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

Smog in China.

China’s highest legislative body rolled out a new #Environment tax targeting companies that emit a variety of air pollutants, yet they declined to list carbon dioxide. The new law comes after 20 cities were left under a blanket of smoke and fog (smog) last week. The new law taxes any company that pollutes the air and water or contributes to noise pollution.

The National People’s Congress (NPC) committee, which passed the law, will tax man-made emissions like sulfite and sulfur dioxide. Taxes start at $0.20 per unit and $0.17 per unit respectively. For noise pollution, the new law can tax a manufacturer from $50 to $1,612. CO2, however, gets a free pass.

Reliance on coal

Despite China’s ratifying and signing the Paris Climate Agreement, which calls for a reduction in CO2 emissions to slow #Climate Change, the NPC has chosen to exclude CO2 from its list of known pollutants. For CO2 to be considered harmful, it would need to be at levels 125 times higher than today’s levels. China relies heavily on coal to produce electricity for much of its population.

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The biggest polluter on the planet won’t classify CO2 as a pollutant ? They should be congratulated for doing the right thing unlike the western dupes who pretend to be so self righteous about selling out their countries jobs and economy .
    No shit CO2 isn’t a pollutant . Most of it comes from water vapour . China must be laughing at the sheer stupidity of the west not only selling out their economies but willing to send China money on top of it .
    Please end this $$Trillion con job Mr . Trump .
    Western politicians will go down as some of the biggest fools in history .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ninetyninepct

    |

    All this hysteria over CO2 and yet pop, soda, carbonated water, beer and food flash frozen with CO2 are perfectly OK. All these must be banned immediately. Pop & soda are unhealthy. How much CO2 in a bottle or can of beer?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Sonnyhill

    |

    China’s finances are in good shape, their GDP is growing at a good clip and they don’t have to worry about buying elections. Ergo they don’t need carbon tax income. Trump plans to raise government income by growing the economy, maybe at the expense of China and Mexico.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ninetyninepct

    |

    The Alberta NDP Government introduced a carbon tax Jan. 1 which taxes every single thing any person buys. This is in direct opposition to their own Agriculture Department scientists who researched and published the report shown in the link. We are continually bombarded with the threat that 400ppm CO2 will destroy all civilization, yet the report states, with proof, that 700 – 900ppm is ideal and 1200ppm is actualy beneficial. A combination of light, heat, moisture and induced CO2 are standard practice in successful greenhouse operations, just like illegal grow-ops have been using for years. Either the Government scientists are wrong or Trudeau, Wynne, Notley, Brown of California and hucksters like gore and Suzuki are wrong. Fire the scientists or throw out the politicians and hucksters and lay charges It is a detailed document but well worth reading, saving and passing on.

    http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/opp2902

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      During the past 250 million years, our planet has averaged atmospheric CO2 concentration of ~7500ppmv. We are currently at ~400ppmv. At 200ppmv and lower, plant growth begins to retard. At 160ppmv most plant growth stops.

      We are only ~220ppmv away from extinction. That is a whole lot more scary than any so-called “global warming”.

      Let us suppose we were able to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration back down to say 300ppmv. What happens if that level were to continue to drop? Could we reverse that? … keep in mind, of the ~100ppmv increase over the past 100 years, human contribution is a mere 3-4% .. or 3-4ppmv! (as per IPCC). How do you think we would be able to produce enough CO2 to reverse such a decline when nature OVERWHELMINGLY controls the atmospheric CO2 concentration on this planet?

      These are the FACTS and questions that the AGW cult refuse to acknowledge or answer, because it is NOT about CO2 !!! .. it is in FACT about enslavement!

      And by the way, 2500ppmv is probably right about the “sweet” spot for atmospheric CO2 concentration on this planet. The “Goldilocks” of CO2 concentration.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        Squidly

        Don’t expect ” Jeff ” to understand
        He’s about as smart as
        ” drewski ” or any of the other adopted pseudonyms that have been so conclusively
        destroyed and reduced to universal ridicule and one and the same.

        Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.