3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    I agree with you in some sense. That is one of the better illustrations but it isn't very compelling. In fact, one telling point is that it demonstrates that in 20,000 BCE industrialisation and rapid global warming of 4 degrees would have ushered the world into the unthinkable horrors of ... somewhat better than the present day because they'd have consumed more energy than we have. Change is clearly not automatically a bad thing.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      The point is the slope of the graph, not the position. Yes, climate changed in the past, just never so quickly, and by quick, we mean really really quick (in comparison to previous warming and cooling cycles). We really are in unknown territory here, and yes, things might actually be OK, or maybe not so bad as we move from a planet that can sustain 8 billion humans to 2 billion humans, or maybe we all get replaced by transhuman AI in a few generations anyways that have no problem adapting. We know there will be consequences, we just argue about how severe those consequences are, and if lifestyle changes can really turn things around (climate change optimists), or are we powerless to do anything at all (climate change pessimists).
      - roenxi 2y ago
        > ... as we move from a planet that can sustain 8 billion humans to 2 billion humans ... Core of the issue though, isn't it? The planet can't support 8 billion humans right now. This living standards of around 7.8, 7.9 billion of them are unacceptably low IMO. So if it can't support 8 billion now and it can't support 8 billion in the future, I'd like some fairly concrete explanations of why we shouldn't be promoting cheap energy and industrialisation in the here and now. It appears that industrialisation drives down population and may even lead to transhumanism, so per capita improvements to prosperity seem to be the most viable solution to our sustainability problems. I'd also bet working on cheap energy will probably drive up the carrying capacity too, that is what happened all the other times securing energy got cheaper. And as we can see in the Chinese example that we're talking about today, if we had just gone full-greed and kept building coal plants we'd probably have stumbled on a low-carbon equilibrium by accident anyway because that is more or less what seems to be happening in China. Coal and oil aren't that competitive these days. There is a pretty high chance fossil fuels would have been pushed into 2nd class status already if the deplorable fools in the 80s and 90s hadn't succeeded kneecapped western nuclear programs.
mensetmanusman 2y ago
Solar is the cheapest power generation source. China wants more power. They still build coal plants for peak demand. This is energy security policy that kind of aligns with co2 goals, but they definitely don’t sacrifice economic growth for co2 mitigation.
rr808 2y ago
China imports nearly all its oil and most of its oil comes from the middle East. This means solar/wind/coal is preferable because it can be created locally. Oil can easily be stopped with a Naval blockade by either of USA/India/Philippines etc.

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.
- roenxi 2y ago
  I agree with you in some sense. That is one of the better illustrations but it isn't very compelling. In fact, one telling point is that it demonstrates that in 20,000 BCE industrialisation and rapid global warming of 4 degrees would have ushered the world into the unthinkable horrors of ... somewhat better than the present day because they'd have consumed more energy than we have. Change is clearly not automatically a bad thing.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    The point is the slope of the graph, not the position. Yes, climate changed in the past, just never so quickly, and by quick, we mean really really quick (in comparison to previous warming and cooling cycles). We really are in unknown territory here, and yes, things might actually be OK, or maybe not so bad as we move from a planet that can sustain 8 billion humans to 2 billion humans, or maybe we all get replaced by transhuman AI in a few generations anyways that have no problem adapting. We know there will be consequences, we just argue about how severe those consequences are, and if lifestyle changes can really turn things around (climate change optimists), or are we powerless to do anything at all (climate change pessimists).
    - roenxi 2y ago
      > ... as we move from a planet that can sustain 8 billion humans to 2 billion humans ... Core of the issue though, isn't it? The planet can't support 8 billion humans right now. This living standards of around 7.8, 7.9 billion of them are unacceptably low IMO. So if it can't support 8 billion now and it can't support 8 billion in the future, I'd like some fairly concrete explanations of why we shouldn't be promoting cheap energy and industrialisation in the here and now. It appears that industrialisation drives down population and may even lead to transhumanism, so per capita improvements to prosperity seem to be the most viable solution to our sustainability problems. I'd also bet working on cheap energy will probably drive up the carrying capacity too, that is what happened all the other times securing energy got cheaper. And as we can see in the Chinese example that we're talking about today, if we had just gone full-greed and kept building coal plants we'd probably have stumbled on a low-carbon equilibrium by accident anyway because that is more or less what seems to be happening in China. Coal and oil aren't that competitive these days. There is a pretty high chance fossil fuels would have been pushed into 2nd class status already if the deplorable fools in the 80s and 90s hadn't succeeded kneecapped western nuclear programs.

mensetmanusman 2y ago

Solar is the cheapest power generation source. China wants more power. They still build coal plants for peak demand. This is energy security policy that kind of aligns with co2 goals, but they definitely don’t sacrifice economic growth for co2 mitigation.

rr808 2y ago

China imports nearly all its oil and most of its oil comes from the middle East. This means solar/wind/coal is preferable because it can be created locally. Oil can easily be stopped with a Naval blockade by either of USA/India/Philippines etc.