1. I see no evidence of this statement whatsoever.
2. Your statement that saying that carbon trading would be tax on productivity will require further explanation. That isn't how I understand the economics and I have a wee bit of training in that dismal science. In fact, I would argue the exact opposite. Carbon trading would reward efficiency and high energy-productivity technologies. If you are keen on strengthening the ChiComs and their satellites feel free to leave me out. If low-carbon requirements stifle their growth and lengthen the dominance of the West I see that as a good thing.
Well it would once you have redefined "efficiency" to mean something other than low-cost. Thats what a carbon tax or carbon trading is. Noone will trade something (except folks buying smugness or political cover) unless it gains them money. So somewhere, somehow, you have to tax carbon to get there. It won't be called a tax but a tax it will be.
Then there's the administration problem. Once you start to ride that horse, the UN is inevitably sucked in. That makes it highly likely that the UN will end up with a permanent funding source, something I am adamantly opposed to.
My more fundamental objection is that the science behind the evils of human-released carbon is so far, really bad. We might as well have Barbie Dolls Offsets or left foot trading. All three have about the same level of support as a significant contributor to global warming. Any of them could turn out to be a major contributor. But none come close to decent scientific support.
As to the ChiComs, do you really think that, should we impose high cost energy solutions on ourself, the ChiComs would suddenly stop using coal and go to higher cost energy solutions? Their idea is that we cripple ourselves with Green nonsens and they keep using fossil fuels--that's what Kyoto and every other proposal on the books does. Our greens are right there with them. Any solution that requires China to get on board with high cost energy will require a war to impose that on them. I'm not ready to go there until I think there is a significant chance of actual coming catastrophe if we do not.
For those concerned about energy independence (and I count myself among them), the obvious solution here is to start exploiting our coal resources for mobile energy and building up nuclear. Hopefully, someday, solar and other alternatives will become competitive. But they aren't. Any proposal that has America using high-cost alternatives and the Chicoms and India using fossil fuels (which would be the effect of your suggestion) does NOT help us relative to the Chicoms.