Renewables provided only about 4% of total global energy needs in 2018

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Perhaps California wants to secede from the rest of planet Earth.  The panic rhetoric just keeps escalating to crazier new heights.  

Climate Change panic appears to be the ne plus ultra toward total government control over Western populations + tax & spend Socialism extravaganza. 

Venezuela Utopia dreams beckon ethereally in the Song to the Siren of totalitarian Climate Control magical cures.

 

UCI study blithely calls for $100 trillion shutdown of fossil plants to meet Paris climate goals

The Los Angeles Times cavalierly suggests based upon a UCI  [ University of California Irvine ]  study published in the journal Nature that the world needs to retire its fossil fuel plants to meet the Paris Agreement’s politically driven schemes requiring the pipe dream of global abandonment of fossil energy.

The article grossly misrepresents the magnitude of such a colossally huge global plant “retirement program” which they enormously understate by noting that the Paris Agreement emissions mandate cannot be met “unless some are retired ahead of schedule.” The article not only addresses early retirement of power plants but also of factories, vehicles and appliances as noted below:

“The power plants, factories, vehicles and appliances in use today could make it all but impossible to meet the goals of the Paris climate accord unless some are retired ahead of schedule, according to an exhaustive new analysis of the world’s energy infrastructure.”

The article offers the following litany of ludicrous economic and energy observations about the Paris Agreements globally catastrophic schemes.

“If allowed to operate for the rest of their expected lifetimes, the greenhouse gases they would produce by continuing to burn fossil fuels will raise global temperatures more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, the study found.”

“To keep temperatures below this threshold — which countries have agreed to aim for to avoid the worst effects of climate change — the researchers concluded that no new fossil fuel infrastructure can be built and many power plants and industrial facilities must be retired early.”

“Power plants represent the largest share of committed emissions, accounting for roughly half of the total in the new study.”

“Most scenarios for meeting the Paris targets require a rapid phase-out of fossil fuel infrastructure. Davis said the new work reveals just how difficult that may be: According to the findings, the world cannot afford to commission any new carbon-producing infrastructure, or allow existing power plants to live out their normal lifetimes.”

“It’s really a wake-up call to governments and institutional investors,” he said. “If we are serious about doing this, then that means we are going to have to strand some assets.”  ...

 

... As of 2018 the global energy and economy were dependent upon fossil fuels for meeting about 85% of total energy needs with the largest single energy component from petroleum resources.

Renewable energy resources provided only about 4% of the global energy need and most of that is provided through use of politically contrived government dictated mandates and subsidies.

Less than 3% of global energy was met using the so-called “zero emission” energy resources of wind and solar.

Electricity represents about 44% of total global energy consumption.

The developing nations of the world which dominate energy and related emissions use and growth required fossil fuels to meet over 87% of their energy needs with the largest single energy component coming from coal resources.

Developing nations relied upon renewables for less than 3% of their total energy needs.

China, which is in the process of building hundreds of new coal plants along with India and other nations of the Asia Pacific region, relies upon fossil fuels to meet more than 85% its energy needs with renewables providing less than 4.5% of their total energy.

China’s coal fuel was used to meet more than 58% of their total energy needs.

The developed nations used fossil fuels to meet over 82% of their energy needs with the largest single energy component being from petroleum resources. 

Renewables provided less than 6% of the developed nations total energy needs. Much of the use of renewable energy is mandated in the electricity sector which has significantly driven up electricity rates particularly in the EU.

...

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

The Paris Accord is a flawed and unrealistic document driven by emotion, junior high school students and those who profit from a 'green agenda'. It is NOT driven by un-contestable science (regardless what you read in the liberal, biased press).

That said, why would anyone use the Paris Accord as a bible or 'how to manual' for addressing any climate change issue?

Furthermore, although the accord dictates unrealistic spending, it fails to explain where those funds come from. This is the definition of a socialistic 'unfunded mandate'.

[markslawson + 1,042]

18 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Perhaps California wants to secede from the rest of planet Earth.  The panic rhetoric just keeps escalating to crazier new heights.  

Climate Change panic appears to be the ne plus ultra toward total government control over Western populations + tax & spend Socialism extravaganza. 

Venezuela Utopia dreams beckon ethereally in the Song to the Siren of totalitarian Climate Control magical cures.

As I have said in other forums, after three decades or so of repeated claims that the earth is reaching a climate tipping point, or the tipping point will be in five or ten years, we seem to have reached a climate hysteria tipping point. Extreme climate groups are making claims that the end of the world is nigh that are not justified by anything that actually happening in climate, or even by the more extreme climate forecasts. Their supposed solutions are far worse than any disease they are hoping to cure. Those guys have left reason far behind, and bear more than a passing similarity to the militant animal-rights organisations which want to convert everyone to veganism, or else.

[remake it + 288]

15 minutes ago, markslawson said:

As I have said in other forums, after three decades or so of repeated claims that the earth is reaching a climate tipping point, or the tipping point will be in five or ten years, we seem to have reached a climate hysteria tipping point. Extreme climate groups are making claims that the end of the world is nigh that are not justified by anything that actually happening in climate, or even by the more extreme climate forecasts. Their supposed solutions are far worse than any disease they are hoping to cure. Those guys have left reason far behind, and bear more than a passing similarity to the militant animal-rights organisations which want to convert everyone to veganism, or else.

Why is it that this community relies heavily on arguments without facts, but on straw men?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

The real resolution thus logically requires that China give up its industrialization and go back to being a peasant agricultural society, in essence subsistence agriculture.  This is not as bad a  result as you might think.  Although industrialization has brought about both a Chinese middle class and a new breed of super-rich, by the numbers China remains a poor peasant society, and those peasants have borne the brunt of the environmental costs of that industrialization. 

As just one example, the construction of the vaunted Three Gorges Dam has displaced millions of peasants living in villages along the banks, and created a gigantic lake of stagnant water surface, complete with green cyanobacteria algae, where once there was a free-flowing river. That is ecological destruction on a gigantic scale.  All that dam did was generate electricity - and that only to benefit the nouveau riche.  All that electricity will light the new cities and drive the machine tools that build export goods and military hardware, but that does nothing for the millions of peasants.  If you really want to have the world adhere to the Paris Accords, then stop buying from China. That much seems obvious enough.   (And the same argument is also true for India.)

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

47 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

If you really want to have the world adhere to the Paris Accords, then stop buying from China. That much seems obvious enough.   (And the same argument is also true for India.)

^ this.

And plant more trees.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

The real resolution thus logically requires that China give up its industrialization and go back to being a peasant agricultural society, in essence subsistence agriculture.  This is not as bad a  result as you might think.  Although industrialization has brought about both a Chinese middle class and a new breed of super-rich, by the numbers China remains a poor peasant society, and those peasants have borne the brunt of the environmental costs of that industrialization. 

As just one example, the construction of the vaunted Three Gorges Dam has displaced millions of peasants living in villages along the banks, and created a gigantic lake of stagnant water surface, complete with green cyanobacteria algae, where once there was a free-flowing river. That is ecological destruction on a gigantic scale.  All that dam did was generate electricity - and that only to benefit the nouveau riche.  All that electricity will light the new cities and drive the machine tools that build export goods and military hardware, but that does nothing for the millions of peasants.  If you really want to have the world adhere to the Paris Accords, then stop buying from China. That much seems obvious enough.   (And the same argument is also true for India.)

It is my understanding that the Chinese engineers and geologists failed to accurately take into account the weight of the water backed up by the Three Gorges Dam and that now the bedrock under the reservoir is starting to shift...and the dam with it.

If this dam eventually fails it will drown thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, downstream.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

If this dam eventually fails it will drown thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, downstream.

It is China.  The numbers instantly go into the millions. 

The problem with mega-projects is that, inevitably, there are mega-problems coming down the road. 

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

The real resolution thus logically requires that China give up its industrialization and go back to being a peasant agricultural society, in essence subsistence agriculture.  This is not as bad a  result as you might think.  Although industrialization has brought about both a Chinese middle class and a new breed of super-rich, by the numbers China remains a poor peasant society, and those peasants have borne the brunt of the environmental costs of that industrialization. 

As just one example, the construction of the vaunted Three Gorges Dam has displaced millions of peasants living in villages along the banks, and created a gigantic lake of stagnant water surface, complete with green cyanobacteria algae, where once there was a free-flowing river. That is ecological destruction on a gigantic scale.  All that dam did was generate electricity - and that only to benefit the nouveau riche.  All that electricity will light the new cities and drive the machine tools that build export goods and military hardware, but that does nothing for the millions of peasants.  If you really want to have the world adhere to the Paris Accords, then stop buying from China. That much seems obvious enough.   (And the same argument is also true for India.)

Arguments predicated on historical regression and cultural elitism are seldom rational, and defy logic.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

Arguments predicated on historical regression and cultural elitism are seldom rational, and defy logic.

You use alot of big words to say absolutely nothing!

Please define 'cultural elitism and 'historical regression' AND HOW THEY RELATE TO THE REPLY BY JAN!!!

[James Regan + 1,776]

As we approach the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 have any of the scientists on this platform thought about how that was possible the main issue wasn’t the computers or space jam and lunar bacteria but one of how to break gravity, this was the big deal. 

So as we surf the internet and use satélites and GPS etc let’s remember that nothing would have been possible without thrust...

i am looking fwd to the rubber band launches 🚀.

Judt to throw into the mix, was watching a small building site electric digger working this week, it worked great for two hours with no complaints then had to be charged up with a great big diesel generator for eight hours.

We haven’t really thought out this renewables thing and how we are going to  do this. 

What swears and lives beneath the sea?

Crude Oil...  😂 

[markslawson + 1,042]

22 hours ago, remake it said:

Why is it that this community relies heavily on arguments without facts, but on straw men?

Are your referring to my arguments? If so I was stating opinion which I'm entitled to do. State what "fact" you consider has to be backed up and I'll happily do so. As for this argument... I also think you don't understand what's meant by straw man.. 

 

19 hours ago, remake it said:

Arguments predicated on historical regression and cultural elitism are seldom rational, and defy logic.

I don't think you understand what any of that means. As Douglas Buckland points out the comment doesn't bear any relevance to his point. For example, how is "cultural elitism" relevant to his discussion of the Three Gorges Dam. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Just now, markslawson said:

Are your referring to my arguments? If so I was stating opinion which I'm entitled to do. State what "fact" you consider has to be backed up and I'll happily do so. As for this argument... I also think you don't understand what's meant by straw man.. 

 

I don't think you understand what any of that means. As Douglas Buckland points out the comment doesn't bear any relevance to his point. For example, how is "cultural elitism" relevant to his discussion of the Three Gorges Dam. 

Mark, before responding to any "new" person here, you may wish to review their posting history / join date to see if anything unusual sticks out.

[remake it + 288]

3 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Mark, before responding to any "new" person here, you may wish to review their posting history / join date to see if anything unusual sticks out.

Like knowing what logic is, what is reasonable, rational, and posting to show when posts cannot be relied on?

[markslawson + 1,042]

10 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Mark, before responding to any "new" person here, you may wish to review their posting history / join date to see if anything unusual sticks out.

Hmmm - okay, I'll look.. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 7/20/2019 at 1:11 AM, James Regan said:

As we approach the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 have any of the scientists on this platform thought about how that was possible the main issue wasn’t the computers or space jam and lunar bacteria but one of how to break gravity, this was the big deal. 

So as we surf the internet and use satélites and GPS etc let’s remember that nothing would have been possible without thrust...

i am looking fwd to the rubber band launches 🚀.

Judt to throw into the mix, was watching a small building site electric digger working this week, it worked great for two hours with no complaints then had to be charged up with a great big diesel generator for eight hours.

We haven’t really thought out this renewables thing and how we are going to  do this. 

What swears and lives beneath the sea?

Crude Oil...  😂 

The Saturn 5 was almost entirely fueled by carbon neutral fuels (liquid hydrogen and oxygen).

One of the least fuel efficient vehicles ever, for sure, but in theory it could be refilled with a solar panel and some water.

Oh, and sponge bob square pants

Edited July 22, 2019 by Enthalpic

[NickW + 2,714]

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 3:46 AM, Jan van Eck said:

The real resolution thus logically requires that China give up its industrialization and go back to being a peasant agricultural society, in essence subsistence agriculture.  This is not as bad a  result as you might think.  Although industrialization has brought about both a Chinese middle class and a new breed of super-rich, by the numbers China remains a poor peasant society, and those peasants have borne the brunt of the environmental costs of that industrialization. 

