China fact of the day

China is set to add new coal-fired power plants equivalent to the EU’s entire capacity, as the world’s biggest energy consumer ignores global pressure to rein in carbon emissions in its bid to boost a slowing economy.

Across the country, 148GW of coal-fired plants are either being built or are about to begin construction, according to a report from Global Energy Monitor, a non-profit group that monitors coal stations. The current capacity of the entire EU coal fleet is 149GW.

While the rest of the world has been largely reducing coal-powered capacity over the past two years, China is building so much coal power that it more than offsets the decline elsewhere.

Here is more from Leslie Hook at the FT.

Comments

I think this deserves a response...

That article is 3 years old, so maybe China has changed course recently.

Trump was elected and is delivering on his promise of more coal being burned to create jobs.

Everyone is confused because Trump claims to be president of the US, when he is in reality, the stealth president of China.

Trump is forcing China to become far more sovereign and thus able to exert greater power over the global economy and global trade.

For example, Trump is forcing his people to become free of US control of 5G technology by the likes of Qualcomm and instead develop 5G chips using international standards using purely Chinese workers and intellectual property to enable Chinese factories to be completely free of US control.

In fairness, I am gay and I love gay nigger cock.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yep, somebody is having fun - and I do not think it is someone officially involved with this web site.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The piece at Bloomberg states that China is ahead of the U.S. "at a comparable stage of economic development". Of course, at a comparable stage of economic development in the U.S., nobody was much concerned with carbon emissions. But a response from the author of the Bloomberg piece would be helpful.

Pollution and carbon are two separate issues.

Is that true? Other human effluents are "natural" but we regard them as "pollution" when they are not kept under control.

(I wouldn't normally bother you about such semantics, but it crosses another current conversation.)

CO2 has been a component of air well before humans. It has many sources other than animal respiration, and is necessary for plant respiration. Do you call water effluent as well?

Whether you believe CO2 is the primary driver of global warming or not, you can argue that too much is bad without mangling the definition of pollution.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

I answered you in the other thread, no reason to bother Tyler about these semantics.

anon/bear: Local zoning restrictions are good because they prevent anyone but upper middle class from moving into my neighborhood. Let’s keep the riff raff out and the “undesirables” from my area.

Also anon/bear: we should support legalizing all undocumented migrants and anything that smells like enforcement is a human rights issue.

Libertarians: eliminate the elitist and racist zoning regulations, eliminate zoning requirements for school attendance, and let migrants in who come to work.

Geez, how sane do you really think it is to completely make up positions for me, so that you can feel better about yourself?

Oh you’ll correct us on your policy.

Lol. No you won’t. Misdirection score 00

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

They are, but burning coal causes air pollution as well.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I regret requesting the response. The article was from three years ago and on a different topic (air pollution in China, which was a front page story then). My view, often expressed, is that the China miracle was made possible by America's firms which shifted production to a lower cost China, lower cost in part because China had lower regulatory standards for everything including air pollution (and carbon emissions). I find it rich that some now complain that there's gambling going on in Rick's Place. The rise in stock prices in America is in large part the result of the enormous profits of America's firms attributable to lower production costs in China (which, conveniently, facilitated avoidance of US taxes), Apple being the poster child, such rise in stock prices benefiting many of the readers of this blog who complain about China. Is this disconnect attributable to hypocrisy or ignorance?

Shifting production off shore would/should have reduced Apple's U.S. tax burden. But what really allowed them to avoid paying a lot of U.S. income tax is the fact that they presciently sold their existing IP to an off-shore subsidiary a long time ago. That, of course, requires the IP to be sold at an arm's length price and for the U.S. entity to pay tax on gain from sale of its IP. Even if the IP was valued at 10x it's fair market value at the time, they still would have saved an enormous amount of taxes since their IP grew in value so much afterward and much of their income now is properly attributable to that IP, which sits offshore.

+1 You understand the corporate tax issue well.

Yes. But, people often lose sight of the fact that it could have gone the other way. Transfers of IP to foreign subsidiaries are always supported by valuations done by---economists---and most often for large transactions such as this one an advanced pricing agreement (APA) with the IRS.

An interesting historical fact is that Apple was the first US company to sign an APA. The pilot agreement was a bilateral APA between Apple Computer Inc and Apple Australia with the US IRS and the Australia Revenue Service. The pilot agreement was concluded in March 1991.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

But Greta Thunberg and the rest of the environmental justice warriors will say nothing, because China will not grovel and there are no opportunities to make money from their lack of groveling.

We know the Hollywood climate change doomsayers won't say a thing. The world may be burning, but they need their movies to be shown in China.

So, is this being ill-informed for fun, or is that the best you can do?

Fact is, every global accord on CO2 since the beginning has been about changing the trajectories for developed and developing nations over time.

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/pledges-and-targets/

Greta certainly knows that, but not MR apparently. Not to say it's easy, but "blame Greta?" "Hollywood?" Seriously? WTF is wrong with you people.

Best.
Bot.
Ever.

Respond

Add Comment

From your own linked source.

China is implementing a range of policies in most sectors. Most significant is its commitment to limit coal use...

whoops!

You can ask Hong Kong how trustworthy promises from Beijing are.

If we are going to take climate change seriously, any reform package has to include:

Nuclear power
A carbon import tariff on countries
A domestic carbon tax

I’m sure you’ll respond with something vague and handwavy with partisan snark thrown in. And what I’m sure you won’t respond with is actual effective policies.

Did you really miss that I linked that page about commitments, and then said:

"Not to say it's easy, but 'blame Greta?'"

The point, if you click around that site, is that essentially everyone is missing their commitments.

It is hard, which is actually what Greta is complaining about.

Nice try, but Greta is lecturing and/or suing a few developed nations while remaining completely silent on China. And "Hollywood" whines non stop about US emissions but keeps their mouths shut about China so the films can be shown over there.

Look, I can recognize that there is some weirdness in this "child advocate" and her fan base, but I think you should recognize a mirror-image weirdness in people who only see that, exclusive of the actual climate issue. That's especially noticeable when people do focus their attacks on or about the little girl.

Greta Thunberg is now 16 years old. That is not an age we normally associate with maturity, let alone statesmanship.

People who made her their darling are weird, people who make her their foil are IMO weirder. Sorry.

But again, the fact is that the CO2 reduction story has always been a negotiation between the developed and developing nations. As a precocious youth, I think Greta knows that. And since the beginning everyone has understood that the developed cannot say "we'll keep our affluent carbon intensity, you poor people suck it."

China would be an example of poor people who can't just be told to suck it.

So what do you do? Again, climate activists have had a plan. That was to make significant cuts in the developed world to convince and allow poor nations to follow a course of development with a necessarily higher, but not to much higher, carbon intensity themselves.

So Greta is making the case to the rich that they should lead. That's not really such an outlandish idea.

It's more than a little weird that Congress, the UN, and world leaders invite a 16 year old with no scientific degrees to lecture and yell at them.

"Again, climate activists have had a plan."

Yes, that plan is to double down on the fearmongering and hysterics, as well as placing said 16 year old as the face of the movement. Meanwhile, their progress is Accords with non binding commitments, increased global emissions, and now China offsetting the cuts in coal from the entire EU. Well done, activists.

I can shrug at the theatrics. Why can't you? Why do you actually allow them to dominate your thinking, over solid things like carbon intensity per capita?

Because it's all about total global emissions, and they're still going up. They're failing at the very goal they set up. I'm not shrugging, I'm laughing at them. Although it is a little sad that a whole generation is being told their future has been taken away from them by the evil carbon.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Some good charts here.

China is indeed increasing total and per-capita emissions, but they really, really, lag the US.

So let's get mad at Greta? She should help keep China down, while we go buy the new Corvette?

Anyone with a functioning frontal lobe knows why Greta and Hollywood won't touch China. THE OP, Shark Lasers, nailed it. China won't even entertain her nonsense.

I think China rejects both Greta and you. They say if "RG is going to have a wonderful, rich, high-CO2 lifestyle, why shouldn't we? Obviously he isn't listening to Greta. Why should we be the ones to wear the hair shirt?"

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

And seriously, do you think rich young western girls going to poor nations and telling them to reduce carbon intensity is really a good sell?

CO2 per capita Sweden: 5.6 tonnes

CO2 per capita United States: 17.5 tonnes

CO2 per capita China: 6.18 tonnes

https://cotap.org/per-capita-carbon-co2-emissions-by-country/

Yet 4 out of the 5 countries sued by climate activists have lower CO2 per capita then China. But yeah, the activists "get it".

Did you do any research?

"Neither China nor the U.S. can be listed in the lawsuit because the two countries have yet to sign the part of the Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty that allows young people to seek justice for violations to the agreement."

Even better.

Respond

Add Comment

BTW, 3 of the 5 countries she sued have lower CO2 per capita than her home country, who did sign the treaty. I'm sure you're glad you brought up that metric.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"do you think rich young western girls going to poor nations and telling them to reduce carbon intensity is really a good sell?"

That's exactly what she is already doing. Turkey, Argentina, and Brazil all have GDP per capita significantly lower than her home country of Sweden. Brazil's GDP per capita is similar to China's.

Keep moving those goalposts.

See below.

Lol. 24 hours later and one long thread later you have zero actual policy recommendations.

You’re a shill. Scissor statement factory. No policies. Not one.

Put up or shut up.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Well yes but she also doesn't Chinese. Oh who am I kidding, if she did she'd end up some au pair for some Chinese family while being diddled by the father. At least she can eat vegetarian till her hearts content.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Maybe it's for export via the BRI, eventually into Europe. And you know if that happens, the Germans will buy it and pat themselves on the back for being good stewards of the evironment and defenders of responsible globalism.

Respond

Add Comment

It is not that simple. Evidently, polution is bad, but the peace-loving Chinese people and its allies are helping to preserve peace and enhance prosperity around the world. Maybe we should leave Afghanistan and Iraq before we cast out the mote out of the Chinese yes.

*eyes.

Respond

Add Comment

Parody is hard to attempt on the internet because range of serious comments is so wide.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

So what.

Respond

Add Comment

She and her handlers will eventually be lost at sea to a climate change-fueled hurricane, and then she will cease to produce CO2 so her life's purpose will be realized.

Respond

Add Comment

Makes sense. Why would a communist country copy religious practices from the Gaia-believing left?

Respond

Add Comment

So China wants to embrace its ability to create cheap, home-grown energy.

Meanwhile, all the Dem candidates want to ban fracking in the USA.

Who do you think is best positioned for the future?

The one with the greatest commitment to diversity and inclusion, obviously.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Germany is building new coal plants on the scale of Germany, and China is building new coal plants on the scale of China.

At least China is building out wind power too, while Germany is throttling it.

Respond

Add Comment

World Trade Organization should achieve multilateral implementation of co2 taxes on the co2 content of merchandise exports, that would provide some incentive for China to deal with it's co2 problem.

enforcement?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

How many coal plants is China closing and destroying?

Probably at least one for each new one built because the new ones are more efficient, producing more electricity per ton of coal and ton of pollution.

China is too a degree doing what the US did in the 70s and 80s, switching from coal in the East shipped by train to coal in the Sest burned on site and shipped by power lines.

Note, the largest coal power plant in the US was shutdown this week on the Navajo reservation. The workers are funded for a two year demolishment and clean up, with many looking for projects to feed the now unused powerlines. The site is not ideal for wind, but it is for solar. Add some type of storage and lots of solar can be produced and shipped to markets.

>How many coal plants is China closing and destroying?
>Probably at least one for each new one built.....

Always great to hear from the China Is Awesome Lobby! Yay!

I mean, at least "probably" awesome, to use your words.

And hey, how is Hong Kong doing? And HOW 'BOUT THAT NBA???

Actually, there are good reasons to believe that the anti-Chinese Hong Kong riots have been staged by the American regime. The Chinese refime has been showing admirable restrain (what would we have done if, say, France had been tried to take over Texas or Florida). Hong Kong is a legitimate and inegotiable part of the People's Republic.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/no_author/on-the-ground-in-hong-kong/

Am I the only one who finds it strange that a man named Alan Gibson writes in ringrish?

Respond

Add Comment

If I'd have to guess, there's now a lot of CPC/PLA troops fighting on both sides of the HK demonstrators.

Disclosure: I didn't get paid $0.25 to write this comment.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Actually, there are good reasons to believe that the anti-Chinese Hong Kong riots have been staged by the American regime. The Chinese refime has been showing admirable restrain (what would we have done if, say, France had been tried to take over Texas or Florida). Hong Kong is a legitimate and inegotiable part of the People's Republic.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/no_author/on-the-ground-in-hong-kong/

Cha-ching and $0.25 earned.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

In 2018, coal accounted for only 59% China’s electricity production (down 1.4 percentage points from 2017), while gas, nuclear power and renewable energy combined accounted for 22.1%.

Wind was 5.2% and solar 2.5% percent of China’s national power generation in 2018.

It's hard to do much with statistics that are crudely cited and not linked.

I assume those are capacity figures (MW) not production figures (MWh). If so, that would put solar below 1% of production and wind at around 2%.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

China imports huge amounts of oil from the Middle East.
Those supertankers travel to China safely courtesy of the protection granted by the United States Navy.
Thanks to shale, America no longer cares that much about Middle Eastern oil.
China and America are at odds right now.
That is the context.
(H/T Peter Zeihan)

Zeihan's predictions are horrible. The US isn't going to stop defending globalization any time soon because globalization is a central part of the worldview of the permanent bureaucracy in DC as well as Corporate America.

Perhaps. I'm not an independent expert on the subject. Having said that, most people talk about the current deglobalization only in terms of trade agreements, and don't talk at all about the underlying military issues. I like that he puts it all together. Is there anyone else who does this kind of analysis? I'd be interested.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Is that net additional coal capacity? I would assume that China is also decommissioning older and dirtier coal plants as well, but without the net number it is hard to have an informed opinion.

Respond

Add Comment

We'll just blame everything on the United States as usual.

Qatar is actually the worst. Sort by column B.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Here's the thing I think many of you need to internalize. If you don't want to change your high flying western lifestyle to address climate change, just own it.

Don't blame Greta.

Don't blame China.

Just own it. The planet is warming, but you've got things nice for now, and you just don't care.

But if you do that, I don't think you can really blame China for this "fact of the day." They're just modeling on you. They are following your footsteps. And in the likely scenario where the west keeps "not changing" and the rest keep catching up, that makes for a much warmer world.

Yes, China can't be blamed for their own actions, they just follow us and have no agency of their own. I think the phrase is "the soft bigotry of low expectations".

Dude, can you really not see the internal inconsistency in that?

You are the guy doing 95, complaining that people at 80 are driving too fast.

I'm the guy who doesn't care what speed anyone is going. But I am laughing at the drivers being selectively shamed by the 16 year old in the back seat.

As I say, inconsistency. First demand China be judged, and then say you're not judging them, just the little girl.

Can you show me where I demand China be judged? For someone who whined upthread about posters making up positions for you, you certainly seem to do the same for others.

Maybe, just maybe, I'm mocking the inconsistency (and motives behind it) of the Greta's and Hollywood. Exactly what I first wrote.

Sure:

"Yes, China can't be blamed for their own actions, they just follow us and have no agency of their own."

That sarcasm was obviously to say that China *should* change, while you should not.

Respond

Add Comment

And to be clear again, I'm offering you the uncomplicated choice.

Don't blame Greta.

Don't blame China.

Just live your life. You only get caught in a bind if you don't want to change your carbon intensive lifestyle, and at the same time you want to blame Greta for noticing, or China for doing the same.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

This report needs to be put in its proper context. It represents a decline in the amount of coal generating capacity China is expected to build:

https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/chinese-coal-power-panic/

Respond

Add Comment

The investment is doomed to fail. As to my knowledge, the current power plants are not operating their full capacity. The whole economy is performing poorly with weak and soon-to-be declining demands.

Respond

Add Comment

At least it's not fluorine and high Sulphur https://www.npr.org/2019/11/20/781181608/a-year-of-wonders

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment