Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 12, 2021

There Is No Will To Fight Climate Change

The recently published report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is grim:

B.1.3. Global warming of 1.5°C relative to 1850-1900 would be exceeded during the 21st century under the intermediate, high and very high scenarios considered in this report. Under the five illustrative scenarios, in the near term (2021-2040), the 1.5°C global warming level is very likely to be exceeded under the very high GHG emissions scenario, likely to be exceeded under the intermediate and high GHG emissions scenarios, more likely than not to be exceeded under the low GHG emissions scenario and more likely than not to be reached under the very low GHG emissions scenario.

The global reductions of Green House Gases (GHG) which are required to fit even the intermediate scenario are unlikely to be reached with the current policies:

The time has come to voice our fears and be honest with wider society. Current net zero policies will not keep warming to within 1.5°C because they were never intended to. They were and still are driven by a need to protect business as usual, not the climate. If we want to keep people safe then large and sustained cuts to carbon emissions need to happen now. That is the very simple acid test that must be applied to all climate policies. The time for wishful thinking is over.

The reasons are of course political. There is a lot of lobbying for policies which continue the output of GHG while there is little immediate interest in reducing them. A decade ago Peter Lee had already done the math. Looking back at what happened since he lays out a list of failures:

The United States under Joe Biden has doubled down on the absurd narrative that the United States has the national capacity and moral stature to lead the world’s response to climate change.

Let me dismiss this claim in a few words.

First, the doom of the climate change regime was sealed when the United States refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 1998.

It was double doomed when the United States under Barack Obama imposed a successor regime that eliminated legally binding caps for anyone.

It was triple doomed when Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement.

It was quadruple doomed when the United States under Joe Biden decided that its highest priority and organizing principle of policy was to treat the People’s Republic of China as America’s prime geopolitical adversary.

Doom doom de doom doom doom. You get the picture.

It is not only the U.S. which is guilty here. All political system seem to prefer short term rewards over avoiding future pain., especially when others can be plausibly blamed for the outcome. The U.S. is just the most hypocritical actor here.

That Joe Biden is still playing nice with the fossil fuel industry demonstrates the mechanism:

The Biden administration is now on track to approve more oil and gas drilling on public lands—activity that accounts for a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions—than any administration since George W. Bush. Climate envoy John Kerry has balked at the idea of committing the U.S. to a coal phaseout. Politicians who call themselves climate hawks are still going out of their way to make clear that there’s a vibrant future ahead for the companies that funded climate denial, whose business model remains built around burning up and extracting as many fossil fuels as possible. Administration officials, meanwhile, have talked repeatedly about the need to cap warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius.

This is climate denial.

Just look at the recent infrastructure bill:

Many of the bill’s provisions are on the oil industry’s wish list. The proposed legislation has more than $10 billion for carbon capture, transport and storage — a suite of technologies fossil fuel companies hope will allow them to extend their license to operate for years, if not decades. There’s also $8 billion for hydrogen — with no stipulation that the energy used to produce it comes from clean sources. A new liquid natural gas plant in Alaska won billions in loan guarantees, while other waivers in the bill will weaken environmental reviews of new construction projects, experts say.

“This infrastructure proposal is not a down payment on real climate action,” said Mitch Jones, director of Food & Water Watch Policy, a Washington accountability organization. “It is doubling down on support for climate polluters.”

Just yesterday Biden confirmed his pro fossil fuel position by asking for cheaper pollution:

President Joe Biden on Wednesday afternoon added to the pressure on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, after one of his top advisers said earlier in the day that OPEC and its allies “must do more” to support the economic recovery.
...
Oil futures recently traded higher, but they had retreated earlier Wednesday after U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan pressed OPEC and its allies to further boost output and described a recent agreement to increase production as “simply not enough.”

Which lets me agree with Peter Lee's scary conclusion:

Lacking a time machine that can take us back to 1998 when we still had a chance to turn things around--or a nice big catastrophic war that wipes out enough humanity and industrial capacity to accomplish the same thing--it might be up to the planet to deal with the problem herself: churning up enough sea level rise, weather calamity, drought, famine, and disease to reduce the human load on the planet by the ugliest means imaginable.

That’s all the climate change optimism I can muster, and that’s it!

This not a pessimistic view but a realistic one. It does not mean that we should give up. All of us, personally and politically, should try to reduce our environmental footprint as much as we can.

Unfortunately that is neither easy nor convenient to do.

Posted by b on August 12, 2021 at 14:05 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

@Gordog | Aug 13 2021 2:44 utc | 166

"Chairman Meow" LOL!

P.S. Looking forward to your next installment!

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 13 2021 6:59 utc | 201

@Gordog 162
who wrote
"... climate and covid discussions.

I can offer no expert opinion in either, but do appreciate hearing both sides. Some very good commentary here.

I would only add that I want to keep hearing BOTH sides. I'm sure many lurkers feel the same way."

Exactly.

Posted by: Die Niemandsfuchs | Aug 13 2021 6:59 utc | 202

That cat called Chairman Meow is definitely no running dog capitalist!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_dog
māo 猫 is cat in Chinese.


WRT to climate change, is there a scrutinization of claims made 15 years ago in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth?

Posted by: tucenz | Aug 13 2021 7:23 utc | 203

"It's all a racket... "
And not the first one.
I apologize for some of my previous post, perhaps too sarcastic

###
Thanks She Bear, Baron, Grieved, Psychohistorian, Norwegian,et al... and Gordog too.
Keep eyes on the ball. Stay rational.
I was yesterday to a protest. Found this sign


Glaube wenig, hinterfrage alles, denke selbst

Translation

Believe little, question everything, think for yourself


###
Suffering to redeem the original sin...

They do this crap because they can charge you more and tell you that you're helping the environment if you suffer
She Bear | Aug 13 2021 1:55 utc | 157

An old Western Christian tradition for the maintenance of clan and class power.I don’t know if the Eurasian civilizations are as sensitive.
In short, you must deceive and scare the citizens into voluntarily giving up their freedom.
Posted by: Baron | Aug 12 2021 21:52 utc | 128
€€€
The health emergency [whether real or not has little interest here] has allowed the clans and ruling classes to strengthen their grip very quickly and profoundly. But its lifespan is short, at most 2 to 3 years.

The climate emergency [whether real or not has little interest here] is addressed to 3 generations!

Since experts confirm that it is already too late to stop the phenomenon but that it can only be reduced [which reminds us of COVID-19 in the West], is there an urgent need [especially for the “developing” countries to drastically reduce their economic and industrial capacities?
or to build:
* the cities of the coming decades?
* terrestrial routes of communication (maritime transport and port activity could be slightly disrupted by rising water in excess of 50 metres (150 feet))?
* water resource management (canals and transfers are already possible for a fraction of the cost of desertification, e.g. Lake Chad and river Congo]
* limitation of use from arable land to regional food [and of course ban their capture by the Bill Gates and other United Fruits

These dynamics will form an inseparable part of the historical process of the dying of capital-theft systems, [...] The rich of course will act against it. 
Posted by: Grieved | Aug 13 2021 2:43 utc | 165


Posted by: Rêver | Aug 13 2021 7:51 utc | 204

She Bear | Aug 13 2021 2:30 utc | 149

A bit OT.

"many Africans, who are not capable of building viable societies, still all have at least 8 children each?"

Possible underestimation.
I did a consultancy in Rwanda just before the massacres started. During which I met about six Ladies "reformatting" western produced contraceptive articles for local consumption/use. When I asked how many children they each had, the answers were => eleven to thirteen, the youngest had "only nine" (Their words). (My surprise)

I then asked why, - as they were producing cotraceptive visual material, and didn't they think this was "confused/not good". The answer was "It is the duty of every African women to have as many children as they can". The problem is ingrained social attitudes are very difficult to change.

Women's education is probabaly the best contraceptive, as educated women then have other interests and work (employment and also individual motivated occupations), so they tend to have less children.
One other reason for the mass of children, is that they constitute a form of retirement plan. They will be expected to look after their parents later on.

*****
Peter AU1 and Juliana @120

May I put in a plea for peat bogs and marshland?. Both are excellent "users" and "recyclers". I read somewhere that they are superior to trees for carbon capture, wildlife, species variety etc. Here (France) we had several areas nearby, but they are very vulnerable to "development". Several have disappeared before their use was re-evalued. One was even designed to become a 72 hectare golf course and Hotel complex. The Mayor was getting a kickback and subsequently got found out so luckily the project was stopped.

But it is a long fight against creeping concrete.

Posted by: Stonebird | Aug 13 2021 7:52 utc | 205

cotraceptive Huh?....oooops, sorry pardon, => contraceptive

Posted by: Stonebird | Aug 13 2021 7:54 utc | 206

Depopulation is bad for capitalism. Excess people mean cheap labor power

vk @ 174

Not when the people that are dying off are pensioners and the sick as they are a drain on resources. “Useless eaters” as they are supposedly referred to by the elite.

Diabetes has been projected for the last decade or so to bankrupt the NHS.
Huge rise in UK diabetes cases threatens to bankrupt NHS, charity warns

The demographic bomb in advanced countries is well known, Population growth is below replacement level meaning less people contributing towards pensions whilst the number of people drawing pensions grows.

Posted by: Down South | Aug 13 2021 8:11 utc | 207

@ Posted by: vk | Aug 12 2021 18:01 utc | 73

If one day it is proven the Antropocene hypothesis is false

In general (and I think in this case also) it is not possible to prove the negative. This is one major reason that 'mind control' (as in psyops) will often come in the guise of what seems like a hypothesis, but in reality it is not, because you cannot falsify it (using science).

I do agree with you that making 'predictions' or hypotheses are part of the scientific method.

However, I am not at all sure what 'extreme' weather is - seems very subjective to me. Everyone and their cat is talking of 'extreme weather'...I wonder what branch of science is dedicated to this :-)

Posted by: Idiocrates | Aug 13 2021 8:33 utc | 208

@ Posted by: psychohistorian | Aug 12 2021 23:42 utc | 141

Indeed, I agree with your sentiments. We need to solve the 'right' problem. If useful idiots are convinced (and it seems they are) that we all need to work 'together', specifically including 'private finance' and all the other Evil cabals, to 'save the planet' then there is no hope.

To keep things in perspective, I like to remind myself that we belong to the Earth and not the other way around.

Posted by: Idiocrates | Aug 13 2021 9:32 utc | 209

Idiocrates @ 204

However, I am not at all sure what 'extreme' weather is - seems very subjective to me

Read up on the 1979 Fastnet Race, where force 11 winds(the waves thus created) wreaked havoc on the 303 yachts that participated. 15 sailors died, at least 75 boats capsized and five sank. It prompted the largest ever peace-time rescue operation.

Posted by: john | Aug 13 2021 9:38 utc | 210

@vk | Aug 12 2021 18:01 utc | 73

If one day it is proven the Antropocene hypothesis is false, it doesn't necessarily mean it's good news.

Well, since the Antropocene is the geologic period we live in, following the Pleistocene, it would be indeed bad news if someone proved it doesn't exist.

Maybe you mean the discredited hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Posted by: Norwegian | Aug 13 2021 9:53 utc | 211

Idiocrates @ 204

However, I am not at all sure what 'extreme' weather is - seems very subjective to me

Read up on the 1979 Fastnet Race, where force 11 winds(the 40 ft breaking waves thus created) wreaked havoc on the 303 yachts that participated. 15 sailors died, at least 75 boats capsized and five sank. It prompted the largest ever peace-time rescue operation. Harrowing.

Posted by: john | Aug 13 2021 9:53 utc | 212

Zarathustra @ 83
I think you nailed it.

Posted by: blueswede | Aug 13 2021 9:54 utc | 213

Peter AU1 @ 185

There are many edible flowers, or flowers that have edible leaves and bulbs. Do a search and encourage your wife to grow the tastiest ones. Nasturtium has both edible flowers and leaves, and the pickled seeds make a good caper substitute.

Posted by: Peter Williams | Aug 13 2021 10:33 utc | 214

@C1ue

Assuming your opinion that per capita carbon emissions are irrelevant. How do we as a planet assign emission limits? Would it be one share per country?

Posted by: Littlereddot | Aug 13 2021 10:51 utc | 215

This blog used to be a great political one, providing insights not provided elsewhere, even into interesting topics such as Boeing. Now it is just a soapbox for pushing absurd woke notions like exaggerating the danger of covid, and now pushing climate change nonsense. Add to that a deification of China as the world's savior through Orwellian Social Credit. What's next, Critical Race Theory? Of course B rightly publishes his beliefs, but just saying it really is a very different place to what it used to be. Leftists I can respect, not the woke. Cheers...

Posted by: Gravel Rash | Aug 13 2021 11:32 utc | 216

In 1972, the Club of Rome and fellow Malthusians issued a book called Limits to Growth, claiming the world was going to run out of crucial resources by the year 2000.
____________________________________________________________________

In 1972 one could observe that US per capita oil consumption had double every 10 years for the previous 100 years. If that trend had continued US oil consumption would now be 30 times higher than it was in 1972. But that is not what happened. Today US per capita oil consumption is less than it was in 1972.

Predictions are based on what will happen if people don't change their behavior.

Posted by: jinn | Aug 13 2021 12:15 utc | 217

Climate change was an idea to justify movement toward a US-led world government. This aim is no longer that actual, given that the US is busy now in defending the remains of their power instead of extending it. So, the only remaining purpose may be weakening competitors, in particular the EU. It seems to work fine in the EU.

But neither Russia nor China really care. China has a lot of things to do to improve their environmental situation, and forestation is a quite tool for this, and can be sold as "against climate change" too. Russia develops its leadership in nuclear power. Also useful without any climate. So, they play a little bit along (why would they prevent the West from harming itself), but do not harm themselves.

There is no real danger. Higher temperature means more precipitation, and there are large regions on the planet too cold or too arid, but almost none too wet and too hot. So we are quite obviously yet below the optimal for humanity temperature. Of course, change requires adaptation, which costs something. But all this can be done locally. And there would be enough time even for very large infrastructure. For small infrastructure it would be enough to care that new things are build in an appropriate way for the expected new climate.

Posted by: Maximilian | Aug 13 2021 12:27 utc | 218

Is the CO2 effect saturated?
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm


“Climate-change experts seek dialogue with Gov. Abbott” – Dr. Neil Frank’s Response
On January 25, 2019, CO2 Coalition member Dr. Neil Frank sent an open letter to Governor Greg Abbott of Texas
https://co2coalition.org/2019/02/01/climate-change-experts-seek-dialogue-with-gov-abbott-dr-neil-franks-response/

Posted by: JaimeInTexas | Aug 13 2021 14:09 utc | 219


@c1ue | Aug 12 2021 17:10 utc | 60

I'm a little late responding to your post, so for the benefit of other readers, the points I made in my post were:

...that households actually have agency (control) over themselves and can do _something_ about the macro situation in lieu of effective top-down action.

The requisite/desirable action isn't happening, on a range of fronts, because the "top" likes things as they are and therefore is not motivated to change anything. That leaves the household as one key remaining region where the individual has agency. My remarks about household action were made in the context of environmental degradation - the subject of b's post.


c1ue: you said:
You are welcome to return to a neolithic lifestyle.
But again, what you do doesn't matter. Any one or even 100 million neolithic lifestyles isn't going to prevent buildings from going up, roads from getting built, electricity/oil/gas/coal/steel from being generated/mined/pumped.
But of course, becoming "one with nature" will require that 4 out of every 5 family members needs to die first because food production without fossil fuel fertilizer, transport and preservation drops at least 80%. So again pragmatically, the more people go neolithic, the smaller their share of the population, voting or otherwise, will be.

=== My response:

You assert that action at the household level implies return to Fred Flintstone.

I would bet that my household contains, uses, develops, operates more technology than most medium-scale commercial enterprises.

My household has in-house-developed robotics, computer boards, software (OS and application), refrigeration, greenhouse, agriculture (forage, fruit, nuts, vegetables) along with metal, fiberglass, foam-crete, refractory design and fabrication, premises irrigation and power distribution systems. All designed, installed, operated by me. A lowly Fred-Flintstone householder.

I'd be willing to bet my house could beat the pants off yours for technology development and mastery. And I'm leaving a lot out so as not to embarrass you too much while you pull that big shoe out of your mouth.

If you'd do just a little more thinking, you might realize that the major economic problem facing the developed countries is that production capacity has been overly concentrated, _causing_ the wealth disparity that has hamstrung the developed economies. This is the core reason that transfer payments and other wealth-redistribution schemes dominate the western economies. The household's share of the benefits of productivity (as wages) is declining as labor is increasingly factored out of the production equation. Hence transfer payments, funds for which are obtained by printing.

How can households re-position themselves to reclaim a role in the economy, c1ue? Are the people at the top of the pyramid, for whom the existing system works so well, going to relinquish their position? Likely not.

So that leaves the households to learn how to use technology - how to master and apply it - in the one realm over which they have control: the household itself.

And if that householder happened to be concerned about climate change, and I am, let us consider that..

Most of the U.S. petroleum consumption is for transport (motor fuel), and the rest is largely for feed-stock for petro-chem (plastics and the like). Both of which can be substantially reduced via re-localization and redistribution of production from global to regional supply chains. Electrical energy production, in the temperate parts of the U.S. can be largely replaced via solar, and a good bit of that solar can be accomplished where?... household rooftops.

Work from home? No more 50-mile round trip 3000 lb vehicle waste. Do the math. 68% U.S. oil use: transport. Lotta cars. Households as the production platform.

Your perspectives about what's possible at the household level are totally groundless. I don't have formal training in _any_ of the disciplines/trades I set out above. Anybody can do it.

Even you.

A household, in the hands of skilled artisan, is a very potent tool.


Posted by: Tom Pfotzer | Aug 13 2021 14:10 utc | 220

As one of the most complex systems known to man, reducing the cause of climate variability down to one driver is arithmetically unwise and intellectually dishonest. Oceans have risen and retreated since for ever and temperatures have risen and fallen for just as long and it all started way before the advent of man.

Posted by: guidoamm | Aug 13 2021 14:41 utc | 221

"Posted by: Down South | Aug 13 2021 8:11 utc | 207"

"Depopulation is bad for capitalism. Excess people mean cheap labor power"

whilst integrated AI transcending CAD-Camary allows the displacement of labour and even cheaper labour power in aggregate. Look on the bright side; instead of being food sources and human shields, your roles will be limited in both areas.

Posted by: MagdaTam | Aug 13 2021 14:43 utc | 222

In terms of depletion of resources, overconsumption and excess industrial overcapacity, there is nothing that could not be remedied by reversing decades of aberrant monetary policies.

Posted by: guidoamm | Aug 13 2021 14:44 utc | 223

CO2
The spectral lines of CO2 are well known, cross sections as well. It has been experimentally proven that CO2 amounts slow down radiation of certain wavelenghts. That means that more CO2 will warm up the planet? Well, may be, at least homeopathically ...
So far I have not seen any experimental evidence for this claim under real conditions. (Under ideal conditions - vacuum - you can also proof, a feather is falling as fast as your breakfast egg, medium boiled, good luck trying to proof that in athmospheric conditions.)
The "paper" Roger has linked in 88 is a joke. Not even proof read as there is also a "cooling element" beside the "heating element". Heat transport in gasses under normal pressure is convection driven, with only a small amount contributed by radiation. This is correctly applied here, if one bothers to compare the numbers in Tables 2 und 3. The measured results are in no way related to any "green house effect". And it just uses "air", no mention of the highly important content of CO2 in this air. Was it taken in the morning or in the evening, last year or right now? What amount of water? Water, in any form, is much more important as GHG.

Therefore, any experiment that would try to show evidence of warming due to CO2 concentration should take place in arid areas of the world (to escape the overwhelming influence of water vapour) and measure at the same with and without additional CO2. If anyone could provide such papers I would be very interested.

Posted by: BG13 | Aug 13 2021 14:47 utc | 224

@Posted by: MagdaTam | Aug 13 2021 14:43 utc | 222

But...all those wildfires at unison...I suspected somethingg fishy...arsonists...just way too much fitting the narrative who has come to progresively substitute that of the pandemic...
All the media at unsion start bombarding with the "heating of the planet" and historical records of high temperatures, but, as with the pandemic, they shamefully lie with regard this pandeheating.

The other day, a radio broadcaster stated there have been a record high temperature in Seville, claiming an allegedly astounding 48ºC, trying to scare the hell out of radio listeners so that they comply with the "Green New Deal" as they have complied with the "vaccines", but in vain, since amongst them there were witness of summer 87 in such place who still recalling how asphalt was burning under their snickers at 49ºC...


Also, and related to this, may be you are already aware that the Spanish government more or less blam d the galloping price of electricity for consumers in the country, which every day is said to treach a new record, currently at more than 100 euro/Kw/h, in President Putin who, in their opinion, does not send enovugh gas to Europe, taking us all for the same sacrificial lambs who crowd the sports pabillions in a rush to vaccinate with the mRNA gene therapies under the continuous menace of losing jobs, rights and freedoms, and thinking we ignore Spanish gas comes mainly from Algeria, btw, also suffering wildfires, but this time arsonists have been caughtm in the number of no less than 20....

Anyway, your position here is clear, you are with the corporations, trying to save their ass, as you offer Pfizer a way to hide their fiasco, abuse, profiteering from a pandemic, and more than probable crime against humanity, by offering them a trial for a booster with your Sputnik V Light, instead of helping the peoples save their lives ( or in case it is already too late, that they are are paid reparations ), recover their sovereignty and unveil the criminals...

It is obvious that since Geneva, you have obviously played your cards, that you are aware who is the boss at the top, and try to negotiate there...Good luck, I doubt you will be spared anyway...

When they came for the Jews....

Posted by: Asha K. | Aug 13 2021 15:19 utc | 225

This just came out:

Xi Focus-Quotable Quotes: Xi Jinping on building eco-civilization

The problem with many "global warming is a hoax created by the elites" conspiracy theorists lies in the fact that this narrative throws everybody in the same bucket.

If you're a Westerner and don't like your government and your elites, name them. Do not try to drag the rest of the world into the mud with your domestic problems. Stop universalizing the Western domestic problems.

Posted by: vk | Aug 13 2021 15:36 utc | 226

@Peter AU1 #128
Paying poorer countries is the theory - the reality has yet to be seen.
Equally, what is the rate of payment? And the amount of allowable emissions? And who pays?
Lots of theories, no action = no change regardless of what one believes regarding climate.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2021 15:39 utc | 227

vk #136
You said:

Being carbon neutral doesn't mean you don't emit carbon. It merely means you capture the same amount of carbon as you produce.

So, China could build 1 million GW coal plants if it wanted, it would still be carbon neutral if it manages to recapture all the carbon it emits.

Such a facile response. Clearly you haven't looked at the numbers.
Let's say it costs $0.01 to capture 1 ton of CO2 via carbon capture.
The actual price is far, far higher but we'll use $0.01 just for fun sake.
Annual CO2 emissions are around 37,000 Megatons of CO2. So the cost would be $370 million for carbon capture cost of $0.01 per ton.
Great!
Except that the ACTUAL cost of carbon capture with present technologies is more like $70-$100 per ton, meaning the annual cost to achieve carbon emissions neutrality is $2.6 to $3.7 trillion.
The entire world's GDP is around $80T - that's the value of every single transaction of any kind, anywhere, added together.
Put another way - the $2.6T to $3.7T is around what the entire world spends on energy, period.
it is not possible to use carbon capture to achieve emissions neutrality right now or for the foreseeable future
Costs needs to drop 2 orders of magnitude = 100x to be even theoretically possible.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2021 15:51 utc | 228

@Posted by: Asha K. | Aug 13 2021 15:19 utc | 225

This is the real cause of the galloping prices of electricity for consumers in Spain, nothing to do with "climate change", but plain especulation and criminal bad arts...Why the government does nothing?
It is Iberdrola emptying damns and conspiring with the other members of the oligopolio who is extortioning the Spanish citizens...

https://twitter.com/OLMB14/status/1425196270780563457

Well, did you know that the same main stakeholder in Pfizer is also main stakeholder at Spanish electric corporations privatized during "socialist" Felipe Gonzalez, being "socialists" those crowding since then the boards there?

This is what he thinks the good ole Kim Philby...ahhh those times...

https://twitter.com/LOQUEDIGAELFMI/status/1426199645957545985

And this one, for the Gamaleya Institute and the RDIF...Good profiteering!

https://twitter.com/Amor_y_Rabia/status/1426116283028983811

Finally, and ole Afghan proverb...which you could well apply to everything happening...

https://twitter.com/Amor_y_Rabia/status/1425878766341996551


Posted by: Asha K. | Aug 13 2021 15:51 utc | 229

@Ben #153
Your comment would be a lot more credible if the same person and the same economic ideas/models weren't lauded prior to his change in views. Yes, including a (non) Nobel prize in economics.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2021 15:52 utc | 230

@Peter AU1 #163
I don't see the US going down as making any difference - not that the US is going to "go down" in any significant sense.
The US has the 3rd largest population, the 2nd largest economy and is extremely wealthy regardless of its national debt. It isn't going to fade from history even when/if it acknowledges that it is no longer the global hegemon.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2021 15:54 utc | 231

Interesting thread on how they manipulate electricity price in Spain and blame it all on alleged "Climate Change"....

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1425123436993687556.html

Posted by: Asha K. | Aug 13 2021 15:57 utc | 232

@d dan #186
You clearly cannot seem to understand the difference between ongoing, completed and future projects.
Here is China's actual breakdown of electricity generation:
EIA breakdown of China electricity generation

Coal is 47% of generation vs. 2.7% wind and 0.5% solar PV.
47 divided by 2.7+.5 = 14.69.
My mistake, China generates 14x more electricity by coal than solar+wind put together, not 10x.

Installation of X or Y GW of solar and wind - meaningless given that the capacity factor for solar/wind are small fractions. 10 GW of solar = maybe 2GW of actual generation whereas 10 GW of coal = 6 to 8 GW of actual generation.

China is trying to exit less value add industries which does serve to reduce relative emissions, but that is more than offset by the increasing energy use for private/personal consumption.

So keep on trying, but you are totally wrong and deluded, and won't admit it.

China is not green, the CCP is not trying to be carbon neutral.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2021 16:02 utc | 233

@LibEgaFra #198
Educate yourself: if CO2 is the primary driver of temperature/climate - why is not the temperature going up at the same pace/degree as CO2 emissions?

Why are there long periods where global temperatures don't go up at all (the previous pause was 18 years).
The present pause is 6 years and 6 months and counting.

Real world trumps theory every. single. time.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2021 16:05 utc | 234

@Littlereddot #215
You are assuming that
a) the climate crisis is real
b) the cause human induced
c) that humans can do something about it

I am doubtful of all 3.

But let's say that I agree. A "fair" level of emissions for everyone would be a historical limit based on past emissions plus present, "ideal" emissions.
The definition of ideal is not present but what they "could be" under some hypothetical carbon efficient, 1st world lifestyle. Similarly past emissions would need to be adjusted for modern technology.
As you should be seeing: to come to agreement on what these numbers are would be impossible. The developed countries (US, EU, Japan) would have to both dramatically reduce prosperity in the form of immediate and/or short term changes in consumption while simultaneously funding the poorer countries to use more carbon efficient means of development.

I don't see that happening, ever.

This even assumes that it is possible for our 1 Earth to provide the energy resources, even under the "efficient" mode, for all the Earth's population. I firmly believe that is not possible.

So what are we left with?

2nd and 3rd world countries with their hands out for whatever cash they can get.
1st world countries - NGOs and activists with their hands out in concert with ruling classes who want more excuses to deprive the overall populace in favor of said ruling classes getting ever richer.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2021 16:13 utc | 235

@ 185 gordog... great suggestion... we don''t have much surplus and what surplus we have especially off the many fruit trees we have - we do give to friends, and if no friends take us up - to food share, a local organization that puts it into the community...

@ 188 peter au.... we have a split garden and my wife loves flowers.. i do too! the bees like them and they are beautiful to look at... i am sorry you are not able to eat much at this point... i am still enjoying the harvest directly and my wife is a great cook who loves to cook, can and grow stuff too... i am blessed!

Posted by: james | Aug 13 2021 16:20 utc | 236

@Tom Pfotzer #220
You clearly have spent zero time considering the economic pyramids represented by all the things you use.

Let's look at your

robotics, computer boards, software (OS and application), refrigeration, greenhouse, agriculture (forage, fruit, nuts, vegetables) along with metal, fiberglass, foam-crete, refractory design and fabrication, premises irrigation and power distribution systems

Did you manufacture the electronic chips by hand?
Did you create the electronics boards by hand?
Did you mine the metals yourself for solder and interconnects?
Did you pump the hydrocarbons, chemically refine and extrude the plastics yourself?
Did you create the routers by which your internet is functioning?
Did you pave the roads around your house?
Did you lay the sewer, water pipes and their corresponding treatment plants/pumps?
Did you put in the power lines all the way to the power plant, including transformers? If you're using solar: did you create the solar panels yourself? The transformers and wiring? Ditto wind: turbine motors and blades?
Did you create the base materials for the concrete and fiberglass yourself?
Did you design and manufacture the various motors required for pumping/agriculture?
Did you build the refrigerator?
Did you create the freon or equivalent which is the basis by which said refrigerator functions?
What about transportation: do you have a car? a tractor? Did you mine the metals and other base components and then design and build the vehicles?
Do you design and manufacture your own medicines? Do your own medical care? surgery?
I could go on like this for many, many more pages. And I am 100% certain that almost all, if not all of your answers to the above are: no.

Half or more of the emissions we create are from the exact same industrial society. Even if you magically avoided all carbon emissions from your own personal consumption - which you clearly are not given that most, if not all, of the above were manufactured somewhere else and transported great distances for your use - that would still not be enough reduction in emissions to achieve carbon neutrality.

There's a TV series called Alone where several people are given a small number of self-chosen modern items and try to survive. They have modern clothing, weapons and a literal handful of other items.
It ain't easy.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2021 16:29 utc | 237

Btw, related, today marks the 60th anniversary of the demolition of East Berlin Antifascist Barrier, and so, from that dust, this mud...

There is no will to fight, indeed, becuase there is no will to fight anymore, as the people has been brainwashed, depoliticed, dumbified through progressive degradation of education and brutalization throuh MSM and elecronic devices, and, in the last step, scared to dead by continuous broadcasted menaces on that they will lose everything if they do not submit....

The same terror machine unleashed by the German nazis, but this time rised to the nth potence...

Welcome to technosanitary ecofascism....

To the past sugerence on eating worms and meat printed by 3D machines, now it arrives to your groceries kokroach milk...

https://forbescentroamerica.com/2019/08/23/leche-de-cucaracha-sera-alimento-del-futuro/

From the same authors of "there should be a regulation that enforces switching off air conditioning machines in the middle of Spanish summer canicle" and "put your washing machine at wee hours during labor week to save in stratosphercally expensive electricity"...

Posted by: Asha K. | Aug 13 2021 16:32 utc | 238

i see the usual corporate shills have taken over the comments on this, with their fake science and reference to anthony watts and other similar scumbab. what gets me is the same people claiming megadollar corporations are influencing government policy to impose virus lockdowns and vaccinations like to pretend that even bigger corporations are a victim of a cabal of scientists. what stands out to me isn't the ignorance of science, it's the blatant hypocrisy of these selective science deniers.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Aug 13 2021 17:13 utc | 239

@Debsisdead

The MOA commentariat has always been a cesspit of retards. Articles like this are merely particularly bad with the kinds of swamp creatures they bring out.

b himself mostly makes good content (just don't ask him about Myanmar!), but his community is awful.

Posted by: Ben | Aug 13 2021 17:16 utc | 240

@237 c1ue

c1ue:

Did I say I would do away with the global supply chain? What statement did I make which somehow implied it?

This sort of black-white all-or-nothing thinking is not all that helpful to advancing any agenda.

Can I not just buy less from the global supply chain, or any supply chain global or local which does things I don't like? (e.g. degrade the environment, or concentrate more wealth in the hands of the few who really don't need any more)

Can I not just figure out how to substitute things I make for things I buy?

Can I not capture for myself the benefits of technology (own the production process) instead of working as a plebe wage-slave in the maw of the Machine?

This stuff can, and is, being done.

Now, please show me where in my writing I said I would not buy anything from the "outside world" and only subsist on what I, Fred Flintstone would produce for myself.

Posted by: Tom Pfotzer | Aug 13 2021 17:20 utc | 241

as somebody said, question everything. follow the money. the fossil fuel companies are some of the richest business entities on the planet. they are not helpless victims. i'm using my common sense here because i see big banks, big pharma, big defense contractors and the like trying (and often succeeding) to rig the game in their favor. some people want to pretend that big fossil fuel companies, for some never explained reason, are an exception, that they are helpless victims. it's obvious, stinking crap, and anybody that pushes it is in effect a shill. if you think bill gates and jeff bezos and the like are the helpless victim of anything in this society you must might be a climate change denier, most people have more common sense these days.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Aug 13 2021 17:22 utc | 242

@237

c1ue: another point I neglected to mention in response to this remark you made:

Half or more of the emissions we create are from the exact same industrial society. Even if you magically avoided all carbon emissions from your own personal consumption - which you clearly are not given that most, if not all, of the above were manufactured somewhere else and transported great distances for your use - that would still not be enough reduction in emissions to achieve carbon neutrality.

====

In my previous post above, I stated that I do, indeed, use inputs from the global economy. And in this post, I'll agree with your assertion that such inputs did not materialize without adverse environmental impact.

I'm not perfect yet. I still have a way to go, but I've covered a lot of ground already. Most of the major infrastructure elements are in place, and with care most of the big stuff will last for hundreds of years. I built well. Most of the replacement parts I'll need are small and light, and infrequent.

My thesis was, and is "household is a great platform for econ and environmental _action_".

Your rebuttal to date seems to be "yer not perfect yet".

Have you even started yet, c1ue? Seems like you're paralyzed by your negativity.


Posted by: Tom Pfotzer | Aug 13 2021 17:31 utc | 243

@Tom Pfotzer #243
Your thesis is the modern equivalent of lotus eating. Admirable but doesn't change anything.
My personal carbon footprint would be fairly small except for the enormous amount of travel I do.
However, my personal choices don't matter.
Your personal choices don't matter.
The fruits of industrial society that we enjoy - that allow you to live a pseudo-conservation lifestyle - are created by the enormous consumption, both past and ongoing, of fossil fuel energy.
The vast majority of the world's population: 85%+ - live in vastly inferior situations. They want better.
Who are you are I to judge them and their children as being unworthy of the opportunity to build better lives?

So while I can respect your choices, at the same time, I have a realistic and holistic understanding of the real world.

Even your lovely personal situation: things will break and wear out. Thus you will forever be tied to industrial society regardless of your admirable desire to "make a difference".

Even were the entire Western world to replicate your lifestyle, it would not matter: only the most economically repressive regime possible over the rest of the world will prevent ongoing increasing emissions. That or mass depopulation of the planet.

This isn't negativity - this is sober analysis.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2021 17:46 utc | 244

@pretzelattack #242
You keep harping on fossil fuel revenues, but you refuse to look at the counterpart.
What are the revenues for the top 5 "green" NGOs?
Greenpeace's annual revenue is $368m. Zero of this actually produces anything used by other people - unlike the fossil fuel industry - so all of this money is used for lobbying and fundraising.
WWF's 2020 revenue was $347.5M
Sierra Club's 2020 revenue was $119M
Nature Conservancy 2018 revenue was $1.2B
The US Federal government spent $13.2B in 2017 on climate change
US GAO report

This is a lot of money. The fossil fuel industry supposedly spent $1.4B in ads from 2008 to 2017 - that's $140M a year. A lot of money, but a tiny fraction of what the green sector is spending on ads, lobbying, government grant taking, green subsidies by governments, etc etc.

You're going to have to try a lot harder to show that it is the evil fossil fuel people that are flooding the airways with agitprop.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2021 17:55 utc | 245

uh dealing with uncertainties is the way scientists talk, and it is the epitome of uncertainty when shills and tools keep voting for people who support fossil fuel like the Republicans and Democrats. it is uncertain how many people have fallen for the propaganda, and how many people will continue to support the corrupt 2 party machine that giant corporations like Exxon have so mucn influence over.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Aug 13 2021 18:27 utc | 246

@244 : c1ue

"This isn't negativity - this is sober analysis."

Might be sober, but it isn't right, c1ue.

Petroleum is on the way out, and natgas won't be but a few decades behind it. Nearly all major automakers have announced plans to convert their product lines to electric. China's leading the way, and will be the world's major automaker from here on out. Trucks not far behind, railway locos trailing them. Take a look at the announcements from the major manufacturers. Petroleum as transport fuel is over. That, more than anything else explains why U.S. is leaving M. East.

Solar and wind already cost less than coal.

NE Europe is investing heavily in hydrogen economy. Hydrogen coupled with ample wind resources means the wind intermittency problem is likely to be solved (store H2 as and when wind is present, draw down H2 stocks when wind/solar not present).

The biggest thing in our way right now is brain-lock. There are a _lot_ of solutions that can be implemented right now, with existing tech, that make material differences in environmental impact and economic welfare.

And all those 85% of the world that live in diminished circumstance, and want better? I say "good on you, how can I help? Can I share product designs? Can I tell you all the mistakes I made along the way, so you have an easier time than I did?".

And don't for a second assume that the underdeveloped world is going to install the same end-of-lifecycle stuff we use now. They're going to leap-frog. Power, transport, food production, distributed manufacturing....all that stuff we wasted so freakin' much resource upon, they will side-step. And they will inherit aaaaallllll that IP the West created without having to buy/build it themselves.

And they will have the world's most efficient, automated factories ever...to buy from. If you're going to install new infrastructure, now's the time to do it.

Get up to speed, c1ue. You're a smart guy, but your baseline assumptions are no longer accurate. A big part of the technical, economic, and geo-political log-jam is breaking up. Best part: we don't have to wait around any more for top-down permission to act. Households, baby!!

And, while I'm at it, let me say that I enjoyed the debate, even tho I had to so some butt-kickin'. Your opening gambit of "yer a neandertal" pissed me off, and the dismissal of HH as production platform is very unhelpful to all the readers here @ MOA. Can't let that one get by; too much riding on it.

:)

Posted by: Tom Pfotzer | Aug 13 2021 18:30 utc | 247

c1ue @233 says: "You clearly cannot seem to understand the difference between ongoing, completed and future projects."
Of course I do from day 1. I already refuted the dozens of false assertions you made, so now you are obviously trying to obfuscate a simple concept. When you said "for every GW of solar or wind capacity that China builds, it builds 10x in coal fired", you followed by link of "38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power", which are NEW installations. Furthermore, the topic of this article is whether there is the "will" to fight climate change - so the TREND that China is building more new renewable plants than new coal-fire indicates China HAS the will. No reasonable person expect China to close down all existing coal plants overnight. So again, it is the new installations, and the rates of changes that are of interest. Finally, you seem to allude to the idea that the total coal plants has to go to zero before China has zero emission, which again is conceptually false. I trust you are intelligent enough to understand this last point without further explaining from me.

c1ue @233 says: "... meaningless given that the capacity factor for solar/wind are small fractions. 10 GW of solar = maybe 2GW of actual generation whereas 10 GW of coal = 6 to 8 GW of actual generation."
I agree there are generation differences between different types of power plants, so raw numbers are rough indications. But you fail to note coal plants are increasing being used as reserve ONLY when renewables are not available, and their generation rates are trending down. In addition, I also cite figures and facts that are more meaningful and broad perspective for readers (e.g. "China's coal consumption went down 0.9% in 2020", "China lower CO2 emission in 2020 even with positive GDP growth", etc), whereas you are the one who are belaboring with gigawatts.

c1ue @233 says: "So keep on trying, but you are totally wrong and deluded, and won't admit it."
I do not need to respond to this. Neutral readers can follow our comments to see who has better facts, evidences and logic, and who is more objective and arguing with good faith.

c1ue @233 says: "China is not green, the CCP is not trying to be carbon neutral."
Repeating false assertion does not win a debate. BTW: I see you are using both "China" and "CCP" in the same sentence now. I appreciate the subtlety.

Posted by: d dan | Aug 13 2021 18:30 utc | 248

I question all your stats C1ue, as well as your pretense of objectivity. quoting anthony watts is like quoting joe biden or any other liar to support a position. garbage in, garbage out, and you've taken in a whole bunch of garbage. the us government is not interested in fighting climate change, any more than it is interested in spreading freedom and democracy, so quoting dubious sh.. like "the U.S. government has spent 13.2 billion dollars fighting climate change (did you include the cost of multitasking satellites as part of that? I bet that stat includes it, watts used to try bullshi. like that and you support him.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Aug 13 2021 18:38 utc | 249

@ pretzelattack | Aug 13 2021 17:13 utc | 239

i see the usual corporate shills have taken over the comments on this, with their fake science and reference to anthony watts and other similar scumbab.

Quite frankly, that bothers me less than the sudden emergence yesterday of one commenter whose posts are much better suited to Stormfront -- and the fact that that poster hasn't been universally condemned here.

Posted by: corvo | Aug 13 2021 18:46 utc | 250

I somehow missed Zarathustra's very interesting technical post @ 86!

Thank you for that, Z! Obviously Z has a very solid grounding in physics, or what we call classical mechanics [ie the pre-'new physics' with quanta etc].

Classical mechanics is in fact the foundation of engineering in our modern world, and can explain the vast majority of the questions we have about how our world works.

It's always good to see something like this, where a person has taken his solid science knowledge and decided to tackle a tough question. I have no immediate way of knowing if any or all of your postulations are correct, or even plausible.

But that's not the point. We need more of this kind of thinking!

Hopefully you are still checking in here Zarathustra, and will see my reply. Just as a quick reaction about the elliptical orbit part. I would think that this could also be explained by an irregular distribution of mass within the sun.

We do know of course, as you point out, that our own 'sphere' is not nearly spherical at all. So why should the sun necessarily be?

We also know that the sun itself ROTATES about its own axis, once every 27 earth days. The sun's rotation axis is also TILTED, by about 7 degrees, from the earth's orbital plane around the sun.

Have you taken these factors into account?

Overall, it does not sound to me at all impossible or even unlikely that there could be a long cycle of 40,000 years [or perhaps some other number], with regard to a changing earth orbit, with minima and maxima distances from the sun.

Of course the sun is indeed the ONLY source of energy for our earth [discounting for the moment the much smaller heat energy contained within the earth's core]. And also the infinitesimal, by comparison, amount of energy that we convert into heat from chemical energy that we extract.

Here are some numbers: The total amount of energy our civilization-planet uses currently, from all sources, is estimated at about 360 terajoules per year. The total amount of solar power hitting our planet is about seven thousand times greater. [About 2.4 million terajoules].

It is useful to start with a sense of proportion.

This simple fact of the Sun's overpowering role, by many orders of magnitude, obviously needs to be taken into account by anyone wishing to investigate long-term changes in earth's temperature.

Is this being done, in a rigorous way, by today's climate science? I don't know.

There is much that we don't know, climate science included. One of the worst things a scientist, or, especially, a layman, can do is to convince one's self that you DO know!

The hardest part is knowing what we don't know. See Dunning and Kruger [or also, only fools rush in].

Posted by: Gordog | Aug 13 2021 19:45 utc | 251

Just to add to my 251: The sun energy hitting our earth in one hour is equal to all of the energy we release in one year! 😺

Posted by: Gordog | Aug 13 2021 20:03 utc | 252

Humans are addicted now to a truly phenomenal amount of energy throughput. Since the hairless apes can only put out a fraction of a horsepower, and were nearly drowning in horse manure a 120 years ago, we latched onto fossil fuels for salvation, and then since that was so successful we more than quadrupled our population, and increased our energy throughput a thousand times, and all of this is ruthlessly and deceitfully borrowed from the future of a viable host planet.

The notion that we can run what now passes for civilization on zero-carbon contemporary energy inputs is a very bad joke. The truth is we are on fire, running madly toward the edge of a cliff like a herd of burning lemmings, and cleverly convincing each other we can design a soft landing as we plummet towards extinction.

Posted by: Windship | Aug 13 2021 20:07 utc | 253

It is terribly annoying but c1ue is half right. Moreover, Greta "Thunder Thighs" is quite a bit wrong as well, and so are a fairly large amount of the proffered solutions on the "green" side of the debate. This debate rages endlessly because people insist upon talking past each other.

First and foremost, telling a billion people in India that they cannot have air conditioning and hot showers and the other mod cons, and that instead they have to keep cooking their dinners over fires of burning cow chips is a non-starter. We (humanity) need a dozen or more times as much power as is currently generated worldwide. Protests of "But nooooo!!! We need less!!!" echoing up from the distant bottom of your Grand Canyon sized American carbon footprint are not going to go very far. It is perfectly reasonable to ignore such complaints and consider them irrational, narcissistic, and infantile.

Second of all, there is an awful lot of Hollywood influenced nonsense being proposed as solutions. Carbon capture is ridiculous nonsense. There is no possible way it can work. The very notion violates the laws of thermodynamics. Coal and oil are low entropy forms of carbon and carbon dioxide is a high entropy form. To take CO2 out of the atmosphere (or even the power plant smokestack) and turn it into a dense and storable form takes, in the very best of possible circumstances, more energy than you get out of burning it in its previous storable form (coal or oil). To extract a ton of carbon from the atmosphere requires far more energy than is produced by burning a ton of coal.

And what does a dense and storable form of carbon that you would get from carbon capture look like? Well, it will look a whole lot like coal! Anyone who thinks the oxidation process can be reversed for less energy than you got from the original oxidation process in the first place is a fool who knows nothing about physics.

"But noooo!!! We're not going to reverse the oxidation process! We're going to use this magic chemical and combine the CO2 with that to turn it solid!"

So you intend to manufacture hundreds of billions of tons of this magic chemical to bond with and sequester CO2? You think you are going to be able to produce enough of this magic chemical, which by the way must be more reactive than oxygen, to sequester a ton of carbon on an energy budget less than what you get from burning a ton of coal? Nice fairy tale you've got going there!

If you wish to sequester carbon from the atmosphere on any significant scale then you will need more energy production capacity than what put the carbon in the atmosphere in the first place. You will not only need to replace all of the fossil fuel plants currently in existence with something else, but you will have to build lots more of these non fossil fuel plants just to power your carbon sequestering operation. Even if you are able to convince a billion Indians to continue to live in mud huts without power you will still need a massive increase in generating capacity.

No matter how you slice the problem humanity needs several times as much energy production as is currently available.

Nuclear power is never going to be competitive with coal. Period. Fusion power is decades away from even being technically possible, and it too is never going to be cheap. We're running out of good geography for hydro power. There is still room to expand solar and wind, but oftentimes the best locations for solar also happen to be the best locations for growing your corn... not a good trade-off. Anyway, wind and terrestrial solar are not reliable. You need dramatic overcapacity to use wind or solar for your base load. My town has five times the capacity it needs in solar farms to supply its power (during the day) and it still has to fire up the legacy power stations on a regular basis due to cloud cover (the system can usually handle up to about 50% cloudy before the dinosaur burner power plants need to fire up).

Things like microhydro using repurposed old washing machine motors as generators is fine for trust fund hippies living on bucolic little islands but the real world needs massive industrial scale quantities of cheap and reliable power.

There is a solution that can satisfy both the greenies and the cons, but it requires ambition and thinking outside the box... or outside the atmosphere, as it were. We already have a very reliable fusion reactor in the neighborhood. We just need to improve the reliability and scale of harnessing power from that reactor. All of the necessary basic technologies are well understood now and it is only an engineering issue at this point. All that remains is the will to take the big step.

Posted by: William Gruff | Aug 13 2021 20:12 utc | 254

@c1ue #234

Amazing, really amazing. So you do not know what is a complex system with retroactions?! Amazing.

Pause? Don't you know the difference between meteorology and climate? Don't you know what is a trend?

Unfortunately you can not change the reality to make it fit your preconceived or prejudiced ideas.

Did you listen to the video? Or maybe you do not understand French? Sorry for you.

And by the way, you did not explain me "how with a sun getting warmer over the millions of years, the earth's mean temperature decreased during the Cenozoic."

Maybe I can advise you to follow a lecture on paleoclimatology.

Here is an example of a trend. Where are the pauses?

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2021/08/Figure3-350x270.png

Or:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3061/2020-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-analysis-shows/

“Whether one year is a record or not is not really that important – the important things are long-term trends. With these trends, and as the human impact on the climate increases, we have to expect that records will continue to be broken.”

How funny, the 2021 July month was the warmest ever since the statistics exist.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-july-2021-hottest-month-noaa/

Too bad for the so called "pause".

Ignorance is not an argument.

A big THANK YOU to d_dan for his comments. I enjoyed reading them and opening the links.

Posted by: LibEgaFra | Aug 13 2021 20:46 utc | 255

Posted by: She Bear | Aug 13 2021 21:03 utc | 256

This is so sad. The earlier we start addressing decarbonisation the easier it is.

The scientists have been aware of GHG and potential warming for 200 years though it became far more robust and complete by the 1950s. By 1992 the world had mostly committed to addressing the problem. Yet we did very little in those 30 years, a bit of token greenwash. Now we will have to work a lot harder to insulate homes, rebuild electricity generation, reform farming practices, change industrial processes, electrify transport...
If we had committed properly 30 years ago I feel capitalism would have been able to take on the challenge with tax & subsidy incentives by governments. Now I think it will have to be much more proscriptive. The fears of the right will manifest due to our lethargy (mostly caused by the "right" (read plutocrats).

Posted by: Mighty Drunken | Aug 13 2021 21:26 utc | 257

To take CO2 out of the atmosphere (or even the power plant smokestack) and turn it into a dense and storable form takes, in the very best of possible circumstances, more energy than you get out of burning it in its previous storable form (coal or oil).
__________________________________________________________________

Plants are already taking CO2 out of the air and storing in the soil in sufficient quantity. The problem is that humans come along and dig up the soil and release that CO2 back into the air.
There has been more CO2 depleted from soils by human activity then has ever been released by burning fossil fuels. Plants move massive amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere and into the soil and there is no good reason to continue with bad soil management practices that continues to deplete that vast store of carbon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLwsn8snsMc

Posted by: jinn | Aug 13 2021 22:21 utc | 258

@LibEgaFra #255
Given that there was a Little Ice Age in 1750 - show me where the human part vs. the natural part is.
And show it on a graph where the actual temperature is shown, not the "anomaly".
The reality is that temperature changes every day, everywhere, far more than climate change is supposed to change "average" temperatures.
Yet somehow this is supposed to be disaster.
So no, sorry, your ongoing sad attempts to wield other people's arguments continue to fail.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2021 22:36 utc | 259

Peter AU1 @ 134, thanks for your interesting post. It made me think of the variety of landscapes the world has to offer, and certainly what goes for Pennsylvania (I am not there) may not be relevant to outback Queensland. I've been in Queensland, but only on the coast -- it was very beautiful, and looking westward such fascinating horizons! I have to say that the parks were lovely then, but when nature goes out of balance it has its own remediation program. In some ways, the inroads of unhelpful species are signals that what came before tipped the balance one way or the other.

It's not always productive to start an eradication program if the former, say, prairie isn't being encouraged to re-establish itself, if that is at all possible. That would be the 'natural' way to go, I would think. And for the human inhabitants, the equivalent of my idea of each of us planting a tree. The cattle overgrazed the prairie, so less cattle doing that, more encouragement of returning grasses, (having the cattle be like the bison of the US were, moving from field to field, letting the prairie re-establish in between. I know there are such programs in the US.)

I guess climate stability is always going to be aiming for Shangri La, and all we can do is create habitat for the creatures that live with us, wherever we ourselves live. I think we're happiest when we do, but it is always going to be a struggle and a sacrifice in some ways. We need to keep learning and first to do no harm. And teaching our young people that wealth means this, not profit.

Posted by: juliania | Aug 13 2021 22:43 utc | 260

@Tom Pfotzer #247
Time will tell which is right - your naive belief that energy generation systems will be taken over by those that are far more expensive vs. those that actually work.
I don't know about your background, but I actually know a tremendous amount about both solar PV and wind turbines. I worked as a chip designer for over a decade including both the semiconductor fab side as well as all spheres of design (analog/digital/hybrid).
Solar PV is inherently never going to be that inexpensive. It is extremely expensive to fabricate, the devices have a limited lifespan and the process is inordinately polluting and requires all manner of extremely energy and transport intensive inputs.
Wind turbines are nothing more than electrical motors. Yet again, there is no magic there because you need winding cores, you need blades, you need concrete bases, you need to install connections to the grid.
Both solar and wind are furthermore not reliable. My college degree is electrical engineering - specifically power systems. I've worked in labs where you could arc electricity 10 feet between a (really thick) wire and the wall connector it goes into that was supposed to be off.
Grid scale power systems need stable inputs - solar and wind can contribute but can NEVER be base load.
I will make a further prediction: the ESG attacks by banksters on "divesting" from fossil fuel companies - they're welcome to do as they please. The actual outcome is going to be far different than intended.
What will happen is that we will see $150/barrel oil in the next 5 years. It is likely to go even higher.
And unlike 2007, it isn't going to be just a few months. It will be for 3-5 years and possibly more.
The impact on Western society is going to be extreme, because the West no longer has the monopoly on wealth to buy what oil there is.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2021 22:46 utc | 261

@pretzelattack #246
If uncertainties are the way scientists talk, then the spokesmodels for climate science are clearly not scientists.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2021 22:47 utc | 262

@d dan #248
You have a very skewed view on what China is doing - what China has done more than anything else is build nuclear power plants.
If you looked at the EIA historical breakdown of China electricity generation, you'll note that the only reason coal shrank from 72% of overall generation to the 47% today is because nuclear and natural gas generation increased dramatically. The actual amount of electricity generated by coal in China has increased a lot, but nowhere near as much as the many nuclear power plants they've built plus the Russian natural gas fired plants.
Hydro has increased only slightly, wind and solar have increased significantly but their overall contribution in terms of actual electricity generated is still small today. EIA thinks by 2040, the solar and wind will be 17% or so of overall electricity generation - a huge jump but hardly one that makes China "green".

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2021 22:52 utc | 263

@pretzelattack #249
I question all your posts, period.
You present no data, no links, no reasoning or evidence.
All you put forward are trite little comments rehashing points other climate doom spokesmodels make.
You can question my stats all you want - or in this case, the Government Account Office's stats. As well as Greenpeace's, WWF's, Nature Conservancy's and the Sierra Club's financials - but of course you aren't actually interested in facts.
You just want everyone to take your word for it.
I don't.
You have accumulated zero credibility with your numerous 2-sentence, vacuous commentary over several years.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2021 22:55 utc | 264

@Gordog #251
Mainstream climate science believes the sun plays little to no factor in present warming.
In particular, while they acknowledge that the sun has an 11 year cycle, the mainstream view is that the net solar energy received by Earth has not changed since the 1950s.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 13 2021 22:59 utc | 265

Gruff wrote:

We're not going to reverse the oxidation process! We're going to use this magic chemical and combine the CO2 with that to turn it solid!"
_______________________________________________________________

Humans certainly aren't going to do it because humans are stupid.
But after the humans do themselves in, nature will come along and pull all the CO2 out of the air and put it back in the soil.
If humans would suddenly disappear all that excess CO2 would within a few decades be removed from the atmosphere. There is no good reason humans could not cooperate with nature and do it without going extinct, but that is not going to happen, because they're too stupid and greedy...

The simple fact is this - there is no excess carbon in the biosphere. The biosphere was growing short of carbon. Gradually over billions of years the carbon was all being locked up in sedimentary rock. Eventually that is where it would all end up and then there would be none freely available to support life. More carbon was needed to support life so nature favored humans for a little while and they released a lot of locked up carbon and when the job is done they won't be needed anymore.

Posted by: jinn | Aug 13 2021 23:09 utc | 266

@c1ue #259

Very, very funny. I was refuting your sentence:

"The tired attempts to explain CO2 is the driver of climate are ridiculous."

with scientific facts and an argument from paleoclimatology. Now unable to counter my arguments, you try to derail the subject because you have no argument to support your claim about CO2 as not being one of the main driver of climate.

Yes, it is very funny to see that you cannot understand basic scientific facts. Some cognitive dissonance perhaps. One more trial though:

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/

Ignorance is not an argument.

Now it goes even more funny:

"I question on of your posts, period.
You present no data, no links, no reasoning or evidence.
All you put forward are trite little comments rehashing points other climate change deniers make.
Of course you aren't actually interested in facts.
You just want everyone to take your word for it.
I don't.
You have accumulated zero credibility with your numerous lengthy sentences and vacuous commentary."

I guess you will recognize a self description.

Posted by: LibEgaFra | Aug 14 2021 0:02 utc | 267

c1ue @263 says: "You have a very skewed view on what China is doing - what China has done more than anything else is build nuclear power plants."
Why is this skewed? I didn't claim China is or is not building nuclear plants. And nuclear plants have zero emission, i.e. they are green too.

c1ue @263 says: "the only reason coal shrank ... is because nuclear and natural gas generation increased dramatically... Hydro has increased only slightly ..."

Look at the actual figures to decide yourself. I am not into another argument with you, in case you start disputing the meaning of "slightly":
China's actual power production 2020 (in GWh)
total: 7,623
hydro: 1,355 17.7% of total
nuclear: 366 4.8% of total
wind: 466 6.1% of total
solar: 261 3.4% of total

https://chinaenergyportal.org/en/2020-electricity-other-energy-statistics-preliminary/

c1ue @263 says: "EIA thinks by 2040, the solar and wind will be 17% or so of overall electricity generation - a huge jump but hardly one that makes China "green". "
Firstly, I disagree with EIA estimate for solar + wind. I think it will be higher. Secondly, the hydro is already over 17% in 2020, and is expected to increase significantly. Also, I consider nuclear plants "green" too because they have zero emission. Thirdly, the consumption of oil for cars will be reduced significantly too, contributing to the reduction of emissions. And Finally, the world BIGGEST efforts by China in afforestation will increase carbon sinks to capture CO2.

-------
To summarize. I have presented my case with numbers, facts, links, video, animations, explanations and arguments. I explain China's efforts to

1. reduce energy consumption (e.g. electric cars, high speed rail),
2. reduce CO2 emissions (e.g. solar, wind, replace old coal plants),
3. restructure its economy (e.g. reduce cement and steel productions, increase solar panel/wind turbine production),
4. increase carbon capture (e.g. afforestation, anti-desertification),
5. increase green investment and research (e.g. efficient solar panel, battery, anti-drought trees, helping developing countries)

And all the above trends will continue and may accelerate. Furthermore, some results ("China's coal consumption went down 0.9% in 2020", "China lower CO2 emission in 2020 even with positive GDP growth") already confirm the effectiveness of China's efforts.

Therefore, I am personally very convinced that China will achieve its goal to have peak emission by 2030, and carbon neutral by 2060. Given the size of China, its low per-capita GDP, the complexity of its economy, the late comer in green tech and its contribution as world factory, China's green effort is humongous, is unseen in human history and is unmatched by any country in the world, not even the most affluent and environment-conscious European country.

I am confident neutral readers can decide whether China has the will to fight climate change, and whether China is green.

Posted by: d dan | Aug 14 2021 1:49 utc | 268

@ 269 joe... thanks for the link...

@ 268 d dan.. thanks for sharing the numbers in a neutral manner..

Posted by: james | Aug 14 2021 3:59 utc | 270

@c1ue #233:

You clearly cannot seem to understand the difference between ongoing, completed and future projects.
Here is China's actual breakdown of electricity generation:
EIA breakdown of China electricity generation

Coal is 47% of generation vs. 2.7% wind and 0.5% solar PV.
47 divided by 2.7+.5 = 14.69.
My mistake, China generates 14x more electricity by coal than solar+wind put together, not 10x.

You clearly cannot read a simple chart. The “47%” figure refers to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s 2017 projection of how much electricity will be generated in China from coal in 2040. The then–latest available figure of “72%” (as of 2015) is helpfully shown to you on the chart, but you ignore it. The chart even labels two parts of the chart “history” and “projection”, but, again, you ignore it.

This reminds me of how, when I provided a summary of a preprint tracking excess mortality across countries, you attempted to “debunk” its dataset using U.N.’s 2019 projections of U.S. death rate in 2020 and 2021. I see that you have learned nothing from that fiasco.

So the correct ratio would be 72 / (2.7 + 0.5) = 22.5 times as much electricity generated from coal as from wind and solar put together in China in 2015, according to the link you have provided.

Wikipedia, however, gives different results for 2015: 4,108,994 GWh coal / (185,766 GWh wind + 45,225 GWh solar PV + 27 GWh solar thermal) = 17.8.

And the results for 2019 are: 4,553,800 GWh coal / (405,300 GWh wind + 224,000 GWh solar PV) = 7.2.

So, according to the latest data, China generates 7.2 times as much electricity from coal as from wind and solar put together. Not sure why you’re excluding other renewables like hydro and biofuels/waste, but there you have it.

However, all of this doesn’t matter, because dan d was actually objecting to your original comment #121, in which you wrote:

It is irrelevant because for every GW of solar or wind capacity that China builds, it builds 10x in coal fired.

So (a) you wrote about capacity, not generation, and (b) you wrote about new capacity, not total capacity. So let’s look at this original claim of yours. Wikipedia gives the following figures for new generation capacity built in China in 2019: 44,230 MW “thermal” (coal + oil + natural gas), 25,720 MW wind, and 26,520 MW solar (unfortunately, there is no separate figure for coal-fired power plants). Therefore, for every GW of solar or wind capacity that China has built in 2019, it has built less than 44,230 / (25,720 + 26,520) = 0.85 GW of coal-fired capacity—not “10”. Another miserable failure on your part.

Installation of X or Y GW of solar and wind - meaningless given that the capacity factor for solar/wind are small fractions.

So keep on trying, but you are totally wrong and deluded, and won't admit it.

China is not green, the CCP is not trying to be carbon neutral.

You are right to point out that capacity factors for solar and wind are lower than for coal. Wikipedia gives the following figures for the U.S. in 2018: 26.1% for solar PV, 23.6% for solar thermal, 37.4% for wind, and 54.0% for coal (source: EIA). So it really is better to look at generation, not capacity. Let’s do that, and this time, we’ll look at all fossil fuels, all renewables, and nuclear:

Electricity production in China by source (in TW·h)
┌── Fossil ──┐ ┌────── Renewable ──────┐ Renewable Year Total Coal Oil Gas Nucl Hydro Wind Solar Bio+ Oth as % of ear PV wste er Total
2008 3,482 2,744 24 31 68 585 15 0 15 0 17.7 2009 3,742 2,941 17 51 70 616 27 0 21 0 17.7 2010 4,208 3,250 13 69 74 722 45 1 34 0 19.1 2011 4,716 3,723 8 84 86 699 70 3 42 0 17.3 2012 4,994 3,785 7 86 97 872 96 6 45 0 20.4 2013 5,447 4,111 7 91 112 920 141 15 51 0 20.7 2014 5,679 4,115 10 115 133 1,064 156 29 57 0 23.0 2015 5,860 4,109 10 145 171 1,130 186 45 64 0 24.3 2016 6,218 4,242 10 170 213 1,193 237 75 76 0 25.4 2017 6,453 4,178 3 203 248 1,195 305 118 81 n/a 26.3 2018 6,995 4,483 2 216 295 1,232 366 177 94 n/a 26.7 2019 7,327 4,554 1 233 349 1,302 405 224 113 n/a 27.8
(Source: Wikipedia)

Clearly, the share of renewables in China’s generation is growing (the share of carbon-neutral nuclear + renewables is even higher). So yes, CPC is moving towards carbon neutrality.

Now, who’s “totally wrong and deluded”? You are.

Posted by: S | Aug 14 2021 9:25 utc | 271

Dante put greedy despoilers of the earth in the fourth circle of hell, “More shades were here than anywhere above . . . It was squandering and hoarding that robbed them of the lovely world.” In his vision, “the ones with bald spots on their heads, were priests and popes and cardinals, in whom avarice is mostly likely to prevail.” (VII: 46-8). Humanity managed to break the power of those who enslaved Dante’s world, but their malevolence lives on in their modern incarnations, CEOs and politicians. And now science, once hoped to be humanity’s salvation from its irrational savagery, has been debased to their service, to put more raw plundering power in their hands than the madmen of old could ever dream.

Nevertheless we are powerful enough neither to “save” nor to “destroy” the earth, only to sabotage the planet’s capacity to support our species. I like the idea of global warming as a fever that Gaia is running to rid herself of a troublesome infection that imperils the entire living planet. Ten million years or so - a few heartbeats of geological time – after we are gone, all the damage we have done will be gone and life will have rejuvenated in myriad new directions, as if one terribly damaging primate species had never been here at all.

Posted by: HISTORICVS | Aug 14 2021 18:50 utc | 272

Climate change alarmism is based totally on hysterical "projections" models that are wildly inaccurate and on the agencies cheating the data.

This fools people in the West, but China and India are not fooled at all. They merrily are building coal-fired plants by the day.

Climate change is minor and there's nothing that humans can do about it. But it's not grim. More CO2 is good for life and prosperity worldwide. To top it off, humans do better in warmer temps, not poorer.

The sky is not falling no matter how hard the hysterics cry.

Posted by: restless94110 | Aug 14 2021 19:11 utc | 273

@d dan #268
You are making 2 different assumptions:

1) That China is really attempting to become carbon neutral.
2) That the existing trends can extend into the future.

So far, you have yet to demonstrate either.

What I noted earlier is that China has an enormous problem keeping up with the increasing demands of its enriching population. They say this themselves, it isn't projection.
This is why I have said that China embraces an "all approaches" method towards energy generation. The fact that Chinese industries now dominate Solar PV is just a bonus - Chinese manufacturers can benefit from foreign governments subsidies, too.

The second, much bigger problem is whether it is possible for China to become carbon neutral, period.

As California, Australia and a number of other areas have shown - increasing solar PV and wind turbine share of electricity generation leads to grid instability. And this is happening with 20%-ish shares of electricity generation.
From discussions with actual grid operators, they all firmly believe that it will be impossible to maintain a modern electrical grid if renewables become a consistent 50% of base load. Note I say consistent: X or Y country becomes Z>50% renewables for a day or two doesn't count.

As such, you have still failed to convince.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 14 2021 19:36 utc | 274

@S #271
Your argument would be a lot stronger if you hadn't used bullshit cap factors for solar and wind.
There are NO utility level solar PV or wind turbine electricity generation departments which achieve anywhere close to 26.1% solar PV or 37.4% for wind.

That's EIA data, and its bullshit. Among other things, the EIA data isn't actually data - it is projected assumptions. For example, solar PV capacity factor is based on

Technology is assumed to be photovoltaic (PV) with single-axis tracking. The solar hybrid system is a single-axis PV system coupled with a four-hour battery storage system.

I have never seen a single large scale, major utility install which uses the above setup because it is very damn expensive.

However, there is actually real world data on what solar PV capacity factor is.

Solar PV: Our World in Data: Solar Generation vs. Capacity

You have to download the data, but it shows

World OWID_WRL 2019 707918.4953 580.760214
World OWID_WRL 2020 855724.6897 707.495

This breaks down to world solar PV capacity factors of 13.9% in 2019 and 13.8% in 2020.

Plug that into your numbers above, and you get a very different result. This doesn't even take into consideration that peak solar PV generation is NEVER during peak usage hours, thus a significant part of the solar PV electricity generation is wasted due to the duck curve (the actual usage curve).

For wind, the same data source: Our World in Data, Wind Electricity Generation vs. Capacity
World OWID_WRL 2019 1418170.046 622.248925
World OWID_WRL 2020 1591213.512 733.276

This comes out to world wind capacity factors of 26% for 2019 and 24.8% for 2020.
Wind produced electricity *can* be less orthogonal to the duck curve than solar PV, but it also is far less predictable in ebbs and flows so is even more dependent on backup.

To compare: the EIA numbers are 26.1% for solar PV (vs. actual world performance of 13.9%/13.8%) and 37.4% for wind (vs. actual world performance of 26%/24.8%).

This difference is enormous - the EIA nonsense literally almost halves the LCOE calculations for solar and decreases wind LCOE by 1/3.

Sadly, the site doesn't contain data for nuclear or coal. Would have been a good sanity check.

So thanks for making me pull up the real data, but the original conclusion stands: Solar PV and Wind have a place, but it is a minority place for a modern technological society.

We are never going to achieve both full renewable energy generation while simultaneously maintaining a 1st world standard of living.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 14 2021 20:10 utc | 275

@DownSouth

sadly those figures are meaningless because to get a true idea of the calamity you have to look at the history (CO2 is in the atmosphere a long time) and by that token looking at figures over the last 100 years the US is way ahead of everyone, almost double that of China (who only really industrialised since 1978 - they are babes new to the party) Other large historical offenders are the UK, Soviet Union and Japan. The second industrial revolution began around 150 years ago and that is what we are now paying for, not the convenient Chinese fall guy. As usual Americans wouldn't know the truth if it slapped them on their big fat asses and spit roasted them. A nation of convenient propaganda riddled by abject racism and exceptionalism which has now sealed its own demise. Being Americans when this hits the US full force you still wont take responsibility for your own actions you will conveniently blame it on God. Enjoy the non existent rapture.

Posted by: Geraldo | Aug 14 2021 22:49 utc | 276

c1ue @274 says: "You are making 2 different assumptions: 1) That China is really attempting to become carbon neutral."
You are the one who need to support your assumption. I have provided ample evidences that China has the will to do so (the THIRD times I say this). Their words, and (most importantly, their) actions speak louder. In addition, they have the motivations, the means, the plans, the resources and track records. Their people will demand better environment as the country gets richer, and international opinions will also favor their green efforts. You however haven't provided a shred of evidence that their efforts are not "real".

c1ue @274 says: "2) That the existing trends can extend into the future."
Nobody can prove the future, of course. But their track record and all indicators are solid: MUCH MUCH better than any other countries. And as technologies advance, and the cost lower, the chance of success will only increases.

c1ue @274 says: "China has an enormous problem keeping up with the increasing demands of its enriching population."
Of course, they have enormous problems, and I already mentioned a lot more problems than you ("the size of China, its low per-capita GDP, the complexity of its economy, the late comer in green tech and its contribution as world factory").

c1ue @274 says: "This is why I have said that China embraces an "all approaches" method towards energy generation."
Again, I am not challenging that - it is just common sense. And this is not a contradiction to its green efforts.

c1ue @274 says: "The fact that Chinese industries now dominate Solar PV is just a bonus - Chinese manufacturers can benefit from foreign governments subsidies, too."
Why is this "a bonus"? It is real that China dominates. You don't like it because it benefits China? It is a win-win-win if China can help Fiji or Congo (or any country) cut their oil import bills, protect their environments and fight climate change all at once.

c1ue @274 says: "As California, Australia and a number of other areas have shown..."
After failing to support your claims with facts and arguments, you are now citing the examples of others. This is another non-starter. Take California for example. Their infrastructure is third-rated compare with China. Their government is inefficient and highly politicized. I lived in Silicon Valley for many years. Go to the richest of the rich neighborhood (e.g. Palo Altos), you see antique electric poles hanging hazardously in front of multi-millions mansions. Blackouts and fire caused by outdated utility lines are regular events that local residents aren't even interested anymore. San Bruno had huge explosion due to old gas pipe, governor was recalled because of electric blackouts, and the high-speed rail project is going nowhere for decades, even after spending tons of taxpayers' money for "environmental study" - this happens while China (a later comer in high speed rail) have built more miles than the rest of the world combined in shorter time. And I can write for another 3 hours...

But you would like readers to believe that California's experience proves that China will not make it? And I haven't even started to rebut the specifics of your points...

c1ue @274 says: "you have still failed to convince."
Failed to convince YOU, that part I understand.

Posted by: d dan | Aug 15 2021 5:58 utc | 277

@c1ue #275:

Your argument would be a lot stronger if you hadn't used bullshit cap factors for solar and wind.

I haven’t used the values of solar and wind capacity factors in my arguments. I only used the fact that they are lower that those for coal. I don’t think you’re debating it—you mentioned it first, after all. I only listed EIA’s values for illustrative purposes.

Plug that into your numbers above, and you get a very different result.

Again, I haven’t used the capacity factors in any calculations. The numbers in my table are copied from the table “Electricity production (GWh) in China by source, 2008-2020” in Wikipedia article “Electricity sector in China”; I only merged some columns and converted values from GW⋅h to TW⋅h to make it easier on the eyes. The table shows actual generation, i.e. based on metering, not on nominal capacities multiplied by capacity factors. The data comes from the China Energy Portal, which translates official China Electricity Council data into English.

Perhaps your objection is that I didn’t use the capacity factors when calculating the ratio of solar-and-wind buildout to that of coal? But you yourself were writing specifically about capacity in your comment #121:

It is irrelevant because for every GW of solar or wind capacity that China builds, it builds 10x in coal fired.

Well, maybe you wrote one thing, but actually meant something different? Let’s introduce the notion of “effective capacity”, defined as nominal capacity multiplied by capacity factor (there’s probably an industry term for this, but I couldn’t find it, so let’s use my term). Combining China Energy Portal reports for 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 and computing capacity factors with

      Capacity factor = Generation / (Capacity ⋅ 365.25 ⋅ 24 h) ⋅ 100%  ,

we get:

                     2015  2016  2017  2018  2019
Generation (TW⋅h) 5740 6023 6453 6995 7327 Hydro power 1113 1175 1195 1232 1302 Pumped storage 16 31 33 33 32 Thermal power 4231 4327 4588 4925 5047 Coal-fired 3898 3946 4178 4483 4554 Gas 167 188 203 216 233 Oil 4 3 3 2 1 Nuclear power 171 213 248 295 349 Wind power 186 241 305 366 405 Solar power 39 67 118 177 224
Capacity (GW) 1525 1651 1785 1900 2010 Hydro power 320 332 344 353 358 Pumped storage 23 27 29 30 30 Thermal power 1006 1061 1110 1144 1190 Coal-fired 900 946 986 1008 1041 Gas 66 70 76 84 90 Oil 4 2 2 2 2 Nuclear power 27 34 36 45 49 Wind power 131 147 164 184 209 Solar power 42 76 130 174 204
Capacity factor (%) 42.9 41.6 41.2 42.0 41.6 Hydro power 39.7 40.4 39.6 39.9 41.5 Pumped storage 7.8 13.2 13.0 12.5 12.0 Thermal power 48.0 46.5 47.1 49.1 48.4 Coal-fired 49.4 47.6 48.4 50.7 49.9 Gas 28.8 30.6 30.6 29.4 29.4 Oil 10.9 15.2 15.6 9.9 8.5 Nuclear power 72.0 72.3 79.0 75.4 81.6 Wind power 16.2 18.6 21.2 22.6 22.1 Solar power 10.7 9.9 10.3 11.6 12.5

As you can see, China has built 33 GW of coal, 25 GW of wind, and 30 GW of solar capacities in 2019. Therefore, for every GW of solar or wind capacity, it has built 0.6 GW of coal capacity. Not “10”, as you have claimed.

Now, assuming you actually meant effective capacity, we adjust for 2019 capacity factors of 49.9% for coal, 22.1% for wind, and 12.5% for solar and get that China has built 16.5 GW of coal, 5.5 GW of wind, and 3.8 GW of solar effective capacities in 2019. Therefore, for every GW of solar or wind effective capacity, it has built 1.8 GW of coal effective capacity. Again, not “10”.

No matter how you slice it, it’s not “10”.

Posted by: S | Aug 15 2021 12:01 utc | 278

@c1ue

Now let’s take another look at your other claim, which you have made in your comment #233:

…the CCP is not trying to be carbon neutral.

Again, combining China Energy Portal reports for 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, we get:

                      2015   2016   2017   2018   2019
Generation (TW⋅h) 5740 6023 6453 6995 7327
Fossil power 4231 4327 4506 4832 4934 73.7% 71.8% 69.8% 69.1% 67.3%
Carbon-neutral 1509 1696 1947 2163 2393 power 26.3% 28.2% 30.2% 30.9% 32.7%
Nuclear power 171 213 248 295 349 3.0% 3.5% 3.8% 4.2% 4.8%
Renewable power 1338 1483 1699 1868 2044 23.3% 24.6% 26.3% 26.7% 27.9%

Clearly, the share of carbon-neutral power is growing. So yeah, the CPC is moving China towards carbon neutrality. Conclusion: your claim is false.

Posted by: S | Aug 15 2021 12:23 utc | 279

Climate change is farce. The science is flawed if not totally fraudulent. The computer models are as errant as those used for Covid19 predicted deaths. As early as the 1960's, as revealed in the Report From Iron Mountain, climate change/ecology were to be scripted as a means to control a population. Stop listening to those playing God and life becomes easier.

Posted by: the grand wazoo | Aug 15 2021 16:32 utc | 280

@d dan #277
You keep on trying to push on a noodle.
China's emissions keep increasing - thus there is NO carbon neutrality.
Moving closer is irrelevant given the climate catastrophe is supposed to happen unless emissions decrease overall, not increase overall.
So yet again: point me towards a CCP policy paper saying that China commits to carbon neutrality by XX year.
China has very clear and published plans and rationales - their famous "Five Year (and other) Plans.

I actually look at them from time to time and have never seen any firm commitments to any form of carbon neutrality etc. Nor have their negotiations in various XX city agreements reflect any commitment other than ensuring the lack of barriers to their ongoing development.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 16 2021 14:46 utc | 281

@S #278, 279
The problem again with your commentary is that the actual percentage of China's overall energy picture from renewables is vanishingly small.
The same bullshit can be seen with US, EU renewable numbers 10 years ago.

It all comes down to the same dynamic: massive subsidies which make fundamentally inferior energy generation technologies profitable, will cause generation to be built.

Fundamentally superior technologies do not need subsidies - they happen in and of themselves.

The reduction of subsidies in Europe and the US caused new projects to plummet; the ongoing problems induced by renewables in (relatively) high install areas underscores what I have been saying - such as the brownouts in the Bay Area.

Thus with renewables in China - the attempt to linearly extrapolate from such flawed beginnings is naivete and idiocy of the highest order.

Posted by: c1ue | Aug 16 2021 14:50 utc | 282

c1ue @281 says: "China's emissions keep increasing - thus there is NO carbon neutrality.
Moving closer is irrelevant given the climate catastrophe is supposed to happen unless emissions decrease overall, not increase overall."

Another comment - yet another new non-starter from you.

The emission will peak in 2030 - that is the promise. The carbon neutrality will come in 2060. I already posted that in my earlier comment.

I don't believe you are here to look for the truth.

Posted by: d dan | Aug 16 2021 18:05 utc | 283

Dear Down South,
CO2 is not pollution! All plant life needs it as much as we and other animal life need oxygen.

Posted by: stewart S | Aug 18 2021 3:57 utc | 284

@utc #268

What China is doing is fine. But note a big difference to Western approaches: All what they do does not harm them. They develop nuclear power. They have rivers, so building hydropower is a good idea. They have regions where only a few people live, but with enough Sun, so some solar power is useful for them too. Reduction of energy consumption with better technology makes you stronger and allows to consume even more with the same energy. Afforestation and anti-desertification are obviously useful without any climate problem.

So, all this does not show that China is spending money because of the climate hystery

Selling all this in the information war as "China doing something against climate change" makes sense for them. Officially arguing against climate change makes no sense for them - why stopping the West in his climate hysteria? The more they harm themselves for nothing the better.

The same, BTW, holds for Russia. They estimate the possible harm, say, for the infrastructure in the North, say, if permafrost is thawing. They found that they could pay for this already from their actual reserves. So, they will win from climate change.

But so what? If the West will harm himself, so be it. They can play this game too, they also have strong nuclear power industry and good presuppositions for hydro energy, thus, have not only green energy, but also cheap green energy. They have a lot of forests, and can "reduce" their CO2 emissions by forestation. So Western climate hysteria will not harm them too.

Posted by: Maximilian | Aug 18 2021 7:47 utc | 285

@c1ue #282:

The problem again with your commentary is that the actual percentage of China's overall energy picture from renewables is vanishingly small.

There is no problem with my commentary. The problem is with your head. I showed you in my comment #279 that 27.9% of China’s electricity is generated from renewables. I also showed you that the share grew from 23.3% in 2015 to 27.9% in 2019. That’s not “vanishingly small”—only a completely delusional person or an outright liar would use such a phrase to describe these numbers.

Posted by: S | Aug 18 2021 10:26 utc | 286


"The proposed legislation has more than $10 billion for carbon capture, transport and storage — a suite of technologies fossil fuel companies hope will allow them to extend their license"

It is also a suite of technologies that all the mitigation related reports of the IPCC (Working Group 3) have deemed essential (!) for reaching the 2 degree (let alone 1,5 degree) target. Had we matured and widely implemented them in time, and used the money spent on solar in northern countries to help poorer coal rich countries to implement this as well, a lot of the emissions of the past 10 years would not have accrued.

Posted by: Ruth | Aug 20 2021 12:44 utc | 287

All the doomsayers keep complaining about the bad weather and claiming that it is all caused by "climate change". Where is the "science" in such a claim? If ANY weather was "caused" by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, then why not ALL of it? Where is the science in only cherry-picking the "bad" weather, and ignoring everything else? We have had a relatively mild-to-normal summer in Georgia USA this year and slightly above-average rainfall. No lawn watering needed at all. So if this HERE is what "climate change" looks like, I am just fine with it.

I agree that the earth has warmed a little, with most of that warming focused toward the poles (where fewer people now live). But humans are doing just fine in a warmer world, brothers. As for apocalyptic doom for humankind where is ANY evidence of that? You can repeat famine, drought, floods, famine, drought, floods, etc., etc., etc., until you wear out your keyboard, but what are the facts on the ground? The human population? Going upward. Human lifespans? Increasing. Human living standards? Improving. Food production? Going upward baby. EXCEPT for US militarism, a real problem for the planet, where is the problem????????

Posted by: Steve | Aug 25 2021 23:20 utc | 288

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.