The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Truenorth00]

My real concern with all those whining about China, is that they are missing the forest for the trees. Sure, China has tons of total emissions today. But they are building an economy and infrastructure that lets them be competitive in a world of declining emissions. Meanwhile, there's a ton of folks here who just want to use China as an excuse for inaction, unwittingly setting us up to get run over. This is the 4D chess of Trump....

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I am sure oilprice.com doesn't have a horse in this race

Stop presenting China's coal plants without acknowledging that China is also investing more than any other country in renewables and EVs. I can't believe how many people are clueless about scale and per capita numbers...

Canada has a long way to go before we can start pointing fingers at Russia, China, India, or any of the other countries that we use to justify continued investment in oil (thanks for the visual, Truenorth):

China is mostly investing in green technology for export, not for its own domestic transition. It continues to build fossil fuel capacity far faster than it is building renewable capacity. Less than 2% of vehicles on the road in China are electric, despite being the world’s major producer.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

China is mostly investing in green technology for export, not for its own domestic transition.

As usual, a post that ignores context. A country that manufactures 120 GWs worth of panels is going to find it challenging to install that much annually. They install one third to a half of all the renewables they produce though. And this is more than the US and the EU combined.

Originally Posted by acottawa

It continues to build fossil fuel capacity far faster than it is building renewable capacity.

Is that what you see here:

Originally Posted by acottawa

Less than 2% of vehicles on the road in China are electric, despite being the world’s major producer.

Yes. Sales mix lags road mix. Is this new information to you? Now look up what the road mix is, with our pathetic EV penetration rate. China went from from ~5% to 20% sales share over the last year and they are accelerating as EVs hit price parity. We're still trying to get people to think about buying hybrids here. Being an oil importer tends to motivate governments to cut oil consumption.

The real irony is that all of you "But China..." folks are only succeeding in making Canada more vulnerable through your appeals for inaction. It's not China that is left dependent on oil exports, with no capacity to manufacture renewables.

[ssiguy]

International carbon taxes would do wonders for our planet and "encourage" countries to quickly decarbonize their economies.

Reducing emissions from transportation is already under way on a worldwide scale and within 20 years they will be the overwhelming new vehicles sales and within the decade of Western ones. This is not just cars but also trucking, cargo, freight, and soon after, air travel thru hydrogen. In terms of GHG emissions from transportation, we seem to have finally gotten our acts together.

The big boy on the block will be the use of coal for electricity and cement production. This is were duties will force countries to decarbonize. The reason coal is used is because it's cheap and heavy duties/fees on countries still using coal-fired plants would see that cost advantage vanish and eventually become a real economic liability and the duties would change coal from being the cheapest option to the most expensive one.

It is unreasonable to expect the world {especially developing ones like China & India} to get off coal within the next few years no matter how much we may want it. Right now these countries need that cheap power to grow their economies and increase the standard of living for it's citizens.

What can be done is forcing countries to greatly reduce the emissions from coal. As an example, the West can put mandates for a stop to all new coal-fired plants within the next 2 years, then demand complete carbon capture from coal/natural gas by 2030, and a complete phase out of fossil fuel production by 2050. The duties would be reviewed yearly and countries not in compliance will pay dearly and the duty will increase exponentially every single year they miss any of the targets. This of course would include all countries including Western ones.

Such a plan forces countries to decarbonize and yet takes in the reality that it cannot be done overnight and is unreasonable to expect it to do so. As I have said many times, the problem is not so much the use of fossil fuels but rather that we take a safe commodity from underground and then stick in the air. Mother Nature doesn't mind us playing with her toys as long as we put them back when we are done.

[Truenorth00]

In Copenhagen, the developed world agreed to provide a hundred billion per year in financing by 2020, to enable developing countries to adopt renewables. Not only did the developed world not meet their own targets on emissions cuts. But they fell far short of the financing goals and now lecture the developing world on cutting emissions. I don't blame the developing world for seeing the West as hypocrites.

Twelve years ago, at a United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen, rich nations made a significant pledge. They promised to channel US$100 billion a year to less wealthy nations by 2020, to help them adapt to climate change and mitigate further rises in temperature.

That promise was broken. Figures for 2020 are not yet in, and those who negotiated the pledge don’t agree on accounting methods, but a report last year for the UN1 concluded that “the only realistic scenarios” showed the $100-billion target was out of reach....

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02846-3

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

My real concern with all those whining about China, is that they are missing the forest for the trees. Sure, China has tons of total emissions today. But they are building an economy and infrastructure that lets them be competitive in a world of declining emissions. Meanwhile, there's a ton of folks here who just want to use China as an excuse for inaction, unwittingly setting us up to get run over. This is the 4D chess of Trump....

The USA built its last coal-fired power plant in 2011. According to Time, China currently is planning to build 43 new ones. So despite all the prevaricating it is pretty clear who is adding to GHG emissions right now, not in some hypothetical future.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The USA built its last coal-fired power plant in 2011. According to Time, China currently is planning to build 43 new ones. So despite all the prevaricating it is pretty clear who is adding to GHG emissions right now, not in some hypothetical future.

Correct. Poorer countries rely on dirtier power because the developed world failed to deliver the financing promised. Add India and soon Africa to the pile. Maybe if folks like you really lecture them hard enough, they'll choose energy poverty to let you live in first world comfort, with your outsized carbon footprint. I have my doubts that this is a viable strategy though.

[Hackslack]

Does the fact China is communist have anything to do with their choice of power?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Does the fact China is communist have anything to do with their choice of power?

They'd probably be worse, if they weren't. Their entire renewables and EV sector has been directed from the centre. And despite all the talk about coal plants, they are also building a ton of nuclear.

I worry less about China than I do about Africa. China will pivot hard as soon as the economics break in their favour. And to some extent, this has already begun. That's a whole different ballgame than Africa with its high population growth rate, lack of grid infrastructure, and poor governance.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Correct. Poorer countries rely on dirtier power because the developed world failed to deliver the financing promised. Add India and soon Africa to the pile. Maybe if folks like you really lecture them hard enough, they'll choose energy poverty to let you live in first world comfort, with your outsized carbon footprint. I have my doubts that this is a viable strategy though.

China isn't the developing world anymore.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

China isn't the developing world anymore.

China's GDP per capita is $10 500. There's about 70 countries that are wealthier than they are. Give or take. Yet, you want to hold them to the same standard as say the US? Okay....When the US built their last coal plant in 2011, US GDP per capita was ~$50k.

[CivicBlues]

Originally Posted by whatnext

China isn't the developing world anymore.

It still is by every conceivable measure today - GDP, HDI, GNI. I thought you were our resident China expert?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

It still is by every conceivable measure today - GDP, HDI, GNI. I thought you were our resident China expert?

Tencent's Pony Ma and real estate tycoon Yang Huiyan both set records in Huron's Global Rich List 2018.

More than one new billionaire a day was created across the world in 2018, four a week were minted in China according to the 7th Hurun Global Rich List 2018.

Indeed, of the 437 new billionaires in 2018, 210 came from China. Of this elite crowd, Pony Ma of Tencent was a leader with $47 billion. «A boom in China, a weak dollar» were two factors contributing to the continued growth in Chinese wealth, according to Rupert Hoogerwerf, chief researcher at Hurun Report.

Chinese stock exchanges were another – 601 Chinese billionaires attributed their wealth in 2018 to the capital markets, a number made particularly impressive by the fact that only 252 billionaires on the list attributed wealth creation to the world's largest capital market, the U.S....

I guess they don't like to share or they are protected by their ties to The Party.

[CivicBlues]

LOL so rich people are now a measure of "developed" country status now? I suggest you look up with Gini coefficient refers to.


India is full of Billionaires too (#3). So is Brazil (#7). Are they all developed according to you?

You're not actually disagreeing with anything I've said. I know, just take a moment and reflect on such a rare occasion.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

LOL so rich people are now a measure of "developed" country status now? I suggest you look up with Gini coefficient refers to.


India is full of Billionaires too (#3). So is Brazil (#7). Are they all developed according to you?

You're not actually disagreeing with anything I've said. I know, just take a moment and reflect on such a rare occasion.

So you're arguing that China does not have the wealth to forego coal-fired powerplants?

[theman23]

You should start a Great Canadian Chinese bogeyman thread please and thanks.

[CivicBlues]

No I was merely refuting your statement that China is no longer a developing country. In either case the number of coal fired power plants are not a function of the number of private billionaires in China any more than availability of universal healthcare is a function of Bezos and Musk's net worth.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So you're arguing that China does not have the wealth to forego coal-fired powerplants?

If we're using the standard of the US (GDP of $50k per capita when ending coal power plant construction), they do not.

[Hackslack]

Is China’s rates of GhG per capita increasing? At least for power generation. Maybe TrueNorth can provide a chart with link (truly, I am impressed with your ability to provide the meaningful info)… considering that, if I am to believe China is in fact building 40 more coal fired power plant, and birth rates stagnant if not declining, their GHg per capita must be increasing. and how does that compare with Canada? I know in AB there has been massive investment in green energy power generation, in addition to converting coal to nat gas fired power plants.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Is China’s rates of GhG per capita increasing?

Yes, it has been. GHG/capita is correlated with GDP/capita and so as they get wealthier they emit more. They aren't the only ones. Historically, pollution only tended to decline once countries hit middle income. This is about where China is now. And we're starting to see internal pressure both in the public and in their government on cutting pollution of all kinds.

Originally Posted by Hackslack

At least for power generation. Maybe TrueNorth can provide a chart with link (truly, I am impressed with your ability to provide the meaningful info)… considering that, if I am to believe China is in fact building 40 more coal fired power plant, and birth rates stagnant if not declining, their GHg per capita must be increasing. and how does that compare with Canada? I know in AB there has been massive investment in green energy power generation, in addition to converting coal to nat gas fired power plants.

They are building all kinds of generation. Everybody brings up coal. Nobody ever mentions the fact that they are spending $440B on 150 nuclear reactors over the next 15 years. There's more nuclear power being planned and built in China than the rest of the world built over the last 35 years.

As far as GHG/capita their emissions are about half that of the US or Canada and on par with most European countries. Per capita emissions growth is slowing. They seem to be bending the curve so to speak. Handy wiki article with numbers...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ons_per_person

Also, as Carbon Tracker showed in their analysis, there's a lot of plants that don't run anywhere near their nameplate capacity factors. So we may get lucky and those 40 plants don't add as much carbon as we fear.....

Ultimately with China, at this point I actually worry less about the pollution than their massive dominance in these sectors. They can and will use them eventually to cut pollution, while leaving everybody else in the dust. While everyone was complaining about their coal plants, they also built the manufacturing capacity to make 120 GW of solar panels. And they make so many batteries, that they are alone to batteries, more than what OPEC is to oil. And they can use that dominance to gain strategic advantages. The American and Europeans are slowly starting to get this. But I guess this realization is probably about 5-10 years away in Canada.