Comments on: Chinese climate expert Pan Jiahua sets the record straight: Rep. James Sensenbrenner has behaved “improperly and unethically” to “frighten the American public and halt U.S. progress on solving the problem of global warming”

By: Dano

Dano — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:57:28 +0000

What Peter Croft is saying.

Best,

By: Peter Wood

Peter Wood — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:32:21 +0000

Collaboration between China and the US on a non-governmental and academic level could increase the likelihood of cooperation between the US and China. Further interaction the Center for American Progress and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences would probably be a good thing.

By: Peter Croft

Peter Croft — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:29:39 +0000

Joe, How about a post on US preparations for Copenhagen? I just found the website and there is some interesting stuff on it, such as this:

http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=1310

“The UN panel of climate scientists, IPCC, recommends reductions of emissions from 25 to 40 percent of 1990 levels in 2020, stressing that it should be closer to 40 to be on the safe side. IPCC also says that emissions must peak in 2015 to stabilize the global mean temperature between 2.0 and 2.4 degrees Celsius to avoid the most serious impacts of climate change.

In comparison, the EU has promised to reduce emissions by 20 percent of 1990 levels in 2020 – and increase it to 30 percent if others follow suit. Apparently, the US is prepared to cut emissions by about 15 percent by 2020, bringing them down to 1990 levels. Australia aims at five percent reductions of 2000 levels in 2020, keeping a door open for 15 percent if others will commit themselves, too. Japan has not decided yet. ”

The author is quite pessimistic about the state of negotiations:

“…asked how likely an ambitious deal in Copenhagen would be on a scale from one to ten – Ott replies: Two, I would say – if ten is the best chance of success.”

By: Brendan

Brendan — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:59:11 +0000

The Chinese aren’t stupid. They know they are the keystone in this whole deal and are going to play that to their advantage until the very last minute. If they play it like they’re not in, they hope they’ll get a boatload of concessions (in the form of development money, a lower carbon cap, or some other special favor to them). If they instead end up torpedoing the whole thing as a result, that buys them a few years to develop their renewable industry better so that when everyone sits back down at the table (which will inevitably happen as climate change becomes more apparent), they’ll have an established industry ready to gobble up contracts from all the other players. It’s win-win for China. There’s always a minuscule chance that something could get passed without China, putting tariffs or sanctions on them for not cooperating, but with so much interconnection between China and the European and US markets, that is highly unlikely. Either Sensenbrenner is dumb, or he’s just playing dumb for his own motives. I’d wager on the latter.

By: John Mashey

John Mashey — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:35:52 +0000

JR: is there a nice terse list somewhere of US Senators & Representatives who’ve made Sensenbrenner-like or other anti-AGW-science statements?

If not, it might make a nice post to gather together a quick list of such, with a few URLs to recent or especially egregious items, and update it occasionally. Maybe you could even rank them?

Obviously, Inhofe and Barton might head the list, but there are obviously more.

By: SamB

SamB — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:34:52 +0000

Brett Jason Says:

June 17th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
If you look up the definition of “fat cat” in the dictionary, you will see that same picture of Sensenbrenner.

Adults use dictionaries without pictures.

From the sidney Morning Herald link.

“Copenhagen will be defined by what the US and China agree on in the next few weeks,” said the Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, who is accompanying Mrs Pelosi.

President Obama is pushing legislation that would cut carbon emissions by 17 per cent in 2020 from 2005 levels. However, Pan Jiahua, one of China’s top advisers on climate change diplomacy and economics, will send a blunt message to Mrs Pelosi when they meet at the Great Hall of the People today.

“China is not at all impressed with Obama,” Professor Pan told the Herald. “Obama’s statements are certainly insufficient and his demands for developing countries are unrealistic.”

It is ironic that china also called Geithner over there to get an update on the USA paying its bills. China is pushing the States to start paying for what we buy. That is a bigger issue than carbon.

By: Peter Croft

Peter Croft — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:25:10 +0000

Anything that polarizes the debate and backs people and countries into corners is counter-productive, whether it is the US vs. China or Dems vs. GOP. While all this bickering is going on you can guarantee that nothing will get done. Everyone has some really good reason why their position is unassailable and someone else should act first.

Maybe the US should demonstrate global moral leadership and lead by example. In some ways they are better placed than any other country to do this.

By: Brett Jason

Brett Jason — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:11:49 +0000

If you look up the definition of “fat cat” in the dictionary, you will see that same picture of Sensenbrenner.

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:11:43 +0000

Luckily, the White House’s new report will shift the attention away from China’s allegedly lack of focus on climate change to highlighting how climate change could wreck havoc on US coasts and industries. check out

climatesecurity.blogspot.com for more! the US-China relationship on climate change is going to be key for the next 30-40 years.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:06:24 +0000

I would be surprised if the actual people in charge in China see AGW as anything other than a way to make free money. Investing in renewable sources of energy make good sense for reasons other than AGW, especially for a counrty that a) has money to invest and b) has underdeveloped infrastructure which requires investment regardless.

If they can get the West to pay some of those costs by acting like concerned world citizens it’s a no brainer for them.