6 ms·

I'm not one to champion China, but thank god that they seem to be pretty co2 conscious. It's easy to envision China having leadership that didn't give a fuck ab

I'm not one to champion China, but thank god that they seem to be pretty co2 conscious. It's easy to envision China having leadership that didn't give a fuck about climate change (or didn't want to hear it was real) and just went full on coal energy independence.

roenxi 2y ago
One of the best aspects of Chinese energy policy is there isn't much evidence they care about CO2 at all. They aren't world's largest coal consumer (by a 5x margin I believe [0]) because they care about CO2. They care about cheap energy and energy security. They've been relatively transparent that they are pursuing all available options as far as those options will go. It has been a wildly successful strategy for them in securing prosperity and I wish the west had that sort of ambition. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-country-terawatt-hours-twh?tab=table https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-count...
- culi 2y ago
  These numbers are not per capita
  - roenxi 2y ago
    They're not meant to be per capita. If energy policy is based on CO2 emissions then the absolute numbers matter, not per capita numbers. The laws of physics don't care how many people benefited from an action, they happen based on total volumes and weights.
    - culi 2y ago
      You're obviously not talking about energy policy or laws of physics. You're making moralistic judgements and anthropomorphizing a nation-state If you wanna make comparisons (I don't, you do), per capita obviously matters. There's no reason why you should be holding members of one nation state to a stricter standard than members of another.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        It's not the members of the nation state, it's the government. If one government is emitting more CO2 than any other, that government is the one that most needs to change policy because a policy change there is the place it would make the most difference. Suppose there were only two countries in the world. One had 99.99% of the world's population and the other emitted twice as much CO2 per capita. Which one is most in need of changing if you want to make an impact on the problem?
    - ein0p 2y ago
      Does it matter that much of “China’s” emissions are caused by manufacturing stuff for “environmentally conscious” US and Europe? Or is it “different” and I “don’t understand”?
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        It's possible to manufacture stuff without emitting CO2, so what matters is who is in charge of the choice of how it gets manufactured, because that's who has to change it.
        ein0p 2y ago
        [flagged]
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        You can literally manufacture things by hand. What CO2 is being emitted by someone who makes furniture from wood with hand tools? Large scale factory equipment will, of course, run on electricity, but electricity can be generated from solar/wind/nuclear/hydro.
        ein0p 2y ago
        Whatever you’re making is going to require materials, the manufacturing of which emits CO2, and transportation of your product will also require CO2, as will the rest of the sales chain to the consumer. But more to the point, because we’re quibbling over an irrelevant issue: I contend that it is unfair to attribute all of China’s emissions to China, and if we’re being honest much of it is attributable to the West which deindustrialized itself and instead makes almost everything there.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > Whatever you’re making is going to require materials, the manufacturing of which emits CO2 This is circular logic. "Manufacturing emits CO2 because manufacturing emits CO2." > transportation of your product will also require CO2 It doesn't. It's possible to use electric trains and trucks and electricity doesn't have to be generated from burning fossil fuels. > I contend that it is unfair to attribute all of China’s emissions to China, and if we’re being honest much of it is attributable to the West which deindustrialized itself and instead makes almost everything there. Attribution is boring. Do China want to do the manufacturing in a way that doesn't emit CO2, or do they want to let someone else do the manufacturing so the someone else can do it in a way that doesn't emit CO2? Those are the options.
    - blackoil 2y ago
      !!! Policy will always be based on per capita and indirectly also on cumulative emissions.
    - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
      That's a ridiculous statement. You have to normalize by population, because if you don't, you end up comparing countries with thousands of people to countries with hundreds of millions of people. Of course a billion people are going to emit more CO2 than a thousand people. You might as well compare an individual person to the entire US, and then declare that that individual person is going a great job at combating the greenhouse effect. John Smith is doing 300 million times better than the US!
- culi 2y ago
  Also the US' per capita consumption is still over 2x higher than China's. This also doesn't account for the fact that countries that produce more of the worlds goods through mining and/or agriculture are obviously gonna be inflated. Banana republics (which the US continues to uphold and profit from) are using a lot of energy "per capita" but all the wealth from that is stolen so it's senseless to assign that consumption to the nation exporting rather than the nation importing
  - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
    > Banana republics (which the US continues to uphold and profit from) are using a lot of energy "per capita" but all the wealth from that is stolen so it's senseless to assign that consumption to the nation exporting rather than the nation importing Ten "facts" or so in that one statement. Would be great if you can cite any one with a modern reference. Which banana republic with high per capita is US upholding and profiting from? Who is stealing their wealth? Why is that country a banana republic? US per capita is falling while China's is rising. https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023/the-changing-landscape-of-global-emissions#:~:text=China's%20per%20capita%20emissions%20exceeded,those%20of%20the%20United%20States https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023/the-changi....
    - berdario 2y ago
      > US per capita is falling Keep in mind that electricity demand in the US is decreasing. If you reduce your manufacturing, of course it'll reflect positively on emissions. China demonstrates that it's possible to make CO2 emissions decrease even while energy demand keep growing (even if it doesn't grow as much as before) (As I linked in another comment in this page: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-falls-1-in-q2-2024-in-first-quarterly-drop-since-covid-19/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-falls-1-in-q... )
      - maxglute 2y ago
        Also giving export trends, have to factor in US increasingly large net exporter of fossil while PRC exporting increasingly renewables.
- bparsons 2y ago
  Americans generate about 45% more GHG emissions per capita than Chinese citizens.
  - linotype 2y ago
    And I’m sure Europeans would generate more than they do if they still had an industrial base.
    - karmakurtisaani 2y ago
      How delightfully irrelevant.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- bigcat12345678 2y ago
  > there isn't much evidence they care about CO2 at all What's the evidence? Note that this statement obviously runs into contrary to the OP. I.e., renewable and CO2-less energy is invested more and growing more than coal. How the OP translate to "they dont care about CO2 at all"? Your comment provides no linkage at all
  - MattGaiser 2y ago
    China likes cheap energy. It just so happens that solar is cheap energy. Their motivations are not purely or even mostly environmental.
    - qtwhat 2y ago
      The world is a much better place with a saint like you.
    - echaozh 2y ago
      It doesn't just so happens that solar is cheap energy. It's China who made solar cheap energy.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > Note that this statement obviously runs into contrary to the OP. I.e., renewable and CO2-less energy is invested more and growing more than coal. There isn't a link. I think the whole anti-CO2 thing is one of the stupidest ideologies since Communism. I'd still happily invest in solar energy; it looks like it might be very profitable. The fact that the Chinese behaving in a clever way doesn't imply that they are doing so for stupid reasons. They are probably behaving rationally for rational reasons.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      XKCD provides the best illustration I know of in why you should care: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ But it is more of an abstract problem and requires thinking about long term rather than short term consequences.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  Pollution is a huge problem for them also. It got really bad in places like Beijing, people here in the western USA complain about forest fires, but 150 ppm AQI would be a clean air day in Beijing’s winter. It is survival for them, since people simply can’t live like that. Carbon is a much more abstract problem even in the USA, since you don’t feel climate change right away like you smell black dirt gas air. But that only really matters for high carbon low pollution energy sources like natural gas, and China doesn’t have so much of that anyways to use it in lieu of renewables.
  - culi 2y ago
    To be fair, China's moving at a MUCH faster rate to clean their air than it took the US when they were at this stage of industrialization. And they've set their air quality targets much higher than the US, which hasn't updated its air quality standards in decades.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      There is a lot more technology today than back then, so it isn’t really a fair comparison. Still, it’s good that China took the problem seriously, there was some time in 2010 when they were clearly in denial (the Us embassy in Beijing crazy bad air incident that got Twitter blocked).
      - culi 2y ago
        Sure that's fair. Do you have some reading on the incident that led to Twitter being blocked? I haven't heard of that and can't find anything online
        cntrmmbrpsswrd 2y ago
        I was in China around that time and I don't remember the incident leading to Twitter being blocked. In fact, I think Twitter was blocked earlier than pollution incident. I do remember everyone getting pissed off that the US Embassy reading was so different than the local one: https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/crazy-bad-air https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/craz...
