Free Markets, Free People

Spinning The China Climate Talk Failure

You really can’t blame her for trying to put – excuse the expression since it seems to have become cliche – lipstick on a pig, but Nancy Peolsi’s attempt to change China’s mind concerning curbing its CO2 seems to have been an abject failure.

Pelosi called them “hopeful”. That’s diplo-speak for “absolutely nothing substantial changed from the previously held position”. The fact that they even saw her would be deemed as “hopeful” but certainly not substantive.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) sums up the trip:

“It’s business as usual for China,” said Mr. Sensenbrenner, the ranking Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming. “The message that I received was that China was going to do it their way regardless of what the rest of the world negotiates in Copenhagen.”

“Their way” consists of giving lip service to curbs while demanding the “rich nations” pay the freight for curbing such emissions in China (and the rest of the “emerging nations”). China refuses to jeopardize its economic growth for something it obviously believes is much less of a threat than others do.  And why should they when it appears the upcoming conference plans on exempting them anyway?

We, on the other hand, seem bound and determined to try to do what would be tantamount to the task of cleaning up the ocean up by putting economy wrecking filters only on our shore line. Little or no effect. China and India share similar philosophies on this question and are emerging as the number one and two emitters on the planet. I think they’re right. The threat, if there is one, is minimal at best. Wrecking one’s economy to hopefully make a less that one degree Celsius change at some distant point in the future (maybe) seems to me to be the height of folly.

But that’s certainly where our politicians seem to be headed. And, to compound the problem, they’ve adopted a “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” philosophy, ignoring the 10 year cooling trend torpedo as well as the “China and India” aren’t going to play along” torpedo.

No one wants dirty air or dirty water – no one. But this hysterical reaction to what seems to be a natural earth cycle and the human hubris which claims we both effect and can change that cycle is going to put us all in the poor house unless some sanity (like in China) prevails.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

14 Responses to Spinning The China Climate Talk Failure

  • You said:
    “China refuses to jeopardize its economic growth for something it obviously believes is much less of a threat than others do.”

    It’s a nitpicky point, but I don’t think it’s obvious what China believes.  Whether it believes in the threat or not, China will ignore it and go on full speed ahead (and damn those torpedoes).  They have a history of ignoring environmental concerns, and will (and have) devastated parts of their own homeland ecologically for what they perceive to be the greater good. 

    • And their history of ignoring environmental concerns sure seems to indicate they believe them to be much less of a threat or concern than others do.

  • Come on now,  the CO2 issue all revolves around controlling carbon/energy and taxes.
    Both of these are already controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and government, so why change ?

    • Pelosi probably could have made better use of her time by trying to convince them that “clean air” would reduce medical costs and increase worker productivity.

  • No, the climate truthers are in(insert sufficient level of media hyped hysteria here)   “something must be done!” mode.

    In the peak of hubris they are going to, uh, do something that will help make them feel good about, um, everybody, but especially themselves for, uh, doing something.

    The pity is no one suggested to them early on that perhaps dancing and drumming alone would have the same impact on climate change as devastating our economy with their cap and trade systems.

    Sorta almost (that is…exactly…) kinda like a magic diet pill that will make them thin without exercise or reduced caloric intake, or getting that exercise machine that will tone and trim them in only 15 minutes a day without even breaking a sweat!  Yee hooo! 

    I gather none of these environmental rocket scientists think it’s a little odd (or wickedly convenient) that there’s just one magic gas that we can ‘control’ that will fix the whole thing! (sorry, not magic, science, science, science…I don’t have the schtick quite down yet…)

    Wow!  Imagine!  Just that restricting that ONE gas will fix almost all our climate problems world wide!
    Talk about winning the cosmic karma lottery!

    • Actually the EPA finding has more than one gas, but at least one of them is so rare and so heavy that it will probably never make it to the upper atmosphere, so it’s impact will be nil. 

      Meanwhile they do ignore “water vapor” which has an impact greater that 10x that of CO2.
      I’m sure if the packaged it at “hydrogen dioxide” vapor they could probably get the nitwits in Congress to give them the authority to control it.

      • The “must do something” crowd has their magic gas, any other gases are sideshow.   This extends even to people who, if their credentials have any bearing at all, ought to know better. 
        Yet when you see their reports, comments, and observations, the magic (science science) consensus is CO2 will fix it all.

  • One thing: the global warming thing isn’t ablout clean or dirty air. It’s about “greenhouse gasses”.

    I’ve heard some say that “global warming might not be an issue, but I want a clean environment”. Efforts to halt AGW won’t even provide that except possibly as a side consequence. It could even worsen the environment.

    For example, if we ditched some of the CAFE standards we could go to more efficient diesel engines with fewer carbon emissions but more soot, etc. It would be an improvement from an AGW perspective (at least in theory, but that’s all AGW has), but it would increase polution.

  • I was born in 63.

    My point is that fighting AGW is not the same as fighting polution, and that the efforts made to reduce polution are at least in some cases at cross purposes with efforts to fight AGW.

  • >>I’m sure if the packaged it at “hydrogen dioxide” vapor they could probably get the nitwits in Congress to give them the authority to control it.>>

    You’re probably right.  Sad state of affairs, isn’t it!  Certainly offers an evaluation on the condition of our education system though…

  • We should have done a carbon tax, and applied it on consumption, thus making sure exporting countries like China pays it on imports. 

    Instead we hobble our own industry and then will simply offshore more and more production.

    I see many, many points of attack on these issues against the Dems from a blue collar jobs and growth angle, but I bet the GOP will never figure it out. I am also imagining the speech at a town hall where the question is asked “Anybody here have a green job? Anyone?”