ADVERTISEMENT

John Kerry is an idiot.

03 I hate to break the news to you but the science is on the side of the man made global warmer theorists.
It can't be a coincidence that around 17,000 years ago when the last ice age was coming to an end that man mastered fire. As he ate is cooked Wooley Mammoth meat over an open fire he watched the smoke and emissions enter the atmosphere. Little did he know he was making extinct his main food source.

Or could it be this:
The cycle of apsidal precession spans about 112,000 years. Apsidal precession changes the orientation of Earth's orbit relative to the elliptical plane. The combined effects of axial and apsidal precession result in an overall precession cycle spanning about 23,000 years on average.
I know I said I wasn't gonna post, but I can't let this slide. First of all, I'm not going to address your straw man about man creating fire. Literally no one is arguing that the CO2 released by prehistoric camp fires is at all comparable to the current amount of CO2 we release into the atmosphere.

And you're really going to use information from NASA's climate change page that speaks specifically about a long-term (ie. tens or hundreds of thousands of years) cycle of ice ages to explain the current, observed climate changes over the period of less than 200 years? From a page that literally includes a sidebar called "Why Milankovitch Cycles Can’t Explain Earth’s Current Warming?" You're using NASA to disprove climate change? Really? One of those government organizations that's lying to us about climate change debunks themselves on their own website that's meant to explain climate change to us? Dafuq? That's really just too funny. I guess I'm glad y'all are here to understand NASA's science better than NASA does.

Ok, now I'm really done.
 
Last edited:
The Right isn't the side claiming the debate is over so... you're welcome!
What debate? You're using pseudoscience and flawed logic to argue scientific consensus. You actually argued that peer review leads to bad science. Thank Jesus Christ almighty that you aren't a medical researcher, or we'd have dozens dead based on your work.
 
I'm more worried about John Kerry selling out the US and Israel to make buddies with Iran. Our enemy.

John Kerry needs to removed from his position yesterday.

Democrats are handing 2022 to the Republicans.
 
What debate? You're using pseudoscience and flawed logic to argue scientific consensus. You actually argued that peer review leads to bad science. Thank Jesus Christ almighty that you aren't a medical researcher, or we'd have dozens dead based on your work.
Good lord you're clueless...
 
I'm more worried about John Kerry selling out the US and Israel to make buddies with Iran. Our enemy.

John Kerry needs to removed from his position yesterday.

Democrats are handing 2022 to the Republicans.
Looks like our “Climate Czar” has revealed himself to be the “Classified Clown” 🤡

Nice job Joe. Got anymore treasonous colleagues to pick up where Kerry Clown left off
 
I know I said I wasn't gonna post, but I can't let this slide. First of all, I'm not going to address your straw man about man creating fire. Literally no one is arguing that the CO2 released by prehistoric camp fires is at all comparable to the current amount of CO2 we release into the atmosphere.

From a page that literally includes a sidebar called "Why Milankovitch Cycles Can’t Explain Earth’s Current Warming?" You're using NASA to disprove climate change? Really? One of those government organizations that's lying to us about climate change debunks themselves on their own website that's meant to explain climate change to us? Dafuq? That's really just too funny. I guess I'm glad y'all are here to understand NASA's science better than NASA does.

Ok, now I'm really done.

And you're really going to use information from NASA's climate change page that speaks specifically about a long-term (ie. tens or hundreds of thousands of years) cycle of ice ages to explain the current, observed climate changes over the period of less than 200 years?

So you are telling me you don't believe in science?

If you live in Indiana, like I do, we experience climate change on a weekly basis. There was a low of 26 deg. last Friday, today it may hit 85!
I didn't realize the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere could change so drastically.

I am all for being a steward of the environment. I love Nature.
But we are being duped by the Chinese.
That is how this thread started right? China is doing their part to save the environment.
 
I'm more worried about John Kerry selling out the US and Israel to make buddies with Iran. Our enemy.

John Kerry needs to removed from his position yesterday.

Democrats are handing 2022 to the Republicans.

And you're really going to use information from NASA's climate change page that speaks specifically about a long-term (ie. tens or hundreds of thousands of years) cycle of ice ages to explain the current, observed climate changes over the period of less than 200 years?

So you are telling me you don't believe in science?

If you live in Indiana, like I do, we experience climate change on a weekly basis. There was a low of 26 deg. last Friday, today it may hit 85!
I didn't realize the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere could change so drastically.

I am all for being a steward of the environment. I love Nature.
But we are being duped by the Chinese.
That is how this thread started right? China is doing their part to save the environment.
That's weather, not climate. That's a massive misconception on the right. Weather is not climate. If you look at average temperatures over time, they have been higher than ever in recorded history. There is a lot of science out there that's more rigorous than, "it's cold outside, so no climate change!"

Your claim about being duped by China is also not supported by data. Droid already posted information regarding their activities to move away from fossil fuels. If you choose to be ignorant, that's your decision.
 
That's weather, not climate. That's a massive misconception on the right. Weather is not climate. If you look at average temperatures over time, they have been higher than ever in recorded history. There is a lot of science out there that's more rigorous than, "it's cold outside, so no climate change!"

Your claim about being duped by China is also not supported by data. Droid already posted information regarding their activities to move away from fossil fuels. If you choose to be ignorant, that's your decision.
Newsflash: Weather is an aspect of climate
 
That's weather, not climate. That's a massive misconception on the right. Weather is not climate. If you look at average temperatures over time, they have been higher than ever in recorded history. There is a lot of science out there that's more rigorous than, "it's cold outside, so no climate change!"

Your claim about being duped by China is also not supported by data. Droid already posted information regarding their activities to move away from fossil fuels. If you choose to be ignorant, that's your decision.
And recorded history has started well past the last ice age when the Earth has been warming up.
You do realize that some 25,000 years ago, where I sit, was under 2 miles of ice.
And 25,000 years is less than .00000083% of the Earth's existence.

China OMG. They are building more coal fired powered plants per their own admission and as described in the links you provided.
FYI, they are building them with the 3 BILLION the US donated to the Paris Accord.
Under Trump the US decreased CO2 emissions. Did China? NO, they plan on continuing increasing CO2 emissions until 2030.


 
Did China? NO, they plan on continuing increasing CO2 emissions until 2030.
Couldn't stay away, you got me laughing over here with you being all up in arms about China not meeting their agreements and then providing as evidence of this claim the exact agreement that China made:


"Xi also said that China will seek to peak its emissions 'before 2030,' which is a change from the country’s initial NDC under the Paris Agreement to peak emissions 'around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early.'"

If their emissions continue to rise after 2030, then you've got something. Unfortunately, we can't know how successful they'll be until after 2030.
 
Couldn't stay away, you got me laughing over here with you being all up in arms about China not meeting their agreements and then providing as evidence of this claim the exact agreement that China made:


"Xi also said that China will seek to peak its emissions 'before 2030,' which is a change from the country’s initial NDC under the Paris Agreement to peak emissions 'around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early.'"

If their emissions continue to rise after 2030, then you've got something. Unfortunately, we can't know how successful they'll be until after 2030.
I'm only upset about China because of the the idiots that actually think China is working on CO2 emission reduction. I'm particularly upset when Obama, Biden and the Dems keep giving them Billions of my tax paid dollars to finance their industries.
Why should we be giving them a damned dime? Can you answer that question?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGunner
Couldn't stay away, you got me laughing over here with you being all up in arms about China not meeting their agreements and then providing as evidence of this claim the exact agreement that China made:


"Xi also said that China will seek to peak its emissions 'before 2030,' which is a change from the country’s initial NDC under the Paris Agreement to peak emissions 'around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early.'"

If their emissions continue to rise after 2030, then you've got something. Unfortunately, we can't know how successful they'll be until after 2030.
The fact that you're defending a dictator who has directed genocide, censors free press and has control over state sponsored media, jails protesters in Hong Kong, and can't seem to understand that Taiwan is a free country and has been for over 50 years is what makes me laugh. Do you really believe anything this country would "commit" to doing? Yet you're probably one of those Trump haters who wouldn't believe him if he said grass was green...
 
The fact that you're defending a dictator who has directed genocide, censors free press and has control over state sponsored media, jails protesters in Hong Kong, and can't seem to understand that Taiwan is a free country and has been for over 50 years is what makes me laugh. Do you really believe anything this country would "commit" to doing? Yet you're probably one of those Trump haters who wouldn't believe him if he said grass was green...
None of this was part of Droid's comments, nor part of this discussion. In fact, China only came up in the conversation from one of the RW members of the conversation trying to deflect from climate science findings to make it a political discussion about China. It's the typical Republican strategy - deflect and distract.
 
None of this was part of Droid's comments, nor part of this discussion. In fact, China only came up in the conversation from one of the RW members of the conversation trying to deflect from climate science findings to make it a political discussion about China. It's the typical Republican strategy - deflect and distract.
Is he or is he not defending China?
 
Is he or is he not defending China?
Nope, simply correcting incorrect claims about China, according to the information available. A policy argument about whether China should be getting foreign aid from us or anyone else is a different discussion. China's human rights violations is also another discussion. But it's wrong to say that China is not doing anything about climate change when they are actually doing the exact thing they said they would do about climate change, namely, to peak emissions by 2030 according to the Paris Agreement and, more recently announced, to be carbon neutral by 2060. If and when they don't meet those two targets, THEN you can get upset about them not doing their part.

Building newer, more efficient coal plants and closing older, less efficient coal plants is part of and has been part of their plan to ultimately reduce emissions. So, that's whey they're apparently doing. Incidentally, all of China's 100 most efficient coal plants are more efficient than our MOST efficient one. Getting higher percentage of power from renewables is also a part of their plan. Their target was 20% by 2030. They're currently just under 30%, so they're ahead of pace.

Folks keep saying "they're bulding more coal plants so clearly they don't care about climate change." While the data point is true, the conclusion is not warranted because there's a bigger picture. Similarly, if I were to say "they're building more wind and solar plants so clearly they care about climate change" as the only evidence, that's not enough. They could be just doing it as a token gesture, without really, making much of an impact on their overall power generation. But, as it turns out, not only are they building more, they doubled their renewable capacity in 2020.

A lot of the argument supposedly proving China's not doing their part seems to rely on the fact that the Chinese government is untrustworthy (I agree, it is) and must then be lying to us. The supposed evidence for this particular lie is that they keep building coal plants. But, if they were lying, why in the hell would they tell us they're building coal plants? If their government is THAT bad at lying, I don't think we have anything to worry about. All of this ignores that much of the information we have doesn't actually come from the Chinese government but from independent observers who went there to see what they were doing, such as the group of energy experts that visited in 2016. Others have said they say one thing and do something else, which I've demonstrated to be false, at least so far. We can check back in after 2030.
 
Nope, simply correcting incorrect claims about China, according to the information available. A policy argument about whether China should be getting foreign aid from us or anyone else is a different discussion. China's human rights violations is also another discussion. But it's wrong to say that China is not doing anything about climate change when they are actually doing the exact thing they said they would do about climate change, namely, to peak emissions by 2030 according to the Paris Agreement and, more recently announced, to be carbon neutral by 2060. If and when they don't meet those two targets, THEN you can get upset about them not doing their part.

Building newer, more efficient coal plants and closing older, less efficient coal plants is part of and has been part of their plan to ultimately reduce emissions. So, that's whey they're apparently doing. Incidentally, all of China's 100 most efficient coal plants are more efficient than our MOST efficient one. Getting higher percentage of power from renewables is also a part of their plan. Their target was 20% by 2030. They're currently just under 30%, so they're ahead of pace.

Folks keep saying "they're bulding more coal plants so clearly they don't care about climate change." While the data point is true, the conclusion is not warranted because there's a bigger picture. Similarly, if I were to say "they're building more wind and solar plants so clearly they care about climate change" as the only evidence, that's not enough. They could be just doing it as a token gesture, without really, making much of an impact on their overall power generation. But, as it turns out, not only are they building more, they doubled their renewable capacity in 2020.

A lot of the argument supposedly proving China's not doing their part seems to rely on the fact that the Chinese government is untrustworthy (I agree, it is) and must then be lying to us. The supposed evidence for this particular lie is that they keep building coal plants. But, if they were lying, why in the hell would they tell us they're building coal plants? If their government is THAT bad at lying, I don't think we have anything to worry about. All of this ignores that much of the information we have doesn't actually come from the Chinese government but from independent observers who went there to see what they were doing, such as the group of energy experts that visited in 2016. Others have said they say one thing and do something else, which I've demonstrated to be false, at least so far. We can check back in after 2030.
The fact that they're taking 10 more years to curb the growth of their emissions in order to protect their economy while we cut ours by 50% in the same timeframe tells you everything you need to know. And then on top of that, do you really believe what they're telling the world?

BTW, what do you think our commitment will cost our economy vs their commitment?
 
The fact that they're taking 10 more years to curb the growth of their emissions in order to protect their economy while we cut ours by 50% in the same timeframe tells you everything you need to know. And then on top of that, do you really believe what they're telling the world?

BTW, what do you think our commitment will cost our economy vs their commitment?
Who cares? Why shouldn't we be the global leaders? The US doesn't need to be a follower.
 
since pollution/global warming is not a concern,
R's should be complimenting china for not caving & cutting their emissions (if its true they are not)
 
Last edited:
The fact that they're taking 10 more years to curb the growth of their emissions in order to protect their economy while we cut ours by 50% in the same timeframe tells you everything you need to know. And then on top of that, do you really believe what they're telling the world?

BTW, what do you think our commitment will cost our economy vs their commitment?
It tells me that China's economy is in a very different place than ours and their agreed-to targets, you know, the ones the rest of the world agreed to along with them, are different accordingly. Just because you don't understand why China would have a longer time frame to reduce emissions doesn't mean there's necessarily anything nefarious behind it.

If you don't believe what they're telling the world, then why do you believe the when they say they're building more coal plants. Maybe they're lying about that, too?

Again, though, the information about what they're doing doesn't just come from the Chinese government.

According to the article posted by someone earlier in this thread about how our emissions dropped during Trump's administration while the economy flourished, I'd say that our commitment will improve our economy. Especially since renewable energy is less expensive than fossil fuels. Just because you've been told that reducing greenhouse gasses is somehow bad for the economy because there will be fewer jobs in coal, oil, and gas, doesn't mean that's actually the case. Especially since, as of two full years ago, jobs in renewables outnumber those in fossil fuels 3-1 with fewer than half a million employed in fossil fuels.
 
It tells me that China's economy is in a very different place than ours and their agreed-to targets, you know, the ones the rest of the world agreed to along with them, are different accordingly. Just because you don't understand why China would have a longer time frame to reduce emissions doesn't mean there's necessarily anything nefarious behind it.

If you don't believe what they're telling the world, then why do you believe the when they say they're building more coal plants. Maybe they're lying about that, too?

Again, though, the information about what they're doing doesn't just come from the Chinese government.

According to the article posted by someone earlier in this thread about how our emissions dropped during Trump's administration while the economy flourished, I'd say that our commitment will improve our economy. Especially since renewable energy is less expensive than fossil fuels. Just because you've been told that reducing greenhouse gasses is somehow bad for the economy because there will be fewer jobs in coal, oil, and gas, doesn't mean that's actually the case. Especially since, as of two full years ago, jobs in renewables outnumber those in fossil fuels 3-1 with fewer than half a million employed in fossil fuels.
"and their agreed-to targets, you know, the ones the rest of the world agreed to along with them". Therein lies the problem. There's no guidance for what the commitment should be based on emissions. It was all brought forth by each individual country. While they commit to something less than to protect their economy, we decide "the new green deal" or something similar is the answer. And we (US citizens) end up paying for it, while China reaps the economic benefit and becomes the economic and likely military power of the world.

You clearly don't understand what China has to gain from this. Why do you think Kerry went back to China asking them for a bigger commitment? Because he and Obama screwed the pooch the first time around.

I really don't care what China says about coal plants. But what I do know is we should never trust a country led by an authoritarian regime that calls itself communist while the rich in China reaps the benefits of capitalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
"and their agreed-to targets, you know, the ones the rest of the world agreed to along with them". Therein lies the problem. There's no guidance for what the commitment should be based on emissions. It was all brought forth by each individual country. While they commit to something less than to protect their economy, we decide "the new green deal" or something similar is the answer. And we (US citizens) end up paying for it, while China reaps the economic benefit and becomes the economic and likely military power of the world.

You clearly don't understand what China has to gain from this. Why do you think Kerry went back to China asking them for a bigger commitment? Because he and Obama screwed the pooch the first time around.

I really don't care what China says about coal plants. But what I do know is we should never trust a country led by an authoritarian regime that calls itself communist while the rich in China reaps the benefits of capitalism.
Support your claim that there was no guidance given the participating countries about what level of emission reduction they should shoot for.

Support your claim that China agreed to less to "protect their economy." I agree that there are different rules for countries with "developing" economies than those with developed ones. You may think that's not fair, but such is life. China and the U.S. shouldn't have the exact same targets, as they are very different countries with very different economies. For instance, China's developing economy demands significantly more electricity each year, hence why they keep building power plants (coal and otherwise) to keep up with demand. Our developed economy hasn't changed its consumption all that much, at least since 2009. And yet, despite rapidly increasing overall consumption, China is increasing its share from renewables faster than we are, even while continuing to build coal plants.

Support your claim that going green is bad for the economy. Don't use the Heritage foundation and don't focus solely on the Green New Deal, specifically. I'm talking about the general concept of a shift away from fossil fuels. How does transitioning from fossil fuels destroy the economy?

Support your claim that Kerry asked China for a bigger commitment. I see a largely symbolic visit in which both countries agreed to cooperate on climate change but nothing specifically where he asks them to change their commitment. Even if he did, though, support your claim that it's because "he and Obama screwed the pooch."

Who said anything about trusting them?
 
Support your claim that there was no guidance given the participating countries about what level of emission reduction they should shoot for.

Support your claim that China agreed to less to "protect their economy." I agree that there are different rules for countries with "developing" economies than those with developed ones. You may think that's not fair, but such is life. China and the U.S. shouldn't have the exact same targets, as they are very different countries with very different economies. For instance, China's developing economy demands significantly more electricity each year, hence why they keep building power plants (coal and otherwise) to keep up with demand. Our developed economy hasn't changed its consumption all that much, at least since 2009. And yet, despite rapidly increasing overall consumption, China is increasing its share from renewables faster than we are, even while continuing to build coal plants.

Support your claim that going green is bad for the economy. Don't use the Heritage foundation and don't focus solely on the Green New Deal, specifically. I'm talking about the general concept of a shift away from fossil fuels. How does transitioning from fossil fuels destroy the economy?

Support your claim that Kerry asked China for a bigger commitment. I see a largely symbolic visit in which both countries agreed to cooperate on climate change but nothing specifically where he asks them to change their commitment. Even if he did, though, support your claim that it's because "he and Obama screwed the pooch."

Who said anything about trusting them?
So we can all rest assure that China, although increasing emissions currently, will reduce emissions within the next 10 years.
Why because they tell us they will.
Have they let in the world to determine if the Covid-19 actually came from a contaminated bat?
AND: You still haven't answered my question.
Why should we be giving them a damned dime? Can you answer that question?
 
  • Like
Reactions: purduepat1969
Support your claim that there was no guidance given the participating countries about what level of emission reduction they should shoot for.

Support your claim that China agreed to less to "protect their economy." I agree that there are different rules for countries with "developing" economies than those with developed ones. You may think that's not fair, but such is life. China and the U.S. shouldn't have the exact same targets, as they are very different countries with very different economies. For instance, China's developing economy demands significantly more electricity each year, hence why they keep building power plants (coal and otherwise) to keep up with demand. Our developed economy hasn't changed its consumption all that much, at least since 2009. And yet, despite rapidly increasing overall consumption, China is increasing its share from renewables faster than we are, even while continuing to build coal plants.

Support your claim that going green is bad for the economy. Don't use the Heritage foundation and don't focus solely on the Green New Deal, specifically. I'm talking about the general concept of a shift away from fossil fuels. How does transitioning from fossil fuels destroy the economy?

Support your claim that Kerry asked China for a bigger commitment. I see a largely symbolic visit in which both countries agreed to cooperate on climate change but nothing specifically where he asks them to change their commitment. Even if he did, though, support your claim that it's because "he and Obama screwed the pooch."

Who said anything about trusting them?
Here's my response for the second question, based on this article from Forbes. I'll follow up with my responses in separate posts. It also essentially answers question one and provides background on why China hasn't been a trustworthy world partner.

"Only if energy intensity is improved by the same proportion and growth is limited to doubling GDP per capita can it reach the lower target of 14.7 BT estimated for 2030 by the Climate Action Tracker organization, which promotes reaching the Paris climate accord goal. According to this group’s analysis, even this level is rated as “highly insufficient,” with an explanation that it falls “outside of a country’s ‘fair share’ range and (is) not at all consistent with holding warming below two degrees Celsius, let alone with the Paris Agreements stronger 1.5 degree limit.” This group also notes that the Middle Kingdom, largely through its mercantilist Belt and Road Initiative, is the largest exporter of coal-fired electricity plants being developed outside of China."

 
Support your claim that there was no guidance given the participating countries about what level of emission reduction they should shoot for.

Support your claim that China agreed to less to "protect their economy." I agree that there are different rules for countries with "developing" economies than those with developed ones. You may think that's not fair, but such is life. China and the U.S. shouldn't have the exact same targets, as they are very different countries with very different economies. For instance, China's developing economy demands significantly more electricity each year, hence why they keep building power plants (coal and otherwise) to keep up with demand. Our developed economy hasn't changed its consumption all that much, at least since 2009. And yet, despite rapidly increasing overall consumption, China is increasing its share from renewables faster than we are, even while continuing to build coal plants.

Support your claim that going green is bad for the economy. Don't use the Heritage foundation and don't focus solely on the Green New Deal, specifically. I'm talking about the general concept of a shift away from fossil fuels. How does transitioning from fossil fuels destroy the economy?

Support your claim that Kerry asked China for a bigger commitment. I see a largely symbolic visit in which both countries agreed to cooperate on climate change but nothing specifically where he asks them to change their commitment. Even if he did, though, support your claim that it's because "he and Obama screwed the pooch."

Who said anything about trusting them?
Here is another response for question 2. And on question 4, why do you think Kerry met with China on Climate commitments? He and other countries are asking for higher commitments. That's pretty clear and factual.

"But Beijing is clear that it will ignore any carbon-emissions commitments that might impinge on China’s economic growth. “Some countries are asking China to do more on climate change,” deputy foreign minister Le Yucheng said last week. “I am afraid this is not very realistic.”"

 
Support your claim that there was no guidance given the participating countries about what level of emission reduction they should shoot for.

Support your claim that China agreed to less to "protect their economy." I agree that there are different rules for countries with "developing" economies than those with developed ones. You may think that's not fair, but such is life. China and the U.S. shouldn't have the exact same targets, as they are very different countries with very different economies. For instance, China's developing economy demands significantly more electricity each year, hence why they keep building power plants (coal and otherwise) to keep up with demand. Our developed economy hasn't changed its consumption all that much, at least since 2009. And yet, despite rapidly increasing overall consumption, China is increasing its share from renewables faster than we are, even while continuing to build coal plants.

Support your claim that going green is bad for the economy. Don't use the Heritage foundation and don't focus solely on the Green New Deal, specifically. I'm talking about the general concept of a shift away from fossil fuels. How does transitioning from fossil fuels destroy the economy?

Support your claim that Kerry asked China for a bigger commitment. I see a largely symbolic visit in which both countries agreed to cooperate on climate change but nothing specifically where he asks them to change their commitment. Even if he did, though, support your claim that it's because "he and Obama screwed the pooch."

Who said anything about trusting them?
Answer for #3. I'll explain it in simple terms. If you've ever worked in manufacturing, you'd know this. The issue with going green is that China won't be doing so proportionately. So in other words, US companies will have to comply with heavier environmental restrictions placed on manufacturing relative to Chinese companies. This means added cost to US manufacturing. China is currently at a major advantage in this regard as well as labor costs. That's going to hurt US manufacturing in their ability to compete in the world market. It's that simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
Support your claim that there was no guidance given the participating countries about what level of emission reduction they should shoot for.

Support your claim that China agreed to less to "protect their economy." I agree that there are different rules for countries with "developing" economies than those with developed ones. You may think that's not fair, but such is life. China and the U.S. shouldn't have the exact same targets, as they are very different countries with very different economies. For instance, China's developing economy demands significantly more electricity each year, hence why they keep building power plants (coal and otherwise) to keep up with demand. Our developed economy hasn't changed its consumption all that much, at least since 2009. And yet, despite rapidly increasing overall consumption, China is increasing its share from renewables faster than we are, even while continuing to build coal plants.

Support your claim that going green is bad for the economy. Don't use the Heritage foundation and don't focus solely on the Green New Deal, specifically. I'm talking about the general concept of a shift away from fossil fuels. How does transitioning from fossil fuels destroy the economy?

Support your claim that Kerry asked China for a bigger commitment. I see a largely symbolic visit in which both countries agreed to cooperate on climate change but nothing specifically where he asks them to change their commitment. Even if he did, though, support your claim that it's because "he and Obama screwed the pooch."

Who said anything about trusting them?
Here's another response for question 1. Commitments by country were developed by each country voluntarily and brought forth independently by each country.

"Under the Paris Agreement (adopted exactly five years earlier), countries are committed to volunteer Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) with a five-yearly process of assessment and if possible, greater commitments. China’s first NDC was submitted to the UN in 2015 and included targets for both 2020 and 2030."

 
Support your claim that there was no guidance given the participating countries about what level of emission reduction they should shoot for.

Support your claim that China agreed to less to "protect their economy." I agree that there are different rules for countries with "developing" economies than those with developed ones. You may think that's not fair, but such is life. China and the U.S. shouldn't have the exact same targets, as they are very different countries with very different economies. For instance, China's developing economy demands significantly more electricity each year, hence why they keep building power plants (coal and otherwise) to keep up with demand. Our developed economy hasn't changed its consumption all that much, at least since 2009. And yet, despite rapidly increasing overall consumption, China is increasing its share from renewables faster than we are, even while continuing to build coal plants.

Support your claim that going green is bad for the economy. Don't use the Heritage foundation and don't focus solely on the Green New Deal, specifically. I'm talking about the general concept of a shift away from fossil fuels. How does transitioning from fossil fuels destroy the economy?

Support your claim that Kerry asked China for a bigger commitment. I see a largely symbolic visit in which both countries agreed to cooperate on climate change but nothing specifically where he asks them to change their commitment. Even if he did, though, support your claim that it's because "he and Obama screwed the pooch."

Who said anything about trusting them?
Additional response to #4.

"Special climate envoy John Kerry said Friday night that China isn’t doing enough on climate change after the country said at a White House climate summit this week that it would try to reduce its coal use starting in a few years.

After acknowledging some of the promises Chinese President Xi Jinping made, Kerry argued during a CNN town hall that the country is “not doing enough.""

 
Support your claim that there was no guidance given the participating countries about what level of emission reduction they should shoot for.

Support your claim that China agreed to less to "protect their economy." I agree that there are different rules for countries with "developing" economies than those with developed ones. You may think that's not fair, but such is life. China and the U.S. shouldn't have the exact same targets, as they are very different countries with very different economies. For instance, China's developing economy demands significantly more electricity each year, hence why they keep building power plants (coal and otherwise) to keep up with demand. Our developed economy hasn't changed its consumption all that much, at least since 2009. And yet, despite rapidly increasing overall consumption, China is increasing its share from renewables faster than we are, even while continuing to build coal plants.

Support your claim that going green is bad for the economy. Don't use the Heritage foundation and don't focus solely on the Green New Deal, specifically. I'm talking about the general concept of a shift away from fossil fuels. How does transitioning from fossil fuels destroy the economy?

Support your claim that Kerry asked China for a bigger commitment. I see a largely symbolic visit in which both countries agreed to cooperate on climate change but nothing specifically where he asks them to change their commitment. Even if he did, though, support your claim that it's because "he and Obama screwed the pooch."

Who said anything about trusting them?
Yet another response to question #1...and a very telling one. This is precisely why the Climate Accords are dangerous and why Obama screwed the pooch...

Former US Special Envoy on Climate Change and President Obama's chief climate negotiator on the Paris Agreement, Todd Stern, told CBS News that it was important at the time for the U.S. to declare an ambitious goal, setting a good example for other nations.

"Some countries pick a target that's really easy and then they pat themselves on the back when they meet it," said Stern. "We took the opposite approach."

 
Last edited:
So we can all rest assure that China, although increasing emissions currently, will reduce emissions within the next 10 years.
Why because they tell us they will.
Have they let in the world to determine if the Covid-19 actually came from a contaminated bat?
AND: You still haven't answered my question.
Why should we be giving them a damned dime? Can you answer that question?
I never said we could be sure. I said they are currently meeting their targets.
 
Here's my response for the second question, based on this article from Forbes. I'll follow up with my responses in separate posts. It also essentially answers question one and provides background on why China hasn't been a trustworthy world partner.

"Only if energy intensity is improved by the same proportion and growth is limited to doubling GDP per capita can it reach the lower target of 14.7 BT estimated for 2030 by the Climate Action Tracker organization, which promotes reaching the Paris climate accord goal. According to this group’s analysis, even this level is rated as “highly insufficient,” with an explanation that it falls “outside of a country’s ‘fair share’ range and (is) not at all consistent with holding warming below two degrees Celsius, let alone with the Paris Agreements stronger 1.5 degree limit.” This group also notes that the Middle Kingdom, largely through its mercantilist Belt and Road Initiative, is the largest exporter of coal-fired electricity plants being developed outside of China."

So, as you've noted, we should put further pressure on China to do more. That's fair. I never said China was doing everything they could. Neither are we, for whatever it's worth. I'd argue that the Paris agreement doesn't go far enough on a global basis, but that at least it was a step in the right direction.
 
Last edited:
Here is another response for question 2. And on question 4, why do you think Kerry met with China on Climate commitments? He and other countries are asking for higher commitments. That's pretty clear and factual.

"But Beijing is clear that it will ignore any carbon-emissions commitments that might impinge on China’s economic growth. “Some countries are asking China to do more on climate change,” deputy foreign minister Le Yucheng said last week. “I am afraid this is not very realistic.”"

This supports other countries asking, not Kerry, but I'm prepared to stipulate that Kerry's position is much the same as the "some countries" mentioned here.
 
Yet another response to question #1...and a very telling one. This is precisely why the Climate Accords are dangerous and why Obama screwed the pooch...

Former US Special Envoy on Climate Change and President Obama's chief climate negotiator on the Paris Agreement, Todd Stern, told CBS News that it was important at the time for the U.S. to declare an ambitious goal, setting a good example for other nations.

"Some countries pick a target that's really easy and then they pat themselves on the back when they meet it," said Stern. "We took the opposite approach."

I agreed that each country set their own goal. You said there was no guidance. That claim has yet to be proven. Whether or not the different targets for different countries constitutes a "screwing of the pooch" is an opinion.
 
Last edited:
Answer for #3. I'll explain it in simple terms. If you've ever worked in manufacturing, you'd know this. The issue with going green is that China won't be doing so proportionately. So in other words, US companies will have to comply with heavier environmental restrictions placed on manufacturing relative to Chinese companies. This means added cost to US manufacturing. China is currently at a major advantage in this regard as well as labor costs. That's going to hurt US manufacturing in their ability to compete in the world market. It's that simple.
Manufacturing isn't a large part of our economy to begin with, and you'll need more than just your claim that it will have an effect on their competitiveness to convince me that it actually will. Even if true, this is far from destroying our economy. Should we get rid of safety regulations because they add costs to our manufacturers?Maybe manufacturing takes a hit. But if we create a bunch of new jobs in green energy, and such, those negative effects can be offset or overcome. The world changes and industries die. Has happened all along and will continue to happen.

These companies didn't seem to have a problem with extra regulations.
 
Last edited:
A final note from me on this, because we could go back and forth forever:

The post that started this whole China digression was one that suggested that China doesn't "believe" in climate change. I set out only to show that there's no evidence for this claim and, in fact, evidence to the contrary -- that they are, so far, meeting their Paris agreement targets and have stricter emission standards than the US. I'm not holding them up as the model for emission reduction. I'm not saying they're doing everything right fast enough. I'm not saying their government is trustworthy. I'm simply pushing back on the notion that China somehow tricked the rest of the world into destroying their economies by inventing climate change, but executed this trick so poorly that they allowed anyone on the internet to see through it by letting it slip that they're building more coal plants.

Even if it were true that China was doing NOTHING to help curb climate change, that doesn't mean that we should also do nothing. It would mean, in fact, that if we want to follow the scientific guidance and try to achieve a maximum of 1.5 degrees of warming, we should transition even faster and get other friendly countries to join us. If you believe that global warming is a hoax and it doesn't matter what we do, then that's another discussion, which has happened in this and a couple other threads and one I'm pretty sick of at this point.
 
I agreed that each country set their own goal. You said there was no guidance. That claim has yet to be proven. Whether or not the different targets for different countries constitutes a "screwing of the pooch" is an opinion.
You're really not that bright. What part of "some countries pick a target that's really easy" don't you get? That means the Paris Accords is not providing any accountable guidelines for other countries to follow other than meeting some ambiguous 1.5 degree overall goal. And you've provided absolutely nothing to counter argue your point that any guidelines exist. So show them to me if they do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
Manufacturing isn't a large part of our economy to begin with, and you'll need more than just your claim that it will have an effect on their competitiveness to convince me that it actually will. Even if true, this is far from destroying our economy. Should we get rid of safety regulations because they add costs to our manufacturers?Maybe manufacturing takes a hit. But if we create a bunch of new jobs in green energy, and such, those negative effects can be offset or overcome. The world changes and industries die. Has happened all along and will continue to happen.

These companies didn't seem to have a problem with extra regulations.
And why do you think manufacturing is a smaller part of our economy now? Let me give you a little hint. China...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
You're really not that bright. What part of "some countries pick a target that's really easy" don't you get? That means the Paris Accords is not providing any accountable guidelines for other countries to follow other than meeting some ambiguous 1.5 degree overall goal. And you've provided absolutely nothing to counter argue your point that any guidelines exist. So show them to me if they do.
Well, if you're getting into insults I'll be ending our conversation after responding to your most recent posts. I'm not gonna play that game.

Does the acknowledgement that some countries picked easy targets necessarily that mean China is one of them? Do you have information about the relative difficulty level of every country's commitment? I didn't make a claim that there was guidance, you claimed that there wasn't. Burden of proof is on you, but do you think climate scientists didn't have any information available on what it would take to meet the goal? Guidance comes BEFORE the targets are developed.
 
And why do you think manufacturing is a smaller part of our economy now? Let me give you a little hint. China...
Yes, and look how our economy fell apart when all of our private corporations decided to send their manufacturing operations overseas.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT