“China Assumes The Mantle Of Green Energy Leadership”

China on track to lead in renewables as US retreats

  • The Guardian

China burns more than four times as much coal as the US, and their coal usage is growing, as US coal usage declines.

figure_4-2.png (944×740)

Experts describe this as China “assuming the mantle of green energy leadership” while “the US retreats.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to “China Assumes The Mantle Of Green Energy Leadership”

  1. rah says:

    Leave it to the Guardian. Griffs #1 source on all matters of science and energy.
    BTW China’s ass is in an economic bind already and the March deadline is fast approaching. The Trump Doctrine is working.

  2. frederik wisse says:

    Suggest the real greenies visit Shanghai and Peking in the wintertime . Anxious to know what excuses were used to brainwash them and let them forget the dire reality over there .

  3. frederik wisse says:

    Suggest the real greenies visit Peking and Shanghai in the wintertime . Anxious to hear the excuses for brainwashing them and make them forget the dire reality .

    • David A says:

      It is strange… “China burns more than four times as much coal as the US, and their coal usage is growing…”
      This would mean their per capita CO2 output is equal to the U.S., as China’s population is about 4 times the U.S. This surprises me.

  4. Pathway says:

    I suggest they visit a Uighur re-education camp instead.

  5. GCsquared says:

    There’s not necessarily a contradiction, as China might be investing in BOTH coal and renewables. That wouldn’t be a surprise.

    What is really flabbergasting is the widespread expectation that the extremely costly effort to reduce US CO2 emissions, by the paltry amount shown here, will have an appreciable effect on the global total. To compound the dumbness, many further expect that the tiny US CO2 blip will cause a significant downturn of global temperature.

    Even if you grant that CO2 emissions are going to cause thermal runaway on the earth, nothing that we’re doing is effective. We’re driving energy costs up, and ruining our economy, for no positive outcome (unless you think that emptying your pockets in the name of “Carbon tax” to the financial elites is beneficial). What a stupid policy!

  6. Johansen says:

    Chinese “renewables” = hydroelectric. That’s all. Yes, they have some really big wind farms, but even one average-size hydro project dwarfs any wind or solar
    There aren’t very many potential sites left in N. America

  7. R Shearer says:

    I would add that the Chinese put up with a lot of shit. In 2nd and 3rd tier Chinese cities, power outages are very common. It’s better than it used to be though. In a second tier city 30 years ago, power outages occurred every other day, sometimes for a half a day or more. Same for water.

    In second tier and lesser cities, street lighting is very poor, for example. I’ve nearly stepped on unmarked rebar sticking out of the concrete near a sidewalk and have seen unmarked open manholes.

    It’s common to see (and not see) farm vehicles travelling on the shoulders of highways going the wrong way and without any lighting. Life is cheap there.

    • Johansen says:

      “Life if cheap there”
      …. someone asked Mao, I believe, if he was worried about a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. He replied, “Not at all. We’ll just start f-ing again and rebuild”. I’ll have to dig up the exact quote…

  8. gregole says:

    China? Green Leadership?

    Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha!


    • Disillusioned says:

      I can literally see you wiping tears (from laughing so hard) from your eyes.

    • Robertv says:

      They are. With all that CO2 they help plant life all over the globe. They are the ME TOO movement for oppressed plants while the toxic masculine West wants to starve them.

    • arn says:

      Well-they have a 4* bigger population and maybe
      4 chinese overall people invest 0.1% more than an average US citizen,
      therefore they are in the lead.

      I would not be surprised that
      if we do some closer look we will find out that their green:coal ratio
      is much worse(in co2 terms) than on most places on this planet and that
      most of this renewable energy comes from the mega-dam projects.

  9. Anon says:

    Now that China is on it, we can all rest easy. Nothing like taking the bull by the horns and directly solving the problem. I guess the crisis will be over in about 5 to 10 years and we can lay AGW to rest as an issue. What a relief!

    • R Shearer says:

      That’s the communist China way.

      Life is cheap there, truth even cheaper. A promise doesn’t mean there is commitment.

  10. Psalmon says:

    How in the HE hocky sticks can the WV gov be a CC nut? Just like Manchin who voted in lockstep w Obama to kill coal…and got reelected? I mean i would reference a stereotype, and yes i have worked in WV so I know the answer…but good gawd.


  11. richard says:

    This comment is a long one and cut and paste from a Mark_BLR commenting in the Independent. I thought interesting regarding actual claims made in papers on the climate.

    “In contrast to the apathetic general public, some of us ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE DATA”

    “The actual scientists are reasonably honest in their papers about their shortcomings.

    The same cannot be said for the MEDIA REPORTING of those papers”

    Sippel et al (2016) : In this study, due to the large discrepancy between observed and modeled trends in temperature extremes, the model-estimated probability ratios are lower than those estimated from the observations.

    Diffenbaugh et al (2017) : … given the complexity of the physical causes, climate models may not accurately simulate the underlying physical processes, or their probability of occurrence.

    Ma et al (2017, IOP ERL, 2013 China heatwave) : Diagnosis of CMIP5 models and large ensembles of two atmospheric models indicates that human influence has substantially increased the chance of warm mid-summers such as 2013 in CEC, although the exact estimated increase depends on the selection of climate models.

    Dong et al (2018) : We also found that models generally overestimate changes in warm extremes but underestimate changes in cold extremes.

    Jezequel (2018) [ Misclassified ??? ] : We found NO link between climate change and circulation.

    Jacox et al (2018) : Significant impacts on California Current living marine resources in 2016 resulted from sustained extremely high ocean temperatures forced by a confluence of natural drivers and LIKELY exacerbated by anthropogenic warming.

    Newman et al (2018) : Finally, our model results illuminate, but do not reconcile, continuing disparities among climate models concerning anthropogenic impacts on ENSO variability … due to lingering dynamical biases in the models.

    Kang & Eltahir (2018) : Although the model used in this study has been tested extensively over China and other regions of Asia, significant limitations may persist.

    Karoly et al., (2016) : Anthropogenic climate change and El Niño made small but significant contributions to increasing the likelihood of record low rainfall in October 2015 in Tasmania. Atmospheric variability was the main contributor.

    In terms of contributions to the magnitude of this rainfall deficit, internal atmospheric variability as indicated by the PSA MSLP pattern (Fig. 25.1b) was likely the main contributor, with El Niño next and a smaller but significant contribution from anthropogenic climate change.

    Bergaoui et al (2015) : However, our model is dry-biased in the region of interest, most likely due to a lack of very intense cyclones in the Mediterranean region (Anagnostopoulou et al. 2006).

    Zhang, et al (2017) [ Misclassified ??? ] : It remains unclear whether anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the increasing extreme droughts.

    Due to the poor representation of precipitation in current climate models, the attribution of anthropogenic forcing of the increased occurrence of extreme drought remains unknown.

    Rosier et al (2015) : However, other studies analyzing different regions using a very similar model configuration do not find an anthropogenic influence on extreme precipitation changes, for example, Sparrow et al. (2013) and Schaller et al. (2014). This raises the question of why a stronger signal should be apparent here.

    Ma et al (2017, JoC, precipitation in China) : One issue that is worthy of attention is why the inclusion of anthropogenic aerosols surprisingly makes the model results more inconsistent with the observed trends (see Figs. 2 and 4). This MIGHT BE because current climate models do not have all the capacities needed to fully represent the multiple aerosol effects on precipitation.

    Pall, et al (2017) [ Misclassified ??? ] : Our approach PRECLUDES assessment of changes in the frequency of the observed synoptic meteorological conditions themselves, and thus does NOT assess the effect of anthropogenic climate drivers on the statistics of heavy Colorado rainfall events.

    Patricola & Wehner (2018) : There is no consensus on whether climate change has yet affected the statistics of tropical cyclones, owing to their large natural variability and the limited period of consistent observations. In addition, projections of future tropical cyclone activity are uncertain, because they often rely on coarse-resolution climate models that parameterize convection and hence have difficulty in directly representing tropical cyclones.

    Kirchmeier-Young et al (2017) : … the model used here MAY overemphasize the warming trend for this region, which would result in over-confident attribution.

  12. GW Smith says:

    If it wasn’t in print I would believe it.

Leave a Reply to Robertv Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.