Too right Keith

The two weeks of summits in the region seemed largely vacuous - politicians big-noting themselves by shaking hands.

An environmental agreement is feelgood stuff with complex far-off goals.

When by 2025 China:

- is using much more coal than currently, and

- moves further to the goal of Western vehicle ownership levels*

- the environmental handshaking of 2014 will be totally forgotten

- with even heavier smog in China than currently.

* Note - Australia has 0.7 vehicles per person - while China currently has one-tenth of Australia's levels per person (but catching up) http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.VEH.NVEH.P3

Perhaps China's aim may be 1 vehicle for every 3 people = 500 million cars - to keep its public happy.

Pete

The Chinese are already doing plenty, and President Obama, still has some administrative options, that allow him to just bypass hostile road blocks, via say, the clean air act!?
Moreover, Congress would be well advised not to attempt to exercise their veto on some things, given President has the ultimate veto; inasmuch as all legislation and supply, must be signed off by his office?
Clearly he is not a virtually powerless rubber stamp figurehead, a la our Governor General!
I'd imagine he could get anything he wanted, if he just refused to sign off on the multi billion dollar farm bill, and thereby put many congressional careers, Democrat and Republican, in complete jeopardy!
In today's politics, self interest and or the rich and powerful, clearly wins the day; albeit, with one or two standout examples, (Tassie Tiger) of just the opposite!
Rhrosty.

But Rhrosty

Remember China's aspiring Middle Class.

China - already choking smog in its cities - has a greenhouse gas producing need to catch up with the consumer luxuries of the West.

Does not China's President wish to put a car on every family dinner table the lenght and breadth of the Motherland?

Peking Pete

Why not?
I mean, does anyone seriously consider it is beyond Chinese car factories to retool to produce smog free electric cars?
And no, electric cars don't actually need batteries, just a convenient non polluting power source; such as you'd get with the following combination.
CNG> Ceramic fuel cell> electric motor!
And there's no reason why the ceramic fuel cell couldn't have enough spare capacity to run the air conditioner, the lights, wipers, power steering, boot mounted micro oven, electric jug and what have you!
And there's no reason why CNG refilling stations can't be located in convenient locations, so the driver can just refill in less time than it takes to have a comfort/coffee stop.
Moreover, the exhaust product of this super silent combination is mostly water vapor; (look mum, no smog) and patently, the as ever extremely industrious Chinese, are not put off by (no can do) Australian type detractors/knockers, their only real skill or expertise!
Capacitors and regenerative braking would just add to the economy.
And that has to be the best ever possible, given the 80% energy coefficient of this particular combination. (twice as good as the most economical conventional internal combustion engine/hybrid combination!)
The ceramic fuel cell is Aussie innovation!
But typically, Australians and their now legendary tall poppy syndrome, will wait and watch as someone else cashes in on their better ideas and or people!
Serves you right, "Genius"!
Rhrosty.

Unfortunately Sir Rhrosty

CNG (just a bit better than LPG?) is only of marginal benefit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_natural_gas "CNG = Compressed natural gas (CNG) (Methane stored at high pressure) can be used in place of gasoline (petrol), Diesel fuel and propane/LPG."

Methane production itself happens to be a particularly virulent greenhouse gas increasing activity.

Producing the projected 100,000,000s of Chinese cars would be an even greater addition to greenhouse gases and hence global warming.

We are doomed Sir!

Sir Peter of Truth

The amount of energy it takes to build an electric car, when you add in mining, processing and transport of all the raw materials (especially the specific added materials necessary for batteries and the added electronics) exceeds the amount of energy the car will save during their lifetime.

It would be more efficient and effective to choose a small range of efficient existing models and keep producing them until the manufacturing dies wear out.

Unfortunately in this consumer and disposable product oriented world, people want new stuff continuously so the planet gets converted into landfill at a much faster rate with the waste of vast amounts of energy

The same goes for the total energy cost of building nuclear power stations. Once they are built it takes energy to keep them "fed" with ongoing mining, refining and transport of raw materials.

Likewise,the amount of calories it takes to grow crops (including fertilizers) is always greater than the amount of calorific content produced.

You don't get something for nothing from Mother Nature - the best you can do is make things for efficient.

As for China and Obama's statements, they are now out in the open and it would take a very brave (or foolish) regime to ignore or reverse them, despite the constant lobbying of interest groups with very deep pockets.

In the end it won't be politicians who decide, it will be overwhelming public opinion that causes change.

Hi Rhrosty,

I often enjoy your offerings on this site, but I think here you are being a little too optimistic about Obama's chances of doing anything over the next two years. What I would recommend is that you (and the media) study the US Constitution a little more closely.

You think that Obama can make a treaty? Only with the advice and consent of the Senate, and now the Republicans have a majority there.

The President can't dismiss the Congress, but the Congress can dismiss the President, by impeaching him. It's never been done, but there have been a few close calls.

If Obama vetoes a bill from Congress, the veto can be overridden by Congress, as has been done with lame duck presidents many times. Admittedly, it requires a two-thirds majority, but the Republicans aren't too far away from that.

The best gauge of Congress' opinion on climate change came when they rejected ratification of the Kyoto treaty by 95 to nil.

Actually, I think that Congress will be very cagey with Obama, and content themselves with inundating him with bills to veto.

I should be real fun in the 2016 presidential election, with the best possible candidates being Hilary Clinton versus Monica Lewinsky.

I am surprised that you deprecate the powers of our Governor-General, who has a power that Obama cannot dream of, which is that at any time he can dismiss the Prime Minister and issue writs for a general election for the House of Representatives. This means we cannot have the government shutdowns that can occur in the US, and Kerr's dismissal is what made me an enthusiastic monarchist.

My only change would be to re-name the Governor General and call him the Prime Ministerial Pisser-Offer in Chief.

"The Clinton administration in 1998 did not submit the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification (a position supported by a 95 to nil vote in the Senate) but vice-president Al Gore committed hand-on-heart to a 7 per cent ­reduction by 2008-12. US emissions increased by 9 per cent over this period."

Not true CO2 emissions in the US actually fell by 9.10% from 5936.9 million metric tonnes in 2008 to 5383.2 MMt in 2012

The chart below gives the correct figures
since 1998 to year emissions in the US rose or fell as below.

Gas______________2008_____2009____2010____2011____2012
Carbon dioxide____+3.70%___-3.77%___-0.04%__-2.26%___-5.78%
Methane__________0.09%___-1.49%___-3.32%__-4.61%___-6.49%
Nitrous oxide______+2.30%___-0.37%__-1.13%___+0.84%__-0.93%

Data from here
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/inventoryexplorer/#allsectors/allgas/gas/all

It does not say much for the author that he comes that he has got his numbers the wrong way round.

In 2010 at Copenhagen China was gifted the CO2 turbine generator, a new form of turbine to replace the steam turbine.

In short the advantages for the same +600*C heat that steam requires to produce 350 megawatts CO2 does at a heat of +50*C.

However if the CO2 heat is increased to +100* the number of turbines jumps to fifty.

China now produces 100,000 of the lower heat +20*C turbine producing 10KW though it has a 1KW electric compressor back up.

Australia though has taken the position of retaining the steam turbine and its need of coal burn to acquire the heat needed for steam.

The technology which largely copies the absorption fridge principals may be used with both vertical and horizontal shaft.

It is typical of lame duck presidents to make grandiloquent speeches that sound fantastic, but mean nothing. BO did just that.