Jayaraj: India, China Emissions Make Mockery of Western Policies

by Vijay Jayaraj

Amidst the European energy crisis, it’s easy to miss other events that are of significance to the discussion about the climate-change movement.

Among them are a series of setbacks to green policies in China and India.

These countries — representing three billion people — have delayed implementation of renewable energy commitments and aggressively increased the production and consumption of fossil fuels.

At the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, Chinese and Indian leaders — along with their counterparts from Russia and Turkey — explicitly declared that they cannot be coerced into reducing fossil fuel consumption, calling for an “increased investment in oil and gas production and exploration.”

As usual, the mainstream media neither published this news in headlines nor discussed how the proliferation of fossil fuels in these countries make the so-called net zero measures in the West irrelevant to the objectives of climate alarmists.

As the world’s second biggest coal user and home to 1.3 billion people, India has deemphasized its commitment to transitioning to renewable energy.

According to reports, the country fell significantly short of its solar-installation targets, jeopardizing its overall transition goals.

India’s Economic Times reported that at least 25 gigawatts (GW) of solar power projects that were expected to be operational or nearly complete faced delays or uncertainties.

The deferrals of solar installations now make it impossible to attain the planned addition of 450 GW in renewable capacity by 2030.

The Times says India “added 10 GW of solar capacity in 2021, while it needs to add close to 30 GW every year to be able to meet the target.”

The National Solar Mission — India’s internationally renowned solar energy strategy — is in disarray, with only half its promised capacity in place.

India considers coal plants an integral part of its energy sector.

So much so that the government has even extended the deadline for the coal plants to install pollution-control filters.

Experts argue that the benefits of these plants running without filters far outweigh the inconvenience of pollutants.

In China, Premier Li Keqiang has called for “releasing advanced coal capacity, as much as possible, and implementing long-term coal supply.”

In stark contrast to the country’s commitment to a net zero economy, leaders have doubled down on coal expenditures, a move hardly anticipated by the climate industrial complex. China has already ordered an increase of 300 million tons in coal production this year.

In August, China’s power generation from coal approached the all-time high of January 2021 as provinces scampered to make up for drought-induced losses of generation at hydroelectric stations.

In 2022, both the province of Sichuan and its capital city of Chengdu experienced energy shortages that forced businesses and factories to close.

Chengdu even switched off lights in its underground rail network.

Analysts say coal is indispensable to China’s energy future and that shortages like these only reaffirm the claim. In fact, it is believed that President Xi himself contributed to the country’s five-year developmental plans that reversed a move away from coal.

Contrary to the predictions of thousands of articles and analyses, China is nowhere near reaching its peak consumption of coal.

The ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions from India and China make the West’s emission-reduction strategies meaningless. China’s yearly CO2 emissions from coal use is many times higher than similar emissions from other developed economies.

In 2021, China’s coal-related CO2 emissions of 7421 million metric tons (MMT) were nearly 10 times higher than that the 889 MMT of the U.S. China’s projected additions of coal capacity will further offset U.S. efforts to cut emissions.

It makes no sense for politicians in Western nations to punish citizens with higher energy bills and power shortages in the name of a faux climate emergency.

Even if there were a crisis, ever-increasing emissions from developing parts of the world make Western climate policies historical anachronisms and scientific absurdities that would be laughable if they were not so destructive to economies and lives.

This commentary was first published at Newsmax, September 22, 2022, and can be accessed here.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, VA. He holds a masters degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, UK and resides in India.

4.8 19 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

30 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
markl
September 23, 2022 2:03 pm

So in other words, it’s business as usual.

Dave Fair
Reply to  markl
September 24, 2022 1:21 pm

Its always business as usual. Governments can and do corrupt that for differing lengths of time with differing amounts of pain to their citizens. In the case of Nut Zero, citizen pain (pun recognized) around the world is manifesting itself. Even the Leftist ideologically-driven media is taking notice but, predictably, are spinning it as FFs fault.

India and China aren’t even trying to play nice with the West anymore at their pointless climate meetings. It is a demonstration of the raw power of economics and national security. The U.S. better take notice and change its ways.

Latitude
Reply to  markl
September 25, 2022 5:45 pm

…or one big scam

Tom Halla
September 23, 2022 2:08 pm

I do not think the Chinese, Russians, or Indians believe in the IPCC conclusions on climate change.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 23, 2022 2:42 pm

And for good reason. Those IPCC conclusions are provably bad science:

  1. The newest IPCC CMIP6 models almost all produce a tropical troposphere hotspot that does not in fact exist. The two exceptions are INM CM4.8 and 5.0. These have ECS of 1.8 and 1.9 respectively.
  2. IPCC says ECS is 3C or more. Observationally it is 1.8C or less.
  3. IPCC says sea level rise should have already accelerated. It hasn’t.
  4. IPCC says the warming from 1975 to 2000 was anthropogenic, but the equivalent warming from 1925-1940 wasn’t (AR4 SPM fig 4). Natural variation did NOT magically stop in 1975, even tho IPCC assumes it did.
  5. IPCC charter is to investigate anthropogenic warming, expressly ‘ignoring’ natural variation. See point 4 for proof.
Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 24, 2022 1:02 pm

Item 2
IPCC says ECS is 3C or more. Observationally it is 1.8C or less..

This is not observed, it is correlated

I think it is something, but there is no real proof of what it is
Even the lower numbers are just a guess.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 24, 2022 1:24 pm

Thanks, Rud. It can’t be said enough. Let’s all try.

M Courtney
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 23, 2022 2:51 pm

It really doesn’t matter if they believed it or not.

Adaptation has always been cheaper than trying to control the weather through trace gas concentration. And is within the capability of a national government to achieve without hoping for successful diplomacy – beyond any one nation’s ability on its own.

So, they were going to do this whatever their interpretation of the science.

Jtom
Reply to  M Courtney
September 23, 2022 5:00 pm

A country should have contingency plans ready for any type of change, climate or not. Rain, droughts, colder temps, warmer, PANDEMICS, earthquakes, etc., and they should be updated continuously to address changing conditions and new technologies.

The last couple of years should have taught us that creating workable solutions in the middle of a crisis is difficult if not impossible.

Pflashgordon
Reply to  Jtom
September 23, 2022 11:29 pm

Planning for pandemics is one thing, defending against Chinese biowarfare is another matter. When do we get war reparations from the ChiComs for the million+ dead Americans, more than have died in all U.S. wars combined?

rho
Reply to  Pflashgordon
September 24, 2022 1:18 am

I don’t expect reparations from China but it would be nice if our own Lord HaHaw (Fauci) landed in jail for his role in this world-wide disaster.

michel
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 24, 2022 4:56 pm

No, agreed. The hysteria is largely confined to the English speaking countries and Germany. And even within them, its confined to a fairly small group of activists and policymakers.

Steve Case
September 23, 2022 2:26 pm

It makes no sense for politicians in Western nations to punish citizens with higher energy bills and power shortages in the name of a faux climate emergency.
_________________________________________________________

Just maybe, the “Climate Emergency” isn’t the reason.

markl
Reply to  Steve Case
September 23, 2022 2:56 pm

“Just maybe, the “Climate Emergency” isn’t the reason.” Never was. It has been a well orchestrated attempt to control/realign economies to the detriment of the West/Democracy. The real “tipping point” isn’t what they planned and we are slowly inching towards it as people are waking up to the damage being done and who’s prospering from it.

Lark
Reply to  Steve Case
September 23, 2022 4:32 pm

The article would be quite persuasive if the governments and corporations pushing crony energy were the slightest bit interested in saving the world from global warming.

william Johnston
September 23, 2022 3:58 pm

SURPRISE, SURPRISE.

Loydo
September 23, 2022 6:08 pm

“Even if there were a crisis, ever-increasing emissions from developing parts of the world make Western climate policies historical anachronisms and scientific absurdities that would be laughable if they were not so destructive to economies and lives.”

Here is what’s happened until now. Contributions are even more disproportionate when per capita measurements are compared. Crisis or no crisis, stop trying to whitewash history.

comment image

Brad-DXT
Reply to  Loydo
September 23, 2022 6:50 pm

So the world governments should be paying us for our contributions to greening the world.

Not Dan
Reply to  Loydo
September 23, 2022 10:44 pm

Thanks for the graph loydo, why is Australia, NZ and the Oceania region implementing economic suicide?

Bill Toland
Reply to  Loydo
September 23, 2022 10:54 pm

China’s carbon dioxide emissions per head overtook those of the European Union in 2013. The difference is much bigger now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29239194

Last edited 9 days ago by Bill Toland
Bill Toland
Reply to  Bill Toland
September 23, 2022 11:21 pm

China’s annual carbon dioxide emissions now exceed those of the European Union, USA and Japan combined.
These figures are from 2017 so the difference again is much bigger now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Last edited 9 days ago by Bill Toland
Beta Blocker
Reply to  Loydo
September 23, 2022 10:54 pm

How many tonnes of the USA’s cumulative emissions still remain in the atmosphere as compared with how many tonnes of China’s cumulative emissions which still remain in the atmosphere?

