.jpg){kind=link}
Essay by Eric Worrall
Even though the IEA Claims “Solar is the Cheapest Energy in History“, China has demanded a pass to continue to raise emissions until 2030, to pull their people out of poverty.
Pacific: Australia pressured on climate change, China gets a free pass
Andrew Tillett Political correspondent
Jul 15, 2022 – 3.11pmAnthony Albanese has claimed vindication for his trip to Fiji for the Pacific Islands Forum, saying Australia’s standing in the region has been enhanced as it competes with China.
And one of the Prime Minister’s key allies, Pacific Minister Pat Conroy, suggests China’s efforts to gain influence could be hampered if it does not do more to reduce its carbon emissions.
…
But while Australia is being urged to do more and was sometimes attacked at the Pacific Islands Forum over its emissions targets, China does not get similar treatment despite being the world’s largest emitter in absolute terms.
China says developing nations such as itself are entitled to preferential treatment and should be allowed to continue increasing emissions to pull people out of poverty. It expects its emissions to peak in 2030 and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2060.
…
Read more: https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/pacific-australia-pressured-on-climate-change-china-gets-a-free-pass-20220715-p5b1xc
I don’t get it. If renewables are the “cheapest energy in history”, why are they a developing country’s second choice? Shouldn’t China and all other developing countries focus their efforts on building solar capacity?
Why are Pacific islanders, who make a big show of their climate concern at every possible opportunity, so acquiescent to China’s claim they need more time? Sure they made a mild objection – but Australia is the main focus of their attacks.
All this would make sense if China really believes coal and gas are the cheapest sources of energy, and Pacific leaders ignore China’s emissions because China has bought them off – but surely all these people wouldn’t lie about climate change and renewables, right?
Of course the Chinese want preferential treatment. The countries of the West haven’t yet destroyed their economies with this net zero crap.
China…preferential treatment…OH HELL NO
“…to pull their people out of poverty.”
The West hasn’t managed to eradicate poverty – completely. We deserve that free pass until we do.
Last time I checked a few years ago one in every eight Australians living in the wealthy country lived below the poverty line, thousands of them are children.
Australia is also one of a very small number of UN member nations that achieved and then exceeded the Kyoto Japan Agreement for emissions (greenhouse gas was the UN IPCC favourite description at that time (1997)). And today Australia is well on track to achieve the Paris France Agreement on emissions reduction target by 2030. Yet Australia is continually asked to do better.
If Australia is like the US, the official poverty line is defined as a fixed fraction of the median income. In other words, everyone in your country could be multi-millionaires, and still 1 in 8 children will still be below the poverty line.
Solar and Wind are not remotely practical. How does China know this? One can only assume they’ve met with their electrical engineers who explained to them the challenges and economics of intermittent energy sources and concluded “well duh, that makes no sense at all”.
We can only assume that western governments have received the same advice from their engineers. At the well duh moment, they said “well do it anyway”.
But those products are export revenue sources for China, they target dopey politicians who apparently believe just about anything as long as they are told “The Science” is behind it.
China is also building many nuclear plants, at a turnkey cost of about $4000/kW of installed capacity, and about 4 to 5 years per plant site, because they are very effective at reducing a grid’s CO2, as France has proven for decades.
China will be importing much more low-cost, pipeline gas from Russia for its 60% efficient CCGT power plants
China wind and solar produce only a small fraction of annual electricity.
But Western societies are inherently evil, and must atone for colonialism and capitalism. Until they reach the Radiant Future of Communism, they must suffer./s
was that Klaus/WEF yet again?
“I don’t get it. If renewables are the “cheapest energy in history”, why are they a developing country’s second choice?”
China is putting plenty of effort into renewables.
Offshore wind
“China built more offshore wind turbines in 2021 than every other country did in the past five years. It installed 55.8 GW worth of turbines in 2021, beating its own 2020 record of 52 GW— a 19.4% increase. China now has 344 GW worth of wind turbine electrical generation. During the same period, the US grew by approximately 12.5 GW for a total capacity of 135 GW.”
Solar
“China Is on Track to Double Its Solar Panels From Last Year’s Record
The government expects to add 108 gigawatts of new capacity this year, CCTV reports”
“China currently has the world’s largest renewable power fleet with 323 gigawatts of solar and 338 gigawatts of wind.”
Well Nick, if they’re putting so much effort into wind and solar, why are they asking for preferential treatment?
+97
Removed for redundancy.
If China is putting so much effort into wind and solar, why are their CO2 emissions rising so rapidly?
Why is China building coal fired power stations as foreign aid to nations in Africa and others?
Wind and solar is a far better option, apparently.
Yes, correct, because installing wind and solar is not reducing their emissions. And they know it, and have no intention of reducing their emissions.
Nick knows it too, but he is trying to divert the subject from total Chinese emissions to amount of wind and solar being installed in China.
The really important thing is what’s happening to their total emissions.
takes a LOT of reliable cheap power to make the crappy turbines and pv though
China only builds enough “renewables” to allow sympathetic tools some ammo to defend them, as they seek world domination. Good work, Nick.
Wait… are you saying … Nick=TOOL??
Useless Tool or Useful Tool??
You left the new Coal Fired power plants.
Nick, you left out the inconvenient fact that the Chinese are building coal-fired power plants as if they’re being popped out of a Pez Dispenser.
In fact the rise in coal-fired power is tapering off. Renewables are the big growth area
Dunno, Nick. Growth in coal bears a strange resemblance to Mann’s hockey stick.
I’m not certain Nick is actually looking at the graphic he posted to bolster his claim that “Renewables are the big growth area”
According to the chart…
Since 2015
China’s Wind has grown less than 1/4 the amount Coal has
China’s Solar has grown less than 1/5 the amount Coal has
China’s “Other Renewables” have grown imperceptibly
Coal has even outpaced the three combined.
In fact, the only source that has outpaced Coal’s growth is Hydro
Hydro has only recently been approved as renewable…mostly because Wind and Solar are more ruinable than renewable (traditional renewables can’t cut the muster)
and then they had to shatter dam walls to avoid flood damages…
Maybe sometimes I find things hard to comprehend, but that graph clearly shows coal power is still increasing!!!
Coal seems to be growing Nick.
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/lng/051822-china-boosts-coal-output-to-offset-lower-gas-imports-high-prices
But tapering off. Details here, p 51.
Year Coal Renewables All TWh
2020 4920.8 863.2
2021 5339.1 1152.5
diff 418.3 289.3
%rise 8.5 33.5
Coal rise still larger in absolute terms, but much less in %. Renewables are catching up fast.
Why the taper Nick? If wind and solar is cheaper, coal investment should stop cold. Sure investors would want to keep their existing plant as long as possible, but growth should have stopped.
There is rising investment going into wind and solar, but investment in fossil fuel hasn’t exactly stopped.
“If wind and solar is cheaper, coal investment should stop cold.”
Eric, these figures are for 2021 generation. They represent investment decisions of many years ago. IEA has an outlook based in part on their knowledge of current investment. It says that coal-fired generation will be well down by 2030, and not recover.
The IEA says a lot of things most of which is rarely true but that is okay they can amend it next year. Some of their projections thru the years are doozies.
Tapering off??? The biggest increase is from hydro. How many more rivers are there to dam, Nick? And oil and gas are still growing. Maybe you’ve got the image upside down.
AND China is the largest global producer of your much feared “Carbon Pollution” … In Absolute Terms
So doesn’t deserve a pass
What most directly (/ least in-directly ???) affects atmospheric CO2 levels (/ concentrations / abundances) ?
1) Absolute emissions (in GtC or GtCO2), and/or
2) The per-capita emissions of CO2, and/or
3) The percentage rise (/ fall) in CO2 emissions
It’s tapering, right along with the slowing down in the rate at which their economy is expanding.
In other words, the Chinese are building the amount of coal that they need, but no more.
To put it another way, from 2020 to 2021, China coal gen went from 63.26% of total to 62.56%
Renewables went from 11.1% to 13.5%.
Again Nick, if they are tapering off, why do they need preferential treatment?
Nick never answers questions he just dribbles junk. I am surprised he hasn’t pulled out the calculator link that he claims showed something it didn’t.
So barely a drop in the ocean and coal is still increasing 🙂
They also started construction of 33GW of coal power last year alone.
China is also about to remove the ban on Australian coal …. hmm wonder why?
“So barely a drop in the ocean”
11.1% in 2020 or total TWh. 13.5% in 2021. That is a rising tide.
ROFL .. you said it yourself that coal increase is greater in absolute terms.
So let see if even old school maths worked the same …. how soon before Renewables would overtake coal ?
Hint I think your tide is going out 🙂
Should add I thought Putin ended the age of trusting these pseudo-dictators but clearly you didn’t get the memo. Trust what you can measure everything else is just a PR message.
In other words, their coal emissions went up.
According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2022
In 2021 China’s use of coal in 2021 was 86.17 Exajoules
For Renewables the Exajoules (input- equivalent) was 11.32 so coal more than 7 times as much.
Nick, perhaps I can help. Since the final point on the coal line is higher than any previous point, coal burning for electricity production is growing in China.
I said the rise is tapering. Not negative.
So they’re building more, just less more?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants/
They’re planning an awful lot of coal plants Nick, which is why they need preferential treatment.
ROFL yep that’s Nick speak 🙂
Chinese statistics are not reliable.
This is the same nation that claimed Covid came from the US and locked down cities for Omicron, a virus with an infection fatality rate equal to a common cold.
The decrease in the growth of coal matches the slow down in the Chinese economy pretty well.
Nick, having visited China and knowing some Chinese, I suggest the operating solar and wind are exaggerated and the Nuclear capacity is being downplayed. During my visit I saw at least one nuclear plant but not one wind turbine nor any solar panel anywhere.
The comrades have been given the good news as required by central control. Harvests are again at record levels and tractor production is increasing to meet the demand. The news comes as a great relief to the proletariat but they still wonder. Why they are starving with all this excellent news? State mandated reporting does not seem to translate into beneficial achievement….
The wind farms in China are now so efficient they have to be held down to just 30% of nameplate power to avoid overwhelming the grid eh Nick?
Solar is even more impressive, being held down to just 20% of nameplate power rating…..
What is the population projection for China over the coming 25 years Nick?
When we look at that, it suggests China and energy type is not the big issue they will have to wrestle with.
Coal is growing. Not really sure how anyone older than 7 could look at this graph and think it supports what Nick is claiming.
You’re right. China has hit a wall that their coal consumption and production are in balance – they can’t increase production so are limited in numbers of new coal-fired power stations. However China is considering lifting the impediments to importing Australian coal and vastly increasing the amounts that they import. Let’s see what that does to the graph if or when that happens, shall we?
yeah and it will take aus many years to build a few new ones IF we can even get the greens to stfu enough to get approvals etc
‘China is putting plenty of effort into renewables.’
Fine, but the author noted that this ‘effort’ was secondary to China’s efforts to install non-renewable capacity, which is demonstrably true.
Not to memtion the huge quantities of parts for renewablea exported to the west that could dwarf their installed renewable capacity.china knows it could not produce renewables purely from renewable energy. Entropy entropy
Nick, if the theory is correct, no amount of renewable installation by China will solve the problem.
What has to happen, if the theory is correct, is for Chinese emissions to fall. From the current total which I think is 11 billion tons a year to something like 2 billion or less. This means actually reducing their emissions.
Yet you will not find anyone among the alarmed polemicists writing about the supposed climate crisis which is the greatest threat ever to human civilization on earth any suggestion that China needs to reduce.
And yet these same people usually reckon that we have to get to well under 10 billion tons a year by 2040 or 2050. How is that going to happen if China continues to increase its emissions when China already by itself does more than the supposedly safe limit?
The prescription from the climate lobby is that the West, amounting to about 25% of global emissions, should go to zero. China is then praised for what it is doing, which is raising emissions. This is completely contradictory.
China makes no secret of its plans, either. They have said that they intend reducing CO2 emissions per unit of GDP. But they have also said how fast they intend growing GDP, and the result of the two is a rise in emissions.
And anyway, Nick, the problem is not so much electricity generation. That is an important source of emissions, but its a minority of them. So even if they convert their generation (which they are not doing, all they are doing is installing relatively small amounts of renewables as a percentage of their total plant) it will make minimal difference to their emissions.
Its very striking that the discussion starts being about total emissions. Then it immediately moves to electricity generation, and from that it moves not to how much coal is being used, but to how much wind and solar is being installed.
In short, its pure intellectual dishonesty. Its trying to focus attention on anything other than what, if you are an alarmist, you claim to be most alarmed about, and refusing to admit that the biggest emitter, China, is the one you should logically think is the main problem.
If you really think that emissions are a threat to humanity, you have to advocate China reduce. Most of the time however the climate alarmists resort to an argument which can be summarized as: its only fair that China emit enough to destroy human civilization on earth, because the West is so wicked. Or because they are installing wind power while they do it. Or because they only just started to emit and need to catch up with destroying the climate. Or because their per capita emissions (currently at EU levels) are lower than the US, and so they have to catch up, and if that destroys the planet, well, its only fair after all.
The future at the moment after COP26 is reasonably clear. Like it or not we will exceed 40 billion tons a year by 2030 and probably 45 billion by 2040. China by 2040 will probably be doing at least 15 billion. Regardless of how many wind turbines they install.
Now answer the real question. What do you think China needs to do to save the planet? Inquiring minds want to know.
“Yet you will not find anyone among the alarmed polemicists writing about the supposed climate crisis which is the greatest threat ever to human civilization on earth any suggestion that China needs to reduce.”
Just not true. Here for example is the BBC (surely, you would consider an alarmed polemicist):
“Experts agree that without big reductions in China’s emissions, the world cannot win the fight against climate change.
In 2020, China’s President Xi Jinping said his country would aim for its emissions to reach their highest point before 2030 and for carbon neutrality before 2060.”
So it’s China’s position at top level that they need to reduce. The BBC writer thinks they need to do more. But, as he shows too, they are doing a lot.
Yes, they did quote experts as saying that the world cannot win without big Chinese reductions. One of the few pieces that has said as much. And this piece was ahead of COP26, I don’t recall coverage of the Chinese refusal to play at COP26 which was even as strong as this.
What was missing at COP26 itself, is missing from this piece, and what is generally missing in the media, is any statement of what reductions and when China needs to make.
Why is it acceptable for China to continue increasing emissions through 2030, if this is such a world threatening issue? This gets no coverage either.
Why, when the subject rarely comes up, do the alarmed immediately change the subject into discussion of per capita or historical emissions, or the amount of wind and solar they are installing, all of which are totally irrelevant to the physics. The alleged physics.
And, Nick, I notice you have not answered the key question. What reductions, and by when, do you think it necessary for China to make if we are to meet the generally accepted global reduction requirements?
“Why is it acceptable for China to continue increasing emissions through 2030, if this is such a world threatening issue?”
A question which neatly demonstrates that it isn’t a world threatening issue.
Well, maybe it demonstrates that for all their inflamed rhetoric the activists themselves don’t really believe its a world threatening issue.
In which case….
michel
” the key question. What reductions, and by when, do you think it necessary for China to make if we are to meet the generally accepted global reduction requirements?”
I don’t think my views carry great weight internationally. But what is clear is that we cannot sustain a situation where China is held to a per capita emission less than that of major Western nations. US emissions have been declining; that has a way to go before it reaches the China/EU level.
China has a plan – to achieve net zero by 2060 rather than 2050, which seems to be all that remains of the “preferential treatment”. Of course, it has yet to happen. But as a plan, I don’t think it does much use for me to be rethinking it.
