Blame China
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:15 pm by David FarrarA fascinating article in The Guardian, which I saw tweeted by Public Address. It is from someone in the room with the Heads of Govt, and makes it very clear China went out of their way to sabotage the Copenhagen conference. The title is:
How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room
As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed
And then the article:
Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.
This says a lot about the so called environmental NGOs that fell for China’s trick hook line and sinker. They are so anti-west that they don’t know what to do, when it is not the West’s fault.
All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as “a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”.
Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.
Yes China controls a few Governments by blocking UN Security Council action against them.
What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world’s most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his “superiors”.
This wasn’t even the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It was someone with no ability to decide anything at all.
To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. “Why can’t we even mention our own targets?” demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil’s representative too pointed out the illogicality of China’s position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord’s lack of ambition.
China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak “as soon as possible”. The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.
Now will we hear this from Greenpeace, or even the Greens? Of course one could do a deal without China, but it would be pointless as their emissions growth would dwarf any reductions the rest of the world manages.
Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China’s negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity (“equal rights to the atmosphere”) in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.
This article from Mark Lynas, should be carried in every newspaper that has covered Copenhagen.
Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.
I suspect this article is going to be quite catalytic, and may lead to a trade backlash against China. Time will tell.
Related posts:
- Copenhagen is worthless
- Frog on Aid and Climate Change
- Groser on Kyoto
- The Nation China Special June 9-10 2012
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:27 pm
What a complete pack of tossers those yanks are, the China factor wins and thank god for that.
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:29 pm
This article is great, except it says we should be praising Obama and blaming Wen Jibao.
We should be thanking Wen Jibao and criticising Obama (and Key).
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:30 pm
The Wankers of the World came up against the reality of three thousand years of wisdom.
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
DPF has officially traded in his right wing membership and joined the left with this approving quoting of this guardianista crap.
And Copenhagen was a disaster? No a bullet dodged – well for the Aussies at least, not for us we still have that horseshit ETS.
We know now why it was urgent to pass it before Copenhagen – because the elite troughers who want to line their pockets by squeezing the productive knew that the AGW bubble was bursting and when the Copenhagen circus was over people would be waking up to this scam.
Well the elite troughers and the maoris they bought off will get our money and we will hold them and their supporters in the contempt they deserve because they are far far more contemptible than wellfare cheats.
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:50 pm
This article from Mark Lynas
sorry you missed the link to the article?
I don’t think the Maori thought that far ahead or have the finesse.
[DPF: The link is there at the beginning]
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 8:50 pm
That sounds awfully like The Science is Settled™
I agree it failed. It didn’t end with our leaders acknowledging that ceding national sovereignty to some global entity, under the guise of global wealth redistribution, is a monumentally stupid thing to do. On the contrary, that primary agenda is still very much alive and kicking.
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Hooray China! They might well have saved the world economy and prevented Obama, Greens, Key, Rudd, Smith and the other climate change cultists from condemning billions of people to a life of continued poverty. And as a bonus, they managed to humiliate Obama at the same time.
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
So there we go, if you want to watch the world leaders quiver like little scared socialists wondering how to announce a recession just before an election – invite China into the room.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Do you all also think George W Bush blew up the Twin Towers?
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Go China – your prize is a few million tons of coal to burn at your leisure. It’s real cheap now because to save the planet we have stopped buring it here at home – but you guys can burn it as much as you like – cause that’s not in our back yard we can pretend to be green – yeee ha.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:04 pm
DPF
So I guess we will be canceling that free trade agreement now ?
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Burt: We won’t as too small, but I can imagine the there may be moves in EU and US to tie trade access to climate change agreement.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
burt – “Can China get by without coal?”
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
I have huge respect for George Monbiot, but agree with you DPF that he may not have it quite right here DPF.
China is not a “developing” country, but it maintains the facade of being one. It is actually up there with the US as one of the two most economically powerful countries in the world. It is at least as imperialist as the US, and is even less democratic. It’s not that far removed politically from the [read fascist] “corporate states” of Germany, Italy and Spain in the middle years of the last century.
