14 ms·

China Set for Coal Expansion in Threat to Climate Goals

146 points by skolos 7y ago

DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
this post seems to be used for strategic messaging to boost Bloomberg's current campaign: > Michael R. Bloomberg, the founder and majority stakeholder of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, has committed $500 million to launch Beyond Carbon, a campaign aimed at closing the remaining coal-powered plants in the U.S. by 2030 and slowing the construction of new gas plants. this kind of thing makes the reporting feel questionable. A shame because the message is really important.
- TheGallopedHigh 7y ago
  The point still holds water though
- imtringued 7y ago
  That sounds to me like virtue signalling. Shutting down both coal and gas is wishful thinking. Those gas plants are needed as an energy storage mechanism.
- thinkcontext 7y ago
  Its a disclaimer so that readers know that the owner of the publication has a significant point of view on the subject.
skolos 7y ago
> The nation has 148 gigawatts (GW) of new coal fired capacity under construction. That is compared to 150 GW of existing capacity in the European Union and 105 GW in the works for the rest of the world
- loeg 7y ago
  Germany is also amusingly building new coal: https://www.reuters.com/article/uniper-coal-plant/unipers-datteln-4-coal-plant-allowed-to-enter-service-sources-idUSL8N27F4VC https://www.reuters.com/article/uniper-coal-plant/unipers-da... China has 43 GW of nuclear built, 11 GW in construction, and another 36 GW planned. I guess it's not a huge figure compared to 148.
stanfordkid 7y ago
What's left out is the industrial output of China -- which is probably producing for much of the EU and USA. It takes power to produce cheap phones and plastic knick-knacks for western consumers. The fact that the Chinese economy will adapt to meet these demands is inevitable. What is the coal output per capita, subtracting industrial output dedicated to exports to the US/Eurozone -- this would be a more fair assessment.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  The standard measurement is CO2 emissions in kg per PPP $ of GDP. By that measure, China emits about twice what the US does, 0.6 vs 0.3. However China has done about twice as well as the US has in reducing this number, which is why China is on track to meeting their Paris commitments and the US isn't.
  - api 7y ago
    Maybe China is doing all the energy intensive low margin work. Since its low margin energy must be dirt cheap, and literal dirt is still the cheapest way to generate power. Not letting China totally off the hook, just suggesting that there is an economic force driving them toward the bottom of the barrel for cheap energy. California gets up to 50% of its power from solar during midday, but it also does a lot of much higher margin work like software, design, skilled manufacturing, etc. The world CO2 per GDP number is falling, which is a good sign: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pp.gd https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pp.gd
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    Different sectors of the economy have different energy intensities. China's is much more reliant on heavy industry than more developed countries, which are service-sector dominated. Just a quick comparison of the share of industry in each region's GDP: * China: 40% industry * Japan: 30% industry * EU: 25% industry * USA: 19% industry
- makomk 7y ago
  That isn't necessarily a more fair assessment because those things would be made using cleaner power if they were being produced in the EU or the USA. That is, moving manufacturing to China isn't just moving emissions, it's making them worse. Supposedly this is particularly bad with steel and aluminium, because China's government subsidies to their local production means that more efficient, less producing facilities elsewhere are being driven out of business by dirty and inefficient but subsidised Chinese output.
sweetchillyheat 7y ago
But remember, if you don't drink out of a paper straw, you are the problem
adrr 7y ago
Why would China cut co2 emissions when the largest polluter(per capita) isn’t doing anything?
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  They might cut CO2 emissions as a side effect of achieving something that matters to them, like cutting particulate emissions. There's no reason they would cut CO2 emissions for their own sake.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    They're the biggest consumer of electric cars, biggest consumer of solar panels and the biggest consumer by far of electric buses. They'll also cut CO2 emissions as a side effect of an attempt to corner the market on green technologies.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    Sure, because it would make a marginal difference on global temperature while it makes a major difference in economics to embrace fossil fuels. Simple cost / benefit equation.
- rdlecler1 7y ago
  Have you seen China’s air quality? This has become a social problem it’s not about climate change for China.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    CO2 is different from AQI problems. One is a silent problem of long term consequence, difficult to get people fired up about because they can’t grasp the threat so easily. The other is “my day really sucks, they should fix this now!” Kind of problem. The problems have different solutions; e.g. the USA has largely solved its AQI problem by using lots of natural gas, but that still contributes to the CO2 problem.
weekforweeks 7y ago
There’s no greater of destroyer of world than Chinese CCP right now. - greatest polluter of air via coal - greatest polluter of water via plastics - greatest polluter of disease via swine flu, pig flu, and now recently, contagious Black Death - greatest supporter of dictatorships around the world. Umbrella for Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc - greatest blue collared jobs/ communities destroyers in Italy, France, Spain, UK, US, Japan - greatest tech surveillance exporter to the dictatorships around the world We need to decouple from this evil regime as soon as possible.
- jxub 7y ago
  ...and let's not even touch the Uighurs and Hong-Kong In 50 years, the ruling Chinese party will be viewed as the Nazi government of our time.
  - LessDmesg 7y ago
    They're already pretty close to fascism, it's just that the West prefers not to notice it because who makes all the iPhones? Much like Britain and France ignored Hitler's territorial exploits until it was too late. China already has the largest army in the world and asserts its territorial claims in e.g. the South Sea...
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The country that performed (and continues to perform) tens of millions of forced and coerced abortions and sterilizations is already the Nazi government of our time.
- andrewksl 7y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree with you on almost every point and a couple you haven't mentioned. > greatest blue collared jobs/ communities destroyers in Italy, France, Spain, UK, US, Japan But isn't this just the nature of globalization? And aren't the corporations in the countries you mentioned complicit in choosing to cut costs by moving production to cheap countries? And aren't we as consumers complicit in continuing to buy cheap goods like it's going out of fashion (wishful thinking lol).
1996 7y ago
Alternative title: Climate Goals a Threat to China Expansion (also to India and other countries) And I find this troubling. On what moral authority the west think it is ok to kick the ladder?
- azinman2 7y ago
  Because it’s all a threat to the survival of the planet.
- VWWHFSfQ 7y ago
  Because western nations already had their industrial booms and now see how incredibly damaging it was to the planet. Sure it's easy for them to criticize because they already reaped the benefits. But that doesn't mean they should have to stand by watching even more destructive industrial expansion continue.
  - sachdevap 7y ago
    They are not standing by and watching. They are involved in the tragedy. Western nations are dismantling nuclear power on a massive scale. They are blocking the growth of renewables industries in developing nations [0] under the guise of free trade instead of promoting renewables usage in those countries. US has backed off the Paris climate accord saying they should not be subsidizing solar in these countries. They are showing anything but leadership after having damaged the planet for their own benefit all these years. Climate change is a problem, and we have to deal with it, but the west blaming India and China when the US has the largest emission per capita by a mile and more is not going to get us anywhere. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-india-wto/india-wins-us-solar-case-at-wto-but-impact-disputed-idUSKCN1TS2B0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-india-wto/india...
  - iforgotpassword 7y ago
    No they shouldn't just stand by. The current development and projection is very worrisome regarding the environment on a global scale. What I think is often missing though is considering how we are contributing to the co2 output of those developing countries. A big share of their power demands is through production of goods for pretty much the rest of the world. It really grinds my gears how so many people suggest we can completely ignore that we are creating that demand in the first place, exploiting cheap production costs in China, which is in part because regulations regarding pollution are so lax over there, while at the same time patting ourselves on the back for reducing co2 output here, when you really just move more and more production to other counties. And I don't have a good idea how to fix this either. Clearly, consumers don't care enough to vote with their money, or pressure local politicians. But turning a blind eye on our contribution entirely and conveniently pointing out how China is so horrible and we're so great isn't going to fix anything either.
macinjosh 7y ago
If one thinks and supports politicians that believe climate change is a threat to human existence you would, logically, wholeheartedly support the following: 1. Ban all air travel 2. Ban all consumer goods made in developing nations. (a large contributor to China and India's carbon footprint) 3. War with countries producing a large carbon foot print if they refuse diplomatic efforts to meaningfully curb emissions. 4. Eat only plants and insects. 5. No cars (battery or otherwise). 6. Culling or otherwise slowing the population. If one is not willing to adopt all of these (and more unmentioned) as part of their own lifestyle and political views one does not truly believe climate change poses as great a danger as it is made out to be. In fact, it is proof there is a particular political end in mind and climate change is a convenient excuse for those in power to meet their own political ends.
- gpm 7y ago
  I think climate change is an existential threat with a small but not zero chance of wiping out humanity (probably indirectly by sparking WW3). I think those policies would be an existential threat with higher probability of leading to a war that wipes out humanity, not to mention impossible to pass in a democracy.
- WhompingWindows 7y ago
  Why not just impose a massive carbon tax and carbon import duties? This would essentially accomplish all of your goals without war (which is a TERRIBLE idea, war is VERY energy intensive and extremely wasteful, never mind the untold suffering placed upon the low-income, poor soldiers and civilizations who will die unnecessarily).
  - ianleeclark 7y ago
    > Why not just impose a massive carbon tax and carbon import duties? This would essentially accomplish all of your goals without war This is going to be the most cynical possible of takes, but I just don't see how this is politically viable in a place like the United States. The government is gridlocked and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the United States military is a massive CO2 emitter, so this would likely drive the dual deficits into even more dangerous territory because, let's face it, we're not going to demilitarize in any meaningful way.
philipkglass 7y ago
Mapped: The world’s largest CO2 importers and exporters https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-importers-exporters https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-import... "Despite the large total of CO2 imports and exports, US emissions are only 6% higher and Chinese emissions are 13% lower when CO2 transfers are taken into account." Energy related carbon dioxide emissions peaked in 2007 in the United States [1]. They didn't just get hidden by imports replacing domestic manufacturing. Even incorporating imports into the national balance, US emissions are down from the peak. This is largely due to efficient combined cycle gas turbines replacing coal plants and -- to a lesser but growing extent -- a larger proportion of renewable electricity in the national electricity mix. Chinese carbon dioxide emissions have not peaked yet. As of 2017 (referenced above), 87% of Chinese emissions are attributable to domestic consumption. That should moderate hopes that Chinese emission trends could be reversed by CO2 tariffs. It should also moderate anxiety that Chinese emissions are "really" the offshored emissions of Western consumers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th...
- ZeroGravitas 7y ago
  Carbon tariffs don't have to only be on the carbon content of the goods transferred. You can just punish a country generally for not doing their part if you'll otherwise have a tragedy of the commons type outcome. I'm relatively hopeful that renewables will simply be cheaper though, in part thanks to China. But we could still use tariffs for global co-operation on other sources of emissions (there was a story recently about China releasing CFCs for example).
  - philipkglass 7y ago
    It's hard to get a good read on what really happens in China since they don't have a free press and I can only read what has been translated into English. The amazing progress in photovoltaic price:performance ratios makes me hopeful too, and it looks like we are just starting to enter the era of affordable big battery projects to use solar electricity after sunset. Those are great developments. Unfortunately, China appears to have some historical inertia and perverse incentives to keep mining coal and building/running coal plants even if coal-fired electricity isn't the cheapest any more [1]. The incentives to keep running economically dubious coal plants to maintain employment can be very strong in some provinces, even if that conflicts with national goals for reducing air pollution. Mining coal and running coal plants requires more workers per megawatt hour than solar power. And even if they were equal, it's not like coal miners can painlessly make the transition to working in solar manufacturing or installation. I have also read about situations where e.g. a province gets revenue for every ton of coal mined, but would not get any revenue for every hour of sunshine collected, so there are localized revenue reasons for provincial authorities to prefer coal. [1] Like Germany, Australia, the US, Poland, South Africa... and more.
paraditedc 7y ago
I looked into a few websites tracking climate change progress. They seemed to show that China is doing relatively better compared to others, in terms of climate change goals. Here is the summary that I posted on my blog: https://paraditedc.com/2019/11/22/pdc-10-chinas-real-progress-on-climate-change-goals/ https://paraditedc.com/2019/11/22/pdc-10-chinas-real-progres...
40acres 7y ago
Realistically, there is little incentive for China to cut back on coal usage. In an ideal world China would use the funds directed to Belt and Road to green infrastructure but in terms of its own ambition and growth prospects coal is the only reliable energy source to match the scale of China's ambition. The global economy needs China to keep on growing. Germany, arguably the most important economy in the world outside of China, India and the US is nearing recessions because of slowing Chinese consumer spending. A recession in the EU spells disaster for the rest of the world. It's difficult to expect China to curb it's growth for the common good when more advanced economies ignored the science for decades (ie. at least since the 70S) to favor its own growth.
- ljcn 7y ago
  Right, but decades ago coal was the cheapest source of power. We didn't have cheap renewables in the 70s. Solar is cheaper than coal in China.* They could certainly grow (at least) no slower by building huge amounts of renewables rather than coal. *(I'm not sure if this is on a "spot" basis or annualised to account for intermittency, but then it probably doesn't account for the negative externalities of coal either so let's chalk it up to a draw.)
  - julienb_sea 7y ago
    > Solar is cheaper than coal in China.* Bullshit. Not at the scale they need. Solar might be "cheaper" in very confined, specific contexts. But China needs on-demand capacity for a billion people. Renewables + batteries cannot accomplish this. Plus, solar is cheap partially because you don't need to source that much of it. Try to source that much solar and see what happens to the price.
    - ljcn 7y ago
      OK, matched grid prices without subsidy, and cheaper than coal in a fifth of cases. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0441-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0441-z
- guelo 7y ago
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
I encourage everyone here to read the underlying report for a more nuanced view: [1]. Apparently, the central government turned over permitting to provincial governments in 2014, leading to a massive surge in permits for coal plants, peaking in 2015 (see Fig. 3). Provincial governments wanted to promote growth above all else, so they went for coal. The central government was apparently alarmed by this, and imposed restrictions in 2016, leading new permits issued per year to drop by 80%. However, the new plants that were approved from 2014-2016 are still in the pipeline, which is why there are still new plants being built. The central government has slowed their construction and has proposed withdrawing a large fraction of the permits (for example, 150 GW of permits were canceled in 2018-19, while 8.5 GW of new construction was approved - see Table 4). But just as in the West, there's a powerful coal lobby in China, which is pushing for already permitted projects to go ahead, for restrictions on new permits for coal plants to be lifted, and for the overall cap the government has set (1.1 TW) to be increased. Playing into all of this is the general economic slowdown in China, which of course puts pressure on the government to ease restrictions. Despite all this, the trend in China is for less coal capacity to actually come online each year (Fig. 4). The question is really whether it will fall fast enough (Fig. 5). 1. https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/reports/out-of-step/ https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/reports/out-of...
- ipnon 7y ago
  Misinformation abounds in climate change discussions. The issue is as complicated as our environment is. You can't write a headline like "China Set for Coal Expansion in Threat to Climate Goals" without including a whole nation of nuance by implication.
partiallypro 7y ago
Meanwhile the US just shut down its two largest coal plants in the past month, and has shed 50 just since Trump has been in office; but people keep touting China as a "climate leader." Pretending a non-binding Paris Agreement the US backed out of meant anything at all. It was non-binding.
deepVoid 7y ago
Bloomberg has lost my trust as a reliable source of information since the invented story about China Chip hack[1]. Contrary to the article, China is the leading investor in renewable energy[2][3]. [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h... [2]https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/01/11/china-renewable-energy-superpower/#51dd9cb0745a https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/01/11/china-... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
- philipkglass 7y ago
  There is nothing contrary about this report. Coal and renewables don't annihilate each other like matter and antimatter. China is simultaneously expanding its use of electricity from coal, renewables, and nuclear plants faster than any other country in the world. This is because China is the world's largest consumer of electricity and is still growing.
  - deepVoid 7y ago
    Well, the share of coal in China's primary energy mix has declined to a new low[1]. Basically, China has been trying to close down small, inefficient coal plants and build renewable power stations. Resuming massive construction of coal plants does comply with what they have been doing. [1] https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-china-insights.pdf https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/c...
    - philipkglass 7y ago
      Yes, the central government wants to use coal more efficiently and to curb acutely harmful air pollution. China's energy mix is now less coal-heavy than it was 10 years ago. Since China's total energy use is still growing robustly, a declining share for coal does not necessarily mean a declining absolute quantity (tonnage) of coal. According to your own link, "Among the fossil fuels, consumption growth was led by natural gas (+18%) and oil (+5.0%), while coal use rose (+0.9%), the second consecutive year of growth."
vzidex 7y ago
OK boomer
dirtyid 7y ago
Many factors driving this: Domestically 1. Perverse incentives in some provinces still reward coal production. 2. Diminishing incentives for solar and other renewable. 3. Pivot to interior development of interior regions, bureaucrats are adopting the same building + smoke stack strategies that worked on coastal cities. There's was some internal response - many of the proposed coal plants are being eliminated. 4. Keep in mind China is still at 60% urbanization rate. A lot of construction related CO2 is basically for modern housing stock - commonly referred to as "ghost cities" - but they get occupied eventually. 5. Renewable is still central to domestic energy security in response to US security competition. Previously, renewable was a response to air quality complaints, now it has to be balanced with security. US-SINO trade war 5. Increased pressure for Chinese energy security - China has access to essentially infinite amount of domestic coal. Now that US seems to be withdrawing from Gulf security because US is energy independent from shale, there's more urgency in China to build up coal security at least short term. 6. Reliance on construction to maintain growth. Related to 3&4. 7. Related to #3, economic pressures from trade war might motivate more coal plants to be built. There was also a resurgence in shadow banking after deleveraging campaign was cut short due to trade war. Globally 8. Exporting infrastructure capacity means more coal plants along Belt & Road. I'm of mixed feelings, cheap goal -> development. Eliminating poverty and development is more pressing than climate change. There isn't a climate change strategy that can handle uplifting the developing world into developed status. I think that's like 3/4 of the world. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in the mean time to figure out how to mitigate, but ethically we should be working towards an end goal of X universal consumption baseline. X being much higher than global average now and probably much lower than western levels. If that's beyond global carrying capacity then I guess WW3. E: typos
newnewpdro 7y ago
Just wait til India gets their coal expansion in gear. China is already the largest co2 emitter, India hasn't quite arrived yet. But India has no shortage of coal to prevent joining the party, and 300M+ people still needing basic electric service.
GoodJokes 7y ago
I just can't take this article seriously. Publication that has supported neoliberal free market values uncritically since its inception claims we can't meet our targets. Of course we can't with the free market bs it champions!

146 points by skolos 7y ago

this post seems to be used for strategic messaging to boost Bloomberg's current campaign: > Michael R. Bloomberg, the founder and majority stakeholder of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, has committed $500 million to launch Beyond Carbon, a campaign aimed at closing the remaining coal-powered plants in the U.S. by 2030 and slowing the construction of new gas plants. this kind of thing makes the reporting feel questionable. A shame because the message is really important.

TheGallopedHigh 7y ago
The point still holds water though
imtringued 7y ago
That sounds to me like virtue signalling. Shutting down both coal and gas is wishful thinking. Those gas plants are needed as an energy storage mechanism.
thinkcontext 7y ago
Its a disclaimer so that readers know that the owner of the publication has a significant point of view on the subject.

skolos 7y ago

> The nation has 148 gigawatts (GW) of new coal fired capacity under construction. That is compared to 150 GW of existing capacity in the European Union and 105 GW in the works for the rest of the world

loeg 7y ago
Germany is also amusingly building new coal: https://www.reuters.com/article/uniper-coal-plant/unipers-datteln-4-coal-plant-allowed-to-enter-service-sources-idUSL8N27F4VC https://www.reuters.com/article/uniper-coal-plant/unipers-da... China has 43 GW of nuclear built, 11 GW in construction, and another 36 GW planned. I guess it's not a huge figure compared to 148.

stanfordkid 7y ago

What's left out is the industrial output of China -- which is probably producing for much of the EU and USA. It takes power to produce cheap phones and plastic knick-knacks for western consumers. The fact that the Chinese economy will adapt to meet these demands is inevitable. What is the coal output per capita, subtracting industrial output dedicated to exports to the US/Eurozone -- this would be a more fair assessment.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
The standard measurement is CO2 emissions in kg per PPP $ of GDP. By that measure, China emits about twice what the US does, 0.6 vs 0.3. However China has done about twice as well as the US has in reducing this number, which is why China is on track to meeting their Paris commitments and the US isn't.
- api 7y ago
  Maybe China is doing all the energy intensive low margin work. Since its low margin energy must be dirt cheap, and literal dirt is still the cheapest way to generate power. Not letting China totally off the hook, just suggesting that there is an economic force driving them toward the bottom of the barrel for cheap energy. California gets up to 50% of its power from solar during midday, but it also does a lot of much higher margin work like software, design, skilled manufacturing, etc. The world CO2 per GDP number is falling, which is a good sign: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pp.gd https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pp.gd
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  Different sectors of the economy have different energy intensities. China's is much more reliant on heavy industry than more developed countries, which are service-sector dominated. Just a quick comparison of the share of industry in each region's GDP: * China: 40% industry * Japan: 30% industry * EU: 25% industry * USA: 19% industry
makomk 7y ago
That isn't necessarily a more fair assessment because those things would be made using cleaner power if they were being produced in the EU or the USA. That is, moving manufacturing to China isn't just moving emissions, it's making them worse. Supposedly this is particularly bad with steel and aluminium, because China's government subsidies to their local production means that more efficient, less producing facilities elsewhere are being driven out of business by dirty and inefficient but subsidised Chinese output.

sweetchillyheat 7y ago

But remember, if you don't drink out of a paper straw, you are the problem

adrr 7y ago

Why would China cut co2 emissions when the largest polluter(per capita) isn’t doing anything?

thaumasiotes 7y ago
They might cut CO2 emissions as a side effect of achieving something that matters to them, like cutting particulate emissions. There's no reason they would cut CO2 emissions for their own sake.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  They're the biggest consumer of electric cars, biggest consumer of solar panels and the biggest consumer by far of electric buses. They'll also cut CO2 emissions as a side effect of an attempt to corner the market on green technologies.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- chrisco255 7y ago
  Sure, because it would make a marginal difference on global temperature while it makes a major difference in economics to embrace fossil fuels. Simple cost / benefit equation.
rdlecler1 7y ago
Have you seen China’s air quality? This has become a social problem it’s not about climate change for China.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  CO2 is different from AQI problems. One is a silent problem of long term consequence, difficult to get people fired up about because they can’t grasp the threat so easily. The other is “my day really sucks, they should fix this now!” Kind of problem. The problems have different solutions; e.g. the USA has largely solved its AQI problem by using lots of natural gas, but that still contributes to the CO2 problem.

weekforweeks 7y ago

There’s no greater of destroyer of world than Chinese CCP right now. - greatest polluter of air via coal - greatest polluter of water via plastics - greatest polluter of disease via swine flu, pig flu, and now recently, contagious Black Death - greatest supporter of dictatorships around the world. Umbrella for Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc - greatest blue collared jobs/ communities destroyers in Italy, France, Spain, UK, US, Japan - greatest tech surveillance exporter to the dictatorships around the world We need to decouple from this evil regime as soon as possible.

jxub 7y ago
...and let's not even touch the Uighurs and Hong-Kong In 50 years, the ruling Chinese party will be viewed as the Nazi government of our time.
- LessDmesg 7y ago
  They're already pretty close to fascism, it's just that the West prefers not to notice it because who makes all the iPhones? Much like Britain and France ignored Hitler's territorial exploits until it was too late. China already has the largest army in the world and asserts its territorial claims in e.g. the South Sea...
- rayiner 7y ago
  The country that performed (and continues to perform) tens of millions of forced and coerced abortions and sterilizations is already the Nazi government of our time.
andrewksl 7y ago
I wholeheartedly agree with you on almost every point and a couple you haven't mentioned. > greatest blue collared jobs/ communities destroyers in Italy, France, Spain, UK, US, Japan But isn't this just the nature of globalization? And aren't the corporations in the countries you mentioned complicit in choosing to cut costs by moving production to cheap countries? And aren't we as consumers complicit in continuing to buy cheap goods like it's going out of fashion (wishful thinking lol).

1996 7y ago

Alternative title: Climate Goals a Threat to China Expansion (also to India and other countries) And I find this troubling. On what moral authority the west think it is ok to kick the ladder?

azinman2 7y ago
Because it’s all a threat to the survival of the planet.
VWWHFSfQ 7y ago
Because western nations already had their industrial booms and now see how incredibly damaging it was to the planet. Sure it's easy for them to criticize because they already reaped the benefits. But that doesn't mean they should have to stand by watching even more destructive industrial expansion continue.
- sachdevap 7y ago
  They are not standing by and watching. They are involved in the tragedy. Western nations are dismantling nuclear power on a massive scale. They are blocking the growth of renewables industries in developing nations [0] under the guise of free trade instead of promoting renewables usage in those countries. US has backed off the Paris climate accord saying they should not be subsidizing solar in these countries. They are showing anything but leadership after having damaged the planet for their own benefit all these years. Climate change is a problem, and we have to deal with it, but the west blaming India and China when the US has the largest emission per capita by a mile and more is not going to get us anywhere. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-india-wto/india-wins-us-solar-case-at-wto-but-impact-disputed-idUSKCN1TS2B0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-india-wto/india...
- iforgotpassword 7y ago
  No they shouldn't just stand by. The current development and projection is very worrisome regarding the environment on a global scale. What I think is often missing though is considering how we are contributing to the co2 output of those developing countries. A big share of their power demands is through production of goods for pretty much the rest of the world. It really grinds my gears how so many people suggest we can completely ignore that we are creating that demand in the first place, exploiting cheap production costs in China, which is in part because regulations regarding pollution are so lax over there, while at the same time patting ourselves on the back for reducing co2 output here, when you really just move more and more production to other counties. And I don't have a good idea how to fix this either. Clearly, consumers don't care enough to vote with their money, or pressure local politicians. But turning a blind eye on our contribution entirely and conveniently pointing out how China is so horrible and we're so great isn't going to fix anything either.

macinjosh 7y ago

If one thinks and supports politicians that believe climate change is a threat to human existence you would, logically, wholeheartedly support the following: 1. Ban all air travel 2. Ban all consumer goods made in developing nations. (a large contributor to China and India's carbon footprint) 3. War with countries producing a large carbon foot print if they refuse diplomatic efforts to meaningfully curb emissions. 4. Eat only plants and insects. 5. No cars (battery or otherwise). 6. Culling or otherwise slowing the population. If one is not willing to adopt all of these (and more unmentioned) as part of their own lifestyle and political views one does not truly believe climate change poses as great a danger as it is made out to be. In fact, it is proof there is a particular political end in mind and climate change is a convenient excuse for those in power to meet their own political ends.

gpm 7y ago
I think climate change is an existential threat with a small but not zero chance of wiping out humanity (probably indirectly by sparking WW3). I think those policies would be an existential threat with higher probability of leading to a war that wipes out humanity, not to mention impossible to pass in a democracy.
WhompingWindows 7y ago
Why not just impose a massive carbon tax and carbon import duties? This would essentially accomplish all of your goals without war (which is a TERRIBLE idea, war is VERY energy intensive and extremely wasteful, never mind the untold suffering placed upon the low-income, poor soldiers and civilizations who will die unnecessarily).
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  > Why not just impose a massive carbon tax and carbon import duties? This would essentially accomplish all of your goals without war This is going to be the most cynical possible of takes, but I just don't see how this is politically viable in a place like the United States. The government is gridlocked and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the United States military is a massive CO2 emitter, so this would likely drive the dual deficits into even more dangerous territory because, let's face it, we're not going to demilitarize in any meaningful way.

philipkglass 7y ago

Mapped: The world’s largest CO2 importers and exporters https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-importers-exporters https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-import... "Despite the large total of CO2 imports and exports, US emissions are only 6% higher and Chinese emissions are 13% lower when CO2 transfers are taken into account." Energy related carbon dioxide emissions peaked in 2007 in the United States [1]. They didn't just get hidden by imports replacing domestic manufacturing. Even incorporating imports into the national balance, US emissions are down from the peak. This is largely due to efficient combined cycle gas turbines replacing coal plants and -- to a lesser but growing extent -- a larger proportion of renewable electricity in the national electricity mix. Chinese carbon dioxide emissions have not peaked yet. As of 2017 (referenced above), 87% of Chinese emissions are attributable to domestic consumption. That should moderate hopes that Chinese emission trends could be reversed by CO2 tariffs. It should also moderate anxiety that Chinese emissions are "really" the offshored emissions of Western consumers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th...

ZeroGravitas 7y ago
Carbon tariffs don't have to only be on the carbon content of the goods transferred. You can just punish a country generally for not doing their part if you'll otherwise have a tragedy of the commons type outcome. I'm relatively hopeful that renewables will simply be cheaper though, in part thanks to China. But we could still use tariffs for global co-operation on other sources of emissions (there was a story recently about China releasing CFCs for example).
- philipkglass 7y ago
  It's hard to get a good read on what really happens in China since they don't have a free press and I can only read what has been translated into English. The amazing progress in photovoltaic price:performance ratios makes me hopeful too, and it looks like we are just starting to enter the era of affordable big battery projects to use solar electricity after sunset. Those are great developments. Unfortunately, China appears to have some historical inertia and perverse incentives to keep mining coal and building/running coal plants even if coal-fired electricity isn't the cheapest any more [1]. The incentives to keep running economically dubious coal plants to maintain employment can be very strong in some provinces, even if that conflicts with national goals for reducing air pollution. Mining coal and running coal plants requires more workers per megawatt hour than solar power. And even if they were equal, it's not like coal miners can painlessly make the transition to working in solar manufacturing or installation. I have also read about situations where e.g. a province gets revenue for every ton of coal mined, but would not get any revenue for every hour of sunshine collected, so there are localized revenue reasons for provincial authorities to prefer coal. [1] Like Germany, Australia, the US, Poland, South Africa... and more.

paraditedc 7y ago

I looked into a few websites tracking climate change progress. They seemed to show that China is doing relatively better compared to others, in terms of climate change goals. Here is the summary that I posted on my blog: https://paraditedc.com/2019/11/22/pdc-10-chinas-real-progress-on-climate-change-goals/ https://paraditedc.com/2019/11/22/pdc-10-chinas-real-progres...

40acres 7y ago

Realistically, there is little incentive for China to cut back on coal usage. In an ideal world China would use the funds directed to Belt and Road to green infrastructure but in terms of its own ambition and growth prospects coal is the only reliable energy source to match the scale of China's ambition. The global economy needs China to keep on growing. Germany, arguably the most important economy in the world outside of China, India and the US is nearing recessions because of slowing Chinese consumer spending. A recession in the EU spells disaster for the rest of the world. It's difficult to expect China to curb it's growth for the common good when more advanced economies ignored the science for decades (ie. at least since the 70S) to favor its own growth.

ljcn 7y ago
Right, but decades ago coal was the cheapest source of power. We didn't have cheap renewables in the 70s. Solar is cheaper than coal in China.* They could certainly grow (at least) no slower by building huge amounts of renewables rather than coal. *(I'm not sure if this is on a "spot" basis or annualised to account for intermittency, but then it probably doesn't account for the negative externalities of coal either so let's chalk it up to a draw.)
- julienb_sea 7y ago
  > Solar is cheaper than coal in China.* Bullshit. Not at the scale they need. Solar might be "cheaper" in very confined, specific contexts. But China needs on-demand capacity for a billion people. Renewables + batteries cannot accomplish this. Plus, solar is cheap partially because you don't need to source that much of it. Try to source that much solar and see what happens to the price.
  - ljcn 7y ago
    OK, matched grid prices without subsidy, and cheaper than coal in a fifth of cases. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0441-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0441-z
guelo 7y ago

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

I encourage everyone here to read the underlying report for a more nuanced view: [1]. Apparently, the central government turned over permitting to provincial governments in 2014, leading to a massive surge in permits for coal plants, peaking in 2015 (see Fig. 3). Provincial governments wanted to promote growth above all else, so they went for coal. The central government was apparently alarmed by this, and imposed restrictions in 2016, leading new permits issued per year to drop by 80%. However, the new plants that were approved from 2014-2016 are still in the pipeline, which is why there are still new plants being built. The central government has slowed their construction and has proposed withdrawing a large fraction of the permits (for example, 150 GW of permits were canceled in 2018-19, while 8.5 GW of new construction was approved - see Table 4). But just as in the West, there's a powerful coal lobby in China, which is pushing for already permitted projects to go ahead, for restrictions on new permits for coal plants to be lifted, and for the overall cap the government has set (1.1 TW) to be increased. Playing into all of this is the general economic slowdown in China, which of course puts pressure on the government to ease restrictions. Despite all this, the trend in China is for less coal capacity to actually come online each year (Fig. 4). The question is really whether it will fall fast enough (Fig. 5). 1. https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/reports/out-of-step/ https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/reports/out-of...

ipnon 7y ago
Misinformation abounds in climate change discussions. The issue is as complicated as our environment is. You can't write a headline like "China Set for Coal Expansion in Threat to Climate Goals" without including a whole nation of nuance by implication.

partiallypro 7y ago

Meanwhile the US just shut down its two largest coal plants in the past month, and has shed 50 just since Trump has been in office; but people keep touting China as a "climate leader." Pretending a non-binding Paris Agreement the US backed out of meant anything at all. It was non-binding.

deepVoid 7y ago

Bloomberg has lost my trust as a reliable source of information since the invented story about China Chip hack[1]. Contrary to the article, China is the leading investor in renewable energy[2][3]. [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h... [2]https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/01/11/china-renewable-energy-superpower/#51dd9cb0745a https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/01/11/china-... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

philipkglass 7y ago
There is nothing contrary about this report. Coal and renewables don't annihilate each other like matter and antimatter. China is simultaneously expanding its use of electricity from coal, renewables, and nuclear plants faster than any other country in the world. This is because China is the world's largest consumer of electricity and is still growing.
- deepVoid 7y ago
  Well, the share of coal in China's primary energy mix has declined to a new low[1]. Basically, China has been trying to close down small, inefficient coal plants and build renewable power stations. Resuming massive construction of coal plants does comply with what they have been doing. [1] https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-china-insights.pdf https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/c...
  - philipkglass 7y ago
    Yes, the central government wants to use coal more efficiently and to curb acutely harmful air pollution. China's energy mix is now less coal-heavy than it was 10 years ago. Since China's total energy use is still growing robustly, a declining share for coal does not necessarily mean a declining absolute quantity (tonnage) of coal. According to your own link, "Among the fossil fuels, consumption growth was led by natural gas (+18%) and oil (+5.0%), while coal use rose (+0.9%), the second consecutive year of growth."

vzidex 7y ago

OK boomer

dirtyid 7y ago

Many factors driving this: Domestically 1. Perverse incentives in some provinces still reward coal production. 2. Diminishing incentives for solar and other renewable. 3. Pivot to interior development of interior regions, bureaucrats are adopting the same building + smoke stack strategies that worked on coastal cities. There's was some internal response - many of the proposed coal plants are being eliminated. 4. Keep in mind China is still at 60% urbanization rate. A lot of construction related CO2 is basically for modern housing stock - commonly referred to as "ghost cities" - but they get occupied eventually. 5. Renewable is still central to domestic energy security in response to US security competition. Previously, renewable was a response to air quality complaints, now it has to be balanced with security. US-SINO trade war 5. Increased pressure for Chinese energy security - China has access to essentially infinite amount of domestic coal. Now that US seems to be withdrawing from Gulf security because US is energy independent from shale, there's more urgency in China to build up coal security at least short term. 6. Reliance on construction to maintain growth. Related to 3&4. 7. Related to #3, economic pressures from trade war might motivate more coal plants to be built. There was also a resurgence in shadow banking after deleveraging campaign was cut short due to trade war. Globally 8. Exporting infrastructure capacity means more coal plants along Belt & Road. I'm of mixed feelings, cheap goal -> development. Eliminating poverty and development is more pressing than climate change. There isn't a climate change strategy that can handle uplifting the developing world into developed status. I think that's like 3/4 of the world. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in the mean time to figure out how to mitigate, but ethically we should be working towards an end goal of X universal consumption baseline. X being much higher than global average now and probably much lower than western levels. If that's beyond global carrying capacity then I guess WW3. E: typos

newnewpdro 7y ago

Just wait til India gets their coal expansion in gear. China is already the largest co2 emitter, India hasn't quite arrived yet. But India has no shortage of coal to prevent joining the party, and 300M+ people still needing basic electric service.

GoodJokes 7y ago

I just can't take this article seriously. Publication that has supported neoliberal free market values uncritically since its inception claims we can't meet our targets. Of course we can't with the free market bs it champions!