• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China Warns Trump against Abandoning Climate Change Deal

Kelfuma

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
708
Reaction score
107
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
China Warns Trump against Abandoning Climate Change Deal, Increases Climate Change Aid to Developing Countries to $ 3.1b - American Herald Tribune

China has warned Donald Trump that he will be defying the wishes of the entire planet if he acts on his vow to back away from the Paris climate agreement after he becomes US president next January.

The election of climate change skeptic Donald Trump as president is likely to end the U.S. leadership role in the international fight against global warming and may lead to the emergence of a new and unlikely champion: China.

“It is global society’s will that all want to co-operate to combat climate change,” a senior Beijing negotiator said in Morocco on Friday, at the first round of UN talks since the Paris deal was sealed last December. The Chinese negotiators added that “any movement by the new US government” would not affect their transition towards becoming a greener economy.

Oho, you want to take on the world, climate change corporate skeptics? Be my guest, this ought to be entertaining.
 
That is a good post ! How embarrassing would it be to be worse than China in relation to climate change.

I guess it would be embarrassing if it was anywhere close to happening. Maybe in bizzaro world we would be worse than China. In reality, they have no leg to stand on. Once they catch up to our level of environmental regulations, then they can talk.

china-bad-pollution-climate-change-7__880.jpg
 
In other news:

Pot Warns Kettle Not to be Black
 
That is a good post ! How embarrassing would it be to be worse than China in relation to climate change.

Why would it be embarrassing? It would be bad, if the US falls behind technologically. But shame is a poor advisor.
 
This doesn't have that much to do with the environment, IMHO. Their have been protests all over the place in China (NIMBY, polluted water, polluted buildings, polluted air, polluted food, you name it), and these kinda protests appear all over Chinese newspapers and TV. Believe it or not, the country is slowly opening up, with increasing freedoms for the press. Many newspapers and TV stations have even begun to critisize certain government policies or low-level officials publically, with no repercussions (just don't mess with the top leadership or the party as a whole). For a long time, China has allowed the environment to deteriorate for economic growth. It's getting tougher due to the will of the people, but still incredibly lenient in comparison to the US.

The simple fact is that the PRC needs the US to stick to the climate deal for economic considerations. China is experiencing a massive manufacturing slowdown, with the economy being propped up primarily through investment in property, crazy insurance products, financial instruments (sound familiar?). Massive amounts of stimulus into local brands and manufacturers have, so far, not picked up enough steam. Costs are up. Worker pay has skyrocketed, with many small to mid-cap Chinese and Asian-owned companies moving their manufacturing to places like Indonesia (definitely an emerging market) and Vietnam.

If your company is classified as "foreign" / joint venture, it is EXTREMELY HARD to fire or layoff under-performing workers, with protections for the average blue and white collar workers bordering on the extreme. There's a reason Apple does not outright own it's assembly lines in China, while GM and Toyota may soon run into big problems due to their stakes in the PRC.

The PRC has been doing everything it can to try to simultaneously limit the property and financial bubble, boost the service sectors, promote internal consumption, restrict currency outflows, AND prop up a sputtering manufacturing sector. At the same time, the local governments (think state or city jurisdictions) make money off land sales, and raising funds for infrastructure projects, continuously feeding the speculation bubble.

Even a minor relaxation in climate regulations of the US could drive not just American manufacturing, such as Caterpillar and Ford, but Chinese-owned manufacturing, to America. Companies like Haier, Lenovo, Huawei, and Xiaomi, to name a few, are salivating at the opportunity to produce goods directly in the US, at a reasonable cost, ESPECIALLY in "right-to-work" states. Win-win.

But not a win for the PRC's overall economy. At this time, ANY risk of America getting (even relatively small) a slice of this manufacturing pie due to reduced regulations, can burst the Chinese bubble.
 
China Warns Trump against Abandoning Climate Change Deal, Increases Climate Change Aid to Developing Countries to $ 3.1b - American Herald Tribune



Oho, you want to take on the world, climate change corporate skeptics? Be my guest, this ought to be entertaining.

Of course China doesn't wants us out this load of crap. With it in place, our production costs go up, while they continue to business as usual and keep sucking jobs out of this country while being the world's worst polluters. Most of what's being manufactured in China that's so horribly polluting coud be done right here and done FAR cleaner. China knows this, but they also know that our over-reaching environmental regs. (NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT ALL ENVIRONMENTAL REGS. ARE OVER-REACHING, I'M SAYING THAT THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE) increase out costs to the point that they can hammer us economically. We pushed away the jobs to "protect the environment" and as a result we pushed them to countries that don't care one bit about the environment and the harm is far worse. Common sense regs. would have allowed us to keep the jobs here and keep them from destroying the environment in other places. All they did was shift the harm away (along with the jobs) so that we didn't have to see it any more.

10 of the Most Polluted Places on Earth
 
China? LOL

Next we get warnings from Afghanistan about our treatment of women, and Columbia calls about our crime rate.
 
I guess it would be embarrassing if it was anywhere close to happening. Maybe in bizzaro world we would be worse than China. In reality, they have no leg to stand on. .]

I am not sure what your point is here. "if what would be close to happening" ? You are speaking in platitudes.

China is a major emitter of CO2 - We are major emitters of CO2

China has agreed to abide by the Paris Accord - We agreed to abide by the Paris Accord.

Given our status in the world vs China's status in the world it would be embarrassing for China to be able to uphold their end of the bargain and the US to fold.

Once they catch up to our level of environmental regulations, then they can talk

What environmental regulations are you referring to. The Paris accord is about CO2.
 
Why would it be embarrassing? It would be bad, if the US falls behind technologically. But shame is a poor advisor.

It would be embarrassing for the US to act like a third world nation. It would be embarrassing for the US to back out of a global commitment to reduce CO2 emissions... and a country like China to lead the way.
 
Of course China doesn't wants us out this load of crap. With it in place, our production costs go up, while they continue to business as usual and keep sucking jobs out of this country while being the world's worst polluters. Most of what's being manufactured in China that's so horribly polluting coud be done right here and done FAR cleaner. China knows this, but they also know that our over-reaching environmental regs. (NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT ALL ENVIRONMENTAL REGS. ARE OVER-REACHING, I'M SAYING THAT THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE) increase out costs to the point that they can hammer us economically. We pushed away the jobs to "protect the environment" and as a result we pushed them to countries that don't care one bit about the environment and the harm is far worse. Common sense regs. would have allowed us to keep the jobs here and keep them from destroying the environment in other places. All they did was shift the harm away (along with the jobs) so that we didn't have to see it any more.

10 of the Most Polluted Places on Earth

You make a good point.

The solution then is to tie Paris (CO2 emissions) to other forms of polluting. (which they should have been doing a long time ago)... and possibly other factors (slave labor)

For reasons of political gamesmanship, most of the world is over focused on "CO2" while they almost completely ignore pollution of the Oceans (Heavy metals, Persistent organic pollutants).

This is arguable the number 1 environmental issue. We could turn down the CO2 taps relatively quickly (if we really wanted). Try filtering the oceans ?

More than 2 cans of Tuna a week and one is exceeding the mercury guidelines for pregnant women. (which is low but still).

We should not be importing anything from countries that are dumping these pollutants directly into the oceans ( US does not do this).

We should not be allowing multi national corporations to use cheap oil produced by burning down forests in third world nations.

We should not be allowing products "Nike shoes" made by slave labor into the country.

Rather than just "pull out" .. we should be, as Trump would say, negotiating ... and doing so publically.
 
Last edited:
It would be embarrassing for the US to act like a third world nation. It would be embarrassing for the US to back out of a global commitment to reduce CO2 emissions... and a country like China to lead the way.

No. It would not be embarrassing to opt out. The Republicans had made it relatively clear to everyone that they would not accept a treaty without approval. It has not been and is a temporary decision by a President. The other partners in the deal knew this and have no basis to complain legitimately. If other countries want to invest in inefficient levels of tech, that seems okay. And as technology becomes cost efficient it is being installed in the US.

But to commit to reducing the standard of living without explaining the impact of the measures to the public is a very bad idea. The Europeans or Chinese might be able to get away with it, but even in Europe that type of behavior by the EU elite has lost a possibly so substantial amount of legitimacy that the project is faltering and could fail. In any event the backlash is severe. And in this case, the shift in livingstandards will be dramatic at present technological levels.
 
I am not sure what your point is here. "if what would be close to happening" ? You are speaking in platitudes.

China is a major emitter of CO2 - We are major emitters of CO2

China has agreed to abide by the Paris Accord - We agreed to abide by the Paris Accord.

Given our status in the world vs China's status in the world it would be embarrassing for China to be able to uphold their end of the bargain and the US to fold.



What environmental regulations are you referring to. The Paris accord is about CO2.

Forget about silly co2.. We are talking about REAL pollution..

water-pollution-in-china-625x340.jpg


Does that look like co2?

Lu-Guang-Pollution-in-China-07.jpg

Eh?

china-bad-pollution-climate-change-11__880.jpg


co2 is just an afterthought when talking of the real pollution in china..
 
Last edited:
No. It would not be embarrassing to opt out. The Republicans had made it relatively clear to everyone that they would not accept a treaty without approval. It has not been and is a temporary decision by a President. The other partners in the deal knew this and have no basis to complain legitimately. If other countries want to invest in inefficient levels of tech, that seems okay. And as technology becomes cost efficient it is being installed in the US.

But to commit to reducing the standard of living without explaining the impact of the measures to the public is a very bad idea. The Europeans or Chinese might be able to get away with it, but even in Europe that type of behavior by the EU elite has lost a possibly so substantial amount of legitimacy that the project is faltering and could fail. In any event the backlash is severe. And in this case, the shift in livingstandards will be dramatic at present technological levels.

I get where you are coming from but, there is also a bigger picture to consider. I talk about this in post 12. The Paris agreement is deeply flawed because it does not tie CO2 emissions to other forms of pollution. At the same time, CO2 is a real issue, although I would place it behind pollution of the Oceans. Rather than just walking away we should be taking measures that stop the flow of goods into the US that are manufactured on the back of massive pollution and/or produced by slave labor.
 
Forget about silly co2.. We are talking about REAL pollution..


Does that look like co2?

co2 is just an afterthought when talking of the real pollution in china..

I agree that pollution of the Oceans is a bigger environmental risk than CO2 but, this does not make the CO2 issue "silly".

I comment in relation to this in posts 12 and 15.
 
I get where you are coming from but, there is also a bigger picture to consider. I talk about this in post 12. The Paris agreement is deeply flawed because it does not tie CO2 emissions to other forms of pollution. At the same time, CO2 is a real issue, although I would place it behind pollution of the Oceans. Rather than just walking away we should be taking measures that stop the flow of goods into the US that are manufactured on the back of massive pollution and/or produced by slave labor.

Two things.

- The world is rapidly becoming a hostile place and its security structure will soon resemble the period before the world wars. This is a much more pressing danger, that ecology is. It is also as much a global public good as is ecology and very costly. So, if we do not get it solved, there will be no good reason to worry about ecology, while it is far too expensive as long as we need to spend so much on international security.
- If we want to traverse into an ecological framework of the type probably necessary, we must do it in the most efficient way. To take the measures that will require, we will have to explain how bad it will be. At the moment politicians and ecology lobbyists are lying about the consequences and even the dimension of the changes requires at today's level of technology.

The very first thing to do is, however, to explain why the presently living should undertake such severity against themselves for people that they will never know and are not yet born.
 
Two things.

- The world is rapidly becoming a hostile place and its security structure will soon resemble the period before the world wars. This is a much more pressing danger, that ecology is. It is also as much a global public good as is ecology and very costly. So, if we do not get it solved, there will be no good reason to worry about ecology, while it is far too expensive as long as we need to spend so much on international security.
- If we want to traverse into an ecological framework of the type probably necessary, we must do it in the most efficient way. To take the measures that will require, we will have to explain how bad it will be. At the moment politicians and ecology lobbyists are lying about the consequences and even the dimension of the changes requires at today's level of technology.

The very first thing to do is, however, to explain why the presently living should undertake such severity against themselves for people that they will never know and are not yet born.

You missed my point in relation to pollution of the Oceans (which by the way is a clear and present danger - much more so than CO2 and the evidence for Ocean pollution is "NOT" debated among experts in the way "global warming" is)

If we wanted we could reduce the CO2 flow in very short order (if there was some real and tangible emergency). In addition, there are all kinds of way to reduce CO2 emissions without reducing coal or fossil fuel use. For example, every plant on the planet should be running their stacks through a engineered bio-filter ; This is basically creating a green space where bacteria flourishes (not expensive and very effective). The bacteria eat the CO2 - and filter out other nasty byproducts. This technology has existed for many decades ... it is that politicians, scientists and industry have their heads stuck so far up their (you know where).

Filtering the Oceans ? Good friggen luck with that. Two can's of Tuna a week and you will exceed the mercury guidelines for pregnant women. Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) accumulate through bioaccumulation. Small fish have small levels - medium fish eat many small fish and have increased levels - larger fish eat many medium fish and thereby accumulate even more toxins. Seals eat the big fish.. and Polar bears eat the seals. A Polar bear is a toxic dump.

The breast milk of Inuit women in the north is too contaminated to be put on a store shelf. ... from eating Seal meat.

Industrialization is exacerbating this problem. In 1800 there were 1 Billion people on the planet. North America and Europe was maybe 200 million. The industrial revolution of NA and Europe was then over 200 million people. China and India alone are 2.5 Billion people - never mind Indonesia and other places.

Roughly 1.4 Billion of the worlds population is industrialized. In terms of utilization of resources ... (from a study about 5 years ago) We are at (36) someone eating a bowl of rice a day in Africa is (1) ... the average Chinese person was at (11). The study stated that if China was to realize our level of consumption ... world resource production would have to double.

Just China. Now China may not to our level but they will likely get half way... add in India and the rest and this is a massive pollution nightmare. China, India, and numerous other countries dump stuff directly into the Oceans.

This is (IMO) - and the opinion of everyone I have talked to in the environmental clean-up business (not to be confused with "environmentalist - we are the people that clean up the mess) ... sitting at big round lunch and dinner tables at conferences ... agrees.

If we mess up the Oceans we will not have to worry about "Climate Change". Most of the worlds Oxygen comes from the Oceans. It really is not a garbage dump.

The problem is that everyone jumped on the "Global Warming" bandwagon. It became political and so that is where all the money and attention went.

You can find stuff on Ocean Pollution - in small print on Page 72 of the NYT or in Scientific Journals that the public never reads.

At the end of the day, it is the international financiers and the Oligopolies (Oligarchs) that are the root cause of the problem (but that is a long story)
 
Two things.

- The world is rapidly becoming a hostile place and its security structure will soon resemble the period before the world wars. This is a much more pressing danger, that ecology is. It is also as much a global public good as is ecology and very costly. So, if we do not get it solved, there will be no good reason to worry about ecology, while it is far too expensive as long as we need to spend so much on international security.
- If we want to traverse into an ecological framework of the type probably necessary, we must do it in the most efficient way. To take the measures that will require, we will have to explain how bad it will be. At the moment politicians and ecology lobbyists are lying about the consequences and even the dimension of the changes requires at today's level of technology.

The very first thing to do is, however, to explain why the presently living should undertake such severity against themselves for people that they will never know and are not yet born.

Just wanted to continue a bit on my previous post. I showed how industrialization is likely going to be a serious pollution problem. What I did not mention was population growth - which of course goes hand in hand. More people want more stuff and if they industrialize they really want more stuff (perhaps even a piece of meat once in awhile :) )

Where is the conversation about population control ??? It amazes me that somehow, in this day in age, we can not manage to get a bowl of rice a day into every mouth.

That is pretty much all it would take to stop population growth. Every first world country has a decreasing population. People that are fed do not reproduce like rabbits in the hope that one of their 11 children might be able to take care of them in their old age.
 
Back
Top Bottom