More Sucker Bait From China

More Sucker Bait From China

China now says it's considering negotiating a legally-binding climate pact at the UN talks in Durban, South Africa this coming weekend. I guess they have to wait for the weekend because the rest of the week will be taken up with condemning Israel for its racist human rights abuses.

If China is at all serious about this, it is clear that it's at least partially a ploy to get America to commit to a treaty which will destroy what's left of its economy with global-warming/climate change legislation.

China is now the world's top producer of carbon emissions. It's a large nation with a huge population, but the main reason it is producing so many greenhouse gases is that its industry is booming. In order to take the heat off its reputation for creating massive public works project that destroy the environment and use something resembling slave labor, China has decided to join the junk science parade and help the world save the ice caps and the polar bears.

China likely hopes that by joining the global warming hysteria (publicly, at least), it can shame the Obama administration into producing even more regulations thereby further damaging the American economy. They also hope that the ecoweenies and lefties in the Democratic Party will push the United States into an international global warming treaty on the theory that "China has done it, so shouldn't the United States do it first?"

So here's the Chinese plan: They will consider negotiating a global warming pact, which will include cap and trade provisions, to be finalized some time in 2020. And even that's not a sure thing. Says Su Wei, China's climate negotiator: "We do not rule out the possibility of a legally binding agreement. It is possible for us, but it depends on the negotiations." "Su Wei" in English is "Mr. Obvious." In essence, China wants another nine or ten years to go hell-bent for leather with its industrial expansion and monumental construction projects in order to pull far ahead of the United States on all manufacturing fronts.

And the American suckers are already taking the bait. Says Alden Meyer of the disreputable but powerful Union of Concerned Scientists: "China is signaling that they are trying to be flexible and constructively negotiate over the next week." The Obama/Clinton State Department has been trying to push a Kyoto-style treaty since its first day in office, and some low-level bureaucrats have expressed their joy at the Chinese offer. Officially, however, the State Department is silent. Their "no comment" statement was that they refused to discuss the matter while the negotiations are still under way. Do they mean they'll discuss it after the weekend, or in 2020? Enquiring minds want to know.

Jake Schmidt, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council said: "If Chinese officials agree to negotiate a binding treaty, it will put pressure on the Obama administration which has argued that the details of such a pact still need to be fleshed out." In other words, as an ecoweenie he thinks it's a good thing when Chinese rhetoric about possible negotiations for a treaty that might happen years in the future can force the American government into real action now restricting its already seriously-damaged industrial and economic base.

It is also quite likely that any treaty that includes China (and the United States?) will be interpreted, enforced and implemented by the United Nations. That's like putting a child-molester in charge of a kiddie daycare center. The claimed point of the proposed treaty is that wealthy nations will reduce their carbon emissions and pay poorer nations to do the same thing. Sounds good. Most unworkable schemes with no real solid foundation in fact sound good.

The United States has allowed its out-of-control bureaucratic agencies to slow development to a snail's pace already. With Obama's executive order allowing the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a "poison," coal and oil energy sources are grinding to a halt. Now look at the base year proposed by China. As the United States drifts off into non-productivity without any need for foreign treaties, China will have until 2020 to build its pollution industries. Then, nine or ten years from now, a treaty will be signed that says each industrial nations must reduce its carbon emissions by, say, 25% in five years.

By that time, China will be producing more carbon emissions than the next big three combined. The United States, on the other hand, will already have crippled its industries with regulations and cap-and-trade schemes. China will be heroic and cut its emissions by 25% immediately, leaving them as still the largest polluter on earth. And America will try to figure out how to cut 25% of nothing.

China now says it's considering negotiating a legally-binding climate pact at the UN talks in Durban, South Africa this coming weekend. I guess they have to wait for the weekend because the rest of the week will be taken up with condemning Israel for its racist human rights abuses.

If China is at all serious about this, it is clear that it's at least partially a ploy to get America to commit to a treaty which will destroy what's left of its economy with global-warming/climate change legislation.

China is now the world's top producer of carbon emissions. It's a large nation with a huge population, but the main reason it is producing so many greenhouse gases is that its industry is booming. In order to take the heat off its reputation for creating massive public works project that destroy the environment and use something resembling slave labor, China has decided to join the junk science parade and help the world save the ice caps and the polar bears.

China likely hopes that by joining the global warming hysteria (publicly, at least), it can shame the Obama administration into producing even more regulations thereby further damaging the American economy. They also hope that the ecoweenies and lefties in the Democratic Party will push the United States into an international global warming treaty on the theory that "China has done it, so shouldn't the United States do it first?"

So here's the Chinese plan: They will consider negotiating a global warming pact, which will include cap and trade provisions, to be finalized some time in 2020. And even that's not a sure thing. Says Su Wei, China's climate negotiator: "We do not rule out the possibility of a legally binding agreement. It is possible for us, but it depends on the negotiations." "Su Wei" in English is "Mr. Obvious." In essence, China wants another nine or ten years to go hell-bent for leather with its industrial expansion and monumental construction projects in order to pull far ahead of the United States on all manufacturing fronts.

And the American suckers are already taking the bait. Says Alden Meyer of the disreputable but powerful Union of Concerned Scientists: "China is signaling that they are trying to be flexible and constructively negotiate over the next week." The Obama/Clinton State Department has been trying to push a Kyoto-style treaty since its first day in office, and some low-level bureaucrats have expressed their joy at the Chinese offer. Officially, however, the State Department is silent. Their "no comment" statement was that they refused to discuss the matter while the negotiations are still under way. Do they mean they'll discuss it after the weekend, or in 2020? Enquiring minds want to know.

Jake Schmidt, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council said: "If Chinese officials agree to negotiate a binding treaty, it will put pressure on the Obama administration which has argued that the details of such a pact still need to be fleshed out." In other words, as an ecoweenie he thinks it's a good thing when Chinese rhetoric about possible negotiations for a treaty that might happen years in the future can force the American government into real action now restricting its already seriously-damaged industrial and economic base.

It is also quite likely that any treaty that includes China (and the United States?) will be interpreted, enforced and implemented by the United Nations. That's like putting a child-molester in charge of a kiddie daycare center. The claimed point of the proposed treaty is that wealthy nations will reduce their carbon emissions and pay poorer nations to do the same thing. Sounds good. Most unworkable schemes with no real solid foundation in fact sound good.

The United States has allowed its out-of-control bureaucratic agencies to slow development to a snail's pace already. With Obama's executive order allowing the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a "poison," coal and oil energy sources are grinding to a halt. Now look at the base year proposed by China. As the United States drifts off into non-productivity without any need for foreign treaties, China will have until 2020 to build its pollution industries. Then, nine or ten years from now, a treaty will be signed that says each industrial nations must reduce its carbon emissions by, say, 25% in five years.

By that time, China will be producing more carbon emissions than the next big three combined. The United States, on the other hand, will already have crippled its industries with regulations and cap-and-trade schemes. China will be heroic and cut its emissions by 25% immediately, leaving them as still the largest polluter on earth. And America will try to figure out how to cut 25% of nothing.

More Sucker Bait From China

View Detail

I'm Not Second Guessing Your Repugnance!

I'm Not Second Guessing Your Repugnance!

Slow Joe is at it again. Last time he was calling Tea Party supporters terrorists. Before that he was calling women lacrosse players “gazelles” and complaining that “the wrong people end up collecting the women” in the financial crisis. Now he's praising China’s “repugnant” forced abortion policy.



Starting in the 1970s, China introduced a policy that limits families to one child per couple. This includes criminal sentences and forced abortions for parents who violate the policy. Ostensibly, this was done because China was facing an over population problem -- although China’s population was actually declining at the time the policy was put into place.



As an interesting consequence of this policy, China is now facing two of the world’s most extreme demographic problems. First, the elimination of several generations of young has left China with the world’s worst retirement problem, as China’s elderly population far outweighs its productive population (4 retirees per worker) -- this is much worse than in the United States (3 workers per retiree). Secondly, because the Chinese prefer boys over girls, this meant that mostly girls were aborted or killed as infants. Thus, China is about to face the problem that there are 40 million more eligible bachelors than there are wives. To get a sense of how large this problem is, consider that this is the same number of marrying age males in Britain, France and Germany combined. It is also the entire population of California.



China’s single-child policy is largely responsible for both of these problems and there is serious pressure to end the policy. Even China’s official press is questioning the policy, which is highly unusual. Moreover, last month, one entire province demanded a waiver of the policy. It seems that the policy will soon end.



So what does this have to do with us?



American liberals were initially big fans of China’s one-child policy. Why? Well, the 1970s was the age of the next Global Ice Age, the Population Bomb, and fantasies of global famine. We were all going to starve by 1992. And let’s face it, liberals have always loved Eugenics.



But at some point, most liberals realized that forced abortion was not a very defensible thing. So they decided that China’s policy was not something they could publicly praise, even though many continue to support it in private. Indeed, even now, you will occasionally find liberals who openly defend the policy. For example, there was a laughable AP article last month that claimed that girls had it better under the one-child policy than they did before. Of course, that’s only the girls who aren’t killed as children or fetuses and aren’t imprisoned or forced to abort their own children. Moreover, the article failed to grasp that economically, the whole premise of its argument was crap. But hey, these are liberals, what do you expect?



Enter Slow Joe Biden.



Biden is in China for reasons unknown, possibly to get him out of town until the election or maybe as collateral for our bonds or maybe he just got lost on his way to see Santa? And let me tell you, the Chinese are not pleased. They have already had to cut off one of his speeches because it was too idiotic to be translated. Then they asked him what he thought about China’s one-child policy. Here is what Joe said:

“The Obama administration strongly opposes all aspects of China's coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and sterilization. The vice president believes such practices are repugnant. He also pointed out, in China, that the policy is, as a practical matter, unsustainable. He was arguing against the one child policy to a Chinese audience.”

Oops, sorry, that’s what Biden’s spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said (and no, I did not make that name up). Here’s what Biden actually said:

“Your policy has been one which I fully understand--I'm not second-guessing--of one child per family.”

Feel free to compare the quotes, you may find a slight discrepancy. Either Barkoff is lying or Biden is “not second-guessing” China’s “repugnant” policy. . . or both. Who keeps letting this idiot out of his rubber room? Seriously, if I were Obama, I would have Biden shot to the moon and then get Huntsman to run as my VP.

Slow Joe is at it again. Last time he was calling Tea Party supporters terrorists. Before that he was calling women lacrosse players “gazelles” and complaining that “the wrong people end up collecting the women” in the financial crisis. Now he's praising China’s “repugnant” forced abortion policy.



Starting in the 1970s, China introduced a policy that limits families to one child per couple. This includes criminal sentences and forced abortions for parents who violate the policy. Ostensibly, this was done because China was facing an over population problem -- although China’s population was actually declining at the time the policy was put into place.



As an interesting consequence of this policy, China is now facing two of the world’s most extreme demographic problems. First, the elimination of several generations of young has left China with the world’s worst retirement problem, as China’s elderly population far outweighs its productive population (4 retirees per worker) -- this is much worse than in the United States (3 workers per retiree). Secondly, because the Chinese prefer boys over girls, this meant that mostly girls were aborted or killed as infants. Thus, China is about to face the problem that there are 40 million more eligible bachelors than there are wives. To get a sense of how large this problem is, consider that this is the same number of marrying age males in Britain, France and Germany combined. It is also the entire population of California.



China’s single-child policy is largely responsible for both of these problems and there is serious pressure to end the policy. Even China’s official press is questioning the policy, which is highly unusual. Moreover, last month, one entire province demanded a waiver of the policy. It seems that the policy will soon end.



So what does this have to do with us?



American liberals were initially big fans of China’s one-child policy. Why? Well, the 1970s was the age of the next Global Ice Age, the Population Bomb, and fantasies of global famine. We were all going to starve by 1992. And let’s face it, liberals have always loved Eugenics.



But at some point, most liberals realized that forced abortion was not a very defensible thing. So they decided that China’s policy was not something they could publicly praise, even though many continue to support it in private. Indeed, even now, you will occasionally find liberals who openly defend the policy. For example, there was a laughable AP article last month that claimed that girls had it better under the one-child policy than they did before. Of course, that’s only the girls who aren’t killed as children or fetuses and aren’t imprisoned or forced to abort their own children. Moreover, the article failed to grasp that economically, the whole premise of its argument was crap. But hey, these are liberals, what do you expect?



Enter Slow Joe Biden.



Biden is in China for reasons unknown, possibly to get him out of town until the election or maybe as collateral for our bonds or maybe he just got lost on his way to see Santa? And let me tell you, the Chinese are not pleased. They have already had to cut off one of his speeches because it was too idiotic to be translated. Then they asked him what he thought about China’s one-child policy. Here is what Joe said:

“The Obama administration strongly opposes all aspects of China's coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and sterilization. The vice president believes such practices are repugnant. He also pointed out, in China, that the policy is, as a practical matter, unsustainable. He was arguing against the one child policy to a Chinese audience.”

Oops, sorry, that’s what Biden’s spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said (and no, I did not make that name up). Here’s what Biden actually said:

“Your policy has been one which I fully understand--I'm not second-guessing--of one child per family.”

Feel free to compare the quotes, you may find a slight discrepancy. Either Barkoff is lying or Biden is “not second-guessing” China’s “repugnant” policy. . . or both. Who keeps letting this idiot out of his rubber room? Seriously, if I were Obama, I would have Biden shot to the moon and then get Huntsman to run as my VP.

I'm Not Second Guessing Your Repugnance!

View Detail