On June 17, the Eco Forum Global Symposium 2017 opened in Guiyang, capital of Guizhou province. More than 400 businesspeople, politicians, and academics participated in the forum to discuss how to build a pilot eco-civilization zone; more specifically, to enter a new era of eco-civilization in an innovation-driven and evidence-based manner.
The theme for this year’s annual conference is “Embracing the New Era of Eco-Civilization and Let Green Growth Benefit All,” and its major topic is on building a pilot eco-civilization zone. Guizhou was approved to establish a national pilot eco-civilization zone in 2016, making itself a platform of China’s reform for promoting ecological progress. Guizhou deeply implements the concept of “Lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets” and makes eco elements and resources available to society as a whole. Nowadays, the eco-practices in Guizhou reflect the concept of “Green Advance, Green Lead and Green Growth”.
As one of the major media partners in this global symposium, Huanqiu.com was established under the approval of People’s Daily and the State Council Information Office and funded by People.com.cn and the Global Times. As a centralized network of comprehensive news media, Huanqiu.com strives for timely, objective and independent coverage and analysis of news and information at home and abroad. We are the preferred source of news and information for national as well as foreign media. Huanqiu.com is the provider for original bilingual contents online, the professional issuance agency for foreign games, and China’s most influential bilingual Chinese-English news portal.
Chen Min’er, the Communist Party Secretary of Guizhou province and Chairman of the Standing Committee of its People’s Congress, said that ecology is key to culture, and it is Guizhou’s glory and responsibility to accomplish the strategic goal assigned by the CPC Central Committee of building this national pilot eco-civilization zone. In the meanwhile, Chen mentioned that the reform will carry out by focusing on the construction of green barriers to promote green development and ecological poverty alleviation, strengthen the rule of law protection, and deepen communication and cooperation. The establishment of this pilot zone will make the colorful Guizhou pay more attention to its natural resources, environment, eco-civilization and cultural civilization.
Sir John Leslie Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, foreign president of the Eco Forum Global Guiyang Symposium 2017 International Consulting Committee and president of the EU Environment Council, told Huanqiu.com that the existing global framework cannot assure the accomplishment of a shared development, and it is unacceptable and unsustainable to let the economic and social gap between low-income developing and high-income developed countries grow widen. “Just like Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, we could also formulate a Guiyang Agreement, which will make us more confident to address climate change and help us to reach an international agreement,” said Sir Prescott.
We observe the irrationality of the doctrine of global warming, the naive belief that small variations of global temperature we experience have an anthropogenic origin!
Regulations run amok in the climate change agenda. The costs of successfully countering the buildup of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere are huge—far larger than described in the media and by advocates. It requires the rapid, total phase out of fossil fuels (the leave them in the ground strategy), raising energy prices, and fundamentally changing production and consumption patterns, which would reduce living standards worldwide. The poor will be disproportionately harmed, both within the United States and everywhere.
The costs of reversing GHG emissions could be 1% of global GDP annually—or about $800 billion each year, which is approximately the size of the economy of Holland. Specific industries will be particularly affected—including manufacturing, energy production, mining, transportation, and some types of agriculture. Generally wealthy elites will not bear many of these costs; they will fall squarely on general middle-class citizens. A candid weighing of (very uncertain) benefits and costs and their distribution among populations for compensation is essential for any effective, durable action to address possible climate change.
Any reduction in global GHG emissions and a decline in the stock of GHG already in the atmosphere requires coordinated and major cutbacks in fossil fuels worldwide. Greenhouse gases circulate the globe, meaning that some countries will receive the benefits of costly mitigation taken on by others. Under these circumstances, the incentives to free ride are irresistible. Internal pressures to free ride will be particularly great in those countries that will incur the greatest mitigation costs, that have the weakest government institutions and limited rule of law, and that are big enough to chart their own course regardless of international shaming—Russia, China, India, Brazil, and even the United States. Successful international mitigation will require more than the small “feel good” adjustments currently portrayed by advocates, agency officials, and politicians. But high costs make durable international cooperation unlikely—at least until benefits are much clearer than they are now. Attention to the size of GHG mitigation costs and the corresponding global free-riding problem directs policy toward more fruitful aims.
The current state of debate about climate change is spitting science in the face and treating science like a piece of rubbish. Carbon dioxide is treated like a toxic gas by proponents of radical policies on climate change. Next it will be oxygen, it will be anything that you want on the chemical table. The Sun is a primary driver of climate change — and has a far greater impact than changes in CO2. Climate science is dangerously corrupted and co-opted by multiple anti-science forces and players.
Much of the reporting about climate change in the mainstream media is fake news. There are many fads and fashions that have sprung up around climate change. For example, the locavore movement, which stresses eating locally-produced food to save energy, actually increases greenhouse gases, because of the energy efficiencies achieved by larger and more established farms that benefit from economies of scale. Governor Jerry Brown had warned of a drought of immeasurable magnitude — a meaningless phrase, in scientific terms. The movement toward renewable energy sources, he said, was not a sign of progress, but regression toward the lower energy densities of the pre-industrial age. Belief in carbon pollution is like the superstitious beliefs of primitive civilizations, such as a 1933 newspaper article describing a drought in Syria that was blamed by locals on yo-yo toys!
For all the focus on carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas in the climate system is water vapor. And carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, as the term is conventionally used. While it was true that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide had been increasing and had passed 400 parts per million, the dominant effect of water vapor had helped flatten the greenhouse effect, such that the rise of global surface temperatures had slowed significantly.
Some climate scientists manipulated graphs to make climate change seem more severe than it was — for example, by representing temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures.
There is, in fact, some surface temperature warming, albeit less severe than conventional data sets showed. But the effect is more likely the result of fluctuations in energy output from the sun, which in turn affects water vapor. The major effect of cutting carbon dioxide emissions to zero would be to kill and hurt poor people and greatly harm animals and the environment.