China's Installed Renewables Achieved Yet Another Record in 2024 (financialpost.com) 152
China broke its own record in installing renewable power in 2024, as the world's top polluter continues to push its energy transition while the US shifts away from fighting climate change. From a report: The world's second-largest economy added roughly 277 gigawatts of solar last year, surpassing the previous year's record of 217 gigawatts, the National Energy Administration said in a statement on Tuesday.
It also added nearly 80 gigawatts of wind, according to the statement. The record installation means China has hit its 2030 renewables target six years early. This stands in contrast to the US, the world's second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, where new President Donald Trump has started implementing a hard pivot back to fossil fuels and withdrawn from the Paris climate pact.
It also added nearly 80 gigawatts of wind, according to the statement. The record installation means China has hit its 2030 renewables target six years early. This stands in contrast to the US, the world's second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, where new President Donald Trump has started implementing a hard pivot back to fossil fuels and withdrawn from the Paris climate pact.
No surprise (Score:3, Informative)
China is investing in renewables more than the rest of the world does in fossil fuels. Pretty much all of their curent economic growth comes from renewables, and they are carrying the worlds 2030 goals pretty much singlehandedly.
Make no mistake, they are still investing in fossils, too, but there seems to be a certain direction they are heading. No surprise there, too, they are going to be hit hard by climate change by mid-century, and they are doing what they can to soften that blow.
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
No surprise there, too, they are going to be hit hard by climate change by mid-century, and they are doing what they can to soften that blow.
This won't do that. They are installing renewables for economic reasons. They want more power, and it's the cheapest way to get it. It's pretty sad that our adversaries get how it works, but we've been dumbed down too much in the quest to produce low-information voters for us to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's only the cheapest way to do it because they invested so much in renewable manufacture.
It's a choice. A choice we also could have made 15 years ago if we'd felt like it.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's only the cheapest way to do it because they invested so much in renewable manufacture.
They could buy everything from other nations and it would still be cheapest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right that alternatives are profitable and so the same applies to the USA.
I think the problem is that China is adding power at a rate that is barely keeping up with the increase in demand. In the United States the economics of power is that we need to replace existing power sources which are still productive. For China the choice is new renewables vs a newly built coal plant. In the United States the choice has been new renewables vs an already existing coal plant. Only recently has the economics of that choice shifted to renewables.
This is not the only area where emerging econo
Re: No surprise (Score:2)
"We have made competing with China political. But the reality is we would be better off figuring out how to become a valuable partner."
We tried that. We made ourselves valuable to China. It did not endear us to them and they did not start following the WTO rules they promised to follow.
Re: (Score:2)
they did not start following the WTO rules they promised to follow.
You mean they did the same thing the US does. They only followed WTO decisions when it was in their interest. There are plenty of countries in the world that violate the WTO decisions including ones that we have a lot of trade with. And we refuse to follow WTO decisions when we don't agree.
Re: (Score:2)
So the WTO is a joke is what I'm hearing.
Kind of like the UN, where the UNSC members can do whatever they want and everyone else can go hang. Whatever they want to do amongst themselves is more or less fine, unless it conflicts with what the big boys want, in which case fuck off.
Essentially, there is not and never has been such a thing as the rule of law, and any suggestion otherwise is a farce.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheapest energy, hence growing coal use (Score:2)
No surprise there, too, they are going to be hit hard by climate change by mid-century, and they are doing what they can to soften that blow.
This won't do that. They are installing renewables for economic reasons. They want more power, and it's the cheapest way to get it.
Yes they want the cheapest energy. Hence their continued and growing use of coal overall. It's cheaper, and in some regions local, compared to something less polluting like natural gas. If environmentalism were really a concern, than the cleaner natural gas would be used as the bridge to renewables, not a bridge of coal. As you say, it's about cost, nothing more, hence the still growing use of coal as fast as it can be dug up locally or imported. Renewables are supplementing coal, not displacing it.
"Shar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another one who does know how a power transition works ...
Building more of the same, coal, is not a transition. Again, they are supplementing coal with renewables, not transitioning from coal. They are still increasing coal usage. They are transitioning from oil and natural gas, which is more expensive than coal.
... and magically thinks that you can make a different power system without using the current one
They have built both coal plants and natural gas plants. Choosing to use the less expensive but greater polluting coal as a bridge to renewables is purely a cost related move, nothing to do with environmental considerations.
Again, there is no transitio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there is a transition. How the hell do you expect them to get more power to make more renewables?
The transition is from oil and natural gas, not from coal. Coal, the most polluting of the various options, is still increasing in usage overall. There is no transition from coal. It is their preferred option due to low cost.
We need a bridge to renewable, but coal? That is the most environmentally counter productive option.
Re: (Score:2)
coal isn't the worst though.
Coal pollutes more than oil, oil pollutes more than natural gas. That's why responsible nations, US, EU, etc are actually replacing coal. Unlike China which is increasingly using coal, as fast as they can dig it up or import it, as fast as they can build new coal plants.
Re: (Score:2)
In America oil pollutes the worst then gas second worst then coal in 3rd place Americans are twice as bad as Chinese if you're keeping track...
Nope. Your erroneous stats compare 12T nat gas to 6T coal. An honest comparison of 12T vs 12T would show coal to be far more polluting. The US has improved by moving away from coal. China has not by increasing coal usage, by choosing lower cost energy rather than less polluting energy, as the responsible parts of the world are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’s CO emissions have increased by more than 38 percent in the same period. "
ht [statista.com]
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, you left out China's pollution from oil and natural gas.
For oil an American 6.6t of CO2 a Chinese person 1.2t of CO2 For gas an American 5.1t of CO2 a Chinese person 0.6t of CO2 Americans are much much worse for both.
Wrong. You are erroneously attributing industrial use to individuals. Again, China generates over twice the CO2 as the US. To a large degree because they choose the less costly but more polluting coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is an existential crisis, isn't it? (Score:2)
China is expected to hit peak emissions this year and then start dropping ...
Apologists say that every year, but this year will be different? LOL.
... transition takes decades and until you understand that you'll keep whining
Again, there is no transition from coal, only ongoing increasing usage. The transition is from oil and natural gas, they are more expensive than coal.
Pointing out the reality of the increased usage of coal is not whining. Its the most polluting of the various options. Climate change is an existential crisis, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
China is expected to hit peak emissions this year and then start dropping - transition takes decades and until you understand that you'll keep whining
That "expectation" is not matching reality.
"Despite its commitment to "phase down" coal, China recently has been permitting and constructing coal plants at rates not seen in a decade."
"[China consumes over half of the world’s coal and contributes more than 20% of global CO2 emissions from coal combustion. "
[October 08, 2024]
https://today.ucsd.edu/story/d... [ucsd.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
And yet an America emits more CO2 from oil than a Chinese person does from coal.
Wrong. Coal is largely used in industrial settings, not individual.
Re: (Score:2)
facts are facts
An America emits more CO2 from oil than a Chinese person does from coal.
Wrong. You compared 12T of nat gas to 6T coal, factually a dishonest comparison. The true fact is that 1T of nat gas is far less polluting than 1T of coal.
Re: (Score:2)
So you believed 78 is smaller than 49 And now claim 12 is less than 6... keep gaslighting that an American producing 12t of CO2 from oil & gas is cleaner than a Chinese person producing 6t of CO2 from coal...
LOL, you left out China's pollution from oil and natural gas. The true total comparison shows China polluting over twice as much as the us
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’s CO emissions have increased by more than 38 percent in the same period. " ht [statista.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Choose to pollute to garner more exports (Score:2)
Why don't you separate out the total emissions generated in China by the West outsourcing their manufacturing etc to China?
I agree the west outsources a lot of pollution to China via the outsourcing of manufacturing, it's a form of US and EU greenwashing. However this is part of China's predatory trade practices, they offer lower prices via environmental abuse and labor abuse. It's part of their plan, it's not forced upon them. So yes, the pollution of manufacturing is on them. They could use better practices as the US and EU would, but they choose not to in order to garner more exports.
Re: (Score:2)
China isn't as shortsighted as you. Why bother transitioning to gas and then throw it all away as you transition again to renewables.
Wrong. China has been building, and is still buillding, coal plants as its bridge to renewables, had it built natural gas plants it would be generating far less pollution. China was entirely short sighted, choosing cheaper energy over less polluting energy.
An American pollutes more CO2 from oil than a Chinese person does from coal. But you only ever seem to care about the cleaner Chinse person, and the less polluting coal use.
You mask actual pollution with a per capita number. The real numbers, the total numbers, shows that China generates over twice as much pollution as the US.
Plus the US pollution is declining while China is still increasing. Again, due to China's short s
Re: (Score:2)
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’s CO emissions have increased by more than 38 percent in the same period. "
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
If you only care about country totals, just make smaller countries.
It not about lines on the map, it's about jurisdictional control. You can create as many countries as you want, but if they are all consoled by the CCP then CCP controlled regions will be the " biggest carbon polluter in the world by far"
So your point is really have fewer people and industries controlled by the CCP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They dig massive holes and pour concrete.
My. God. How are they allowed to get away with this? Can you imagine if we continued to let people DIG HOLES and POUR CONCRETE? We might have entire cities filled with this stuff...
Concrete is a major source of CO2 (Score:2)
Can you imagine if we continued to let people DIG HOLES and POUR CONCRETE?
You do realize that concrete is a major source of CO2?
"As a material that creates the majority of the world’s bridges, roads, dams, and construction, concrete releases an extreme amount CO2 each year. It’s the highest consumed product on earth besides water. Until the overall emissions are cut worldwide, the environment will continue to be polluted with over 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually due to this industry."
https://psci.princeton.edu/tip... [princeton.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but you need vastly more of it for other kinds of power generation facilities, and we also have new types of concrete which actually fix CO2 instead of emitting it which we will be able to use in the future. Of course that will help a lot with the other kinds of generation as well, but wind is still far out ahead. We also have recyclable turbine blades now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but you need vastly more of it for other kinds of power generation facilities ...
Solar panels, compared to wind turbines? What they plug into is a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, just point me to the power sources that DON'T require tons of concrete.
Solar panels, compared to wind turbines. The infrastructure they plug into is a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No surprise (Score:2)
"you've been told by MacMann ad nauseam, it's nuclear that's cheapest!"
He's been making me nauseous since back before he changed his name
Not environmentalism, hence growth in coal usage (Score:2)
China is investing in renewables ... Make no mistake, they are still investing in fossils, too, but there seems to be a certain direction they are heading. No surprise there, too, they are going to be hit hard by climate change by mid-century, and they are doing what they can to soften that blow.
Not really. Renewables are supplementing coal not displacing it. They are burning coal as fast as they can dig it up and import it. Coal usage overall is still on an upwards trend. If they were truly concerned about climate change they would be getting rid of the dirtiest fist, getting rid of coal first, then oil, then natural gas. Use the less polluting natural gas, rather than coal, as a bridge to renewables. But we're seeing the opposite, coal displacing nat gas since coal is cheaper and/or local to a re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your links are out of date and the world and China have moved on since then
Q1 Q2 2024 compared Q1 Q2 2023 is quite up to date, and shows continued usage of coal overall. Just like 2023 and 2022 in total.
The only thing China has moved away from is oil and natural gas, they cost more than coal. So coal use continues to grow overall, including the first half of 2024 as the links show.
Re: (Score:2)
Your links show America is twice as bad as China. But you've never said even a single word complaining about the much dirtier Americans. It's just obvious China bashing, despite them doing much better at transitioning to cleaner forms of energy.
Wrong. I bash coal usage whether is is US, German, or Chinese.
And you are wrong about America polluting more. China generates over twice as much pollution. China's pollution is increasing, America's is decreasing.
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’
Re: (Score:2)
So you believe 78 is smaller than 49 And now claim 12 is less than 6...
Again, you compare apple and orange. 12T from coal/oil/natgas is different than 6T from coal You left out China's pollution from oil and natural gas. The true total comparison shows China polluting over twice as much as the us
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, Ch
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. I bash coal usage whether is is US, German, or Chinese.
Thanks for proving the point. You bash American coal when American oil produces 3x the CO2, and American gas produces 2x the CO2 [ourworldindata.org]
Wrong. You are conflating total pollution with per capita pollution. The reality is China is the largest polluter, over twice the US. This is in part due to China's policy to use the lowest cost fuel, coal, unlike responsible nation that use less polluting fuels as their bridge to renewables.
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO
Re: (Score:2)
American people are worse CO2 polluters than Chinese people
For oil an American 6.6t of CO2 a Chinese person 1.2t of CO2 For gas an American 5.1t of CO2 a Chinese person 0.6t of CO2 Americans are worse for both. Even if you add in coal the American is still more polluting.
Wrong. China generates 2.4 times the CO2 as the US, 38% more than in 2010. In contrast the US CO2 emissions have declined 13% since 2010. See link above.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet still a Chinese person is much cleaner and pollutes much less CO2 than an American. You've been shown the data multiple times by now. You just don't like numbers, or don't like the way everyone else orders the numbers.
Wrong. Per-capita is just trivia, the meaningful number is total.
Again, you are engaging in a marvelous example of psychological projection. You just don't like the reality of China being the largest polluter, over twice the US, so you change the topic to per capita trivia. Yet reality persists, we breath the total pollution China emits.
China is the world’s largest polluter. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but they plan on cutting back. They built coal power plants with the intention of shutting them down soon.
Yes, because governments routinely build lots and lots of infrastructure to just shut it down within a few years. Do you even know how things work?
Re: (Score:2)
They plan on cutting back?? (Score:2)
China, in 2023, was responsible for building 95% of the coal generation plants globally. These have a design life of 40-80 years
https://www.carbonbrief.org/ch... [carbonbrief.org]
So, cutting back?
Re:China is the world’s largest polluter. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't give us hints, give us actual figures. To be fair to you these figures aren't out yet, but based on estimates from a minor increase in fossil fuels consumption in Q1, and completely flat numbers for Q2 and Q3, even if they went balls to the wall commissioning new coal plants in Q4 no, your hint is just flat out wrong and China's fossil fuels consumption did not increase even remotely as much as their green energy.
This should also be painfully obvious by the constantly declining percentage of fossil fuels in the total energy mix that China has exhibited for quite a few years consistently now. But thanks for giving us your "China bad" spin.
But you are right about one thing, they are the biggest polluters. But who are they? The 1.411 billion people who pollute collectively only slightly more than the 335 million people in the USA, all the while producing goods largely for them (after all Trump is constantly complaining about the trade imbalance right?)
So are you going to be the selfrighteous arsehole who claims you have more of a right to pollute than someone on the other side of the world who has an arbitrary line drawn around them? The world doesn't care about national borders. You as an individual contributor to climate change are far wose than those you criticise.
Be better.
Re: (Score:2)
China's fossil fuels consumption did not increase even remotely as much as their green energy
Nonetheless, their fossil fuel consumption increased and their emissions along with it.
This should also be painfully obvious by the constantly declining percentage of fossil fuels in the total energy mix
From an emissions perspective that would be great if they accomplished that by reducing fossil fuel use. They didn't. They accomplished it by increasing non-fossil fuel production faster than they increased fossil fuel use. The emissions from those coal plants are not temporary and they will continue to contribute to global warming long after the coal plant is shut down.
We are experiencing the failure or the Paris Accords
Re: (Score:2)
Nonetheless, their fossil fuel consumption increased and their emissions along with it.
Yes fuck them for needing energy. They should stay in the dark for the sake of the climate we destroyed in advance. Not every nation needs to be a first world nation. #americanprivilege. /s
Your path to an industrialised nation fucked up the planet more than any other in history, and here you are criticising people who will leave only a fraction of the ecological footprint behind in their path. You're despicable.
Re: (Score:3)
You're despicable.
What is despicable is looking for someone to blame for climate change while greenwashing the contributions of anyone. China has increased its use of emission free energy as a percentage of its power production. But it's emissions are still increasing.
According to the greenwashers, we have been "making progress" world wide for a couple decades while emissions in the atmosphere increased. While even the rate at which new emissions were being put into the atmosphere has accelerated. China is just an example o
Coal is their bridge to renewables, its about cost (Score:2)
Don't give us hints, give us actual figures.
No problem see below. Overall coal usage is still growing. Renewables are still only supplementing coal, not displacing it.
To be fair to you these figures aren't out yet, but based on estimates from a minor increase in fossil fuels consumption in Q1, and completely flat numbers for Q2 and Q3, even if they went balls to the wall commissioning new coal plants in Q4 no, your hint is just flat out wrong and China's fossil fuels consumption did not increase even remotely as much as their green energy. This should also be painfully obvious by the constantly declining percentage of fossil fuels in the total energy mix that China has exhibited for quite a few years consistently now.
2024 Q1 Q2 numbers below, overall increasing coal usage compared to 2023 Q1 Q2. Still. But you are touching on a source of confusion. The overall energy use of coal is still increasing, but coal is a smaller percentage of the mix. That is because renewables are growing faster than coal, but coal use is still growing. It is still being burned as fast as it can be dug up and imported, mor
Re: (Score:2)
China’s clean energy pushes coal to record-low 53% share of power in May 2024 [carbonbrief.org]
China Appears On Track to See Emissions Fall This Year [yale.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people think that China can turn this around in 5 minutes?
Straw man. The issues are not rapid change. The issues are counterproductive decisions. Like the continued and increasing use of coal. If you are building large numbers of new coal plants rather than new natural gas plants, you are not trying to turn around. You are intentionally picking the lowest cost energy source despite the massive pollution that will result. Again, that is no change.
China’s clean energy pushes coal to record-low 53% share of power in May 2024
Note "share", the share is only lower because renewable growth is faster than coal growth. Coal continues to grow, to in
Re: (Score:2)
Does the growth rate of coal use correlate with the pollution generated by that coal? Or are the new coal station generating more efficiently than older ones that are being decommissioned, or alternatively generating gas which is less polluting...than using coal directly.
"Clean coal" is more expensive than natural gas and its pollution is still greater. Carbon capture and storage increases the cost of using coal and undermines part of the strategic advantage of China based manufacturing and exports. Dirty coal plants are still being built. Cleaner coal is more likely to be used where a plant will affect the air quality of a major city. Dirty coal more likely elsewhere, to lower manufacturing costs, or to support local mining communities.
Iinm, China has lots of coal, but not so gas.
China has significant natural gas res
Re: (Score:2)
"China consumes over half of the world’s coal and contributes more than 20% of global CO2 emissions from coal combustion."
[October 08, 2024]
https://today.ucsd.edu/story/d... [ucsd.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
So you acknowledge it's better than a decade ago.
Not at all, coal is used in greater quantities than a decade ago. The promises to phase out coal never occurred.
You are conflating the rate at which new coal plants are built with the overall usage of coal. Two very different things. The fact that today, new coal plants construction is so high just adds to the evidence that the "promises" are worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet an America emits more CO2 from oil than a Chinese person does coal.
Coal is largely used in industrial settings, not individual.
Re: (Score:2)
see China is transitioning to renewables. Far faster than America and most other countries.
Not really. China is supplementing coal with renewables, not replacing it. Unlike the US, which is actually replacing coal with less polluting sources. As you have shown elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
In America oil pollutes the worst then gas second worst then coal in 3rd place Americans are still twice as bad as Chinese if you're keeping track...Only in doctor no brains world is 12t of CO2 from oil&gas cleaner than 6t from coal
LOL, you left out China's pollution from oil and natural gas. The true total comparison shows China polluting over twice as much as the us
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’s CO emissions have increased by more than 38 percent in the same period. "
ht [statista.com]
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, you left out China's pollution from oil and natural gas.
For oil an American 6.6t of CO2 a Chinese person 1.2t of CO2 For gas an American 5.1t of CO2 a Chinese person 0.6t of CO2 Americans are much much worse for both.
Wrong. You are erroneously attributing industrial use to individuals. Again, China generates over twice the CO2 as the US. To a large degree because they choose the less costly but more polluting coal.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet still a Chinese person is much cleaner and pollutes much less CO2 than an American. You've been shown the data multiple times by now. You just don't like numbers, or don't like the way everyone else orders the numbers.
Wrong. Per-capita is just trivia, the meaningful number is total.
LOL, you are engaging in a marvelous example of psychological projection. You just don't like the reality of China being the largest polluter, over twice the US, so you change the topic to per capita trivia. Yet reality persists, we breath the total pollution China emits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:China is the world’s largest polluter. (Score:4, Insightful)
Stats aren't out yet, but it looks like China's emissions will stay about the same or fall for 2024. They are right at the peak of their curve.
China is far, far cleaner than the US, in terms of emissions per person, the only stat that allows for a reasonable comparison. They are better than Europe too.
This is a huge success and is working. It's also proof that vast amounts of renewables don't destabilize the grid or cause blackouts, and that massive grid scale batteries don't spontaneously explode. They can develop their economy not in spite of renewables, but because of them.
Re: China is the world’s largest polluter. (Score:2)
Per capita emissions only give a reasonable number if most people pollute about the same amount.
Re: US is the world’s largest polluter. (Score:2)
It's true that some billionaires in the US drag the stats down for everyone else, but it's also true that your failure to deal with them is your responsibility.
As is electing them, and having them make the situation worse. There will be consequences, domestically and internationally, for your choice.
Re: China is the world’s largest polluter. (Score:2)
With China, it's more about factories' choices, those 12% below the poverty line ($2K/year) don't even have the ability to emit much.
With USA, it's more about individual choices, as even the 12% below the poverty line ($15K/year) can contribute to emissions.
The comparison is even more extreme if you take India into account. It has a similar population as China, and a large number of its population don't have the ability to contribute to CO2, yet their manufacturing sector, resource refinement operation
Re: (Score:2)
China will never reach US levels of per-capita emissions, because it is already at its peak.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see.
The reason I include India is because (1) India has a similar population as China and (2) Both classify themselves as developing nations.
Therefore if you look at per-capita emission, looking at India vs China is a MUCH more interesting and an apple-to-apple comparison than China vs US.
It's also because with a similar population, you can now look at the total emission (after all, it's what affects the earth) and see ways in which China has a huge room for improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't even make sense. The point of using numbers to compare things is that they might not be the same.
Although if you really insist on using "country" as the denominator, arguing that you're the second worst and not the worst seems kind of silly when you're 425 times worse than the median and over two million times worse than the best.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. And the worst polluting coal plant in the US could improve its stats by a factor of 275 by declaring independence.
Re: (Score:3)
China is far, far cleaner than the US, in terms of emissions per person, the only stat that allows for a reasonable comparison.
Poorer nations pollute less, because they are poorer, not because they are 'cleaner' than us.
Re: (Score:2)
If that is the case then we are completely screwed, because they all want our level of wealth.
Fortunately it isn't the case, you can be prosperous and emit far less than the average American. Even American is proving that as its emissions fall from the peak in the 1970s.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the advantages of their government (Score:2)
They are very motivated to get this done (Score:4, Insightful)
Not for climate reasons, but because if they want to go to war with Taiwan, they need to be energy independent. They especially need to get away from oil as much as possible because most of it gets shipped in from the middle east and that oil can be blocked by naval blockades.
Evil expansionist territory grabbing regime (Score:3)
If Trump does take Greenland by military force, from Denmark a NATO member, would not the USA have to attack itself if Denmark invokes article 5?
Re: (Score:2)
China has invested Billions in Greenland so I get what Trump is wanting, but they should just counter the investments.
Denmark has stated the residents can decide for themselves (57K population).
The Panama Canal agreement has a clause that states if others Governments meddle in its operations the US can claim it all back, and they
should since China is almost running the whole place now covertly.
Re: (Score:2)
The Panama Canal agreement has a clause that states if others Governments meddle in its operations the US can claim it all back
I don't think that is true. Can you point to the specific language in the agreement that allows that?
Re: (Score:2)
You just don't understand Trump do you? (I don't like him) He's half hot air and half bluster, he can only do things if laws allow it. He'd have to get Congress on his side to get Greenland.
They're lying (Score:4, Informative)
AWFUL [Re:They're lying] (Score:2)
their emissions are literally off the charts.
Ah, I see you're a member of AWFUL ("Americans Who Figuratively Use 'Literally'.")
The charts:
total [bbci.co.uk]
per capita [statcdn.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's ok to literally want to kill them, as long as you don't want to literally kill them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No they didn't. This is a flat out lie.
U.S. Installed Solar Acheived YA Record In 2024 (Score:4, Informative)
https://seia.org/research-reso... [seia.org]
The U.S. didn't install anywhere near as much as China claims that China did. But it was a U.S. record nonetheless.
Aren't manipulative headlines cool?
Re: (Score:2)
By what definition? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Research More (Score:4, Informative)
The usual lies.
No, the sun is not "coming out of a mini ice-age". We measure the solar output; we've measured it for decades continuously, and there is no long-term change.
Climate change is real: ok, one thing you said is accurate. It is not unavoidable, but stopping the climate from continuing to change will take effort and time. And, guess what, the government doesn't need incentive to tax you.
If you worry about birds: the big killer of birds is glass windows on buildings. Why don't the anti-renewables people lobby about that? Oh, right: because they're parroting talking points sourced from oil companies, and the oil companies don't actually care about birds one way or the other.
And:
People really need to go research on their own to see how Nuclear energy is the only answer to wasteful "renewables".
Well, renewables aren't wasteful. They are good in some applications, poor in others.
Nuclear has benefits and problems. It's not the "only" answer, but it may well be part of the answer. But those problems shouldn't be ignored.
Re: (Score:2)