[Sorry about the formatting but WordPress seems to be having problems tonight and I’ve given up trying to fix it. So we’ve posted with this adjustment: underlined sentences are quotes from the sourced article.}
China decided not to play in the Kyoto Accord sandbox claiming to be a “developing nation”. As a result it reaped great benefits by doing things such as selling “carbon credits” by building new coal-fired power plants and then agreeing not to run them.
Now China is now exploiting its “developing nation” status to demand that we give them lots of money and a bunch of technological know-how to fight the “scourge of global warming”.
China demands that countries that have already worked hard and spent enormous sums to clean up their own environments, like the United States, now transfer some their national incomes to clean up China. Something it has refused to do for itself.
“The funds that developed countries provide for developing countries to deal with climate change should represent approximately 1% of the GDP of the developed countries,” said Gao Guangsheng, who heads the climate change office at China’s top economic planning body.
Of course one of those “poorer nations” just happens to be China. Forget China’s 11% annual GDP growth rate and the exploitation of its population in a rush to industrialization. Forget its lack of basic human rights for its people: its persecution of people with religious beliefs: its “one child” policies that encourage the abortion and infanticide of its female infants. This “poor nation” DEMANDS 1% our GDP so that they can save the planet.
China now generates a large share of the world’s greenhouse gases, with some experts saying it has already overtaken the US as the biggest. Gao said the developing countries had to take action to fight climate change, but that richer countries must provide money and technology to help poorer ones.
China has ignored its own pollution in order to gain market share. Its development has relied on an exploited populous and an exploited environment. Now they demand that we give them our money in order to help them “deal with climate change”. Pretty neat huh?
China’s produces more pollution than the US and yet its GDP is only 25% that of the US. The US produces 25% of the world’s goods and China produces about 6%. This means that the US produces about 5 times the goods that mankind needs than China with less pollution. And yet we are being asked to give them, and others like them, 1% of our GDP? We are to reward this type of economic folly?
So who do you think supports this kind of thing? The answer won’t surprise most of you.
Gao’s remarks also come ahead of an international conference on climate change next month in Beijing, organised by the UN and the Chinese government, to promote transfer of international green technology.
The US rejected the Kyoto accord, arguing it would harm American business and made no comparable demands on emerging economies. China, India and other large developing countries signed the accord but refused to accept a binding agreement that they said would limit their development and their ability to ease poverty at home.
Sounds pretty smart of us doesn’t it?
Those were the words that Gomer Pyle used to express his endearing amazement at simple things. Dump operators are reacting the same way when they discover gold in them thar mounds of garbage thanks to the global warming true believers and the corporations they frighten.
These corporations have been told they can buy their “climate change” indulgences to eliminate their days in environmental purgatory. And like most companies that want to be seen doing the right thing, they do. Unfortunately the “carbon credits” they think will “save the planet’ really are only a slick way to transfer monies from shareholders to landfill operators for doing nothing.
For more than a decade, the landfill here has made extra profit simply by collecting methane given off by rotting trash, and selling it as fuel. Last year, the landfill learned that doing this also qualified it to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars via a new program that pays companies to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions.
Eliminating methane lets dumps sell “carbon credits” to environmentally conscious people and companies. The long-term goal of trading credits — basically, vouchers representing reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases — is to reduce global pollution by encouraging others to cut emissions when the buyers of the credits can’t or won’t cut their own.
“It seemed a little suspicious that we could get money for doing nothing,” says Charles Norkis, executive director of the Cape May County Municipal Utilities Authority, which has raised $427,475 selling credits since February, or 3% of the authority’s projected solid-waste revenue for the year.
Over the past two years, landfills from Pennsylvania to North Dakota have started selling extra credits on the Chicago exchange to profit from methane they were capturing anyway.
Selling credits is “gravy to us,” says Katherine Vesey, comptroller of the utility authority in Atlantic County, N.J., which was profitably capturing methane for two years before it started selling credits on the Chicago exchange.
The Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 agreement to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, created a global market in which companies in industrialized nations are required to cut their emissions over time. Those cuts can be achieved, in part, by buying credits from companies that reduce emissions. The U.S. didn’t ratify Kyoto.
Both major presidential candidates, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain, say they support imposing a mandatory limit on U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. Concerns about carbon credits have big implications for how much such a limit would cost.That system would likely follow the so-called cap-and-trade model: The government would cap the amount of greenhouse gas companies could emit, and companies could meet the caps by cutting their own pollution or in part by trading in credits representing cuts elsewhere.
The first landfill to join the Chicago exchange is in Lancaster County, Pa., about an hour’s drive west of Philadelphia. The Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority spent about $1.5 million to install machinery back in 2005 to capture methane instead of letting it escape into the air. It makes about $50,000 a year selling the gas to a local power company. […]The authority never intended to make money on the project, says James Warner, its executive director.
In June 2006, Mr. Warner was attending a trash-industry conference in Nashville when he came upon a booth for the Chicago Climate Exchange. There, Mr. Warner learned that his landfill also qualified to sell carbon credits.”Long story short, it was like, ‘Holy s — !'” Mr. Warner says.
After coming across the Chicago exchange at the trash conference, Mr. Warner told his staff in Lancaster to apply for selling credits. In October 2006, it made its first carbon-credit sale, netting $26,600 after paying $11,900 in fees and commissions to the exchange.
Including that initial trade, Lancaster County has so far made about $320,727 selling credits on the Chicago exchange. It’s as if, Mr. Warner says, “I looked under a rock and found a couple hundred thousand bucks.”
“Holy s–!” is right. Can you more succinctly summarize the idiocy that characterizes parts of the global warming movement?
Ever wonder where the current “green everything” craze is headed? Lawrence Solomon knows.
Stock market indexes have plummeted from their inflated peaks. Oil and other commodities have likewise plummeted. The next commodity to tumble from unsustainable peak levels: environmentalism.
In part, I am making this prediction because, in my 30 years as an environmentalist, I have never seen so many governments and so many corporations so profusely espousing so many environmental causes. Where promoting environmentalism was once seen as daring and counter-cultural, today it has become banal, no longer the exclusive preserve of a Body Shop chain, but of every retailer down to Wal-Mart. For the same reason that clothes go out of fashion after the masses embrace them, mass-marketed environmentalism will come to be disdained. That won’t sell for long.
I am predicting a collapse of today’s Wal-Mart environmentalism for another reason, too: Much of it is misguided, based on misunderstanding and vacuity.
Global warming is by far the biggest such example. Those who have been following my Denier series in these pages know that large numbers of distinguished scientists dispute the conventional wisdom on climate change, making absurd the claim that the science is settled on climate change. And yet government and corporate propaganda — in global warming and elsewhere — strip away all subltety and uncertainty in their public relations programs, portraying environmental problems and proposing environmental solutions in cartoon-cutout simplicity that, more often than not, accomplish nothing good or make matters worse.
In stock and commodity markets, when values fall from unrealistically high levels, they often fall further than justified. When environmentalism falls from its high values on the realization that many concerns have been oversold, it too will likely fall further than justified. Environmentalism will then need to reestablish public trust before real environmental gains can be made.
As history shows, after being burned in the stock market, investors often stay away for years, fearful of being burned again. The lack of trust harms the greater economy. We have no history of what happens when citizens feel taken in by false environmental claims. But we may soon find out.
Platform shoes and big bell bottoms. We wonder how people could have been silly enough to wear those things. Is that what’s coming to the government/corporate “green” movement? Seems possible to me.
Let’s not let growing glaciers and falling temperatures change the basic story line that global warming is responsible for absolutely every problem you can think of.
KOLKATA (Reuters) – The number of tiger attacks on people is growing in India’s Sundarban islands as habitat loss and dwindling prey caused by climate change drives them to prowl into villages for food, experts said on Monday.
Wildlife experts say endangered tigers in the world’s largest reserve are turning on humans because rising sea levels and coastal erosion are steadily shrinking the tigers’ natural habitat.
Now no one is trying to make fun of tiger attacks. That is likely a serious problem in India. What is simply hilarious though is the attempt by “wildlife experts” to find as its cause an increase in sea levels (which hasn’t happened) attributable to a warming globe (which actually cooled last year). Not that there’s an agenda here….
The news just keeps getting more inconvenient for the GW true believers:
Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.
“In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound,” said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. “On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.
“In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years.”
Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.
“It’s been a long time on most glaciers where they’ve actually had positive mass balance,” Molnia said.
That’s the way a scientist says the glaciers got thicker in the middle.
How much do you want to bet that future stories in the msm will continue to cite “shrinking glaciers” even though they’re not when they do stories about “global warming” even though its not?
Thanks to Erich for this great referral through “Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation”
Joanne Nova, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, believed in manmade warming by carbon dioxide emissions from 1990-2007.
[Ms. Nova has pointed out that the first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology was actually Dr. Joanna Simpson. See Ms. Nova’s comment below.]
Not any more.
She is now convinced that the evidence is conclusive: carbon dioxide, whatever its contribution to the overall greenhouse effect, is a bit player in temperature changes and responds to rather than driving them.
Don’t fall for the ‘complexity’ argument, or accept vague answers. The climate is complex, but the only thing that matters here is whether adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will make the world much warmer.
Everything hinges on this one question. If carbon dioxide is not a significant cause, then carbon sequestration, cap ‘n trade, emissions trading, and the Kyoto agreement are a waste of time and money. All of them divert resources away from things that matter like finding a cure for cancer, or feeding Somali babies. Having a real debate IS the best thing for the environment.
You’ll learn great skills to use to keep the conversation focused on the evidence the next time you encounter a true believer by going to Ms. Nova’s handbook here.
The motivations of the global warming crowd range from the genuinely concerned to the rabid left. Here’s an example of a member of the later group cheerleading a declining economy as a saviour from the supposed threat of global warming.
A slowdown in the world economy may give the planet a breather from the excessively high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions responsible for climate change, a Nobel Prize winning scientist said on Tuesday.
Atmospheric scientist Paul J Crutzen, who has in the past floated the possibility of blitzing the stratosphere with sulfur particles to cool the earth, said clouds gathering over the world economy could ease the earth’s environmental burden.
But in typical “I still want mine” fashion, he likes it if you don’t have a job but he’s worried about his own.
“We could have a much slower increase of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere … people will start saving (on energy use) … but things may get worse if there is less money available for research and that would be serious.”
Less money for research would “be serious”? For him maybe. But what benefits has “reasearch” actually delivered to mankind in the global warming arena? I see lots of money spent, lots of Nobel Prizes awarded, lots of people made to be fearful but no proof given and no solutions offered for this elusive “problem” other than that you should change the way you live. Heaven forbid we should lose that “research”. That would truly be serious. At least for Mr Crutzen.