China’s announcement of the implementation of a cap and trade system is not the first we’ve heard of their efforts to combat their rising carbon emissions. In November, China and the United States hyped an agreement in which China “intends” to curb emissions “around” 2030. Reproduced below is an article on that “agreement,” which will certainly be greatly referenced over the course of Xi Jinping’s visit.
For today’s announcement, as with all international pronouncements on climate change, we must wait until we see the fine print. The road to global warming has traditionally been paved with good intentions.
Nothing New, as China “Intends” to Cap Emissions
Originally Posted November 12, 2014
Most every paper in the country is trumpeting today that China has finally agreed to limit its emissions of carbon dioxide, gutting the principal objection of people opposed to unilateral and expensive reductions in ours.
Too bad it’s not true.
According to the official pronouncement, all China said was that they “intend” to cap their emissions “around 2030”. Anything new here? In November, 2009, prior to the (failed) UN climate fest in Copenhagen, they announced their “intention” to reduce their emissions per unit economic output (called “carbon intensity”) by 40–45% by 2020. Since then, things haven’t appreciably changed—so they now have five years to execute this huge drop, which isn’t going to happen.
The road to global warming is paved with China’s good “intentions”.
We also note that they “intend” to derive 20 per cent of their energy from non‐carbon based sources by 2030. No doubt working late into last night (as did we; this story broke at 10:30), the estimable Roger Pielke, Jr., has already calculated that this means that the Chinese will have to put the equivalent of one nuclear power plant per week on line between now and then. As Roger wryly noted, “some people take it seriously”.
Don’t. But we should take seriously President Obama’s announcement that the US will double its scheduled emissions reductions by 2025. Thanks to the 2007 Supreme Court (5–4) decision that incredulously said that the 1992 Clean Air Act Amendments gave the President the power to command and control virtually our entire energy economy, he indeed can do what he just said.
It would take an act of Congress to prevent him, an act that would most certainly be vetoed, without the necessary two‐thirds majority to override.
One might think that he would care about what the voters think—but that’s not the case. A careful read of election returns reveals that the cap‐and‐trade, and not health care, cost his party control of the House in 2010, and, in 2014, the epicenter of electoral carnage was in the coal mining regions of Kentucky and West Virginia, costing his party the Senate.
While China has good “intentions” we get real “unemployment”. Such a deal!
