I found this report at OilPrice.com by Irina Slav on China’s backing away from its environmental pledges grimly amusing:
China has taken a step back from emission reduction commitments amid the energy crunch that caused factory closures and power rationing.
In a statement, Premier Li Keqiang said that the stable supply of energy must be the foundation of any transition to a less emission-intensive future.
“Energy security should be the premise on which a modern energy system is built, and the capacity for energy self-supply should be enhanced,†Li said as quoted by Bloomberg.
Based on this, Beijing now plans to make sure that its goal to reach peak emissions by 2030 and a net zero emission status by 2060 will be pursued in a “sound and well-paced†manner.
which tallies perfectly with what I’ve been saying for a long time. There’s nobody better than the CCP at writing press releases. I have considerable admiration for that ability. Following through on the claims in the press releases? Not so much.
Go back and take a look at the graph I put up yesterday. The increase in global coal utilization along with its attendant air pollution not to mention carbon emissions can largely be attributed to China. China is in a difficult situation. A lot of the country’s economic growth over the last couple of decades has been in heavy manufacturing, notoriously energy-intensive. China has substantial coal resources but not enough oil or natural gas to supply its needs and the country remains committed to substantial self-reliance for vital needs which include both food and energy. Expect China’s expansion of its reliance on coal to be pushed back ever farther. Lord, make me net zero but not yet.
Given China’s long term goals, their patience and their ruthlessness I would expect them to never get to net zero while waiting for the west to commit industrial and societal suicide.
Perhaps the only event that might spur them is for the west to finally get their act together, rapidly develop nuclear and reindustrialize.
Actually I believe the Chinese government is very serious about reducing coal usage (but not necessarily oil/natural gas usage).
Coal produces “traditional” pollution (i.e. smog) and dirty air is a real source of unrest for the urban middle class. So clean air aligns with the CCP’s paranoia about staying in power. Hence the deals to buy any/all natural gas that Russia, Qatar can produce.
Climate change hasn’t / isn’t seen like traditional air pollution as a cause of unrest. So the incentives for the CCP work differently on CO2 emissions.
To my eyes, Premier Li statement sounds much more “reality” based then the Biden administration.
2060 Eh?
Mark that on the calendar and hold them to it.
Wait, Isn’t the earth going to be uninhabitable by 2030?
How is Lloyds of London pricing this?
Or maybe we should check Vegas odds?
AGW is a scam. World temperatures were warmer than today in the Middle Ages, warmer yet during the Roman expansion, and again warmer yet during the Minoan era. No climates disasters of any kind occurred in those eras. Actually the 1930’s were warmer than now. Remember the Dust Bowl?
Each year extreme cold kills ten times as many people as extreme heat. The world would be better for everyone, including wildlife and biodiversity if the world were warmer If Canada, Scandinavia, and Siberia could be heated up, there would be a massive increase in arable land and land for wildlife.
China’s emission problem is not carbon dioxide, it is soot and sulfur from low quality bituminous and brown coal. There are techniques to reduce both, but they are expensive, and they reduce net electricity production
IN a related note the French are face a up hill struggle to get the EU to say nuclear power is green power. Imagine when its all done, they will also take a step back.
As I told a certain ER doctor, China was going green as long as it suited them, and now, it no longer suits them.
Its almost like no one has ever run a business, or even a household budget. Long term I want to upgrade the monitors in our hospital. Short term I dont have the capital and the company has a big backlog anyway. We cant stop seeing pts just because we want to change to the new monitors. So we will buy the few we can find and afford and meanwhile keep using the older ones until we can meet our goal. IOW, when your long term goal is 40 years away having a setback in the present isn’t a crisis and doesnt mean you have to abandon the long term goal.
Steve
“AGW is a scam. World temperatures were warmer than today in the Middle Ages, warmer yet during the Roman expansion, and again warmer yet during the Minoan era. No climates disasters of any kind occurred in those eras. Actually the 1930’s were warmer than now. Remember the Dust Bowl?â€
Well said.
However, those AGW acolytes rarely look at historical comparisons, tree rings having memories of flood and drought, or even recent miscalculations of glaciers disappearing, lands flooded, etc. Somehow climate variability is always synced with CO2 emissions, even though studies in Japan and Finland, a few years back, showed little evidence that they had any influence on climate. Nonetheless, global warming frenzy chugs onward, putting green energy spins on everything in order to politically achieve the goals they want.
I don’t agree that AGW is a scam although I will readily agree that many if not most of the strategies being proposed to deal with it are scams. It certainly lends itself to scams. I can’t tell you whether the Germans in particular are being scammed or if they’re just delusional. It’s got to be one or the other. I have no other way of explaining their aversion to nuclear power and increasing reliance on compressed wood pellets for heating. They seem to believe those those are net zero. That’s the difference between theory and practice. In theory wood pellets are net zero. In practice they’re not if you’re cutting down old growth forests to produce them which is what is happening.
I think it’s a risk. Views can differ legitimately as to the seriousness and imminence of the risk. If there’s one thing we should have learned over the last two years about progressive politicians it is that they are extremely risk averse.
No, 1934 was not an especially warm year if we are talking about global temperatures. What people like you guys do is pick a specific area and specific year to try to “prove” something ignoring that the US makes up a very small portion of the globe.
“The year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking sixth behind 2012, 2016, 2015, 2006, and 1998. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet, including the oceans. The land area of the U.S. accounts for only 2% of Earth’s total surface area. Despite the U.S. sweltering in 1934, that year was not especially hot over the rest of the planet, as you can see on the 1934 map below. Globally, 1934 temperatures were actually cooler than average for the 20th century.”- From Skeptical Science. When you believe stuff that is incredibly easy to prove wrong you ought to have second thoughts, but you wont.
Steve