DPF:
Well, here’s one Green having his say.
DPF:
Not much we can do here DPF, given that Clark signed a Free Trade Agreement with them – one I recall you supported. Mind you, given the size of our respective economies, not much we could have done anyway, apart from shown some moral leadership to the world.
[DPF: I think the trade backlash may not be at the government level. And yes we are far too small to count.]
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
dpf
Vote:sorry thought you were referring to the bit below the sentence.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:13 pm
I’m not so sure. The personal consumer ideology of ‘best product at best price’ trumps any do-good, save-the-world idealism
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:13 pm
DPF
Too small…. So have I got this right, our leaders think we should commit to billions of taxes to pretend we are being green but are too scared to loose export earnings from China… Wow – what a commitment we have made, tax out own people but don’t upset export earnings. National should just change their name to Labour, I’m sure there are plenty of x-National supporters that would arrange Key’s teeth to make him look the part.
[DPF: It is all about national interest. Us taking unilateral action against China would not be in our national interest. Just as us unilaterally doing a China and refusing to do anything to reduce carbon emissions would not be in our national interest.]
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
China had the sense to realise that Hans Christian Andersen was born in Denmark the capital of fairy tales where the weather is cold enough to get the nipples stiff………Burn coal china, burn our coal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:20 pm
The Chinese snubbing was quite bad. At one point Obama arrived for an arranged meeting with the Chinese Premier only to be told that he was busy talking to some other leaders. So Obama’s security staff pushed the Chinese security staff away to allow Obama to go in saying “are you ready to speak to me now?”
On another plus side, the Sudanese comparing the deal to the Holocaust must have been the first time in a while that a backward muslim government admitted that the Holocaust happened.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Blame China, yeah why not blame China for getting ahead. The rest of the World is on a blamestorming path.
China will be like Japan was after WW2. We had Jap Crap but it ain’t crap no more. Have a drive of a Lexus.
Look around at the Malls. The Asians are there. Look at the style. Nice shoes, pletted skirt, imaculate blouse, hair done well, some light jewelery not shit bling, etc etc.
Now the average mallrat slag in black rugby shorts, big teeshirt to cover the fat guts, dirty jandals, bolt and nut in the nose and belly button, number 2 haircut, 10 screaming kids in tow and only went to the mall to pick up the dope.
I’m not in a hurry about rugby shorts dropping.
I appreciate class
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:33 pm
It is bizarre seeing a bunch of Kiwibloggers cheering China just because it suits one of their chosen ideologies. This deserves a damned hard look at what is really going on. It could be much bigger than cheering for thinking you have won one little battle. One world government is looking more of a nonsense than ever.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I see the carbon trader shysters in the EU are spewing their ring gears out, poor bastards. The price of carbon has taken a dive for some reason, ha ha. I bet their are also a few in this fair land left holding worthless bits of paper, ha ha, I love it. But I’m with Krazy, these bastards won’t give up, they may have lost the battle but one battle does not win the war.
Anyhow three cheers for China.Wealth redistribution doesn’t work i.e NZ, the only way the environment will be the winner is to show the link between economic prosperity and a healthy environment, not robbing people of hundreds of billions of dollars, it won’t work but of course it was never meant to.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Bit touchy tonight Pete, how’s your carbon credits holding their value?
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Beware the socialists!
Beware the scientists!
Beware Obama!
Beware the Muslims!
Hooray for China!
Beware, suckers.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:42 pm
DPF>We won’t as too small, but I can imagine the there may be moves in EU and US to tie trade access to climate change agreement.
What has size got to do with it? If you genuinely think that the CRU and IPCC’s research is solid enough to warrant reducing the world’s GDP by 13% (which is the figure that Richard Tol has been suggesting… amounting to $US40 trillion per year by 2100), then any lesser measure should be equally justifiable. So why wouldn’t we sanction China?
Announce a complete trade ban… The EU and the US Democrats would congratulate us for being willing to sacrifice 100,000 NZ jobs to teach China a lesson. And we’d be able to bask in smug self righteousness. Maybe Harvey Keitel and Willem Dafoe would be able to work it in to a beer advertisement… “You plucky NZers stood up to China when they tried to obstruct a climate treaty and no one else helped you out”.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Pete George
I think Bob Dylan had a song about Obama, what was that peace prize awarded for again?
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 9:45 pm
You’re on to it now Pete.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unpopular. Like or Dislike:December 23rd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
David, you miss the point entirely. China doesn’t care if anyone puts trade sanctions on. The simple fact is that they (Europe) can’t sanction. China owns the world and the world owes them.
Most manufactured goods in those countries come from China as indeed they for here. Quite simply China is too big to give a shit.
Meanwhile we will bankrupt ourselves trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:52 pm
DPF
I think it is about National’s interest. Look if we piss off China they turn the power off in Wellington. That’s because the super brains in Labour had no issue with 100% Chinese ownership of essential infrastructure in NZ – It was only cheeky Canadians wanting 21% voting rights that threatened our sovereignty over our own infrastructure.
Look I know it is international diplomacy and I know that I don’t know much about it – but really, we just sit back and keep selling them coal while they walk all over us ?
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Copenhagen was ALWAYS going to be a waste of time.Anyone with ANY COMMON sense could have anticipated Chinas response to a limiting of its economic output.They just told everyone to get fucked,and thank god for that.AGW bulshit.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Um, no it isn’t and no it wasn’t. But if that bubble of delusional comfort is what keeps you going Luc then who am I to appear with a pin.
December 23rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unpopular. Like or Dislike:December 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Luc
Are you saying – quick sell coal to China for export earnings while reducing our own emissions like Copenhagen would have committed us to doing or are you actually really truly looking at this globally?
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
If you’d taken any notice you would know I was never into carbon credits Bob. I also doubted whether there could be any sort of successful unity at Copenhagen. I also thought people were being sucked in to the noise over so-called climate hoaxes. That may have been a side show, Bob.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Calm down Luc. Copenhagen had little to do with climate, and lots to do with back-room deals, power plays and global aspirations.
Anyhow you know this, the world knows it, the previously AGW fawning MSM now reports it… but seem to want to pretend otherwise. Your position is becoming increasingly untenable, yet to seem determined to cling to it. Odd.
December 23rd, 2009 at 10:27 pm
You have to remember that China was never really involved in the pre-Kyoto talks that were the basis for the philosophy of accounting for emissions at Copenhagen. Kyoto was not based on per-capita emissions, and it was based on ‘production’ rather than ‘consumption’ of emissions.
On both counts China loses. It is estimated that 25% of China’s emissions are embedded in net exports. These are emissions that have essentially been shifted from the west to China as a result of globalisation.
There is one country I know of with a higher percentage of emissions in net exports than China – New Zealand. We should get behind the idea of consumption rather than production based accounting, that is unless we want to go around aimlessly shooting cows so other countries with more diverse economies can produce milk less efficiently.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
yay for China!
Whale – China also has a billion people to feed and needs decent economic growth to survive. They also have an emerging middle class that will be pissed if their lifestyle changes for the worse. They are not untouchable.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
China has a history of making massive foreign policy mistakes. It is primarily these foreign policy errors that have prevented it receiving its due as the middle kingdom. Other errors include:
- Closing down foreign engagement in the 15th century.
- Attempting to force unsustainable terms of trade on British tea merchants.
- Kowtowing to Stalin after the revolution.
