Thursday, 16 April 2009

Chinese lecture Australia on reducing emissions

The Chinese - the Chinese! - are telling us that we need to "take the lead" on slashing our economic wrists by unilaterally implementing an emissions trading scheme. The world's largest CO2 emitters!

Check out the article from Fairfax press (true believers, they are, which comes across in the article):
Chinese climate experts have called on rich nations to rein in their "wasteful and luxurious" lifestyles, as they urged Australia to take the lead in tackling climate change.
The only reason that China does not have a much higher standard of living than the developed world is that in 1949 Chairman Mao was victorious and socialist economic policies ran the place. While Mao was trying to take great leaps forward with the result that tens of millions of people starved to death the West was developing new technologies that provided a much higher standard of living.
The experts asked a Canberra conference why China should take strong action on global warming when Australia's efforts were "insufficient".
That's the question.
China has the world's highest greenhouse gas emissions.
And there's the answer.
Some Australian commentators say China is largely responsible for cleaning up climate change, but Professor Jiahua Pan from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences turned the tables.
So who is this Professor Pan?

According to his bio he works for the Research Centre for Sustainable Development at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) and from 1999-2001 was:
Senior Economist and acting head at occasions, Technical Support Unit, Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Co-editor and lead author, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report, accepted by governments and published by Cambridge University Press in July 2001.
So he's simply another one of the IPCC Cabal entrusted by the Chinese government with making sure the finger is pointed at the rest of the world instead of China. Nice.
He said the planet could not afford for countries like Australia and the United States to have such "wasteful and luxurious" lifestyles.

"You have the luxury to emit so much," Prof Pan said during a frank speech at the Australian National University on Wednesday.
In fact, if Kyoto hadn't been such a scam and the concept of life cycle accounting hadn't been knocked on the head (mainly by the Europeans who would have been affected the most at the time) then China would be paying for the emissions that Australia produces in digging minerals out of the ground and sending them to...China.
"For basic necessities, I think that enough is enough ... we have only one small planet earth."
"Basic necessities"? What does that mean? We all get 100g of rice and a fish head to live on each day?
Prof Pan was unimpressed with Australia's environmental standards, saying public transport seemed poor and the buildings and street lighting were not energy efficient.
Australia's largest city - Sydney

China's largest city - Shanghai

If Professor Pan - aka the Chinese government - wants us to reduce our "wasteful and luxurious" lifestyle then is he/are they OK with making our cities' skylines look like China's?
He labelled as "insufficient" Australia's pledge to cut greenhouse emissions by five to 15 per cent by 2020.
The Greenies go wild! Cheering and clapping ensues as Pan tells them what they want to hear...
And he urged Australia to sell more uranium to China to boost nuclear power, a request that is being considered.
...and then he delivers the sucker punch, knocking the econuts for six and exposing the cognitive dissonance of their position on nuclear energy.
Prof Pan talked up China's one-child policy, saying it had helped the planet by avoiding 300 million births.
Now China is claiming that it has actually helped the planet by avoiding 300 million births? The fact that 90% of these births would have been in rural areas and result in the emission of a comparatively tiny amount of CO2 is overlooked.
The Chinese experts called for a global climate pact that would involve each country being allowed to emit a certain amount, based on their populations.

This is ominous for Australia because it has very high per capita emissions, whereas China has fairly low per capita emissions.

Australian climate adviser Ross Garnaut backed the per capita push in a video address to the conference, saying it was fair.
No it's not. It's ridiculous. If we were to be fair then perhaps developed countries would have a limit of say, 100 units, and developing nations could have 200. Developed nations, if fairness has any meaning, could then charge developing nations for the creation of technologies that developing countries are now taking advantage of at no cost to themselves. Developed countries have borne the brunt of this innovation so why is it 'fair' that developing nations get a free ride? It's not. Therefore we all get 150 units - which are not able to be traded so that fat hypocrites like Al Gore and most of Hollywood concernarati can't buy the permits of poor Indians and Chinese - and that's that.
Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, who was not present for the Chinese experts' strongly worded remarks, praised the Asian nation's efforts on global warming.

She said Australia's 2020 target was "very substantial".

Senator Wong was cautious about per capita emission allowances, saying it was just one possible approach.
She's no dummy, this Penny Wong lady. Tough, too.
Meanwhile, it was pistols at dawn at Parliament House as scientists clashed over whether humans were causing climate change.

A Senate inquiry held its first hearing into climate change and what Australia should do about it.

The scientists had to be separated into two groups: the sceptics and the believers.
What? Was there the potential for fisticuffs? Dueling sabres? Pistols?
Bob Carter, a geologist at James Cook University, said there was no evidence carbon dioxide from humans was causing a climate disaster.

He said earth was in a period of "carbon dioxide starvation", and the climate was changing naturally.
And he's 100% spot on, as usual.
But six scientists, including a representative from CSIRO, told the hearing that humans were altering the climate. There was plenty of evidence for this, and the vast majority of scientists and scientific academies agreed with the conclusion, they said.
And they're 90% wrong - they've conflated humans altering climate, which land clearing will do, with CO2 emissions, which have little effect. It's worth noting that these people have received massive amounts of money from the people of Australia by way of taxes over the last 20 years and have a vested interest in maintaining the fraud.
They called on Australia to cut emissions by between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020.
Any less would not ward off dangerous climate change of more than two degrees, they warned.
As I pointed out yesterday, their position is completely immoral, as Australia could take itself back to the stone age and have no effect on its own environment due to China adding Australia's total output 2-3 times per year.
Nationals senator Ron Boswell objected to the call.

"Some of the figures you guys are throwing around, sitting in your professorships, you've probably got $200,000 a year ... you've got to be practical," he said.

"You're going to have an unemployment figure that will go through the roof."
Not the best person to have represent the side of reason and objectivity, I'd suggest, but he's right on unemployment.
Greens senator Christine Milne groaned and held her head in her hands at Senator Boswell's remarks.
Fortunately, misanthropic environut Milne was there to balance things out.
The inquiry continues on Thursday.
What an embarrassment for science and reason.

(Nothing Follows)

1 comment:

Kaboom said...

Fudgie, just before you make your first noxious comment, please provide Jack's guests with a simple answer to a scientific question:

Can you describe how the Scientific Method of research (Google it!) can be applied to computer models of an open-system such as atmospherics or the climate?

Do you even understand the Scientific Method?

Who do you work for?

Simple queries for a "scientist", areen't they?