China continues to increase coal usage
- Thread starter R P
- Start date
- Replies 33
- Views 8K
China builds https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Supercritical_coal_plant that are more efficient than the legacy, low efficiency coal plants in the USA.
Bob Wilson
Bob Wilson
SouthernDude
Active Member
lol. yep. China's coal related emissions will keep steadily increasing while the rest of the industrialized world shifts away from coal. I'm almost certain that China will become the largest cumulative emitter sometime this decade too, even though that metric is pretty stupid if you think about it.
China makes and exports a lot of Tesla’s and other EVs.
Bob Wilson
Bob Wilson
R P
Well-Known Member
Yes, and they burn coal to do it, not too mention all the other goods manufactured there that we happily buy here.
SouthernDude
Active Member
Who is looking up to China? It's mostly just people turning a blind eye to what China is doing and making lame excuses to justify the emissions. I'm fairly positive that whatever emissions reported from China are actually a lie and it's probably much higher than what is reported. The same happened with ozone-depleting emissions. Why is this any different?
Granted, I think the effects of climate change are exaggerated. However, I find the behavior and suggestions of climate alarmists to be.. uh.. inconsistent. If climate change is such a major giant super bad global problem, why do these people not want to have carbon tariffs on imports/exports? It's the only way to effect emissions in other sovereign nations aside from a literal invasion. Instead, they just blame the west for it all. Weird isn't it?
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ch-air-pollution-in-china-falling-study-shows
Personally, we live at 600 ft above sea level. Melting ice will:
The whole world will never be underwater. But our coastlines would be very different. If all the ice covering Antarctica , Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet). The ocean would cover all the coastal cities.
A significant portion, 10-25%, would have to move inland. Many islands and some countries would lose population. It is physics, not politics.
Bob Wilson
SouthernDude
Active Member
lol. Ok. So did you post the wrong article? The study cited in the article has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions, which is the topic being discussed here. This study is actually about particulate matter, ozone, indoor air pollution from indoor fuel use, ozone, etc. The only line in the study that mentions anything about climate change says this:
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ch-air-pollution-in-china-falling-study-shows
Personally, we live at 600 ft above sea level. Melting ice will:
The whole world will never be underwater. But our coastlines would be very different. If all the ice covering Antarctica , Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet). The ocean would cover all the coastal cities.
A significant portion, 10-25%, would have to move inland. Many islands and some countries would lose population. It is physics, not politics.
Bob Wilson
"The Chinese Government issued the Healthy China Action 2019–2030 in July 2019, and healthy environment promotion is one of the 15 major areas for action, but recent increases in Chinese coal burning capacity will pose challenges to continuing progress in reducing air pollution levels and disease burden, as well as meeting climate change goals. The environmental Kuznets curve predicts that environmental pollution will follow an inverse U-shaped curve with respect to economic growth; economic development entails rising levels of environmental pollution, which improves after some level of income growth has occurred. China's experience has, unfortunately, corroborated the first stage of this model. It is in everyone's interest that, with further economic development in China, more sustainable development polices will be instituted and enforced to reduce the effect of air pollution on long-term economic development and population health."
Event the study agrees that China's greenhouse gas emissions are a problem and coal use is not decreasing. Heck, it even reads like they predict that greenhouse gas emissions will keep increasing.
Also, what does all the ice in the world melting have to do with anything? This is just poisoning the well.
You are free to discuss anything you 'think' might be important. I'm more interested in the health killing local pollution as I experienced it in the 1960-70s. We also have experience more recent experience with coal ash:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill
For some strange (actually predictable) reason you seem to think only in global warming, CO{2} levels. I really don't care as much as local pollution kills ... and I've experience it.
In 1972, I was driving my 1966 VW MicroBus and took a cloverleaf. Suddenly the pollution was so severe my eyes involuntarily teared up making it all but impossible to see. Fortunately, I had a T-shirt next to the driver seat still damp from water earlier. I could wipe my face and made it through the cloverleaf safely.
So are you suggesting global CO{2} is more important than lung eating, eye burning, asthma triggering local pollution? How quaint.
Bob Wilson
Doesn't bother me. I have four younger brothers and only Dave lives close enough to the coast to be at risk. Charles has gone permanent RV and in eastern Oregon. Brothers George and William are in Arizona, well above the future sea level.
Of all the CO{2} and other global warming gasses, the biggest risk is loss of habitable land due to sea level rise. There are others but this is the one that is 24x7x365. It means human populations have to move inland.
So be a right-wing patsy and post nonsense. I don't mind and enjoy puncturing your false claims.
Bob Wilson
SouthernDude
Active Member
lol. Explain to me how China consuming more coal is going to result in less greenhouse gas emissions and less local pollution? It isn't. Even the study you linked says as much. What are you trying to prove?You are free to discuss anything you 'think' might be important. I'm more interested in the health killing local pollution as I experienced it in the 1960-70s. We also have experience more recent experience with coal ash:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill
For some strange (actually predictable) reason you seem to think only in global warming, CO{2} levels. I really don't care as much as local pollution kills ... and I've experience it.
In 1972, I was driving my 1966 VW MicroBus and took a cloverleaf. Suddenly the pollution was so severe my eyes involuntarily teared up making it all but impossible to see. Fortunately, I had a T-shirt next to the driver seat still damp from water earlier. I could wipe my face and made it through the cloverleaf safely.
So are you suggesting global CO{2} is more important than lung eating, eye burning, asthma triggering local pollution? How quaint.
Bob Wilson
>For some strange (actually predictable) reason you seem to think only in global warming, CO{2} levels.
Yeah. No duh. This discussion is about greenhouse gas emissions. lol.
>Oh, but my old man story!
Yes, that all happened well before I was a twinkle in my dad's eye. lol. Yes, air pollution was worse in the US a long time ago. Cool. Great. What does that have to do with what's happening in China now? Is it not better for the people in China and people everywhere if China uses less coal, which is literally the whole point of the thread?
Perhaps you need a second account, say 'sockpuppet', so you can argue against yourself.
Bob Wilson
SouthernDude
Active Member
No no no. Let me help you. It's called having good faith in the discussion. I genuinely wasn't sure if you intentionally posted this link to the article. Why? Because the quote in your original message wasn't in the article and this thread is about China's use of coal and greenhouse gas emissions. It's fine to change the topic in a thread, but a link without relevant discussion isn't the way to do it. lol. Obviously, local pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are different topics.
News to me. Most the time you just talk past whatever I post or just flat out ignore it. lol
So I'm sanguine about local coal pollution and the effect on the Chinese. Regardless, I really don't care about Chinese local pollution ... it is their problem. As for global, greenhouse gases, it is beyond just China ... but perhaps you prefer to ignore the facts and data.
I've got a great, 2019 Std Rng Plus Model 3 and it is wonderful. I really don't care about your ride.
Bob Wilson
I've got a great, 2019 Std Rng Plus Model 3 and it is wonderful. I really don't care about your ride.
Bob Wilson
From Proverbs 26:
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. Like cutting off one's feet or drinking violence is the sending of a message by the hand of a fool.
Bob Wilson
SouthernDude
Active Member
Uh. Ok? Then why bring it up?
China is literally the top emitter. The US is second (1). In the US, coal is dwindling and new natural gas is stalling with the possibility of natural gas declining (2). Based on the IEEFA report, it is reasonable to assume that coal may be a negligible player in the US energy market as a whole by 2030 and that Natural Gas will start to loose market share in the same time frame. China, on the other hand, consumes the most coal globally and shows no sign of slowing down consumption in the near future. Secondly, the CCP doesn't have a good track record on reducing emissions (or even being honest in their data about this) in general (3), which makes people trust them less. This is why people single out China when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions: they emit the most and there's no guarantee that they will meaningfully ramp things down. Nobody is ignoring the rest of the world's emissions, its just that China's emissions have the worst and most impactful trend.
1. https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions
2. http://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/US-Power-Sector-Outlook_March-2021.pdf
3. https://news.mit.edu/2019/scientists-discover-new-cfc-emissions-source-0523
Is this supposed to accomplish something? Not sure.
SouthernDude
Active Member
Lol. You are a Unitarian Universalist. The Bible has no real worth to you.