China Burns More Coal than the Rest of the World !

[PE Scott + 563]

I don't know off hand, but I'd bet that air pollution as a result of power generation plays second fiddle to all the other industrial emissions in china. I agree swapping from coal to NG would clean some things up, but I got the impression there were far greater sources of air pollution from other factories and such when I visited. I could be completely off base though. Feel free to post some graphs to show I'm wrong.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 11/7/2019 at 1:09 PM, remake it said:

@Boat was correct in that China has used less coal annually since 2013, and you are incorrect in that it is on a downward trend, while China has an actual plan to reach it's Paris Agreement commitments and this seems to be something folk here do not realize.

You quote an obvious government shill website, full of pure propaganda and call that evidence? But what else can you do as a bot? 

Edited November 9, 2019 by Ward Smith

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 11/7/2019 at 3:50 PM, Marcin said:

 So everything you have heard about China is true: it is both the largest CO2 emitter by great marging and the best success story of each and every type of renewables.

Or they simply lie. Given their history I'm going with that. The people in power now grew up in the Cultural Revolution where they learned to claim that they had massive crop increases while they were literally starving. Truth? Hah! 

 

Edited November 9, 2019 by Ward Smith

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

You quote an obvious government shill website, full of pure propaganda and call that evidence? But what else can you do as a bot? 

You have yet to show you have the capacity to differentiate excrement from clay.

• Established in Washington, D.C., over 50 years ago, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization dedicated to providing strategic insights and policy solutions to help decisionmakers chart a course toward a better world.

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

You have yet to show you have the capacity to differentiate excrement from clay.

• Established in Washington, D.C., over 50 years ago, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization dedicated to providing strategic insights and policy solutions to help decisionmakers chart a course toward a better world.

 

Otherwise known as "Thinly disguised lobbying". Do try and keep up, oh wait, you're a bot, can't be done. Ask for more predecessors and more memory, that ought to do the trick. 

I stand by my previous statement, they are shills, bought and paid for. 

[remake it + 288]

50 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Otherwise known as "Thinly disguised lobbying". Do try and keep up, oh wait, you're a bot, can't be done. Ask for more predecessors and more memory, that ought to do the trick. 

I stand by my previous statement, they are shills, bought and paid for. 

CSIS Advisory Board

External Members

Tai Ming Cheung
Associate Professor at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at UC San Diego, and Director of the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation

Thomas J. Christensen
William P. Boswell Professor of World Politics of Peace and War; Co-Director, China and the World Program at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

M. Taylor Fravel
Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Aaron L. Friedberg
Professor of Politics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

Michael McDevitt
Senior Fellow at the Center for Naval Analyses; Rear Admiral, United States Navy (Ret.)

Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
University Distinguished Service Professor and former Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government

Derek Scissors
Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute

David Shambaugh
Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at the George Washington University; Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution

CSIS Members

Victor Cha
Senior Adviser and Korea Chair, CSIS; Director of Asian Studies and D.S. Song-KF Chair in the Department of Government and School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University

Matthew Goodman
Senior Adviser for Asian Economics and Simon Chair in Political Economy, CSIS

Michael J. Green
Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair, CSIS; Chair in Modern and Contemporary Japanese Politics and Foreign Policy at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University

Kathleen Hicks
Senior Vice President, Henry A. Kissinger Chair, and Director of the International Security Program, CSIS

Scott Kennedy
Deputy Director of the Freeman Chair in China Studies, and Director of the Project on Chinese Business and Political Economy, CSIS

Sarah Ladislaw
Senior Fellow and Director of the Energy and National Security Program, CSIS

James Lewis
Senior Fellow and Director of the Strategic Technologies Program, CSIS

Scott Miller
Senior Adviser and Scholl Chair in International Business, CSIS

Olga Oliker
Senior Adviser and Director of the Russia and Eurasia Program, CSIS

Richard Rossow
Senior Fellow and Wadhwani Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies, CSIS

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

@remake it you have a point? Of course not. 

[remake it + 288]

41 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

@remake it you have a point? Of course not. 

 

6 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I stand by my previous statement, they are shills, bought and paid for. 

Then you have evidence to back your point, so please offer it to us.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

How does China maintain the fallacy that they are a ‘developing’ country while engaged in a trade war with a country that  has the largest economy and which is arguably the most technologically advanced?

Is this something that ‘developing’ countries engage in?

Take a good look at the Paris Agreement and see the exemptions for China. Oh, that’s right, they are a developing country...

[Boat + 1,315]

On 11/8/2019 at 12:17 PM, PE Scott said:

I don't know off hand, but I'd bet that air pollution as a result of power generation plays second fiddle to all the other industrial emissions in china. I agree swapping from coal to NG would clean some things up, but I got the impression there were far greater sources of air pollution from other factories and such when I visited. I could be completely off base though. Feel free to post some graphs to show I'm wrong.

It seems weird how this conversation got so twisted. It was stated China isn’t doing anything about its pollution and the evidence is clearly quite the opposite. 
Can and will they do more? We will see by looking at the numbers over the next few years. 

Every percent of energy use by a large country takes a lot of infrastructure, money and will to no matter what energy they use. But China, although is late to the game of cleaning up its pollution problems has certainly changed course over the last 10 years as evidenced by the charts presented.

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, Boat said:

It seems weird how this conversation got so twisted. It was stated China isn’t doing anything about its pollution and the evidence is clearly quite the opposite. 
Can and will they do more? We will see by looking at the numbers over the next few years. 

It's on a side track because the Paris Agreement commitments made by China affect coal consumption, and China - despite what Mr Buckland thinks - is ahead of where it proposed to be.

[PE Scott + 563]

12 hours ago, Boat said:

It seems weird how this conversation got so twisted. It was stated China isn’t doing anything about its pollution and the evidence is clearly quite the opposite.

Actually, I mostly agree China is doing well to embrace newer and cleaner technologies. I think it says a lot that they're investing in a wide range of energy technologies, not just the cheapest possibility....coal.

My point was that electricity generation is just a fraction of the air pollution, I would guess. Industrial steel mills and other factories output quite a bit as well. Specifically heavier pollutants. Things besides CO2. 

I imagine the cost of any upgrades would have to be subsidized by the government in most provinces. I doubt the cost of upgrading coal plants with scrubbers and systems to reduce pollutants could be shouldered by the local populace in terms of higher $/kwh. Obviously some areas are more affluent than others and this wouldn't be an issue. 

All that being said though, I think it would be fair to say the biggest immediate impact to global pollution would be to address pollution in China first. I agree that China has already done a lot and it is making strides in the right direction though. Everyone should strive to be better, but China has more ground to cover and a bigger share of world production on their plate along with a massive populace to support.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

13 hours ago, remake it said:

 

Then you have evidence to back your point, so please offer it to us.

They were called out BY NAME in the Liberal New York Times! I understand you need a guide dog to find your rear end with both hands but it's obvious to anyone not room temp IQ.  I gave you proof and you uploaded the "about us" page. Pathetic. 

[Boat + 1,315]

I don’t follow China energy but do get news from the regular o’l feeds. Off the top of my head. A few years back they put in the worlds largest hydro dam. They lead the world in electric cars, buses, besides being a huge growing nat gas buyer. I think it’s this year a huge nat gas pipeline from Russia to China will be completed. This is besides over 100 billion per year the last few years on renewables. Coal has basically flatlined since 2013, why? Reread above investments. 
XI may abuse his population but it should be easy to see he is making a huge effort to fight pollution.

[remake it + 288]

20 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I stand by my previous statement, they are shills, bought and paid for. 

But you now say

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

They were called out BY NAME in the Liberal New York Times!

So which is it, and what was the evidence used?

[canadas canadas + 136]

I thought that China was also trying to make coal oil from coal.

[Marcin + 519]

Derek Scissors was always anti-Chinese, well argumented intelligent guy, but China bashing was his watermark since I read his articles at Reuters 10 years ago.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

20 hours ago, Boat said:

It seems weird how this conversation got so twisted. It was stated China isn’t doing anything about its pollution and the evidence is clearly quite the opposite. 
Can and will they do more? We will see by looking at the numbers over the next few years. 

Every percent of energy use by a large country takes a lot of infrastructure, money and will to no matter what energy they use. But China, although is late to the game of cleaning up its pollution problems has certainly changed course over the last 10 years as evidenced by the charts presented.

But barely changed course, compared to America and other advanced nations. They can build the Belt and Road, but not clean up their own air. Interesting. 

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, Marcin said:

Derek Scissors was always anti-Chinese, well argumented intelligent guy, but China bashing was his watermark since I read his articles at Reuters 10 years ago.

Maybe to can somehow convince @Ward Smith that he is not a paid shill of the Chinese!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

19 hours ago, remake it said:

It's on a side track because the Paris Agreement commitments made by China affect coal consumption, and China - despite what Mr Buckland thinks - is ahead of where it proposed to be.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see...

[remake it + 288]

8 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see...

If seeing is believing, then all you need to do is offer what you have, instead of making empty statements.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

9 hours ago, remake it said:

But you now say

So which is it, and what was the evidence used?

Good lord you're stupid

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

3 hours ago, Marcin said:

Derek Scissors was always anti-Chinese, well argumented intelligent guy, but China bashing was his watermark since I read his articles at Reuters 10 years ago.

Marcin said it so it must be so? Hogwash

[remake it + 288]

18 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Good lord you're stupid

The first sign another has no argument is when they present none, however their typical offensive is exactly that... offensive, so you deserve many thanks for being true to form.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

13 minutes ago, remake it said:

The first sign another has no argument is when they present none, however their typical offensive is exactly that... offensive, so you deserve many thanks for being true to form.

And. You're. Still. Stupid. 

I presented my argument. I PROVED your source was tainted. Your response? No response. Hence the stupidity quotient, because intelligence quotient makes no sense with you.