According to news.com.au and Federal Opposition environment spokesman Mark Butler, China has made a ‘spectacular move’ in terms of its climate change policy – and Australia should be following suit… or else.

Before we join them in getting down on our knees and praising China, let’s expose this for the complete dog’s droppings it really is.

Firstly, China’s pledge is as follows:

China plans to launch a “cap-and-trade” emissions trading system by 2017, which will place a limit on emissions while also creating a market where companies can trade carbon allowances.

You would think that this ‘spectacular move’ would result in China reducing its ‘carbon emissions’ some time soon wouldn’t you? And you would think that news.com.au, the UN and the entire Left and Green world would be proudly announcing the big cut that China will make in its emissions as a result of this ‘game changer’? You know, because ‘climate action’ is so urgent and the ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’ and all.

(Sound of crickets chirping).

I’ll spare you the futility of scouring the above article (or any others for that matter) for the bit that talks about China’s emissions being reduced. This is because the fact is that China is not planning to reduce its carbon emissions for about, oh, another 15 years (until 2030, or somewhere around there):

China’s carbon dioxide emissions will peak by around 2030 and China will work hard to achieve the target at an even earlier date.

That’s right, the world’s largest emitter (somewhere around 25% of total world emissions in 2010) will keep increasing its emissions until ‘around’ 2030 and Australia should apparently feel guilty about not reducing its emissions enough during this time. By comparison, Australia contributed around 1% of world emissions in 2010.

Of course, in true Left authoritarian style, there are the typical punitive threats that come with ‘non-compliance’:

Prof Baldwin said if Australia did not join the global move towards carbon pricing, it could become isolated as this could effectively create a trade barrier for Australia’s exports.

“If Australia is not part of a global trading scheme, a country could legitimately argue that in order to limit carbon emissions, it should introduce an effective carbon tax on goods that don’t already include one. A country could also argue for punitive measures, to place a higher premium on imported goods that don’t already include a carbon price,” he said.

No doubt it will have a negative impact on the economy, unless Australia itself adopts an emissions trading scheme or other measures to reduce emissions.

Get ready for more of this garbage when the UN Climate Change Conference kicks off in Paris later this year.