Skip to content

China won’t classify CO2 as a pollutant in new environment law

December 28, 2016

By Paul Homewood




Now I wonder why?

  1. Joe Public permalink
    December 28, 2016 11:20 am

    Sensible. We all exhale plant food at 40,000ppm.

  2. December 28, 2016 11:28 am

    They are at last doing what the best western countries did 60 years ago, namely pollution control. The Clean Air Act 1956 was an Act of the Parliament the UK passed in response to London’s Great Smog of 1952. However, they are not stupid, and will not repeat the disastrous, economy destroying policy embodied in the Climate Change Act 2008.

  3. Gerry, England permalink
    December 28, 2016 11:40 am

    What a bonus for your economy if you don’t believe in the great western myth.

  4. December 28, 2016 12:41 pm

    China probably realises that every dire consequence of AGW will benefit their smog problem, warmer weather means less coal/biomass burned for heating, more rainfall will give cleaner air, and more wind will blow away more smog.

    • Alexander Carpenter permalink
      December 28, 2016 7:31 pm

      Except that there are no “dire consequences” of AGW; in fact, there is no AGW. And with the natural rhythms of climate change, the likely imminent cooling will call for more fossil-fuel burning, which will improve agricultural productivity while having little-to-no effect on climate.

      Get over it…

  5. December 28, 2016 1:05 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Umm, perhaps because China is pragmatic and still ‘scientific’ enough not to yield to the radical environmentalist con that the colourless, odorlesss, trace gas and plant food carbon dioxide (CO2) is a “pollutant”.

    The big lie of climate alarmist’s is to conflate real ‘carbon’ pollution (soot) with CO2. China sees this a mile away and isn’t influenced by ‘carbon’ propaganda and western eco-political correctness.

    Yet again – smart China, dumb West.

  6. December 28, 2016 1:30 pm

    The great lie of science is that the earth is kept warm by so called greenhouse gases. There are no such thing and this is becoming ever more apparent. When you base a movement on something that is not understood, it is only a matter of time before you are caught out. When politics is involved, it often take twice as long for those who are wrong to admit it. This is where we are.

    It is unfortunate that some in science that know all the mitigation measures have been wrong, but still believe in greenhouse gases because they are not willing to challenge others scientific orthodoxy, which in my book should be a part of everyday science.

    Many experiments in science are classed as failures because the results don’t gel with “known orthodoxy” The reality is the experiments are valid observations and it is the orthodoxy that is wrong. Scientific publications play a direct and catastrophic roll in our lack of progress in scientific understanding.

    • Dung permalink
      December 28, 2016 4:15 pm


      I think you are only partly right Peter because that is only part of the problem.
      The really big lie is that scientists know very much about the Earth’s climate at all. However politicians demand answers to a lot of questions and scientists do not get paid to answer “we do not really understand yet.”

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        December 28, 2016 5:36 pm

        Dung, that is precisely what scientists are paid to answer.

        “By all means carry on, minister, if you think that will get you international kudos or votes at the next election. Just remember that ‘the science’ is not yet in a position to give you a definitive answer.”

        And if you are stupid enough to allow environmental activists to draft your laws then you deserve the kicking you will surely eventually get.

        Climate — whether getting warmer or getting colder — has been an eco-political tool for as long as any of us can remember. And as I have said (and you know I have!) mendacity is second nature to enviro-activists when it suits their Cause!

  7. December 28, 2016 3:39 pm

    Maybe they’ve got scientists who know what they’re talking about and politicians who listen to them? More likely its the economy, Stupid.
    Not that CO2 is a pollutant of course.

  8. Athelstan permalink
    December 28, 2016 4:05 pm

    It’s a ferkin miracle so it is Sir.

    The majority constituent gas of the earth’s atmosphere is N, followed by O, Ar and CO2.

    The solar influence is the primary source of heat for all terrestrial living things barring some flora, fauna which do reside under the sea bathing, clinging on volcanic vents.

    But where would we be without our gorgeous, vital, existential……… ATMOSPHERE?

    Gravity is one of the keys, is powerful enough and distance from our star, though unless for the magnetosphere, there would be no life without it.

    Here I could wax on [so much to impart] about lapse rates, strato, meso, tropo layers, the life preserving ozone layer and space beyond the Karman line, sufficed to say since the planet formed, outgasing and volcanity, gravity and earth’s magnetic field all have something to do with our loverlyjuberly ATMOSPHERE.

    IN what is a preservation! the Greenhouse effect, without which we’d all be frozen stiff and defo dead – oh and the fact that instead of being named ‘earth’ we should have named it ‘water’ – yes that wonderful molecule that can exist in three states: liquid, solid, vapour. Now its [earth’s atmosphere] various constituents all do, to some varying degree prevent the radiative, reflected [albedo] energy of the solar rays dissipating too fast and back out into space – thank God for that, I hear the murmur.

    The big problem, for some idiots to comprehend, is that, they have by some weird notion came to believe in the fiction and that by somehow GHG computer modelling a chaotic, ever dynamic system where the few knowns are unknown……mankind’s pathetic input 5% ± of CO2 – a harmless gas incidentally and is driving the planet’s atmosphere over the edge, into thermageddon.

    That’s just bollocks.

  9. Richard111 permalink
    December 29, 2016 8:40 am

    Good comments. I often ask “How does a radiative gas in the atmosphere trap heat?” and never get an answer.

  10. December 29, 2016 2:46 pm

    Good for China! CO2 is an atmospheric gas and neither a “greenhouse gas” (unless in a glass house) nor a pollutant.

  11. Jack Broughton permalink
    December 29, 2016 3:32 pm

    King Canute told the seas to go back to prove that kings had no superhuman powers: none of the EU governments seem to see that their belief in selected scientific opinion / computer models needs similar challenges.

    You would think that the failure of economic models to predict anything worthwhile would be a good demonstration of the weakness of computer models: Rumsfeld’s known-unknowns should be a good starting point.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: