Climate Change: Its Not About Climate
SHANGHAI (Reuters) – China put 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity into operation in 2020, according to new international research, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world and potentially undermining its short-term climate goals.
The country won praise last year after President Xi Jinping pledged to make the country “carbon neutral” by 2060. But regulators have since come under fire for failing to properly control the coal power sector, a major source of climate-warming greenhouse gas.
Wait. So China promised to do something positive requiring sacrifice, and then just the very next year, turned around and did the exact opposite, maximizing its own Comprehensive National Power instead?
Wow. Who would have expected this outcome? [*cough* Hong Kong *cough*]
Right. So, only idiots (or those without functioning medium-term memories) expected China to actually engage in the whole “carbon” game. But it really isn’t this that I’m focused on. Rather, the thing that interests me: the total lack of response by the West.
All those “Build Back Better” folks, the people who say that Climate is an Existential Crisis, the veritable End of the World in another 9 years – are they threatening nuclear retaliation upon world-destroying China?
Not so much:
“Hopefully as the Chinese government determines its coal power capacity targets for the next five-year plan (for 2021-2025), it will severely restrict if not end new coal plant builds and accelerate retirements,” she said.
Now this wasn’t particularly mean, was it? And further, note that this was someone from a think tank doing the whining.
What it also wasn’t – it wasn’t the US national security apparatus threatening immediate nuclear destruction of the offending nation that was recklessly threatening everyone on the planet by all that new coal-electric generation. That didn’t happen either.
So I claim that if we really did have a world-ending climate emergency in the near-term offing, we’d see the “nuclear” card dropped onto the table. World-ending threats (like Climate is alleged to be) demand very serious displays of national power.
But since its just think-tank people whining, and the security apparatus remains silent – perhaps the Donors are still looking to root out all those “white supremacists” – this reinforces for me that the whole “Climate” campaign is really about something else entirely.
They’re perfectly willing to lock US down “for the climate.” But if China builds a massive number of new coal plants? “Boy we sure hope they change.”
Conclusion: “Climate Change” is not about climate at all.
Total strawman argument. You are saying we are not willing to destroy the planet with Nukes in order to keep climate change from destroying the planet. What the…?
ALthough the real situation is not that different. We live in a world where if you don’t make money you and your loved ones suffer and die. Any and all real solutions to climate change requires industrial civilization to power down which means much less money and jobs so everyone starts to suffer and die.
This is not even controversial. Every leader of every country who has been confronted with the question of why they are not cutting FF use says the same thing, they can not allow their economies to shrink or even slow down. When people are told they must stop FF use they all say the same thing, I have to go to work in the morning, let me know when I can make all the money I need and still cut energy use.
All of the calls to ramp up the “greening” of the world with a WWII like effort to rebuild everything only greener, will trigger a massive increase in FF use and every other limited resource as well.
So what do we do you ask? LESS!
However you might be onto something, Maybe the US should nuke the planet before some really bad people do it first. That seems to be our logic most of the time.
Didnt the US just spend the past four years telling the world that we were dropping out of the Paris climate accord? Signaling that we dont intend to take climate issues seriously?
On what grounds would we complain when China blows off their commitment, let alone threaten to drop nukes? We blew off even signaling a commitment, let alone living up to an actual commitment.
Climate appears to be a standard prisoners dilemma type situation, where everyone thinks they gain benefit by gaming the system short term for their own advantage. And all parties (countries/elites/companies included) continue to do this.
Nine years is approximately when we will have exceeded the carbon budget for 2deg C warming being baked into the cake. At this point, various tipping points are likely being crossed. It will take a lot longer for the effects of the warming to play out upon the world.
I guess we can and will continue to fiddle for a while longer. Then, should we even realize what we have done, it will be far past the point to fix it. Thankfully, my life will be done before the really serious stuff is going down. And since I dont have any children of my own, I can leave the problem to someone elses children to survive (or fix), if they can.
“Wait. So China promised to do something positive requiring sacrifice, and then just the very next year, turned around and did the exact opposite, maximizing its own Comprehensive National Power instead?”
“At the end of September, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced his country’s intention to peak its emissions by 2030 and be carbon neutral before 2060. To meet this goal, China will have to expand its domestic market for clean energy technologies, many of which it produces. China is also hoping to spur other countries to be more aggressive in lowering emissions—calling for a “Green Revolution”—and these countries could also be a market for Chinese technologies.
Thanks to initiatives like these, China is for now winning the global race to invent and manufacture the technologies that will allow a new low-carbon world. Europe, which has made its own commitment to become climate neutral by 2050, is not far behind.
Given its robust high-tech sector and wealth of private investment, the United States is well positioned to compete, but it risks falling behind. For now, it is still resting on the energy boom that came with the shale oil revolution and relying on its traditional approach to energy innovation. This shortsightedness will hurt the country economically and geopolitically. To avoid the pain, the United States needs a clear strategy for leading in new energy markets and technologies.”
Dave I’m sure you would agree there are a lot of true believers when it comes to climate change. And a lot of them have made big, costly, inconvenient changes in their own lifestyles which are congruent with their beliefs. We know people like that because they are common here at Peak Prosperity. Personally, I have made many of the same changes even though I’m agnostic about parts of the theory and therefore don’t qualify as a true believer.
However, I think your comments above are very accurate regarding the elite and the oligarchs who determine the direction of the climate change movement, it’s public narrative and fund it in the most important ways. I’m talking about the clique that loosely includes Klaus Schwab, George Soros, and Bill Gates. The way I think it works is that the billionaire clique determines their narrative and then a large cadre of scientists, politicians and bureaucrats “scientifically” document the narrative and push it onto the Western world’s citizens with every lever at their disposal (politicians, educators, media, entertainers, sports celebrities, etc).
This is how I understand why no climate change true believers have begun a crusade to make China stop increasing their carbon footprint significantly every single year. Schwab, Soros, Gates and Partners LLC have not decided to put the focus and pressure on China. As a result, those who mind the narrative for them, including the politicians, have not begun beating the drums about China. And since The Narrative Machine has not been employed, all the every-day-true-believers have not and will not give China much thought and will not make a fuss about them.
But you’re on to something. If the world is truly going to end in 11 years now (per useful idiot AOC), why aren’t Schwab, Soros, Gates and Partners LLC saying anything about China? Furthermore, why aren’t they saying anything about controlling the population explosion going on in Africa and most of the Muslim world (a key dynamic related to saving the earth from climate change)? I agree with you that it’s not primarily about climate change. Per this writer’s essay, I’d say what it’s about is the mitigating steps they say we MUST take to save the earth from climate change. https://wmbriggs.com/post/35136/
Those mitigation efforts to save the earth will require that Schwab, Soros, Gates and Partners LLC gain political and financial control of at least the Western world. What they want is ultimate power and ultimate wealth, and perhaps they’ll be satisfied with ruling the Western world under their iron grip. Or maybe they’ll ignore China, Africa and Islam until they’ve consolidated the Western world and can use it to co-opt or conquer the rest. But whatever the truth of climate change turns out to be in the coming decades of this century, it’s clear to me that the owners of the climate change brand definitely do not believe the earth is near death. Clearly, Schwab, Soros, Gates and Partners LLC are USING climate change to accomplish their barely concealed real goals of world domination.
Well let’s see. Anyone know what the US carbon emissions were vs China’s? How about the US emissions this year vs last?
You all really think that the world will end in 9 years – that Kindly Bill Gates will lose all that farmland he’s assiduously collected – and that the largest carbon emitter in the world (by a factor of two!) is really just being ignored by the current nuclear-armed world superpower?
This defies logic. As someone who lived through the Cold War, and studied a great deal of international relations, my experience is that superpowers take a really dim view of nations that are actually on track to destroy the globe.
Heck. Geopolitical experience tells us that simply threatening to swipe all that mideast oil is worth a war, but setting out to destroy the world with all your new coal plants isn’t even worth a snide remark?
Seriously. China is the world’s largest carbon emitter. They are increasing their carbon emissions. And not by a little. According to “the orthodoxy”, these actions by China will bring about the end of the world. They have double the carbon emissions of the nearest competitor.
What’s more, “The Paris Accords” will do nothing to stop China at all.
For me – if China really were on track to literally destroy the world with their coal plants, you are damn right I’d trot out that nuclear card. “You keep building those coal plants, we’ll make them go away. Climate change will end the world in 10 years. You really do have to do what we say.” Its called the first strike doctrine. It’s either a first strike, or the world ends. You would prefer the world ending, perhaps? Clearly, China won’t stop of their own accord, Paris, or no Paris.
But of course we are so far from doing something like that, it isn’t even funny. We are at the other end of the spectrum. This event has rated a big fat yawn from the US defense establishment, whose charter it is to defend the US from all enemies. Presumably, “end-o-the-world” would appear on their radar. They’d have contingency plans. That’s their duty, after all.
But no. Yawn it is.
Honestly, of course, I don’t think the world will end due to “the climate emergency”, so I wouldn’t be threatening China either, if I were in power.
Of course, if there were such an emergency, the rich-and-powerful folk would be acting very differently towards the world’s largest carbon emitting nation.
Heck, those same people have taken “Q Anon Shaman” and thrown him in jail for taking selfies in the Capitol. But world-ending carbon from China? A big fat yawn.
You all can believe what they say. I watch what they do. That’s far more revealing.
Actions >>> Words.
[EDIT: Yes Tom seems right to me. Nicely phrased. Again, if I saw them acting rationally, I might well be on board. They aren’t, so I’m not. I was neutral for a long time. Not any longer.]
As someone on this site says… elites are going to elite. There doesnt appear to be a solution to this, except for societies use their power to tax them out of eliteness. This has occurred a few time in Americas past (1880s, 1930s). Maybe it will happen again or maybe not.
Right now, the great reset is the elites marketing to everyone else about how they are going to fix climate while keeping themselves in control of the process. The elites are aware of climate and are pivoting to try and fix the problem while keeping themselves in the drivers seat.
Sure, China emits 2x the US carbon footprint. However on a per person basis, china emits half of the US per person average. And they manufacture much of our crap, shouldering a lot of emissions on Americas behalf. We are the country that drives much of the worldwide emissions and also the messaging that climate doesnt matter.
Following your logic, we should nuke ourselves in a first strike.
And how about the peaceful exploring of space? Years ago, the treaties were made between the US and the Soviet Union. SU doesn’t exist anymore and China wasn’t even considered. That’s going to lead to problems.
I’m reminded of Dr. Jacque Vallee’s reaction when Steven Spielberg told him that the aliens in Close Encounters were extraterrestrials. How….simplistic.
I’m not disagreeing, here. Obviously the first “solution” to climate change would be a carbon tax. The clandestine enclave of monied elites would prefer to reinforce the concept that wealth allocates the power to break the rules. They print their exceptionalism and call it “money”.
In his Debunking Money series, Damon Vrabel posited that we were experiencing an approaching “rebalancing” of the global East-West economy dichotomy. Japan, of course, exists as a western nation in this paradigm. He pointed out that the first world needs to come down, and the third world needs to come up, basically.
I feel like Jacques Vallee right now.
Ever see Mad Max: Fury Road?
“All this over a family squabble?”
All this just to prevent the possibility of parity in the global economy?