It’s almost like China’s climate action was just window dressing. It seems to be unraveling…
China’s National Carbon Trading Scheme was supposed to go into full operation later this month, but now it’s been cut back by two-thirds. Instead of burdening 6,000 companies it will only afflict 2,000. And only a week ago, the Chinese government suddenly axed solar and wind subsidies, with the cuts starting just six weeks from now. Oilprice calls it “a crushing blow for wind and solar”. In a devastating move, there are even demands that solar plants have to sell electricity at the same price as coal power. The cruelty!
China produces three quarters of all the world’s solar panels, having subsidized-the-heck out of the global industry, exploited slave labor and driven the US leaders out of production.
Judging by the Wall St Journal story — in the last two months the paradigm has shifted from Environmental control to Economic priority. Perhaps solar power wasn’t much use for building ballistic missile submarines?
How different things would be if solar was actually cheaper than coal…
China to stop subsidies for new solar power stations, onshore wind projects in 2021
BEIJING, June 11 (Reuters) – China will no longer grant subsidies for new solar power stations, distributed solar projects by commercial users or onshore wind projects from the central government budget in 2021, the state planner said in a statement on Friday.
And now solar power can only sell at the same price as coal power? Really?
Electricity generated from the new projects will be sold at local benchmark coal-fired power prices or at market prices, the statement said.
Probably the reason for the solar subsidy cuts is because the bill had heated up to $42 billion by mid last year. And those subsidies are largely paid by electricity consumer serfs who weren’t too happy*.
China Delivers Crushing Blow To Wind, Solar Power
June 11, 2021, Oilprice
The country’s finance ministry had previously committed to granting 57 percent more subsidies to solar power projects this year, although it did slash subsidies for wind power.
Yet the reasons for the cut—and this year’s end of subsidies—were not exactly altruistic. China has amassed a massive debt pile in subsidies owed to wind and solar companies as a result of its previously generous support for new projects. The pile, according to a Bloomberg report from July last year, is worth about $42 billion.
Given the size of some of the cuts the Wall St Journal headline is tame:
China Tempers Climate Change Efforts After Economic Officials Limit Scope
by Sha Hua in Hong Kong and Keith Zhai in Singapore, WSJ
China’s top economic planners have put the brakes on attempts by environmental officials to reduce carbon emissions…
China, which has done very well out of the Year-of-Covid, now wants to do even better: the-environment-be-damned?
… rather than giving priority to the reining in of fossil-fuel consumption now, officials at the economic planning office want to seize the momentum of the global post-pandemic recovery, even if it means elevated emissions in the short term, according to people familiar with the matter.
It was only in March when the Environmental ministry discovered steel companies were being naughty and slapped savage emissions cuts on them, but the economic ministry stepped in and has undone that slapping:
On May 31, at the behest of economic planners, China’s steel hub Tangshan ordered the loosening of emissions restrictions for its steelmakers—undoing a March directive that came after environmental ministry inspectors found the companies in violation of environmental regulations and instructed the companies to cut emissions by 30% to 50%.
Where’s Al Gore when you need him. He was able to convince the world that no matter what China really did that in fact they are all in on climate change emmissions reduction. It will be interesting to see how the alarmists will react to the latest developments. I suspect they will continue to ignore reality and hope no one notices. In fact they will argue if China is falling behind the rest of the world will have to do more.
380
Yeah makes sense. We’re much more prepared to destroy our economies and standard of living.
251
DECADES OF FAILED “TIPPING-POINT” PROPHESIES
Fear prevents us from thinking.
The emotional panic that accompanies fear actually shuts down the prefrontal cortex, or the rational thinking part, of our brains.
A populace that stops thinking for itself is a populace that is easily led, easily manipulated and easily controlled.
Our leaders –those unseen, which reside high-above the puppets in elected office– rule by fear.
“Do exactly as we say, or the world could end.”
NOEL BROWN, 1989
Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), said back in 1989 that governments had just a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
JAMES HANSEN, 2006
170
I sincerely doubt that’s ever going to happen.
70
You misunderstand the Chinese decision in the view of climate alarmists. {Sarc}
It is clear that the deplorable energy from wind and solar has now become superior and it has won first place in the energy production.
Henceforth we should follow the example and cut all subsidies back to the level where it is on par with the necessary subsidy for all energy production.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/China-Delivers-Crushing-Blow-To-Wind-Solar-Power.html
Its all about money!
00
Jo
I am astonished when we have renewables boosters pointing to China and saying that its going to be net zero in 2060. Or they claim its “leading the world” on renewables.
What rock have they lived under for the last century? Very little that comes from the Chinese govt can be trusted and they will tell us exactly what they believe we need to hear, to feather their own nest.
China pays only the absolute minimum of lip service here. A few demonstration solar plants but the absolute vast amount of new energy coming from coal, because its cheap and it works, unlike renewables. And whats not to like from their point of view? Western countries destroying themselves and handing over manufacturing to Chinas control – all over an unproven theory and baseless arguments about superiority of renewables.
410
“And whats not to like from their point of view? ”
Depends on who the “their” are. If it is the Chinese citizens there is a lot “not to like”
High levels of air pollution due to coal burning takes a major toll on public health. A study by the Health Effects Institute found that unhealthy levels of PM2.5 led to roughly 1.42 million premature deaths in China in 2019.
But hey that’s OK isn’t it? What’s not to like about a million plus premature deaths due to coal burning if it reduces the subsidies on clean air renewables? More coal the merrier for China. Yeah right.
123
Ian,
Perhaps you could reference what % of PM2.5 comes from coal power stations? It is not axiomatic that shutting coal stations would cure the problem.
Further, not all experts consider PM2.5 to be a good indicator of past and future human health. Geoff S
190
“It is not axiomatic that shutting coal stations would cure the problem.”
No it is not axiomatic but it is axiomatic that opening new power stations will k=most certainly not cure the problem
The percentages are about 66% from power stations and 34% from households .
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210512083427.htm
Not sure of the relevance of “Not all experts do agree on PM2.5 as an indicator of human health” but none believe these particles are beneficial to human health
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health
19
From that study
‘The researchers calculated that in 2014, residential coal accounted for 2.9% of total energy use in China but 34% of premature deaths associated with PM2.5. The number of premature deaths caused by unit coal consumption in the residential sector was 40 times higher than that in the power and industrial sectors. These results indicate that efforts to reduce residential coal use should be a key focus of future air pollution mitigation actions in China, the researchers say.’
So 66% of deaths associated with PM2.5 were from other sources of PM2.5, most of which is not from coal. There’s graphs here from 2013 for Beijing and Shanghai of outdoor PM2.5 sources:
http://en.people.cn/102774/8139704.html
Residential coal burning in China is a bigger problem than coal power stations.
A couple of web sites for checking air quality in different parts of the world:
https://www.iqair.com/au/world-air-quality
https://aqicn.org/city/shanghai/
80
Air pollution is a much more obvious problem for people with asthma and other lung problems.
‘These results suggest that each unit increase in PM2.5 may be associated with an increase in the prevalence of asthma symptoms, even at levels as low as 4.00–7.06 μg/m3.’
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5132644/
How much does PM2.5 worsen covid?
More macrophages in mouse lungs from PM2.5.
‘quantification of leukocyte population using flow cytometry showed significant increase of neutrophils and macrophages in the lung’
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6913334/
‘Izar’s team found that the lungs of people who died of COVID-19 were filled with immune cells called macrophages. While macrophages normally help to fight an infectious virus, they seemed in this case to produce a vicious cycle of severe inflammation that further damaged lung tissue. The researchers also discovered that the macrophages produced high levels of IL-1β, a type of small inflammatory protein called a cytokine.’
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/05/11/how-severe-covid-19-can-tragically-lead-to-lung-failure-and-death/
‘Each 1-µg/m3 increase in annual average concentration of PM2.5 exposure was associated with 7.56% (95% CI: 3.76%, 11.49%) increase in COVID-19 risk.’
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/12/6274/htm
(I probably shouldn’t give Ian more ammunition).
30
Geof, you are right the coal fired power stations I saw during a trip through China emited very white smoke which was mainly steam. The cementworks I saw very clearly modern high capacity , automated and had no visible emission. China has an annual producyion of about 1 tonne per capita. The Chinese technology has been stolen from the most advanced nations and thry are now exporting it just as did the Japanese and Koreans in the past. The Chinese are good liars to fool stupid western politicians and the socialist fellow travellers
50
Ian
You are completely wrong on this. The new coal fired stations in China meet international standards and are clean. My late father worked in this area. They are helping clean things up!!!
The new plants also allow the shutdown of a myriad of dirty smaller plants and to take advantage of the HELE technology – much lower fuel use and less emissions. (latter of little importance)
HELE coal is transforming air quality in China.
170
If only our coal power was as advanced as the third world.
160
Thanks Joanne, hit the nail on the head right there:
Australia has 49 Units at 16 Power plants.
All but
sixonly five now Units in Queensland are the lowest technology coal fired power on the Planet. Even those six recent Units in Queensland are two levels of technology lower than where coal fired power is right now.Those remaining 43 oldest tech Units range in age from 28 years to 50 years.
Even the SuperCritical Units are also beginning to age now with:
Callide C
TwoOne Units – 2001Milmerran Two Units – 2002
Tarong North One Unit – 2003
Kogan Creek One Unit – 2007
Tony.
140
Perhaps the owners of Australian coal fired power stations are encouraged by the very strong advocacy that Conservatives that coal is king and renewables are useless pieces of dross that are not only foisted upon the community by :”Lefty Greenies” but also are raking in $trillions from government sponsored subsidies. With such support by the “coal is king” brigade why emulate the third world when so much more profit can be made by carrying on as usual.
02
Even if I could understand that, I still wouldn’t bother replying to it.
It must be mounting up.
00
It’s time to Ignore the troll
20
The reason that they are ending the subsides is that there is a huge backlog of projects already subsidised, and the dramatic fall in costs mean that the subsidies are no longer needed, according to NSADAQ
As to the snide remark about China’s economy, it is generating enough wealth to fund just about anything they want, Space Stations, Belt and Road, pay rises, infrastructure, goods and services, luxury items…. Name one other economy that is generating wealth at the rate that China is achieving.
228
Its old news anyway, China stopped renewable subsidies the same time as Australia because it was no longer required. In the New World Order the free enterprise model works best and China is leading the charge.
130
Yes, your first sentence is excellent justification for halting all subsidies for wind and solar projects world wide.
Thanks for that.
240
“Yes, your first sentence is excellent justification for halting all subsidies for wind and solar projects world wide.”
Right on Bro. Let’s get back to good old coal eh and blow the increase in premature deaths due to the air pollution caused by burning it. Strewth!!
124
Ian:
The Battersea power station (Old Smoky) shut down in 1977 as the retrofitted scrubbers weren’t that successful at reducing black smoke emissions (from inferior but cheaper coal). From that you might infer that exhaust scrubbers have been standard equipment on coal-fired power stations for around 50 years (in advanced countries anyway) and what pictures you think are real are of backlit cooling towers where steam appears dark. I also note that life expectancies have increased in western countries (and generally world wide) indicating a shortage of premature deaths.
So you are in little danger of premature death, unless you expire from apolexy reading alarmist ‘Climate predictions’. I suggest you avoid them.
220
No Richard Owen I certainly do not think the plumes of steam being emitted are smoke fro burning fossil fuels but I will point out that the 1952 smog in London did cause premature deaths and was the reason for the 1956 Clean Air Act. It was that act that cut premature deaths in the UK that were due to coal burning.
And the topic du jour is China not the western countries so can’t see their relevance. Are you trying to divert attention from the current actions in China by doing so?
011
..And the primary target of that Act was to restrict/ ban the burning of coal in domestic open fires for heating in key urban areas.!
120
London was burning coal for over 200 years (and getting bad ‘London particular’ smog) before the 1952 disaster. One of the reasons for that was the weather conditions which didn’t disperse the smog, but also people using low grade coal for heating. This latter partly because taxation reduced people’s spending power, and the difficulties with the miners causing shortages of high-grade coal, and coal-fired electricity.
The modern obsession of people like you will result in further deterioration in air quality, as electricity becomes increasingly expensive (and unreliable) and the use of gas is banned, so people will have a choice of freezing to death or burning wood or cow dung. The burning of the last certainly reduces life expectancy in Africa, and burning wood releases lots of particulates (I know from 18 years in a wood fire suburb).
BUt never mind, there will be the 26TH Climate Conference later this year (unless postponed again) in Glasgow. You can look forward to the same effective and decisive action as in the previous 25. A complete waste of time and money.
90
‘Right on Bro’, we’re all gonna die eh ?. . .
And ‘premature deaths’- get real Ian, average age is now higher than at any timein the past.
GeoffW
110
No Geoff we’re not all gonna die but increasing coal burning is not going to increase longevity either
05
Ian, HELE coal-fired power stations emit only CO2 and water vapour. What are you worried about?
30
GD, he knows that; but he has a job to do.
40
¥ ¥
10
When you keep 30% of your population in abject poverty and another 10% as slave labourers, get your technology for development for free (either gifted or stolen, usually the latter) totally disregard patents, and make billions from fentanyl exports, you can do an awful lot economically PF.
240
When you have that going on, who needs to subsidize anything?
That’s what I’d call a “structural subsidy’ one that’s built into the economic structure of the Communist Chinese economy.
And the World Trade Organisation is OK with that.
Australia is OK with that. All the ‘free world” is OK with that.
If they weren’t then you’d see massive action taking place at the WTO. Surely?
Or at the UN Human on Rights Commission.
So, the conclusion has to be that Communist China is acting well within the boundaries of the accepted international standards of behaviour.
80
Waht are you talking about?
18
🙂
I understand it’s very difficult for you Peter to understand concepts outside your narrow and biased political frame.
Perhaps if you tried to think, it might help you in a variety of ways.
Let me spell that out for you. When I say “think” I mean: “think for yourself”.
It’s pretty clear to most who visit Jo’s site that you are really nothing more than a mouthpiece for the green-left woksters. Pity that. You can change it, you know?
60
What rubbish. Don’t any of your coaled powerstations have electrostatic precipitators? With those, exhausts are very clean.
So increasing coal burning is not going to do any harm.
40
Fitzroy continuing to champion forced labour …
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/05/19/china-made-solar-cheap-through-coal-subsidies–forced-labor-not-efficiency/?sh=77c70c9871ec
151
Like all good Marxists the means justifies the end. Utopia must be achieved at all costs.
70
Peter F
You say “As to the snide remark about China’s economy, it is generating enough wealth to fund just about anything they want, Space Stations, Belt and Road, pay rises, infrastructure, goods and services, luxury items…. Name one other economy that is generating wealth at the rate that China is achieving.”
Yet for CO2 reduction purposes, China gets a discount because it is a “developing nation”. By that standard, Australia is an undeveloped nation, and should have no reduction commitments?
200
What are you talking about?
18
Waht?
10
Peter F
If you don’t know, you are massively ignorant.
10
Your source explicitly says the views and opinions it cites are those of the author[s Muyu Xu and Shivani Singh]; and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
So to avoid being misleading, you should cite them rather than NASDAQ.
I’m unsure what comment about China’s economy you are characterising as ‘snide’. Possibly you could tell us? Because if you are referring to Zigmaster’s comment (the first comment) then you might be misreading it.
Certainly you are right that China has developed a tremendous amount of wealth. It now has more billionaires than any country on Earth and a vastly increased standard of living for the ordinary citizen. But don’t credit this to Communism; the Communes were abolished back in 1983. They’ve followed the Capitalist Road laid out by Deng Xiaoping for the last fifty years, despite being a one-party totalitarianism.
10
Wake up Australia! Maybe now you will realise that solar/wind is not the cheapest or most reliable forms of power! Given all the carbon neutrality crap that is being bandied about I doubt it!
310
This doesn’t bode well for Australian Superannuation which, under the guidance of union heads turned Fund Managers, are now heavily loaded up with Renewables.
Poor fella my Super.
280
“Fund Managers, are now heavily loaded up with Renewables”
Probably better for everyone’s health than being heavily loaded up with fossil fuels.
021
¥ ¥
Just curious while we’re talking about other people’s money and the hard work to earn it and save for the future;
do you get paid in Yen.
¥ ¥
100
“Fund Managers, are now heavily loaded up with Renewables”
And they’re in good company with John John Hewson and MalEx444.
130
Why do you assume fossil fuels are dirty? Modern ICE are very clean today. Furthermore, if a significant portion of the urban transport fleet is going be EV, then all those additional electrons will need to come from FF. Wind and solar can’t possibly do it. Why not build new clean/efficient coal powered electron generation for pennies on the dollar? Why bankrupt generations yet unborn?
190
“Why not build new clean/efficient coal powered electron generation for pennies on the dollar?”
Best ask the Chinese why they are cutting subsidies to renewables as they haven’t consulted with me about it so can’t assist
08
“the Chinese …. haven’t consulted with me about it”
That’s understandable;
no one said that they were stupid.
80
KK
No! THEY aren’t stupid.
10
Ian said
None of us need to ask.
10
China has obvioulsy read the latest CSIRO report: Renewables still cheapest power.
See comments at #18 on Thursday Open Thread
You make the right assumptions and you get the answer you want.
Australia should stop all “renewable” subsidies and targets.
If CSIRO is correct (a big assumption) then governments should stop all the hype about imposing zero targets and let the market deliver.
200
Robber:
Those figures were ‘made up’ but I agree with you – take them as true and get rid of targets and subsidies and ‘let nature take its course’.
120
China never intends to reduce emissions. They know the left leaning MSM in the west will always fawn over their propaganda claims of going to zero emissions and then remain mostly silent when that doesn’t happen. In this regard, China proves that the MSM and green movement is not concerned about CO2 emissions and climate change, else they would be public enemy No 1. The fact that China gets praise despite increasing its already enormous emissions and yet our own LNP government is hammered for not reducing our tiny emissions fast enough, is essentially the smoking gun that CO2 is being used as a tool by the climate Marxists to bring down their own national economies to allow the great reset.
170
Obviously China does not want renewables, they are completing one new coal-fired power station each week. This will ensure that they completely dominate the world when the next big freeze occurs. The windmills will freeze up, the solar panels will be covered in ice and snow so there will be no electricity in countries like Australia that have implemented a CO2 abatement policy. People will die of cold and starvation in their millions if not billions if the freeze is sufficiently widespread. Try delivering food in electric powered vehicles that can no longer be recharged.
China knows full well that there is no such thing as CO2 induced climate change. If CO2 caused the Earth’s surface to be 33 deg.C hotter then there would not be snow on the mountain ranges, same land surface underfoot receiving the same sunshine with the same atmosphere above containing the same concentration of CO2.
The simple fact is that of the radiative gases, water vapour is 25 times more prevalent than CO2 and is 52 times more radiatively active. Furthermore any back-radiation cannot heat the Earth’s surface. Only heat from a hotter source can do that. The radiative gases warm the atmosphere via collisions with other atmospheric gases.
When you stand outside in a shaded spot with the open sky above you do not feel any heat radiating down from the sky. The temperature that you feel is the local ambient atmospheric temperature only.
160
“If CO2 caused the Earth’s surface to be 33 deg.C hotter”
Yes! That one concept arises from the deliberate abuse of two physical factors.
First, in this day and age you would hardly think it possible, but the idea of a theoretical “black body” has been abused by Global Warming “Scientists”.
Second is the connected misapplication of the Stephan and Boltzman equation.
The S-B equation requires significant skill and understanding for it to be used correctly, and especially should be kept away from computer programmers working for the AlGorithm.
🙂
30
You all know how I keep ‘harping on’ about how it’s not Nameplate that’s the important thing, it’s the actual generated power.
Green supporters point to China as an example of how they now have (far and away) the largest amount of Wind and Solar power, so, because of that, then they really truly have a commitment to renewable power.
China Nameplate Wind Generation – 280GW (and for comparison, Australia has 8.6GW Nameplate)
China Nameplate Solar Power Plant Generation – 250GW (and for comparison, Australia has 6GW Nameplate)
However, when you actually look at the generated power, it tells a whole other story indeed.
Wind generation has a low Capacity Factor as I have often pointed out. Here in Australia, that Capacity Factor is 29.5%.
However, the CF in China for wind generation is only 19%
Solar Generation in Australia is operating at a CF of 15%, while in China, that CF for all its Solar power plants is just 11.8%
As part of the overall power generation, in Australia Wind delivers 10.3% and Solar 3.8% of all generated power.
In China Wind delivers 6.2% and Solar 3.3% of all the generated power.
So, while China does indeed have far and away the largest Nameplate, they know that the Western World concentrates on that Nameplate, (and fully realise that fact) so that’s what is highlighted.
You have to know where to look to find that actual data, and that’s where China is cagy enough to understand that the HEADLINE is Nameplate, and THAT is what makes them look good.
When it comes to ACTUAL power delivery in China the reliance is on Coal fired power, Hydro power, and now, to a growing extent, Nuclear Power.
Those CF percentages for both wind and solar, and the percentages of overall power delivery in China are low by World standards.
Tony.
150
Tony, the green Marxist supporters of China who quote those large nameplate numbers, are the same ones that glue themselves to roadways over here, claiming that we aren’t even acting on CC, even though we have twice the RE nameplate installed per capita. This is not about the science, but all about the politics. You will never make those idiots happy until the country is on its knees and people are dying in the streets on mass, due to starvation.
80
China has dipped its toes into capitalism and are retracting because it threatens the CCP existence. Increase in middle income population gives affordability to wider travel and exposure to wider world. This is outside of CCP control and people do talk. This has become a problem to the CCP.
China has been able to undercut cost of manufacturing for a while but not for much longer. In all cases producing substandard goods while using high volume of energy. Any manufacturing moving outside of china is going to negatively impact the middle income population. This also is becoming a problem for the CCP.
What China is doing is keeping the CCP lid on control of its population and it does that by creating false enemies and the iron grip of own media. A typical communist juvenile reaction because it does not have play fair diplomatic strategies.
Emissions are the by-product of combustion and there is no energy source that one could ever call clean and not just in combustion. Fossil fuel is the only one that can be managed successfully. There is a vast difference between what constitutes pollution and what CO2 is.
To date, globally, attempts to mitigate emissions have failed and at a very high cost. Attempts to lover the CO2 output didn’t work. Now, that was an attempt to mitigate the CO2 output. To go and plan net zero emissions is the single most stupid idea ever uttered in this space.
What will drive the successful outcome out of this mess is technology development in the space of energy efficiency. This will further lower the emissions output. This will reduce operating costs and consequently lower the energy costs. This means having reliable power at all times and increase in productivity and more jobs. This also represents a healthy ROI for such investments and more money in peoples pockets.
CO2 contributes to agricultural productivity and that is the food chain security. There can not be an argument about it.
110
Thanks. A useful perspective.
I assume a path out is not just through energy efficiency but through the West discovering its conscience and deciding not to buy goods made with slave labor. If the West were to cut off the flow the money — that would surely help unbalance things in China, though it might get very messy, or even incite a warlike response from a threatened government. But if it was the whole world against China it might just work. China stooges in the West would presumably work “pretty hard” against that.
150
I suspect that China noted the statements from G7 Meeting leaders about world trade and stability, and their commitments to protecting these important to all nations prosperity goals.
Clearly when powerful allies join together with less powerful allies that also have strengths to offer even a very powerful nation must reconsider its position.
40
One only needs to study the lead-up to Japan’s war in Asia to get an understanding of what may eventuate when the world acts in unison to sanction a nation that has, by way of its education system, developed a highly nationalistic populace.
A good starting point can be found at:
https://apjjf.org/2012/10/37/Richard-J.-Smethurst/3825/article.html
40
China has a hell of a lot of mouths to feed, if they get militaristic, they might find the rivers of food cut off.
20
Gasp! Are you suggesting that the Chinese don’t really believe the Man Made global Warming story?
60
This could be the biggest ‘gift’ the CCP has unwittingly given the West. It should blow open the entire global warming charade, especially if our leftist press doesn’t realise the implications and attacks the apparent failure of the CCP to comply with that leftist Trojan horse.
90
I am still shaking my head after reading in The Australian about business leaders carrying on about climate change (the hoax they cannot understand) action and net zero emissions, etc.
Business people wanting economic vandalism to deal with a problem that is natural Earth Cycles and man made solutions that are not needed?
They apparently ignore the advice of qualified people like Professor emeritus of Earth Sciences and a Geologist Ian Plimer who is one of many who can explain it to them.
Then again the politicians, or most of them, are just as ignorant and easily misled.
140
Yes, I too am amused at these so-called titans of industry demonstrating their complete ignorance of the Marxist cliché: “The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope”.
(Notwithstanding the lack of evidence that Marx ever wrote it or said it – but that’s another story).
70
‘This could be the biggest ‘gift’ the CCP has unwittingly given the West.’
Beijing is building new coal fired power stations every other week, Bitcoin mining requires a lot of energy. Shameless arrogance and ignorance.
The game is up for global warming, this new pause in temperatures should falsify AGW.
50
“Should”, is the operative word.
However, it won’t. Extremists prefer death to defeat. As Max Planck said (or not): “Science advances one funeral at a time.”
50
Let’s see if any of the usual suspects still insist that China is leading the world in the transition to renewables.
Why might they do so? One possible reason is that it was never about CO2 and renewables but instead was always about hatred of Western society, hatred of the US and hatred of the oil and gas industry, which is regarded as the foundation stone upon which US industrial power was built. And, of course, my enemy’s enemy being my friend, they would embrace any actor or any narrative that they saw as operating against the interests of the objects of their hatred. That’s one of many possible reasons.
30
No no no. This is rubbish. Solar and wind is so cheap now China cant afford to build coal power. Its just simple mathematics. Ask Malcolm Turnbull’s son.
60
Born lucky.
10
Ian has been carrying on in multiple comments about particulates from coal plants harming health. He ignores that newer plants have scrubbers that lower particulate levels and that in most countries, coal plants are not located near major population centers.
Finally, Ian doesn’t (or chooses not to) see that coal improves the quality of life by providing affordable and reliable electricity for all the modern industries that provide jobs and products and “conveniences” like lighting, healthcare, refrigeration….
If Ian was actually concerned about the overall well-being of Australians, he would advocate upgrading all of our coal plants to cleaner, higher efficiency plants with a few more added for greater system reliability
40
While I am all for cleaner energy, one needs to be pragmatic. My personal take on energy resources for the future (ignoring such nonsense as ‘zero emissions’) is a mixture of Coal/Oil/Gas/Solar/Wind/Nuclear/Hydrogen in reasonable percentages. For Example, Tasmania could survive on Hydro/Wind/Solar energy only. The rest of Australia needs the non-renewable sources to survive. And remember…apart from wood and water, there is no such thing as “RENEWABLE ENERGY”.
10