China has warned Donald Trump that he will be defying the wishes of the entire planet if he acts on his vow to back away from the Paris climate agreement after he becomes US president next January.
In a sign of how far the world has shifted in recognising the need to tackle global warming, Beijing — once seen as an obstructive force in UN climate talks — is now leading the push for progress by responding to fears that Mr Trump would pull the US out of the landmark accord.
“It is global society’s will that all want to co-operate to combat climate change,” a senior Beijing negotiator said in Marrakesh on Friday, at the first round of UN talks since the Paris deal was sealed last December. The Chinese negotiators added that “any movement by the new US government” would not affect their transition towards becoming a greener economy.
India also joined in the warnings, saying Mr Trump’s appointment would force countries to reassess an accord hailed as an end to the fossil fuel era.
“Everyone will rethink how this whole process is going to unfold,” India’s chief negotiator, Ravi Prasad, told the Financial Times.
Recalling the way support for the earlier Kyoto protocol climate treaty crumbled after it was abandoned by another Republican president, George W Bush, Mr Prasad said he feared the Paris accord could suffer “a contagious disease that spreads” if the US withdrew.
Mr Trump’s sweeping victory on Tuesday has shaken what had appeared to be an unstoppable bout of global action to tackle climate change in the run-up to the two-week Marrakesh talks, which began on Monday.
Governments struck the first climate deal for aviation in October, just days before agreeing to phase out planet-warming hydrofluorocarbon chemicals used in air-conditioners.
The Moroccan hosts of this week’s talks had been planning a celebratory meeting to cap this unprecedented bout of activity. Instead, organisers awoke on Wednesday morning to find the world’s wealthiest country had a president-elect who has called global warming a hoax, pledged to “cancel” the Paris agreement and vowed to stop US funding of UN climate programmes entirely.
“They were in absolute shock,” said one person who saw Moroccan officials on Wednesday morning.
Adnan Amin, the director-general of the International Renewable Energy Agency, said “a sense of helplessness” had pervaded the Marrakesh talks, and “a certain amount of fear”.
Skip to content
We have a problem if China is goading us into keeping our promises, and that their state-run media seems more concerned about climate change than a good chunk of our major media outlets.
The Chinese have always been a more reality based culture than the Christian/Islamic world. Meanwhile they even know more about economics.
Well. There is a chance that Donald will change his mind again (as he is already concerning Obamacare). He’s as predictable as a wasp on speed.
One point I have to veto in your video above. The claim in the Exxon ad that natural gas would decrease GHG emissions by 60% is plain wrong, because huge amounts of methane (a greenhouse gas up to 105% as potent as CO2) are released into the atmosphere => New research shows natural gas no better than coal for mitigating climate change
Also see => 2013 IPCC increases greenhouse gas multiplier for methane
If it’s an Exxon claim, given their antics for past few decades it probably needs to be treated with some skepticism anyway….
The cultural Marxism that’s been lately flourishing on university campuses via the Gender Studies and Critical Race Theory programs and which is fundamentally opposed to classical liberalism is starting to cause a rift in the Left and is pushing some classical liberals to the right. However the only real taste we got of them this time around was when the Clinton machine planted articles about how Bernie voters were just voting for the most liberal senator in the US because they were sexist against women: Bernie Bros (like the 2008 Obama Boys) was the headline name given to white male Bernie voters.
An excellent rant, and he makes many good points when they’ere taken individually. However, it would not have been even 20 seconds long if Hillary had won. He’s just another Monday Morning Quarterback who wouldn’t have gotten in the game at all if President-Elect Pussy Grabber hadn’t won.
Talk to people he says? And stop calling people names? LOL As a foreigner, he may not be aware of what has gone on in this country. I speak of the 40+ year psy-war that has been waged by the Kochs and other right -wing billionaires that has finally resulted in the collective mental collapse of enough Americans to put Pussy Grabber in the White House and let Repugnants take control of both houses in Congress.
And let’s not forget that the Repugnants have been quietly gerrymandering and ALEC-ing and taking control of the great majority of governorships and state legislatures. Now that that has happened, the geniuses will surely say that Liberals caused all that by trying to work for the greater good, and ignore the fact that the plutocracy and the corporations have finally succeeded in buying the country to promote their own self-interest.
I was kind of thinking the same when watching the video. As far as “convince them”, “talk to them” line of reasoning, who has ever changed a mind in an internet conversation? I have done it once, and I think the guy was on the fence at the start. A troubling problem has arisen in this country where people can consume their own facts now. Folks could make the most calm rational points and provide the citations, but if the person just trots over to Breitbart, InfoWars, Watts Up With That, or some other nonsense alternative reality, we are doing more harm by talking to such people because we are wasting time resources that could be better served elsewhere.
Now, these conversations occur anyway, despite their usefulness, and it is certainly important to maintain the highest civility one can muster even in the face of an uncivil person, but I think he is placing WAY too much blame on non-Trump folks simply calling it like it is (which is in some cases just ideological extremism, racism, or whatever). Trump is admired for “telling it like it is”, but there is a backlash against folks telling it like it is that Trump’s behavior is poor and that those that condone it are enabling? It is hard to convince those that so strongly hold to that double standard as well.
Other than a couple points, though, I like the passionate call for introspection. The only way to maintain the highest in integrity is to continually monitor and criticize the self before looking at outside forces.
DOG comments well and I fully agree, – Fucking swearing and fucking waving your fucking arms about like a fucking demented fucking Trumpet doesn’t convince fucking anyone. Trump saw off Bush, Cruz & co and then finally Hilary for whatever reason, I’ll leave it to the psychologists to explain the appeal. We are in a strange international political age, maybe brought about by visions of beheadings, torture, burning, rape, demonic devilry causing fleeing Syrians and pictures of drowned and injured kids. Nothing clever about this video performance, Trump would of seen off Sanders also.
Now the question is how we constrain the beast and move forward on decarbonisation (and maybe avert WWIII). God help us all.
If this gets fucking censored I’ll fucking understand.
Fucking A, redsky! With such apt use of THE word you’d be welcome in the USMC. OOH-rah and Semper Fi!
And I am sure that the F-word in all its forms and meanings is going to be much more in evidence during the (swift) rise and fall (swifter, we hope) of President Pussy Grabber.
China being the adult in the room. Again.
I live in the UK and have contacted a number of campaign groups suggesting a response to Trumps declaration of war on the planet. There has to be a way to stop Trump reneging on the pledges made by the US in Paris, to stop his denial of the problem and to force him to implement the necessary solutions.
I know there will be many scientists, liberal politicians and environmental activists in the US protesting against the Trump plan. They are likely to be subjected to demonization and misinformation campaigns and it won’t be enough – Trump & the GOP will do nothing unless some of the big corporations and the majority of American public opinion is against them. International governments may make protestations about US policy, but ultimately will do nothing, that’s why it has to come from a grass roots movement,
I have suggested a campaign that calls for people to boycott goods and services provided by US companies in the UK; hopefully the campaign would spread to other countries. Boycotting all American companies would not be practical but there could be a small number targeted initially, such as Coca Cola, Pepsi, McDonald, Starbucks, KFC. This could become more encompassing as time went on until Trump gives in and changes tack.
If the campaign took off and enough people were involved then Trump would be faced with enormous pressure at home from the big corporations and hopefully from public opinion when the American people realise how strong the feelings are in other countries about Trumps proposals.
Here in the UK, as with many countries we are not doing what we need to be doing to fully realise the targets we agreed to in Paris, but Trump is the only leader who says he is going to reject Paris and go full steam in the opposite direction; that, plus the size of the US and it’s already high consumption levels and the effect that will have on the planet. In addition rather than other countries getting together to do more on climate, the US stance could give others an excuse to also renege.
Also, if this campaign is successful it would put climate change in the spotlight and hopefully move it higher up the political agenda, and then the governments of those of us outside the US might feel pressured to do more.
Very simply, and I say this with a heavy heart, the other countries that wish to protect the Paris Accord could form a UN resolution for stiff economic sanctions against the USA, depending on our administration’s actions to undermine the accord. I would be among those supporting such action, despite what others within my nation would think of me, knowing how it would hit our perception in the world. The USA has had the highest level of denial within our government and people as compared to any other modern country for some time now, and we may need the help of other nations to fix us by hitting us where we apparently care, our wallets.
Oh, and feel free to impose sanctions depending how our “torture even if it doesn’t work” and “kill the terrorists’ families” foreign policy works out. It may take courage, since apparently a significant fraction of our populace supports such measures, but you do have an equal number of allies on the inside that respect the Geneva convention and reject such barbarism.
“the other countries that wish to protect the Paris Accord could form a UN resolution for stiff economic sanctions against the USA, depending on our administration’s actions to undermine the accord.”
They could, but they won’t. Here in the UK we are joined at the hip with the US; in Europe we defend on the US for our safety and security as part of the NATO allowance. Some countries may make protestations, but there will be no sanctions against the US. Protestations will have no impact – Trump and the Republicans don’t care what people think.
The sooner people realise that there is absolutely zero chance of the UN or The wait and see approach is the dumb ass approach and we’ll take a severe beating. The only way Trump and the Republicans can be brought to see reason is to hit them in their wallet; our governments won’t do it; we can.
Right, and such a sanction action or protest would be a long shot attempt given a Trump second term. As I understand it, the Trump administration would not be able to officially scratch the USA name off the Paris Accord for four years. So, sanctions would be an unprecedented action against the official dropping out of the Accord. There may be the possibility that some of the UK and Euro sphere would have increased resolve to retain the Paris Accord within four years of Trump. Unofficially, of course the USA’s policies could just go nuts and further subsidize and prop up coal as long as they can or some other nuttiness that just ignores the Paris Accord exists.
And no doubt, I am not any illusions that waiting for four years to preserve the Paris Accord is sound. I was just making mention of maintaining the USA’s official status as part of the Accord. As far as the Trump administration efforts to merely ignore the accord, we certainly have to be counteracting that top-down federal effort to undermine climate action with state and local efforts to implement pricing and energy standards, or whatever works for the particular area.
While the federal government may be attempting to make a poor business move to prop up the ailing coal mining efforts, we can hopefully be working on providing the better jobs in retrofitting building stock for energy efficiency, engineering efforts to make city infrastructure less energy-intensive, geothermal installations for more and more homes, and manufacturing jobs in energy sources that are possibly a lot more enjoyable than coal mining or nat gas fracturing.
So, continue with the increasing focus on local, city, state, despite the federal level efforts. Furthermore, getting potential court cases in front of federal courts to strike down laws that facilitate GHG emissions (like fossil fuel subsidies) as these are clearly shown by previous precedent and ample evidence to be laws that violate our rights to the atmosphere.
On the positive side it seems that the “de-carbonisation” projects are having a measurable impact. A 4 year term is not long in the terms of Geologic timescale, and gives both parties plenty of time to rebuild, get their acts together and lick their wounds. Many states are forging ahead independently and supposedly the Trump vision favors less Federal control (if I understand the politics correctly, from my humble viewpoint).
I saw many demonstrations and protests on the BREXIT decision, but these are dying down. Sour Grapes are tart and bitter , but maybe it is time accept the result and let the term run it’s course, and take what comfort we can in today’s good news.
Politically I fear Germany may be the next country to swing into surrealism, and this may put a huge dent in the EU. Certainly the mood is not limited to the U.K and now the U.S.A and is far far bigger than just Hilary and Donald.
Some people can’t accept that this is a global problem and must be tackled globally, I’m sorry but, national pride has to sit at the back, until we put the carbon balance back under natures control.
“A world greatly concerned about how the election of Donald Trump as the next U.S. president could stall global climate policy received a major dose of welcome news Sunday, when scientists published a projection suggesting that for the third straight year, global carbon dioxide emissions did not increase much in 2016.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/13/stunningly-good-news-for-the-planet-carbon-emissions-were-flat-for-the-third-straight-year/
Really? Germany could swing into surrealism, go off the deep end, too?
You know, we have been hearing about pockets of political extremism in parts of Europe. I was hoping after election night that such factions won’t take campaign cues from the USA Trump playbook to gain more ground. Here’s to hoping. Even among those that don’t consider Trump in the same category as these Euro groups, they have to admit that the campaign style could be an effective one given the level of voter discontent.
Early warning it may get even rockier yet.
2017: The beginning of the end for the EU?
The seeds have already been planted. Incredibly, Angela Merkel has just lost the regional election in her home constituency, outnumbered by right-wing votes. She’s also lost a lot of votes in Berlin and more losses are predicted to follow. How did it come to this?
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/news/article.cfm?mnarticle_uuid=2B5B64BA-EDF7-1B27-4982-D60080BD3861
Jonathan and otter make some good suggestions about how other countries could “pressure” the U.S. They needn’t spend too much time on it, because once President Pussy Grabber and the Repugnants really get rolling, the disaster and turmoil that will hit the world on so many fronts is likely to be “pressure” enough (for any sane people, that is).
We will be lucky to escape total disaster by the skin of our teeth, and efforts to combat climate change ARE going to be set back so far that it’s even more doubtful that we’ll stay with the temperature limits we need.
Which is we outside America need to act now, before Trump opens a single coal mine, drills a single well. or withdraws a single cent from renewable development projects
350 degrees, Greenpeace and FOE have their hands tied because they operate inside the US and so it would be pretty hard for them to call for a boycott of US corporations; therefore there needs to be a new campaign group set up in countries outside the US and here in Europe is a good place to start.
But it needs to be done quickly, before Trump has even taken office. We need to deliver the first blow, or at least make the threat clear to Trump and the Republicans. To wait until Trump takes charge is to give the advantage, and we can’t afford to allow that. We need him on the defensive and on the back foot.
We want to be the ones shaping events and controlling them, not the other way around. Action needs to be swift and uncompromising. IMHO.
Well said. We here in the U.S. are holding our breath and waiting for all the “other shoes” to drop. I hope the rest of the world can get something going in time to slow President Pussy Grabber down an all his schemes, particularly on climate change—–if he goes where he said he will, it will be SHTF time and “every man for himself” for the countries of the world.
So, specifically, would the NGO’s like 350, FOE, etc, be simply recommending or advertising for a boycott of American corporations, or possibly energy interests?
And what would be the terms of the boycott? Trump is called on to rescind his claims to possibly undermine the Paris Accords? His administration should halt all fossil fuel expansion projects and admit that AGW is a real issue?
Just curious about the specifics of this first blow. Seems like a good idea to be pro-active at all possible steps.
I haven’t got all the answers or the finer details worked out; I’m just trying to get a conversation going that people can contribute to and develop.
I guess what we’re looking to do is force Trump to put his climate and energy plans on hold while he has an in depth conversation with the leading American scientists from the leading institutions; one where he opens himself up to expert knowledge and guidance as to exactly what the climate situation is and what are the best solutions.
Hopefully this will lead to Trump giving up his denialism and making the right decisions. He’s already said he’s prepared to spend public money to create jobs and growth. This can be achieved by investing in renewables instead of fossil fuels. He can achieve his aims, but cleanly – he just needs to take the right advice to realise this; but, like I say, he’s only likely to seek that advice and give it serious thought if forced into a corner.
Thanks for your interest
Sounds good. It sounds like the NGOs and governments could work together a bit, too. I hear the French president already calling for the Euro and probably other powers to respond with a trade war and institute a carbon tariff on all US products imported into their countries. It sounds like governments might be somewhat interested in hurting the USA’s wallet and undermining Trump’s grand promises on trade deals. That might get his voter base interested in climate change action, though, unfortunately by force of other nations rather than a moral choice.
As regards to promoting the campaign I was wondering about the possibility of something modelled on a campaign group in the UK called 38 degrees which asks for donations to fund a specific campaign and they will often take adds out in national newspapers and put adverts on bill boards. We could use these methods to promote the call to boycott and list the demands.
I was also thinking that all those donating to the campaign could be sent a badge with the campaign logo or slogan on, whatever that may be, which they could where when out and about making their non-American purchasing choices such as hanging out in Costa rather than Starbucks, shopping in Sainsbury’s rather than Asda (owned by Walmart), and buying the stores own cola drink rather than Coke or Pepsi.
I was thinking if we could start a campaign off here in the UK then hopefully it would spread to other countries.