foolish in the extreme to pay out vast sums of money it doesn’t have in order to mend something that probably isn’t even broken.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Tonyb
December 14, 2018 12:05 pm

Tonyb: You’re not wrong. But I’ll bet half the country’s all for it.

n.n
Reply to  Bill Powers
December 14, 2018 12:26 pm

The estimation of future debt is in part dependent on price. The question then is whether price is commensurate with cost and value. There is evidence that inflated costs are first-order forcings of decadal resets (e.g. recessions).

Social Security is a public smoothing function that is contributory and has a fixed outlay, and can be reasonably forecast, therefore managed. Medicare is contributory, but because of native dysfunctional orientations and behaviors, will be underfunded. Medicaid is a non-contributory, wholly public institution, and will suffer the same problems as Medicare, but with different causes. Then there are the private smoothing functions (e.g. family, charity, insurance).

Arbitrage is a class of smoothing function. Chinese labor and environmental practices have subsidized global inflation and expectation.

Technological development is another smoothing function, which we have developed a habit of outsourcing for short-term returns.

n.n
Reply to  n.n
December 14, 2018 12:28 pm

I should say: there is evidence that inflated prices are first-order forcings…

December 14, 2018 11:57 am

Beijing is going broke and the Communists leaders got into the good life.
Stock positions etc.
Their stock market is in serious decline and there was a headline a couple of weeks ago.
About the apartment vacancy rate up to 22%—which means 50 million empty apartments.

Joel Snider
December 14, 2018 12:04 pm

Every day, I wake up thinking, I can’t possibly be more outraged than the day before.
Every day I’m wrong.

I don’t think I’ve ever looked forward to a New Year less in my life.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Joel Snider
December 15, 2018 3:37 am

feeling similarly and so are a lot of people I know.
the last financial crash happened when people werent close to war mode
now?
the next global crash is likely to be followed by wars..theyre good for the economy..(not)
once you could buy land go bush and be left alone
not now, eyes in sky and far more bureacracy following us all.

as to the ? wwohbummer have done?
sold you off like he did before and prob offer your daughters to make up the shortfall as well

John Endicott
December 14, 2018 12:06 pm

“My question – would President Obama have agreed [to] the Chinese demand?”

You know he would. He embezzled $1 billion of taxpayer money to feed the Green Climate Fund (at least $500 million of which was originally appropriated by congress to go towards fighting deadly diseases such as the Zika virus). He sent pallets of cash to Iran. He would definitely have no problem giving away taxpayer money to China.

Al Miller
December 14, 2018 12:07 pm

Ahhhh, this is grand! It’s complete stupidity like this that will help dismantle the madness. I sure hope the MSM actually plays this up so the taxpayer can see the tomfoolery that is going on. The Yellow Jackets won’t be far behind if the answer isn’t a firm no.

Don Perry
December 14, 2018 12:20 pm

China should take a trip to the middle east and practice pounding sand.

John Endicott
Reply to  Don Perry
December 14, 2018 12:57 pm

they don’t even need to go that far, the Gobi desert is available for their sand pounding.

Latitude
December 14, 2018 12:25 pm

My question – would President Obama have agreed the Chinese demand?

I hope that’s rhetorical

The last thing he did was write a check for $1/2 billion to the green fund…and run out the door

michael hart
December 14, 2018 12:27 pm

Sounds like good news to me. By making any such demands the Chinese government is helping to illuminate the utter wanton, craven, stupidity behind all of these “climate negotiations”.

While it just entailed handing over $ a few billion to a corrupt ruler or ten of small Pacific Island Nations, then it could have run on for much longer. But when the general public sees that it might mean handing over their entire life savings, and far more besides, to Communist China, for less than nothing in return, then the cat is truly out of the bag.

Steve O
December 14, 2018 12:33 pm

We’ll have to borrow the money from them.

Remember when I said we’d soon see a pivot? Instead of wasting $2.4 Trillion on mitigation, the Western world will be granted the opportunity to spend $500 billion on reparations. But we can start at a lower number and work up from there.

We can have a vote at the UN, but I suspect that all the countries who are too corrupt to have functioning economies of their own will all vote the same way.

WR
December 14, 2018 12:48 pm

It’s not surprising that the usual warmunist trolls haven’t shown up here…they can’t handle being confronted with the obvious reality that climate change is nothing more than a transparent attempt at international wealth transfer, and has nothing to do with actual science or real dangers, risks, or damages.

embutler
December 14, 2018 1:05 pm

easy ,peasy,.. fine china for current co2 releases and deduct what the US previously emitted..
tell china we will accept payments for the next 10 years..

Mr Bliss
December 14, 2018 1:06 pm

“My question – would President Obama have agreed the Chinese demand?”

Obama would have suggested it

Marcus
December 14, 2018 1:09 pm

Thank you China for showing the world what the “Climate Change” BS is all about..Wealth Distribution from Capitalist countries to socialist/communist/liberal countries because they ran out of Other Peoples Money ! D’OH !

December 14, 2018 1:16 pm

It shows the Chinese know quite well we are stupid. Send money now. You can borrow it from us and pay back in easy steps. Do you need any more of those solar panels and wind-turbines to salve your hyper-active conscience?

Lance of BC
December 14, 2018 1:20 pm

Sooooooo, China with second biggest economy in the world and 1.4 billion population is a developing country and we owe them money? Oh wait I live in Canada 36 mill. , Truedough already gave 2.5 bill to the UN green slush fund and we paid for 230(more then all counties combined except France) delegates to go to Paris and save the world…oh …. and we signed on to the UN migrant party bus(they get off bus and head for the nearest US border).. aaand china already own a large part of Canada.
We’re made of money says Mr. True dough, so we’ll just give them Alberta, we’re all going to have flying electric cars and solar powered airplanes next year….or maybe two says Mr True Dough, no need for that dirt oil, they can build a pipe line to China..cuzz we can’t build one in Canada!
Sounds fair!

Michael F
December 14, 2018 1:39 pm

I have this image in my mind of Donald Trump rolling around the floor of the Oval Office in a fit of laughter at this ludicrous demand.

CD in Wisconsin
December 14, 2018 1:42 pm

“…China called on rich countries to “pay their debts” on climate change at global talks on Thursday, criticising developed countries for not doing enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide finance to help poor countries do the same…”

Translation: “Our [China’s] economic advantage over the U.S. isn’t good enough. American and the West need to do more to shoot themselves in the foot over climate change so that our advantage over them is even bigger. And pay no attention to our own CO2 emissions; The U.S. is the real evil party here”.

It would be interesting to do an analysis to determine how much U.S. CO2 emissions since the end of WWII or so have contributed to increased crop yields globally and what the monetary value of the increased yield actually is. If this analysis could be done, the result might demonstrate that the U.S. doesn’t owe anybody a damn thing.

Gary Pearse
December 14, 2018 1:44 pm

This demand from China is an IQ test of Western countries. Germany will pass it and America will pass the test if they keep Trump and France if the Gilets Jaunes continue the revolution. I’m waiting for Macron to call the electorate Deplorables. That will surely smarten the up!

John Endicott
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 17, 2018 10:27 am

Or he could take a phrase of past French leaders and just tell them to eat cake.

December 14, 2018 1:47 pm

This whole matter of some countries such as India and China pretending to be developing countries and thus exempt via the original Kyoto farce of a agreement. Compare their upper and middle class s to say London in 1900. Back then London and he rest of the UK had millions living in poverty . Under the classification of Kyoto, London back then would have been a developing country. But instead in 1900 the UK was not only a 1st world country, it was the Worlds number one country.

Its all a very sick joke and should be exposed for what it is.

MJE

E. Katz
December 14, 2018 2:00 pm

The UN is largely to blame here because it keeps calling China and India “developing nations” even though they are respectively 2nd and 7th in GDP.

WXcycles
Reply to  E. Katz
December 14, 2018 7:13 pm

I’d not be surprised at all if it turns out that Western green-socialist political parties NGOs and UN IPCC or its affiliates are working directly with Beijing, inspiring and feeding the nonsense agenda.

Gerald Machnee
December 14, 2018 2:33 pm

The solution is to convene a number of honest and ethical scientists and restudy climate change. I am sure they could find a computer error in the program which would reverse the current results and prove that CO2 is not the cause of the warming. Request denied. The CAGW crowd should have a conscience and donate the requested funds to developing dictators.

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
December 14, 2018 3:21 pm

This demonstrates CO2 has little to effect on climate.comment image

u.k.(us)
December 14, 2018 4:31 pm

China is like the CIA, the misinformation they disclose is only an attempt to root out subversives.

” Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.”

Herbert
December 14, 2018 4:57 pm

My favourite passage in The Guardian is from Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives-
«  Nothing’s happening.Absolutely nothing is happening…You have this whole dictionary of words that has been brought into these climate conferences, then they talk about brackets and we go round and round and round, and we don’t go anywhere. »
When you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there.

Gordon Dressler
December 14, 2018 4:57 pm

Wait! By my calculation this article was posted exactly 111 days too early.

Gordon Dressler
December 14, 2018 5:16 pm

“At between 50 and 100 million tonnes of methane a year, rice agriculture is a big source of atmospheric methane, possibly the biggest of man-made methane sources.” — http://www.ghgonline.org/methanerice.htm

“While carbon dioxide is typically painted as the bad boy of greenhouse gases, methane is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas.” — https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140327111724.htm

China is by far the world’s largest producer of paddy field rice (and all rice types taken together) — https://www.statista.com/statistics/255937/leading-rice-producers-worldwide/

I demand that China give the US and other countries large sums of cash, because Chine owes the US and all other countries for historical its greenhouse gas contributions, produced for millenia before the Industrial age and even up to today.

December 14, 2018 5:36 pm

With any luck the UNFCCC Katowice talks will end in abject failure and much finger pointing.

WXcycles
December 14, 2018 6:18 pm

I think that this, being offered at this time has to be looked at geopolitically because it can not possibly be taken seriously on strictly scientific, historical, present, diplomatic, or ideological grounds, given the widespread public anger in the West at the shameless AGW gravvy-train in Europe, North America and Australia.

In which case it seems this is geared to do one thing, to paint the Western world as rapacious global vandals who owe everyone else, for something imaginary to increase the sense of unction and hatred.

In which case, it’s clearly intended as a hostile act of state provocations to garner Chinese support from the already hot-headed, and increase the level of global polarization against western countries, for purely geopolitical ends.

it’s got nothing to do with reality though. And any time the commies want to renounce carbon and energy production and go back the Beijing ‘traffic jams’ of tens of millions of push bikes, as during the 1970s, then go right ahead, otherwise you’re total hypocrites, and far worse polluters than anyone else on the planet, and far worse than anyone in history in fact, and then there’s that coral reef thing.

[PS: how’s the fake milk that’s being fed to Chinese babies going? has anyone gone to prison? no? why is that? people in glass houses should not throw stones]

LdB
December 14, 2018 8:55 pm

This goes under China finding new ways to derail COP without getting blamed, they have been very skillful. The best bit is the green groups still think China is on there side even after they removed all Human Rights from the rulebook, seems they can do no wrong.

Ron Abate
December 14, 2018 11:18 pm

The stupidity of the developed countries having to pay for CO2 emission that fueled their development is absolutely mind boggling stupid and only something that could be accepted by a person of the Progressive Left with their faith-based ideology. Obama made two $500 million payments into the Green Climate Fund, which is the mechanism that has been agreed to in the Paris Agreement. I do not think any other developed made any payments. If we had not used fossil fuels, we would not have developed. If we had not developed, we would not have had the enormous consumer market that the Chinese have exploited to fuel their development. If we had not developed, we would not have the money to make the demanded payments and most of the world would still be living at a subsistence level with little to no hope for improvement.

Lance of BC
December 15, 2018 12:12 am

Opps, my bad Canada paid 4 billion to the climate slush fund, so no Ron Abate, Canada is the biggest idiot!!
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/27/trudeau-set-to-deliver-toast-to-the-queen-at-commonwealth-summit.html

Take that USA, we’re number one , we’re number one , we’re num….? Whaa? …SHEET!!!

John Endicott
Reply to  Lance of BC
December 17, 2018 10:19 am

Congrats, Lance of BC, your country is a bigger idiot that Obama’s US was. (um, I guess that’s really not something to be proud about, so maybe congrats aren’t in order).

John Endicott
Reply to  Lance of BC
December 17, 2018 10:25 am

Though to be fair, that article claims Canada *only* paid $1.5 billion into the fund so far (as of the writing of that article) and has pledge an addition $2.65 billion to bring their target above $4 billion. Since those figures might be in Canadian dollars, that $1.5 billion might be pretty close to the $1 billion US dollars that Obama stole from the taxpayers and put into the fund. So, if it’s any consolation that makes Canada just as stupid as Obama’s US until Justin makes good on the rest of the pledged funds (which he may have already done in the 3 years since that article was written)

December 15, 2018 12:19 am

I forgot to add to my comment s on both India and China pretending to be under developrf countries. .. Both countries are nuclear powers with the atomic bomb, plus a very big military forces. Hardly under developed countries.

MJE

John Endicott
Reply to  Michael
December 17, 2018 10:16 am

China is also one of the oldest civilizations on the planet with one of the largest militaries, one of the few world nuclear powers and one of the largest economies. In what ways are they still “developing” that doesn’t apply to other developed nations (such as the US)? It’s a farce to call them a “developing country”. What, they’re simply a centuries late bloomer? seriously?

Alan Tomalty
December 15, 2018 12:44 am

May I point out to you that China is the world’s biggest economy in terms of Purchasing power parity and 2nd biggest when looking at actual GDP. China also emits almost 30% of the total world emissions of CO2. China also has 45% of the world’s skyscrapers.

HOW CAN ANYONE WITH A STRAIGHT FACE SAY THAT CHINA IS A DEVELOPING COUNTRY?

The world has lost all sense of logic.

December 15, 2018 1:07 am

When you think about it every country is either a developing country, or a declining country. None are static, although that might be the ideal for the Green blob members.

MJE

Mark Pawelek
December 15, 2018 2:01 am

China is now healthier, wealthier and more energy intense than any stage in its history. Much of their development was build on the back of science and technology pioneered in the West. The chinese should be grateful; not resentful.

Jim
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
December 15, 2018 3:25 am

Beside they hold a lot of US debt, in other words, they have all our money already.

old construction worker
December 15, 2018 4:56 am

You know what they say: Wish in one hand and C— in the other and see which one fills up first.

December 15, 2018 5:12 am

Businesses now even want action on climate change! This post is just a side show to distract from the great progress been made at COP24: http://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/12/15/businesses-want-action-on-climate-change-the-high-carbon-system-is-no-longer-sustainable/

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
December 15, 2018 6:59 pm

Even though nobody can quantitatively define what they mean by the phrase “climate change”???

2hotel9
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
December 16, 2018 8:37 am

We have already had this conversation, when you repeat lies told by others it makes you a what,,,? Hello? McFly?!?!? Anyone home????

Reply to  2hotel9
December 16, 2018 9:13 am

What lies? About COP24 being a great success. It has been! You are becoming increasingly irrelevant, aren’t you?

2hotel9
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
December 17, 2018 4:52 am

You simply refuse to keep up with current events, don’t you? And your claim that a piece of paper is responsible for America using more natural gas and lowering Co2 emissions is highly comical. Keep the laughs coming and please, please keep repeating the lies of China’s government, you are the funniest part of the morning!

Reply to  2hotel9
December 17, 2018 4:58 am

You amaze me. You are an individual who simply cannot think for himself, instead relying on the words of Donald J. Trump and swallowing them hook, line and sinker.

Why don’t you actually analyze the situation on China before simply repeating his comments:

U.S. companies in China are suffering in trade war, survey says

BEIJING — The largest U.S. business groups in China issued a plea to President Trump on Thursday: Please stop with the tariffs.

A survey from AmCham China and AmCham Shanghai found that nearly two-thirds of more than 430 U.S. firms in China say the duties Trump placed on billions of dollars of Chinese imports this summer have hurt their businesses.

Nearly half of respondents — who work in retail, food and manufacturing — say production costs have climbed, and 42 percent said they have noticed a decreased demand for their goods.

Just 6 percent, meanwhile, said they would consider moving factories to U.S. soil.

AmCham chairman William Zarit said U.S. business leaders in China want Trump to rethink the levies he has proposed on an additional $200 billion in Chinese imports, including many consumer goods. The new border taxes are expected to take effect this fall…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-companies-in-china-are-suffering-in-trade-war-survey-says/2018/09/13/ee83c75e-b70c-11e8-b79f-f6e31e555258_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6908a66c9ccc

2hotel9
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
December 17, 2018 5:05 am

So you have been waiting in trembling anticipation, cut&paste in hand, for any response at all from me. How hi-lariously comical. You do understand this “trade war” with China has been going on since the 1950s, right? Hello!? Anyone home??? You clearly do not understand that China has choked import of all vehicles into their country to a very tiny percentage of the numbers of vehicles sold in China, right? You must have the mental capacity to see reality, you can run a keyboard and repeat whatever leftarded talking points are poured into your vacant head each day. You don’t drown on your on spit so you have some level of self awareness.

John Endicott
Reply to  2hotel9
December 17, 2018 10:10 am

indeed 2hotel9. China has a 15% tariff on all car imports but had a 25% tariff on cars imported from the US (and idiots like Ivanski wonder why Trump didn’t think the US was being treated fairly by China). The trade war racheted that up to 40%, China has agree to knock that back down to 15% for the 90-day “trade-truce” while the US and China work on a trade deal to end the trade war.

2hotel9
Reply to  John Endicott
December 17, 2018 5:46 pm

I have been printing out a lot of the trade issues for people who don’t “do” the internet. It is enough to make your eyes bleed! A lot of vehicles shipped to China actually get trans-shipped to other locations, all due to some extremely arcane and byzantine language in existing trade agreements going back to the late ’60s. And some of the issues involving Hong Kong and shipping to Mainland and reshipping to Macau and Malaysia then to Philippines and back to US or South America is convoluted as h3ll. Then throw in still existing trade agreements from pre-communisim that Chiang Kai-shek dragged along into exile in Taiwan and US, England, France and Netherlands continued to honor, well, it is enough to give your hemorrhoids piles. No wonder people don’t understand what is going on.

Wiliam Haas
December 16, 2018 12:55 am

Considering deficits, debts, and the trade imbalance, the USA is not the poorer country and China is the richer country so it is China that should be giving money to the USA. China is now the largest CO2 em miter and not the USA. But the reality is that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. The real party responsible for climate change is Mother Nature so is China has been harmed by climate change they should be seeking to get reparations from Mother Nature. Lots of luck on collecting on a judgement against Mother Nature.

2hotel9
December 16, 2018 8:40 am

So, to summarize, DJT has given them a major shafting in the Tariff Wars so they are going to try and recoup their loses through this little scam. Nice try. Ain’t gonna happen, and we are going to ship cars into China at lower tariff. The winning, it just keeps coming.

Reply to  2hotel9
December 16, 2018 9:07 am

Amerixa builds and sells cars in China you dunce.

2hotel9
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
December 17, 2018 4:56 am

And now they will cost 40% less due to Xi folding like the cheap suit he is. And yes, American manufactured cars ARE going to be shipped to China, something China has blocked for many years allowing only vehicles built in China to be sold in China. Ya know? That whole “trade war” thing you pretend does not exist? Pull you head out of the sand before you suffocate, stupid.

John Endicott
Reply to  2hotel9
December 17, 2018 10:05 am

It’s currently a temporary reduction in the tariff that only drops it down to 15% from the 40% that the tariff wars increased it to (it was 25% before the Tariff wars started)

https://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1120495_china-to-temporarily-cut-on-tariffs-for-us-made-cars

but it’s a good sign that China is willing to try and come to an agreement with the US.

Ivan: Amerixa (sic) builds and sells cars in China you dunce.

There are 144 different vehicle models that are built in the U.S. and shipped to China. American automakers exported roughly 250,000 cars to China per annum.

Johann Wundersamer
December 26, 2018 12:24 am

So the Chinese negotiator Xie Zhenhua’s position

followed a directive that Obama’s EPA wanted to impose on all gullible fellow travelers.

%d bloggers like this: