The Guardian: President Trump’s Fault that China is Still Burning Climate Destroying Coal

Donald J. Trump at a rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., last month. His promises to bring back coal mining jobs helped him win in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Credit Dominick Reuter/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to the Guardian, President Trump’s imposition on trade tariffs on China is causing a breakdown in the international cooperation required for large scale climate action.

Global tensions holding back climate change fight, says WEF

After extreme weather-related events, there is ‘need for international cooperation’

Larry Elliott Economics editor
Wed 16 Jan 2019 20.00 AEDT

Growing tension between the world’s major powers is the most urgent global risk and makes it harder to mobilise collective action to tackle climate change, according to a report prepared for next week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

The WEF’s annual global risks report found that a year of extreme weather-related events meant environmental issues topped the list of concerns in a survey of around 1,000 experts and decision-makers.

But with Donald Trump announcing protectionist measures aimed at China and the European Union in 2018, the report said the international cooperation needed to limit further global warming was breaking down.

Global risks are intensifying but the collective will to tackle them appears to be lacking. Instead, divisions are hardening,” the report said, noting that nine out of 10 people polled said they expected relations between the leading powers to worsen in 2019.

“The world’s move into a new phase of strongly state-centred politics, noted in last year’s Global Risks Report, continued throughout 2018.”

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/16/global-tensions-holding-back-climate-change-fight-says-wef

The 2019 WEF Global Risks Report is available here.

What I don’t get is, since government scientists claim solar power is now cheaper than coal, why is all this international cooperation required to tackle climate change? Surely countries like China, which have access to the cheapest solar panels on the planet, will rapidly move to embrace low cost zero carbon renewables of their own free will, regardless of what they think of President Trump.

103 thoughts on “The Guardian: President Trump’s Fault that China is Still Burning Climate Destroying Coal

  1. Good posting, Eric. China will only construct a token number of wind turbines and will continue with coal-fired electricity generation plants as usual. WEF is correct in indicating China is a threat, but not in the sense they think. China is like a reckless Russia, and both are scheming how to disrupt the USA while serving their own interests. They support dictators around the world, now most notably Madura in Venezuela, simply to divert the focus of USA (and a little bit to gain access to their markets). Climate Disfragilazation (or whatever the current term is) is a popular issue in their toolbox because Liberals all around the world support the issue.

        • The US has supported a number of authoritarian regimes during the cold war. If the regime was opposed to the soviets they were our friends.

          As for specific dictators, the one that first comes to mind (only because his name was recently brought up in another thread) is Chile’s Pinochet. Then there’s Saudi Arabia, which has had a lot of US support over the decades, the Saudi Royal family is very much the dictators of that country.

          You must keep in mind that “Politics makes strange bedfellows”. Just about every democratic country in the western world has been on “friendly” terms with and “supported” various dictators at one time or another because of coinciding political interests (cold war being a prime example. the dictators that were supported were seen as the lesser evil compared to the expansion of Soviet influence).

          • John, you are badly misinformed about Pinochet. He was the leading non-communist General in the Chilean military and when he say the thousands of Cuban Special Troops enroute to Chile to support the Allende regime in the upcoming questionable election, he realized it was now or never. The overthrow of Allende was a rightous freeing of a country from communist rule. I was in Chile for a special project in 1980 and all of the people I came in contact with supported Pinochet. Because of his brave move Chile is now the most advanced, least corrupt Country in the Americas south of the USA border.

          • Pinochet was a dictator who overthrew an elected government. a lot of blood was spilled during his regime. You can argue that his regime was better than the one it overthrew, you can even argue that ultimately it lead to a better future for the country (and in fact you won’t find me arguing against either of those positions), but you can not argue that it was not a dictatorship. At least you can not argue it and expect to be taken seriously (anyone that tries to pretend he wasn’t a dictator is the one who is “badly misinformed”)

            He was the leading non-communist General in the Chilean military

            As I said before, during the cold war the US supported such dictators because they were against the communists. You are not disputing anything there. And just because the US supported such dictators doesn’t necessarily mean it was the wrong thing to do. Politics is often the art of choosing the lesser evil. As far as the US interests were concerned, dealing with a dictator like Pinochet was the lesser evil to dealing with a communist regime.

            The overthrow of Allende was a rightous freeing of a country from communist rule.

            So? it was still a dictatorship, and the whole point of the conversation was about US support of dictatorships. All you are doing is agreeing with me that the US supported dictators such as Pinochet precisely because they were “righteously” against communist rule.

            I was in Chile for a special project in 1980

            irrelevant. Pinochet overthrew the previous government nearly a decade before that.

            and all of the people I came in contact with supported Pinochet

            Dictators tend to have near unanimous support from the people, while they’re in power (the fact that people who don’t support the dictator risk death for doing so couldn’t possible be a factor). Yet, when the people were finally given the chance to vote, they voted against Pinochet (So much for all that support that “all of the people you came in contact with” had). Thankfully he peacefully accepted the will of the people, which helped lead to Chile’s current status of being “the most advanced, least corrupt Country south of the USA border”.

            Because of his brave move Chile is now the most advanced, least corrupt Country in the Americas south of the USA border

            Be that as it may, it still doesn’t change the facts: Pinochet was a dictator and he spilled a lot of blood during his reign (not to mention the blood he spilled getting into power in the first place). The man was no saint and he also wasn’t the devil that he’s often portrayed as. the truth, as always lies somewhere between the extremes.

          • You are assuming that Allende wasn’t creating a dictatorship.

            The fact that it was a decade after Pinochet left office means that there would be no consequences for bad mouthing Pinochet and no benefit for kissing up to him. Yet the people still considered him a hero.

            You contradict yourself, you point out that dictators tend to have 100% support while they are in power, then you point out that he was ousted in an election. A dictator who not only allows a fair vote, but abides by it?

            Yes, a lot of people died under Pinochet? How many people would have died during the creation of Allende’s communist paradise?

          • MarkW, with all due respect, you don’t know what you are talking about here.

            You are assuming that Allende wasn’t creating a dictatorship

            Allende was part of a communist regime, not a dictatorship.

            The fact that it was a decade after Pinochet left office means

            Re-read. Ron said 1980, that was nearly a decade after Pinochet *ENTERED* office in the early 1970s. Pinochet wouldn’t *LEAVE* office for another 7 years. So you are mouthing off based on a false premise.

            You contradict yourself, you point out that dictators tend to have 100% support while they are in power, then you point out that he was ousted in an election

            Not at all. the people living in dictatorships publicly support their dictators because bad mouthing them in public can lead to incarceration or even death. With anonymous ballots, people are free to vote as they really feel without fear of retaliation.

            A dictator who not only allows a fair vote, but abides by it?

            He probably thought he’d win (plus Pope John Paul II visited the year prior and allegedly pushed Pinochet to accept a democratic opening of his government, which may have factored in his allowing the election). That he actually abided by it is unusual, granted, however he’d been in power for 17 years (and was in his 70s, so probably was already thinking about a time when he would retire) and he wasn’t exactly left out of the government and power as he was then a senator for life (thanks to the constitution he created in 1981) as well as commander of the armed forces until 1998.

            Yes, a lot of people died under Pinochet?

            There’s no question about it, a lot of people did die under Pinochet.

            How many people would have died during the creation of Allende’s communist paradise?

            Judging by other communist paradises, a pretty large number. But just because “the other guy might have had a higher body count” doesn’t erase his body count.

            The bottom line is that Pinochet probably was the least bad option at the time (at least as far as the US was concerned), and Chile ultimately ended up better off for it than had the communists taken over but don’t let the ends blind you to the terrible means that got us there. The ends justifying the means is how the leftists think.

          • John, by your “dictator” logic George Washington was a Dictator. Sure, he was elected President after freeing America from Britain, but so was Pinochet elected after freeing Chile from Allende and associated communists. I am actually trained and experienced in detecting truth by body language and the people who spoke to me about Pinochet were telling the truth. All of this is about China and Climate Change and they will lie to your face about any intentions regarding Kyoto or Paris, period.

          • Pinochet elected after freeing Chile from Allende and associated communists

            No, Ron, he was not. He proclaimed himself “Supreme Chief of the Nation” (de facto provisional president) on 27 June 1974. He officially changed his title to “President” on 17 December 1974. You may be mistaking the 1980 referendum on the new constitution for an election for Pinochet. While the constitution ensured (and lent a veneer of legitimacy to) his continued presidency until 1988 (when he would be up for election per the new constitution), it was not an election for the office of president. There were no elections for president until after he lost the referendum in *1987*.

            I am actually trained and experienced in detecting truth by body language

            I don’t care what you are trained in, it doesn’t change the fact that Pinochet was a dictator. One with a lot of blood on his hands. That there were good aspects to his regime (the economy was actually quite good during his reign) doesn’t negate the bad. And again, where was all this support when he actually, finally did go to the ballot box? he lost. So clearly your anecdotal “all of the people” were not representative of *all* the people.

            All of this is about China and Climate Change and they will lie to your face about any intentions regarding Kyoto or Paris, period.

            On that we are agreed.

          • Every communist regime has converted into a communist dictatorship before long.
            Just because he was “elected” once is not proof that he will abide by the democratic process more than that once.

          • A dictatorship is still a dictatorship even if it’s a committee rather than a single individual.
            By that logic, the Soviet Union was never a dictatorship because it was run by the Politburo, rather than an individual.

          • Correct, MarkW, by definition it wouldn’t be classified as a dictatorship. A dictatorship by definition is government ruled by a (as in singular) dictator (an individual person). When the soviet union was ruled by the Politburo it was not a dictatorship *by definition*.

          • Just because he was “elected” once is not proof that he will abide by the democratic process more than that once.

            No, but until he fails to abide you have no proof that he won’t abide either. By your logic of “no proof” Trump is creating a dictatorship because there is “no proof that he will abide by the democratic process more than that once”.

        • If you examine the records of both, they were.

          Can you honestly say Iran was better off after Khomeni came to power?

          • Certainly Iranian women weren’t better off. According to a fascinating report last week there has been an eightfold increase in the numbers of Iranian women suffering multiple sclerosis since they were all forced to wear clothing covering everything except eyes and mouth in public, d3nying them the benefits of sunlight on the skin. I’m only surprised this hasn’t been blamed on CO2.
            But as a fascinating example of how much there is still to learn about the Sun’s impact on humans, well I suspect I’m pushing on an open door for most people who read WUWT…

          • If you examine the records of both versus what came before and after, it’s a rather mixed bag.

          • Libya was better off after SHE murdered Ghadaffi! Oh … wait … nevermind. The Arab Spring has been an unmitigated disaster. Leftist Democracies … aren’t.

      • icisil – January 17, 2019 at 3:06 am

        The US supports different dictators.

        Icisil, you are 100% correct, …… the US has supported different dictators since the early 1900’s (Latin America), ……. BUT ONLY IF said dictators support the US as being the “Dictator of all Dictators” and did/does pretty much everything the US told/tells them to do.

        And whenever a “local Dictator-in-charge” decided he was no longer going to “play ball” or comply with requests and demands presented by the “Dictator of Dictators”, then the stage was set for the removal of said Dictator, …… either via said Dictator fleeing the country, …… an assignation, …… an armed revolt, …… or a Military invasion spearheaded by the US Military.

        Iran, Korea, Cuba, Viet Nam, Philippians, Panama, Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq …… to name a few that US “fingerprints” are all over.

      • But our dictators are better. More importantly, supporting dictators was largely in our past and was necessitated by cold-war geopolitics.

        So which dictators do we support now?

    • I suspect China has far bigger internal problems than they let on. The next few years could be interesting.

      • The left was proclaiming the superiority of the Soviet economy, right up to the moment the whole thing collapsed.

          • Well, given that they have 4 times as many people, this is not news. The fact that they are just now surpassing the US should tell you something about the difference between economies that are controlled by the market versus those that are controlled by the state.

          • Additional to what Adam said, that they are only just now surpassing the US after adopting more market-based approaches to the economy should also tell you something about economies that are controlled by the market versus those that are controlled by the state

          • Endicott, irrespective of the cosmetic adoption of “market based” ideas in China, their entire economy is centrally controlled, and socialist. Attributing the growth as you do is laughable.

          • They claim that their growth rate is higher.
            Then again, so did the former Soviet Union.
            Only someone who isn’t interested in reality takes everything coming out of China as gospel.

          • Steve, what is it about this desire of yours to demonstrate your ignorance.
            China’s economy has been nowhere close to 100% centrally controlled for decades.

          • China’s economy is centrally planned, and the entire financial system is controlled by Beijing. Additionally the economic system is socialistic, as the government owns a significant share of the means of production.

          • Steve, the moved away from 100% centrally controlled a long time ago. Ignoring that fact and that their growth coincides with the moving away (they didn’t have that growth during their time as a 100% centrally controlled economy, in fact they didn’t have much growth at all back then) is beyond laughable.

          • China’s economy is centrally planned, and the entire financial system is controlled by Beijing

            and yet they’ve incorporated the market system into their economy and that move away from the 100% centrally controlled economy of the past and towards a more market friendly economy coincides with the economic growth that china has experienced. You can keep burying your head in the sand, but that won’t alter the facts one iota.

          • Steve,

            Although parts of the Chinese economy are centrally planned, even the state owned enterprises are not totally insulated from global market disruptions. Transportation is state owned and there are concerns about low ridership on the high speed rail system. The Chinese it would seem are more pragmatic than the governor Moonbeam and the folks in Sacramento.

            Much of the Chinese economy is based on market dynamics rather than central planning. China has a 5,000 year old history of entrepreneurship and after Dien Xiao Ping realized that central planning was not the answer, he took the shackels off and China’s growth expanded dramatically.

      • Yes, there’s quite a few people who make the case that China’s path to world domination will be held back by their own massive internal problems.

        Meanwhile, they are already aware of environmental problems. Like other places at other times, these are going to be addressed in due course once sufficient numbers of people near the top of the power pyramid feel that it is affecting them personally and they are in a position of sufficient wealth and power to affect change.

        They may have now arrived at that point, but lecturing by sanctimonius Western environmentalists is going to have no effect. They’ll do what they decide to do, and they’ll do it in their own time.

      • >>I suspect China has far bigger internal problems than they let on.<<
        Agreed, Eric. The government can hide a lot of their problems, but not forever. These problems include the crazy male-to-female ratio (due to their one-child policy) and provinces and areas which are increasingly restive under Bejing rule. We shall see,

        • The one child policy also resulted in them not having enough young people to support their aging population.

      • China’s economy is slowing down. It’s going to be hard to keep the people happy if their lives are not improving economically.

      • Eric,
        I am afraid that you are correct. China has many unsold homes which are built, and they are slashing prices to get them to sell. When I was in China in May, I went to a small city in Hebei Province. I was surprised to see that they were building high priced homes even there. The engineer who was hosting my visit told me that these new homes were out of reach for her family. I wondered who they developers expect to buy them. The house prices in the large cities have increased at a high rate and many people are predicting that the bubble will burst soon.

        There is still an oversupply of coal and steel which was supposed to be corrected by massive layoffs along with mine and plant closures. This plan has not been fully implemented and probably will not during the current economic slow down.

        The PBOC just injected 1.1 Trillion Yuan of liquidity into the financial system this week. Sounds to me like Beijing QE with the PBOC acting like the Fed in the US.

    • China will support what China wants. Follow the money. Anyone expecting cooperation from China that is not directly in their interests is gullible. Let’s get them to clean up the dirtiest rivers on earth as a start.

  2. Meh. If there is some ill in the world, it’s Trump’s fault… according to the leftist media anyway. Nothing new here, nothing to see. Move along.

    • Russia killed the EU (Apparently. Nothing to do with France or Germany). Russia rigged the US elections. Russia rigged the Australian elections in 2016.

    • “f there is some ill in the world, it’s Trump’s fault… according to the leftist media anyway.”

      Wt5s black and white and red all over?

      • No, the biggest source of tension in the world is having dictators with buttons on their desks that launch nuclear weapons.

        • Other than Kim Jong-Un, who are the dictators with buttons on their desks? Trump and Putin became their countries presidents through the electoral process. Xi Jinping was elected to his post by the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party. All three can leave their posts through that same process (IE by the electors voting someone else into their position). So please enlighten us as to who all these dictators you speak of are. (or else show us how ignorant you are of the meaning of the word dictator)

          • LOL John, “through the electoral process.”
            ….
            get real

            PS, how about India and Pakistan?

          • Trump is not a dictator, but Putin and Xi certainly are. Dictators of the 21st century operate differently than their 20th century brethren, carefully hiding their power under a process that looks democratic on the surface, but is anything but in reality. The electoral process doesn’t really mean anything when it is not free and fair, e.g. the opposition is constantly harassed, jailed and banned by the government from participating, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny

          • India a dictatorship? Steve, what are you smoking?

            India and Pakistan are parliamentary republics

            Trevor: Putin and Xi certainly are

            While I can see where you might mistake them for such, they are not. Ultimately it’s the communist party, not Xi, that holds the all power in China. Anytime the party tires of Xi, he’s gone. As for Putin, just because his government is corrupt doesn’t make him a dictator (it just makes him a corrupt politician). As long as he doesn’t over throw a legal vote (and as far as I’m aware, he hasn’t) isn’t running unopposed (he wasn’t, despite the controversy over Alexei, there were still several other candidates on the ballot) the people can vote him out of office at the next election. Not only that, he still has to deal with the Federal Assembly (the legislature) dictators don’t have parliaments/congresses/assemblies to deal with as they control all the power.

          • MarkW and Endicott, please pay close attention to what Trevor posted.

            Both of you guys need to get a glimpse of the real world.

            For example, the military in Pakistan is the source of power, not it’s parliament.

          • Both of you guys need to get a glimpse of the real world.

            No, that would be *you* the guy who thinks India is a dictatorship.

        • Nah. MarkW got it right. If progressives would simply allow everyone to find solutions that fit their circumstances instead of trying to force everyone to accept their solutions, the world would be a much more peaceful place.

  3. The final paragraph nails it!

    Every climate activist and every anti-fossil fuel politician should be forced to answer these two questions without obfuscation.

    • Never happen. The purpose is to oppose, not explain. If Trump said he was going to give everyone in the world $1,000,000 the leftists and the MSM (sorry for the redundancy) would oppose him.

    • The harder you look at green claims the sillier they seem. Nuclear power is too dangerous (compared to the end of the world!), renewables are cheaper than coal (but still need lots of government subsidies).

  4. Anyone claiming that recent “extreme” weather is somehow proof of a climate crisis and that controlling CO2 will solve that crisis is deluded.
    The economist quoted in the article believes both.

    • Yes. Has there ever been a time without extreme weather? No, there hasn’t been. Is it worse today? No, it’s not likely worse. We might even be living in the best of times.

      • It is interesting to read journals and books from centuries ago and notice how often what we would describe today as “extreme weather” occurred then.

        I was surprised to see on Accuweather that the temperatures of the town where I grew up 60 years ago have had far fewer days above 100 F over the past decade than when I lived there. Nevertheless, claims are made that it is getting hotter and drier in this area. After all we must believe the models and not empirical data.

  5. The World Economic Forum. A gab fest for pathetically self-important people. Trump is a brick thrown through their plate glass window by citizens of the US. The brick is working very, very well. On the big climate issue Trump has been a game changer. Can you imagine any other leader of a large country (or small) stating publicly that Climate Change as a political issue is a scam. That must have made their bubbly boil.

    The Guardian is the official news sponsor of grooming in the UK. They’ll fall for anything.

  6. President Trump’s Fault that China is Still Burning Climate Destroying Coal

    In other words more winning by Trump. The plants love the additional CO2, so on behalf of plants the world over, Thank you President Trump for forcing China to burn more plant feeding Coal.

  7. Yup. Remember that bully at school? It was your fault for standing up to him/her. It was an unnecessary provocation that caused him to beat up others. Wasn’t the bully’s fault at all.
    Also, it was colder than the records show.

    • If Hillary had won, nobody would know that China was increasing the amount of coal it burns, because the media would have ignored it.

      Just like homelessness disappears from the front pages whenever a Democrat is in the White House.

  8. The world is less dangerous with Trump in charge.

    Trump and the Chinese are going to make a new trade deal that will benefit the U.S. to the tune of hundreds of billions of extra dollars going into the U.S. economy rather than going into the Chinese economy. And all Trump is doing to get this gain is to demand a level playing field with the Chinese. The Chinese have screwed us over for decades and have benefited mightily from it, but now it is time to play fair. The Chinese will still benefit, just not as much as in the past.

    The EU will end up making a similar deal.

    What is really bothering the elites is this from the article: “The world’s move into a new phase of strongly state-centred politics”.

    The Elites want to be the ones in charge and state-centered politics is a threat to their assuming control. They are afraid Trump is going to encourage others in other nations to do the same thing. Trump is having success with his independent course and that’s what scares the Elites.

  9. If Hillary had won the US would be borrowing money form China to beggar our economy while China and India blow past us. Merkel, Macaroon, Trudeau, and the rest of the virtue signalling crowd would of course approve.

    Clinton when ask to name a big accomplishment from her tenure as Secretary Of State: I gave a speech on women in China. OMG. And they didn’t thrown you in prison. You are so brave. Might be wrong but I believe the Chinese already knew about the existence women.

  10. Have you ever noticed; according to those on the left, when ever tensions rise, it’s always the fault of the US.

    • Well of course. According to the leftists we’re evil, warmongering imperialists hellbent on world domination and conquest. Everyone else is a victim of our hegemonic ways.

  11. The World Economic Forum may claim to be concerned about world risks including CAGW. But, the real risk – to them – is money. And, it’s not about monetary concern in mitigating disaster. The monetary concern is the money in their own pockets, the oligarch’s money in their pockets, and how to restructure society so as to get the absolute rock bottom labor rates. Trillions of dollars are at stake here.

    Let’s look at a factory that had to shut down because it couldn’t meet EPA regulations and was quietly being rebuilt in China. The EPA administrator who shut it down through an ‘interpretation’ of the law dines weekly with a powerful Senator who, in a clever, roundabout way, generously reimburses that administrator. Knowing what’s in the works both parties sell their stock. The company owning the factory had indicated rewards for this Senator by publicly giving his predecessor a large kickback after leaving office signaling this Senator could get one too. So the announcement goes through at the WSJ: Acme mfg is closing its doors because a tweek in a clean air law. The stock nosedived, but never fear, the CEO, CFO, COO, the president and board, and Senator and administrator had unloaded their stock, in stages, months ago. The new factory in Seinking Sun China is, by now, completely built and ready to roll.

    Extraordinarily gifted market analysts (almost as good as Warren Buffet); the CEO, CFO, COO, president and board, and of course our Senator and EPA administrator, after knowing when to pull out, knew just when to buy back in as the stock was set for a moonshot once the market knew Acme had a new plant in China. The EPA administrator got his. And Acme mfg has hired our Senator to give a speech at the office forum (for one hour written by the company) for … $85,000.

    They will not let this cushy arrangement get pulled out of their cold dead hands. It’s about 3 Trillion a year. Trump’s got a fight on his hands.

    It’s almost funny: lots of people on the left have no idea that their ‘resistance’ movement is probably funded by these same oligarchs hoping to defuse the danger of Trump – to their pocketbooks and cozy deals.

    • Tom, your scenario is spot on. Similar scenarios are going on by the hundreds every day. Greed is taking over & ethics/morals are thrown overboard.

  12. The risk officer for Zurich Insurance, “Martin said a significant increase in infrastructure was needed to effectively respond to climate change in order to adapt to the new environment and transition to a low-carbon economy.”

    Infrastructure is needed in the countries of the developing world to bring electricity to their citizens. It is certainly understandable that these countries want cheap and reliable power rather than expensive intermittent power production. The first world could be selling the developing world hundees of carbon neutral nuclear power plants, if the very same greenies who are pushing solar and wind had not fought nuclear power for years.

    The green left caused this problem, but that doesn’t stop them from from trying to blame everyone else.

  13. The Left, through the press, have relied on the axiom that “if we assert it is a fact, then it must be true”.
    Two examples of using a false premise to create a strawman argument:

    a year of extreme weather-related events

    Do they show any data to establish the weather events of 2018 were in anyway abnormal?

    The world’s move into a new phase of strongly state-centred politics…., …. continued throughout 2018

    Politics have ALWAYS been “state-centered”. The left has been trying to replace that historical pattern with global governance, and apparently any resistance has to be referenced in a “scary” manner.

  14. The comments to this post have strayed off topic somewhat.

    China continues to increase power production from coal-fired plants as a result of a bi-lateral climate agreement in November 2014 (one year before the Cop 21 farce in Paris) , signed by president Obama. That pact granted China the right to increase CO2 emissions at will until 2030 while the U.S agreed to cut its emissions by 26-28% over the same time period. Nice deal for China.

    China’s continuing coal appetite can be laid only at Obama’s doorstep.

  15. I noticed that everybody just assumed an article saying the USA economy would be surpassed in 2020 was correct. It was written in 2011 and is massively off base. China would in fact have to grow its economy by 50% and the US would have to have 0 growth for that to hold. IMF says 2018 GDP China = 13,457,267 While USA = 20,513,000
    ie the US economy was more than 52% higher than China’s last year.

    • Good point, Greg. The claims of the demise of the US economy as top dog remind me of the “peak oil” claims which are never correct.

  16. “The Guardian: President Trump’s Fault that China is Still Burning Climate Destroying Coal”

    Which means “The Guardian” is blaming Trump for the agreement China established with Obama for their part of the Paris false agreement.

    China promised to burn more coal annually to approximately 2030, when they might have reached market saturation for coal generated energy as they installed nuclear.

    Grauniad’s failure to remember the recent past reflects poorly upon the grauniad’s surviving in an honest business world.

Comments are closed.