More from our friends at Greenwire — who seem to have been stripped of intellectual curiosity and critical thought: After the gratuitous labeling of the IPCC’s Pachauri as a “climatologist” comes a story claiming that

“China will sign” global treaty if U.S. passes cap and trade, E.U. leader says.

What a breakthrough! Or maybe it’s not news at all. Is Greenwire ignorant of the fact that China was a Party to Kyoto? They signed that bad boy, just as we did (of course, we never ratified it: because China et al. had no obligations; and because Europe rigged the thing with a self-serving emissions baseline, and Al Gore — but not the U.S. Senate — was too clever to notice). In lieu of sharing the obligation to reduce emissions, China was instead incentivized (paid) to do things like improve energy efficiency. Of course, competing in the global economy already incentivizes them to do so, but who can turn down free cash? Anyway, what is our friend from across the pond trying to say?

First, a hint at the credibility you are to grant his analysis: “The difference is that we [Europeans] have done so many things already, and the Senate is still deciding on cap and trade.” Yeah — they’ve done a lot, climate-wise. Like increase their emissions — and faster than we did — since agreeing to Kyoto. So forgive me for being underwhelmed.

Next, his thesis:

Much of the fate of the U.N. climate-treaty talks now rests in the U.S. Senate, according to a leading E.U. official, who says China would “lose its last reason” not to support an international pact if the United States passes a cap-and-trade bill. “I know for the American Senate it’s absolutely crucial to know that China will sign the treaty,” said Sweden’s environment minister, Andreas Carlgren, whose country currently holds the European Union’s rotating presidency. “I understand that. We fully support that. We have the same expectations.” [However, in] the ongoing climate treaty talks, the European Union expects more from the United States than its current proposals on midterm emissions targets and adaptation funds for developing nations, Carlgren said.

Hmm. Because Congress hasn’t passed cap-and-trade, China is refusing to even nibble at the agenda. Despite the fact that all we would ask of them is to improve energy efficiency — which they would do anyway as a natural consequence of economic maturity. But if we pass it! . . . in that case! . . . he’s sure they’ll finally agree to do the . . . very same things that . . . he admits they’ve already decided to do.

Carlgren was recently in China, and said “it seems the Chinese are very serious” about climate change and, while “it is not very easy to turn a tanker around, the first step is that the captain has to understand that he has to make a move.” China understands that, he said, and the efficiency goals it has already set in its five-year plan will reduce emissions.

OK. But that’s not “emission reductions,” sport (what credentials are needed to become an environment minister, I wonder?). They said they would avoid a small percentage of projected massive emissions growth. That’s an enormous difference — which appears elsewhere: “E.U. and U.S. officials want a firmer commitment, signed into international treaty, that will expand and possibly raise China’s efficiency and renewable commitments until 2020. They are unlikely to ask for hard caps, officials have indicated.” And it’s all you’d ask of them in a treaty. And they’d do it if the U.S. harmed itself. Though they’ve already vowed to do it.

I’ve heard of diplo-speak. But this is jibberish.

So we’re supposed to adopt a scheme that Europe has proven is impossible to accomplish (even as they were exporting carbon-intensive manufacturing jobs abroad, including to the U.S.). Unlike Europe’s mere words and distorting schemes that they’ve riddled with backdoors, ours Kyoto II promises would be legally binding — a vehicle for green groups to march into court and ask the EPA to vacate whatever numbers are in the legislation and just set their own more excessive standards, which the bill actually allows EPA to do on its own.

Carlgren also says that since Europe is promising much deeper reductions (from the artifice of a 1990 baseline) than we are (from a modern 2005 baseline), why, Europe is willing to consider giving us a pass if we pay for it! “[E]fforts on financing could also be taken into account.” How forgiving of you, you silly little man. This is the kind of talk that gives environment ministers the reputation of not being overly serious.

What’s Swedish for “meddling?” Here’s an idea. Start by telling the Germans, the Brits, the Italians, and the rest to finally live up to their chest-thumping and reduce their emissions. As for what happens here: butt out, or we’ll start telling you how to live, too. I understand you people have no problem with that.