Isn’t it fascinating when we’re given a peek behind the curtain to witness the world’s largest polluter abandoning the Paris Agreement? All the while, the United States and other western nations are crippling their economies and burdening their citizens with unnecessary costs in the pursuit of combating climate change.
As Diana Furchtgott-Roth reports, China’s President Xi Jinping has reiterated his stance that China will not be swayed by outside factors in determining its own approach to emissions. This announcement was made, rather ironically, while former secretary of state John Kerry was visiting Beijing in hopes of rekindling dialogue on climate change.
Xi’s message was, according to Furchtgott-Roth,
“a deliberate slap in the face to America”
https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/china-abandons-paris-agreement-making-us-efforts-painful-and-pointless
and a clear indication that China has no intention of going along with the Western push to net-zero. As Furchtgott-Roth highlights, “In October 2022, he [Xi] said that China would not abandon coal-fired power plants before renewables could substitute for the lost fossil fuel. But this substitution will not occur because fossil fuels generate substantially more energy than renewables.”
So, while the US is busy imposing billions of dollars of costs on its citizens to reduce emissions and pushing stringent policies like the proposed tailpipe rule by the EPA, which would require 60 percent of new vehicle sales to be battery-powered electric by 2030, and the proposed power-plant rule, which would require most power plants to sequester, or bury, 90 percent of their carbon emissions or go out of business by 2040, China is effectively doubling down on its reliance on fossil fuels.
The inconvenient truth is that these EPA rules would impose tens of billions of dollars in annual costs to the U.S. economy, with no tangible reduction to global emissions. As Furchtgott-Roth aptly notes,
“Even if the United States were to get rid of all fossil fuels, this would only make a difference of two-tenths of one degree Celsius in the year 2100, according to Heritage Foundation chief statistician Kevin Dayaratna.”
https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/china-abandons-paris-agreement-making-us-efforts-painful-and-pointless
The proposed tailpipe rule would unfairly burden lower-income Americans by significantly raising driving costs. The required shift to electric vehicles comes with a heavy price tag and several practical issues such as the time it takes to recharge, the lack of charging ports, and reduced range in cold climates.
The power-plant rule, on the other hand, would drastically increase the cost of electricity at a time when the EPA plans to have millions of new electric vehicles accessing the grid. The implementation of such a rule could lead to more blackouts, manufacturing moving offshore, job losses, and an overall reduction in Americans’ standard of living.
As Furchtgott-Roth concludes,
“Because Xi has explicitly and repeatedly said that his country will not reduce emissions until energy from renewables replaces that from coal-fired power plants, all these costs will result in no reduction in global emissions. The EPA has America on a path to all pain and no gain.”
https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/china-abandons-paris-agreement-making-us-efforts-painful-and-pointless
So, as the U.S. and other western nations cripple their economies in the name of reducing emissions, China blithely continues on its own path, demonstrating to the world that the Paris Agreement and the entire global climate change initiative is an exercise in futility. There’s a lesson to be learned here, folks. The world doesn’t dance to the tune of climate alarmism, and it’s high time we stopped trying to lead the band.
H/T energywise, CW
It’s the Lemming Syndrome. Let’s the first one over the cliff.
There is a lot of competition for the first one. The Western country which has the most stupid politicians will win.
I nominate Britain for the stupidest politicians and media. British politicians and media are constantly harping on and on that Britain will lose its status as the world leader in reducing carbon dioxide emissions if we don’t commit all of our resources immediately to our insane net zero targets. It doesn’t matter if we reduce our population to penury; we will be making an example that the rest of the world will be delighted to emulate. I sometimes wonder if I am living in the biggest insane asylum in the world.
Canada is in the running for stupidest politicians:
(Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister) Freeland says tourists won’t visit Canada unless we have a ‘climate plan’
Britain will lose it’s status as a World Leader in Everything Else (they currently lead in) if they pursue economy damaging Nut Zero fantasies
Britain leads in something?
Here is an example of off the charts Offshore energy cost per kWh.
The project consists of wind turbines and cabling to shore
Amortizing a bank loan for 50% of the project at 6%/y for 20 years will cost about 4.36 c/kWh
Paying the Owner for his investment of 50% of the project at 9%/y for 20 years will cost about 4.74 c/kWh (9% because of high inflation)
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, is at least 6.5 c/kWh
Total energy cost about 16.33 c/kWh
After subsidies, and accelerated depreciation, and deduction of interest of borrowed money, etc., the ANNOUNCED energy cost is 8.17 c/kWh (what a bargain!)
Plus at least 2 c/kWh for grid ONSHORE grid expansion/augmentation
Plus at least 2 c/kWh for a fleet of counteracting /balancing plants
US/UK 56,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy
Here is some corroboration for the 2 c/kWh for counteracting/balancing
Wind/solar became 28.4%, or 88.6 TWh, of the 312 TWh of electricity loaded onto the UK grid in 2020; excludes net imports
The counteracting/balancing costs were £1.3 billion ($1.65 billion, or 1.9 c/kWh) in 2020, likely even more in 2021, 2022, 2023.
The US cost would be about 4000/312 x 1.65 = $21.2 billion, on a pro-rated basis, if 28.4% wind/solar loaded onto the US grid.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-balancing-costs-sky-rocket-in-the-uk-due-to-increased-wind
https://www.statista.com/statistics/514874/energy-mix-uk/
“The Western country which has the most stupid politicians”
ooo. ooo .sir… !… can I bet on Australia…..
Although several others are in contention.
A close race, for sure. (UK, Germany, USA, Ireland, Netherlands….. etc etc
Any bets ? (for fun, not money, of course)
I think the Netherlands is making a run on the blindside to use a sporting metaphor
I’d bet but it would have to be in Yuan, all other currencies will be worthless if things progress further to Nut Zero
Surely the stupidest has to be Germany. Abandoning nuclear after Fukushima – despite there being no fault lines there.
Frac, I thought it was the fear of Tidal Waves. Of course, don’t remember the last time on passed thru the Baltic.
Whilst “Lemming Syndrome” certainly exists, lemmings don’t actually commit mass suicide.
The footage of this behaviour was faked by the 1958 Disney nature film White Wilderness.
Much the same as Attenborough in the notorious fake footage of walrus suicide because of climate change.
China:
It seems to be some kind of collective madness infecting the West. Much of it is driven by an irresponsible media that seeks sales and attention through hyping the climate crisis (even when there clearly isn’t one).
Sadly, it’s not just affecting governments and international organisations. Yes, of course, NASA will deliberately downplay the role played by Milankovitch cycles – it relies on government funding to keep going. But I have earnest, intelligent friends who believe in catastrophic manmade global warming. I use the term ‘believe’ advisedly as it appears to be a belief system with people turning away from facts, figures and science.
For example, here in the U.K. we are going to ban domestic gas boilers in 2030. Nobody disputes that gas boilers are a highly-efficient way of heating the home and producing hot water. They work. But they have to go, apparently, because they produce around 17% of the UK’s manmade CO2. Now that actually equates to 0.000002% of the earth’s atmosphere. Yes folks, that’s six places to the right of the decimal point. Anyone can work that out from the available scientific data. But I cannot get a single journalist to write about it. Even my good friend Colin shook his head and told me “Yes, John, but every little helps”.
What can we do about this collective insanity? Whenever I talk science, facts and figures people put their hands over their ears – they literally do not want to hear anything that goes against their belief system. Whenever I want to talk perspective, the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, Homo sapiens have recently arrived and we are all subject to celestial mechanics they want to gabble about this week’s heatwave in Europe.
It’s not just depressing – frankly, it’s weird.
Hello John,
part of the push for heat pumps in the U.K. is because the Department for Energy (In)Security and Net Zero seem to be staffed by un technical people.
They tell me, in response to my l;etters to them, that air source heat pumps are 280% efficient (To the sur[prise of anyone who knows that 100% efficiency is impossible) as one unit of electricity makes 2.8 units of heat. It does not seem to occur to them that this magical elctricity has to be generated and distributed and that the amount of fuel to make this electcity is what should be used as a basis for efficiency calculation.
I maintain that gas heating is more efficient than heat pumps and as the extra demand will mean more gas generation as that is what balances the grid in the U.K.
I’m in the complaint process with the BBC about using the wrong units when talking about this sort of thing. There’s been a bit of an issue with Solar PV in the East Midlands region with two large Solar PV farms being refused planning permission.
My gripe is they talk about 50GW Solar PV enough to supply 100k homes, or whatever it is that day, which is totally meaningless in terms of what it actually does. They should talking about two things the total annual GWh and the peak output at midday each month. Because the reporters don’t know what they are talking about and don’t understand what units they should be using and how that relates to the total. As a result they can’t ask difficult questions and because the BBC only employs true believers they pull the wool over their own eyes.
“What can we do about this collective insanity? Whenever I talk science, facts and figures people put their hands over their ears – they literally do not want to hear anything that goes against their belief system.”
I think economics is going to be the backbreaker for Western “Renewables”. It’s getting to the point where ordinary people are questioning why their utility bills are going sky-high.
This article here is going to be followed by many more as reality dawns on the Western world.
The Earth is not going to get to Net Zero. Give it up now, and save us a lot of money.
One thing struck me recently….
In the past, people could nod their heads and agree with clean green wind power. What’s not to like when the wind farm is not behind your own house.?
But – the more farms go up in plain-site – near offshore, and onshore, the more people will see them NOT turning, and so are far more likely to call-out the NZ policies as not fit for purpose. To put it mildly.
Now here’s a real tin-foil hat idea. Why do you suppose they banned new onshore wind farms in the UK? …
Because they knew that stationary wind turbines would be seen by millions of people….
In the oil crisis of the late 1970s early 80s The Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) in the UK was categorical that wind power was of little use because of its variability.
How times have changed!
Tom, then don’t talk science, facts and figures. Just say this will cost you a shit-load of money; your standard of living will go down and you will become much more uncomfortable. Your kids and grandkids will go hungry and shiver in the dark. If they want to know why, only then tell them. You can’t fix ideology.
Watched E4 of “Earth” on BBC last night with Chris Packham….
Cognisant of the earlier dialling-down of the AGW rhetoric in prior episodes, I again was listening very clearly. The episode was called “Atmosphere”……
“Ah ha” I says to mesel…..”plenty of scope here for commentary about C02…..”
Keep in mind this is a major production with CP in various parts of the globe. Heavily scripted – every shot and every bit of text would have been worked through in the production process….
Results of my audit?
The words “climate change” (and derivatives thereof) were not mentioned
In the piece about composition of the atmosphere CP said “it is made of 78% nitrogen – 21% Oxygen and the remaining 1% containing trace elements and CO2 fractions of 1%”
“Here it comes” I think – some warning about how the increase in CO2 is a problem yada yada….
Nope – nothing – he moved straight on to the next item……
As I said – every word will be scripted, reviewed, edited, rehearsed…….
And nothing……
I find this very interesting….
This belief in global warming is probably similar to the religious crusades to re-conquer the holy lands during the Middle Ages. On November 27 in the year 1095 Pope Uban II proclaimed that “God wills it.” With all respect to the Catholic Faith and to God, I doubt that God willed any such thing. Yet thousands of kings, nobles and commoners gave their lives and fortunes to do what they thought was God’s will. If they had stopped to think about it, they would have realized that a God who talked about peace and turning the other cheek probably did not will a futile war.
Now we have our own high priests telling us that Earth demands that we sacrifice our prosperity. If they stopped to think about it, they would realize that nothing is changing in the climate. But once again people are sewing big red crosses onto their clothes by driving their electric cars, putting solar panels on their roofs, and demanding sacrifices.
So rainy 18° is a heatwave?
I’ll see if I can find an interesting essay I read on the psychology of why seemingly very intelligent, successful critical thinking people blindly “ follow the science “.
China mass media spreads the message, fossil fuels are good for high economic growth.
CO2? Never heard of it.
The GOLDEN BILLION Western media spreads the message, expensive wind/solar/batteries are good for low economic growth, which we have to grin and bear to fight global warming.
You will own nothing, and you will be happier than ever
Bozos’s $500 million yacht to the scrap heap?
The Spanish Inquisition is coming
Be prepared to get cancelled for making “improper choices”
After a lot of pain, there will not be any gain, even by 2050
How long will it take, before all hell breaks loose?
And of course, as the push for electric vehicles intensifies, guess where the latest “cheaper” versions will be made.
In response, Western governments have all signaled their intention to engage in trade wars. The Big Guy 10% Joe “Biden Brand” Brandon’s latest green/Leftist Spend-O-Rama includes such trade restrictions. All of the other Western governments are rushing to emulate it according to official pronouncements.
China is looking after China’s interest?
Well, why not?
The key graph to remember about AGW politcs is this from Our World in Data:
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters
China knows that poverty kills far more effectively than AGW. They have practical experience.
Even the Chinese Communist Party cannot expect to keep power if it suffers repeated famines.
“Even the Chinese Communist Party cannot expect to keep power if it suffers repeated famines.”
Or if it suffers a serious economic downturn.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/yuan-loses-core-support-firms-leave-china-2023-08-07/
That is an incorrect assumption. Russia survived it for many years and North Korea is doing the same. It comes down to being willing to put all your resources into a military police state. The only good job in the country is in the system so there is no shortage of people to suppress the population. Less that 10% of the population can control the remainder of the population.
The problem is China still has the resources to wage war and the desire to do so. Until those resources are exhausted, it will be a very dangerous place.
I hear Putin is now on shaky ground as far as remaining Russia’s leader, after the fiasco in Ukraine.
It could happen to Xi, too.
Attacking Taiwan is Xi’s ego trip. Some of the other leaders may not agree that a personal ego trip is worth the possible destruction of China.
“”There’s a lesson to be learned here, folks.””…..
“”Tony Blair has warned against asking the public to do a “huge amount” to tackle climate change, saying Britain’s net zero efforts cannot solve global warming alone.
…
what the UK could achieve would be dwarfed by the impact of action by countries such as China.””
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/spare-public-huge-burden-of-net-zero-says-tony-blair/ar-AA1es1Yh
Probably ‘Science’ still functions in China
Someone wrote a while ago (Daily Telegraph, I think) that most of China’s political hierarchy were scientifically educated. What a pity that so few of ours were!
I’ve been hoping for this outcome all along.
There is no climate crisis, let alone one caused by man’s emission of CO2.
If China pulls out, hopefully others will follow and the entire net-zero nonsense will be consigned to history.
PS: I just wish the Chinese and others would come out and challenge the anthropogenic global warming ‘consensus’ and emphatically declare it their opposition to it.
That would really set the cat among the pigeons.
“PS: I just wish the Chinese and others would come out and challenge the anthropogenic global warming ‘consensus’ and emphatically declare it their opposition to it.”
They won’t. They are not that stupid. When your enemy is killing himself and asking you to do the same, any smart person would never tell them its stupid. You agree to play along until he’s at death’s door, then laugh in face as he passes away.
Too much money producing the things the rest of the world thinks they need. Electric cars, windmills, solar cells and energy efficient devices that have to be replaced after a short period of time.
“If China pulls out”
China has not pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord.
There is no reason for them to pull out. The agreement allows China to emit as much CO2 as they desire until the year 2030, and then in 2030, China will assess the situation, but there is no requirement that they reduce their CO2 output even then, it is just assumed by the West that this will happen.
So China has no need to pull out of the deal. It’s perfect for them. They can appear to be doing something about CO2, while actually doing just the opposite. And since they are the major producer of “Renewable” components in the world, they make a whole lot of money pretending CO2 is a problem, even though their actions show CO2 reductions are less important to them than economic growth.
The IEA have recently published their ‘Coal Market Update July 2023’
This says that global coal demand reached a new all time high in 2022 rising above 8.3bn tonnes..
China’s coal demand grew 4.6% in 2022 to a record high of 4519Mt.
India’s coal demand increased by more than 8% to 1155Mt.
Coal demand in Indonesia “soared” by 36% making it the 5th largest coal consumer after China, India, US and Russia/
China and India together consume double the amount of coal as the rest of the world combined
In 2024 China, India and the ASEAN region is expected to account for 76% of all coal consumption
China has not explicitly repudiated the “Paris Agreement”. They won’t. They still use it to trash talk the US. Regardless of what they may believe about AGW, it is in their own best interest to go along with the rhetoric and have their competitors self destruct.
This story is just nonsense. China remains a signatory to the Paris agreement. In that agreement, each government set different pledges/targets. China undertook to make its best effort to peak its CO2 output by 2030. It may not make that, but then very few countries in the world are currently on course to meet their pledges either (including the US).
Meanwhile, we just had the warmest month ever recorded by instruments, globally, and Antarctic sea ice is currently smashing its previous record low extent, which was only set last year.
What had warm weather got to do with China and an agreement made in Paris?
You might want to read the Paris Agreement. Article 2 is specifically about setting goals for limiting global temperature increase.
So what? Nobody is following that nonsensical agreement. It is a socialist fantasy aimed at killing Western free market capitalism.
China haven’t backed out of it, contrary to what the misleading headline of this article says.
There’s nothing for China to back out of. China is exempt.
No it isn’t. Read the thing!
“read the thing”
COMPREHEND.. is not a word you understand, is it , FN. !
If you had bothered to read my earlier comment you would have seen that I agree with China not having withdrawn.
Here, I have simply stated a fact that countries are not following the Paris Agreement because it is an anti-capitalist pile of crap.
“China not having withdrawn.”
Nope, not officially…
But they have just stated that they will just ignore the agreement whenever it suits them.
It is like someone promising to pay back a loan…
… then saying “nope, bad luck” !
They haven’t withdrawn from the agreement, they are just ignoring it.
Are you saying that investment in renewable energy sources, EVs, etc doesn’t generate profits?
Profits only for venal politicians, the bloated Deep State and its overpaid denizens, overpaid academia and its huge institutions, wealthy NGOs and crony capitalist profiteers. All of it being paid by taxpayers and everybody through inflation of energy and all other products’ costs.
Very obviously it GENERATES COSTS.
Many “renewables” companies are going under.
The only “profit” in the renewables market comes from government subsidies.
And the CEOs take that “profit” and secrete it in some Swiss or other bank account, as a backup for the company fails,
I agree, to an extent. They’re not meeting their obligations for domestic economic and political reasons. But the climate doesn’t seem to care about such things.
Extreme weather events have not changed in over 120 years. Its slightly warmer since the end of the Little Ice Age, with UHI polluting surface temperature data that disguises any actual trends.
So, yes, the climate doesn’t care a hoot what Man does and what the idiot politicians may or may not agree to. And the over 43-year temperature trend of UAH6 (a period during a cyclical upswing in global temperatures) went from 0.134℃/decade to 0.135℃/decade last month because of unusual weather patterns. The world is not going to fry from a maximum temperature increase of 1.3℃ or 1.4℃ over the next hundred years.
They only exist because of political reason.
If it was purely economics, they wouldn’t exist either.
True, the “climate” doesn’t really care about anything humans do.
You have no evidence that humans are affecting “climate” except in the microclimates of urban developments and airports etc.
“China’s President Xi Jinping has reiterated his stance that China will not be swayed by outside factors in determining its own approach to emissions. “
China were never really part of the Paris Agreement anyway.
So they have nothing to “back out of”.
The above statement makes that fact very clear.
Go tell that to China, India, Indonesia and the ASEAN region, who are set to increase their coal use to a record of 76% of world consumption by 2024 (IEA) and see what answer they give you.
See above. China have not undertaken to peak their CO2 emissions until 2030 at the earliest. That’s in the Agreement which they signed up to and remain a signatory to. I agree that all countries should be making a bigger effort to meet their commitments.
Your argument is, if I understand this correctly, that China is in compliance with Paris because it has no obligations to do anything until 2030 and thus cannot be shown not to intend to comply.
Meanwhile, they are opening new coal plants at a record pace. I think we can agree on that. Why would they go to that expense if they were going to have to close large numbers of coal plants starting in 2030?
I get that your religion requires you to Believe that China will suddenly shut down a large percentage of coal plants. However, if they did, they could not supply us with all the parts and materials necessary for wind turbines and solar panels and car batteries.
The real “emergency” is that at some point, it’s going to be obvious even to all but the most religious high school “science” teachers that CO2 doesn’t drive the climate. CO2 measurements will continue to increase and Mann’s hockey stick will disintegrate and yet the world still won’t be on fire. Sure, your projections of doom will be extended another ten years, as they have repeatedly already, but you’ll lose followers.
So I get your desperation. You’re starting to doubt and your only way out is if China and India actually comply with Paris to the same extent as the US and Europe. Which, of course, would eliminate energy security, but you seem to be secure that your own needs will be met by benevolent governments, thankful for your faith (they won’t).
I didn’t say China was in compliance with the Paris Agreement (although, technically it still is because, like most other countries that set targets, the target date hasn’t arrived yet). I don’t think it will make its 2030 target for CO2 peak emissions.
Crucially though, they haven’t given up on the Agreement. They certainly haven’t backed out of it, contrary to what the headline of this article suggests.
Climate change is hitting China as hard, if not harder in some ways, as everywhere else. For all its faults, one thing the Chinese government isn’t is stupid. They are progressing fast with their renewables. They are not in denial of reality, which is something that can’t be said for all parties in this discussion.
The key is that they don’t rely on their unreliable renewables. They haven’t “backed out” because they were never required to do anything to be in. The evidence of backing out is in constructing plants that they would not construct if they intended to meet those obligations.
I don’t see any evidence “climate change” is hitting anyone hard. The attribution pseudoscience these days means anything bad that happens (like periodic flooding in Vermont) gets put into that category. But you don’t have any access (unless you’re part of the Communist government of China, in which case you’d probably be risking imprisonment by posting here) to detailed information about China. They keep a tight lid on this stuff. I suspect you’re just making it up or repeating something someone just made up.
You use the word “denial” a lot. That’s religious. Most of us are just skeptical of a cult that claims the end is nigh, over and over. I know you want to be important, to be part of the end of something that has lasted billions of years. But the odds are overwhelmingly against anything significant happening during our short lifetimes. We just aren’t that important. All we can do is screw over our children. And then maybe their children can rebuild the energy grid. Still insignificant. But your approach will cause immense harm to those least able to financially deal with the loss of energy security.
You’re not looking hard enough.
How is it religious? I usually say ‘denial of reality’, where I mean ‘reality’ to be the published scientific data, such as UAH’s July 2023 update; the warmest month ever reported in that data set. Religion, or faith, implies belief without evidence. Plenty of evidence for my statement.
None of the science suggests that the world will end in our lifetimes. Nor have I suggested it.
Under the Agreement, all countries have to report their emissions data by end 2023, so we’ll see.
Perhaps poor people living in places like Pakistan, among many others, would beg to differ.
“You’re not looking hard enough.”
You obviously aren’t either, because you have never presented any.
You are the one in DENIAL , FN,
Denial of urban heating, denial of aircraft jets being hot, denial of heating by air-con exhaust, denial of basically everything that is real and proven.
Even in DENIAL that there is no evidence of warming by human CO2 despite the fact that you have never been able to produce any.
China has made it blatantly clear that they couldn’t give a damn about anything they may or may not have agreed to in Paris.
That the Paris agreement is IRRELEVANT to them.
“Perhaps poor people living in places like Pakistan, among many others, would beg to differ.”
Yes, they are already being hit VERY hard by the anti-CO2 agenda.
They are being denied access to reliable energy supplies, being forced to continue to cook using dung and other refuse.
They are being denied access to many things that western society takes for granted that are supplied by access to fossil fuels.
You are very fortunate to have access to all those things, FN.. and we all know that there is absolutely no way you would go and live in the conditions that the anti-CO2 agenda is forcing on so many of the world’s poorer countries.
EVERY aspect of even your pitiful life is totally reliant on the western world’s access to reliable energy and the many products that come from fossil fuels and the use of fossil fuels.
And that will not change without a devastating effect on society as we know it.
Those at the very bottom rungs of society, like you, will be the first to suffer the most.
I looked hard for evidence of climate change “hitting people hard” in the last couple of UN IPCC Assessment Reports and its Special Report on Extremes. And there was no evidence of increasingly extreme weather since before the year 1900 up until the present. Where did you look to find your “plenty of evidence,” TFN?
The UAH6 dataset began at the end of the coldest period of the 20th Century; warming should be expected since it is cyclic. And warming of 0.135℃/decade in a cyclic 43-year temperature upswing period is not causing the climate any problems at all.
The only thing the poor people of Pakistan and elsewhere are begging for is more abundant, inexpensive and reliable fossil fuel power to bring them out of abject poverty. With a better economy and more resilient infrastructure they would be better able to withstand the periodic floods and droughts they have always endured.
“because they were never required to do anything to be in”
When they actually signed, they were already close to their stated target because they had so much hydro.
Since then, they have been building coal fired power stations hand over foot.
They couldn’t give a stuff about the PA… and never have.
“They are not in denial of reality,”
What sense does it make to destroy Taiwan and possibly get into a nuclear war with the United States? There is absolutely no good reason to attack Taiwan. It’s a lose/lose situation.
I think Xi, although smart, is in denial of possible realities.
“they haven’t given up on the Agreement.”
LOL..
So what do you think it means when XI says..
“China will not be swayed by outside factors in determining its own approach to emissions. “”
It obviously means that the Paris agreement means nothing to them….
… or is your comprehension so poor that you can’t see that fact.
“Climate change is hitting China as hard, if not harder in some ways, as everywhere else.”
What a load of anti-fact mantra nonsense. !!
Describe this climate change that is hitting China so hard. Show where extreme weather in China has worsened over the last 120+ years. The rest of the globe has not experienced extreme weather becoming more frequent, intense nor of longer duration since before the year 1900. Normal annual and decadal variations don’t count as long-term climate change.
The only reason to stop burning is that those FF are so useful for so many other things. However, they are not useful to dead people, becoming which seems to be the general plan of the West.
Again, you still either can’t read or can’t understand this straightforward statement.
““China’s President Xi Jinping has reiterated his stance that China will not be swayed by outside factors in determining its own approach to emissions. “”
He is effectively saying “whatever agreement was made, it doesn’t matter to us”
You do not have to remain totally clueless all your life.. but it is the choice that you appear to have made.
The U.S. didn’t commit to jack shit at Paris; it was the narcissist Obama that couldn’t commit the U.S. to binding goals in order to dodge Senate approval of a treaty. Since the Senate didn’t approve the Paris Agreement it doesn’t commit the U.S. to anything. The U.S. has no Paris commitments and never did.
Every country is exempt. There are no “requirements’ for anyone, only self erected political talking points.
Every country is still a signatory, right? Apart from maybe Libya and Yemen and a few minor others?
The problem the PA was aiming to curtail is getting worse, by any reasonable measure. Unless that changes, and there’s no sign of that happening, no matter how many daft posts from ‘NoTrickZone’ et al. get re-posted to the support groups on sites like this, then the PA is just the beginning of what will need to be done.
“what will need to be done.”
You really are living in la-la-land, aren’t you.
Just for hilarity’s sake……
What do YOU think “needs to be done”?.. and why ?
NOTHING actually needs to be done except stopping the idiotic anti-CO2 agenda, and realising that the world functions FAR BETTER with reliable energy supplies and that plant life functions far better on increased atmospheriic CO2.
The U.S. is not a signatory to the Paris Agreement because the U.S. Senate did not agree to it as a treaty; only treaties can commit the U.S.
The PA was signed by two Leftist U.S. Presidents as an “Executive Agreement.” In between the two, a rational President took his approval away from it. A single person, President or not, cannot commit the U.S. to any foreign agreement.
No amount of “cutting carbon emissions” will make the slightest difference in limiting global temperatures.
The Paris agreement is just EMPTY anti-science rhetoric…
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT.
Very shouty, isn’t he? Bless him.
No counter of the facts.
Just more of your mindless blether.
You really are a non-entity, aren’t you.
Your home town is missing its village idiot. !
What has warm weather and ice got to do with China and an agreement made in Paris?
I replied to this earlier. I think it was an accidental re-post by SteveG, but since that reply has moved upstream by a fair distance, here goes again.
Article 2 of the PA ties emissions to temperatures. That’s it.
“Article 2 of the PA ties emissions to temperatures”
Which is, of course total anti-science BS.
As I have said before, the PA is just mindless political posturing and virtue-seeking.
It is basically meaningless in every other context.
And that relationship comes from running crap through unrealistic, unphysical and proven-to-run-too-hot UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models. When the wheels started falling off the high-ECS models and it became clear that there was a high chance of staying under the arbitrary 2℃ limit this Century, the socialist zealots at the UN came up with the pull-it-out-of-our-asses 1.5℃ limit for Paris.
Once again Rusty, I have the opportunity to show that I am open to listening to your criticisms of skeptical articles, while you stick religiously to your dogma.
You are absolutely correct that the spin my side put on this is nonsense. (Or more accurately it’s sarcasm). As Tom Abbott ably pointed out, China will never exit an agreement that massively benefits China at the expense of all Western economies.
I guess the author is being sarcastic. Although the facts are true that China is making clear that they will never make any sacrifices or do anything to actually achieve a goal of leveling off emissions by 2030, it’s a bit misleading to describe the situation as “China Abandons Paris Agreement”. What they are doing is abandoning all best efforts to achieve any limitation on their emissions and taking maximum advantage of the one-sided agreement that our leaders have signed onto.
Care to acknowledge that this is a fair assessment? Holding my breath! (Not)
Hello Rich. Yes, that is a fair assessment. Pretty much all I’ve been saying myself. You’ve currently got 2 up-votes and I’m currently on 31 down-votes, but I’m not bitter.
Yet you do not think that our leaders should withdraw from this suicide pact even though you agree that it benefits China at our expense?
I up-voted you so you don’t have to cry in your beer. But try some common sense! What is the point of dismantling our economy to benefit China and not even achieve the goal of limiting emissions? Never mind whether CO2 is causing any harm which you know I don’t agree with. But even if CO2 were causing a problem, how does it make sense to wipe out our economies in the West to not reduce emissions?
So they have, to all intent and purpose, abandoned the Paris Agreement.
Meaning that you are agreeing to the very thing you are making a gibberish attempt to argue against.
Hilarious. 🙂
Bullshit. The down-votes come for your off-the-wall comments about extreme climate change.
It makes perfect sense for China. The Paris “agreement” is meaningless.
China needs as much FF as it can get, in order to pump as much CO2 into the air to create the energy its heavy industries require to build all the wind turbines, solar panels, EV’s and batteries the loony west wants.
This is because the western bureaucrats & politicians believe they need to and can change the long-term weather of the planet. This is because a simulation from a mathematical model has “spoken” the truth, and unless the entire population of the globe only drive an EV, and use only \”green” lectric power for everything the planet will cease to exist.
From the article: ““Even if the United States were to get rid of all fossil fuels, this would only make a difference of two-tenths of one degree Celsius in the year 2100, according to Heritage Foundation chief statistician Kevin Dayaratna.””
Even the Heritage Foundation pretends to know how much warmth a given amount of CO2 will add to the Earth’s atmosphere.
The Heritage Foundation, just like everyone else who claims to know this number, is just guessing. They are assuming based on the assumptions of others. It’s pathetic. They think they know what they are talking about with regard to CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere. They are assuming too much.
Presenting assumptions as established fact is just wrong. When anyone does it.
Yes, but such “figures” aren’t representing alleged “facts,” instead they simply use the alarmist’s speculative nonsense to illustrate just how meaningless these policies are and how little POTENTIAL effect they will have, EVEN IF we accept their bullshit.
But I agree, they should make it clear, i.e., “even accepting the purely speculative supposed effect of emissions, doing X would have a mere Y effect” for example.
Followed by yet more back-to-reality indications, such as “but such speculation has never been shown to be accurate, nor will it make any difference since reductions in western nations are simply going to be reversed and multiplied by China, India and other so-called “developing” nations.”
You said it better than me. 🙂
The numbers are based on what the Holy Climate models calculate. The climate models are the supposed reason for doing all this nonsense. The Word is what says it is useless even it it were somehow meaningful. Quoting The Word in order to point out the folly does not mean that one believes The Word. Don’t you recall “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”
It is all based on mathematics. Simulated predictions, crystal ball . In fact the detail in the grand global plan of Nut-Zero is modelled.
So we have a modelled future climate catastrophe attempted to be averted by implementing plans based on other models using certain outputs from the climate models.
Technocrats living in a hyper-realism.
The U. S. is in such disorder it is a wonder anything still functions.
It is now a sideshow to the rest of the world.
The rabid pack is running amok.
I think most of that disorder can be layed at the feet of Joe Biden, and the radical Democrats.
The U.S. was doing very well until Biden took over. Over 500,000 jobs were created in Trump’s last quarter. Of course, Crooked Joe Biden took credit for them.
[Laid or Layed? I looked it up. My first impulse was to use “layed”. Here’s what the search engine says about it: “LAID is the past tense of the verb “to lay” which usually means “to set something down”, while LAYED is an archaic word that nobody uses anymore.”
So, since nobody uses it anymore, I thought I would go ahead and use it.]
I guess I’m really archaic; as a youth on my family’s chicken ranch in California we said the “chicken layed an egg.” 75 and still kicking, but not laying eggs.
I guess we are both archaic. 🙂
stop feeding the beast – CO2 is not a pollutant – and as the US Sec. of Energy recently said – there are things we can learn from China – like energy security
If I’ve said this once I’ve said it a dozen times. What China *says* they’re *going to do* at some future date means nothing. As the “deadline” approaches, the goalposts will be pushed further away.
At this point, their meaningless and cynical “commitment” is nothing more than reaching their “PEAK” level of “emissions” by 2030. WITHOUT ANY limitation on *how much* whatsoever.
That also assumes their “reported” emissions are honest…
To the extent Xi cheerleads any imaginary “need” to reduce “emissions,” it is only to encourage China’s economic/political/military rivals to continue running towards the cliff that “climate” policies represent.
Privately, he is laughing at our gullibility.
The Chinese always play the long game and not having to worry too much about elections always helps.
Crooked Joe and the other radical Democrats like the Chicom Model of government. They are trying to adopt it as their own even now.
I am not a fan of many of Xi’s policies and I firmly believe the Chinese system of a centrally planned economy combined with rampant corruption and very little front line decision-making is doomed to catastrophic failure in the near future. That said, Xi has made the right and only rational decision about energy infrastructure in China. The welfare of the Chinese people, their economy and Xi’s political future depend on this. Wealthy Western nations are largely governed presently by politicians too near-sighted to see what Xi sees. They will pay the political price but not before doing enormous damage to our quality of life and economic strength.
Xi doesn’t care about the people and only cares about power. His decisions about the economy expand his power or he would instead be targeting a healthy internal economy. He wants workers to build his war machine and earn the resources to pay for it. He want the people to serve in his military so he can control the pacific and beyond. He is no more than a cold hearted dictator and until people wake up to that fact, they are in great danger. Stalin was though of as a kind gentleman but history proved different.
I respectfully disagree. It may well be that Xi has no compassion or concern for the welfare of his citizens on its own merit, but he knows that dissatisfaction among the people about the life he provides them is a deadly threat to his ongoing leadership.
Very misleading headline. China did not abandon the Paris Agreement. This article is just some vague opinion piece.
They have, however, said that they won’t let the PA have any effect on what they want to do in the way of electricity development…
If that isn’t “abandoning”, then there must be an appropriate synonym.
China is actually standing firm on its Paris Accord commitment, which was to keep INCREASING emissions for 15 years.
It was blatantly obvious from the start that the Paris Agreement and the entire global climate change initiative is an exercise in futility. They just didn’t want to believe it. A clear instance of cognitive dissonance.
The money that China and Russia have spent buying politicians is paying major dividends.
Crooked Joe isn’t being too hard on the Chicoms, and he is dragging his feet on Ukraine, and it appears the Biden Crime Family got paid handsomely by these people..
We may find out why in the near future when Congress comes back in session.
Is there any other family in the entire world that has had 170 Bank Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) filed on them with the Treasury Department? This *has* to be a record! Btw, the Biden Treasury Department is currently refusing to supply Congrss with the SAR’s on Biden. That’s ok, though, because Congress already got the SAR’s from the banks.
What was the Biden Crime Family selling? We know they were selling Crooked Joe’s influence, but to what purpose? That’s what will be real interesting. What did the paymasters get for their money? Are they still getting dividends from these payments?
Is our president compromised by enemies of the United States?
Kerry? Mr. Kerry?
Futile is right…
story tip
How faulty wind turbines threaten to bring down a German industrial powerhouse (yahoo.com)
The EPA needs to be shut down now, they have done enough damage.