Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to BBC’s Roger Harrabin, “… Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down”.
Climate change: Should green campaigners put more pressure on China to slash emissions?
By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analystChina will be urged at the UN next week to speed up the timetable for curbing its planet-heating carbon emissions.
It will be nudged by the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who’s experiencing climate pressure himself from activists blocking motorways.
But is the UK, with its world-leading emissions targets, the right target for demonstrators?
China produces 28% of global emissions and the UK just 1%. So shouldn’t they be picketing the Chinese embassy instead of the M25 motorway?
On the face of it, that seems a reasonable question. And some veteran activists would indeed support a well-judged China protest – we’ll come to that later.
But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.
An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.
Why so vitriolic?
Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.
…
“I would put small, polite pickets at every Chinese embassy worldwide. The Chinese authorities listen most to something coming from several different sources at the same time.
“It would also preserve Chinese “face” more than a big single demonstration, and would almost certainly not make news – so it wouldn’t be picked up by the deniers.”
…
Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58584976
I understand why greens don’t want to target China on the ground inside China. China is pretty scary when you annoy them, if you are in their power. On the way to Taipei, three names read out in Hong Kong, I was the only person present. I was taken to a room, no words, a red army guard just glared at me for a full minute, before finally waving me towards the door. I can take a hint.
And there was that time Greenpeace tried to occupy an oil rig in the Russian arctic. I don’t think they’ll try that again in a hurry.
But being diffident about protesting in front of the Chinese Embassy, in a free country like Britain, making ridiculous excuses about how the “deniers” might notice them targeting China, is just pathetic.
It’s not about the climate, it’s about global Socialism.
Yep. Watermelons.
Yep, and the IR protesters prove the point every day by avoiding the biggest emitter. It’s the same situation in Australia. To these mentally unstable climate protesters the biggest threat is the 1% of local emissions that keeps the capitalist liberal democracy running and they believe if they can kill off the 1% it will bring down the democracy and allow a reset to communism.
Until you do the math. The vast majority of CO2 has originated in the USA and Europe.
Per capita emissions show the truth about who is responsible: the average Chinese still only emits half of the average westerner.
Its not a socialist problem its a math problem.
“But, but Chicom…” ffs, stop buying their shit from Walmart if you hate them so much.
Lloydo, I have no problem with China matching Western CO2 emissions, I just thought people who believe the planet is on the brink of catastrophe might place more priority on actually reducing total CO2 emissions.
If China and India continue on their current trajectory, global CO2 emissions will likely close to double.
If you don’t have a problem with that, neither do I.
According to you warmistas, it’s CO2 that is the problem. So all that matters is how much CO2 is being emitted.
The fact that you actually believe that China’s emissions aren’t a problem so long as their per capita emissions are below that of the US, is just further proof of what the rest of us have always known.
That being, that even you know that CO2 isn’t a problem, it’s just a means by which you will impose communism on the rest of us.
“Per capita emissions show the truth about who is responsible: the average Chinese still only emits half of the average westerner”. Loydo, you really don’t do arithmetic very well, do you? The average Chinese emits more co2 than the average European but half that of the average North American. Since there are more Europeans than North Americans, it is very clear that your statement is blatantly false.
Now show us the comparison of what Nature produces every year and all of our contributions would amount to diddly squat (approx 4%)
It is also often said that anthropogenic influence started around 1950 as the ppm of CO2 then was apparently ‘ideal’. Showing cumulative figures from the mid 1700’s is merely attempting to convince with big numbers.
I’m getting rather tired of saying it, but when will the likes of Griffy baby & Loydo kindly explain in explicit detail, why was it that when the Earth’s atmosphere contained 19 times as much CO2 as today’s atmosphere, we were smack bang in the middle of an Ice-Age, defying the rationale & logic of Manmade Global Warming, or Climate Change as they like to refer to it???
So you’re saying Roger Harrabin who writes for the BBC is wrong. Okay.
I don’t have problems believing that. BBC is just another propaganda channel. You should love them though, you love WUWT, and WUWT is paid propaganda.
prove it.
The claim that WUWT is a paid propaganda site is a total lie, and one you know to be a lie. You have admitted in the past that you can’t support this claim.
Where’s your proof? Or are you just another paid stooge of the Chinese?
He’s just an old commie moron
Nyolci, I didn’t realise that you are a conspiracy theorist.
It’s a result of the typical left wing echo chamber.
Being a good leftist, she won’t tolerate the presence of haters. Which she defines as anyone who disagrees with her.
As a result, everyone she’s willing to tolerate agrees with her. Since everyone she knows agrees with her, she must be right, no need for further proof.
eh?
another nutter on the loose?
I thought we had our dose already with “good Gri(e)f(f)”
One thing I’ve noticed is that since nyolci has shown up, griff has become more active as well.
It’s almost as if they are competing who can be the wackiest.
The BBC is a shadow of its former self & sadly has been for many years now, it needs to be sold off & privatised, it is no longer regarded with the reverence that it once was, especially in the UK!!!
When has he been correct?
However you try to juggle the numbers, per capita CO2 is meaningless, if you’re insisting the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ has any validity. All you should be concerned with is the total emissions. If you’re looking to destroy the most successful countries by reducing their economies to that of less functional countries, per-capita is your metric.
That is nonsense. If you want a fair and just solution then the starting point needs to be that everyone has the same right to emit CO2. Thus limiting per capita emissions are the only just way to approach the problem.
What an utterly ludicrous thing to say. It has nothing to do with justice. I have no duty of care to you, so you feel safe. Even if there was some sort of harm from emitting CO2 (which there isn’t), the very nature of life means there is no way to control the amount of emissions, unless every activity is controlled with some sort of central planning and a social credit system to adjusts for life style. That’s communism. Communism has never worked and can never work.
The only certainty in this entire farce is that more CO2 has proven beneficial and that humans prefer warmth to cold. The natural warming since the end of the LIA has also been a benefit. Humanity has never lived better. Show me anything to disprove that.
Izaac just admitted that the whole thing was NEVER about saving the planet. It was always about justice. However the left defines it lately.
You got that right, Mark. It’s always fun when they inadvertently admit their social justice agenda, isn’t it?
Izaak, how do you propose to limit China’s per capita emissions which are already higher than the average European’s emissions? I would also be interested in hearing how you would enforce your proposals.
And lower than German emissions 🙂 Maybe YES is a good answer.
Nyolci, how is YES a good answer to the question “How do you propose to limit China’s per capita emissions which are already higher than the average European’s emissions?”
Or China’s TOTAL annual emissions which are almost DOUBLE the U.S. total annual emissions?
If the EU’s per capita emissions are already lower than China’s, then this is proof positive that the EU has already done more than it needs to. Time to stop with the whirly gigs and solar farms.
Exactly. And maybe we should take the cumulative numbers into account too.
Starting with which date?
October 29th 2257BCE
Once again, nyolci proudly proclaims that reducing CO2 was never about saving the planet.
Maybe every country needs to limit their population to a just number then to make it just for all. Chinese middle class emits as much as any European or North American and it’s size is larger than the whole North American population.
So you are admitting that CO2 isn’t a problem, since you are willing to let the vast majority of the world dramatically increase their CO2 production.
And how much of the 415ppm does that include?
Good to know that the absorption bands of a CO2 molecule are modulated by the per capita emissions in the country from which they originate. It’s almost like you’re not actually concerned about greenhouse gases and more interested in political power.
Nonsense, you need to quit reading the communist party daily and get a life.
“Until you do the math. The vast majority of CO2 has originated in the USA and Europe.”
Given that the green movement has been saying for many years that were at the brink of total destruction from plant food, isn’t it odd that they ignore China’s massive footprint?
““But, but Chicom…” ffs, stop buying their shit from Walmart if you hate them so much.”
How did you come to the conclusion that the poster hates Chinese people. Maybe he hates communism. Also, how do you know he shops at Walmart?
Ah, so it’s about “emmissions justice” is it? You are not concerned about actual emissions here and now, which will allegedly destroy the planet.
Thank you for finally revealing that this is all a political sham and your aims are not what you claim they are.
We all knew that but it’s helpful that you finally realise it yourself.
What?? You quoted yourself then made it sound like I’m concerned with emission justice while totally not answering the two questions I asked.
Why didn’t you answer them?
Your answer would be “I can’t”
Hey, Kramer, note the indent level ( and fact that the quote is NOTHING that you said ). That was not a reply to you. It was a reply to Lloydo, hint: follow the quoted text .
Why do you even discuss per capita emissions we are a world of countries. A country gets 1 seat on the UN, they compete in sport and trade on an equal per country basis. There are no adjustments for population.
I am yet to hear a compelling argument why you would translate to a “per capita” basis given there is no obvious basis to do so …. so here is your big chance explain it?
So of all the metrics you could use why that one??????
BTW it’s “maths”, not “math”!!! The subject is mathematics, not mathematic!!!
“Math is hard” – Barbie(tm)
No no no, that CO2 from europe and the US is centuries ago, as you say, it got reabsorbed already. It is the new CO2 from China that is causing warming 🙂
Very good point, I’ll make a note of that.
How much do you emit Loydo? Getting close to your zero emissions target?
And who said anything about hate? I just don’t want to be them. And given that they are developing rapidly, it seems they don’t want to be them, either, at least in terms of economy.
It’s clearly not a socialist problem because most of the EU and Canada are socialist by any rational standard. It’s whether CO2 emissions by humans are going to make the sky fall or not. Clearly, the climate “emergency” is is the least serious emergency in human history. There is no tipping point, as 4 billions years of history clearly demonstrate. The concentration of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere has been significantly higher than today for most of the earth’s history. Fossil fuels have allowed entire nations to get out of poverty and become well-fed, healthy, and happy. I would like everyone to have enough energy to enjoy the blessings I have. Your policies would make those that have affordable energy not be able to afford it, and the great numbers of people on this planet without affordable energy will never get it. They will be consigned by your policies to a life like their ancestors. I would take your proposals more seriously if you supported more energy for the poor and underdeveloped countries, and were not so against nuclear power. However, sometimes you have to determine a person’s motivations by what they do. What you want to do is cause more people to live in poverty. You should try it for a little while before trying to force everyone else to enjoy it. Don’t come back with the old trope that green energy will cost less. I can add and read. Every time the government scales back its subsidies, the windmills and PV arrays go belly-up. I also understand grid stability.
The “socialist problem” is that the USA and a few other countries aren’t fully socialist yet.
When this door is fully cracked open, this is when the commie hammer will start to fall.
The commie authortian facist clamp downs we are seeing today are nothing compared to what is to come.
Idiotic comment, LoyD’oh. Thr Chinese emit almost TWICE the CO2 per unit GDP as the US. The only reason their per capita emissions are lower is that much of their population are agrarian peasants. Are you really suggesting that the developed word regresses back to the point where many of us are peasants who live off the land with no modern conveniences?
You’ve hit the nail right on the head. The only rational metric is “CO2 per unit of GDP”. The US has a far higher percentage standard of living than China.
Man. Good to know there is no more natural CO2 emissions. At all. None. We’re saved.
As Greenpeace knows full well what the PRC would do, Greenpeace looks for easier targets.
It’s best that the Green Terror machine crush the British economy and reduce the UK to an island of desperate serfs. The screams of pain from the serfs will be an object lesson for the rest of the world.
If they ever did do sufficient damage to the British economy to have noticeably serious effects (what the waffling British deserve), it’s my guess there would be an equally serious and possibly bloody back-lash.
Sadly the British are mostly two faced GOMs.
They will grumble, then pay up, then turn on the sanctimonious bit if anyone else dares question their stupidity.
Haven’t you seen enough of that yet with face masks?
I remember, when I was living there for the second time, in the Early ’70s, there was a TV drama speculating on what might have happened if Britain had taken Hitler’s offer of becoming neutral, like Sweden, without harm. It became instantly controversial because they so quickly accepted Nazis methods and authoritarian values. It was a scary film, especially considering Sir. Oswald Mosely and his followers, among several others.
Their full acceptance of intrusive CCTV and giving their fire arms away so easily was an indicator … their full acceptance of “climate change” fraud and the Covid farce is further proof.
The ‘pot calling the kettle black’ there, with a dollop of racism for good measure – well done, you.
You seem to be seeing something that only you can see.
You seem to be seeing something that only you can see.
It’s pretty simple: Racists see racism everywhere.
Racism? What racism do you believe you see? Dollop … kettle … black? Are you always so inarticulate or were you just showing off?
Why the racism..?
You seem to be seeing something that only you can see.
Backlash or not, how many decades will it take to build a modern energy grid to replace solar panels and windmills? By then the UK will be entirely deindustrialized and depopulated.
That’s the objective of the activist groups like Extinction Rebellion. Their entire purpose is disruption and complete destruction of the world as it exists. They view us humans as parasites plaguing the planet. Modern anything is anathema to these creatures.
They prove themselves the cowards we always knew they were. If they really believed their nonsense they would take on the CCP.
It is not that they are just cowards,they are psychotic hypocrits with no common sense,logic and not even real values(and probably professional parasites only intressted in taxpayer money)
Every single woke(no matter American,European,Australian) is an islam buttkisser to the core.
As someone from muslim origin i can guarant you that none of their branches(feminists,atheists, LGBT or whatever) dares to terrorize me with their bullshit.
(at least not )
Even when “we” rape their children and women(hello me too!)or beat the shit out of their gays these parasites wont say a word.
We enslave their oh so black people by the millions,they don’t care.
Even when halal slaughter got legalised you did not hear a word,just some empty promises “We will reduce unstunned slaughter ”
But when the chinese put us in huge numbers in concentration camps they don’t give a shit.(shouldn’t they be crying Nazi like crazy as they usually do?)
Just as with blacks the woke buttkissing of muslims instantly ends as soon as we don’t live in Europe or America.
They are never there to protest for those who really need their help.
This is a bunch of opportunists,sociopaths,narcissists,parasites and cowards(the who is who of antihuman who are attracted by communism like noone else ).
The only 2 things they really do is hiding behind the 5-10% of usefull idiots who have no egoistic interessts(and who are the first who get killed when communism rules)
and to repeat what they are told by the msm and politicians.
And as long as the msm isn’t criticizing china and politics isn’t crying for sanctions
the woke will defend china.
They always do the wrong thing.
They protect the most violent and racist people in the USA = Blacks.
They protect the most violent and racist people in Europe= muslims.
They protect a country and a system that has killed twice as many people than the nazis snd that has opened up new concentration camp and that is colonizing Africa at an incredible speed.
Everything is upside down.Just like climate science.
Yep. Well said.
Moderation. Please consider rejecting the above message: it stinks racism. Am I supposed to believe that the author is a muslim because he says so?
I see lots of anger.
Why do you assume that everything bad said about a minority (not that muslims are any kind of minority) must be a form of racism?
Islam is not a race
It is a fascistic ideology
When it comes to humans, race has always been a bogus concept.
No. It shouldn’t be rejected.
All Homo Saipan’s are just, well, people. All of us were born with the same faults and evils.
Some have learned to exploit their co-humans’ weaknesses to their own advantage.
They’ve manufactured artificial divisions between us for millennia. To gain personal power (and wealth).
SxyxS only laid the current artificial divisions we are currently faced with by those who seek power and control.
PS All “races” have made slaves of their own.
“Discrimiation” based on skin color?
I have a friend in Kenya. Black as black can be. There when they meet someone they want to know what tribe they are from. An old artificial division.
If they really believed their nonsense, and actually cared about people, they would be promoting nuclear energy, so that economies could thrive as they are converted to low CO2 energy sources.
but they do not care.
How many times have the UN desperados warned that the end of the world is …… ?
The UN and other nutters have been telling us that unless we keep the world’s temperature from rising by more than 1.5C, all kinds of dire things are going to happen. Each nutter has a different list of dire things.
That in order to prevent these dire things from happening, we must drastically curtail CO2 emissions.
Now they tell us that unless China, the world’s biggest emitter of CO2 by far, is allowed to drastically increase it’s CO2 emissions, it will just be unfair, and probably racist to boot.
Obviously climatechange® is not as existential a “crisis” as the woke would have us believe!
If they really believed this BS, thety too would be clamouring for safe, EMISSIONS-FREE baseload nuclear,
Their goal is to leverage the overhyped bad weather claims in order to end capitalism and reduce population.
What did you expect?. Every lefties loves any authoritarian country that plays lip service to their creed, even better when they don’t practice what they preach.
World wide, the number of leftists who actually live the philosophy they want to push on others can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
I would suggest that all the people in Europe insist that until China and India takes steps proportionate to their steps that they will not go a step further with the green agenda. The ball will then be in the UN and activists’ court. Inaction on their part should be met with inaction in the EU and from other industrialized nations. Let COP26 put this in their pipe and smoke it.
“Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down”.
What an unimaginable tragedy would that be.
Well, the French pulled back their embassies from the US and Australia over a climate dispute. The say they may pull back from the UK, too. The Aussies chose clean renewable nuclear power from the US/UK over carbon-dioxide-spewing diesel engines from France for their next-gen submarines. The French consider this bad policy. So, as punishment, the French left the capital cities of those who opposed their preferred policy.
Seems to me it would punish China just as much if the green NGOs “swiftly closed down” office building to punish China for advancing un-preferred policies.
Nuts!
the current diesel electric showed the US in wargames that they are so silent, they got a ‘kill’ target without detection. Problem is Australia can crew only 4 of the 6 right now.
The new boats are much noisier, cost a fortune without local nuclear expertise, and as Scott Ritter , renowned weapons inspector says, will ‘never see the light of day’.
Collateral damage? NATO. China must be chortling!
Better to see Scott Ritter’s full report on costs, and actual capabilities.
“The new boats are much noisier ”
Than a snorkeling sub ? ?
You’re not for real.
The nuclear subs can stay out to sea for months and needn’t surface for oxygen for their engines, making them a better deterrent vs China, which has been making threats to the Aussies lately.
And of great importance to Australia so far away in Asia Pacific Region nuclear powered submarines do not only have zero refuelling advantage but speed advantage as well, much faster than conventional.
As I understand the situation, the French subs to be built weren’t even past the planning stage. Years had gone by and these were still vaporware. Yes, yes, I know the plan was to convert an existing nuc design to diesel-electric. Yay! – get the worst of both worlds!.
Nothing to do with climate you oaf. All to do with wanting more capable boats and the French deal was way behind schedule
You won’t hear much about the biplanes that Australia cancelled.
Haha, spot on, the French subs are on par with biplane technology. How would you like a $90 billion contract over thirty years, with no guarantees. Thanks to our dumb politicians here in OZ.
Thats not totally correct. It was a trade issue. Australia has told the French to stick an agreement to build their subs, so we can build US subs, thus ending the French cash cow that was, and they have chucked a wobbly over it.
the fact that the US nuclear powered subs and the tech that comes with it enables Australia to defend itself far better from the aggressively war machine builder in China is not being considered greatly by the poor dears
They know where their money comes from.
And that is the real point.
Greenpeace has no problem with causing disruption, annoying authorities and being arrested. They even risk their lives on boats to oppose whaling.
But they can’t oppose their paymasters.
Yes they did that long in the past when Greenpeace wasn’t a Marxist organization fixated on destroying Western economies.
How many coral reefs have been blasted to smithereens so that China can build military facilities on them?
Nothing but crickets from all of the so called “environmental” groups.
Closed down? Who cares? They are a waste of money and resources.
Nuts!
the current diesel electric showed the US in wargames that they are so silent, they got a ‘kill’ target without detection. Problem is Australia can crew only 4 of the 6 right now.
The new boats are much noisier, cost a fortune without local nuclear expertise, and as Scott Ritter , renowned weapons inspector says, will never see the light of day.
Collateral damage? NATO. China must be chortling!
Not so.
China seems very irate about the whole AUKUS alliance, therefore it must be a good thing.
China’s looking for more sources of energy. Bonbon’s head is stuck up its exhaust and blocking that energy source for the Chinese to exploit. Not as quiet as it could be, just light a match and check up.
“China produces 28% of global emissions and the UK just 1%. So shouldn’t they be picketing the Chinese embassy instead of the M25 motorway?”
If Roger Harrabin believes this, then it is no wonder the BBC is so anxious about Climate change.
The figure is that China produces 30% of mans CO2 emissions, which in total are some 4% of the global total, the remainder coming from Nature.
Can someone tweet that to Roger and I am sure the BBC will then admit it has overestimated mans influence and it will close down its coverage of COP26.
In the lunchtime playground that is the West’s political construct at the moment, none of the kiddies in the assembled play groups are game to even look in the direction of that big, hulking, unfriendly-looking gangsta standing by himself in the middle of the playground, daring anyone to tell him to move, let alone join in the ring-a-ring-a-rosary.
It’s pathetic, isn’t it?
While I don’t like XR either, they are kinda right here, and not even because of racism (while that is surely present). Blaming China is simply misrepresentation. Chinese per capita emissions are the 45% of that of the USA, 60% of that of the ROK, 82% of that of Japan, and 86% of that of Germany. In other words, China, an advanced, industrial country is much greener than most of Western countries. Furthermore, it has openly committed itself to reduction, and they will carry that out.
“…and they will carry that out.” No, they won’t. They will do whatever they calculate is in their best interest, which does include some window-dressing to give their supporters some ammo. The ongoing dust up with Australia over coal imports is a good example, they now buy Australian coal, which is cleaner and has a higher BTU, indirectly.
China’s carbon dioxide emissions per capita are 43% higher than the UK. These are the two countries being compared in the article.
China’s emissions per capita exceed those of most European countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
And quite a few other countries in the infographic. And anyway, the 28% vs. 1% is completely dishonest.
The 28% vs. 1% figure is a simple statement of fact. Greens say that it is the total emissions of carbon dioxide that count as far as the planet is concerned. Are you saying that Chinese emissions have less effect than emissions from other countries?
According the the alarmists, the only thing that matters is how much CO2 is being emitted. So the fact that you have no problem with China’s huge CO2 emissions is just further proof that the issue was never CO2.
China’s”Per Crapita” emissions are only what they are because 600M Chinese have No access to electricity and an additional 200M exist in an energy impoverished state. If you consider their “Per Crapita” emissions of just their populace that has full access you would need to Double their statistics. The energized masses in China have an almost identical per capita emission as the U.S.
The figure that does matter though, total annual emissions, places China first with almost 30% of total annual global emissions.
Notice how myolci makes the classic move.
The problem is supposed to be that the tonnage of CO2 emitted by all countries is going to destroy human civilization on earth because of global heating.
The solution is supposed to be global reductions in amount emitted.
This then leads to the conclusion that the largest emitter, China, should reduce its tonnage.
At which, in the usual classic style, myoci moves to claiming that per capita emissions are what counts. Then makes a less usual move. China’s per capita emissions are about the same as the EU. Not that it matters logically, but its a fact that is inconvenient to myolci’s manoevre.
So we pick the highest per capital emissions in the EU, Germany, and claim that China is ‘only’ 86% of that. So China is supposed to be greener than Germany… and…? And?
What does that have to do with saving the planet by reducing the world’s total emissions? What does that have to do with the fact that if the alarmists are right, China alone is emitting enough to destroy human civilization?
And then we get the ridiculous claim that China has committed to reductions. They have not!
The interesting thing about the story is that on the eve of COP26 even the BBC has started to notice that if you really want global emissions reduced, you cannot at the same time excuse China emitting what it does, and increasing.
Even the BBC is not able to at the same time proclaim the coming disaster due to global emissions and also give China a free pass. Men lose their senses all together, but they regain them one by one. Its starting.
Correction: China AND everyone else.
First you say that China’s CO2 emissions don’t matter, now you say they do.
So which lie is it?
Why? I suggest that there isn’t a problem with man made carbon dioxide emissions. Folks have a hang up if they are concerned that there has been a one degree centigrade rise in a hundred years.
None of us need to do anything about CO2.
It’s a non-problem.
Man’s CO2 emissions aren’t a problem.
But, nyloci, since you believe they are, what’s wrong with that statement?
Are you claiming they shouldn’t?
Are you claiming they shouldn’t unless everyone else does?
If the former, from your belief point, why not? China’s CO2 is somehow different from Man’s CO2?
If the latter, then why should anybody else when China and India won’t?
Harrabin is a shill.
…so we should give global termites and volcanoes their marching orders?
Iceland with its volcanoes ( current population of Iceland is approx 340,000), must be the biggest global emitter per head of population, but not a squeak on the news since 2010….
ie.
“during the 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland would damage aircraft engines, the controlled airspace of many European countries was closed to instrument flight rules traffic, resulting in what at the time was the largest air-traffic shut-down since World War II.
The closures caused millions of passengers to be stranded….”
Nothing of course like the knee jerk reaction “aviation train crash” with covid but one bout of hysteria from 2010 deserves another in 2020…
Same crap,same BBC.
Everyone else’s emissions are already reducing; China’s are increasing
It’s called lying with statistics. Nyolci loves using fallacies of all kinds. Her entire bag of tricks is punctuated with logical fallacies. Per-capita emissions have never been an issue or they’d have had to criticize all their leaders and champions, starting with Al Gore and all COP conference attendees.
China’s emissions per capita overtook those of the EU in 2013. Of course, they are much higher now. This news came from the BBC so it must be true.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29239194
Perhaps. I didn’t claim anything about this. FYI among the leading industrial nations, China is still well “behind”.
“China, an advanced, industrial country is much greener than most of Western countries”. This is a direct quote from you which is blatantly untrue.
I didn’t claim anything about the EU.
No. It’s blantantly true.
Since most western countries are in Europe, your statement is clearly untrue. It looks as if you have a different understanding of the word truth than everybody else.
Maybe it’s greener because of all the CO2 they emit?
Per capita only matters to those who are trying to change the subject.
According the alarmists, CO2 levels are dangerously high and must be drastically reduced NOW.
Now you are saying that even though China produces about 1/3rd of the world’s emissions, they don’t have to do anything to reduce their emissions and can in fact continue to increase them.
Beyond that, the claim has been that renewables are both cheaper than fossil fuel power and there is absolutely no problem powering a modern economy with them. So why is it a problem to insist that China shift away from fossil fuels to this, according to you, much better source of power?
Focusing on per-capita is just a straw man; something she is very experienced with along with about 10 other logical fallacies. Logic is not her strong suit.
I don’t understand. Hasn’t she assured us that she is so much smarter than your average bear?
Well, she does seem able to parrot the dogma from realclimate.org. Does that require intelligence or credulity?
I agree the “per capita” is a stupid ploy who cares how many people a country has?
These are the same people who have been proclaiming for the last 20 years, that we have less than 10 years to save the planet.
Now they are telling us that it isn’t a problem if the largest producer of CO2 on the planet, doubles or triples its production.
Light a match and apply it to those behinds and see where they land. They used to use that technique on their water buffalo, to provide the impetus for their water skiing teams.
Is that why just about anything you buy itself or it’s parts will be stamped “Made in China”?
Why is that? They’ve ignored the CO2 “Bogeyman”?
China is well behind…
ARE YOU KIDDING?
China emits almost 30% of global emissions, they are by far the LARGEST SINGLE EMITTER NATION
nyolci, are you suggesting China should be allowed to follow the same historical emissions trajectory as everyone else?
If renewables are so good for the economy, why the hesitancy? Why not simply go straight for the better option?
Of course if green energy is incompatible with economic development, come clean and tell us now, so we can talk about it.
While this question is again deflection, I have to tell you, I didn’t claim renewables were so good. Nevetheles, the alarmism of deniers is completely unfounded, we have good options for replacing fossils (like nuclear, classic hydro, and yes, renewables may be part of the mix). I don’t want to go into detail here, it’s not relevant to the topic.
Good to see you seem to have a sensible position on renewables. Renewables have a place, I’ve used small solar panels to keep batteries charged. Just they don’t have a very big place.
Outback mining sites and cattle stations have been using wind & solar for decades, whenever the conditions allow.
Mainly to charge up their humongous lead acid battery banks instead of having to use the big diesel generators that they ultimately rely on when electricity has to be working.
Even with excise tariff rebates for diesel, the cost of fuel used in outback operations is eye-watering.
You’d do whatever you could to minimise its use.
But these places don’t kid themselves that they could operate reliably just on wind & solar.
That way lies madness . . .
I fully expect in time some sites in remote regions will install a big metal box in the corner which emits a lot of heat, which nobody is allowed to talk about.
🙂
Very hot in Outback Australia and very dusty, not great conditions for solar panels which in good conditions deliver best between 10am and 2pm, and at other times “minimal output”.
Solar panels on bore pumps on properties do not last beyond ten years in service, most often years less, and noting the high temperatures and dust problems prevailing.
Just yesterday, nyolci was claiming that the only thing needed to make renewables work, is a word wide HVDC network. Also, the fact that we were able to create a world wide fiber optic network, proves that it would be cheap and easy to create this world wide HVDC network.
Give him a break Mark.
He’s had one sleep since then.
With teddy to cuddle and keep him safe from the boogeyman (aka climate change).
1) You have been claiming that anyone who objects to China increasing it’s CO2 emissions so long as China’s per capita emissions match everyone elses. So far from nobody “suggesting this”, this has been your entire argument.
2) What China states, and what China does are rarely the same thing.
3) Nobody has said we have the power to control China, the argument has always been why you alarmists aren’t protesting against China.
Your willingness to try and change the subject is greater than your ability to do the same.
No. I don’t claim that. I’m pointing out that using total current emissions against China is patently dishonest knowing the per capita numbers. (Not to mention cumulative one.) Furthermore, they themselves want to limit this.
Well, up to now they’ve been quite trustworthy. So no, you’re not right. As a side note, the Russians call the Americans “non-agreement capable”, ie. you can’t make an agreement with them or if you can, they will renege on it. This is a general statement about trustworthiness too.
Eric said “we should allow China”. I took it as if he thought we had any actual capability to change their behavior. Perhaps I was wrong. I frankly don’t care.
If the problem is CO2, as you so ignorantly claim, then the solution is getting rid of CO2. Giving the world’s biggest emitter of CO2 permission to keep increasing CO2 just proves that even you don’t believe that CO2 is a problem.
Ah yes, in what passes for your mind, China and Russia are 100% trustworthy.
First you claim that there is no reason to restrict China’s CO2 output. Now you claim that the issue is we can’t anyway.
Once again, every time you post, your story changes.
It wouldn’t come here if it wasn’t paid for by the Chinese misinformation bureau. It can’t argue a coherent position since it doesn’t understand the argument. Ignorance isn’t a quality that is hard to reproduce, just look at the communist way of life for proof.
Yeah, the good old Xi-bucks. I have so many of them I use them for heating.
??? No one talks about “increasing” or “permissions” here. We are talking about the current situation. (I didn’t even mention the past which would extremely favour the Chinese.)
At the moment their words have weight. That’s what I say. You don’t have to like them.
This is really the high school level of debating. Again, I only said comparing the absolute current emissions was misrepresentation.
No, I only claimed that this issue was theirs to decide (and accidentally, they HAD decided).
I’m beginning to doubt your sanity.
Everybody has been talking about how China is increasing it’s CO2 emissions.
So the fact that both China and Russia have a long history of saying one thing and doing another, doesn’t matter, so long as you agree with what they are saying right now.
No, you are evading the point. The point is that you can’t both believe that absolute levels of CO2 are a problem, while at the same time declaring that it isn’t a problem if the largest producer of CO2 continues to increase its production of CO2.
China gets to decide, but everyone else must be forced to obey.
How delightfully socialist of you.
Who? 🙂 Everybody seemed to be surprised when China announced its zero emission target (for 2060 I think). This commitment is rather unique, and comes from a country that is known for actually following its commitments. I think this is what everybody is talking about.
Can you tell me a few of these things? The only thing I actually know is direct Russian military action to help the Eastern Ukrainians, and apart from the tons of bullshit, this was artillery backing during a relatively short period in the summer of 2014. This was the only time I know about when they did something and said otherwise.
It’s China…
It ain’t a COMMITMENT…
it’s a STATEMENT…(lip service)
It’s CHINA!!!
And using “Per Crapita” is dishonest since fully half their Capita currently have limited access or no access. When you talk about Mans contribution, it is total annual tonnage emitted that matters and China emits as much as the Top 10 developed nations combined. China also emits more than the rest of the world combined less the top 10 developed nations.
As usual, saying anything that a socialist disagrees with is proof that you are a racist.
You are the guys who are saying that the problem is CO2. So the only thing that matters is how much CO2 is being emitted. The fact that you are willing to permit China to increase it’s CO2 emissions until it matches the US’s per capita levels is proof positive that you are lying about being concerned about CO2 emissions.
Of course, we already know this issue has nothing whatever to do with CO2 … and the smart ones have known almost from the beginning it never did. The moment their models began to fail, their predictions did belly flops and they had to alter the raw data to get any kind of short term accuracy, it was clear. Humans are not adversely affecting any climates.
“China, an advanced, industrial country is much greener than most of Western countries”
ROFLMAO!
China are greener? Have you seen the pictures of the Chinese industrial cities blanketed in thick lung-choking smog? That’s real pollution, not harmless CO2.
Are you a complete fool or just a very good parody?
China is greener, in the aggregate. She’s right, but for the wrong reasons. Only their industrialized areas are nasty, polluted areas, but they have vast parts that remain primitive and undeveloped. Once again she’s using her skill with logical fallacies. Her statement is a red herring.
It is amazing to drive in China and observe the traffic chaos as three wheel bicycles with trays carry goods slowly, hand operated rotovators connected to what are horse drawn carts with the engine belching emissions, 2-stroke motorcycles and more fumes, diesel trucks and buses needing injector servicing belching grey smoke and other pollution sources weaving along at various speeds.
China has a MUCH larger population, in case you hadn’t noticed. So their total is much higher. “Per capita” is just a shell game.
It’s all about promoting a one world, communist government.
nyolci has already stated that a one world government is the only way forward, and it’s always pushing far left/socialism as a solution to every problem.
Agreed “per capita” is the most stupid concept ever thought up by activist loons. I am going to start a protest Australia doesn’t have it’s far share of Nukes per capita we have none we should have 1 or 2 probably based on per capita.
Have you ever noticed how leftists are quite fluid in the arguments that they use.
When it comes to the West, we must drastically reduce our emissions of CO2, because we have less than a decade to save the world.
When it comes to China, it’s OK for them to dramatically increase their production because there per capita output is less than the west’s.
It’s all designed to transfer money and power from western democracies to eastern totalitarians.
Per capita means nothing to a country that is so overcrowded it can’t feed its people. Gotta keep many of them locked up, too. Wonderful guys, those Chinese creeps. The highest natural gas emitters are the highest ranked communists, real gold mines of energy.
Again I put the question to Loydo … why do you choose “per capita” in a world of countries? Each country gets 1 vote at the UN and 1 vote at COP .. so why the weird metric?
It’s standard goal post moving.
The PRC has a growth and tech dominance agenda that will boast them to global elite status fr the rest of the century. Green Terror campaigns are just another aspect of Anglo-American warfare and subversion. The PRC- CCP will treat it as such.
They won’t stop the West from making the Chinese agenda very easy by committing economic and social suicide.
The power of leftists is almost entirely illusion. The same is true for the globalist cabal, although I might be repeating myself. The only power they have is what we, the people, surrender to them. If we stop surrendering our own personal power and sovereignty, they will blow away on the breeze.
Such “science” advocacy even has its own journal, check out the papers. https://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/jspgvol18iss03.html AAAS and Sigma Xi are ‘partners.’ Latter has been getting pushback, including administration resigning. American Scientist finally published couple of such letters. Editor spent long column justifying “science ethics.” Try this sentence–“The processes of doing science and communicating about science are now their own fields of study with their own deep literature.” They cannot comprehend the difference between science, policy and also religion, but will drown with such depth. https://www.sigmaxi.org/programs/scicommmake
Coming to a farm near you— https://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/article_1038126_jspg180302.html
The Green Blob is full of bullies, and bullies always cower when faced with strength.
Why so vitriolic? Because China is the third rail of Climate policy. You daren’t touch it, and if you do, don’t act all shocked that you get burnt.
China is socialist, so it is emitting good CO2.
Chinese Communist Party
Chinese CO2 Party
So China has more emissions than the next three countries combined. Why should Greenpeace et al care about being excluded from China, they can’t advocate there anyway. The CO2 elephant in the room is being outed and they don’t like it. This is how the AGW scam will implode. Not from science.
The UK is a soft target
Nuff said
“China will be urged at the UN next week to speed up the timetable for curbing its planet-heating carbon emissions.”
It should be pointed out that speeding up China’s emissions timetable will put out MORE emissions and SOONER.
You’ve just jabbed the Elephant in the room with a sharp stick to the nuts. You’ve drawn atention to the fact that there is a 1 – 1 correspondence between thriving, economic development and CO2 … unlike any correspondence between CO2 and climate.
I can’t understand why the Chinese won’t come right out with it: “Read my lips, we don’t believe in man-made global warming!
Too much entertainment value watching John Kerry make sad face.
How could we tell from his ‘normal’ face?
It’s not a question of “belief”. It’s like Rhett Butler’s sentiment towards Scarlett … “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”
At the UN IPCC Copenhagen Conference the delegation from China explained to other delegates that based on weather records during 3,500 years of civilisation in China there were three much warmer periods than today, and each of those warmer periods brought greatly increased crop yields and prosperity.
Greenies have to be kind to the CCP or else they just…disappear. Besides, much easier to milk money and push their ideology with the West.
Oh no Eric, it is far worse than that. Don’t forget it was the leftie environmentalist Roger Harrabin who organised the BBC’s ‘secret seminar’ to ensure that the Beeb never – ever – would again cover global warming issues in an even-handed manner. Now – let us look at the list of invitees that Harrabin brought along to that pivotal meeting. Here they are:
Specialists:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia
BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures catriona@tightropepictures.com
BBC Television Centre, London (cont)
Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning
Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live
Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit
Paul Brannan, Deputy Head of News Interactive
Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News
Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend
Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations
Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes
Frances Weil, Editor of News Special Events
Look at number 14 on the list – Li Moxuan. Yep, that’s all you need to know. All the rest is history…
I love in when people like Harrebin and even the Moonbat start questioning the consistency of the smelly stuff they’re peddling.
They’ve unleashed the sorcerers’ apprentice.
Yep I remember that. I also remember when Tony broke the story here on WUWT. The hue and cry from the AGW true believers was loud and furious. Imagine making a general, policy declaration to abandon the scientific method in favour of populist politics.
yes the BBC were taken to court by a pensioner Tony Newbery with a FOI….believe it or not they claimed “journalistic privilege to the judge and of course UK’s smelly justice system said they had this bloody “exception”!
https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/09/bbc_beats_blogger_/
That is, until someone turned on the wayback machine and showed it was on public record how corrupt the BBC and the UK justice system is…..(I include the police in that too…Hillsborough, the failure to get Savile….et al).
The BBC therefore spent a public funded fortune on lawyers (the BBC was represented by a team of five, at times six, lawyers, including lead counsel Kate Gallafent, a barrister at Blackstone Chambers. Newbery, who represented himself, was accompanied by his wife.) to defend Harrabin and all the other b..stards working in that corrupt body.
“The BBC argued that it was able to derogate from the Freedom of Information Act because the seminar was held “for the purposes of journalism” and its attendance list is therefore protected by the law.
And in any case, according to the Beeb’s lawyers, the information didn’t exist at the time of the request – despite its historic significance: the public-funded broadcaster has statutory obligations, under Royal Charter, to be impartial.
The BBC Trust web site
The “purposes of journalism” get-out-clause has been used by the BBC on various other occasions as a cloak to conceal information requested by the public under the act.”
The biggest crisis in the UK is public sheep like acceptance of 24/7/365 liars as a basis for public “morality”.
Until they target China no one can take them seriously. In fact if they only targeted China that would if successful do more for their cause than all their other protests altogether when one considers the size of Chinas emissions. The lack of action by China gives every other country in the world a genuine excuse to do nothing as whatever they do will have no impact.
Skeptics have known that China is the biggest emitter of CO2 for a long time. We don’t need them to point it out for us.
Using per capita logic the economic and lifestyle impact/person of lowering fossil fuel use should be the lowest in the world with the greatest affect on CC (if AGW were true).
In China……
Seems no different to CND not campaigning against Russian nukes. Got to keep one’s paymasters happy.
That’s not true. CND opposed all nuclear weapons but as a UK based organisation it’s first priority was UK nuclear weapons and opposition to the siting of US nukes (Cruise Missiles) in the UK
Greenpeace and WWF will not target China as that would obviously be RACIST!
The fact that their offices in Beijing would be immediately closed is irrelevant.
China is actively buying friends and blocking any criticism. The con job at World Bank is the latest example of caught red handed.
Belt & Road trade and foreign aid programme from China to win friends and influence people of authority in foreign nations.
Included in foreign aid construction of coal fired power stations for developing nations.
Please consider: 1975 when Australia and other UN member nations signed the UN Lima Protocol/Agreement that “developing nations” would benefit from the transfer of manufacturing industries and know how to them over time. Later around 1990 the UN Agenda 21 (2021) was signed under the heading “Sustainability”, since extended into Agenda 30) that encompassed many areas of a nation’s wealth. And example being creation of National Parks listed with the UN in which minerals, energy, timber and even new dams were banned. Marine Parks banning commercial fishing and even amateur fishers from vast areas.
In short economic vandalism – undermining a nation’s future prosperity.
And today one of those “developing nations” is close to overtaking the economy of the United States of America, but remains a developing nation with benefits including being able to ignore the UN IPCC Paris Agreement emissions reduction and net zero emissions by 2050.
So ask yourself what the UN-Globalist political motives involve.
“It would also preserve Chinese “face” more than a big single demonstration, and would almost certainly not make news – so it wouldn’t be picked up by the deniers.”
What on earth does this mean? What does Harriban think so-called ‘deniers’ would be picking up? It would indeed be newsworthy if the woke were to have the cojones to acknowledge China presents a towering barrier to getting rid of fossil fuels (and ultimately this barrier will most likely reveal that there is no climate emergency after all!).
Marginalized science and tech savvy dissenters certainly aren’t a barrier (words to deaf ears vs deeds).
Not going after the Chinese on the fossil fuel aspect actually serves dissenters well. After over 40 years of end-of-world climate change haranguing and despite galloping CO2 emissions, we have bupkes of the emergency we were promised. What we do have is a Garden of Eden Global Greening and bumper crops to show for it.
Dissenters and the Chinese are on the same page as far as CO2 and the climate are concerned. Their totalitarian governance, greatly admired by “Western néomarxistes, not so much.
Is there anything not pathetic about ER?
China must not have paid off all the agitators yet. Maybe they have another virus to infect the world, Covid didn’t seem to do the job.
Last year alone [2020] the CCP/PRC built more than three times as much new coal power capacity as all other countries in the world. Now, The CCP is planning toto build 43 new coal-fired power plants and 18 new blast furnaces — equivalent to adding about 1.5% to its current annual emissions, according to a new report by the Helsinki-based research organization the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and the U.S. group Global Energy Monitor (GEM). The CCP is the world’s leading coal investor, with plans to increase its existing 1,100-gigawatt fleet of coal-fired power plants by another 187 gigawatts, according to the report. [While Australia’s total requirement is 19GW, for which we have chronic insufficient capacity, with AEMO issuing blackout warnings at record rates of up to 4 per week, while we have everything ‘ready to hand’ to rectify this Third World debacle except political will and responsibility.]
And the left eats itself….
You can’t expect the green, anti-capitalism eco-nutters to bite the (chinese) hand that funds them.
funny Aus isnt in the list yet WE are told here that we’re the worst per capita emitters?
wtf?
The warmunistas know who fills their rice bowl and they ain’t gonna tip it over.
There is so very much to climate and that has so very very little to do with CO2 with which even so man has so very little to do. This is in fact the consensus.
WWF Business Plan is based on the Al Capone Protection Racket.
Pay WWF enough cash and they will not slag your business in the media.
Particularly WWF are an insidious Drain on vulnerable businesses. Look no further than the current salmon farming saga in Tasmania.
If in UK you cannot miss the bizarre ads by WWF. For varying donations to WWF you can save a Snow Leopard, an elephant, save a 3rd world child and/or the child’s family simply by txting to a mobile number.
Labeled as a “not for profit” simply means they pay no tax on their scams.
But, but, but,…..per capita. China has less per capita emissions….
And like the intelligent COVID that doesn’t spread among liberal functions, global warming knows that it will only cause bad things to happen where the per capita is higher, not based on overall emissions….. (note: This post makes the assumption that global warming causes bad weather events – which I do not agree with).
“On the way to Taipei, three names read out in Hong Kong, I was the only person present.”
Does this sentence mean something?