Climate activist Greta Thunberg and the reason why you shouldn't hate Trump

Climate activist Greta Thunberg has sued 15 countries for not acting on climate change. China, the world's biggest polluter, is not one of those 15 countries.

So you really should understand what enemy President Trump has been facing.
He is under tremendous pressure from the establishment that upholds a globalist agenda and harbors America's most dangerous enemy: China.

Obama did prioritize the climate issue but achieved nothing, because he wanted to solve the issue with the help of China. To persuade China to sign the useless climate accord, Obama had to turn a blind eye to China's internet espionage, the militarization of the South China Sea, intellectual property theft, illegal trade practices, human rights violations, everything that weakens America and empowers China. If you have a single issue on which you need China's cooperation, China will use it as its leverage to gain an advantage against you. You will never have their cooperation you have hoped for. Democrats have been fostering China.

Democrats don't understand a multilateral climate agreement including every country is destined to be futile. To solve the climate crisis you have to fight those totalitarian regimes first, the biggest of which is China.

You have your right to detest Trump, but do you have the wisdom to understand why Americans should support him?

 

There isn't a climate crisis. There is a liberal mental disorder crisis. It needs to be recognized as a dangerous disorder and eliminated.

 

So China dictates the world... nobody can do anything unless China gives the go-ahead.

F*** that noise.

 

Look, if anything is to happen somebody has to go first and be the model. China is not part of the west and is probably why it wasn't mentioned. They are not in the present clique of western nations. If the west were to go forward as one, then China is going to notice. And if China wants to join in beforehand, even better.

 

No one can do anything with China's cooperation without China's go-ahead. Big difference.

And without China's cooperation, theres not much we can do about CO2. The less we produce, the more they will produce, because lets face it, ppl gonna consume. If we reduced consumption or only bought 'CO2 friendly' products and services, we could proceed without China's involvement. But that aint happening.

 

China probably sees AGW/climate change for the scam that it is, why sue them if they are going to just let the cat out of the bag in court?

 

Both political parties encouraged "opening China," which began with Richard Nixon and included Clinton's grant of "most favored nation" trade status. Whether or not China would have acted on their own regarding their environmental problems is conjecture. As the disturbances in Hong Kong illustrate, even with a single party, they are not monolithic and have their own internal problems.

 

You honestly think a communist dictatorship only needs moral leadership from the West before it stops being the world's worst polluter?.

How about this?

Communist China will wait until the West has hobbled its economies, invent some excuse to justify continue pollution and dominate the world economy.

Which sounds more likely? .

 

No...not at all. I do think the people of Beijing, including the communist party leadership, may get tired of the pollution themselves and begin the conversion from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Bad air and water tends to impact EVERYONE, including communists.

 

Well what the heck am I getting out of your carbon footprint?

 

No, but it's possible, and someone would have to go first. Either that we or we work with China which isn't going to happen. I agree, it's a dilemma isn't it. The people of China are not going to support the pollution of Beijing and the rest of their major cities forever. Let them destroy themselves.

 

In the 1950's and 1960's, both Democrat and Republican Presidents opposed opening China. The prevailing wisdom was that Communist China and Communist Russia wanted to dominate the world together, despite US moles in the Kremlin who claimed otherwise.

Nixon was the first president who believed claims that the Chinese and Russians hated each other. He "opened" China to widen the divide which eventually led to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Clinton made a huge mistake with the US-China trade agreement in 2000 which brought China into the World Trade Organization.He told the American people that trade with China would create millions of US jobs and bring democracy to China. The exact opposite happened.

Millions of jobs were shipped overseas and China is now ruled by a president-for-life (aka dictator) over more people (1.4 billion) than any man in history.

Republicans in Congress wanted a yearly review of this agreement in 2000, but they were voted down. What misery could have been avoided if Congress had approved this idea?

As for reluctance to stop the trouble in Hong Kong, I was in Tiananmen Square on holiday three weeks before the massacre in 1989, Everything was quiet. There were no demonstrations. I saw no troops. I left Beijing the day Gorbachov came to town and a few days later the military started shooting.

That solved the problem then. The Communists won't rule out the same thing now.

 

Whaaaaa! China won't let us! Whaaaa!
Take the lead, China will follow, it's what they do.

 

Please don't mix Chinese Communism with western ideas of morals. Morality to them means doing anything, including lying, to increase the power of the state. The Chinese people have nothing to say about it.

I was in Tiananman Square a few weeks before the massacre in 1989. One day, everything was quiet. The next day, the party ordered the square cleared by force and it was. Lady Liberty was trampled.

There's no "dilemna" here. As long as the Chinese Communist Party resists unilateral steps to control their massive pollution , world wide pollution will get worse.

 

The dilemma is to enter the climate agreement and risk downsizing our economy with China continuing to pollute or doing nothing while it happens anyways. With the latter it's bound for failure. All the while trying to get China to the table once the west has already implemented it. It's a risk either way, the dilemma is what has the highest risk. I know all about Tienanmen square, the only thing we can do is have a little faith something different could happen in the future however low the probability.

 

I wish you could trust the Chinese, but things like "dilemna", "climate agreement" "risk" "...get China to the table" "...a little faith..." mean nothing to them. They will lie to your face and do what is in the best interest of their party and state. They will finish by blaming you for failure.

No compromise here.

 

China was losing 1.1 MILLION people per year to air pollution, so in 2013 the began spending billions to scrub their coal power plants emissions and those of their coal fired steel mills.They are building wind power and solar installations wherever practical as well as utilizing water power to generate electricity.With four times as many people and buildings than we have it will take them longer to convert everything to cleaner energy sources but they have been attacking the problem and spending the money to clean their air and return to blue skies.They like us have seen a dramatic decline in steel production in the past two years.

 

So then don't trust them. Play your hand.

 

Really... You base that on what?