But China’s per capita emissions are the same as the EU.
XI can dribble all the PR he likes but unless it’s in a plan it isn’t going to happen so let see what the plan is
SHANGHAI, June 1 (Reuters) – China will aim to ensure that its grids source about 33% of power from renewable sources by 2025, up from 28.8% in 2020, the state planning agency said on Wednesday in a new “five-year plan” for the renewable sector.
The kicker to that is it aims to have 3,000 gigawatts of generating capacity installed by 2025 and the 800-gigawatt growth goal is about twice the size of India’s entire power fleet and 50% of that will be coal.
Lets dot point other fossil fuels in the plan
That is what the plan says literally not what Nick Stoke and some BBC journo thinks.
Realty vs PR garbage and if you expect CO2 emission to decrease you are going to be very disappointed which is why they want preferential treatment via the poor card.
They continue to add coal. They’re not doing anything.
Good summary of what the alarmists are not doing. For those of us who do not buy into the rising CO2 alarmism, are looking at other things. China is about to achieve something historic next year.
Next year it will cease to be the worlds most populous nation. India will take over that role.
The scale of China’s population decrease will become evident very quickly. China is not alone in this loss of labour. Over the coming decades energy will be mentioned less and less. That former contrived anxiety is about to be replaced by lack of people issues and the collapse of economies.
😂
Eyesight test.
Yeah they are just putting a bit more effort into fossil fuels 🙂
If you owned the largest manufacturing business for solar and wind energy products and had captured most of the available market share wouldn’t you display your own products to impress your customers?
But have underground connection to a power station generator supplied grid.
Some things are obvious. China builds super critical coal generation for itself, and uses it to manufacture polysilicon solar for the greenie west. It’s a big double win for them—they develop into a first world economy with a reliable grid, while the west develops into a third world economy with an unreliable grid.
Way to go, BoJo, Biden, and AOC.
Xi and I both know AGW is BS. The difference is that i don’t use it as a tool to subvert the West.
So … Communist policies put their people in poverty so they need a pass on The Green New Deal (CO2 reductions plus) that are putting the Western world into poverty?
Solar Panels are going to save us all as long as Red China can continue to make them with coal fired power plants?
Did I miss something?
True poverty has been pretty much eliminated in most of the world. The only places that still have large pockets of true poverty, are also those places with communist/socialist governments.
Xi is a Mao wannabe. China sold a trillion dollars of junk to Europe and a trillion to the USA….that is hopefully over….boycott China.
Maybe that is why the Biden administration is working so hard to impoverish us, then as a developing nation we too can get a pass on eliminating fossil fuels.😉
Sarc, I hope
I’m surprised they even bother objecting. No one believes China would lift a Uyghur for the sake of net zero even if Xi promised to invent the very unicorns necessary for its success.
Xi’s just screwing with the western world, and enjoying every minute of it.
Okay. It’ll just cost a 1000% tariff
NONSENSE- renewables are not cheaper than hydrocarbons when you factor in the due to their intermittency every grid system must have duel fuels to provide essential backup to keep the grid running second to second. Germany and Denmark have the most expensive retail electricity as they have the most renewable in Europe. As Poland told the EU “following the climate rules makes the poor poorer.” In a nutshell renewables suffer the paradox that more is less. See –
Real cost of peak shaving for renewables.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652622025069
China knows this and they will never stop using hydrocarbons rather than wind and solar as they will never run out millions living in poverty.
Tha graph is bit behind. I just got my Energy Australia notice advising my electricity goes from 0.31c kWh to 0.37c KWh from 1st August.
Eric,
Few understand the history of the preferential treatment of China and 165 developing countries.
It is summed up in the Key UN Principle,”Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.”
Translated, it means that whenever there is a clash between economic demands and environmental obligations, the former prevail.
It is explained in “The Age of Global Warming: a History” by Rupert Darwill.
At the Villach Conference in Austria in 1985,Maurice Strong and other activists managed to get Soviet Russia and Communist Chinato subscribe to environmental goals with this promise. Those two regimes had never regarded Nature as having a monetary value in Marxist terms.
So here we are. Developing Countries get preferential treatment and 28 Developed (Annex 1) countries get the bill for the historical “ injustice” of the Industrial Revolution.
According to most socialists, the fact that the industrial revolution happened in the west, is just luck. It had nothing to do with the hard work and intellectual developments. Therefore it is entirely reasonable to demand that the west give up a good portion of these ill gotten gains and give them to rest of the world.
In addition, they sincerely believe that hard work and intellectual achievements are nothing that deserve reward. The ones that succeed are the rightful providers for the ones who do not succeed. All ants are equal in the ant hill.
Let me try to explain these doubts and confusions. They (communists) only tell half the story, just like anthropogenic CO2 as the criminal Earth’s warmer. They deceive by confusing us between two variables used in generation: the investment cost in US$/MW (WHICH IS NOT A GENERATION COST VARIABLE) and the capital cost in US$/MWh (WHICH IS). Both are DIMENSIONALLY DIFFERENT and, although the capital cost is proportional to the investment cost, it is however inversely proportional to the capacity factor of the technology which can be several times higher in a thermal power plant compared to that of a renewable one. So, even if the investment cost (that doesn’t belong to the generation cost) of 1 MW solar panel facility is cheaper than 1 MW of a coal power station, the capital cost of the former may still be 3 or four times greater, cost that indeed goes in the electricity generation cost. And this is what they don´t want us to know.
Nice but not really relevant to this discussion Dougie. As Texas has learned last winter, Renewables are NOT reliable for consumers needing a solid base load of energy that can be ramped up with demand. Freezing infrastructure, super expensive and very intricate battery storage as well the damn sun and the wind not cooperating when it needed to, sunk ERCOT as prices for energy rose to new heights.
These days the costs and the routine installs is the easy part, trying to coordinate DC generation and distribute the oomph of the load- where they need it, when they need it.
Wood burning fires are arguably the cheapest energy on the planet.
The issues with wind and solar to this day, is the generation of power(watts)is unreliable because the sun and wind doesn’t always cooperate when it’s really needed. As Texas learned last year, their renewables did NOT perform or generate the base load they needed as temps went lower.
That’s only true if the wood is free. If you have to buy the wood, it can be quite expensive
And if the wood has to be prepared (can you just stick a tree into your wood stove?) or transported, it is even more expensive.
China had a giant W&S 2021 as companies rushed projects to completion to qualify for the subsidies that have since expired. China talks W&S while building coal and nuclear. Keep in mind that China’s wind capacity is <30 CF and solar <15CF. Net CF is about 1/4th of nuclear (200 GW nuclear = 800 GW W&S). China has publicly stated that the increase in coal capacity is because of the need for reliable power. China’s net zero plan is via nuclear not unreliable W&S.
At Least 200 Gigawatts of China Nuclear Power by 2035November 4, 2021 by Brian Wang
China is turning to increased nuclear power plans because of their coal and hydroelectric energy crisis. China has an energy crisis this year with droughts reducing hydro power by 30% and problems ramping up coal power.
China had slowed its nuclear power build after the 2011 Tsunami in Japan caused the Fukushima plant to fail. China is reviving and accelerating nuclear energy plans and will build at least 150 gigawatts of new nuclear power by 2035.
Low interest loans for 70% of the cost enables nuclear power to be built for about $42 per megawatt hour.
This build out will cost about $440 billion.
This would be up from earlier in 2021 when China was nuclear power plan was 70 GW by 2025 and 180 GW by 2035.
SOURCE- Bloomberg
Speaking of tsunamis …
Did you know that the formative tsunami, formerly known as The 2004 Asian Tsunami, now The 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami of Boxing Day 2004, occurred on old Yalie, Chairman Mao Zedong’s 111 th birthday ?
China, March 5, 2021
Leader Xi Jinping is serious about pushing China to become a leading nuclear energy superpower.
April,29, 2021:
“China’s energy structure is dominated by coal power. This is an objective reality,” said Su Wei, deputy secretary-general of the National Development and Reform Commission. CNBC translated his Mandarin-language comments, which he made late last week following Xi’s separate remarks at a U.S.-led global leaders climate summit.
“Because renewable energy (sources such as) wind and solar power are intermittent and unstable, we must rely on a stable power source,” Su said. “We have no other choice. For a period of time, we may need to use coal power as a point of flexible adjustment.”
obviously never priced in the mounts, concrete, grounding lugs, heavy copper cable, batteries, charge controller, and power inverter.
other than that, it’s basically free.
i made $0.64 today
Indeed. I like to compare stabilising the base of a solar array installation to stabilising a washing line.
Last time I set a washing line I needed to ad 40Kg of concrete to stabilise the base. Washing line is say about 4m sq.
10Kg of concrete per sq meter is a lot of concrete, when you need to build an array which is thousands of square kilometres.
Of course, washing lines don’t catch the wind the way solar panels do, most people remove the clothes when a storm is approaching. So you probably need at least double the concrete a washing line would need, to stabilise a solar panel array.
code where I live required 3.25 cubic yards on a 6″ schedule 40 steel pipe for a 1760 watt nominal array. It’s about 4000 lb per cubic yard.
Maximum possible penetration in re to percent of supply of wind and solar is is low 20%’s. Good luck y’all.
China Demands Preferential Treatment on Climate Change
Me too! I need to pull my family out of the new poverty inducing lower expectations of net zero. Let’s all seek preferential treatment. It’s not like China will be the only one at that table.
If renewables are the cheapest energy in history, why do places with the highest levels of renewable energy, also have the highest energy cotst?
How is a country with an economy soon to overtake the US and already superior to the West get status as a ‘developing country’?
Why does the CCP get to lie about improving the lot of their people when they have been getting preferred status since Nixon and STILL almost all their people live in abject poverty and work as little better than slaves?
Why is the CCP allowed to export intermittent power equipment at special prices so the West can destroy their once-cheap and reliable power while China BUILDS a cheap and reliable power grid?
Is China just betting that by 2030 we will be so weak as nations that nobody will be able to tell them they now have to transition to unreliables?
See the history of climate hoax and the late Maurice Strong, former UN executive who became a billionaire, Canadian citizen, successfully applied for asylum in Communist China to escape charges relating to illegally accessing water under a property he owned in Canada.
He died in China, his cousin was a girlfriend of the late Chairman Mao Zedong, author of The Little Red Book
That ship sailed long ago.
It will all balance….
Communist China is trying to get their people out of poverty and the west is trying to get people into poverty with communism.
1975: UN Lima Protocol signed by Australia and other UN rated developed nations, in other words well off or wealthy nations. They agreed to gradually (see The inevitability Of Gradualness saying adopted by The Fabian Society of Marxists UK late 1800s) transfer or encourage transfer of most or many manufacturing industry businesses to UN rated developing nations, in other words not well off nations.
Today China has become one of the biggest economic powers and military powers in the world and continues to gain economic strength including by building more coal fired power stations and others, not completely ignoring so called renewable energy wind and solar but almost, and despite the claimed climate emergency China is increasing emissions every year.
As often reminded, climate hoax is all about politics and wealth creation.
Wealth redistribution.
NO wealth is being “created” by the climate hoax since it is a net drain on the world’s economic output for no benefit to overall society. Every solar panel, bird chopper, mega-battery and EV is an unnecessary waste of resources and manpower.
As I often ask since that waste effects the poorest the most, why do the hoaxers hate poor people so much?
chinas talking about removing sanctions to buy aussie coal again
at 1k a tonne it was round the 100 or so a while back i gather
amuses me greatly
We need a metric like “cost per guaranteed MWh.” Factor in all of the redundant generation and storage that needs to back up a MWh.
“China demands . . .”
Isn’t that kinda like “Today, I woke up and . . .”