How John Prescott Defended China–Copenhagen 2009 Flashback
By Paul Homewood
We’re now at the 9th anniversary of the Copenhagen climate summit, so it is worth casting our minds back to some of the things being said then.
Below is the Guardian’s report on John Prescott’s letter to them:
John Prescott has defended China’s role in the climate change summit, saying the blame for its flawed outcome must lie with the United States and Barack Obama.
The former deputy prime minister helped negotiate the Kyoto protocol in 1997, and was in Copenhagen acting as an informal bridge between the Chinese delegation and others.
As a frequent visitor to China, who knows many of its officials personally, Prescott fears privately that the Chinese will walk away from the talks if they continue to be singled out for blame.
In a letter to the Guardian, Prescott criticises the US climate change special envoy, Todd Stern, who "said at Copenhagen emissions weren’t about ‘morality or politics’, they were ‘just maths’, with China projected to emit 60% more CO2 than the US by 2030".
In his letter Prescott claims that Stern’s arguments "ignored the more transparent measure of pollution per capita, which shows the US emits 20 tonnes per person every year, compared to China’s six tonnes, whilst America’s GDP per person is almost eight times greater than the Chinese". He also attacks President Barack Obama for suggesting there had been a period of "two decades of talking and no action. That might have been true in America, which refused to sign up to Kyoto, but not in the case of China or Europe, who followed a lot of that protocol’s policies. Indeed Obama’s offer of a 17% cut is wholly dependent on Congressional approval and will still be less than Kyoto targets." Prescott is climate change convenor for the Council of Europe, with the role of exploring how to keep the talks on the road.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/28/john-prescott-defends-china-copenhagen
Brits will be fully aware of the buffoon Prescott. It is truly scary that he accumulated so much power around himself during Tony Blair’s administration.
And he certainly did not embellish his credentials with this letter.
Let’s take apart what he said:
1) Prescott criticises the US climate change special envoy, Todd Stern, who "said at Copenhagen emissions weren’t about ‘morality or politics’, they were ‘just maths’, with China projected to emit 60% more CO2 than the US by 2030".
Well, unfortunately, when you are trying to save the planet, maths is actually quite important, John!
According to BP, CO2 emissions in China last year were 9232 Mt, compared to 5087 Mt in the US. In other words, Chinese emissions are already 81% higher than the US, making Todd Stern’s estimate a gross understatement. By 2030, the gap will inevitably have widened even further.
Like it or not, this is a major problem.
2) Prescott claims that Stern’s arguments "ignored the more transparent measure of pollution per capita, which shows the US emits 20 tonnes per person every year, compared to China’s six tonnes
Nobody would disagree that, if you are going to cut global emissions, high per capita emitters like the US should bear the brunt.
However, the latest figures from CDIAC now show that per capita emissions in China are higher than in the UK.
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html
Does Mr Prescott now believe that the UK should be cutting emissions, when China is not? Is that “fair”?
3) He also attacks President Barack Obama for suggesting there had been a period of "two decades of talking and no action. That might have been true in America, which refused to sign up to Kyoto, but not in the case of China or Europe, who followed a lot of that protocol’s policies.
While China was busy “following protocols”, its emissions were skyrocketing. I cannot think of a better description of “talking and no action”!
BP Energy Review 2018
Facts never did seem to be of particular interest to John Prescott, probably because he had trouble understanding them most of the time.
But since 2008, China’s emissions have shot up by another 26%. I wonder if he still agrees with those views now?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
He will never answer the likes of you, Paul.
Prescott believes the need to reduce CO2 has never been more urgent – he believes the consequences of inaction have never been more dire. His faith is firm, unshakeable. We are science deniers. Heretics to the true faith.
“It’s worse than we thought”, and you’re worse than we thought, Mr. Prescott.
Well der
My noble lord Prescott is a bought & paid for shill of the PRC
Ah yes, two Jags Prescott, another sanctimonious champagne socialist…
I’m sure he’d have had three Jags, but the maths was way beyond him. He was made Blair’s court jester because he made even Blair look sensible.
I guess he fulfilled his ambition in lfe: to be the lowest common political denominator.
His main role was keeping the peace between the warring factions in the Labour Party. This should have been a Labour party appointment at their cost, not the taxpayer’s. Like Kinnock before him (Transport Commissioner in the EU) our transport system didn’t seem to notice their existence, making the cost even more annoying.
I always like the people that want to try to shift CO2 output to “per capita” or GDP. I agree with the concept in part, but not wholly. Total output is still the game. If that mattered at all. I say, Go China! Help those crops grow! Help those trees grow! After all, we have to supply trees to the EU to virtue signal!
Thicker than two planks Prescott. He was just a joke mouthpiece for the evil eco-fascists putting words (he couldnt speak) in his mouth. Its the manipulators behind the brain-dead politicians and journalists that need to be sorted out.
Bought a yellow vest today. Will need it if they call another referendum and thus annul the ‘peoples vote’ of 2016. Now where’s my cocktail Mr Molatov? A few remoaning green luddites need warming up.
The BBC will report that you were a council worker demonstrating against austerity.
In honour of our patriotic friends and allies in the DUP perhaps a sash with an orange hue might be more appropriate.
Be interesting to find out the contribution his two ‘jags’ make to the environment.
This money grabbing example of all that is wrong with socialism. If he likes China then there was money in it. The blob does nothing unless he personally benefits. How corrupt politics is is demonstrated by the fact that he never ended up in jail! Chinese brown paper envelopes eh 2 jags?
There is tremendous irony. China did abide by the Kyoto protocols and I recall they made a killing. The bi-product from HCFC production that’s hundreds or thousands of times more potent as a green house gas comes to mind. There was so much money to made destroying it that many Chinese chemical companies purposely made the compound so they could destroy it and collect carbon offsets. If I’m not mistaken this is where ~45% of the European ETF carbon offset money went.
Calling a country capable of space exploration “developing” is more than just a little stretch to the imagination.
China is developing. But into what?
Not sure it’s even resurrecting anything the turd said.
That should be…..’even worth’.
HotScot……..Not the damned Informed Consumer WordPress!
Further the relative size emissions in China to the United States, I have taken a look at figures in the UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2018.
Total GHG excluding land-use changes in 2015 were about 12 GtCO2e for China v 6 GtCO2e for the USA.
In 2030, based on the INDC submissions, UNEP with estimates in 2025 American emissions will have fallen to 5 GtCO2e and in 2030 Chinese emissions will have rise to 14.5 GtCO2e.
The US and Chinese INDC submission was mostly non-policy forecasts based on trends. So whilst GHG emissions in China are roughly double those of the USA now, in 2030 they will be treble.
I calculated the change in emissions from the UNEP data for the G20 countries between 2015 and 2030. Covering 78% of global emissions, it neatly shows which countries to highlight if the real aim to cut global emissions.
There is also an issue with the INDC submissions. Many developing countries simply submitted a totally unrealistic “Business as usual” forecast. Of the most populous non-G20 countries, Pakistan leads the way with the greatest increase BAU emissions between 2015 and 2030, but a number of other countries have a similar approach. Even if we adjust to more realistic BAU forecasts, it is still likely that by rough forecast in figure 2 above for ROW – based on emissions per capita remaining constant – is an underestimate.
Projected emissions per capita in 2030 are provided on Table 2.1 of the UNEP Emissions gap report 2018. These are for total GHG emissions excluding land-use changes.
The population figures used for China for 2015 and 2030 are 1405 and 1450 millions. For USA they are 320 and 355 million.
Based on Precott’s figures China’s emissions per capita will increase by two-thirds between 2009 and 2030, where from those of the USA will decrease 30% from 2009 to 2025.
Table is on page 9 of the report.
Click to access EGR2018_FullReport_EN.pdf
I recall a chart in the Guardian, of all all places, around the time of the Millennium that listed per capita emissions and Oceania (the islands formerly known as Australasia) was the highest emitter of CO2. Something to do with shipping, no doubt, plus relatively vast distances for people and goods to travel to service a relatively small population.
Anyone else remember this?