Climate Change Weekly #444: China Scraps (Already Scant) Climate Cooperation Over Pelosi Taiwan Visit

From Heartland Daily News

H. Sterling Burnett

H. Sterling Burnett

YOU SHOULD SUBSCRIBE TO CLIMATE CHANGE WEEKLY.

IN THIS ISSUE:

  • China Scraps (Already Scant) Climate Cooperation Over Pelosi Taiwan Visit
  • Podcast of the Week: A Tale of Two Climates: One Real, One Imaginary (Guest: Bill Pekny)
  • Fossil Fuel Bans Hurt Women, Poor
  • Pacific Cyclones Trending Down
  • Europe’s Vegetable Oil Use Growing, as Are Emissions
  • Video of the Week: Exploring Energy – Biofuels
  • BONUS Video of the Week: Breaking Down Biden’s Climate Bill
  • Climate Comedy
  • Recommended Sites

China Scraps (Already Scant) Climate Cooperation Over Pelosi Taiwan Visit

The Chinese Communist Party was very displeased with U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) well-publicized visit to Taiwan reaffirming the United States’ commitment to the island’s continued independence from mainland China. To demonstrate its displeasure—in addition to the usual rattling of sabers, sending of new naval ships into the area, flying jets into Taiwanese airspace, and test-firing missiles into the sea around the island—China announced it was suspending cooperation with the United States in the fight against climate change. Heaven forbid!
 
After managing to control my uproarious laughter about China’s announcement, the first thought that popped into my mind was, what cooperation?
 
Dialogue and discussions have certainly done nothing thus far to reduce China’s greenhouse gas emissions, which are more than twice as great as those of the United States, and growing. China emits more greenhouse gases than every other industrialized country on the planet combined. Mouthing empty platitudes about the need to work together to fight climate change does not fight climate change, even if one truly believes people can stop climate change.
 
As should be the case in every country (and as Donald Trump tried to do for America), China’s leaders have looked out for what they consider to be their nation’s best interests during every round of climate meetings and in treaty and agreement negotiations since 1995. At the very first Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Berlin, China declared it would always count itself as a developing country in climate change agreements. That meant China would be exempt from mandatory greenhouse gas emission reductions. Regardless of what it has said in public since then, the Chinese government has never wavered from this position.
 
China played the rest of the world’s leaders like a drum during the negotiations for the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015. In an agreement that included no mandatory reductions except what countries imposed on themselves, all China would concede was that it expected its emissions to peak by 2030, maybe 2035. Climate negotiators and leaders of environmental NGOs hailed this as a historic step. Climate realists such as I asked: Peak at what level? Chinese Communist Party leaders smirked behind their hands at their PR coup. Our question has gone unanswered to this day.
 
If one believes, as I do not, that human greenhouse gas emissions are driving dangerous climate change, the question of where China’s emissions will peak, if they peak at all, is critical. By the UN’s own calculations, a doubling of China’s emissions would be game over for the world even if every developed country reaches net zero. Even if China’s emissions rise by only 15 to 25 percent, that would swamp any emission reductions from the West. And this is without accounting for what is going on in India, Indonesia, and other fast-developing countries. Emissions globally will greatly surpass the amount that would allegedly bring on the 2℃ temperature rise that Paris negotiators and climate NGOs claimed to be the point of no return for the planet.
 
Since then, China has embarked on a rapid further expansion of its fleet of coal-fueled power plants, its heavy industry (needing massive amounts of concrete and energy), and its military, all increasing China’s carbon dioxide emissions.
 
As I reported in Climate Change Weekly 433, China’s cabinet approved a plan this April to raise coal production by 300 million tons in 2022 alone, equal to 7 percent of the nation’s entire 2021 output. This after China increased coal production 5.7 percent above 2020’s output in 2021.
 
As NPR noted at the time, cabinet officials came out of the meeting saying, “Coal is important for ‘energy security.’” Simultaneously, the Chinese government announced plans to build new coal-fueled power plants to shore up the nation’s power supply.
 
That’s what China is doing, while saying it now expects to hit net zero by 2060. With this ongoing buildout of modern coal-power plants with productive lives that meet or exceed 50 years, no one can seriously believe China will shut down its new, expensive electric power plants prematurely and stunt or slow its economic growth.
 
Almost anyone with a functioning brain cell knows actions speak louder than words. China’s actions have spoken volumes about its “cooperation” with the United States and the rest of the world in the fight against purported climate change. Long before Pelosi set foot on Taiwanese soil, it was clear China is on the side of climate change if greenhouse gas emissions are indeed causing climate change. China is emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as fast as its energy system and industrial facilities can churn them out.
 
SOURCES: South China Morning PostClimate Change Weekly


Podcast of the Week

https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-tale-of-two-climates-one-real-one-imaginary/id351143631?i=1000576393541
The climate was not stagnant before human carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Earth’s climate is consistently changing across a variety of timescales. It has been warmer and cooler than it is today. There is no evidence we are in the midst of a climate crisis driven by carbon dioxide emissions. Earth’s present warming is similar to the warming experienced during every previous interglacial cycle throughout its history. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It’s necessary to life.

Subscribe to the Environment & Climate News podcast on Apple PodcastsiHeartSpotify or wherever you get your podcasts. And be sure to leave a positive review!


Get your Copy at Amazon TODAY!


Fossil Fuel Bans Hurt Women, Poor

A paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature says fighting climate change by banning or significantly limiting the use of fossil fuels harms the poor, especially poor women.
 
Paper author Vijaya Ramachandran, director of energy and development studies at California’s Breakthrough Institute, notes as many as 2.6 billion people, primarily in developing countries, experience energy poverty—“the lack of access to clean fuels”—and as a result end up cooking “on open fires or stoves using kerosene, coal, wood, animal waste or other forms of biomass.”
 
Each year, more than 3.8 million people die prematurely from illnesses linked to household air pollution, often resulting from cooking with biomass. This means more deaths can be tied to illnesses related to biomass use than from tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS combined.
 
Poor women and young girls account for a disproportionate number of the biomass-related illnesses and deaths, because they do most of the cooking and household chores. Even if not killed or made ill, these women “lose time, security, and income because they must gather fuel; girls who might otherwise go to school go out to collect wood or cow pats.”
 
A modern electric grid powered by fossil fuels and nuclear, plus modern appliances burning natural gas, looks like the best hope for alleviating poverty and improving these women’s lives in the long run. Millions of women have already by been saved by the adoption of appliances using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). However, Ramachandran points out, expansion of these improvements, especially electrification, is being hampered by developed countries’ efforts to ban financing of projects that use fossil fuels. Ramachandran concludes,

Policymakers from rich countries might say they support women’s empowerment, but to me they seem more interested in simplistic climate mitigation—and coercing smaller nations to make cuts and compromises—than in improving the lives of poorer women. The irony is that clean cooking fuels are much better for the environment than standard fuels. Black carbon, although a short-lived pollutant, has a warming impact on the climate many times greater than that of carbon dioxide.

 
SOURCE: Nature


Heartland’s Must-read Climate Sites


Pacific Cyclones Trending Down

We in the United States pay careful attention to tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic Basin each year, and we hear much less about Pacific typhoons. Data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) shows typhoons in the Pacific have been trending downward for 70 years.
 
Even though the world has modestly warmed over the past century, data from the JMA going back to 1951 demonstrate a declining trend for Pacific typhoons forming in the month of July in particular, and from January to July more generally, No Tricks Zone reports. A picture is worth a thousand words, so here are two figures plotted using JMA data:

“This is the opposite of what climate ‘experts’ said would happen,” reports No Tricks Zone. The Pacific typhoon trend measured by the JMA is consistent with trends of Atlantic basin tropical storms and hurricanes, as discussed in Climate Change Weekly 439.
 
SOURCE: No Tricks Zone


Europe’s Vegetable Oil Use Growing, as Are Emissions

Government mandates are causing drivers in Europe and the United Kingdom to use the equivalent of 17,000 tons—about 19 million bottles—of cooking oil and 14 million gallons of palm and soy oil for fuel every day, The Guardian reports. Those fuels are as much 250 percent more expensive than they were before 2021, in part because of the war in Ukraine, Europe’s largest supplier of rapeseed and the world’s largest source of sunflower oil. Much of the palm and soy oil are from Indonesia and South America, respectively, shipped to the EU in vessels and vehicles using fossil fuels.

Those interviewed by The Guardian complained vegetable oils and the crops used to produce them are being diverted from supermarkets to fuel-manufacturing during an ongoing food supply crisis.

The Guardian reports, “’Supermarkets have had to ration vegetable oils and prices are soaring,’ said Maik Marahrens from the campaign group Transport & Environment, which carried out the research. “At the same time, we are burning thousands of tons of sunflower and rapeseed oil in our cars daily. In a time of scarcity we must prioritize food over fuel.”

The study cited by The Guardian reports “about 10% of the world’s grains are … turned into biofuels, enough to feed 1.9 billion people for a year on some estimates.”

A second study states, “If the land abroad used to grow the UK’s bioethanol were instead given over to food crops, an extra 3.5 million people a year could be fed.”

Leaders of some environmental groups have belatedly concluded burning food for fuel is immoral.

“At a time when Russia’s war threatens people in less developed countries with starvation, it’s indefensible to keep increasing biofuel use,” Dustin Benton, the Green Alliance’s policy director, told The Guardian. “Cutting back on biofuels is the fastest way of addressing global hunger in this crisis.”

Adding insult to injury, the lifecycle emissions from converting land, harvesting, distilling, transporting, and burning vegetable-based fuels can be even greater than those from fossil fuel use, because the fuel crops are often grown on previously unfarmed land or displace virgin forests, The Guardian reports.

“The cost of biofuels is greater than the benefit from any reduced use of oil,” Timothy Searchinger, a Princeton University scholar and senior fellow at the World Resources Institute, told The Guardian. “The error Europe and others have made is that they ignore this cost entirely. They act as though using land were free. The food crisis we are in reminds us that is not true.”

SOURCE: The Guardian


Video of the Week: Exploring Energy – Biofuels

In Exploring Energy ep3, Linnea Lueken covers the ins and outs of the United States’ use of biofuels. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandates blending biofuels into gasoline, imposing higher costs on Americans in the process. In 2022 alone, the EPA’s mandate requires blending 20.63 billion gallons of conventional biofuels, including ethanol, into the nation’s fuel pool.


BONUS Video of the Week: Breaking Down Biden’s Climate Bill

Immediately after Senate passage, the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” was praised in the corporate media and among activists on the left as being the most-significant climate action the U.S. government in our history. But just like the bill won’t improve our runaway inflation rate, it will also do absolutely nothing to improve our weather or decrease the global temperature by the end of the century.

After about $400 billion more in taxpayer subsidies for green energy, the temperature might decrease by between about three-hundredths (0.028F) of a degree and nine-ten thousandths (0.0009F) of a degree. Maybe. On this edition of Climate Change Roundtable, The Heartland Institute’s H. Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Steve Milloy join Host Jim Lakely to discuss the “climate fighting” aspects of the latest Washington boondoggle spending bill. Just how bad is it?

Tune in every Friday at noon CT for another LIVE episode of Climate Change Roundtable.


Climate Comedy

via Cartoons by Josh


Recommended Sites

Climate at a GlanceClimate Realism
Heartland’s Climate PageHeartland’s Climate Conferences 
Environment & Climate NewsHealth Care News
Watts Up With That (Anthony Watts)Heartland’s Energy Conferences
Junk Science (Steve Milloy)Climate Depot (Marc Morano)
CFACTCO2 Coalition
Climate Change DispatchGlobal Warming Policy Forum (Benny Peiser)
GlobalWarming.org (Cooler Heads)Climate Audit
Dr. Roy SpencerNo Tricks Zone
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry)JoNova
Master ResourceCornwall Alliance (Cal Beisner)
International Climate Science CoalitionScience and Environmental Policy Project 
Bishop HillGelbspan Files
1000Frolley (YouTube)Climate Policy at Heritage
Power for USAGlobal Warming at Cato
Science and Public Policy InstituteClimate Change Reconsidered NIPCC)
Climate in Review (C. Jeffery Small)Real Science (Tony Heller)
WiseEnergyC3 Headlines
CO2 ScienceCartoons by Josh
5 7 votes
Article Rating
33 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gordon A. Dressler
August 20, 2022 7:12 pm

My personal message to Red China:
“Don’t let the door hit your a$$ on your way out.”

Bryan A
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 20, 2022 7:17 pm

Perhaps China’s lack of cooperation will show itself in their refusing to create cheap crappy Solar Panels and Wind Turbines using slave labor.

HotScot
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 21, 2022 4:51 am

By ignoring all the climate change nonsense, China is doing everyone a favour. Eventually, the world must fight back against its industrial ambitions, re-engage with human progress, and admit the entire climate change narrative is a scam.

Either that or we all start learning Cantonese.

meiggs
Reply to  HotScot
August 21, 2022 5:44 am

Nah, you’ll just need to get on the blue bus when it comes for you.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  meiggs
August 21, 2022 8:57 am

Or, more simply, just take the blue pill.

Bryan A
August 20, 2022 7:14 pm

Almost anyone with a functioning brain cell knows actions speak louder than words
Unfortunately the same can’t be said about Kerry. He’s breathing and alive(ish) so his Brain Cell must be functioning. Perhaps it takes more than 1 functioning brain cell

meiggs
Reply to  Bryan A
August 21, 2022 5:45 am

Words ARE actions

markl
August 20, 2022 7:20 pm

Anyone still think AGW isn’t anything but political?

Old Man Winter
Reply to  markl
August 20, 2022 8:22 pm

Woke “red pill” moment:

0newitem.jpg
Peta of Newark
Reply to  Old Man Winter
August 21, 2022 1:42 am

Nice picture – welcome to the world of the Autistic Child.
They don’t ‘do’ those things naturally & automatically because they cannot see the point.
And when grown up, don’t touch alcohol or ‘most any of the ‘classic’ drugs – even strong caffeine. They’ll drink tea yes, coffee no.

Watch, look, learn

Just @ random – would China’s ‘non co-operation’ extend to the manufacture/supply of solar panels, Lithium batteries, Rare Earths or even the large-scale-integration silicon chips that not only hold the renewable energy together, those chips now hold the entire world together.

China have got themselves into a situation of near complete dominance in those fields and that somebody with the supposed ‘nouse’ of Pelosi/Biden/The White House doesn’t seem to realise is simultaneously amazing, scary and very very worrying

meiggs
Reply to  Peta of Newark
August 21, 2022 5:54 am

Don’t worry, Pelosi/Biden/The White House know exactly what they are doing, sellouts, laughing all the way to the bank, they’ll go down in the MSM as saviors.

It used to be called treason with significant consequences, just ask ol’ Julius and Ethel.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Peta of Newark
August 22, 2022 7:06 am

Re Chinese dominance, the recent IEA report ‘Global Supply Chains of EV Batteries’ (July 2022) details China’s dominance in this supply chain.

China produces three quarters of all lithium batteries, 70% of cathodes and 85% of anodes,both key components of the batteries. Over half of lithium,cobalt and graphite processing and refining capacity is in China. Indeed with 80% of global graphite mining China dominates the entire graphite anode supply chain end-to-end.

In 2021 China’s share of global battery production capacity was 76% compared to the US 7%, EU 7%, Korea 5%, Japan 4% and SE Asia 1%

Add in China’s share of global ‘Critical Raw Materials’ production ( Antimony 87%, Bismuth 82%, Gallium 73%, Germanium 67%, Magnesium 87%, Silicon metal 61%, Tungsten 84% Light Rare Earths 95%, Heavy Rare Earths 95%) and it’s not difficult to see who has the upper hand.

meiggs
Reply to  Old Man Winter
August 21, 2022 5:47 am

Throw in get up at 4am to work in the garden….no worky….no eaty

Reply to  markl
August 21, 2022 3:47 am

How about an estimated 99.9% of scientists in the world believing in AGE, or at least not refuting AGW, based on my 25 years of climate science reading. That reading is almost entirely “skeptic” articles and studies, so I would be the first to notice scientists who reject AGW. I can’t recall one in 25 years, but two came close, so I’ll estimate 99.9%

It is CAGW that is political
AGW is based on reliable science

The amount of AGW is unknown and it has been harmless so far.
That does not mean AGW does not exist

I have been noticing an alarming number of climate realists this year who completely reject the greenhouse effect and AGW. That is very disturbing science denying. We can never refute CAGW (usually called “climate change”) by denying AGW. Doing so is counterproductive. We are already losing the CAGW propaganda war — denying AGW, the greenhouse effect and the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is TRUE science denying.

Tom
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 21, 2022 4:31 am

AGW vs. CAGW, vs. no-AGW is all a matter of degree (pun intended). That a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb some solar energy, and then radiate some of that away, is rarely disputed by anyone who passed high school physics. It’s the co-influence of thousands of other factors like clouds, ice, convection, wind, rain, albedo, cosmic rays, thermometer readings, computer models, glaciers, solar orbits, ocean currents, thunderstorms, sunspots, ENSOs, etc., etc., etc., that complicate the issue. One can certainly stack up a list of some of these that will make a case for CAGW, while another one can also stack up some of these to make a case for no-AGW. True science should remain skeptical of both sides. Unfortunately, political non-science (pronounced nonsense) has come down firmly on the C side of the dispute. It’s important for real scientists to remain diligent to keep facts on the table, not hysteria.

Richard Page
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 21, 2022 5:32 am

99.9% of published papers is NOT the same thing as 99.9% of scientists in the slightest.

meiggs
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 21, 2022 5:59 am

I go along with MacRae’s post that attributes ~8% of CO2 rise is caused by humans. Can you give us an idea of the impact of this modest contribution? Or if the rise was running at 8% less would everything be OK?

Shoki Kaneda
August 20, 2022 7:50 pm

Lurch is sad. The Chinese will no longer pretend he is important.

oeman 50
Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
August 21, 2022 6:26 am

Lurch: “PPPPlease don’t leave the table. I need you!”

What a putz.

Dennis
August 20, 2022 8:38 pm

What is the latest warming “tipping point” date of no return?

I wonder why the CCP is ignoring emissions reduction and determined instead to create wealth by growing the economy and having cheap and reliable generators?

Bryan A
Reply to  Dennis
August 20, 2022 9:05 pm

Because they’re selling their cheap and unreliable generators (Wind and Solar) to the reason of the world

Reply to  Dennis
August 21, 2022 3:51 am

According to my calculations, which have required 25 years of effort, the tipping point is either in 19.7425 years, or tomorrow, depending on which assumptions I use. I can’t prove this. However, I have a theory that it is impossible to prove anything, although I can’t prove it. I obviously take climate change very seriously.

Richard Page
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 21, 2022 5:35 am

First define ‘tipping point’ – as Inigo Montoya said “I do not think it means what you think it means.” Or what climate activists think it means, for that matter.

Old Man Winter
August 20, 2022 8:53 pm

Since politics is as phony as All-Star Wrestling was 50 yrs ago, I wonder who all fill Lurch’s trough?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/whats-john-kerry-hiding-memo-shows-bidens-climate-office-is-keeping-elements-we-cant-put-on-paper-out-of-emails

hogtroug.jpg
Rod Evans
August 21, 2022 12:14 am

“Oh dear, how sad, never mind”
The Climate Alarmists are not having a good week are they? Earlier we saw the Dessler embarrassment, a performance so devoid of data and actual facts, he spent his time slot mouthing dire warnings and nothing else.
Now here we have Kerry’s favourite go to for global importance imagery, saying ‘don’t call us and we won’t call you’
China is the control of all things manufactured on the planet and intends to hold onto the manufacturing hegemony. They know they can not engage in virtue signalling such as the Western world has been doing and still be a serious manufacturer.
India have also given the Climate Alarm doom mongers the brush off and so has every major energy user, outside the Western nations influence.
What will the Greens do now?
Are they going to continue to ignore the dragon in the room? Will they continue their refusal to call China out as the largest energy user ever and still growing?
Maybe they will focus on Australian sun shine? That a achieved a first, for ‘half an hour’ solar overtook coal as the prime electricity provider yesterday. Sadly for the alarmists the night arrived and it went to zero. The sunset of their dreams arrived very early.
Maybe they will send their big guns in to debate climate realists. Professor Dessler is a resounding failure at it, so maybe Greta should have a go…..she could not perform any less effectively than Prof Dessler did…. could she?

starzmom
Reply to  Rod Evans
August 21, 2022 5:56 am

China gave up most of its virtue signaling a few years after it regained control of Hong Kong. Whatever fig-leaf vestige of it was left is gone with the Pelosi visit to Taiwan. They will be happy to keep selling us whatever we want to buy, most especially computer chips and computers and solar panels and windmills. So long as we pay cold hard cash.

Not sure when we will figure out we are doomed to be subservient, but it can’t be long now.

Last edited 1 month ago by starzmom
LdB
August 21, 2022 12:24 am

Be nice to us or the climate gets it?

meiggs
Reply to  LdB
August 21, 2022 6:07 am

Be nice to us or you get no manufactured goods…most MSM followers don’t know what it that means…be nice or starve is what is not being said. At the point the Chinese don’t need us I’d speculate that us is in deep do do.

paul courtney
August 21, 2022 3:54 am

Thanks for reposting this fine group of articles, but the first one shows Mr. Burnett just doesn’t get diplomacy. When enviro activists in the west determined that humans were destroying the planet, a scientific consensus concluded the west must save the world by virtue signalling. This would show the third world that western prosperity is a dead end (hey, that’s funny and true!). For awhile, the CCP played along and even found the suicide of the west entertaining. Now they are finding the cost of virtue too high in the east, we must double down on virtue and really show ’em.
I wish this were /sarc.

Richard Page
Reply to  paul courtney
August 21, 2022 5:39 am

There is far too much truth in that comment. Normally I’d agree wholeheartedly but I think people are waking up to the real costs and sacrifice involved – there may yet be a pushback.

meiggs
Reply to  Richard Page
August 21, 2022 6:08 am

The pushback will not be televised…

HotScot
August 21, 2022 4:45 am

Not to worry folks. Griff will be along soon to describe how solar, wind and EV’s in the UK will save the planet.

August 21, 2022 3:45 pm

The less that China (and India) co-operate with the demands of the Lunatic Global Warmist Clique’;s demands, the better it will be for the welfare of all the rest of the impoverished populations of the West.

%d bloggers like this: