China’s CO2 Emissions To Double By 2030

President Obama made an illegal “historic deal” which allows China to increase their CO2 emissions until 2030. At that time, their CO2 emissions will be double their current value, and more than five times higher than the US.

ScreenHunter_5214 Dec. 15 07.31 2013 Global Carbon Project


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to China’s CO2 Emissions To Double By 2030

  1. gator69 says:

    Magical CO2! It’s only bad if westerners emit it.

  2. JST1 says:

    Illegal? Probably not. Enforceable? Probably not. Good PR? From his perspective, yes. From mine, no.

    • Treaties have to be approved by the Senate. You might want to read the US Constitution sometime

      • gator69 says:

        Better yet, have him read it to Skeeter.

      • JST1 says:

        I read just fine Tony. Did they call this a treaty? Your post uses the word deal? That is the word I have seen in other publications. Don’t mistake me for agreeing with his position. There is enough executive discretion (that i disagree with) for him to act unilaterally. It’s one thing not to like it, in’t another to say it is illegal.

        • Committing to scale back US energy use by 20% is far outside the realm of an “agreement” and clearly in the treaty of imbeciles range.

          Obama has completely corrupted people’s way of thinking.

        • JST1 says:

          Hence my comment ab out it not being enforceable. Do you believe the President more than you believe the Chinese?

      • JST1 says:

        Also, making a treaty is the President’s job. Ratification belongs to the Senate. If we use your characterization and call it a treaty, how much time does he have to submit it to the Senate before the agreement is illegal (if ever)?

        • Negotiating a treaty is the President’s job. Committing to a treaty without the advice or consent of the Senate is an impeachable violation of his oath of office.

        • JST1 says:

          A quick question for you? A president uses discretion to curb CO2 emissions as a matter domestic of policy preferences. There is an added benefit such that other countries might offer their own actions in response.
          Is an action taken for expressly domestic purposes that also might have international relations benefits become illegal solely because of the international aspect?
          You are right, he has corrupted our thinking and the language that we use when discussing these issues (I am thinking illegal immigration as well). My point is only to prove that he is winning. No Congress will take the action that you suggest. Going to court would take years. There are those on the supreme court that would give the same kind of pass that friendly members of the Senate would in an impeachment proceeding.
          It makes me sick to type this.

      • Jason Calley says:

        If only they still followed the old Constitution! They already set a precedent twenty one years ago. They wanted to pass NAFTA but could not get a super-majority for a treaty. The solution? “Let’s just call it an “agreement” instead of a “treaty”!” So they called a treaty an agreement, and passed it with a simple majority.

        Evil, oath breaking traitors…. Oops! Did I say that out loud?

      • JST1 says:

        From Berkeley Law:
        “Under United States law, however, there is a distinction made between the terms treaty and executive agreement. “In the United States, the word treaty is reserved for an agreement that is made ‘by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate’ (Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution). International agreements not submitted to the Senate are known as ‘executive agreements’ in the United States.” [3] Generally, a treaty is a binding international agreement and an executive agreement applies in domestic law only. Under international law, however, both types of agreements are considered binding. Regardless of whether an international agreement is called a convention, agreement, protocol, accord, etc.; if it is submitted to the Senate for advice and consent, it is considered a treaty under United States law.”

  3. emsnews says:

    The Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank. They are the bank, incidentally. Our government prints increasingly worthless dollars while China’s bank reserves are the healthiest on earth.

  4. LOL in Oregon says:

    Remember, as China has stated with respect to the UK and Hong Kong:
    => “China has the right to abrogate bilateral treaty obligations unilaterally”
    As the “pen and phone” guy says: “trust’em, they have their best interest at heart”

    • Gail Combs says:

      Wall Street Journal: China ‘Voids’ Hong Kong Rights
      Beijing abrogates the 1984 treaty it signed with Britain to guarantee the city’s autonomy.

      And these are the people Clinton hand our military technology to…

      • Don says:

        That was Clinton with the hidden hand that is behind much of what goes on against the will of We the People. The never-ending war crowd that makes fortunes off war, and war making material. These were the folks who last year wanted war with Syria and we were able to stop them. These are the folks who are whipping up war with Russia. Recall that America supports democracy in Ukraine, but when the elected government did not tilt West we overthrew that democratically elected government in Ukraine. So democracy is good if they vote the way the West wants, otherwise overthrow the bastards, blame Putin and Russia, whip up the winds of war.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The Banksters love war because that is when they make gobs of money. They have been behind most wars since 1812 including the US Civil War. The idea was France and England would sit back and wait until the USA exhausted herself and then move in to carve her up as colonies again. The Czar of Russia stepped in and said Russia would attack France and England if they did so. The fact that Russia refused to allow Standard Oil (Rockefeller) to develop her oil fields, didn’t help matters. The Banksters response was to ship Lenin’s mob into Russia and wipe out the entire Russian royal family.

          The North before the Civil War had not only industrialized but shifted from craftsmen to assembly line. To keep profits up the Federal government was imposing the Tariff of Abominations of 1828 imposing a 47% tax on imported goods. The UK was going to retaliate by cutting importation of southern cotton. This would mean the south would have one buyer, the mills in the north. Also in 1833, President Andrew Jackson abolished the Second Bank of the United States. The second bank was run by a Nathan Rothschild protégé, Nicholas Biddle.

          Of interest was the southern view that slavery meant the masters had an obligation to see to the slaves welfare while “…Wage-slavery degraded free labor to a level more wretched than the chattel slave. But capitalists in the North were released of any moral or social obligation toward labor….” (Interesting point of view)

          The US Civil War is anything but the simple ‘War on Slavery’ pap we get fed in history class.

          Click to access Responsibility,_Ethics_and_American_Economic_Thought.pdf

      • emsnews says:

        Ronald Reagan opened the door to the Chinese. I was very involved in all of this via my parents who were working with the President on this issue.

        I warned the State Department that the Chinese had a 50 year plan cooked up way back in 1985. They called it ‘The Fifty Year Plan’ and it was based on increasing one way trade with the US while luring the US to ‘re-earn’ the trade deficit by selling off our technology to the Chinese.

        In turn, the Chinese studied the Japanese scheme of buying US government debt and holding it to keep the dollar strong which made Reagan and his buddies very happy as they merrily ran up the budget deficit while selling the debt to the Japanese and Chinese.

        Thus, free trade was born.

        • B says:

          The powers that be here in the USA understand this and want it.
          China is the model for the world. We will live in tiny dorms and go to work for the corporations. We will be moved around the world as the corporations see fit.

          Don’t believe it? think about it. All the pieces fit. We are being taught to love or at least accept this future. Agenda 21. Climate change. Obamacare. War on Terror. Much more too. It all fits to living a life in nice secure boxes serving the top of the pyramid. It’s the long term plan that the Chinese plan fits within.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Agenda 21 Transit Villages = the New Feudalism.

  5. SMS says:

    I would suggest that the decline in US CO2 emissions is a sign of a weak economy and not a concerted effort to control a life giving trace gas. If you invert the US CO2 graph you might even get a better idea of what the unemployment rate has been doing.

    • A mostly successful (until recently) concerted effort to raise energy prices obviously wouldn’t lead to higher unemployment.

    • Gail Combs says:

      CO2 is certainly correlated to industry. Actually I am surprised our emissions haven’t nosedived further.

      • B says:

        Some of us are still hanging on making stuff in the USA.

        Sometimes when I am walking through the factory there will be a pallet of finished product marked for export… to China.

        Get the manipulators out of the way and there might be enough of a core to bring real prosperity back.

  6. northernont says:

    The Chinese did their homework. The 2030 date is estimated to be the date that Chinese population levels are expected to peak and then start a slow decline.

  7. Rud Istvan says:

    2030 is more than just population as a result of the ‘one child’ policy. It is the date by which Chinese domestic steam coal production will have peaked and start declining, according to a number of coal experts. Details on both in ebook Gaia’s Limits. China is investing in gen 4 nuclear research (building a pilot scale LFTR, discussing TRW with Gate’s startup) and will undoubtedly switch from emphasizing USC coal to nuclear in the next 5 year plan.
    We all know Obama got snookered. Just not how badly.

  8. Robert Austin says:

    Not that I have a right to criticize (from the cheap seats, namely Canada) but is Obama in the lead for nomination as the worst POTUS “evah”?

  9. ren says:

    “Among their findings: The warmer weather allowed forests to reach about 2,500 feet farther up the mountainside than today’s tree line, which is about 11,500 feet above sea level at the Snowmass site. Forests also may have been denser, and smaller trees and grasslands might have been more widespread amid drier conditions.

    “The site is spectacular because it has a single continuous pile of sediment from the most recent interglacial period,” about 120,000 years ago, when conditions were similar to the present, said Ian Miller, chairman of the Earth Sciences Department at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. He is co-director of the museum’s Snowmastodon Project, which is sifting through the material.

    “It’s a beautiful record of the last time it was as warm or warmer than it is today,” he said.’

    Click to access dmnsannals5-2014.pdf

    • gator69 says:

      ““It shows an example of a world that’s that warm and shows us some manifest examples of how animals react to that,” said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado. “What we’re headed for is kind of a different situation where we’re turning the knob way up on climate in a very short period of time.””

      And he knows this because they built a model that says so.

      • ren says:

        Recently deceased Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski said:

        • Gail Combs says:

          +1 Jaworowski really shot down the more recent version of CO2 from ice cores that uses bubbles and not the entire sample, ice and all.

        • ren says:

          Jaworowski wrote the important thing. With its rich experience follows that GW hysteria began with false data. Are you confident that next to be true? Do you believe In fairness all officially recognized scientists? Look what is happening in the polar vortex in stratosphere? Do you hear the truth?

          Why does not anyone warns Canadians?

        • ren says:

          Whether not you wonder the temperature distribution the second year in a row?

        • ren says:

          As every winter cooling process, affecting vast areas of Siberia, which becomes possible due to the low limited sunlight and very dry layers occurring just above the surface of the earth, was a success. At the end of the intensive cooling, near the snowy surface, formed cold, very heavy air layer having a thickness of 1000-1500 m, with a consequence to the formation of thermal Russian-Siberian anticyclone.

      • Gail Combs says:

        “What we’re headed for is kind of a different situation where we’re turning the knob way up on climate in a very short period of time.””

        And moving from the Wisconsin Ice Age to the Holocene in three years is NOT a quick change in climate?

        In his book, The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future Richard Alley, one of the world’s leading climate researchers, tells the fascinating history of global climate changes as revealed by reading the annual rings of ice from cores drilled in Greenland. In the 1990s he and his colleagues made headlines with the discovery that the last ice age came to an abrupt end over a period of only three years….

  10. ntesdorf says:

    The Chinese have run skillful rings around Obama. They have done their homework on all fronts unlike him. They know that increased CO2 will not impact on the Climate. Their emissions will steadily increase with their economy and their economy has already exceeded the US economy. The POTUS will continue to shrink in history. If CO2 affected World Temperature, I would possibly be a bit worried!

  11. emsnews says:

    Honestly, have you ever been to Beijing? It is COLD there. Another reason to want a warmer planet, no?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Russia would also prefer a warmer planet as would Canada. Drop the temperature a few degrees as happened in the little Ice age or even in the late 1960’s and you negatively effect agriculture.

      Most of the land mass is in the Northern hemisphere and nearer the poles than the equator. Most is North of Lat. 30 and much is north of Lat. 45. This is where the present day farming is.

  12. Mike D says:

    It has been pointed out elsewhere that the population forecast for China has a peak in the late 2020’s, with a decline after. So even if they choose to do anything about CO2, which they won’t, they’ll have no problems decreasing starting in 2030. In reality, their air pollution in some places is the only thing that will make them do anything about emissions, and only as a side effect would that include CO2.

    US Census Bureau estimates China population to peak in 2026.

  13. Chillville says:

    And the GCSR doesn’t sit well with the psychotic warmists:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s