Science, Innovation, Politics
I love Merkel's "extra offer to the Chinese" (~4:35), which is basically just a restatement of the objectives to which the Chinese "made our objection very clear this morning."Merkel again: "and then we have all our sins..." what, covered? No, consensus climate policy proscriptions are not based on pseudo-religious beliefs; [condescending anchorman voice:] IT'S SCIENCE.Historical responsibility for carbon emissions (6:57): the new white guilt. Awesome, where can I sign up for some more of that?
PricelessThe Germans have the highest coal mining subsidies in the world and Merkel wants to lecture who?In my simple little mind the first step to getting off of fossil fuels is to stop subsidizing production.
Good for the Chinese and Indians. This report tries to make them out to be the "bad guys" and the Germans, French, and English as the good guys acting under the cloak of Noblesse oblige. The media in the west loves to paint these issues as if it comes out of some preschooler's picture book. "We in the West are trying to save humanity, the "Oriental" is not." But under their pleasant and earnest veneers, Merkel and Sarkozy are playing vicious hardball for the power elites in their own countries. As Adam Smith said, "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." Cap and Trade is not designed to reduce emissions, it's designed to generate revenue for governments, banks, and big energy and to give the appearance of actually doing something (as an example -- Australia's plan to meet their CO2 emission targets via carbon credits). If it saves humanity, that's just an unexpected bonus. This whole episode is about money and power and what's been laid bare is that the old European powers have neither (well they do, but the balance has shifted out of their favor). The wealth of Europe (and the US) has been made off the brutal exploitation of Asia and Africa and South America. There's an irony that the tables are turning. I would imagine that China and Indian look at the whole Cop15 as a way for the old Western powers to extract money (wealth) out their countries again. I don't think they're going to buy it. Not now, not in the future. It also explains why Obama met with them separately. You're either on the inside or the outside.
The Canadian government agreed to implement reductions in the Kyoto treaty and then did precisely nothing for the next 10 years or so. (note this is not precisely true. The Minister of the Environment named his family dog Kyoto ) They then tried to make it an election issue by accusing their opponents of not supporting Kyoto.So an agreement setting an objective for 2050 or even 2050 is along these lines. How is an agreement taken in 2009 going to bind the people of 2050; most of who have not been born yet? This appears to be jsut another Kyoto. That is politicians making agreemtns that have their effect far in the future and long after they are out of office.
These treaties are about wealth redistribution. Climate is irrelevant. None of the developing countries on are interested in CO2 emission reduction but they see the AGW inspired panic as an excellent way to pick the pockets of the middle class in rich countries.
Get a low-emitting or no-emitting electrical generation technology that can produce electricity at a retail rate of 6 cents a kilowatt-hour or less. That essentially solves all problems...including most transportation problems, because cars and trains can be powered with electricity.Then no international agreements are necessary.
I strongly suspect this was a choreographed conversation to blame India and China. Der Speigel would not broadcast Obama or any other politician without their permission. It's a fantasy.I understand that national leaders do not generally negotiate face to face until a deal has been completed by bureaucrats.India and China have built their economies with money borrowed from western banks. They represented those interests at Copenhagen in the sense that their interests converge.We know Obama tried to get a climate deal and failed. That is where the 'blame' lies. With the American people.
eric144,What evidence do you have that this was planted or contrived?As to your idea that China and India are debtors to Western finance, I would suggest that you check just who owes what to whom.
FOF"What evidence do you have that this was planted or contrived?"Just common sense. I do not believe a corporate journalist in a major newspaper/magazine would ever write anything unless he had permission to do so. Especially not the private conversations of the most powerful politicians on earth. The phrase 'international incident' springs to mind.In this example, we know there is an alternative explanation for the situation at hand, which is much less politically advantageous to the participants, namely that Obama failed to get a climate bill through the senate.Here is Noam Chomsky explaining that no one with the intelligence or integrity to be a journalist, would ever be employed as one nowadays. A bemused Andrew Marr, chief political correspondent of the BBC, brilliantly illustrates Chomsky's argument. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1LU4obkBmwYoutube has examples of authentic journalism from years ago, and very few from today..
eric144.So you are suggesting that the leaders of several major countries got together and did a little street theater for a camera and that it was kept under wraps until Der Spiegel, at the direction of the powers that be allowed them to run it.And all to compensate for the US managing to avoid falling into the AGW trap.
FOFChina is the world's biggest exporter. Most of those exports require sophistcated equipment as well as cheap labour. That had to be paid for in foreign currency. The source would have been investment banks. China apparently has an internal banking system which is part of a state dictatorship with all that entails.China supported the Clinton / Bush boom by tying their currency to the dollar. Low interest rates caused massive growth with no inflation because Chinese import prices didn't rise. The problem was that property prices did rise as we all know.As you imply, the Chinese government also fuelled the boom by buying US government bonds, essentially lending Americans money to buy Chinese goods.Chinese politicians and businesses have done extremely well. and I'm sure they aren't worried about being referred to as a slave labour dictatorship.This is globalisation 101.
FOFWho authorised the audio recording of a closed meeting of the world's top leaders ? Perhaps a passing tourist with a security clearance level comparable to the head of the CIA ? Perhaps a undetectable bugging device developed by aliens ? If it was authorised, who leaked it, and where did Der Spiegel find the bottle to potentially provoke the United States or Great Britain ?The two commentators on the other thread said this was 'unbelievable'. As an admitted tribal sceptic (in the wider, non climate sense), I take the word 'unbelievable' literally.The purpose was to blame the Chinese, when it was 100% clear that the Chinese were never going to agree to firm targets. An American climate deal without that, was too difficult to achieve.What I am saying is that they blamed the |Chines for something they had said they wouldn't do. It makes no sense that I can see except to make western leaders (particularly Obama) less culpable.
I'd imagine that any number of the governments in the room were recording the proceedings for their own future use. I can't imagine that it was a secret either. The questions are who had access to the recordings in each country and whether the leak was authorized (but secret) or unauthorized and who could benefit from the leak. That the leak was to blame the Chinese and Indians seems pretty obvious, though that information has been well known (heck, the Chinese premier didn't even bother to attend). Another possible explanation, and just as probable, is that it had nothing to do with exposing the Chinese/Indians, but to show the ineptitude of one of the Western leaders. Merkel, et al, don't exactly come across as being up to snuff in dealing with the heady world of international realpolitik. Think about it, they were taken down by a Chinese underling who clearly wasn't intimidated by them. A strong leader should have made the Chinese negotiator squirm -- this was a heads of state meeting, what was he doing there speaking? Based on that, the Chinese themselves could have released the tape...
UAN It is laughable to believe that national leaders would negotiate in English. Merkel, for example doesn't seem to have a strong grasp of the language. As I said before, leaders to do not generally negotiate face to face. They don't like being directly associated with failure."Merkel, et al, don't exactly come across as being up to snuff in dealing with the heady world of international realpolitik. Think about it, they were taken down by a Chinese underling who clearly wasn't intimidated by them." Again, that is completely unbelievable. Is the fate of the world really in the hands of idiots who can't deal with a low level apparatchik from a country that is wholly dependant on exports to the west, and is grovelling at the feet of American finance (by buying depreciating US government bonds) and tied its currency to the dollar?The Chinese economy is the manufacturing arm of global finance. We all know that. That's why they can emit as much cheap labour Co2 as they like, and no one will stop them.Nothing can be proved, we are like jury members presented with evidence, and we must make up our own minds. I don't have a television, my life is not dominated by tiers of fiction, from news, reality TV, brave cops and evil drug dealers, batman, superman, soap operas or Hollywood films. My disbelief is not easily suspended or surrendered.