As just one example, the construction of the vaunted Three Gorges Dam has displaced millions of peasants living in villages along the banks, and created a gigantic lake of stagnant water surface, complete with green cyanobacteria algae, where once there was a free-flowing river. That is ecological destruction on a gigantic scale.  All that dam did was generate electricity - and that only to benefit the nouveau riche.  All that electricity will light the new cities and drive the machine tools that build export goods and military hardware, but that does nothing for the millions of peasants.  If you really want to have the world adhere to the Paris Accords, then stop buying from China. That much seems obvious enough.   (And the same argument is also true for India.)

Very good point.

My wife and I, as part of our retire earli-ish & don't work ourselves to death plan focus on buying second hand either from charity shops or facebook market place. Most of our sons toys are second hand. We buy day to day crockery in the charity shop as our son is going through his 'greek wedding' phase. Furniture is mostly second hand off FB. Day to day Clothes often from Charity shop as well.

My late fathers house, which I am currently clearing out will give us 15-20 years of chattels!

I have also become an avid repairer / converter - last weekend it was the hole in the rubber dinghy in it. Most of the soles on my shoes have been patched at least once as the uppers are fine. My dads old wooden ladders are getting converted into roof ladders for my forthcoming solar project.

The point is most of this tat would have been manufactured in China so as well as saving ourselves a couple thousand each year we are doing our little bit to deprive the world's biggest dictatorship of our cash.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 7/20/2019 at 4:46 AM, Jan van Eck said:

If you really want to have the world adhere to the Paris Accords, then stop buying from China. That much seems obvious enough.   (And the same argument is also true for India.)

I for one cannot understand why EU and Trump cannot find some common ground on this basis. Seems that obvious solution for a joint front on China is on cliamte. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 7/20/2019 at 7:50 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

Mark, before responding to any "new" person here, you may wish to review their posting history / join date to see if anything unusual sticks out.

Tom, you will notice that I have scrupulously avoided making any responsive comment to Remake-it's post claiming "cultural elitism."  It is perfectly obvious that Remake did not read, nor understand, what it was that I wrote, and only saw what he thought I might have said, which was not at all what I said.  There is nothing "culturally elitist" in observing that the majority of China's population remain toiling peasants, and that those peasants have borne the brunt of China's industrialization policies. It is unfortunate, possibly inevitable, but assuredly true.  

So the real issues and conflicts are with the small group of Chinese that have become both prosperous and rich.  Some are Party members.  Others are smart guys.  Still others are simply ruthless, without any personal empathy.  Either way, the USA has wrecked its industrial base in order to do business with that small group  (and to attempt to keep the crazies inside the Chinese Communist Party from firing up a nuclear war, which latter aspect has been successful so far.) 

Suggesting that the continuing support of Chinese elitists interminably and forever is not such a great idea, and that one solution is to stop the mercantilist trade so that those Chinese, and the Communists and Party Leaders, can go back to being subsistence farmers is a perfectly sound solution.  You just stop doing business with those guys.  No need for military campaigns and shooting. 

Why should Americans suffer with closed factories and fired workers so that Chinese Communists and their proxies, the nouveau riche, live well?  Makes no sense, unless that is the price of avoiding nuclear war. 

I point out to readers that, contrary to the propaganda, China is already heading into failed-State territory.  It consists of perhaps 60 or 70 small cultural units, held forcibly together by the Army and the secret police  (and their Gulag jails). And that takes lots of money - money which the Chinese State has today, but cannot replenish without massive trade on mercantilist terms with the USA.  Remember that the USA comprises some 25% of world GNP, and Europe is only a dumping ground for textiles and low-end products.  Germany, Europe's powerhouse, exports 50% of its total production, and over half of that is to the USA.  For Germany's big auto manufacturers, over half their production is to the USA.  So the Germans are not customers for advanced goods from China, neither cars nor buses, nor trucks nor machinery nor diesels nor generators nor windmills nor anything else technical and high value-added.  So, who can China sell to, besides the USA?  The Congo?  Ceylon? El Salvador? Nigeria? Italy?  Brasil?  Nope, those are not candidates: either they have no money, or they have their own manufacturing and are direct competitors. 

To illustrate, China wants to build advanced commercial aircraft.  It is building a C-919 jet, I think of 200 seats.  Who in the West is going to buy those? Europe will not - they  buy from Airbus.  South America will not: they buy from Embraer, in Brasil.  Anybody else?  India?  Africa?  Not really; they don't have the volume nor the desire.  So it leaves the USA.  Why should Delta go buy some Chinese airplanes?  Only on price. Would the customers allow them to do that?  No chance; no more than the Sukhoi Superjet S-100 from Russia.  And it will only happen if the US customers were content with Chinese business practices and government.  And that is not likely to ever happen. 

So I predict that China will break apart.  That govt cannot hold it together without massive sales of goods to the USA.  And that USA door is swinging shut.  And the Chinese have not figured out how to pry it open.  Right now their approach is to wait it out, and assume The Donald gets defeated.  I don't see that happening, as the American voters are fed up with the elitists in the Democratic Party and their manipulations of both primaries and the super-delegates at their conventions.  Don't kid yourself:  despite Trump's totally appalling behavior, he is the front-runner for 2020. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 7/20/2019 at 2:04 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

You use alot of big words to say absolutely nothing!

Please define 'cultural elitism and 'historical regression' AND HOW THEY RELATE TO THE REPLY BY JAN!!!

They do not (relate to my observations).  It is a form of snide remark, intended to provoke and denigrate.  I don't bite on those fishhooks. 

Douglas, I have expanded a bit on my thinking on China's future and how it relates to US trade, should be posted just above.  I solicit your thinking.  Cheers. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

13 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Tom, you will notice that I have scrupulously avoided making any responsive comment to Remake-it's post claiming "cultural elitism."  It is perfectly obvious that Remake did not read, nor understand, what it was that I wrote, and only saw what he thought I might have said, which was not at all what I said.  There is nothing "culturally elitist" in observing that the majority of China's population remain toiling peasants, and that those peasants have borne the brunt of China's industrialization policies. It is unfortunate, possibly inevitable, but assuredly true.  

So the real issues and conflicts are with the small group of Chinese that have become both prosperous and rich.  Some are Party members.  Others are smart guys.  Still others are simply ruthless, without any personal empathy.  Either way, the USA has wrecked its industrial base in order to do business with that small group  (and to attempt to keep the crazies inside the Chinese Communist Party from firing up a nuclear war, which latter aspect has been successful so far.) 

Suggesting that the continuing support of Chinese elitists interminably and forever is not such a great idea, and that one solution is to stop the mercantilist trade so that those Chinese, and the Communists and Party Leaders, can go back to being subsistence farmers is a perfectly sound solution.  You just stop doing business with those guys.  No need for military campaigns and shooting. 

Why should Americans suffer with closed factories and fired workers so that Chinese Communists and their proxies, the nouveau riche, live well?  Makes no sense, unless that is the price of avoiding nuclear war. 

I point out to readers that, contrary to the propaganda, China is already heading into failed-State territory.  It consists of perhaps 60 or 70 small cultural units, held forcibly together by the Army and the secret police  (and their Gulag jails). And that takes lots of money - money which the Chinese State has today, but cannot replenish without massive trade on mercantilist terms with the USA.  Remember that the USA comprises some 25% of world GNP, and Europe is only a dumping ground for textiles and low-end products.  Germany, Europe's powerhouse, exports 50% of its total production, and over half of that is to the USA.  For Germany's big auto manufacturers, over half their production is to the USA.  So the Germans are not customers for advanced goods from China, neither cars nor buses, nor trucks nor machinery nor diesels nor generators nor windmills nor anything else technical and high value-added.  So, who can China sell to, besides the USA?  The Congo?  Ceylon? El Salvador? Nigeria? Italy?  Brasil?  Nope, those are not candidates: either they have no money, or they have their own manufacturing and are direct competitors. 

To illustrate, China wants to build advanced commercial aircraft.  It is building a C-919 jet, I think of 200 seats.  Who in the West is going to buy those? Europe will not - they  buy from Airbus.  South America will not: they buy from Embraer, in Brasil.  Anybody else?  India?  Africa?  Not really; they don't have the volume nor the desire.  So it leaves the USA.  Why should Delta go buy some Chinese airplanes?  Only on price. Would the customers allow them to do that?  No chance; no more than the Sukhoi Superjet S-100 from Russia.  And it will only happen if the US customers were content with Chinese business practices and government.  And that is not likely to ever happen. 

So I predict that China will break apart.  That govt cannot hold it together without massive sales of goods to the USA.  And that USA door is swinging shut.  And the Chinese have not figured out how to pry it open.  Right now their approach is to wait it out, and assume The Donald gets defeated.  I don't see that happening, as the American voters are fed up with the elitists in the Democratic Party and their manipulations of both primaries and the super-delegates at their conventions.  Don't kid yourself:  despite Trump's totally appalling behavior, he is the front-runner for 2020. 

Very astute Jan.

The Chinese began the BRI to try and diversify and lock in resources, but I feel that most of the BRI 'partners' now realize that this is actually financial imerialism/loan sharking and it will fail eventually.

The whole issue with the 9 Line Map and the total ownership of the South China Sea will also eventually be resolved, and not in China's favor...I can't see the international community ever agreeing to this.

Also, the One China/Taiwan issue will need to be resolved at some point.

A fracturing, or financially weakening, China will simply accelerate the resolution of these issues. Notice what is happening in Hong Kong.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

8 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

A fracturing, or financially weakening, China will simply accelerate the resolution of these issues. Notice what is happening in Hong Kong.

All true.  Hong Kong demonstrates that there is a practical limit to what the Communist Party can really do.  They seem to be able to suppress Tibet, albeit at enormous cost, and I doubt they can hold on to that policy of mass imprisonment indefinitely.  Taiwan represents the inability to firmly grasp all Chinese Peoples.  Adolf was better at it with Germany and the Sudetenland and Alsace.  We shall see how it plays out.  Continued barriers to the huge US market will set up that disintegration process.  How China evolves will be interesting to watch. Cheers.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

All true. An economically weakening China will reveal the cracks in the foundation. It will also show if the Chinese 'economic miracle' was all that it was touted to be. There were always concerns that much of the data surrounding the miracle was bogus.

That said, China will always try to play the 'long game' and will try to survive Trump and hope for a weaker man in the office in the future. Whether thair economy can survive that long is debatable.

If things get really difficult for the elite in China and the people begin to rise up, I have no doubt that we will have another Tianneman (spelling?) Square on our hands.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Hong Kong demonstrates that there is a practical limit to what the Communist Party can really do.  They seem to be able to suppress Tibet, albeit at enormous cost, and I doubt they can hold on to that policy of mass imprisonment indefinitely.  Taiwan represents the inability to firmly grasp all Chinese Peoples.  Adolf was better at it with Germany and the Sudetenland and Alsace.  We shall see how it plays out.  Continued barriers to the huge US market will set up that disintegration process.  How China evolves will be interesting to watch. Cheers.

 

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

An economically weakening China will reveal the cracks in the foundation. It will also show if the Chinese 'economic miracle' was all that it was touted to be. There were always concerns that much of the data surrounding the miracle was bogus.

That said, China will always try to play the 'long game' and will try to survive Trump and hope for a weaker man in the office in the future. Whether thair economy can survive that long is debatable.

If things get really difficult for the elite in China and the people begin to rise up, I have no doubt that we will have another Tianneman (spelling?) Square on our hands.

Trump is actively turning the screws on Xi and China, shortly before the next round of U.S. / China trade war negotiations start up again.

US blacklists state-owned Chinese oil trader for flouting Iran sanctions

President Trump’s administration is sanctioning a state-owned Chinese company for flouting sanctions on Iran’s oil industry.

“They violated US law by accepting crude oil,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Monday at the VFW National Convention. “We’ve said all along that any sanctions will indeed be enforced.”

Chinese ports have been stockpiling Iranian oil in storage tanks owned by Tehran without finalizing the sales, in an apparent effort to avoid triggering U.S. sanctions. Pompeo’s announcement targets Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp, the Beijing-based trading company most responsible for China’s relationship with Iran’s oil industry.

“We can’t tolerate more money going to the ayatollah, putting American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, putting their lives at risk,” Pompeo said. “It’s too important.”  ...

 

... The latest sanctions designation comes as the two sides are trying to jump-start talks following Trump's meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G-20 Summit in Japan.

The South China Morning Post reported trade representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin will lead a team of U.S. negotiators in a likely visit to China next week for the first face-to-face talks since the June halt in the trade war.

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

No choice in the matter. If you impose sanctions and fail to enforce them, you lose all credibility....similar to how the UN operates.