Redge
Reply to  Loydo
September 24, 2022 12:28 am

That chart be headlined: “Who has contributed most to global greening

Mark BLR
Reply to  Loydo
September 24, 2022 3:41 am

The whole point of imposing an “energy budget” is to accept that we are where we are, and go from “now” to 2030 (and 2050 and …) accordingly.

Which countries need to “make an effort” to reverse the current trajectory of their emissions trends ?

Which country is making the largest deductions from whatever “carbon budget” has been calculated, by a factor of more than 2, today ?

BP_GtCO2e_Top-6-plus-UK_1990-2021.png
Last edited 8 days ago by Mark BLR
Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Loydo
September 24, 2022 12:59 pm

Discussions involving per capita co2 emissions are a ridiculous smoke screen.

It’s how the insane try to make us in canada look bad
But of course here on the Canadian prairies we need 10x the per capita emissions of someone in equatorial Africa just to survive.

So stuff it Loydo

Or better, come to the Canadian prairies and demonstrate to me, in person, that you can survive with the co2 profile of a subsistence farmer in Mali.

I promise you a decent burial after you thaw in the spring.
As long as you pay in advance

No free lunch for the insane

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
September 24, 2022 1:32 pm

Loydo, who cares?

Last edited 8 days ago by Dave Fair
michel
Reply to  Loydo
September 24, 2022 5:14 pm

Loydo’s point is worth attention because its one of the typical moves by the climate alarmists.

Its one of several different attempts to avoid the point that China is the main source of global CO2 emissions.

The activists start out claiming that its just physics, the critical driver of the pending disaster is tonnage of CO2 emitted.

Then when confronted with the fact that China, India etc are emitting most of it, physics goes out the back door and is quietly replaced with what purports to be ethics.

It used to be argued that per capita emissions were what counted, and this excused China, but this became impossible when China’s per capita levels rose to those of the EU. Then this was quietly dropped. But it was anyway irrelevant since all that supposedly matters is tonnage emitted.

Then its argued that China is installing a lot of wind and solar. Again, its irrelevant, all that supposedly matters is the tonnage.

Sometimes its claimed they are only doing it to export, so its all our fault. Its not true, and anyway, why they are doing it is unimportant. The fact is, they are doing it. Incidentally, the activists never propose banning Chinese imports. Funny, that.

The last refuge of the activists is to claim that their historical emissions were lower than the West’s. Again, its irrelevant. The only thing that supposedly matters to the climate is the emissions from now on.

The problem the Western activists (like Loydo) have is simple. What they want to see is Net Zero by the West, and continued emitting and economic growth by everyone else. They may not say this, they may not even be fully aware of it themselves, but this is what their position boils down to.

So they have to make up all kinds of contorted reasons why Chinese, Indian etc emissions in some way don’t count. They are attempts to change the subject.

It is fundamentally intellectually dishonest. If you really believe emissions are leading to catastrophe, you have to, to be honest, insist that the largest emitters reduce, immediately. That means China. If you will not advocate that, one you’ll persuade nobody. Two, you will arouse suspicions about your motivation.

If you are really so concerned about the climate, and you really believe human emissions are wrecking it, why do you go to all these contortions to avoid drawing the obvious conclusion that they have to be reduced, starting with the biggest emitters?

Only the activists know their motivations. The rest of us can only look at their reasoning and advocacy and point out that something fishy is going on. It could be denial, it could be astroturfing for China, it could be stupidity. Whatever it is, its not good faith coherent argument.

LdB
Reply to  Loydo
September 25, 2022 7:54 am

You do get that garbage is all meaningless unless you believe in climate justice and unicorns. The humor is that climate compensation isn’t even on the COP agenda but you wouldn’t know that from the way the lefties carry on 🙂

Mactoul
September 23, 2022 9:18 pm

[invalid email-mod]

Andy Pattullo
September 24, 2022 9:41 am

Plant life is celebrating globally. No matter what promises were made and green posturing undertaken, necessity continues to be the mother of both invention and intention. Real leadership may sometimes mean donning a green robe or flinging the holy water of “renewables” about with enthusiasm but, in the end, no ruler who’s wants to continue ruling will ignore reality and cut off the life blood of their economy. When more than a billion people rely on your policies those policies had better be aimed at making life better, not worse.

%d bloggers like this: