A three-hour-long taped recording of Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif frankly recounting his years as foreign minister for archival purposes somehow made its way to Iran International TV (IIT), a London-based Persian news station that calls attention to...
Biden for China? “Beijing-picked, Beijing-endorsed candidate”
As a Canadian watching the U.S. election from afar, I am starting to wonder who Joe Biden works for—the United States of America or the People’s Republic of China? Earlier in the current campaign, Biden asked, “China is going to eat our lunch? Come-on, man!…They’re not bad folks, folks.”
Not only is China planning to eat our lunch—indeed, as President Donald Trump makes clear, they have been doing so for years—but, if you look more closely, it is apparent that Joe is packing a very nice meal for them indeed. So, it is not surprising that The Global Times, a Chinese state-owned news organisation, wrote that Biden’s “world view runs parallel to Beijing’s.” It’s hard to argue with Australia’s Sky News host James Morrow who said that the Democratic Presidential nominee is the “Beijing-picked, Beijing-endorsed candidate.”
While media have focussed on the huge contracts from Communist Party of China-controlled enterprises that Biden’s son Hunter’s firm was able to secure when Joe was vice-president, contracts so lucrative that no one else in the world was able to secure them, few in the press have noticed that Joe is pushing a climate change agenda that strongly benefits Red China to the detriment of America.
At first glance, all looks well. The former vice president reassures Americans in “The Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice” that he:
“will not allow other nations, including China, to game the system by becoming destination economies for polluters, undermining our climate efforts and exploiting American workers and businesses. As the U.S. takes steps to make domestic polluters bear the full cost of their carbon pollution [sic], the Biden Administration will impose carbon adjustment fees or quotas on carbon-intensive goods from countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations. This will ensure that American workers and their employers are not at a competitive disadvantage…”
If you believe that, then have I got a bridge to sell you.
You see, China has skilfully gamed the system until, now, most of the world, except the U.S., has agreed to the Paris Agreement on climate change, a treaty that gives huge benefits to China and other ‘developing countries’ that do not apply to us. That is precisely why Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the treaty, to take effect the day after the election. Yet, despite these inequities, Joe says in his plan:
“A Biden Administration will … re-enter the Paris Agreement on day one of the Biden Administration… The Paris Agreement was a historic breakthrough for the world, and reflected the power of patient, strategic diplomacy in service of America’s long-term national interests.”
No, Paris was an historic demonstration of how well China uses useful idiots in the West to game the system while making it seem like we are the ones getting a good deal. When it comes to Paris, its all in the fine print.
Under the 2015 agreement, China committed to stop increasing its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2030, while the United States agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (~81 percent of which is CO2) by between 26 percent and 28 percent below its 2005 levels by 2025.
Aside from the fact that scientific evidence does not support the need to reduce CO2 emissions in the first place *, this asymmetry made no sense. Letting China, the world’s largest emitter, increase CO2 emissions over this period, while restricting the United States, would result in even more industries moving to China. Total global CO2 emissions would then likely rise even faster.
The situation is actually more unbalanced than it appears because, in contrast to the burdens imposed on developed countries, China and other developing nations apparently need not ever curtail emissions.
The Paris Agreement specifies:
“The Parties to this Agreement,
• Being Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] …
• In pursuit of the objective of the [UNFCCC] Convention, and being guided by its principles…”
This reaffirms the fact that UNFCCC, approved by President George H. W. Bush and other world leaders at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, is the cornerstone upon which UN climate agreements, including the Paris Agreement, are based.
Yet UNFCCC Article 4 states,
“The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties. [my bold]”
This means, under Paris and the other treaties based on the UNFCCC, any commitments developing countries make to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions are conditioned on developed countries giving them enough money and technology to cover the costs. Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt confirmed this in a Fox News interview on October 17, 2017, telling Neil Cavuto, “India conditioned all of the responsibilities on receiving $2.5 trillion of aid.”
But even if developed countries give developing countries everything promised, under the UNFCCC developing countries may apparently still ignore any commitments they make to cap or reduce emissions if such commitments interfere with their “first and overriding priorities” [of] “economic and social development and poverty eradication.”
By contrast, developed nations are expected to keep their emission reduction commitments no matter how it impacts their economies.
UN climate change bureaucrats have not hidden this inequity. They have repeatedly explained “development and poverty eradication” is the most important issue for developing countries. Addressing climate change clearly takes a back seat.
Significantly reducing CO2 emissions in developing countries would almost certainly involve dramatically reducing the use of coal, the source of well over half of the electricity generated in China and India. As coal is the cheapest source of power in most of the world, reducing or capping CO2 emissions by reducing coal use would obviously interfere with development priorities. So, no matter what they promise with respect to emissions cuts or caps, developing countries are unlikely to follow their commitments, citing UNFCCC Article 4 in support of their actions.
It has been suggested the Paris climate agreement’s statement that countries’ responsibilities will be decided “in light of different national circumstances” will impose more stringent requirements on poor nations as they further develop. That is improbable.
The UNFCCC treaty, especially Article 4 establishing the favored treatment given developing nations, has been the foundation of all UN climate negotiations. Developing nations are unlikely to let this change. Chinese negotiator Su Wei stated at the Peru UN climate conference in 2014 that the purpose of the Paris Agreement is to “reinforce and enhance” the UNFCCC, not rewrite it.
Rather that rejoining the Paris Agreement, it is clearly time for the United States to withdraw from the corrupt UNFCCC completely, which is now allowed with merely one year’s notice. Once out of the UNFCCC, the U.S. will be free of all agreements based on the treaty. This includes the Paris climate agreement, the Green Climate Fund, and the 2013 “Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts,” under which developed nations could be held responsible for potentially trillions of dollars in liability for damages from extreme weather events in developing countries, damages that are supposedly the fault of developed countries for their past and continuing sin of using fossil fuels.
In support of America finally exiting the UNFCCC, Joe Bast, director and senior fellow at The Heartland Institute said, “This really is a case where cutting the tail off the dog all at once, rather than an inch at a time, is the right move. It would be the shot heard around the world and bring the whole manmade global warming house of cards tumbling down.”
Let’s hope Trump gets the chance to do this.
* See www.climatechangereconsidered.org
Use the code ‘OUTLOUD’ and receive your 20% discount on your first order.