China Is Playing The West At The Paris Climate Conference

The Illuminati-One World Order-One World Government guys may be on to something this time. Well, it looks like it on the surface anyway what with words like “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” and sentences like UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s “The business community is asking for a clear signal from governments that the low emissions economy is inevitable” being spoken. Nearly 200 countries are in the middle of negotiations at the Paris climate conference, with the prospect of a legally binding grand bargain among the nations being hammered out.

As Shikha Dalmia recalls in The Week:

“Every major climate change initiative to date has gone up in smoke. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which sought to cut emissions 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, was doomed from the start. India and China, even then among the world’s top five polluters, refused to even participate. Meanwhile, President Bill Clinton supported the treaty, but he didn’t have a prayer of getting it past the U.S. Congress, so he didn’t even try. Canada ratified the deal but blew its target cuts by 25 percent and eventually quit. Japan and New Zealand similarly faced a compliance gap. Europe met its target but not because its cap-and-trade program was a roaring success, as environmentalists would have you believe. Rather, it was because the industrial emissions of former Soviet bloc countries were so awful in 1990 that minor access to better Western technology produced major gains. Also, Europe’s 2007 recession helped!

“The 2009 Copenhagen conference to hammer out a Kyoto sequel was an even bigger debacle. India and China participated — but only to play spoilsports. They rejected America’s proposed emission cuts as small potatoes that didn’t even come close to atoning for America’s historic role in causing the problem in the first place. The whole thing ended on a sour note with global leaders unable to muster anything beyond a statement noting the need to keep global temperatures 2 degrees centigrade below industrial levels.”

But as Ronald Bailey reports at Reasonthe atmosphere of this conference is a bit warmer than in the past:

“Paris, France – I’ve reported from so many U.N. climate change conferences that I’ve lost count (11 or 12, I think), but I have never before experienced what is happening in the slapped-together particle board hallways of the Le Bourget exposition site: Optimism. Even a bit of giddiness on the part of the diplomats, and even among the always dour environmentalist groups. At earlier meetings the set ritual has been for activists during the second week to issue a constant stream of urgent denunciations. Sure, one still hears here that there is only 24 hours to get this or that deal done, but the upbeat tone is nevertheless widespread…

“There is another reason for a feeling of serenity at the conference: the absence of mobs of protestors. The commotion produced by of masses of demonstrators inside and outside the climate conferences contributed significantly to the fraught atmosphere that pervaded previous meetings. The French government has used the terrorist atrocities in November as a justification to ban all public protests and marches. This seems to have taken the heart out of lot of would-be climate agitators. Yes, the occasional campaigner dressed in a polar bear costume does wander by, but participants are not being hectored by throngs of doomsters constantly crying climate calamity from their various soapboxes. The result is that the conference venue is imbued with an unaccustomed sense of orderly calm.”

That order and optimism should be worrying for the United States and anyone in any country who values free enterprise and national sovereignty.

One of the linchpins of the conference is funding for various climate change related initiatives, organized by the Obama administration at the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, in which rich countries have pledged to contribute $100 billion a year by 2020. President Xi Jinping said in Paris, “Developed countries should honor their commitment of mobilizing $100 billion each year before 2020 and provide stronger support to developing countries afterward.”

G77 Chairwoman Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko said, “We repeatedly call on developed countries to provide the necessary support to enable the members of the Group to take on their fair share of the global effort…many of these INDCs [intended nationally determined contributions] include a component on adaptation and action which we have to take as a result mostly of the historical emissions by developed countries…This was done without any concrete reassurances from our partners that post-2020 support will be available.”

The G77 Chairwoman added that these climate initiatives must be “supported by finance, technology development and transfer and capacity-building by developed country parties…The outcome regarding finance must provide clarity on the level of financial support that will be provided by developed country parties to developing country parties to allow for enhanced implementation of the Convention in the post-2020 period, as well as existing commitment on pre-2020 finance,” she stressed.

India is also a wrench in the gears. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that the threats posed by climate change are the result of “the prosperity and progress of an industrial age powered by fossil fuel. But we in India face its consequences today.” One of India’s negotiators proclaimed in a press conference that the financing is “not a donation, but is an obligation on the part of developed countries” and that there is “an entitlement to receive finance on part of developing countries.”

As Bailey also reports, “In Paris, poor countries are insisting that $100 billion is a floor and that climate finance should be substantially scaled up from there. The poor countries are also insisting that the accord adopt mechanisms that track and verify the amounts of climate finance flowing from rich countries.” (Italics mine.)

In other words, pay up or shut up.

Western leaders in those “developed” countries (as if development has an end) will play along because most of them believe in this guilt narrative. If you can stomach it, here’s Al Gore who “likened the fight against climate change to earlier great moral crusades such as the abolition of slavery and apartheid, the right of women to vote and civil rights for all. Just like them, Gore said, the climate change struggle has a simple ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer. ‘The right choice is to safeguard the future for the next generation and for the generations to come.’” President Francois Hollande struck a similar tone, “so many people and future generations will be very strict when they judge what was done by heads of state and government, especially when it comes to those who did not assume their responsibilities, who did not opt for a universal, legally binding, differentiated agreement.”

This is especially sad coming from the French president, when only a few weeks ago the ugly reality of the real global threat – radical Islamic terrorism – hit right in the face the very city where this conference to fight a highly questionable global threat is being held. As radio talk show host Dennis Prager often says, those who don’t fight evil hate those who do. Climate change is the one area where world leaders who have failed to deal with global jihad can feel like they are doing something good together.

***

In November 2014 during President Obama’s visit to Beijing, he announced alongside President Xi that the US and China had reached an agreement in which “The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%. China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030.” That’s right, the US will commit to meeting these targets by 2025, and China will commit to start thinking about reducing carbon emissions, which is not pollution, by 2030. Classic Obamadeal.

The entire reason behind it was to signal to all the countries now gathered in Paris that the two biggest economies in the world were on the same page, therefore everyone else should get on board.

That China has gone from climate conference foil to enthusiastic cheerleader (or Bali to 巴黎 ) is touted by President Obama as a victory for the cause. But an examination of China’s domestic energy policy points to another conclusion: China is doing what it would be doing anyway because of internal public pressure to deal with air pollution, and they have repackaged that policy to fit with the UN climate change agenda.

The Communist Party truly does want to improve the pollution situation in China, but it’s because dealing with that problem has become an internal legitimacy question, not because they want to “combat climate change.” Such questions are above all others for the Party. And, with good historical reason, the Chinese are very wary of jeopardizing their sovereignty to Western led institutions. In a report released last month by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Patricia Adams examines China’s positions and opens with this insight:

“The apparent contradiction between what the West wants and what China’s leadership needs is easily resolved. China’s leadership knows that what China says to the West is more important than what China does, absolving it of the need to make any binding commitment to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. China also knows that Western leaders’ have no firm expectation of concrete commitments in Paris. Rather, their paramount goal is to maintain face at the Paris talks, which would collapse without China’s presence.

“China is deftly preparing the stage in Paris to position itself as the Third World’s defender and also as a recipient of the billions in climate aid that it is demanding from the West. We can expect more announcements, agreements, and soaring rhetoric from global politicians at the Paris Conference, along with an agreement to meet again next year. What we cannot expect are reforms designed to reduce China’s carbon emissions.”

The Chinese have simply observed the scene and caught on to the game. They have also had more time since the last two climate conferences to observe the Obama administration and how willing it is to give away massive concessions, such as the November 2014 carbon emissions agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. Who can blame them really? They are just taking advantage of an opportunity to forward their national interests, an opportunity served on a silver platter by inept Western leadership making impossible demands on China. Adams puts it like this:

“The Chinese government communicates via slogans. Whether it is Premier Li’s ‘war on pollution’ or President Xi’s ‘energy revolution’, slogans represent the Communist Party’s operating principles. As such, they are both a signal to economic actors of how to justify their actions and a statement of best intentions that provides cover when the plan doesn’t work out. China’s Communist Party has realised that the UN war on global warming can legitimise its goals as well as extract concessions and cash from the West while establishing China as a ‘responsible world power’. Most of all, as a centralised, top-down mechanism that conditions investments globally, the UN climate negotiations speak the language of the Communist Party of China and entrench the Party’s role.”

Beijing is also bluntly calling Obama’s bluff. The Boston Herald reports,

“China’s chief negotiator at climate talks outside Paris says that any agreement adopted in the negotiations should be legally binding in its entirety, not just parts of it.

“Su Wei told reporters Saturday that if a treaty is adopted at the end of the Paris negotiations, then ‘all the provisions, starting from the preamble to the final clauses would be legally binding.’

“That contrasts with the U.S. position which is for some parts to be legally binding, but not countries’ pledges to limit the greenhouse gas emissions. Binding emissions cuts would likely require the Obama administration to send the deal to the Republican-controlled Congress, where it would likely be struck down.

“‘We cannot just identify one sentence or one provision or article as not legally binding,’ Su said. ‘That’s a general rule of international treaty laws. There’s no doubt about that.’

“After the news conference he indicated the issue was still up for negotiation.”

Beijing gets to claim “see, we’re all for this fighting climate change thing” knowing full well Obama can’t commit America to anything legally binding, absolving them from any such commitments as well. CNN quotes China’s vice-minister of the National Development and Reform Commission Xie Zhenhua, “As China gradually completes its industrialization, carbon emissions from industries may reach their peak earlier than expected — but the country still has a long way to go when it comes to urbanization. So emissions from construction, transportation and service sectors will keep rising. Looking at the broader picture, we feel the goal of having emissions peak around 2030 is a scientific one.”

Echoing Su Wei, Xie also said, “I’m actually worried that, after the next U.S. presidential election, if a Republican wins, will the United States keep its commitment to the climate change issue? You don’t have to worry about China’s commitment. It’s the United States that you should be concerned about — will it keep its current policy intact? That’s what worries me.”

***

France and the US, the two world leaders in nuclear power technology, could be selling that technology and know how to the developing world which would benefit their economies, help to keep the environment clean, and help poor countries advance all at the same time. Not to mention that being an incomparably easier and more accountable process than trying to get just under 200 countries to agree to emissions standards. Instead they are allowing themselves to be morally blackmailed into giving up the guilt money.

Progressivism is a luxury good, and “combating climate change” is the most expensive progressive luxury good. It’s one the Chinese can’t afford – the only luxury goods they are interested in are Gucci bags and Lamborghinis.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: