Coal Power Generation Falls in China and India for First Time Since 1970s (theguardian.com) 38
Coal power generation fell in China and India for the first time since the 1970s last year, in a "historic" moment that could bring a decline in global emissions, according to analysis. From a report: The simultaneous fall in coal-powered electricity in the world's biggest coal-consuming countries had not happened since 1973, according to analysts at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, and was driven by a record roll-out of clean energy projects.
The research, commissioned by the climate news website Carbon Brief, found that electricity generated by coal plants fell by 1.6% in China and by 3% in India last year, after the boom in clean energy across both countries was more than enough to meet their rising demand for energy. China added more than 300GW of solar power and 100GW of wind power last year -- together, more than five times the UK's total existing power generation capacity -- which are both "clear new records for China and, therefore, for any country ever," the report said. India added 35GW of solar, 6GW of wind and 3.5GW of hydropower last year, according to the analysis.
The research, commissioned by the climate news website Carbon Brief, found that electricity generated by coal plants fell by 1.6% in China and by 3% in India last year, after the boom in clean energy across both countries was more than enough to meet their rising demand for energy. China added more than 300GW of solar power and 100GW of wind power last year -- together, more than five times the UK's total existing power generation capacity -- which are both "clear new records for China and, therefore, for any country ever," the report said. India added 35GW of solar, 6GW of wind and 3.5GW of hydropower last year, according to the analysis.
Meanwhile (Score:1)
But I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is whether you think that in evaluating whether to do an action you should take account of the consequences of that action.
If the US were to cut its emissions in half, total global emissions would fall from around 39 billion tons a year to around 36 billion tons. If everyone else continued to emit what they now are.
In fact, they are increasing their emissions, so the effect would be smaller.
So now, we also need to assess what the effect on global temperatures would be of that reduction.
Then we
Re:But I thought... (Score:5, Informative)
Texas Republicans made that decision. Maternal death rates are up 56% since they outlawed abortions [nbcnews.com] in 2021. Clearly they don't care about the mother.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
COVID nearly doubled maternal death rates in the US. But actually it's more complicated than simply C19, and picking apart the contribution of multiple causes was the topic of a paper in AMA's JAMA Pediatrics [jamanetwork.com]
As for 2025, it's 10 in 100k in California versus 28 in 100k in Texas. That's the difference between an anti-abortion and pro-choice policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is a slightly different form of the issue, but it touches the same point. The questions it raises in this form are probably harder ones.
In the Analysis paper (By Johnathan Bennett by the way) the case was of a real condition that does occur (or did occur in the day) where if an abortion was not carried out the mother would certainly die. The Catholic position (as argued by Elizabeth Anscombe) was that abortion was taking innocent life and so was wrong, absolutely. Anscombe argued that to take the
Re: (Score:1)
if you don't need to cut why does anyone?
1,000 Americans don't want to cut. Well neither do 1,000 Chinese. And the 1,000 Chinese are only half as polluting as you.
Americans are the top 4% of polluters. If you're not going to do anything to fix that. Why should anyone else?
Re: (Score:1)
If the US were to cut its emissions in half, total global emissions would fall from around 39 billion tons a year to around 36 billion tons.
And if 330 million Chinese did that, the outcome would make even less difference 39 billion to 37.5 billion.
So it's much better (and also far easier) for the more polluting people to cut. The Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
> Then we can decide whether the consequences of our proposed action justify the costs of doing it.
How do you do that when there is strong disagreement on the consequences?
On abortion how do you take into account the comparative consequences, of the death of a fetus and the death of a mother, and the effect those deaths have on kin and community?
Re: (Score:2)
The question is whether the consequences have any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the decision. Of decisions in general. The question is, should you consider the consequences at all? Are they relevant?
Whether there is agreement or disagreement as to what the consequences will be is not relevant to this particular question. The question is, are they, whatever they are, relevant?
Bennett tried to isolate this question by focusing on a case where there was no doubt at all about the consequences. H
Re: (Score:2)
> The question is whether the consequences have any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the decision. Of decisions in general. The question is, should you consider the consequences at all? Are they relevant?
I understand you're answering yes to that, both costs and consequences are relevant, unless one claims the "rightness or wrongness of the decision" must be evaluated using things like divine inspiration and scripture.
> Put it in a simpler way, should the UK take some actions with the justifica
Re: (Score:2)
They were. What they didn't say was that China was shutting down a coal-fired plant every week. Most of the new coal plants in China were replacement projects, more efficient and definitely cleaner. The rate at which China is burning coal has barely increased a rounding error in the past decade. Meanwhile they've added a metric-fuckton (trust me it's a metric unit, you won't understand how big a fuckton is) of primary energy generation and consumption to the grid.
Past /. are just a bunch of people looking f
Re: (Score:2)
I've also read that most, if not all, of the Chinese coal plants built in the past 7+ years have been supercritical or ultrasupercritical tech.
But who's vetting those claims or is it all "trust me, bro"?
Re: (Score:2)
This is so well put, and it’s one reason that so many media outlets are completely incapable of dealing with these people effectively. Media outlets feel obliged to act as though the arguments are being made in good faith, when they are so obviously not. There was a great example on the radio in the UK today. A very clever interviewer, Evan Davis, spoke at length to a woman called Victoria Coates, who worked for Trump in the first term. She’s obviously smart too, but the two of them had a frankl
Re: (Score:2)
Media outlets feel obliged to act as though the arguments are being made in good faith, when they are so obviously not.....
I prefer Eddie Mair’s approach to interviewing as demonstrated with his time with Boris Johnson:
https://youtu.be/3FFv7sqOhoU?s... [youtu.be]
Ugh, I only wish.
Re:The CCP lies... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The CCP lies... (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
China wouldn't get away with lying about co2 emissions for long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese Communist Party has a longstanding policy of providing false statistics
International trade and primary energy doesn't. China's coal power generation can be mapped based on not what their government says, but rather what their government buys. Funny enough that agrees with what they are saying. But then does this surprise you from the country who are objectively manufacturing the most solar panels and windfarms in the world at the bargain basement prices?
I mean at this point even if their government said nothing about coal it would be a safe assumption that its use is on the de
Why? (Score:1)