China

Why China Is Cooperating on Climate Change

With China, we have a worrisome rival and an indispensable partner.

|

Xi Jinping
Public Domain

Americans like to keep the world simple, dividing important countries into two groups: valued allies and hateful enemies. That approach suffices when we're talking about South Korea and North Korea. But it doesn't work well when it comes to China.

Many people see it as a giant, looming menace. The truth is more complicated. With China, we have a worrisome rival and an indispensable partner.

That latter status has never been clearer than today, after a summit that produced several new accords between Washington and Beijing. The most important and surprising was an agreement to curb emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming. It is, in the words of a former Obama administration official, "the most important bilateral climate announcement ever."

Back home, people on either side of the climate issue agreed it's a big, fat hairy deal. Environmentalists who had forgotten how to smile were wearing out underused face muscles. The Natural Resources Defense Council called it "a turning point in the fight against global warming" that "will help protect our families' health and shield future generations from unchecked climate change."

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, however, lost the post-election spring in his step, saying the agreement advances "the president's ideological War on Coal" and "will increase the squeeze on middle-class families and struggling miners."

The bigger reason coal miners are struggling is that their product has been undercut by a boom in the production of natural gas. But McConnell would prefer to blame Barack Obama for commercial developments that are largely the result of ordinary market forces.

The opponents of climate change action had counted on China to give the United States an excuse to do nothing about planetary overheating. Their argument was that it would put a staggering burden on American companies, giving a big advantage to their unconstrained Chinese competitors.

But a couple of underlying assumptions turned out to be faulty. One is that the Chinese put economic growth above everything else. Another is that they are too bent on defying and weakening the U.S. to give in on such a momentous issue.

In reality, the Chinese have come to understand that ever-growing carbon emissions go hand in hand with their deadly air pollution, which causes 670,000 deaths per year—more than the population of Seattle. They also understand that on many issues, cooperation makes more sense than conflict.

President Xi Jinping is flexing his muscles in Asia, but he also understands the need to minimize the danger of unwanted hostilities with a superpower. He and Obama agreed that the two governments will keep each other informed of their military exercises and work out rules for air and sea encounters.

Little heeded on this side of the Pacific is that Beijing has done many things to show its acceptance of international norms—joining the World Trade Organization, participating in UN peacekeeping operations and providing more funds to combat Ebola in Africa than any government but ours.

That doesn't mean it won't challenge or even bully its neighbors, including our allies. But it's not a rogue state or a Cold War-style adversary. It's a normal nation with normal desires to enlarge its capacity to shape regional and world events.

The summit illustrated the positive side of this impulse. By embracing international obligations like combating climate change, Beijing makes it harder for Republicans to rationalize despoliation of the planet on behalf of special interests like the U.S. coal industry. It also creates pressure on other major polluters—notably India—to follow suit.

Not least important, it undermines those in China who prefer the status quo. Governments generally don't like to embarrass themselves by reneging on public commitments, because it makes other countries reluctant to transact with them. Taking this stand sends a message to party leaders, bureaucrats and industrial titans that they had better get on board.

Critics claim China is free to do nothing until 2030, when it agreed to cap its emissions. But Beijing has already been pouring money into clean energy programs, while revamping its electricity market to discourage the use of coal.

This year, reports NPR, the nation's coal consumption dropped, a first for this century. A new law stipulates that local and provincial officials will be judged partly on how well they meet environmental goals.

Life and U.S. foreign policy would be simpler if China were as hostile and duplicitous as some Americans assume. But they wouldn't be easier.

Advertisement

NEXT: Locker Room Visitors

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But all those scientists around the world are just looking for grant money. Look outside…it is snowing out in November.

  2. The Natural Resources Defense Council called it “a turning point in the fight against global warming” that “will help protect our families’ health and shield future generations from unchecked climate change.”

    But how goes the war against the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I’ll be damned if I’m going to be forced to eat a high carb diet!

    1. There has also been great progress on finding rocks that will keep the moon wolf away.

      You say you haven’t seen the moon wolf?

      YOU’RE WELCOME!

        1. And still smarter than a modern-day liberal. (Cute meme, that Moon Moon!).

        2. I can’t believe my wolf name is Rogue Red this completely justifies my entire existence!

          1. Apparently I am Ravenous Beast.

          2. Ravenous wolf? You callin’ me fat?

        3. Mine is Fierce Red. Sounds like a shade of lipstick.

        4. Do NOT be “mooning” the Moon-Moon, or he will bite you on your moon! And I moon, really good and hard, he will bite your moons!

  3. Their still building coal plants,as are the Germans and India.China is also investing heavily in nuclear plants.As for oil,well,it is and will be the main fuel for transportation for a very long time.

    1. Hate to break this to you, but Germany continues to make strides on becoming more and more reliant on renewable energy, which is their goal. In fact, for the first time more electricity in Germany was generated from renewables than any other sector.

      “Clean-energy sources met 27.7 percent of Germany’s demand in the nine months through September, for the first time exceeding the 26.3 percent share held by lignite coal…”

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..-says.html

      Do they still use coal? Of course, and so do we and so does China. But they are moving forward in their goal of 60% of all power from renewables by 2035. Even then, 40% is still non-renewable.

      Germany is not the nation you want to refer to as sitting back and letting everyone else do something about CO2.

      1. No, Germany was previously reliant on a highly effective renewable energy source: nuclear. Now they’re wasting resources building far less efficient infrastructure which will inevitably need to be supplemented at greater expense with non-renewable energy sources.

        1. and they have the highest electric bills in Europe,solar does not work well there in the winter.The highest demand tome of the year.Also,the wind doesn’t always blow.Large back ups are need

        2. Here is what so many here just don’t understand.

          What Germany has done has come from the public, not the government. Individual citizens time and again have voted to take control of energy production, because they see renewables as the future. Here, from a German website:

          “In fact, the impetus for Germany’s clean energy revolution came not from (government), but from a mass, grassroots movement that started up in the mid-1970s. Today the transition has broad popular support ? up to 93 percent according to a December 2012 poll ? and powerful industrial, political, and environmental lobbies. Moreover, the lion’s share of investment in solar PV modules, wind turbines, and bioenergy plants has come from homeowners, farmers, local collectives, and small-to-medium size businesses ? and relatively little from large corporations (and nothing from the government). By turning over a million property owners and entrepreneurs into energy producers Germany has increased its supply of renewably generated electricity from 4 percent to 23 percent in just 13 years’ time.”

          http://energytransition.de/201…..evolution/

        3. why comment when you have no clue?

          http://energytransition.de/201…..m-fiction/

      2. no,they have to reverse course do to high cost to consumers ans the fact the solar and wind are not dependable.They need an large back up,and always will

        1. They don’t have to reverse course, and in fact read what they say. They are doubling down on their investments in renewables.

          Here is the sad fact that Libertarians just can’t accept…dollar bills is not the motivation for every action taken by a country. Some try to read the future, and make their investments accordingly. Germany, for one.

          1. Here’s a link describing Germany’s cutback on its 2020 goal:
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..the-crowd/

      3. Re: Jackand Ace,

        But they [Germans] are moving forward in their goal of 60% of all power from renewables by 2035.

        That would be a mayor undertaking considering the poor energy density of renewables, which for pinwheels is 1 watt per square meter on average and for solar it is 5 W/m2. In contrast, a standard power plant achieves 1000W/m2. I hope Germans have a sense of humor when they see HALF their land covered with solar panels and giant pinwheels to achieve those sanguine goals.

        1. More hand wringing? This time over Germany accepting science?

          Libertarians will get there, eventually. But they may be the last to do so.

        2. -I just left the Netherlands (germany’s western neighbor) &I spent many hours on the german autobahn. I didn’t see any solar farms, wind farms here and there, but no solar.

          -Germans, sense of humor???? That is funny!!!

          -Most of the Europeans I have had environmental convesations with have me convinced that environmental issues are public/social issues not political or governmental. Although many eu govs use environmental issues to tax their people more…. $9.50 per gallon for regular unleaded. In NL the streets and sides of the highway aren’t littered with trash like in our country. That isnt because they are more efficient in cleaning up the litter, it is because less people litter, they have more respect for there habitat than we do.

          -the point I am trying to make is that different cultures look at the same issues differently. We can not assume to know China’s motives because of what we would do.

    2. Maybe this is why people think Obama is killing the coal industry.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

      Call me cynical but I just don’t believe China will keep their promises.

      1. According to a story just out in Der Spiegel, Germany is about to renege on its 2020 CO2-reduction goal.

      2. cheap natural gas is killing the coal industry but that does not play well to the low IQ right wingers.

  4. “”””Critics claim China is free to do nothing until 2030, when it agreed to cap its emissions.”””

    So it is doing nothing

    “”””In reality, the Chinese have come to understand that ever-growing carbon emissions go hand in hand with their deadly air pollution, which causes 670,000 deaths per year.”””

    And what it is doing has to do with localized air pollution not global warming but Steve Chapman will believe anything put out by a communist dictatorship. He even thinks that the communist Chinese are practicing free trade. Try doing anything in China without the communist party approval and see how free it is.

    1. Steve Chapman will believe anything put out by a communist dictatorship.

      Chapman = Friedman?

      1. As must as I dislike Chapman, his writing isn’t nearly as pompously self-referential and full of non sequiturs.

  5. This agreement is nothing more than hot air.

    Tip your waitress.

    1. How’s the veal?

    2. So much this. China won’t adhere to one punctuation mark of this ‘agreement’, it’s just playing the long game – sacrificing a pawn (or really just moving one into a sacrifice position) to make the administration feel like it is winning. Ridiculous.

    3. And leave her some money too….

  6. Why China Is Cooperating on Climate Change

    China is not cooperating on “Climate Change”. China is paying lip service while doing absolutely nothing, in the hope that their lip service will result in the US further hobbling its own economy.

    1. Exactly right.

    2. and we have a winner. *hands over stuffed animal*

      1. Oooh, I hope it’s a Moon Moon Wolf!

    3. What’s funny is how stupid the modern left has become they actually believe that if we take charge by cutting our emissions other countries will too. The level of just utter ignorance/idiocy shown by the modern left on this particular issue is nearly unparalleled in this country historically.

    4. China’s “cooperation” is lip service.

    5. For some reason I have a vision of Chamberlain – standing on an airport tarmac, paper in hand, wind a-blowing, talking about “peace in our time”.

      China just wants the US to move further down the path of fast food and angioplasty economy while they continue to make stuff.

      1. The U.S. continues to make lots of stuff. We just employ fewer people to do it.

  7. Wow this is what Steve Chapman actually believes?

    1. Steve Chapman may me the Moon Moon of our pack…

      1. Steve “Moon Moon” Chapman. I like it.

  8. China is “cooperating” on climate change because they have discovered that Democrats, Liberals, and random others will believe that they re going to “cooperate” on climate change without any evidence whatsoever of their actually doing anything.

    Doubtless they find this highly amusing.

    1. But,China has the perfect government to do great things.Tom Friedman told me so

    2. Perhaps…or perhaps it’s just the slightly frightened, mock-politeness one adopts when one realizes they’re interacting with a dangerous crazy man.

      “Ok, Obama…we’ll…we’ll…”cooperate” on this thing that doesn’t exist pacifying Glargnorg the Destroyer with ritual sacrifice….just…just put your finger away from that red button…please!

      1. Like Obama has the balls to push the red button. He’s like the guy that has the gun that antagonist goaded in movies to shoot the him because protagonist doesn’t have the “balls” to do it, in hopes that he will break down or something, except in this scenario it would actually make sense.

  9. so it will be like Obamacare in that implementation will mostly be delayed until the Communist party is safely out of power.

    1. Actually it will just be delayed until after their next free election…

  10. Critics claim China is free to do nothing until 2030, when it agreed to cap its emissions. But Beijing has already been pouring money into clean energy programs, while revamping its electricity market to discourage the use of coal.

    So basically, China will continue to develop its energy sector the way it intended all along while gaining concessions from the US to further constrain its energy sector. Never mind that China’s true motivation has to do with particulate emissions rather than CO2.

  11. Its quite amusing to see all the hand-wringing now in the GOP as well as here among Libertarians now that the world’s two biggest emitters of CO2 are admitting to a problem that needs action taken in order to solve.

    Why, that would leave just Libertarians and the extreme far right as the few who just can’t accept science, and what science is telling us. Its worrying them that even the hated “red menace” can accept science, and they cannot.

    Amusing.

    1. Why hello Kizone

      1. Mornin’.

        1. Turd.Burglar.

      2. Why hello Kizone

        You mean Jason Weixelbaum and/or his former bandmate?

        Did you know that Jay Weixelbaum is a 40-something teaching assistant who, not only admitted to vandalism that is 100 dollars per offense, but that he also has a sister by the name of Alixandrea and a brother named Gabe?

        I wonder if they know their brother spews race-hatred and bigotry with monomaniac devotion, merely to troll a website.

        Someone should tell them, as well as his employer, which is currently American University.

        1. I also joined the popular Communist garage punk band named Mockba

          Isn’t that an oxymoron?

    2. Yes, accept SCIENCE!, which according to Jackass Hole, is the ipse dixit pronouncements of the high priesthood of Glargnorg the Destroyer. One is not supposed to express skepticism, because it’s not as if skepticism isn’t at the heart of the scientific method.

      What’s “amusing” is that if Jackass Hole were born in Damascus, his zealotry would lead him to rape Yazidi women and girls because he believed they were infidels who didn’t “accept” sharia and what the Prophet (PBUH) is telling “us”.

      Disgusting.

      1. Gnashing your teeth over this deal, eh?

        1. No because it means nothing, last I checked the senate had to approve any treaty’s. Lets see how pro science the democrats actually are

          1. Its an agreement between the two nations, its not a treaty. I know you all think that would make it unconstitutional, but agreements between the executive branch and other nations occur all the time. Its why it is non-binding, for both countries.

            1. “Its why it is non-binding, for both countries.”

              Ok. But you seem to think that arbitrary “non-binding” agreements somehow empower the executive branch to act on behalf of the legislative branch. They don’t.

              1. Its not arbitrary at all. If falls within constitutional privilege that the executive branch can engage in agreements when it comes to foreign policy, which this is. In fact, its being used more and more, and Obama is not the first.

                http://www.americanforeignrela…..ments.html

            2. Its why it is non-binding, for both countries.

              So you admit that the agreement means nothing, allthewhile vilifying the local communitariate for claiming that it means nothing?

              Oh!?

              1. It actually means a lot, in that its the first time China has even admitted it has a role in global climate change, and has agreed to take action.

                Its a start, and previously, we didn’t even have a start.

            3. Re: Jackand Ace,

              Its an agreement between the two nations, its not a treaty.

              I can’t say if I’m witness to your total and mind-boggling lack of understanding of politics, or just downright lies.

              The two nations haven’t agreed on anything. Xi Jinping is simply working the stage alongside the court fool, Obama. Obama is talking about “Climate Change” with the usual bromides, while the Chinese continue to humor him. The whole scene reminds me of that TV commercial with the Chinese speaker and audience…

              I know you all think that would make it unconstitutional, but agreements between the executive branch and other nations occur all the time.

              I don’t know why would you even bring up the fact that “agreements are made all the time” if you concede the likeliness any such agreement will not pass constitutional muster.

              Its why it is non-binding, for both countries.

              Again, what is the point of the whole circus if the agreement is non-binding?

              1. Read and weep…hopefully you can read.

                http://www.americanforeignrela…..ments.html

        2. Still raping underaged girls in the name of Allah, Weixelbaum?

    3. Drop your coat & grab your toes, Obama’s gonna show you where the wild goose goes.

    4. Libertarians and the extreme far right as the few who just can’t accept science, and what science is telling us. Its worrying them that even the hated “red menace” can accept science, and they cannot

      “What we have received is not the spirit of the worldspirit of the libertarians, but the SpiritScience who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the SpiritScience, explaining spiritualscientific realities with SpiritScience-taught words. 14 The person without the SpiritScience does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of GodScience of Consensus but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spiritthe Science.”

