UN official praises China’s political system

January 22nd, 2014 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Bloomberg reports:

China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is also the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing global warming, the United Nations’ chief climate official said.

Really?

In 2008 China emitted 7.03 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions, which was 23.5% of the global emissions.

In 2012 China emitted 9.86 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions, which was 28.6% of the global emissions.

To put it another way, global emissions increased by 5.6 billion tonnes in four years, and China contributed 61.3% of that increase. This is what the most senior official calls “Doing it right”. She should be sacked.

China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said.

By this, she means the legislature is a puppet of the ruling party. So what she is really saying is she thinks a one party state system of government is better than a democracy because it is easier to implement climate change policies, even ineffective ones.

The political divide in the U.S. Congress has slowed efforts to pass climate legislation and is “very detrimental” to the fight against global warming, she said.

So what has happened with US emissions?

2008 – 5.46 billion, 18.3% of world
2012 – 5.19 billion, 15.0% of world

So this UN official praises China for increasing it emissions, criticises the US for its reduction in emissions, and praises the Chinese political system for its effectiveness in fighting climate change.

 

Tags: ,

43 Responses to “UN official praises China’s political system”

  1. igm (862 comments) says:

    Why the hell do we have anything to do with this UN bullshit? It is another dropping ground for failed socialists, on a larger scale than Wellington Regional Council, full of non-productive leeches and weirdos . . . look at the contribution NZ has made to UN!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nostalgia-NZ (4,688 comments) says:

    Another commie space cadet. Imagine the rating China will get for it’s handling of waste oil.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (12,624 comments) says:

    Was it comrade Helen Clark, a known enemy of the USA, who said it? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    The USA decline is not so much a matter of policy impact as economic decline since the GFC and transfer from coal sourced power generation to gas with new extraction techniques.

    The increase in China is not so much a result of more emissions per economic output as the level of increase in economic activity – and increase in standard of living of the people (urbanisation).

    The question is emissions level per economic activity and level of urbanisation compared to other nations.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    Kissing up to China. Anyone who praises the Chinese political system is either delusional or paid by them.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Nostalgia-NZ (4,688 comments) says:

    Ok SPC, that makes sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dave_c_ (205 comments) says:

    She’s just stating the obvious (at least to those who follow whats going on in the US) – This shows they are attempting to remove any remaining obstacles to the introduction of a totalitarian dictatorship regime in the US.
    That pesky ‘democracy’ illusion – we must remove it, to further our agenda !

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. flipper (3,270 comments) says:

    A few things about that post:

    * As others have said, this silly personage is a known ultra left winger
    * She advocates for China, solely to apologise for its smaller than expected emissions increase
    * The reduced increase is due to solely to the slow down in China’s economic growth
    * The silly woman has stroked China, because without China’s support the whole emissions scam will fall like cards
    * Talk of CO2 emission is bullshit.
    * CO2 emissions per se are NOT a problem -they are life giving
    * It is the nasty carbon and other solid residues which are a health problem, but not necessarily any other (DAGW/CC, for example) problem
    * No one can sensibly advocate for any increase in nasty emission solids
    * China’s economic slow down has reduced the expected increase in solid emissions….and the circles goes around and around.
    * Keep China in the “game” and the whole IPCC scam will stay alive, albeit on life support
    * Keep the IPCC scam going and her tax free extravagant salary will continue

    En passant will someone explain where there is

    a. Any properly peer reviewed research that confirms CO2 has INCREASED TO THE DETRIMENMT OF MOTHER GAIA?

    b. Evidence of any increase in global temperatures due to current atmospheric CO2 levels?

    c. How any temperature increase would be detrimental to “life as we know it or would wish it to be”?

    I could go on and on… BUT .. well spotted and rubbished DPF :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Yoza (1,348 comments) says:

    How much of China’s emissions are a consequence of its status as an assembly plant for Western corporations? These excess emissions, like those experienced in Chine, are more of a consequence of Western businesses moving production to low wage economies with lapse environmental standards.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. wreck1080 (3,522 comments) says:

    I’m not sure what else could be expected.

    First, china has nearly 25% of the worlds population, so, by equal rights they should put out 25% of co2.

    But, western nations have exported bulk manufacturing to china too, so, I would have thought China should be much higher than 25% given their status as the worlds factory.

    As for the US dropping — i guess that happens when you send your dirty factories to china/elsewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Jeff83 (765 comments) says:

    Apples and Pears, the comparison isn’t really that valid.

    China has a population of approx 1,344 million, and is moving from a developing economy to a developed one. Equates to 7.33 billion tonnes per billion populations. America is a mature economy with a population of 314 million. Equates to 16.53 billion tonnes per billion populations.

    Further a huge percentage of China’s CO2 production is in manufacturing which is then consumed in the rest of the world. Most of the USA’s is consumed locally.

    As such comparing the reduction or increase relative of China to USA makes no sense. It would make more sense comparing the policies of Europe to USA, as Europe has had significant direct governmental involvement in trying to see which political system actually has an impact on trying to reduce emissions. It would be interesting especially as I understand nearly all of the USA’s is from Shale.

    Not that I am promoting the Chinese political model or that the original comment is correct. I just think trying to say America is doing a good job at climate change by comparing it to America is disingenuous.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. flipper (3,270 comments) says:

    I wish some fools would understand that CO2 is NOT a problem.

    “Emissions”, as all the warmist wankers describe them, are mostly water vapour, followed (in some nations) by animal and swamp generated methane. CO2, per se, is a tiny, tiny fraction of “emissions”.

    It is the solids in the emissions that are the potential/certain problem….. and they are NOT CO2

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. nickb (3,629 comments) says:

    Looking out the window at Guangzhou airport you can see for around 200m in every direction before the smog blocks it out

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. redqueen (342 comments) says:

    When the Allies stopped calling themselves the United Nations, and handed the title over to an unaccountable organisation, the game was kind of up. A league of nations for socialists, instead of for conservatives, by any other name…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Scott Chris (5,678 comments) says:

    I think the point she was trying to make is that doing anything meaningful to address the problem of global warming in a capitalist democracy is next to impossible.

    Try to look at things dispassionately people, rather than making political capital out of everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. dave_c_ (205 comments) says:

    Scott Chris – Dont be so naive – The very fact that she works for the UN is enough to tell me this is not just making an observation -

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. peterwn (2,935 comments) says:

    Look out! The head of UNDP might end up running Earth on the grounds that it is more efficient than democratic processes.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    Was it Clark who praised the political system ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Scott Chris (5,678 comments) says:

    And as Yoza points out, America’s carbon footprint doesn’t end at its shores.

    Your carbon footprint is a measure of what you consume regardless of where the goods you consume are made.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. flipper (3,270 comments) says:

    Carbon foot prints?

    BULLSHIT FOOTPRINTS – in fact a socialist, redistribution of wealth term for a Ponzi scheme promoted by power grabbing UN functionaries, warmists and their troughing , bureaucrat/scientific liar support base.

    By the way, Chrissie Scottie wussie… ride a cycle or walk to work every day do you?

    Just like silly dilly K. Graham. Turei, Wussel, Delahunty, Hughes and Clint. No need to mention the labour ETS wankers, they are, after all, wankers.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Camryn (549 comments) says:

    As an aside, why are emissions counted so illogically? There’s no consistency. For example, CO2 from petrol New Zealand consumes is counted against New Zealand, not Saudi Arabia who pulled the oil out of the ground… yet CO2 from trees we cut down is counted against New Zealand the producer and not against the countries that consume that lumber (like Japan). Why do we get pinged as both producer and consumer?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    Camryn

    Because there is no science in the global warming debate – only religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. dave_c_ (205 comments) says:

    Camryn – The promoters of these fraudulent schemes dont care who gets pinged – so long as they can a) impose fees, and b) get away with it !

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. queenstfarmer (696 comments) says:

    @Camryn: because the carbon emissions / trading scheme is a complete sham. A more subtle manipulation is the “Australia Clause” in the Kyoto Protocal – a clause added at Australia’s insistence to allow them to gerrymander their “commitment” based on an artificially high starting point. Clever move by the Aussies, but an example of what a sham the whole arrangement is.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. s.russell (1,486 comments) says:

    Shame on you DPF. You are quoting out of context and distorting what Figueres actually said, which is actually rather sensible.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    s.russell

    The only thing sensible from the UN would be an admission of being corrupt and self serving.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. gump (1,228 comments) says:

    @nickb

    I was in Guangzhou last week.

    We couldn’t see the other side of the Pearl River (which was only 200 meters away). The air is literally toxic to human life.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. nickb (3,629 comments) says:

    gump – isn’t it crazy. Now they are resorting to putting the sunrise on big screens because it blocks out the real sun…..who would live in those huge cities?

    This city boy got pretty sick after being exposed to the air there (as we were bussed from the tarmac to the 1950s soviet-style terminal)…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. OneTrack (1,967 comments) says:

    I’m confused again. Is the totalitarian one world government the proposed method of saving Gaia from evil man, or is it the primary goal of apparatchiks who just want to tell other people what to do?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    How much of China’s emissions are a consequence of its status as an assembly plant for Western corporations? These excess emissions, like those experienced in Chine, are more of a consequence of Western businesses moving production to low wage economies with lapse environmental standards.

    Of course, this makes sense!  After all, the Chinese were obviously forced to allow those factories to be built by the Western Corporations. There was no choice on the part of the Chinese at all.

    Also, as we all know, the Communisy Part of China has created a workers paradise where there is no such thing as low wages, because everybody has the income that they require!

    In other news, Yoza’s refusal to donate the entirety of his/her income to me means that I do not enjoy the lifestyle that I would like.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Tom Jackson (2,235 comments) says:

    So what she is really saying is she thinks a one party state system of government is better than a democracy because it is easier to implement climate change policies.

    It is, which is why the transition to an economy capable of dealing with climate change will not be managed by democratic means. Sooner or later governments in the west, no matter who elected them, will simply impose reforms on the populace, and there’s nothing any of the denier nuts can do about it. The only interesting issue is whether this happens sooner or later. Hopefully sooner, since it will be less of a hassle.

    Democracy has already reached its peak anyway, as recent events in new democracies have shown.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Yoza (1,348 comments) says:

    F E Smith (3,119 comments) says:
    January 22nd, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    Of course, this makes sense! After all, the Chinese were obviously forced to allow those factories to be built by the Western Corporations. There was no choice on the part of the Chinese at all.

    Also, as we all know, the Communisy Part of China has created a workers paradise where there is no such thing as low wages, because everybody has the income that they require!

    Do any of your clients get off? I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Western states are in a weak position to whine about Chinese emissions if those emissions are the consequence of Western corporations outsourcing production
    The corporations are responsible for any emissions involved in the construction of anything they produce. I doubt Western corporations will be allowed to go on pretending the destruction of our only habitat is not their problem for very much longer

    I think its odd that the extreme right believes the individual is personally responsible for everything they do, yet sophisticated commercial enterprises are only responsible for returning as much profit as possible to their shareholders.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    I think its odd that the extreme right believes the individual is personally responsible for everything they do, yet sophisticated commercial enterprises are only responsible for returning as much profit as possible to their shareholders.

    I’d find it odd that you think a belief in being responsible for one’s own actions means you should be responsible for the actions of others – but you’re on the left, so that’s quite understandable.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Sooner or later governments in the west, no matter who elected them, will simply impose reforms on the populace, and there’s nothing any of the denier nuts can do about it.

    Translation: democracy should yield to hysteria.

    Question for the day: what leads someone to that level of madness?

    Update: I suppose it boils down to “here are the policies I want, I don’t care if they’re implemented democratically”.

    Which is of course the original position of the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Yoza (1,348 comments) says:

    I’d find it odd that you think a belief in being responsible for one’s own actions means you should be responsible for the actions of others – but you’re on the left, so that’s quite understandable.

    I think anyone of sound mind is responsible be the reasonably predictable consequences of their actions. A reasonably predictable consequence of moving production from one site to another site is that the detrimental effect on the environment will accompany such a move – easy to understand, eh.

    Translation: democracy should yield to hysteria.

    Question for the day: what leads someone to that level of madness?

    Update: I suppose it boils down to “here are the policies I want, I don’t care if they’re implemented democratically”.

    Which is of course the original position of the left

    Catastrophic climate change will mean martial law if we do not take steps early enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Yoza seem oblivious to the fact the Chinese loath people like him and would regard him as a loud mouthed loser.

    They think AGW is a joke, but humour Western sensibilities graciously. They have real environmental concerns to worry about that are not based on imaginary computer models.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. All_on_Red (941 comments) says:

    What catastrophic climate change? Please provide links to Peer Reviewed papers proving that the Earths global temp will rise by 4-6 degrees K. I know you can’t because even the IPCC says this won’t happen in the latest AR5 review.
    You really aren’t keeping up.
    But if you believe it, why don’t you start setting an example. Start by throwing your computer away. After all it was made using fossil fuels and we know you despise that. Hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    I found this very thought provoking and i am rabidly anti communist. It is hard to quantify suffering and evil, but Mao’s China must be the worst. Some estimates are higher than the entire death toll of WWII on all sides. However, this guy makes some compelling points about the modern China.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Well, that mirrors what is obvious in your rants: you just don’t have a clue.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    International Consortium of Investigative Journalists’ data-dump on the Chinese “Communist” elite’s use of offshore tax-havens:

    Close relatives of China’s top leaders have held secretive offshore companies in tax havens that helped shroud the Communist elite’s wealth, a leaked cache of documents reveals.

    The confidential files include details of a real estate company co-owned by current President Xi Jinping’s brother-in-law and British Virgin Islands companies set up by former Premier Wen Jiabao’s son and also by his son-in-law.

    Nearly 22,000 offshore clients with addresses in mainland China and Hong Kong appear in the files obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. Among them are some of China’s most powerful men and women — including at least 15 of China’s richest, members of the National People’s Congress and executives from state-owned companies entangled in corruption scandals.

    The Chinese elite is estimated to have stolen between 1 and 4 trillion US dollars from their people over the past decade, and much of it seems to be ending up in the British Virgin Islands. Meanwhile, 300 million Chinese live on less than US$2 a day. That’s not a recipe for political stability; instead its more like ancien regime France. And if China doesn’t crack down on corruption and restore some measure of equality, its “red nobility” may suffer the same fate.

    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/explosive.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    China says no to transparency and blocks access in China to foreign media reports.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-25823953

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Yoza (1,348 comments) says:

    F E Smith (3,120 comments) says:
    January 22nd, 2014 at 9:48 pm

    [Yoza]I have no idea what you are talking about.

    [F E Smith]Well, that mirrors what is obvious in your rants: you just don’t have a clue.

    I was talking about this piece of weirdness:

    F E Smith (3,120 comments) says:
    January 22nd, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    [Yoza]How much of China’s emissions are a consequence of its status as an assembly plant for Western corporations? These excess emissions, like those experienced in Chine, are more of a consequence of Western businesses moving production to low wage economies with lapse environmental standards.

    [F E Smith]Of course, this makes sense! After all, the Chinese were obviously forced to allow those factories to be built by the Western Corporations. There was no choice on the part of the Chinese at all.

    What you seem to be saying is that if I hire a hitman to whack someone I am absolved of any responsibility for the killing as the hitman was not forced to take on the contract. As he freely choose to accept the job, he is primarily responsible for the murder which I have commissioned.

    This is what you are saying, F E Smith.

    Kea (9,735 comments) says:
    January 22nd, 2014 at 7:32 pm

    Yoza seem oblivious to the fact the Chinese loath people like him and would regard him as a loud mouthed loser.

    I’m not sure how you have reached such a conclusion. I think the Chinese regime has an appalling human rights record, anyone who would defend such a totalitarian system is an idiot.
    You do tend to struggle more than a little with your comprehension skills, Kea. I am uncomfortable with Western corporations showing tacit support for the Chinese ruling elite by participating in the exploitation of ordinary Chinese workers.

    All_on_Red (742 comments) says:
    January 22nd, 2014 at 7:32 pm

    What catastrophic climate change?

    You’re laughable!

    Already, a thousand blogs and columns insist the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s new report is a rabid concoction of scare stories whose purpose is to destroy the global economy. But it is, in reality, highly conservative.

    Reaching agreement among hundreds of authors and reviewers ensures that only the statements which are hardest to dispute are allowed to pass. Even when the scientists have agreed, the report must be tempered in another forge, as politicians question anything they find disagreeable: the new report received 1,855 comments from 32 governments, and the arguments raged through the night before launch.

    In other words, it’s perhaps the biggest and most rigorous process of peer review conducted in any scientific field, at any point in human history.

    There are no radical departures in this report from the previous assessment, published in 2007; just more evidence demonstrating the extent of global temperature rises, the melting of ice sheets and sea ice, the retreat of the glaciers, the rising and acidification of the oceans and the changes in weather patterns. The message is familiar and shattering: “It’s as bad as we thought it was.”

    What the report describes, in its dry, meticulous language, is the collapse of the benign climate in which humans evolved and have prospered, and the loss of the conditions upon which many other lifeforms depend. Climate change and global warming are inadequate terms for what it reveals. The story it tells is of climate breakdown. …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    “It is, which is why the transition to an economy capable of dealing with climate change will not be managed by democratic means. Sooner or later governments in the west, no matter who elected them, will simply impose reforms on the populace, and there’s nothing any of the denier nuts can do about it.”

    Two problems.

    One: this makes you a Fascist.

    Two: Firearms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.