7 ms·

There is an inconvenient truth we all avoid when we throw out climate change. There is nothing you can do to stop climate change. If you stopped all Canadians

by ipaddr 5y ago

There is an inconvenient truth we all avoid when we throw out climate change. There is nothing you can do to stop climate change. If you stopped all Canadians from producing any greenhouse gases the wildfires will continue and no one will have noticed. When two countries are producing the vast majority you are at their mercy. If Canada wants to bully, bribe or shame a country into submission it has to get bigger and have a much bigger army. On the other hand you can't produce all of your products in China and try to shame when they have higher co2 levels. In the end anyone who has a cellphone supports climate change.

goodcanadian 5y ago
There is such a thing as leading by example. It is imperfect, to be sure, but it does have an effect. At the moment, Canada is one of the worst countries in per capita greenhouse gas emissions, so perhaps, we can try to do a bit better before blaming other countries. Someone has to go first.
- poutine 5y ago
  Lead by example? If you think China gives a crap about your example you’re horrendously naive.
  - jhgfddjn 5y ago
    Especially when you consider the economic impacts of "going first" it puts the CCP in a position where they're likely to gain the economic output you've banned, and then use that to gain even more of an upper hand against you
    - 0xB31B1B 5y ago
      What are you talking about. China has already “gone first” they drove solar costs down below fossil fuel energy production cost. The change to green energy and decarbonization is a huge Keynesian economic stimulus. Decarbonizing is not about impoverishing yourself it’s about modernizing everything with tools that are demonstrably better in almost every way using government backed debt. It’s going to be a huge driver of GDP growth for the next 25-50 years. The political blocker here is that a lot of members of the capital class are very invested in the current fossil fuel energy production paradigm and will have relatively less wealth on the other side of this transition. The reality here is we can and should use a nearly infinite amount of debt to finance decarbonization. Debt is “borrowing money from the future” and do you think anyone 50 years from now will be saying “I think we should have spent less money on decarbonzing?”, absolutely not. There is no world in which we can muscle the political will to spend that much money today, so for all intents and purposes consider it an unlimited credit line.
      - iNane9000 5y ago
        “ China has already “gone first” ” Nobody believes this. China has a horrible record when it comes to pollution, and to make the opposite claim is a bit outlandish. Here’s a question: why does 75% of all Bitcoin mining occur in China[0]? [0]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22256-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22256-3
  - chmod775 5y ago
    Naive is only considering the absolute amount of emissions within some arbitrarily drawn lines on a map. The only metric that is fair, and countries like China will consider fair, is per-capita emissions. A Canadian can't justify causing three times as many CO2 emissions as a Chinese by virtue of being Canadian alone.
    - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
      Per-capita emissions may be fair if it looked at where products are consumed, but in my experience the data only looks at emissions produced divided by population. Producer countries like China and especially Canada with their energy industry will look worse than they actually are because other countries have effectively outsourced their CO2 emissions to these countries.
      - chmod775 5y ago
        That's very true. You have the option of either attributing these emissions to the consuming country, or to not do so and hope that it creates a trade-equilibrium as a side-effect, where each country produces within their CO2 limits. Either way, even though China is a producer country and far from being clean or sustainable, its emissions are still way behind certain large first world countries. We (that is North America and the heart of Europe save France) really need to make more of an effort, only if to not look like massive hypocrites when we ask China to turn green. There is a large push towards nuclear within China right now though - with a lot of research coming out of that country as well - they might beat us to the punch anyways.
        kergonath 5y ago
        > that is North America and the heart of Europe save France Rest assured that France is really keen on carbonising its electricity supply and closing a significant number of its nuclear plants, thus going back into the fold of its European neighbours. Stupidity knows no border.
      - rocknor 5y ago
  - kzrdude 5y ago
    China cares about its reputation. You can't push China around, but it is a bit sensitive to it.
  - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
    Not OP, but I can address this. Leading by example does not compel anyone to act, it works the same way that nuclear treaties do not reduce nuclear arms. But we still have treaties and we have had no nuclear war in the last 70 years. Leading by example is necessary but not sufficient for carbon reduction. But it removes accusations of hypocrisy when talking about solutions, which makes discussions much more productive. China does have climate policy and it’s and issue that they do not ignore. They plant trees at the interface of deserts to prevent their expansion, they produce 80% of the worlds solar panels. China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China has a lot to lose from climate change. They will see reduced agricultural production from prairie land, in a country of over a billion people. A starving population will not allow the current regime to continue and the Chinese government has every reason to come to the table.
    - mercy_dude 5y ago
      > China does have climate policy and it’s and issue that they do not ignore. They plant trees at the interface of deserts to prevent their expansion, they produce 80% of the worlds solar panels. China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. Sounds like you are avoiding the core question surrounding the real issue at hand - China and India are among one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas. There is no policy that can change that fact.
      - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
        > There is no policy that can change that fact. That statement is completely false. There are many policies that China and India can enact to reduce production of greenhouse gasses. - put a price on carbon emissions (ex: California cap and trade) - put a tax on carbon (ex: Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act) - provide grants or tax breaks to clean energy projects
        5y ago
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    >> If you think China gives a crap about your example you’re horrendously naive. Tell that to the legions of Chinese immigrants who have flocked to Canada in recent years. It happened during the Hong Kong handover too. The Chinese see Canada as the more tolerant alternative to the US. Canada's opinion on China matters because that opinion is shared by the many Chinese people living in Canada. What is naïve is to ignore the family and social connections between the countries.
    - poutine 5y ago
      By and large the CCP shapes the internal narrative with respect to China, and increasingly globally. Social connections be damned. The Chinese will think what the CCP wants them to think. I say this as someone who has lived in China and with family in China.
      - sandworm101 5y ago
        There are different groups in China. The bulk of the people will never travel internationally. They don't have much money/influence in the country. The ones that visit Canada are the rich and powerful. They are the leaders. They are the ones that will go home and set CCP policy. They visit Canada and see clean water and reasonable living standards are possible. When they go home they will demand those things. They will demand change when their college-age kids studying in Canada don't want to come home, or don't stay long when they do. That sort of slow influence can be more effective than the threat of violence.
  - LightG 5y ago
    If that's true, then it's doesn't take a genius to sugget a multi-pronged strategy. 1) Lead be example. If that fails: 2) Import-tax the f@ck out of them, unless they comply with regulations. 3) Goto (1).
    - poutine 5y ago
      Carbon taxes and tariffs would work yes. But you're imposing serious costs on people that they haven't shown any desire to support. Further, tariffs would disproportionately impact the poor in the developing world.
      - LightG 5y ago
        I'm 100% against the embargo of Cuba ... but let me use that as an example of: "it's not as if the US hasn't/isn't doing exactly that in other arenas". But I take your point, and I'm not sure of the solution.
        poutine 5y ago
        The solution is economic, just not via tariff or tax. Clean energy must supplant dirty energy at scale. The only way for this to happen is to make it cheaper so the developing world will use it instead.
      - nate_meurer 5y ago
        > tariffs would disproportionately impact the poor in the developing world. So will climate change, and more so.
williamtwild 5y ago
So just people with cell phones? What exactly is the point of that statement?
slgeorge 5y ago
OK, let's say I accept your framing ... What is your proposal or suggestion? Or are you in a nihilist mood.
rglover 5y ago
> In the end anyone who has a cellphone supports climate change. Correct. And to your point, China is building coal plants, not decomissioning them [0]. What people in the West fail to understand is that in order for society to improve (and currently, remain stable), you need cheap, reliable energy. Renewables—seemingly, the proposed alternatives (wind and solar)—are neither cheap nor reliable. They're also dependent on fossil fuels to be produced (and shipped, and cleaned, and de-iced, etc). One of the best things you can get behind if you really want to see CO2 emissions drop—which, if you dig into the data, a lot of it is based on models, not observations (which are dramatically below the models) [1]—is to promote nuclear energy and domestic manufacturing. The former is near carbon-free (in operation) and produces ample energy (and modern solutions are both safe and have limited/reusable waste). The latter promotes both national stability (people have jobs) and reduces unnecessary emissions in other countries and for transport of goods. [0] https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/commentary-china-is-building-184-coal-plants-guess-what-that-will-do-to-carbon-emissions/ https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/commentary-china-is-buil... [1] https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Christy%20Testimony_0.pdf https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Christy%20Testimony_...
- curuinor 5y ago
  the _numbers_ say nuclear energy costs about $150/MWh and utility-scale solar costs $24/MWh. Moreover, nuclear costs are going up even in places where they can and will ignore planning commission things like the PRC and solar costs are going down.
  - rglover 5y ago
    Now address the reliability issue. Cost is only one factor.
    - curuinor 5y ago
      solar + batteries is $40/mwh?
      - 5y ago
chiefalchemist 5y ago
> "On the other hand you can't produce all of your products in China and try to shame when they have higher co2 levels." This is an important point that more people need to understand. That is, when a country outsources their manufacturing the associated pollution production goes with it. China et al don't only have cheap labor, their environmental protections are also less stringent. So when, for example, the USA claims it has reduced X or Y it has often simply moved that off shore. Put another way, that smog in Beijine - that so many in the West are fond of chastising - was Made For America, and others.
typon 5y ago
Here come the 'China bad' bots without a hint of self awareness about the emissions/capita of almost every single western country, let alone the disasters like Gulf of Mexico on fucking fire right now.
- dang 5y ago
  If you keep posting political/ideological/nationalistic flamewar comments to HN, we will end up having to ban you. It's not what this site is for, and you've been doing it repeatedly. The rules apply regardless of how wrong other commenters are or you feel they are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html No more of these, please: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27605961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27605961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27567171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27567171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27502839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27502839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27369669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27369669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27319897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27319897
  - typon 5y ago
    The comments I usually reply to are doing the exact same thing - jingoistic, borderline fascist comments but from the other side (which happens to be what this website's general population is aligned with). At this point I don't really care that this forum remains an echo chamber - so you won't see me post these comments anymore.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
alkonaut 5y ago
Consumers in the west are (obviously) responsible for a lot of the emissions that take place in China too. And regardless - for the sake of solidarity with the developing world I think it must be considered fair that us westerners take a bigger responsibility than developing countries. There are two arguments here that are both equally valid: 1) This just won't work unless everyone is on the same page, including China 2) This just won't work unless the west accepts an unconditional change of lifestyle regardless of which if any other countries are on board.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  but you are arguing a talking point from a decade ago -- China is definitely taking actions to diversify its power generation with solar production, convert existing systems to electrical inputs, use higher-efficiency parts like LED lighting, and other important steps. They are competing directly in science with the West in publications and PR and business cases. This re-hash amongst Western chatty people is well-intentioned perhaps, but the targets really are moving as this debate has not. action on the ground using the above mentioned fact-based changes is called for now, right?
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    > but you are arguing a talking point from a decade ago -- China is definitely taking actions to diversify its power generation, convert to electrical inputs, use higher-efficiency parts like LED lighting, and other important steps. Indeed. But the major argument against doing anything in the west is still based on the idea that it's futile so long as china doesn't do more.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    > This re-hash amongst Western chatty people is well-intentioned perhaps, but the targets really are moving as this debate has not. It’s not. It’s an excuse for doing nothing whilst blaming the Chinese.
908B64B197 5y ago
Truth is, what we need is G7 wide import tariffs on goods produced in countries that are not trying to curb their emissions, along with quotas on visas issued to these nationals for as long as they keep pushing for dirty energy. [0] This would need a much needed break to our domestic manufacturing that has to compete with this extremely cheap dirty foreign energy. [0] https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissions-china-goes-on-a-coal-spree https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissi...

by ipaddr 5y ago

goodcanadian 5y ago

There is such a thing as leading by example. It is imperfect, to be sure, but it does have an effect. At the moment, Canada is one of the worst countries in per capita greenhouse gas emissions, so perhaps, we can try to do a bit better before blaming other countries. Someone has to go first.

poutine 5y ago
Lead by example? If you think China gives a crap about your example you’re horrendously naive.
- jhgfddjn 5y ago
  Especially when you consider the economic impacts of "going first" it puts the CCP in a position where they're likely to gain the economic output you've banned, and then use that to gain even more of an upper hand against you
  - 0xB31B1B 5y ago
    What are you talking about. China has already “gone first” they drove solar costs down below fossil fuel energy production cost. The change to green energy and decarbonization is a huge Keynesian economic stimulus. Decarbonizing is not about impoverishing yourself it’s about modernizing everything with tools that are demonstrably better in almost every way using government backed debt. It’s going to be a huge driver of GDP growth for the next 25-50 years. The political blocker here is that a lot of members of the capital class are very invested in the current fossil fuel energy production paradigm and will have relatively less wealth on the other side of this transition. The reality here is we can and should use a nearly infinite amount of debt to finance decarbonization. Debt is “borrowing money from the future” and do you think anyone 50 years from now will be saying “I think we should have spent less money on decarbonzing?”, absolutely not. There is no world in which we can muscle the political will to spend that much money today, so for all intents and purposes consider it an unlimited credit line.
    - iNane9000 5y ago
      “ China has already “gone first” ” Nobody believes this. China has a horrible record when it comes to pollution, and to make the opposite claim is a bit outlandish. Here’s a question: why does 75% of all Bitcoin mining occur in China[0]? [0]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22256-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22256-3
- chmod775 5y ago
  Naive is only considering the absolute amount of emissions within some arbitrarily drawn lines on a map. The only metric that is fair, and countries like China will consider fair, is per-capita emissions. A Canadian can't justify causing three times as many CO2 emissions as a Chinese by virtue of being Canadian alone.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    Per-capita emissions may be fair if it looked at where products are consumed, but in my experience the data only looks at emissions produced divided by population. Producer countries like China and especially Canada with their energy industry will look worse than they actually are because other countries have effectively outsourced their CO2 emissions to these countries.
    - chmod775 5y ago
      That's very true. You have the option of either attributing these emissions to the consuming country, or to not do so and hope that it creates a trade-equilibrium as a side-effect, where each country produces within their CO2 limits. Either way, even though China is a producer country and far from being clean or sustainable, its emissions are still way behind certain large first world countries. We (that is North America and the heart of Europe save France) really need to make more of an effort, only if to not look like massive hypocrites when we ask China to turn green. There is a large push towards nuclear within China right now though - with a lot of research coming out of that country as well - they might beat us to the punch anyways.
      - kergonath 5y ago
        > that is North America and the heart of Europe save France Rest assured that France is really keen on carbonising its electricity supply and closing a significant number of its nuclear plants, thus going back into the fold of its European neighbours. Stupidity knows no border.
    - rocknor 5y ago
- kzrdude 5y ago
  China cares about its reputation. You can't push China around, but it is a bit sensitive to it.
- vegetablepotpie 5y ago
  Not OP, but I can address this. Leading by example does not compel anyone to act, it works the same way that nuclear treaties do not reduce nuclear arms. But we still have treaties and we have had no nuclear war in the last 70 years. Leading by example is necessary but not sufficient for carbon reduction. But it removes accusations of hypocrisy when talking about solutions, which makes discussions much more productive. China does have climate policy and it’s and issue that they do not ignore. They plant trees at the interface of deserts to prevent their expansion, they produce 80% of the worlds solar panels. China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China has a lot to lose from climate change. They will see reduced agricultural production from prairie land, in a country of over a billion people. A starving population will not allow the current regime to continue and the Chinese government has every reason to come to the table.
  - mercy_dude 5y ago
    > China does have climate policy and it’s and issue that they do not ignore. They plant trees at the interface of deserts to prevent their expansion, they produce 80% of the worlds solar panels. China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. Sounds like you are avoiding the core question surrounding the real issue at hand - China and India are among one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas. There is no policy that can change that fact.
    - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
      > There is no policy that can change that fact. That statement is completely false. There are many policies that China and India can enact to reduce production of greenhouse gasses. - put a price on carbon emissions (ex: California cap and trade) - put a tax on carbon (ex: Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act) - provide grants or tax breaks to clean energy projects
      - 5y ago
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >> If you think China gives a crap about your example you’re horrendously naive. Tell that to the legions of Chinese immigrants who have flocked to Canada in recent years. It happened during the Hong Kong handover too. The Chinese see Canada as the more tolerant alternative to the US. Canada's opinion on China matters because that opinion is shared by the many Chinese people living in Canada. What is naïve is to ignore the family and social connections between the countries.
  - poutine 5y ago
    By and large the CCP shapes the internal narrative with respect to China, and increasingly globally. Social connections be damned. The Chinese will think what the CCP wants them to think. I say this as someone who has lived in China and with family in China.
    - sandworm101 5y ago
      There are different groups in China. The bulk of the people will never travel internationally. They don't have much money/influence in the country. The ones that visit Canada are the rich and powerful. They are the leaders. They are the ones that will go home and set CCP policy. They visit Canada and see clean water and reasonable living standards are possible. When they go home they will demand those things. They will demand change when their college-age kids studying in Canada don't want to come home, or don't stay long when they do. That sort of slow influence can be more effective than the threat of violence.
- LightG 5y ago
  If that's true, then it's doesn't take a genius to sugget a multi-pronged strategy. 1) Lead be example. If that fails: 2) Import-tax the f@ck out of them, unless they comply with regulations. 3) Goto (1).
  - poutine 5y ago
    Carbon taxes and tariffs would work yes. But you're imposing serious costs on people that they haven't shown any desire to support. Further, tariffs would disproportionately impact the poor in the developing world.
    - LightG 5y ago
      I'm 100% against the embargo of Cuba ... but let me use that as an example of: "it's not as if the US hasn't/isn't doing exactly that in other arenas". But I take your point, and I'm not sure of the solution.
      - poutine 5y ago
        The solution is economic, just not via tariff or tax. Clean energy must supplant dirty energy at scale. The only way for this to happen is to make it cheaper so the developing world will use it instead.
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      > tariffs would disproportionately impact the poor in the developing world. So will climate change, and more so.

williamtwild 5y ago

So just people with cell phones? What exactly is the point of that statement?

slgeorge 5y ago

OK, let's say I accept your framing ... What is your proposal or suggestion? Or are you in a nihilist mood.

rglover 5y ago

> In the end anyone who has a cellphone supports climate change. Correct. And to your point, China is building coal plants, not decomissioning them [0]. What people in the West fail to understand is that in order for society to improve (and currently, remain stable), you need cheap, reliable energy. Renewables—seemingly, the proposed alternatives (wind and solar)—are neither cheap nor reliable. They're also dependent on fossil fuels to be produced (and shipped, and cleaned, and de-iced, etc). One of the best things you can get behind if you really want to see CO2 emissions drop—which, if you dig into the data, a lot of it is based on models, not observations (which are dramatically below the models) [1]—is to promote nuclear energy and domestic manufacturing. The former is near carbon-free (in operation) and produces ample energy (and modern solutions are both safe and have limited/reusable waste). The latter promotes both national stability (people have jobs) and reduces unnecessary emissions in other countries and for transport of goods. [0] https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/commentary-china-is-building-184-coal-plants-guess-what-that-will-do-to-carbon-emissions/ https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/commentary-china-is-buil... [1] https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Christy%20Testimony_0.pdf https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Christy%20Testimony_...

curuinor 5y ago
the _numbers_ say nuclear energy costs about $150/MWh and utility-scale solar costs $24/MWh. Moreover, nuclear costs are going up even in places where they can and will ignore planning commission things like the PRC and solar costs are going down.
- rglover 5y ago
  Now address the reliability issue. Cost is only one factor.
  - curuinor 5y ago
    solar + batteries is $40/mwh?
    - 5y ago

chiefalchemist 5y ago

> "On the other hand you can't produce all of your products in China and try to shame when they have higher co2 levels." This is an important point that more people need to understand. That is, when a country outsources their manufacturing the associated pollution production goes with it. China et al don't only have cheap labor, their environmental protections are also less stringent. So when, for example, the USA claims it has reduced X or Y it has often simply moved that off shore. Put another way, that smog in Beijine - that so many in the West are fond of chastising - was Made For America, and others.

typon 5y ago

Here come the 'China bad' bots without a hint of self awareness about the emissions/capita of almost every single western country, let alone the disasters like Gulf of Mexico on fucking fire right now.

dang 5y ago
If you keep posting political/ideological/nationalistic flamewar comments to HN, we will end up having to ban you. It's not what this site is for, and you've been doing it repeatedly. The rules apply regardless of how wrong other commenters are or you feel they are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html No more of these, please: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27605961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27605961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27567171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27567171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27502839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27502839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27369669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27369669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27319897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27319897
- typon 5y ago
  The comments I usually reply to are doing the exact same thing - jingoistic, borderline fascist comments but from the other side (which happens to be what this website's general population is aligned with). At this point I don't really care that this forum remains an echo chamber - so you won't see me post these comments anymore.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

alkonaut 5y ago

Consumers in the west are (obviously) responsible for a lot of the emissions that take place in China too. And regardless - for the sake of solidarity with the developing world I think it must be considered fair that us westerners take a bigger responsibility than developing countries. There are two arguments here that are both equally valid: 1) This just won't work unless everyone is on the same page, including China 2) This just won't work unless the west accepts an unconditional change of lifestyle regardless of which if any other countries are on board.

mistrial9 5y ago
but you are arguing a talking point from a decade ago -- China is definitely taking actions to diversify its power generation with solar production, convert existing systems to electrical inputs, use higher-efficiency parts like LED lighting, and other important steps. They are competing directly in science with the West in publications and PR and business cases. This re-hash amongst Western chatty people is well-intentioned perhaps, but the targets really are moving as this debate has not. action on the ground using the above mentioned fact-based changes is called for now, right?
- alkonaut 5y ago
  > but you are arguing a talking point from a decade ago -- China is definitely taking actions to diversify its power generation, convert to electrical inputs, use higher-efficiency parts like LED lighting, and other important steps. Indeed. But the major argument against doing anything in the west is still based on the idea that it's futile so long as china doesn't do more.
- kergonath 5y ago
  > This re-hash amongst Western chatty people is well-intentioned perhaps, but the targets really are moving as this debate has not. It’s not. It’s an excuse for doing nothing whilst blaming the Chinese.

908B64B197 5y ago

Truth is, what we need is G7 wide import tariffs on goods produced in countries that are not trying to curb their emissions, along with quotas on visas issued to these nationals for as long as they keep pushing for dirty energy. [0] This would need a much needed break to our domestic manufacturing that has to compete with this extremely cheap dirty foreign energy. [0] https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissions-china-goes-on-a-coal-spree https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissi...