“Visibly Angry”?

Politico is reporting that:

COPENHAGEN — A visibly angry Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet at China and other developing nations Friday, declaring that the time has come “not to talk but to act” on climate change.

Emerging from a multinational meeting boycotted by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Obama warned delegates that U.S. offers of funding for poor nations would remain on the table “if and only if” developing nations, including China, agreed to international monitoring of their greenhouse gas emissions.

“I have to be honest, as the world watches us … I think our ability to take collective action is in doubt and it hangs in the balance,” Obama told the COP-15 plenary session as hope faded for anything more than a vague political agreement.

There’s a video at the link and another here. I certainly don’t see visible anger. I see President Obama’s normal flat affect.

I think that he and anyone else who believes that China will agree to anything verifiable is missing the point. If they agree to anything verifiable the jig will be up. China is a very large country controlled by a relatively small number of people on behalf of a relatively small number of people. If they’re forced to show their work, they won’t stay in power and staying in power is the object of the game.

Further, it seems like a poor bargaining strategy to say that we’ll proceed with our changes regardless of what you do (which is what President Obama said in his speech).

You’d think that China might take this matter more seriously. An enormous proportion of its population lives on the coast where they’re most vulnerable to rises in sea level, one of the predictions of those who believe that anthropogenic global warming constitutes a critical urgent problem. Either China’s leaders don’t believe in the urgency, they believe they have another solution, they think we’ll pay them off, or they don’t give a good goddamn.

11 comments… add one
  • Drew Link

    As I have snarked from time to time that the BRIC’s have no intention of complying/participating. As I understand it, Brazil has now also walked. So that even if AGW were not a hoax, there isn’t any feasible action the US could take in offset that would move the CO2 needle sufficiently to avoid the dire predictions. Therefore, any actions we take (eg ramping up a nuclear effort) should be grounded in fundamental principles of proper resource management, not AGW scares.

    You make a good point re: the jig is up.

    However, I’ve been convinced for some time that a very simple explanation applies. The BRIC’s fully understand that this isn’t about science, its about control, taxation and wealth transfer. They also understand that the AGW politicians of the world need to play to their political bases, and that a compliant and irresponsible media pave the way for those politicians. Hence, they sit back (chuckling, I’m sure) and invite Pres. Obama to go ahead and shoot our, uh, foot off. And he just might.

    When the heat of the moment passes, historians will look back and find this so silly. Just like the coming Ice Age stories of the 70’s.

  • Anger is expressed differently by Vulcans.

  • Brett Link

    or they don’t give a good goddamn.

    I suspect it’s more that they have no choice – even if it destroys them in the long-term, if they compromise on the economic growth, it destroys the legitimacy of their government.

  • sam Link

    “historians will look back and find this so silly. Just like the coming Ice Age stories of the 70’s”

    And if you’re wrong, what will they say?

  • Brett, they have a choice: they can do the right thing which might well mean that they’ll lose their hold on wealth and power. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a choice. Saying they have no choice is like saying that Bernie Madoff or Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t have choices. They had choices.

  • steve Link

    The Chinese according to Fallows (?) do not question the science. They believe AGW is real. They just differ with us on what to do about it.

    Steve

  • Drew Link

    “And if you’re wrong, what will they say?”

    sam –

    We couldn’t do anything about it. The numbers are pretty easy to find. You can Google it. Just look at the amount, and the rate of growth, in greenhouse gas emissions from the major countries. Aside from the US returning to cave man days we can’t overcome what has already been set in motion. Invoking bizarre and dire consequences is a dangerous strategy, because a cursury look at the data shows we are doomed if they are right.

    But I have it on good authority that the world will be saved if you would just fork over your entire net worth to the UN, sam. Are you going to be a good world citizen?? What if you are wrong?

  • sam Link

    “But I have it on good authority that the world will be saved if you would just fork over your entire net worth to the UN, sam. Are you going to be a good world citizen?? What if you are wrong?”

    I was clumsy, I think, in what I asked. I read you making this argument (in capsule) : AGW is false, therefore GW is false. And I find that argument (whether you were making it or not) very dangerous, because, causation aside, I’m convinced that GW is a fact (receding glaciers, ice caps, etc, etc). Something is going on, and something I believe does have dire consequences for us. Whether there’s an A in the GW phenomenon or not, a warming climate on our economy and the world’s requires our attention, just because the posited effects are dire.

  • Drew Link

    sam –

    Given all the drama surrounding AGW, I prefer global temperature variability. Same as it ever was.

    Anyway. Something you won’t hear from the scaremongers is that there are areas (south) where the ice mass is increasing.

    Perhaps the single best read I’ve seen is Unstoppable, Global Warming; Every 15,000 years. Check it out.

  • sam Link

    Ok, I’ll look at that and you look at this (hope my linking works):

    World’s largest ice sheet melting faster than expected

    East Antarctic sheet shedding 57bn tonnes of ice a year and contributing to sea level rises, according to Nasa aerial survey

Leave a Comment