Each of these mistakes has led to disaster for China. Yet I wonder whether they have learnt anything? I hope so. I would like to see a strong and sophisticated China taking its place as a regional and world leader. But a crude bullying China may find that it does not really understand the West at all, and the consequences may not be what it anticipates. It would be sad if they repeated the mistakes of the last 600 years.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Hey, Puke, what happened to the glee about eleventy billion world leaders going to Hopenhagen to guarantee the future of global wealth redistribution? Your guilt must be overwhelming right now.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 11:01 pm
China can’t stop. It’s population is expecting growth and needs 5% to 10% every year for many years for it’s people to reach the living standards of those they aspire, the USA.
If at any time growth stops or slows China will face problems as expectations have been raised. Their only option is to expand and as they grow the inputs of food, fuel and raw material will need to increase.
This is a one-way trip with no plan B, even the idea that this is china’s century is set nothing else must get in the way.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Strike one.. its the Guardian
Strike two.. Lynas is a certified AGW apocalyptic loon in the same class as Prince Charles and Imadinnerjacket
Strike three.. Lynas got East Anglia CRU to run three apocalyptic scenarios for him.. remember Phil Jones?
Strike four.. he wasn’t “in the room” when China, US, Brazil and South Africa had their last minute private pow wow that stitched up a deal. Get real.. you dont stitch up a world deal with the media in the room, unless its a charade for said media. In fact the BBC makes it clear the four countries made the deal “behind closed doors” in a “back room”.
Strike five.. Obama announced the deal, not Lynas.. he wasn’t in the room.
Strike six.. think about it.. Lynas, the Guardian and the EU are never going to blame Obama for stuff they can pin on China. They may be disappointed in him, but he’s the only President whos come close to their Socialist bent and they’ll keep hoping. Lynas in particular has an apocalyptic view of China.. and an obvious love affair with the Hopeychangy Man.
The smell of bullshit about this article is really strong.
JC
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 pm
“. . .intentionally humiliated Barack Obama . . .”
That’s not hard. The Ahmadinejad & Chavez have done it all year.
” . . . the idea that this is china’s century is set nothing else must get in the way.”
Yep. That’s the exact sentiment I’ve got when I’ve been working there in recent years.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Emission trading schemes are not the solution, the product must be uneconomic to extract before extraction will decline and cease. If it (fossil fuel) is coming out of the ground it is being consumed somewhere. If that somewhere is not a party to a global reduction plan and the product is not ‘taxed’ at extraction then we achieve zero for global emissions, but we make the traders very rich.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 11:19 pm
But then, if NZ refused to sell China coal because NZ didn’t want to wear the carbon debits then China would probably invade us and take it anyway. OK, a few filthy rich Al Gore’s sounds a bit more palatable all of a sudden.
I love this, the world is working out how to control climate by pulling on on single lever – Guess we gotta learn to go with it, we can’t pack up and leave.
Vote:December 23rd, 2009 at 11:57 pm
DPF: I think the trade backlash may not be at the government level. And yes we are far too small to count.
Too small to count when we’re talking about trade? But big enough to count when we’re talking about reducing greenhouse gases? (What was NZ’s man-made contribution to the atmosphere again?)
ROFL.
Suggestion: let’s reduce greenhouse gases voluntarily and not at the government level. Those whose are alarmist believers can shoot their animals and children and live on lentils in caves. They may NOT fly to alarmist conferences — unless they use hand-woven hang-gliders made from free-range silkworms. Those who are unconvinced that the planet is doomed can continue to live how they choose to as well.
December 24th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Toad makes a valid point about China functionally being similar to the mid-twentieth century fascist states, like Hitlers Germany the Chinese government can control and manipulate its population with unchallenged propaganda in ways that just aren’t possible for western governments.
Vote:Having said that, I have to agree that if treatise to reduce carbon emissions are going to be successful they must be based on a level playing field, with a kg of carbon facing the same cost no matter where it’s produced.
Also it’s silly blaming China for being successfully in looking after her own interests.
December 24th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Good God it reads as if the world/UN is an internet forum.
Maybe it is.
Scary.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 4:38 am
Thank you China.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 5:39 am
Whaleoil (395) Says:
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
David, you miss the point entirely. China doesn’t care if anyone puts trade sanctions on. The simple fact is that they (Europe) can’t sanction. China owns the world and the world owes them.
Most manufactured goods in those countries come from China as indeed they for here. Quite simply China is too big to give a shit.
Meanwhile we will bankrupt ourselves trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. ”
I am totally with Whale on this one.
Plus coming from someone who actually lives in China you may be surprised to know that China is doing it’s bit as far as trying to stem pollution.
Solar panels on rooves and electric bikes everywhere here in Beijing.
I guess they will lead the world in electric cars which is what the world realy needs and will also fuck the Saudis and Muslims.
About time.
Go China!
December 24th, 2009 at 6:34 am
I really get tired every time I see this “trade backlash” if you dont do the “right” environmental thing trotted out. Any “trade backlash” at China (whcih already started as soon as Obama got into power) will be driven by unions (specifically in the US by the Steelworkers) just as any “trade backlash” against New Zealand will be driven by farmer groups.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 6:41 am
You are completely wrong here toad. Once you get away from a shallow part of the east coast (and specifically from Shanghai and Beijing) you can see how primitive many parts of China are.
Economic statistics (and probably never more so than in the case of China) are the classic example of “lies, damned lies, and statistics”. The growth in absolute and average national income in China is real, but when you have the largest population in the world (and nearly a quarter of its people), being the third largest economy does not make you rich, it just makes you big.
Increases in income in China have fallen quite asymetrically (just a fact, not saying its a bad thing). Drive past miles and miles of farmers hoeing by hand, pulling laded rickshaws by hand (or donkey if they are better off) and you will appreciate how far China still has to go to be a “developed” country.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Yeah, electric cars, great Robert but the electricity still has to be produced. You can only have so much solar, hydro, wind but given the size and population of China something else will have to step up. Technology and invention will save us and them, the price of oil will drive invention and innovation.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 7:36 am
“I have huge respect for George Monbiot, but agree with you DPF that he may not..”
The above words by Toad confirm DPF has been lost to the dark forces of the left, and is now a respected “pinko”.
December 24th, 2009 at 7:42 am
burt (3742) Says:
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:19 pm
But then, if NZ refused to sell China coal because NZ didn’t want to wear the carbon debits then China would probably invade us and take it anyway. OK, a few filthy rich Al Gore’s sounds a bit more palatable all of a sudden.”
****************************
Given that they cannot invade Taiwan, indeed they can only lift a brigade, how do you propose they invade NZ? swim?. No, if they want to have a go at NZ, our exporters will find that there are ‘difficulties’ in the paperwork allowing us to export to China.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 7:56 am
“DPF has been lost to the dark forces of the left”
Being on the political right doesn’t mean you have to throw away rational thinking and slavishly adhere to the accepted rabid right view point.
Deniers are all about finding some theory, ANY Theory, to explain the warming since the 1940′s just as long as it’s not AGW, You loons will leap on any half baked idea that looks like it might be a lifeline for you to continue to deny the vast majority of the scientific evidence, your agenda driven myopia is the embarrassment.
December 24th, 2009 at 8:31 am
“Shut up!” Andrew explained
yeah whatever andrew, keep on hiding that decline, faking the data and while you’re at it don’t mention the weather. All will be well if you just shut your eyes and believe hard enough won’t it? Wonder when Phil Jones is off for a spell as a guest of her Majesty?
Or do you still want us to read the propaganda at “realclimate” aka Fenton Communications.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 8:36 am
“All will be well if you just shut your eyes and believe hard enough won’t it?”
You’re the expert in that.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 8:38 am
QED
“Shut up!” Andrew explained
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 8:43 am
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32&p=27159#p27159
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Why should China show any respect for Obama when they can see that he has delivered the US taxpayers into the hands of the bankers? Unless commonsense prevails this fear driven ‘science’ is a setup for tyranny. Why should the poorest be denied the right to develop because the right to control carbon use has been made profitable?
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 9:06 am
KevOB
Vote:The Americans gave up any civil rights they had with the homeland security bills.
Thank God for China and India.
This gives Neville Key some breathing space to get right his scientific advice as it’s biased on this issue.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Poor Andrew, one must sympathise, his whole socialist lefty new world dreams are in the toilet and all you deniers need to be burnt at the stake, oops can’t do that, carbon emissions and all that bullshit. In fact Andrew the real reason Carbonhargen failed is because rabid religious AGW zealots were in such a hurry to seal the ‘deal” they failed to convince the people they had their facts right. Between the lies, the one sided arguments, the non peer reviews, the emails, the activist performers, the third world countries with dreams of all that lovely loot and egotistical politicians the conference was doomed at the start. The left should blame it’s self for the failure that was Carbonhargen, a place where ideology was it’s own worst enemy.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 9:38 am
SSB is abosultely correct…how were they ever expecting 193 participating countries with differing objectives, other than wealth redistribution, to arrive at a common accord?
Now the ETS…to parephrase an Times article in this mornings Dom-Post “If China India Brazil carry on with busniss as usual whatever Europe (New Zealand) does to cut emissions is irrelevent, at best: It will cause pain and hardship for its own citizens to no purpose whatsoever”
Key take note!
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 9:45 am
What a lot of splendid chaps those Chinamen are!
Never had much time for them up until now what with them being Communists, fundamentally deceitful, unable to look you in the eye when you talk with them (an indication of dishonesty rather than any cultural customs), their bad driving, inability to talk a proper language and bizarre eating habits.
But if these chaps have ‘saved Capitalism’ by wrecking Copenhagen and ensuring hard working chaps can continue to earn vast profits, well, gosh, now I see them in an entirely new light!
Well done China!
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 9:49 am
You should have some idea of what my politics are by now SSB, so most of your comment doesn’t make any sense.
Vote:Getting an agreement at Copenhagen was never going to be easy given the certain short term costs were against possible long term benefits. It might have been possible if the whole system hadn’t been allowed to become so complex through being manipulated by politics from the outset, the agreement had to be a level playing field and simple, it wasn’t. So your last sentence is basically right, those promoting the agreement have themselves to blame.
Even if an agreement had been reached I think it probable it would have fallen apart in the next recession.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Robert Black care to name one bloody item that the USA or the EU do not have the ability to make and China does ?
Vote:Now I’m none to keen on the bloody yanks but, China going out of it’s way to humiliate the President of the USA could have a price.
Remember the only thing that the USA needs to import is oil, and they can easily fuck China’s growth up by slamming the trade doors to China down.
The world needs the shit that China makes, bullshit.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:59 am
GOH try rare earth elements: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/business/global/01minerals.html
US is actually taking China to WTO for RESTRICTING exports.
But “ability to make” is pretty meaningless unless you are aspiring to (pre-communist) Albanian or (current) North Korean standards of living.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Perhaps we ought to give Sanlu more credit, who knows what their real motives were, population control = climate control?
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 10:16 am Vote:
December 24th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Grumpy: The USA is in debt (Financially) to China to the tune of hundreds of Billions of dollars…that buys China some credibility and some clout. Its a bit like a borrower going into a bank and telling the Bank manager how to run his business when the borrower next needs a loan. Try it sometime.
The EU and USA have the ability to make anything China does but they gave it up when they realised that they could get it produced cheaper in China than at home and increase their profits at the same time. “Slamming the trade doors” would effectively cripple US/EU investment in China…a bit like shooting yourself in the foot as a lesson to your neighbour.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 10:25 am
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32&p=27159#p27159
I started this subject on the 20th of October 2006. Yep a full 3 years ago. It has had 1833 replies and lots of discussions and 64000 views. Quite a record I’d suggest and here is what is so interesting about all this.
Post no.1. (which you can reread by clicking on the number 1 page and scrolling down was about China’s role in Global Warming.
Call it prophetic if you want but nothing apparently had changed from that day to this with regard to China’s attitude towards its own future. (and who can blame them?)
Today on Kiwiblog is a post that claims to tell the story of China in wrecking the talks and the Greenies and Obama’s aspirations to rule the world with their one world UN sponsored Government.
(the article above)
The reply.
Well I don’t think so, as China has the money and the power and has allies in this debate. It is a giant slap down to those that thought they could tell the two most populace nations of the world, both of which are neither Muslim nor Christian to any extent, to give up control of their destinies to a bunch of thieving loonies.
Ask yourselves if NZ, Australia or a dozen other countries are going to slap China around when we depend on their benevolence for our standard of living. Ditto for India. Europe will sulk and America and England are so broke they have no choices but to continue buying from them. In America’s case there is still the latent individualism that allows for their citizens to run their own lives and companies will ignore their Govt. in the face of trade and business to be done. Which ironically, is where America began with the Boston Tea Party and its over throw of English rule.
So not a lot of upside for the Obama mesiahs there.
Interesting times.
Vote:(Apologies for the double post. Got called away from the last one.).
December 24th, 2009 at 10:26 am
That’s a good quote Reid.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Just a some points in reply to posts above to consider:
China has had an official climate change emissions reduction programme since at least 2006. It puts most of the west to shame. China needs global warming to stop as its ambitious hydro projects stand to be derailed by melting glaciers, just one of the deleterious effects of warming on China.
45% of China’s emissions are as a result goods manufactured for export to the west, including us. Our living standards are enhanced by this trade, so who should take responsibility for these emissions? My intuition is that the responsibility should be shared, say 50/50, which would decrease China’s emissions responsibility and increase ours.
A straight kg/person carbon footprint reduction is simply unfair to the developing nations. For example, if China and the US both reduced emissions by one fifth of US emissions, the US citizens would still be permitted to emit the remaining four fifths, but the Chinese would be reduced to zero emissions. I know the colonialists, the bullies and the meanies here would be quite happy with this, but fortunately the Chinese are now powerful enough to resist that western selfishness, as they showed in Copenhagen.
The just, and the only practical concept (aside from all out war and genocide) is that of contraction (of emissions by the developed world) and convergence, so we all end up with a similar emissions profile. This does entail the end of the west coveting its high standard of living at the expense of the bottom billion or so. But this is not something that needs to happen overnight, and neither should it be feared. We can achieve the maintenance of our living standards by technological innovation, but we need to get stuck in and not take the easy route of continued economic imperialism.
Finally, climate change is not a product of left/right political thinking. It’s just a result of our exploitation of fossil fuels, and its unintended consequences. Climate change should not be used to advance pre-existing ideology. For example, genetic engineering and nuclear power are probably both essential elements of survival for much of the world post-the already inevitable climate change and sea level rise.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
*sigh* Climate change has been with us forever Luc. MWP, LIA, PDO, sunspots etc. Yet you cling to the belief in cataclysmic tipping points driven by human activity. Fortunately your alarmist fellow-travelers are diminishing numerically, and in terms of influence. God bless this interweb thingie.
I agree when you say that “Climate change should not be used to advance pre-existing ideology”. However it’s pretty clear that the hyped fear of manmade climate change is being used expressly for that purpose, the ideology being neo-socialism.
Technical innovation is something we will benefit from, and individual humans have been innovating since a caveman first whacked a flint and exclaimed “Hey shit, this could be useful!”
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Thank you China.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
The concerns in this article assume that AGW alarmism is justified. If not, it looks plain silly.
Vote:I am no sycophant for China, but somebody had to be the little boy who asked why the Emperor was not wearing any clothes. Everybody else has spent 30 years weaving all sorts of self interested schemes under the AGW banner, and propping up the failing case for AGW to keep the band wagon on the road.
It is a huge embarrassment for the West that common sense has gone out the window, and that China has had to step in and tell the truth.
There will be all kinds of hand wringing and discussion about the process being at fault.
That is just self justification to cover up for the embarrassment, and to try and confuse voters from reaching the obvious conclusion.
The international voter backlash that is waiting in the wings in Western countries is not coming from the activists/alarmists. It’s from the Joe Citizen’s who have always wondered what was going on and are beginning to see they have been “had”. It really does look as though increased CO2 in the atmosphere does nothing significant to change the climate, but a great deal to improve food supplies.
Check out the growing body of evidence that AGW is nothing but a scam, with alarmism and managed information on a grand scale. Mark my words, this will go down alongside the South Sea Bubble as one of the great rip offs in economic history.
It’s time for our and other Western governments to back off AGW, and refocus on economic growth, and on sensible issues.
Some serious hard questions we should be asking our political leaders:
Why are we not talking about reduced dependence on politically unstable sources of energy supplies? Set aside the emotion, and what is really wrong with the French nuclear power solution? Why are we wanting to build windmills in poor countries instead of fixing their drinking water, food supplies, disease and other problems? Why do we want to swap food production for biofuel production, with all the human costs of food price and scarcity issues that has followed? Why do we want to spend millions trying to reduce animal farts instead of investing in ways to feed the growing population of the world?
Have we gone mad?
It pains me to say it because I am no fan of Microsoft, but about the only sensible large scale aid I can see going on right now is funded by Bill Gates, in AIDS, other health initiatives and revitalising the wonderful gains in food production efficiency that the environmental movement stymied over the past couple of decades. He is doing some serious good for the world, while the politicians are too busy playing irresponsible power games.
We have allowed AGW to turn the world’s priorities arse about face, and we are looking bloody stupid.
Thank goodness for China’s common sense.
Now we should follow their lead, and let’s get back to the real business of economic growth – and add our genuine caring about the problems faced by disadvantaged of the world.
If the climate does eventually change in some significant way, we will then be in a much stronger position to deal with it.
Truth is, we should probably be a lot more worried about how we will cope with a large scale caldera blow out, earthquake or tidal wave than about the vague possibility the world might get warmer by a few degrees next century. These are more likely international catastrophe scenarios, I suggest, but are pretty much being ignored, because there is no money to be made or power to be gained.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Good grief. All this commentary about what politicians have or have not done about the climate.
All this simply proves politicians are not only incapable of solving problems, but they go out of their way to not do so, just to make political points. And most people believe getting politicians involved is the answer.
It’s not. It’s the problem.
I remember being at an ACT hui a couple of years ago and the topic came up of what policy the party should have for climate change. Various suggestions were made. Towards the end I put my hand up and simply said this: “Why is everyone here arguing for political interference in nature? We should have no policy at all. Then we can simply take the moral high ground that we don’t believe politicians can control the climate, just like they cannot run telecommunication companies, airlines, railways etc”.
Same concept, different issue.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
KiwiGreg come on, the Aussie government can step in at any time and nationalise those mines, so the argument that China controls all the rare earth metals is bullshit.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Pita As you know the US can print as many dollars as it likes, it can do a China and drive the dollar down to 10% of the Euro.
Vote:Are you trying to say that more US Senators would be loyal to China than the USA when it comes to a trade scrap ?
If so you are wrong, there is a hell of a lot of Americans both conservative and liberal who would be happy to pull the trade door on China.
What debt, the USA debt is half of what it was after WW2 in comparison to GDP
Easy to pay off if the dollar is driven down far enough.
December 24th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
grumpy the US can’t just do what it likes to the dollar without taking the consequences.
The main global dollar issue at present is: should it remain as the reserve.
If it drops too far, both China and Japan will be big movers in encouraging a switch.
Conversely, Japan/China have enough holdings to crash the dollar if they so chose. That would destroy the US economy and possibly trigger a Sino-US war.
Vote:December 24th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Puke Hansen loves that China put one in the eye for “Western selfishness” and “economic imperialism.”
Whatever happened to the death sentence for treason?
Vote: