JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Factories in China produce four times as much CO2 as Western factories

China is making the world’s products, but in terms of carbon they are horribly inefficient compared to the West. Old factories and coal fired electricity mean the country is pouring out CO2 — not that that matters, but it rather puts the squeeze on anyone who thinks it’s good for the environment to shut down clean western factories and give that production to China.

China, export emissions, CO2, pollution map

Figure 2 | China’s emission exports and the top exporting provinces. a The emissions embodied in goods exported from China to the US, EU and Japan are shown, representing 58% of all emissions embodied in trade in 2007 (the largest flows are labelled in MtCO2 yr-1.

A new study came out by Lui et al. with headlines all over like “Goods manufactured in China not good for the environment, study finds”. But none of these media outlets put a number on it — how much more polluting were these Chinese factories? The answer was right there in table 1 of the paper. Lui et al compare 15 products made in China and the EU, and found that China produces 4.4 times the emissions of CO2 in order to produce the same product.

When Chinese workers make steel, they make 2.8 times as much “pollution”. When they make cast iron, its 4.1 times as “polluting”. When they make polypropylene, they generate 18.4 times as much CO2. When a factory moves from the West to China, the Greens should spit chips.

China, CO2, emissions, factories, pollution, efficiency

Table 1 | Life cycle carbon emission intensity for 15 products
from China and EU.

The data comes from 2007, but is very detailed, even breaking down emissions from separate regions of China. In terms of exporting emissions, no country comes close to China (Graph a, below). In terms of importing emissions, the US heads the pack, followed by Japan, Germany, the UK, and then China (Graph d). If we look at exports of emissions minus the imports, China tops the list again while Australia just makes it into fifth spot.

Graph g below suggests Australia is the 5th highest net exporter of emissions.  More than any other western nation, we are a high emitter of CO2 because of what we export.

China, Australia, emissions, export, graphic,

Figure 1 | Emissions embodied in trade. Top ten regions (including top five countries and top five Chinese cities/provinces) by emissions embodied in exports (a–c), imports (d–f) and net trade (g–i), shown in absolute numbers (a,d,g), per dollar of output (b,e,h) and per capita (c,f,i). Data is for 2007.

The paper is paywalled, so a few quotes below for those who want to know more. Basically the problem is the poorest regions of China are horribly inefficient, but even coastal China is far less efficient than the West.

Emissions embodied in Chinese exports

Figure 1 shows the top five countries and the top five Chinese provinces whose exports, imports and net trade embody the greatest CO2 emissions, including the greatest emissions per unit of economic output and per capita. China is the largest net exporter of embodied emissions, by a large margin (Fig. 1g) with eight times more emissions embodied in its exports than its imports (Fig. 1a,d). In contrast, this ratio of emissions embodied in exports to imports is much less in other major exporting nations (for example, 0.5 in the US, 0.5 in Japan, 1.3 in India, 1.2 in Canada, 0.5 in Germany and 1.5 in Australia).”

China’s provinces are also the most carbon-intensive exporters in the world. The average emissions embodied per dollar of Chinese exports is 1,357 g CO2/US$, which is about six times the average emissions embodied per dollar of China’s international imports (230 g CO2/US$). This is reflected in the very high emissions embodied per dollar of exports from individual provinces, which comprise all of the top ten regions in this category (Fig. 1b). The provinces with the greatest emissions intensity of exports also tend to be less economically developed; provinces where GDP is less than US$4,000 per capita show the largest difference in the emission intensity of exports and imports (Supplementary Fig. 1).

About 80% of China’s export-related emissions are produced by these poorer regions, where the emissions intensity of exports is more than five times the emissions intensity of imports. For example, in Guizhou, where per capita GDP was US$900 in 2007, the emissions intensity of international exports was almost 31 times the emissions intensity of imports (Supplementary Fig. 1). Similarly high ratios exist in the also poor provinces of Inner Mongolia, Yunnan and Gansu. In the more affluent coastal provinces, ratios of emissions intensity of exports to imports are much smaller: ratios in Beijing, Zhejiang and Shanghai are 2.8, 3.0 and 4.1, respectively. But even these ratios are still much higher than those of other large trading nations such as US (0.8), Germany (0.4), Japan (0.2), Canada (1.1), the UK (0.3) and India (1.7).”

China’s carbon inefficiency results from its type of imports and exports, and that it primarily uses coal for energy. A few choice quotes:

“Driving factors of China’s carbon-intensive trade

Several factors can contribute to the observed differences in the magnitude and intensity of emissions embodied in exports and imports. First, in recent years China has become a `factory for the world’, with high concentrations of global heavy industry and manufacturing. For example, China produces 60%, 51% and 65% (by mass) of the world’s cement, steel and coke, respectively…

“Meanwhile, mining products is the category with the greatest proportion of emissions embodied in Chinese imports (23%). The dominance of these industries in Chinese trade implies that China is not just the world’s workshop, but is engaged in the most emission intensive stages of manufacturing…

 In 2007, 75% of China’s primary energy was supplied by coal, the highest level among major energy-consuming nations.

Per capita emissions embodied in trade

(This is not the same as per capita emissions overall.).

China, emissions per capita, export emissions, CO2, pollution

Figure 1 | Emissions embodied in trade. Top ten regions (including top five countries and top five Chinese cities/provinces) by emissions embodied in
exports (a–c), imports (d–f) and net trade (g–i), shown in absolute numbers (a,d,g), per dollar of output (b,e,h) and per capita (c,f,i). Data is for 2007.

 

h/t Lance W. Thanks!

REFERENCES

Zhu Liu, Steven J. Davis, Kuishuang Feng, Klaus Hubacek, Sai Liang, Laura Diaz Anadon, Bin Chen, Jingru Liu, Jinyue Yan, Dabo Guan. Targeted opportunities to address the climate–trade dilemma in China. Nature Climate Change, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2800

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (60 votes cast)
Factories in China produce four times as much CO2 as Western factories, 9.0 out of 10 based on 60 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/py82q74

103 comments to Factories in China produce four times as much CO2 as Western factories

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    It’s not only the production that is substandard.

    Many dangerous products have been sent out of China to international markets including the US Drywall- Plasterboard episode of 2001

    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_drywall) various foodstuffs consumed internally (within China that is)

    and in a particularly upsetting case my bike spokes.

    I bought a great looking bike and rode it until winter arrived and had to put it way for a month.

    On pulling it out I noticed three broken spokes with the typical cup and cone fracture. The cold weather had increased tension in the

    spokes and they had FAILED under tensile stress in way that showed the steel to be defective and BRITTLE.

    Obviously NO testing or Quality control.

    This is typical of products manufactured in China and the big unseen issue is at their back door.

    How do they get rid of toxic waste. Obviously they just “get rid of it” as cheaply as possible eg dump it in the local river?

    The west is a long way ahead in regulation and monitoring REAL POLLUTION.

    Pollution issues in China make the CO2 issue look like a ridiculous exercise in political correctness when the west is taking all the heat.

    KK

    340

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Forgot to mention that many products made in Asia use local water.

      The fact that the water is sourced from unreliable supplies can be smelt a mile away.

      90

    • #
      Greg

      Related to your post and to the CAGW fraud, many auto makers are moving to press hardened steel for structural components to save weight and meet new consumption targets. Much thinner steel is heated just before going in the press, then formed and quenched in the press to create martensitic steel. You can’t pretreat an entire roll of steel since it’s too strong to form after. It is critical that each piece be heated to the right temperature and quenched within a short time frame or you get a much weaker micro structure. The Germans started this, and it is spreading through North America at least. Inevitably, to save money the parts makers will move this technology to China, and does anybody trust some individual operator in China to scrap out a piece that wasn’t made right? The result will be roof and door beams in cars that have the strength of spaghetti in a crash.

      121

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        My memories of Martensite: micro examination of drawn wire with martensitic surface due to breakdown in lubrication.

        Not good stuff in wire.

        Would it be brittle?

        KK

        20

      • #
        handjive

        Scientists Invent a New Steel as Strong as Titanium

        South Korean researchers have solved a longstanding problem that stopped them from creating ultra-strong, lightweight aluminum-steel alloys.

        But before it can be mass-produced, researchers must confront a tricky production issue.

        Currently, steelmakers use a silicate layer to cover and protect mass-produced steel from oxidation with the air and contamination from the foundry.

        This silicate can’t be used for Kim’s steel because it has a tendency to react with the cooling aluminum, compromising the final product.

        40

      • #
        Manfred

        Greg, possibly won’t matter at all, given that the UN has a post-2015 directive to reduce global motor vehicle accidents by 50%……the answer………v.slow moving, ‘self’-controlled robotic electric or hybrid electric cars that never crash, or when they do, the consequences are unimportant.
        I could go on but I’m determined to enjoy this weekend in as relaxed a manner as I can.

        10

  • #

    The CO2 is irrelevant (although it does help as a plant food). But what is far more annoying is that they are using 4x as much energy as they need. And to any decent engineer that is abhorent.

    331

  • #
    doubtingdave

    What about the flip side of the coin, how much CO2 is sequestrated ( soaked up by plants etc)when you compare land area and head count of population between Australia and China ?

    41

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Land area is not that important. It is vegetation density, and admixture, per square kilometer that is important.

      On that basis, the land area of the Amazon river catchment, cannot be meaningfully compared with the land area of Australia, or Northern Africa, in terms of CO2 sequestration.

      50

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Likewise for China.

        30

        • #
          doubtingdave

          Thanks Rereke , and the more vegatation per acre the more there is to rot and release the co2 back to the atmosphere, i remember Richard Lindzen once pointing out that in the Amazon rain forest CO2 can reach into 1000′s of parts per million under the tree canopy and yet life is more abundant there than any where on the earths surface

          111

          • #
            bobl

            But the Nett effect is sequestration by a fair margin, otherwise we would have a N2 / CO2 atmosphere rather than an N2 / O2 one. This idea ( that decay balances sequestration), gets trotted out regularly but is denied by Oxy – the elephant in the room

            41

      • #
        Mack

        CO2 sequestration mainly occurs in the seas.
        Planting trees is probably meaningless.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSRgKKoLLiQ

        51

        • #
          Robert O

          This tends to be forgotten, but 2/3 of the earth is ocean and a little global warming increases the rate of photosynthesis doesn’t it?

          50

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          From your comment, I deduce that you have never actually been in a jungle, virgin, or otherwise (the jungle, not you).

          20

          • #
            Robert O

            Rereke, if the comment was intended for me it is far from the truth. Actually I have worked professionally in the forests of Mindanao and Kalimatan for several years and am well aware of the vast amount of understorey species in the tropical Dipterocarp forest as well as the very high rate of organic matter breakdown. I vaguely remember giving a paper to an APPITA conference in Auckland in the mid 80′s on tropical forestry. But there is a lot of ocean and phytoplankton to consider which was my point. No idea about the rate of sequestration, but NZ pine plantations sequestrate about 5 tonnes of carbon/ha./an.

            40

  • #

    This information is probably out of date. Many factories have the latest equipment. The car industry there use a lot of German Technology to make BMWs, Mercedes and VWs (In fact I believe these three companies make more of their brand cars there and in Europe &USA combined – power, steel and other raw materials are cheaper). I read recently that China imported in the last 12 months more than 50% of the worlds robotic machinery. Robotic machinery and automation results in improved quality which can be produced 24 hrs/day. China already has high tech computers, They have the fastest Mag-Lev regular passenger train in the world. At the 3 Gorges dam they purchase the first three or four hydro turbines and generators (660 MW each) then made the rest themselves for a total of 32 giving the largest power station in the world of 22,000MW. The government there is looking to the future with robots and automated machinery producing everything. The Chinese are making a quicker transition to quality than the Japanese and the South Koreans.

    151

    • #
      Stephan

      ‘Probably’? The data is from 2007 – basically worthless given the pace of industrial technological change. But hey it fits the narrative, hence its appearance here.

      316

      • #
        AndyG55

        Don’t worry, Stephen,

        I have listed in #10.1 a small sample of the coal fired power expansion planned around the world.

        There will continue to be a steep increase in global CO2 emissions for a long, long time :-)

        And there is absolutely NOTHING any of you alarmista cultists can do about it. :-)

        211

        • #
          AndyG55

          Even better.. the more the dopey governments implement “carbon taxes” or similar, the more manufacturing will move to countries like China and other places that are a lot messier with their production…

          and the FASTER CO2 emissions and actually real atmospheric pollution will rise. :-)

          31

      • #
        James Bradley

        Stephan,

        Wow, we’d all be so pleased for you to provide the current data and the links.

        81

      • #
        craig

        Sure Stephen, I’ll just sit back and wait for you to give us the ‘latest’ data…………..ummm Stephen, helllooo? Data? Where is it Stephen?………Still waiting Stephen……..CMON STEPHEN, I’m getting old!

        Oh….ok Stephen, fine, I’ll just accept that you’re a lazy arm chair blogger who simply appeals to authority when it suits him, would I be right Stephen?

        71

      • #
        James Murphy

        Do you have any updated figures to share…? Yes, sure, things have obviously changed in China since 2007, but where are the facts, the numbers…can you provide any?

        The ‘narrative’ here, is something called ‘science’, where facts are presented, along with the data, and suitable reference material. You may even notice that not everyone here agrees with everyone else, and that there is debate, questions are asked, people bother to check and test the claims made by others, mistakes are made, acknowledged, and corrected, not hidden.

        I don’t think anyone here claims to be on intimate terms with the inner workings of something so complex as ‘the climate’, and I do not think I am Robinson Crusoe when I make the claim that the system has far more factors in play than just CO2 concentration, but of course you are more than welcome to argue the point, if you want to.

        101

    • #

      You are correct about this information being out of date. As an economy grows its energy usage per unit of GDP diminishes. In fact in the slower-growing developed economies (esp. EU and USA) the total emissions from fossil fuels) has been broadly static for decades. This is why China is able to make the following pledge for the Paris COP21.
      To lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% from the 2005 level
      In 2014 they were already half way there. In fact if you assume 8% growth until 2020 and 5% thereafter, China could meet the pledge with emissions 2.4 times higher than in 2005.
      Economists have long understand this phenomena with respect to labor. Economies grow through increasing productivity per unit.

      140

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      The entire co2 argument is idiotic !
      We need more co2 not less !
      The planet is not warming !!!
      The doomists want to refer to the land based Fudged record !
      We put up satellites to get unfudged and accurate global measurements and these show nothing !
      Neither does the Argo Ocean project show any ocean temp increase !

      Even if temp increased slightly , it would be preferable and globally net beneficial.
      It is obvious that it is all BS when the so called solution is just another Great Big New Tax , great big government , with great big new regulation …….just what the ‘ruling class’ want …….little wonder ,they flog it so hard by stealing even more of our money to pay for even more so called scientists to flog us doomsday scenarios !

      Just look at duds like Sage Flim Flam Flannery with all his did not happen prophecies !!!

      And why do we need a ‘ Climate Change AUTHORITY ‘ ?

      Are we supposed to salute ….this dud self proclaimed authority ??

      We are being treated like little kiddies and told scary stories and must comply because the ‘AUTHORITY’ said so !!!

      Maybe they should stamp their foot on the ground when they say the word AUTHORITY ?
      Maybe that might work for their clown act !

      All these fraud climate AUTHORITIES , are in urgent need of the BUM’S RUSH OUT ,and straight into asylums for the environmentally insane !

      When will most wake up to this fraud and lunacy ???

      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/clip_image002_thumb1.jpg?w=597&h=279

      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/clip_image024_thumb.jpg?w=603&h=427

      https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10151822_780828808674484_3962412029208471167_n.jpg?oh=edcb408f1fb801632d81f941380c2234&oe=56919895

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/climate-change-warnings-over-the-years.jpg

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOygATEabIk

      92

  • #
    pat

    O/T but something beautiful in the atmosphere to contemplate:

    8 Oct: Courier Mail: Aurora australis lights up the nights over Tasmania
    SEE THE GALLERY: AURORA IMAGES
    Photographer Rob Warren has been out and about taking time-lapse video and photos from Seven Mile Beach of the vivid colours across the night sky.
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/aurora-australis-lights-up-the-nights-over-tasmania/story-fnjj600z-1227562550530

    8 Oct: Daily Mail: Will Northern Lights hunters get the green light for more gorgeous photographs tonight? Forecasters reveal where the aurora will be brightest
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3264404/Not-Northern-Lights-Phenomenon-seen-night-skies-Wales-Yorkshire-missed-plenty-chances-month.html

    50

  • #
    A C Osborn

    The more CO2 they produce the better it is for the whole world.
    The Local Polution, Quality and Safety of their products is another thing all together.

    151

  • #
    pat

    Wiliam -

    maybe these can help:

    Aurora Australis (Southern Lights) Forecast for Friday, October 9, 2015
    http://www.softservenews.com/southern_lights.html

    Hourly Aurora Forecast
    Using real-time solar wind data from Nasa’s ACE spacecraft, matched with data obtained from a network of magnetometers located worldwide, we are able to forecast, with reasonable accuracy, how the Southern Lights will behave up to one hour in advance. The image shows estimated aurora activity now
    http://www.aurora-service.net/aurora-forecast/

    40

    • #
      Russell

      Just for interest – there’s a smart phone app called Aurora Notifier that alerts users to the likely strength of Aurora activity in the following few hours.

      30

  • #
    Stephan

    Thankfully, China is launching a national ETS next year – which is why rightoids here in Aus are rocking back and forth wide eyed, shaking their heads feverishly since they’ll no longer be able to claim we shouldn’t bother doing anything because China isn’t.

    426

    • #
      AndyG55

      So you advocate sending OUR taxes to the UN and the banksters rather than using it here.

      That really is a pretty sick attitude. !

      Think about it child-mind…. If they send too much of OUR taxes elsewhere…

      .
      … they will have to reduce your dole payment.

      182

    • #
      James Bradley

      Stephan,

      Australia is a net carbon sink.

      152

    • #
      handjive

      Wow.

      A person who thinks a doomsday tax will save them from doomsday that never comes.

      Who could have imagined doomsday could be taxed, capped and traded.

      A fool and his money is easily parted.

      111

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘It was claimed that the Catholic Church invented the doctrine on indulgences in order to extract money from the faithful. It could be argued that along with the monetary benefits indulgence held for the church, there was a psychological component which kept the faithful in a state of fear of purgatory or even worse hell.’

        Ashley Crawford

        81

    • #
      James Murphy

      Is a ‘rightoid’ another name for a deltoid on the right-hand side of the body?

      Can you also enlighten us with regards to the safeguards, due diligence, and transparent audits which will guarantee that carbon credits purchased with Australian taxpayers money do, in fact, represent a genuine, real-life carbon sink somewhere in the world? (I’ll even let you get away with saying that fraud is impossible to rule out completely, as most sane people realise)?

      111

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Stephan,

      I just happen to have an ecologically friendly, carbon-free, bridge for sale. Are you interested?

      131

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      Grand sale….Grand sale….. Grand sale !!!

      Buy your Carbon Credits HERE !!!

      Big Discounts for Bulk Purchases !!!!!

      Will send payment details Shortenly …….. ( hurry – up suckers , so I can get rich quick and thank Goldman and Sachs of ..it for their idea )

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB2Ft3t7ceg

      31

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Stephan, anything China does, or says they’ll do, or pretends to do, is just for show for people like you. They are smart enough to know they have the manufacture advantage and they aren’t about to give that up.

      Here is a written explanation as to why they will not do as you claim they will do. (relevant details toward the end).
      https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/notes-on-sands-lecture_ty.pdf

      01

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    Air pollution from China undermining gains in California, Western states

    http://www.sgvtribune.com/environment-and-nature/20150810/air-pollution-from-china-undermining-gains-in-california-western-states

    A study released by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and NASA found that smog-forming chemicals making their way across the Pacific Ocean from China are undermining the progress California has made in reducing ozone, the most caustic component in L.A. smog.

    Previous studies published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres in 2012 estimated Asian pollution accounts for about 20 percent of the total ozone pollution in the spring in the western states such as California, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Wyoming.

    71

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Now that is what I call a stylish cop-out.

      “Please miss, it is not my CO2, it comes from those nasty people over there”.

      This whole thing is getting nuttier and nuttier.

      81

    • #
      James Bradley

      If California wants to reduce ozone it should ban electric cars.

      92

  • #
    MikeW

    I applaud China for helping to green the planet with atmospheric CO2. Western government policies on CO2 are nuts.

    151

  • #
    Yonniestone

    The benefits of extra CO2 is a given, it’s the steps taken to remove dangerous airborne particulates in the production process that separates how concerned or stringent a countries environmental laws are implemented, the removal of sulphates and nitrates for example have been practiced by developed countries for decades by using various forms of wet scrubber systems on the power or processing plant.

    I found an excellent download here that covers most wet scrubber systems and how efficient they are in removing particulates, another important point to remember for developing countries mitigating harmful emissions is the use of clean water and how prepared or able they are to utilize such a valuable commodity for the sake of pollution they may consider a calculated risk to live with, with already large populations this use of life sustaining water may not be a priority not to mention the financial cost to governments or investors.

    51

  • #
    Ruairi

    Those countries who wish to comply,
    With ‘carbon’ reductions,deny,
    That the Earth’s atmosphere,
    Will blend far and near,
    And that China is big and nearby.

    120

  • #
  • #
    Peter Miller

    This just helps further illustrate and emphasise the utter pointlessness of the meeting of Paris-ites next month.

    81

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Factories in China produce four times as much CO2 as Western factories

    And I wonder why they should care.

    We should not care either.

    61

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I don’t think we make any attempt to NOT produce CO2, so why do they produce 4 times as much?

      Is this figure a generalization, like for like, or do they have four times the production that we do?

      It’s a nice by-line, but it raises many questions.

      00

  • #

    The author of the article seems ignorant of what CO2 really is.

    CO2 is airborne plant food.

    More CO2 in the air is good news for plants, and the animals and people who eat them.

    CO2 has little, if any, effect on the climate, other than making is better for green plants.

    China should be congratulated for adding CO2 to the air.

    However, their manufacturing also produces real pollution, of the air (some reaches the West coast of the US) , ground and water — a major problem that “environmentalists” seem to ignore.

    Not to mention Chinese products whose ingredients are not monitored enough for safety and quality.
    .
    More CO2 in the air is not pollution — it greens the Earth

    111

    • #
      craig

      mmmmm……Richard, not sure if you’re being sarcastic but we, that is, the author and bloggers of this website know that co2 is beneficial but thank you for the biology lesson?

      41

      • #
        Manfred

        True, true, all too true. However Craig, I am noticing a tendency toward conflation of ALL emissions being described as ‘pollutants’. Water vapour isn’t, and CO2 isn’t as we all know, although I recognise it is currently fashionable for the EPA et al. to ideologically describe CO2 as such, based on the classy double benefit premise…label it as a pollutant and one can not only garner tax, fees, and levies, one can reduce it too. Hey Prestissimo. Trouble is, in reality it doesn’t turn out like that, as the ETS scheme demonstrates so magnificently. It’s just the sheeple who suffer as the dank green fingers descend graspingly, ever deeper into their rapidly emptying pockets.
        I’m fascinated in the same way as a rattler transfixes it prey with noise and stare, wondering how long it will be before ‘people emissions’ are targeted. Countries will be levied on the CO2 output of their exhaling population. Another double benefit, money and diminishing populations.
        Malthus is spinning with delight.

        31

      • #

        My sarcasm was directed toward people who call themselves environmentalists.

        Back in the 1970s they understood what pollution was in the US, and helped reduce it.

        I agreed with them at the time.

        In 2015 they see the same pollution in China, only much worse, and ignore it.

        In 2015, instead of attacking real pollution, they falsely demonize CO2 … which is beneficial for plants, humans and animals, and certainly not pollution.

        Demonizing CO2 is an indirect way to attack capitalism, economic growth and population growth.

        Environmentalism has morphed from a beneficial movement to clean the Earth, to a harmful political movement to control people.

        00

  • #
    AndyG55

    So essentially , every time you bring in a carbon cost that makes it harder for local manufacturing industry, forcing them to move production to China, you massively INCREASE atmospheric CO2 output.

    Can someone tell Turnbull.. doubt he would have the brains to understand, though.

    162

  • #

    What a good thing that CO2 is so good for plant growth and, we know now, does not affect the weather. The plants are all very thankful for all that Chinese effort.

    91

  • #
    oeman50

    Off topic, but Dr. Evans got a mention on the Rush Limbaugh radio show here in the U.S. today. He commented on David’s qualifications as a climate modeler and that he had determined the actual influence of CO2 was only 5 to 10% of what the IPCC models predict. Limbaugh also stated this was being largely ignored in the Australian press.

    Just thought you’d like to know.

    181

  • #
    handjive

    Even with this snapshot, scientists can see that some of their existing models will have to be revised.

    Carbon dioxide satellite mission returns first global maps

    18 December 2014: Nasa’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2) has returned its first global maps of the greenhouse gas CO2.

    The satellite was sent up in July to help pinpoint the key locations on the Earth’s surface where carbon dioxide is being emitted and absorbed.

    Clearly evident within the charts is the banding effect that describes how emitted gases are mixed by winds along latitudes rather than across them.

    61

    • #
      handjive

      In November, 2014, NASA released a video of the modelled behaviour of carbon(sic).

      As seen a month later from OCO-2 satellite, the models failed miserably.

      61

    • #
      AndyG55

      Also clearly evident is that the only place where industry “might” be a source of increased atmospheric CO2 is China.

      No high levels over EU, US, yet these fools are stupid enough to hamstring themselves with massive, economy-destroying, anti-carbon regulations.

      DOH !!!

      81

  • #
  • #
    TdeF

    The profiteers of doom rely on a few intuitive but wrong ideas by non scientists

    Firstly pollution of any sort stays where it is generated. So if for example you stop using coal, gas and petrol in Australia, we will have a wonderful, clean country with clean fresh air. The 98% of CO2 generated overseas will never reach us.

    CO2 not only stays in the air forever, ignoring the laws of physical chemistry, but stays in the country of origin, around the actual power station. So do not live near a power station and preferably do not have them. God will provide power or you buy it overseas with the money generated by farming and mining, which also have to go.

    The average is the goal. This morning a BOM graph in Australia showed up to 90% chance of being about the median temperature this year across Australia. This is Global Warming, Climate Change and the median is the new upper limit to temperatures. Be very scared. How many Australians know the difference between a median and an average?

    Bushfires are caused by Climate Change. So two hot days in Victoria and a lot of bushfires (lit by the government in a failed burning off on the hottest day of the year so far) as proof of a super hot summer and death by climate change. Last summer was in fact very cold, but that was a fluke apparently and not to be mentioned. In fact it would be nice to have a hot summer in Victoria for once, but we should never pass the median.

    There are just too many Chinese, so if they all smoke, make steel inefficiently, build endless new coal fired power stations, generate poisons and generally kill themselves, this is their choice and the West will be safe in their beds. So for example, caring Green groups stopped heavy metal mining (Neodymium for windmill magnest) in the rest of the world because it is dangerous and now it is all mined in China.

    To Green groups, this is a great result. Of course the price of Neodymium has soared from $8/kg to $250/kg but it is the price of a clean Western environment. The safe Western world now has 6 million tons of neodymium in their short lifespan 250,000 windmills. Good thinking, Greens.

    Also Greens believe scientists are lying. Wind and sun are obviously power the world. So in Tamil Nadu last week, the big factory I was in simply stopped when the wind stopped and all the power went off. Clever greens, but then manufacturing is so yesterday and polluting.

    In the Green world of caring, the operating principle is NIMBY, Not In My Backyard. Above all, the Greens appear to simply be the most selfish people on the planet. As for the Green political parties, they were long ago taken over by communists groups determined to destroy the Western world. Christiana Figueres, the Costa Rican power family member who runs the Climate scam says, China is her model for world government and she wants to destroy the power of the ballot box. Then you get the merchant bankers like Malcolm Turnbull, who have taken a different route to power. For the caring, it is always about the money.

    Who needs science? It is all so obvious to the 1,000 journalists of the ABC and 5,000 journalists of the BBC. Now there are two protected species, oblivious to reality, the Eloi of the modern world.

    151

    • #
      Yonniestone

      What’s with the sarcasm and backhanded innuendo’s?, I’m starting to think you don’t believe in climate change or that those who offer an alternative sustainable existence backed up with a perfectly good scientific consensus actually don’t have our best interests at heart…..

      100

      • #
        TdeF

        Backhanded innuendo? I did not think it was so subtle.

        Of course I believe in Climate Change and it is becoming abundantly clear that China is the problem. At least only the Chinese will suffer, so there is some justice.

        As the ABC/BBC/SBS/BOM agree, real science is determined by journalists and politicians and lawyers and bankers. Science is simply too important to be left in the hands of mere scientists. Political freedom and freedom of speech and democracy and evidence based science are just obsolete concepts and nothing but trouble according to the UN bureaucrats and all those retired politicians like Helen Clarke who want to travel first class around the world, mainly New York and Paris.

        81

  • #
    pat

    Another Ian -

    from the original Bloomberg piece being quoted in Breitbart:

    30 Sept: Bloomberg: Peter Levring: Teslas Hit by 180% Danish Tax on Cars as Green Goals Ditched
    Denmark’s move marks its latest shift away from measures that had once put the Scandinavian country at the forefront of innovative policies designed to promote renewable energy. The three-month old government has already said it is abandoning ambitious CO2 emissions targets and dropping plans to become fossil-fuel free by 2050. That policy shift was revealed on Sept. 2, the same day U.S. President Barack Obama made a global appeal for urgent action to fight climate change…READ ON
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-29/teslas-hit-by-180-tax-in-denmark-as-green-goals-get-left-behind

    naturally, there’s not a word to be found online about this at ABC/Fairfax or any other Australian MSM.

    81

  • #
    TdeF

    Sorry above the median temperature. Clearly like a speed limit, exceeding the median is the sign of extreme danger and means we have to stop generating CO2 or suffer extreme bushfires, perhaps followed by extreme flooding.

    All weather is man made and variations above the holy median are caused only by thoughtless and uncaring human activity by farmers and miners and the use of cars, trucks and tractors and ships and aircraft. The Chinese are innocent and they suffer enough, but why are they buying all our big farms and vinyards and prestige houses and moving here? Where did they get all that money? There should be a law.

    81

  • #
    pat

    lol:

    9 Oct: UK Sun: It’s Octobrrrrrrr
    Blizzard to blitz Britain before end of month
    SHIVERING Brits could be facing SNOW in under a fortnight as forecasters predict an October blizzard for only the third time in 70 years…
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6682889/Its-Octobrrrrrrr.html

    9 Oct: UK Express: Nathan Rao: FOUR MONTHS OF HEAVY SNOW: Shock UK long-range weather forecast for THIS winter
    BRITAIN should prepare for the worst winter in half-a-century with advanced weather models now predicting MONTHS of heavy snowfall, forecasters warned tonight.
    If the cycle continues it will open the gates to the fury of a fully-blown Arctic blast rivalling the record winters of 1962/63 and 1946/47…
    Forecasters are now warning people to prepare for the worst this year with experts fearing thousands could die from the cold…
    James Madden, forecaster for Exacta Weather, said the first flakes of snow could arrive in just three weeks.
    He said: “It is likely to turn significantly colder from mid October onwards…
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/611100/Winter-2015-Heavy-Snow-record-cold-weather-forecast-UK

    51

    • #
      TdeF

      Glaciers could form in England and cities crushed under billions of tons of ice and no one will care. Only heat matters. Only a carbon tax will save us.

      41

  • #
    David Maddison

    Claim that press is ignoring David’s discovery of flaws in climate “models”.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2015/10/07/press-ignoring-news-global-warming-true-believers-will-find

    31

  • #
    Amber

    So let’s get this straight ,the USA Obama government wages a war on coal use in the USA but exporting it to places like China
    will not only increase pollution but eliminate American jobs . What a legacy .

    No wonder Donald Trump is looking like a contender .

    Americans are tired of a government that doesn’t work and which openly claims they will drive up energy prices one of their key competitive advantages .

    The west must appear to be such naïve fools to the “have not countries ” .

    71

  • #
    pat

    the elephant in the room:

    10 Oct: Economist: Catching up with China
    The prime minister wants India to grow as fast over the next 20 years as China has over the past 20. Does that mean Chinese levels of pollution?
    EVERY so often a country comes along whose economic transformation has a vast impact on the world’s climate system. For the past generation that country has been China. Next it will be India.
    At 1.6 tonnes of carbon per person each year, they are roughly the same as China’s per-head emissions in 1980, when that country dived into economic reforms. Now India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, wants to emulate China’s sizzling growth. He has set India a target of expanding GDP by 8% a year. If it comes close to meeting that target, emissions will soar, just as China’s have done. Today, Chinese emissions per head are four times those in India.
    Government planners think that, with economic growth of 8-9%, India’s total emissions of carbon dioxide would more than triple by 2030, from 1.7 billion tonnes in 2010 to 5.3 billion tonnes. Per-head emissions would increase to 3.6 tonnes. And that assumes a fair amount of energy savings. If India were to use the same amount of energy per unit of GDP in 2030 as it does now, then emissions would top 6 billion tonnes by 2030. India is on the way to becoming the biggest contributor to increases in greenhouse gases within 15 years…
    The country has more poor people than anywhere else in the world: 230m living on $1.90 a day or less—the World Bank’s definition of extreme poverty. Almost half of rural households, or 250m-300m people, have no electricity. For the poor, growth is essential—and carbon comes with it.
    Yet to accept that is not to give up on curbing emissions. India has huge potential to change its trajectory…
    Given the atrocious quality of the electricity grid, the quickest way to improve energy access is to supply power away from the grid through “distributed energy”—things like solar panels on houses or a micro-grid for a particular village linked, say, to a wind turbine…
    As always, India will go its own sweet way. But it could do more to make that way greener.
    http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21672359-prime-minister-wants-india-grow-fast-over-next-20-years-china-has-over-past-20

    20

  • #
    pat

    8 Oct: Reuters: CORRECTED-France urged to end coal projects in Turkey
    Environmental lobby groups on Wednesday urged French President Francois Hollande to force state-owned utility Engie to stop investing in coal projects in Turkey.
    Engie, in partnership with the Turkish company Mimag-Sanko, plans to build the Ada Yumurtalik 1,320-megawatt coal plant in the south of Turkey.
    Around 35 environmental groups, including WWF France, Greenpeace Turkey and Climate Action Network Europe, said the project threatens citrus fruit production in the area and new coal plants put the livelihoods of 500,000 people at risk…
    Turkey plans to double its coal power capacity over the next four years to help it meet rising energy demand as its economy expands.
    The French state owns 33 percent of Engie and around 84 percent of utility EDF. Both companies are among the sponsors of United Nations climate talks which will be held in Paris from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11…
    Mining company and commodities trader Glencore Plc on Wednesday called on delegates meeting for the global climate summit to adopt a policy that recognises coal as an important energy source,
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/08/france-coal-idUSL8N1272ZM20151008

    30

  • #
    pat

    9 Oct: Science Mag: Editorial: James L. Turk: A chance to get science right
    (James L. Turk is Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada; director of the Centre for Free Expression at Ryerson University; and the former executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers.)
    The upcoming Canadian election later this month will provide a welcome opportunity to reboot the federal government’s controversial approach to science policy and research. The current Conservative government has been undermining science for the past 9 years, damaging the institutions that make scientific advancement possible and trying to ensure that political and ideological priorities dominate scientific work…
    Beyond the funding agencies, there is a good deal of politically motivated defunding. The federal government’s hostility to climate science ended support for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences and for the Experimental Lakes Area, the world’s only living natural laboratory for freshwater research…
    Canada needs to reverse this damage to its scientific enterprise. An immediate priority should be establishing a prominent role for science in government by creating a parliamentary science officer and a parliamentary research and science advisory council composed of top scientists that report directly to Parliament. Hopefully, the widespread and visible public concern about the fall of science will lead whichever party is elected on 19 October to move in a very different direction. It will take concerted action to make this happen.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6257/139.full

    40

    • #
      Mark Fraser

      More like the Cdn. government slowed down the rampant political activism festering inside taxpayer funded research establishments and I, for one, rejoice. Yeah, there might have been some ‘collateral” damage to legitimate research, but mostly just hotbeds of protest staffed by WWF operatives or similar. Get back to real science, not political activism.

      40

  • #
    Wally

    Jo

    When you talk to people who live and work in China (as I have done, through my involvement in manufacturing) you find an interesting thing:

    THE POWER SUPPLY IS NOT RELIABLE.

    Because of the unreliable electricity supply, many factories have a small power plant. This is coal fired, old, and belches crap out with no combustion or emission controls.

    The biggest causes of smoke and general pollution are these crappy little power plants (not to mention the cement works with no pollution controls etc).

    The Chinese govt are well aware of this, and have been moving over the last 5-10 years to shut down a lot of those little power plants, and bring on big new reliable clean power plants so that the general power supply is more reliable.

    Specific example: In the Shenzhen area, the pollution change between 10 years and now is chalk and cheese (from my experience of being there). The reason: a big new nuclear power plant not far away.

    So what this all means: A reliable power supply means that work arounds are not needed, and a lack or work arounds is cleaner and better for the environment.

    80

  • #
    pat

    requires registering or subscribing:

    New Scientist says the (UK) government could face legal action over its “climate failures”.
    UK government could face lawsuit over climate failures
    Environmental lawyers that have already successfully sued the UK government say they are considering legal action over failure to cut carbon dioxide…
    New Scientist‎ – 2 days ago

    7 Oct: New Scientist: 14 ways the UK has backtracked on climate pledges this year
    It’s been an annus horribilis for the UK’s environmental efforts…
    Below we summarise the main events of 2015 so far…
    29 September: The head of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, criticises the lack of action to tackle climate change…
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28299-14-ways-the-uk-has-backtracked-on-climate-pledges-this-year/

    9 Oct: Reuters UK: Randall Palmer, Lima: Bank of England head rebuts critics of his global warming remarks
    He said the Group of 20 leading industrialized nations had this year asked the Financial Stability Board, which coordinates financial regulation of the G20 and which Carney chairs, to produce an assessment of the implications of climate change for financial stability.
    “One thing we don’t like as central bankers, as people responsible for financial stability and as participants in an economy is (a) jump to distress, abrupt changes, and we can avoid those with better information,” Carney said.
    Carney delivered a speech on the issue last week to a Lloyd’s of London insurance market event, and was slammed afterward for overstepping his mandate at a time when central banks are struggling to reignite growth and raise inflation.
    Carney was asked about the issue at a seminar in Lima on Thursday at the meeting of the International Monetary Fund, and he raised it again at a panel discussion two hours later…
    He said it was a “market failure” that there is not information about carbon effects of ***trillions and trillions of dollars of potential investments…
    More such information would help smooth the transition to a world that uses less carbon, which would be good for financial stability, he said.
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/10/08/us-imf-boe-idUKKCN0S239620151008

    20

  • #

    China’s objective in the CO2 scam is, as far as I can tell, to ramp up emissions as far as they can until 2030, at which point they promised to look at emissions reductions.

    51

    • #

      I’ve been circumspect in waiting to Comment here at this Thread.

      With respect to what Bernd has said here:

      China’s objective in the CO2 scam is, as far as I can tell, to ramp up emissions as far as they can until 2030, at which point they promised to look at emissions reductions.

      With respect to getting information out of China, it’s not an easy thing, but check this out, and I want you to look at a couple of things here.

      This link is for China Electrical Power and is dated wef from end of August, so, barely 6 weeks old.

      Note that this is for end of August, so it’s only 8 Months into the year, and not yet the full year.

      Note at Line 44, and this is in reference back to Line 42, so it details only the new equipment to come on line in just the 8 Months so far this year.

      Now, this Line 44 shows new Thermal Power to come on line, and you can see the figure there, and that is 3082 and is expressed in 10,000KW, so that’s 30.82 GIGAWATTS of new Nameplate for Thermal Power. That is, all of it, coal fired power, as China has very little Natural Gas (NG) plants,(and NG makes up only 2.5% of just the Thermal Power sector)

      That Thermal power new construction has been running at that level for the last ten years, and will be staying at around that same level for the next 15 years. (at the very least)

      Now, having looked at that, here’s the next thing I want you to look at, and allow some time for this to sink in.

      Look at Line 22 titled National power supply coal consumption rate. Note that figure there, and it’s 317.

      That is grams of coal consumed for every KiloWattHour of generated electricity.

      That is the lowest coal consumption for coal fired power on Planet Earth, not just by a little, but so far and away lower that it’s actually laughable.

      The average in the U.S. is currently 490 grams, and that figure of 490 is around the same as for every already Developed World country with a large amount of coal fired power.

      Now, you may think the difference between 317 grams and 490 grams is not all that much, but it is 35% lower, hence 35% lower CO2 emissions. For example, if the WHOLE U.S. fleet of coal fired power was the same as for China, the U.S. would be emitting ….. 785 Million Tonnes less CO2.

      It can be said that China may have huge emissions in some areas, but when it comes to coal fired power China leads by example here.

      Tony.

      80

      • #

        Interesting Tony. I suspect that the Nuclear power is under reported and Wind is over reported. On a visit some 6 months ago, I saw the 3 gorges Dam (6*660+26*700=22,000 MW) and a few coal fired power stations and what I thought maybe be a Nuclear Power Station with two big Cooling water towers (no conveyors for coal) but no where did I see any wind or solar power.

        Re your coal efficiency calculation. In negotiations with power companies we used 1.5M tonnes for 500MW with a running time of 90%. This gives 380 g/kWhr. I suggest that with 1000+MW units and critical pressure one could get down to 320 g/kWhr but 317 average I would say is very generous with some of the high ash poorer quality coals in China.

        30

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          I wonder if the figures Tony is quoting are for all power compared with toal coal use (irrespective of source eg coal, wind, solar) OR just the coal fired quantity?

          KK

          10

      • #
        scotsmaninutah

        Tony,
        good info..

        I picked out these two figures (accumulated of course)

        The national total electricity consumption 36780
        National power generation capacity 37198

        not much in the way of a margin consumption/generation

        10

        • #

          scotsmaninutah,

          keep in mind here that this is just 8 Months worth of data.

          The total power consumed across the whole of Australia in a full year is consumed in China every 13 days.

          Note also the percentage of power consumed in the Residential Sector here in China, 13.3%.

          Everywhere else in the already Developed World Residential power makes up 30 to 38% of total power consumption.

          When I started eight years ago, that China percentage for Residential was around 7.5%.

          Tony.

          30

      • #

        Concerning statistics from China:
        If it sounds too good to be true, it’s not true.

        China probably has a newer batch of coal fired plants than many other nations.
        That means their plants are likely to be more efficient, on average than many other nations.
        I would leave it at that, and ignore their statistical data.

        20

  • #
    Dennis

    ABC24 just had an interview with Lord Deben (I discovered accidentally) and his final words were in answer to a question about how the world would view a turn around by the Australian Government to increase renewables etc. Deben replied that the world would embrace Australia for at last deciding to do more.

    No mention that Australia has achieved all the targets for emission reductions and is set to achieve or exceed the next target, as compared to most other developed countries not getting close to achieving their targets.

    70

  • #
    pat

    the most widely-covered report on this topic:

    10 Oct: Sky News: AFP: Banks pledge $15bn in climate funds
    Development banks including the World Bank have pledged an additional $US15 billion ($A20.66 billion) a year by 2020 to fight climate change.
    Just two months before key UN climate talks in Paris, world leaders are scrambling to reach the magic number of $US100 billion in funding to help vulnerable nations cope with the impact of global warming…
    The World Bank announced on Friday it would increase climate financing from 21 per cent of its total funding to 28 per cent in 2020.
    In dollar terms, that would be an increase from an average of $US10.3 billion a year now to $US16 billion a year in 2020, at current funding levels.
    ‘We are committed to scaling up our support for developing countries to battle climate change,’ World Bank president Jim Yong Kim said in a statement.
    ***’As we move closer to Paris, countries have identified trillions of dollars of climate-related needs. The Bank, with the support of our members, will respond ambitiously to this great challenge.’ …
    ***French finance ministry officials said other development banks including the European Investment Bank, Asian Development Bank and Inter-American Development Bank had made similar pledges for a total of $US15 billion in new funds.
    http://www.skynews.com.au/business/business/world/2015/10/10/banks-pledge–15bn-in-climate-funds.html

    ***that final excerpt kind of gives a false impression that the other banks are each pledging $15 bn, tho it does at least state that figure is the combined total.

    Guardian completely spins it, without even explaining how they get the headline figure of $29 billion. however, the important bits are excerpted:

    10 Oct: Guardian: World Bank pledges extra $29bn to poorer nations for climate change fight
    Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank Group, said it could boost funding by a third in response to client demand
    by Dan Collyns in Lima
    ***But Oxfam estimates only $2 billion of the total is going to the countries hardest hit by extreme weather caused by climate change, in the form of adaptation grants.
    The charity’s climate change policy expert Isabel Kreisler said finance ministers should agree at least half of “public funding going towards the $100bn goal should be for adaptation”.
    Most of the money is going to green energy investments such as climate-smart transport solutions, renewable energy and enhanced water security…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/10/world-bank-pledges-extra-29bn-to-poorer-nations-for-climate-change-fight

    10

  • #
    pat

    note how Guardian could use the $29 billion figure, as meaningless as it is here, in the World Bank’s own words!

    9 Oct: World Bank: World Bank Group Pledges One-Third Increase in Climate Financing
    The World Bank Group today announced it will increase climate financing to potentially $29 billion annually with the support of its members…
    The World Bank Group now provides an average of $10.3 billion a year in direct financing for climate action. If current financing levels were maintained, this would mean an increase to $16 billion in 2020.
    In addition, the Bank Group plans to continue current levels of leveraging co-financing for climate-related projects; at current financing levels, that could mean up to another $13 billion a year in 2020. The direct financing and leveraged co-financing together represent an estimated $29 billion…
    The World Bank Group’s climate finance pledge is dependent on client demand and on maintaining current financial capacity…
    http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/09/world-bank-group-pledges-one-third-increase-climate-financing

    10 Oct:TimesLiveSouthAfrica: AFP: Fabien Zamora: Africa being left out of climate aid: development bank
    The head of the African Development Bank says the continent is not getting enough of the billions of dollars in climate change funding, despite being the region that suffers most…
    “Africa today contributes just two percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, but Africa is the one that suffers most from the impact of climate change,” Adesina told AFP on the sidelines of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank annual meetings in Lima, Peru…
    The problem, he said, is the way climate funding is allocated.
    The money, ***both loans and grants, goes to fund two kinds of projects: mitigation and adaptation…
    “What Africa needs is funds for adapting. We have hundred of millions of people who have no way of adapting to climate change,” said Adesina.
    “But unfortunately, on climate finance, today in the world… ***76 percent of financing is dedicated to mitigation.
    “This is an imbalance that needs to be addressed.”…
    But most climate funding “tends to favor Asian countries like India and China,” said Adesina…
    http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/opinion/2015/10/10/Africa-being-left-out-of-climate-aid-development-bank

    10

  • #
    David Maddison

    This was posted on a web page for which the link was posted in a previous thread.

    It is an amazing video. US Senator Ted Cruz quizzes the president of the Sierra Club. The cluelessness of the club president about climate change is staggering.

    https://youtu.be/Sl9-tY1oZNw

    Why can’t Australia have intelligent and well-informed politicians like Ted Cruz?

    22

  • #
    Ian H

    Many of China’s inefficiency issues are due to their extremely rapid pace of development. The plant they are building today tends to be excellent, and in some cases is state of the art. But they have a lot of very inefficient older stuff still running. As long as these are still making money there is little incentive to close them down.

    10