Print 86 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Apr 8 at 7:03 PM

China has severe air pollution probems. It emits more greenhouse gases than any other nation.  (Source: Treehugger)

China is cleverly leveraging the warming debate to try to turn the world's most powerful developing nations against the U.S.  (Source: The Hindu)
China rallies developing nations to oppose emissions restrictions championed by the U.S. and its allies

Tensions between China and the U.S. are already running high.  You can now add one more contentious issue to the mix -- global warming.

In December, President Barack Obama traveled to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen to try to broker a climate alliance to fight global warming.  Hopes of a true international deal, though, vanished as the industrialized nations failed to reach a binding compromise with developing nations.

China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, is leading an alliance of developing nations dubbed BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China).  BASIC wants the U.S. and other "rich" nations to bear the primary cost of fighting global warming.  They argue that the industrialized nations already had their chance to grow and develop.  Meanwhile the U.S. and others have argued that China and its allies need to take warming much more seriously.

There is some hope of a compromise.  In an eleventh hour meeting at Copenhagen, between Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, an interruption by President Obama triggered talks that would eventually lead to the developing countries and the industrialized ones signing an accord, near the end of the Copenhagen summit.

The Copenhagen Accord is no true climate treaty and should not be hailed as such.  It lacks any sort of clear roadmap for fighting warming.  What it does provide is an agreement that warming costs must be shouldered equally by all nations, not thrust upon industrialized or developing nations.

Many consider that a slight victory for the U.S. as the developing nations were particular vocal in calling for unequal restrictions on wealthy nations.

The debate, however, is quietly allowing China to consolidate developing nations in economic opposition to the U.S.  China scored a win when its ally Sudan was elected chair of the Group of 77 bloc of developing countries.

Meanwhile, China is courting India via the warming debate.  India is typically a close ally of America economically and based on shared domestic issues, such as terrorism threats form Islamic extremists.  However, India has allied itself with China when it comes to the warming debate.  And it seems apparent that China is in firm control of the direction of BASIC.

The true test of the future of warming legislation will come late this year.  After a series of small summits, world leaders, including, presumably, U.S. President Barack Obama, will convene in Cancun Mexico this December to try to iron out a binding treaty.

The question becomes whether China is truly looking to cooperate and is merely trying to protect its own interests, or whether the growing economic giant is looking to use the debate to consolidate its political power in the developing nation sphere, at a time when its clashing with U.S. government and businesses.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Global what?
By porkpie on 4/6/2010 10:13:29 AM , Rating: 5
Jason forgets to mention that nations like India have already created their own panels to investigate whether or not global warming is even occurring, as they now wisely doubt the conclusions reached by the incompetent, corrupt, politically-motivated IPCC.

Russia, China, and large parts of the US, Europe, and the Middle East just had their coldest winter ever -- despite 150 years of so-called warming. A recent poll in the US placed global warming dead last in importance on a list of issues facing the nation. Given the gargantuan costs associated with fighting this so-called problem, I'm surprised Obama is even fighting public opinion in trying to advance it.

RE: Global what?
By Ristogod on 4/6/2010 10:34:50 AM , Rating: 5
Indeed. These Chinese, despite their issues regarding human rights and such, are no fools. They won't be duped into some political agenda constructed of lies and deceit.

RE: Global what?
By gtr32x on 4/6/2010 1:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the US is no fool either. The whole issue of AGW is a political debate.

RE: Global what?
By kattanna on 4/6/2010 11:14:05 AM , Rating: 3
i have spent much time going over the data the US itself uses to calculate global temps and its a shame.

in the early 90's 3/4 of all US temp stations where removed from being used. only those in coastal and warm urban areas remained. we also stopped using all available data from other countries as well. Russia has called us out on not using all the station data they have, but instead using a cherry picked subset. so when you hear "this is the 2nd warmest season on record" or some such, you now have to remember that since 1990 the US only is using the warmest 1/4 of all temp monitoring stations. before 1990 we had about 6000 stations, after 1990 we only use a little over 1000 of them.

also, they cannot get the satellite data to match the ground data, with satellite consistently like 2-3 degrees higher. many think its not a data point issue, but more the statistical methods being used to massage the data.

and right now, we are currently in a cooling trend until about 2030 or 2050, depending upon which statistical method is used.

RE: Global what?
By JediJeb on 4/6/2010 12:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
And the funny thing is it was the second warmest year in the last 12 years, but tied with 5 other years as the second warmest year. If you have 6 of 12 years at the same temperature ( even with the skew from using the hottest stations) that would suggest a stable trend, not a warming trend.

RE: Global what?
By kattanna on 4/6/2010 1:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
hush you!

how dare you bring logic and thinking into this


RE: Global what?
By clovell on 4/6/2010 11:25:09 AM , Rating: 2
But that's kind of how Obama has been rolling lately, porkpie.

RE: Global what?
By Mint on 4/6/2010 12:05:23 PM , Rating: 4
Forget about proving the IPCC wrong, because it's not necessary. Their own numbers do not justify spending to reduce AGW.

The biggest problem with AGW is not with the science. It's with the politics exaggerating the implications of the science. None of the environuts are talking about how much it costs to prevent even a miniscule amount of warming, because they either don't know themselves or don't want the truth to get out.

Imagine if controllable renewable energy (i.e. including storage) amortized to 5c/kWh more than coal. That's a dream right now. One kWh saves 1 kg of CO2 from coal. 20 billion tonnes of CO2 increases atmospheric CO2 by 2 ppm (we see it every year). 100 ppm increases temperature by 1 degree according to the IPCC. Multiply it all together:

A thousandth of a degree temperature reduction costs $50 billion dollars.

And that's with optimistic cost projections. The greenies cannot dispute these numbers, because they come from their own sources.

Nobody is talking about this number, yet it can stop these climate treaties and bills dead in their tracks.

RE: Global what?
By porkpie on 4/6/2010 1:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
The environmentalists have painted themselves into an even worse corner. The only realistic way we have to cut CO2 production more than a negligible fraction is to do what they've fought against for the last 30 years -- invest heavily in nuclear power.

RE: Global what?
By Mint on 4/6/2010 4:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I've long maintained that GreenPeace is the biggest cause of CO2 today - more than SUVs, big industry, meat, or whatever else they're in the mood for blaming. They killed nuclear and did nothing about coal because there was no other option.

They were all happy when Steven Chu became the energy secretary who felt strongly about global warming, but forgot that he's actually got a brain. Nuclear is the only way forward, and he & Obama are going to push it.

That's why I don't really care if current AGW models turns out to be wrong. Even if you use the IPCC's numbers, it tells us that nuclear is better than coal, other renewables aren't worth it, and PHEV is better than ICE. So we move to a clean, limitless energy source with the lowest long term cost floor, clean up the air in our cities, and get off foreign oil.

What's wrong with that?

RE: Global what?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2010 10:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with that?

Nothing. It's the way they are going about DOING those changes that is the problem.

RE: Global what?
By Mint on 4/7/2010 11:16:03 AM , Rating: 2
The way I see it, AGW is just the last straw. If coal and gasoline didn't pollute the air with SO2, NOx, and particulates, if coal mining didn't destroy vast swaths of land, and if gas didn't require us to pay money to foreign interests, AGW wouldn't be enough to make people want some other energy source.

We see this with natural gas. It doesn't emit as much CO2 as coal, but it still does, and yet it's usually considered clean by environmentalists because it doesn't have all the other negatives.

RE: Global what?
By ekv on 4/7/2010 1:59:39 AM , Rating: 2
Nuclear is the only way forward, and he & Obama are going to push it.
From what I've heard, Obama, who really talks a good game, is pushing Nuclear, at least on the surface of things. But in the details the Obama admin is actually for more regulation so it turns out to be more anti-nuclear enviro-nonsense. A pity. But so typical, nu?

"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki