Whatever happened to the death sentence for treason?

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.

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.

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!”

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.

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.
(Apologies for the double post. Got called away from the last one.).

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.

France’s Nicolas Sarkozy blamed China for the apparent collapse of the Copenhagen conference, but that’s only because no one was listening to them in the first place. China made clear that it was prepared to discuss carbon intensity, the issue of efficiency in production to reduce carbon emissions from manufacturing and energy production, but not arbitrary reductions in carbon emissions that would stifle economic growth. China actually has the correct approach, not just for China but for an entire world struggling through an economic crisis.

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.

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

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!