- berdario 2y ago
  > there isn't much evidence they care about CO2 at all Their government explicitly has carbon reduction and measures to mitigate climate change as a priority, it's not a secret. https://meeb.sz.gov.cn/hdjl/ywzsk/fsaq/content/post_10828605.html https://meeb.sz.gov.cn/hdjl/ywzsk/fsaq/content/post_10828605... > 核能的安全健康可持续发展有利于提高能源供给能力，有利于调整我国能源结构，降低对煤炭、天然气、原油的依存度。 > The safe, healthy and sustainable development of nuclear energy is conducive to improving energy supply capacity, adjusting my country's energy structure and reducing dependence on coal, natural gas and crude oil. This is just the first link I found, there's tons more of course, since becoming a "Ecological civilization" is one of their Communist Party tenets: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_civilization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_civilization It was already obvious years ago that they were on a good track for success: https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-green-revolution-is-quietly-succeeding-b1b12e95 https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-green-revolution-is-quie... (of course, they are succeeding: CO2 emissions are decreasing (!) or anyhow flat (over the whole of 2024), despite the growing energy demands: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-falls-1-in-q2-2024-in-first-quarterly-drop-since-covid-19/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-falls-1-in-q... ) but it's at least since the 18th CPC National Congress that the Communist Party is outspoken about the future being low-carbon, e.g. http://www.qstheory.cn/dukan/qs/2019-11/01/c_1125178869.htm http://www.qstheory.cn/dukan/qs/2019-11/01/c_1125178869.htm > 然而一段时期对煤炭的过度依赖和粗放开采，导致产业结构失衡、生态破坏严重、经济一度断崖式下滑等结果，给山西人民带来切肤之痛。 > 指出，能源低碳发展关乎人类未来；中国高度重视能源低碳发展，积极推进能源消费、供给、技术、体制革命；中国愿同国际社会一道，全方位加强能源合作，维护能源安全，应对气候变化，保护生态环境，促进可持续发展，更好造福世界各国人民。 > over-reliance on coal and extensive mining for a period of time led to an imbalance in the industrial structure, serious ecological damage, and a cliff-like economic decline, which brought pain to the people of Shanxi. > pointing out that low-carbon energy development is related to the future of mankind; China attaches great importance to low-carbon energy development and actively promotes energy consumption, supply, technology, and system revolution; China is willing to work with the international community to strengthen energy cooperation in all aspects, maintain energy security, respond to climate change, protect the ecological environment, promote sustainable development, and better benefit the people of all countries in the world.
  - zetsurin 2y ago
    In the west there have been environmental commitments since the at least 1990s. The governments just seem to mostly ignore those commitments. So it's pretty easy for westerners to not believe commitments made by other governments.
- dralley 2y ago
  They also want to be the Saudi Arabia of solar power (the panels)
- maxglute 2y ago
  > care about CO2 at all They care about smog (or really the protests/health externalities), which is caring about CO2 by proxy, hence peaking coal by 2025 (end of 14th 5 year plan), and phasing/reducing coal starting 2026 (15th 5 year plan).
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  Here's a podcast you may be interested in: > Between 2014 and 2020, Dr Ma served as Chief Economist and then Member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the People’s Bank of China. Over the subsequent years, Dr Ma played a key role in the development of sustainable finance in China and around the world. He led the drafting of China’s green finance and green bond guidelines; he led work on green finance at the G20; he pushed for the greening of China’s Belt and Road initiative; he set up initiatives with the global accounting and standards bodies; and he helped enlist the world’s major financial centres in the drive to green the capital markets. https://www.cleaningup.live/how-china-became-a-green-finance-superpower-ep160-dr-ma-jun/ https://www.cleaningup.live/how-china-became-a-green-finance... They also, after the success of those efforts, just recently upgraded a whole raft of green measures and regulations.
BurningFrog 2y ago
China is also building two new coal powered plants per week. Far more than the rest of the planet combined: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-... China cares above anything else about power, both political and electrical.
- qtwhat 2y ago
  or did you even read? the latest data shows: "Coal power additions were about 40 GW in 2023, while the first half of 2024 saw only 8 GW of new coal capacity, according to Rystad Energy’s estimates." the additions is significantly lower in 2024, and the trend is showing a decreasing, dramatically. also, any country does not seek political influence is non-sense. then what is your point?
  - BurningFrog 2y ago
    I didn't read the main article, no. I just looked for a reference to the gigantic Chinese coal power expansion I knew about. If these number are real, it's vaery good news!
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

roenxi 2y ago

One of the best aspects of Chinese energy policy is there isn't much evidence they care about CO2 at all. They aren't world's largest coal consumer (by a 5x margin I believe [0]) because they care about CO2. They care about cheap energy and energy security. They've been relatively transparent that they are pursuing all available options as far as those options will go. It has been a wildly successful strategy for them in securing prosperity and I wish the west had that sort of ambition. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-country-terawatt-hours-twh?tab=table https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-count...

culi 2y ago
These numbers are not per capita
- roenxi 2y ago
  They're not meant to be per capita. If energy policy is based on CO2 emissions then the absolute numbers matter, not per capita numbers. The laws of physics don't care how many people benefited from an action, they happen based on total volumes and weights.
  - culi 2y ago
    You're obviously not talking about energy policy or laws of physics. You're making moralistic judgements and anthropomorphizing a nation-state If you wanna make comparisons (I don't, you do), per capita obviously matters. There's no reason why you should be holding members of one nation state to a stricter standard than members of another.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      It's not the members of the nation state, it's the government. If one government is emitting more CO2 than any other, that government is the one that most needs to change policy because a policy change there is the place it would make the most difference. Suppose there were only two countries in the world. One had 99.99% of the world's population and the other emitted twice as much CO2 per capita. Which one is most in need of changing if you want to make an impact on the problem?
  - ein0p 2y ago
    Does it matter that much of “China’s” emissions are caused by manufacturing stuff for “environmentally conscious” US and Europe? Or is it “different” and I “don’t understand”?
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      It's possible to manufacture stuff without emitting CO2, so what matters is who is in charge of the choice of how it gets manufactured, because that's who has to change it.
      - ein0p 2y ago
        [flagged]
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        You can literally manufacture things by hand. What CO2 is being emitted by someone who makes furniture from wood with hand tools? Large scale factory equipment will, of course, run on electricity, but electricity can be generated from solar/wind/nuclear/hydro.
        ein0p 2y ago
        Whatever you’re making is going to require materials, the manufacturing of which emits CO2, and transportation of your product will also require CO2, as will the rest of the sales chain to the consumer. But more to the point, because we’re quibbling over an irrelevant issue: I contend that it is unfair to attribute all of China’s emissions to China, and if we’re being honest much of it is attributable to the West which deindustrialized itself and instead makes almost everything there.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > Whatever you’re making is going to require materials, the manufacturing of which emits CO2 This is circular logic. "Manufacturing emits CO2 because manufacturing emits CO2." > transportation of your product will also require CO2 It doesn't. It's possible to use electric trains and trucks and electricity doesn't have to be generated from burning fossil fuels. > I contend that it is unfair to attribute all of China’s emissions to China, and if we’re being honest much of it is attributable to the West which deindustrialized itself and instead makes almost everything there. Attribution is boring. Do China want to do the manufacturing in a way that doesn't emit CO2, or do they want to let someone else do the manufacturing so the someone else can do it in a way that doesn't emit CO2? Those are the options.
  - blackoil 2y ago
    !!! Policy will always be based on per capita and indirectly also on cumulative emissions.
  - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
    That's a ridiculous statement. You have to normalize by population, because if you don't, you end up comparing countries with thousands of people to countries with hundreds of millions of people. Of course a billion people are going to emit more CO2 than a thousand people. You might as well compare an individual person to the entire US, and then declare that that individual person is going a great job at combating the greenhouse effect. John Smith is doing 300 million times better than the US!
culi 2y ago
Also the US' per capita consumption is still over 2x higher than China's. This also doesn't account for the fact that countries that produce more of the worlds goods through mining and/or agriculture are obviously gonna be inflated. Banana republics (which the US continues to uphold and profit from) are using a lot of energy "per capita" but all the wealth from that is stolen so it's senseless to assign that consumption to the nation exporting rather than the nation importing
- cscurmudgeon 2y ago
  > Banana republics (which the US continues to uphold and profit from) are using a lot of energy "per capita" but all the wealth from that is stolen so it's senseless to assign that consumption to the nation exporting rather than the nation importing Ten "facts" or so in that one statement. Would be great if you can cite any one with a modern reference. Which banana republic with high per capita is US upholding and profiting from? Who is stealing their wealth? Why is that country a banana republic? US per capita is falling while China's is rising. https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023/the-changing-landscape-of-global-emissions#:~:text=China's%20per%20capita%20emissions%20exceeded,those%20of%20the%20United%20States https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023/the-changi....
  - berdario 2y ago
    > US per capita is falling Keep in mind that electricity demand in the US is decreasing. If you reduce your manufacturing, of course it'll reflect positively on emissions. China demonstrates that it's possible to make CO2 emissions decrease even while energy demand keep growing (even if it doesn't grow as much as before) (As I linked in another comment in this page: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-falls-1-in-q2-2024-in-first-quarterly-drop-since-covid-19/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-falls-1-in-q... )
    - maxglute 2y ago
      Also giving export trends, have to factor in US increasingly large net exporter of fossil while PRC exporting increasingly renewables.
bparsons 2y ago
Americans generate about 45% more GHG emissions per capita than Chinese citizens.
- linotype 2y ago
  And I’m sure Europeans would generate more than they do if they still had an industrial base.
  - karmakurtisaani 2y ago
    How delightfully irrelevant.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
bigcat12345678 2y ago
> there isn't much evidence they care about CO2 at all What's the evidence? Note that this statement obviously runs into contrary to the OP. I.e., renewable and CO2-less energy is invested more and growing more than coal. How the OP translate to "they dont care about CO2 at all"? Your comment provides no linkage at all
- MattGaiser 2y ago
  China likes cheap energy. It just so happens that solar is cheap energy. Their motivations are not purely or even mostly environmental.
  - qtwhat 2y ago
    The world is a much better place with a saint like you.
  - echaozh 2y ago
    It doesn't just so happens that solar is cheap energy. It's China who made solar cheap energy.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > Note that this statement obviously runs into contrary to the OP. I.e., renewable and CO2-less energy is invested more and growing more than coal. There isn't a link. I think the whole anti-CO2 thing is one of the stupidest ideologies since Communism. I'd still happily invest in solar energy; it looks like it might be very profitable. The fact that the Chinese behaving in a clever way doesn't imply that they are doing so for stupid reasons. They are probably behaving rationally for rational reasons.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    XKCD provides the best illustration I know of in why you should care: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ But it is more of an abstract problem and requires thinking about long term rather than short term consequences.
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
Pollution is a huge problem for them also. It got really bad in places like Beijing, people here in the western USA complain about forest fires, but 150 ppm AQI would be a clean air day in Beijing’s winter. It is survival for them, since people simply can’t live like that. Carbon is a much more abstract problem even in the USA, since you don’t feel climate change right away like you smell black dirt gas air. But that only really matters for high carbon low pollution energy sources like natural gas, and China doesn’t have so much of that anyways to use it in lieu of renewables.
- culi 2y ago
  To be fair, China's moving at a MUCH faster rate to clean their air than it took the US when they were at this stage of industrialization. And they've set their air quality targets much higher than the US, which hasn't updated its air quality standards in decades.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    There is a lot more technology today than back then, so it isn’t really a fair comparison. Still, it’s good that China took the problem seriously, there was some time in 2010 when they were clearly in denial (the Us embassy in Beijing crazy bad air incident that got Twitter blocked).
    - culi 2y ago
      Sure that's fair. Do you have some reading on the incident that led to Twitter being blocked? I haven't heard of that and can't find anything online
      - cntrmmbrpsswrd 2y ago
        I was in China around that time and I don't remember the incident leading to Twitter being blocked. In fact, I think Twitter was blocked earlier than pollution incident. I do remember everyone getting pissed off that the US Embassy reading was so different than the local one: https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/crazy-bad-air https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/craz...
berdario 2y ago
> there isn't much evidence they care about CO2 at all Their government explicitly has carbon reduction and measures to mitigate climate change as a priority, it's not a secret. https://meeb.sz.gov.cn/hdjl/ywzsk/fsaq/content/post_10828605.html https://meeb.sz.gov.cn/hdjl/ywzsk/fsaq/content/post_10828605... > 核能的安全健康可持续发展有利于提高能源供给能力，有利于调整我国能源结构，降低对煤炭、天然气、原油的依存度。 > The safe, healthy and sustainable development of nuclear energy is conducive to improving energy supply capacity, adjusting my country's energy structure and reducing dependence on coal, natural gas and crude oil. This is just the first link I found, there's tons more of course, since becoming a "Ecological civilization" is one of their Communist Party tenets: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_civilization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_civilization It was already obvious years ago that they were on a good track for success: https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-green-revolution-is-quietly-succeeding-b1b12e95 https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-green-revolution-is-quie... (of course, they are succeeding: CO2 emissions are decreasing (!) or anyhow flat (over the whole of 2024), despite the growing energy demands: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-falls-1-in-q2-2024-in-first-quarterly-drop-since-covid-19/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-falls-1-in-q... ) but it's at least since the 18th CPC National Congress that the Communist Party is outspoken about the future being low-carbon, e.g. http://www.qstheory.cn/dukan/qs/2019-11/01/c_1125178869.htm http://www.qstheory.cn/dukan/qs/2019-11/01/c_1125178869.htm > 然而一段时期对煤炭的过度依赖和粗放开采，导致产业结构失衡、生态破坏严重、经济一度断崖式下滑等结果，给山西人民带来切肤之痛。 > 指出，能源低碳发展关乎人类未来；中国高度重视能源低碳发展，积极推进能源消费、供给、技术、体制革命；中国愿同国际社会一道，全方位加强能源合作，维护能源安全，应对气候变化，保护生态环境，促进可持续发展，更好造福世界各国人民。 > over-reliance on coal and extensive mining for a period of time led to an imbalance in the industrial structure, serious ecological damage, and a cliff-like economic decline, which brought pain to the people of Shanxi. > pointing out that low-carbon energy development is related to the future of mankind; China attaches great importance to low-carbon energy development and actively promotes energy consumption, supply, technology, and system revolution; China is willing to work with the international community to strengthen energy cooperation in all aspects, maintain energy security, respond to climate change, protect the ecological environment, promote sustainable development, and better benefit the people of all countries in the world.
- zetsurin 2y ago
  In the west there have been environmental commitments since the at least 1990s. The governments just seem to mostly ignore those commitments. So it's pretty easy for westerners to not believe commitments made by other governments.
dralley 2y ago
They also want to be the Saudi Arabia of solar power (the panels)
maxglute 2y ago
> care about CO2 at all They care about smog (or really the protests/health externalities), which is caring about CO2 by proxy, hence peaking coal by 2025 (end of 14th 5 year plan), and phasing/reducing coal starting 2026 (15th 5 year plan).
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Here's a podcast you may be interested in: > Between 2014 and 2020, Dr Ma served as Chief Economist and then Member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the People’s Bank of China. Over the subsequent years, Dr Ma played a key role in the development of sustainable finance in China and around the world. He led the drafting of China’s green finance and green bond guidelines; he led work on green finance at the G20; he pushed for the greening of China’s Belt and Road initiative; he set up initiatives with the global accounting and standards bodies; and he helped enlist the world’s major financial centres in the drive to green the capital markets. https://www.cleaningup.live/how-china-became-a-green-finance-superpower-ep160-dr-ma-jun/ https://www.cleaningup.live/how-china-became-a-green-finance... They also, after the success of those efforts, just recently upgraded a whole raft of green measures and regulations.

BurningFrog 2y ago

China is also building two new coal powered plants per week. Far more than the rest of the planet combined: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-... China cares above anything else about power, both political and electrical.

qtwhat 2y ago
or did you even read? the latest data shows: "Coal power additions were about 40 GW in 2023, while the first half of 2024 saw only 8 GW of new coal capacity, according to Rystad Energy’s estimates." the additions is significantly lower in 2024, and the trend is showing a decreasing, dramatically. also, any country does not seek political influence is non-sense. then what is your point?
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  I didn't read the main article, no. I just looked for a reference to the gigantic Chinese coal power expansion I knew about. If these number are real, it's vaery good news!

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]