    5. Hey Jackass…show me two correct predictions made by the CAGW anti-science zealots.

    6. Re: Jackand Ace,

      Its quite amusing to see all the hand-wringing now in the GOP as well as here among Libertarians now that the world’s two biggest emitters of CO2 are admitting to a problem that needs action taken in order to solve.

      Well, at least you got ONE thing right: Obama IS the greatest emitter of Hot Air in the world. And I say “Obama” because for little red Marxians a whole country = its leader. As for his willing to take action to solve HIS problem, the recent Gruber-gate thing makes that possibility less likely.

    7. There’s a difference between “accepting science” and “doing whatever Jackand Ace thinks is a good idea.”

      1. Then try doing what every single major SCIENCE organization says…start to solve the problem of man-made climate change. Don’t take it from me…take it from science.

      2. Tell you what, Brian, I’ll just give you one example, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest (over 100,000 members) general science org in the world:

        “The SOONER WE ACT, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do. Waiting to take action will inevitably increase costs, escalate risk, and foreclose options to address the risk. The CO2 we produce accumulates in Earth’s atmosphere for decades, centuries, and longer…By making informed choices now, we can reduce risks for future generations and ourselves, and help communities adapt to climate change…and scientists working with economists believe there are ways to manage the risks of climate change while balancing current and future economic prosperity.

        AS SCIENTISTS, it is not our role to tell people what they should do or must believe about the rising threat of climate change. But we consider it to be our responsibility as professionals to ensure, to the best of our ability, that people understand what we know: human-caused climate change is happening, we face risks of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes, and responding now will lower the risk and cost of taking action.”

        http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

        You have any science organizations at all that disagree? I’ll answer for you, you don’t.

        1. Wow, he asks for validation of just two previous preildictions and you throw out another prediction!!

        2. Here’s a link to 8 threads critical of AAAs:

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=aaas

          1. Hilarious.

            I quote a SCIENCE organization, and the statement from SCIENTISTS, and you quote a blog run by a weatherman.

            Thanks for summing up all my points exactly.

            1. You are just appealing to authority. Citing a consensus as if it confirms some sort of scientific bent on your part is hilarious. Consensus doesn’t matter, predictions and comparison of theory to empirical results are all that matter. In this regard, CAGW theories are all junk.

        3. I suspect the world’s scientific societies didn’t look into this matter in any depth and in a balanced way. They, like the AGU and APS, likely asked for volunteers to serve on a committee to evaluate the matter, and mostly warmists stepped forward. The whole membership wasn’t polled.

          Skeptics weren’t organized and didn’t have access 15-plus years ago, when these initial position statements were mostly issued, to the skeptical material now available. And they were mostly part-timers, and so less armed for a debate. Only warmist professors and govt. scientists have boned-up on the topic full-time and have a command of the literature, because that’s what they’re paid to do.

          The warmist volunteers surely include a number of fierce true-believer types who lack the objective scientific spirit and make combatting them to revise the statements a daunting prospect for the ordinary person.Skeptics were likely smeared, behind closed doors, as deniers and worse–making it easier to dismiss them.

          Then the IPCC’s claims weren’t cross-examined in depth by anyone–they were just rubber-stamped. Recently, however, the Australian Geological Society was unable to renew its alarmist position statement, due to a nearly equal split in the membership on the issue.

        4. Jaymez
          August 9, 2012 at 12:38 am
          All of them did so without putting it to a vote of their members. They also did so in solidarity with their Climate Science colleagues because they were horrified to see the bad press and the lack of respect some climate scientists were being treated with. Most of the scientists involved in the Boards which ran those academies had enough scientific knowledge to understand the basics that greenhouse gases had the ability to warm the earth. They certainly did not have enough understanding of the science to understand the arguments about feedback mechanisms and what evidence if any existed to support the predictions made by the climate models produced by the IPCC and described in the Summary for Policy Makers. However they naively believed that just like in their own field of science, climate science would diligently apply the scientific method, record empirical data, write up research papers, and have them fairly peer reviewed and published in the relevant journals. They naively thought that the IPCC was a collaborative effort of principled scientists who were all after the same goal, the truth about climate science.

          So it was that naivet?, and perhaps as some suggest, also the not inconsequential political favours and funding which came with offering that very public support of CAGW which moved them to make those very public statements of support.

    8. “Why, that would leave just Libertarians and the extreme far right as the few who just can’t accept science”

      I don’t see how you can say that when the only state that’s supported Obama on this, so far, is authoritarian China and Obama doesn’t intend to submit this to the Senate for approval.

      It isn’t just libertarians and the far right who oppose it–it’s that the only people who support it are Barack Obama himself, personally, and the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.

      Certainly, it’s silly to say this treaty is supported by the Chinese or American people, when no democratically elected leaders except for Obama himself have or will weigh in on it.

      What evidence do you have that Democratic centrists, who during the midterms refused to even admit they even voted for Obama, support this treaty? You say the only people who oppose this treaty are libertarians and people on the far right–does Harry Reid even support this treaty?

      Do you even know?

      1. In the first place, its an agreement between 2 nations, and that would be the US and China. If by states, you mean other countries, they are not part of it. And in fact, they do more anyway…read up on Germany as an example.

        He doesn’t have to submit it to Congress for approval, as we all know that the executive branch can constitutionally enter into foreign policy AGREEMENTS, which this is. I’m sure you think he is the only President to do so, but your GOP brethren also have done so. You just don’t like this topic.

        Weigh in on it? Check the record…the only party that in general that denies AGW is the GOP. If Libertarians are an actual party, then they join in. Just read comments from who heads up the Senate Enviro Committee, Inhofe. He is representative of the GOP. The only complaints over this agreement come from the GOP, and the only major party actively trying to do something about AGW is the Democratic Party. Sadly.

        1. “In the first place, its an agreement between 2 nations, and that would be the US and China. If by states, you mean other countries, they are not part of it.”

          This has been forcefully presented as a prompt for the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference, which is shaping up to be Kyoto II–only bigger and better.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2…..Conference

          “He doesn’t have to submit it to Congress for approval, as we all know that the executive branch can constitutionally enter into foreign policy AGREEMENTS”

          If we all know this, do you have a link for that?

        2. “The only complaints over this agreement come from the GOP, and the only major party actively trying to do something about AGW is the Democratic Party.”

          Are you aware that we’ve all but met our Kyoto goals without signing onto Kyoto?

          ?U.S. emissions decreased by 3.4 percent from 2011 to 2012. Recent trends can be attributed to multiple factors including reduced emissions from electricity generation, improvements in fuel efficiency in vehicles with reductions in miles traveled, and year-to-year changes in the prevailing weather.
          ?Greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 were 10 percent below 2005 levels.

          http://www.epa.gov/climatechan…..eport.html

          Not wanting the government to sign a stupid treaty that we met anyway without making any foolish sacrifices doesn’t mean we don’t want to do anything about greenhouse gas emissions.

          And suggesting that the president of the United States (much less the Premier of China) somehow represents the will of the American people on what and how much Americans want to sacrifice for our current models is absurd.

          Barack Obama can’t and doesn’t speak for the American people on this. …and if he thought he had our support, he would seek our approval through Congress.

          Only complaints come from the GOP?

          If you think what happened during the midterms was bad? just wait ’til the American voters get to weigh in on the Democrats after Barack Obama foists a treaty on the American people.

        3. Nations don’t have agreements; individuals have agreements, and this is an agreement between some in the US government and some in the Chinese government. I see no reason for those in the general population to feel obligated to the agreement by either set of individuals.

  12. my co-worker’s step-aunt makes $63 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for 8 months but last month her pay was $13071 just working on the internet for a few hours. hop over to here……

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  13. Odin has brought an end to the frost giants as well…..
    do you see any frost giants?
    .
    .

    .
    they must be hiding in the ocean

    1. Along with Trenberth’s latent heat…lol.

  14. Why China Is Cooperating on Climate Change

    Speaker: “Which is why they now work for us!”
    Audience: “Ha ha ha ha!”

  15. Jesus Christ…every day the CAGW case gets worse, yet these fools press on.

  16. “Life and U.S. foreign policy would be simpler if China were as hostile and duplicitous as some Americans assume. But they wouldn’t be easier.”

    I think life and U.S. foreign policy are even more complicated than what’s being presented here in this article.

    For instance, look at the other side of the equation! If Obama wanted a partner to support a climate change treaty, why did he have to go to an authoritarian dictatorship?

    Climate change treaties are much more popular in the democracies of Europe when they involve putting handicaps on American growth, but when Europe is teetering on the edge of recession again, how popular are democratic leaders in Europe who are looking to sign onto new climate change commitments?

    Australia repealed its carbon tax.

    Meanwhile, Keystone is popular here in the U.S. Fracking retains its popularity in the U.S. Why couldn’t Obama get some support here at home?

    Is there a democratic country anywhere that really wants to make new climate change commitments right now?

    No wonder Obama had to turn to an authoritarian dictatorship for support! Maybe the reason China supports a climate change treaty is because as an authoritarian dictatorship, China doesn’t need to obtain the consent of the Chinese people.

    Obama must be so envious–Obama doesn’t think he needs to subject his treaty for the U.S. Senate to approve either!

    1. Meanwhile, what country manufactures 60% of the world’s solar?

      What country controls almost all of the world’s supply of rare earth metals necessary to manufacture alternative energy solutions?

      The correct answer to both questions is China.

      Some things are complicated. That Obama’s treaty probably has no majority support anywhere in the democratic developed world–so he had to go to authoritarian China for support? That’s not very complicated at all.

      Obama would love to do to the rest of the world on a climate change treaty what he did to the United States with ObamaCare. Obama think the problem with the world is that people in democracies are too stupid to understand what’s in their own best interests–just like he did with ObamaCare.

      1. Regardless of China’s form of government, they are the top polluter, so any meaningful climate initiative would include China and the US first.

        Some industries will be winners and others losers if we take positive action on climate change. Oh well. Fossil fuels had a good run and I’m sure they’ll do fine for the foreseeable future. It’s not like fossil fuels in any way resemble an actor in a free market, even if preserving the free market were 1/10th as important as preventing a runaway greenhouse effect.

        1. Look at the late-comer, commenting after everybody has moved on dot org!

          1. It’s how he rolls.

    2. Obama must be so envious–Obama doesn’t think he needs to subject his treaty for the U.S. Senate to approve either!

      A favorite conspiracy theory circulating through the dark alleys of underground politics is that a lot of American politicians and diplomats were on the Chinese dole for decades. Maybe it isn’t such a cockamamie idea when you see what is unfolding before our very eyes…

      1. That’s a Clinton era thing. But that was a conspiracy theory that turned out to be true!

        I guess it goes back to the Manchurian Candidate.

        Regardless, that Obama’s only support for this, so far, comes from an authoritarian dictatorship is something he should be ashamed of.

        And it will come up. Opponents of the treaty in Europe come the Paris negotiations will point out that Obama can’t even drum up support for this treaty in his own country! Does Obama think no one will notice?

        1. Just for the record,…

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1…..ng_figures

  17. my buddy’s step-sister makes $72 /hr on the computer . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her paycheck was $17405 just working on the computer for a few hours.visit this site….

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  18. My buddy’s step-aunt makes $89 every hour on the laptop . She has been without work for 8 months but last month her check was $14034 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check out here. ???? http://www.jobsfish.com

  19. China’s coal use may be down for any number of reasons, but it is illogical to presume it has anything to do with AGW intent. How about the state of their economy, for one?

    1. 1. More efficient coal plants replacing older ones.
      2. More nuclear plants.
      3. More coal gasification.

  20. HIDE THE DECLINE! With Eco-Maoism? Since when does China worry about a measly six hundred thousand something deaths anyway? If they REALLY wanted to help the planet they would pull another great leap forward and murder millions more annually.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.