Forbes: China transitions to Clean Energy while Trump waffles

[mentalfloss]

Leggo my Eggo


China Is Going All In On Clean Energy As The U.S. Waffles. How Is That Making America Great Again?

For months, the clean energy discussion in the U.S. has been dominated by two questions: First, will the new administration really turn its back on the climate and clean energy policies that have helped create a burgeoning American industry? And if it does, how serious a blow will that be for the sector—and the global transition to clean energy?

China just answered the second question. On January 5, Reuters reported that China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) had announced in the next three years alone, China will invest $361 billion in renewable power generation. The spending comes as the cost of building large-scale solar plants has dropped by as much as 40 percent since 2010. While the Trump administration talks about renewing an outdated love affair with coal and oil, China’s investment is poised to generate over 13 million jobs in the clean energy sector.

In other words, the global energy transition is going to be fine. Whether we’ll be fine remains to be seen. Because if President-elect Trump follows through on his campaign promise to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, he won't just be turning a blind eye to the science of climate change, he'll be hurting American businesses.

Climate progress creates jobs, innovation and investment opportunities in the clean energy economy, and protections for clean air and natural resources provide guardrails for long-term business resilience. The momentum we’ve established also positions the U.S. as a leader in the global discourse on climate.

By shirking America’s responsibilities as the world’s leading innovator and second largest emitter, Trump and his cabinet would be ringing the dinner bell for China and the European Union to assume the global leadership role on climate and clean energy, with all the job growth and economic opportunities that go with it.

Forbes Welcome

 

[Danbones]

Re: China transitions to Clean Energy while Trump waffles

china is one of the most polluted places on earth and they are opening coal plants like crazy

...so, when are you going to get off the fraidy wagon and maybe report a fact or two instead of these steady hallucinations?

 

[mentalfloss]

You mean the fact that China is transitioning to renewables while the US stalls?

 

[DaSleeper]

Gawd...you're gullible.....

 

[mentalfloss]

That was convincing.

 

[Machjo]

On a per capita basis, China is definitely cleaner than Canada is. Yes it's more polluted overall, but if Canada had China's population, it would be far more polluted than China is, maybe multiple times more!

 

[Nick Danger]

On a per capita basis, China is definitely cleaner than Canada is. Yes it's more polluted overall, but if Canada had China's population, it would be far more polluted than China is, maybe multiple times more!

True, but you have to be careful in the way these statistics are presented, and just what those statistics are made up of. Measuring GHG emissions by population, or "per capita emissions" puts Canada in the top ten list of the world's worst emitters, and China, by virtue of its huge population way down the list, well under 100th place. But measuring by total emissions makes it clear that China is the world's biggest emitter, accounting for about 23% of the world's total emissions, with the US holding second place at 16%. Canada still makes the top ten, but our contribution accounts for less that 2% of the global total.

You also have to pay attention to what makes up the statistics, particularly something called "Land Use, Land Use Change & Forestry" which takes into account the role vegetation plays in removing CO2 from the atmsophere.

 

[taxslave]

On a per capita basis, China is definitely cleaner than Canada is. Yes it's more polluted overall, but if Canada had China's population, it would be far more polluted than China is, maybe multiple times more!

Per capita is irrelevant. because of the huge difference in populations it is like comparing apples to oranges. Try a sq mile basis and see what the results are.

 

[Machjo]

True, but you have to be careful in the way these statistics are presented, and just what those statistics are made up of. Measuring GHG emissions by population, or "per capita emissions" puts Canada in the top ten list of the world's worst emitters, and China, by virtue of its huge population way down the list, well under 100th place. But measuring by total emissions makes it clear that China is the world's biggest emitter, accounting for about 23% of the world's total emissions, with the US holding second place at 16%. Canada still makes the top ten, but our contribution accounts for less that 2% of the global total.

You also have to pay attention to what makes up the statistics, particularly something called "Land Use, Land Use Change & Forestry" which takes into account the role vegetation plays in removing CO2 from the atmsophere.

Per capita is more accurate, since each person has a life to live, needing hot water to bathe, a means of transporation etc.

Per capita is irrelevant. because of the huge difference in populations it is like comparing apples to oranges. Try a sq mile basis and see what the results are.

By that standard, a rural tire-burning community might emit less pollution than a large city with quality public transit, but on a per capita basis, the city might be quite clean whereas the rural one is a disaster. So yes, per capita is very relevant.

 

[taxslave]

Per capita is more accurate, since each person has a life to live, needing hot water to bathe, a means of transporation etc.



By that standard, a rural tire-burning community might emit less pollution than a large city with quality public transit, but on a per capita basis, the city might be quite clean whereas the rural one is a disaster. So yes, per capita is very relevant.

Not even close when a large part of Canada is measured in sq. miles per person, not the other way around.

 

[Machjo]

Not even close when a large part of Canada is measured in sq. miles per person, not the other way around.

So do you expect a metropolis of 1,000,000 people to pollute no more than a small town of 20,000?

Now to be fair, temperature plays a role too. Population density aside, clearly a person living in a cold climate will need more energy than one in a hot climate. I can have a cold shower quite comfortably in Hong Kong in May but certainly not in Canada in January for example, Though Harbin compares to Ottawa for example. Harbin is in China, but not far from Vladivostok in Russia.

 

[taxslave]

I expect a fair comparison. Per capita is not fair because of the huge difference in population density.

 

[Machjo]

I expect a fair comparison. Per capita is not fair because of the huge difference in population density.

Some relevant factors:

1. Population. A larger population will need to consume more resources than a small one.

2. Population density. A more spread-out population will need to consume more resources per capita for transportation. Higher density can share energy to keep warm too.

3. Climate. people in a cooler environment will need more energy to keep warm.

To be fair, all three ought to be taken into account. With that, we can reasonably expect that the Inuit will need to burn more fuel to keep warm than those in Brasil for example.

 

[Nick Danger]

The are politcal and economic factors as well. Most of the world's lowest per capita emitters are countries with a low level of industrialization, while the higher emitters are governed by regimes not committed to any serious abatement measures. China's recent proclamation that they intend to transition to greener energy production has to be taken in context with the fact that they have over 2500 coal fired electricity plants in use, with more than half of that again under construction. Call me cynical but this move by China could be more window-dressing than anything else.

We could also talk about the hypocrisy involved in Canada claiming to be a world leading green crusader while our coal and bitumen supplies the world's two largest emitters.

 

[Machjo]

The are politcal and economic factors as well. Most of the world's lowest per capita emitters are countries with a low level of industrialization, while the higher emitters are governed by regimes not committed to any serious abatement measures. China's recent proclamation that they intend to transition to greener energy production has to be taken in context with the fact that they have over 2500 coal fired electricity plants in use, with more than half of that again under construction. Call me cynical but this move by China could be more window-dressing than anything else.

We could also talk about the hypocrisy involved in Canada claiming to be a world leading green crusader while our coal and bitumen supplies the world's two largest emitters.

At the end of the day, it's consumption and not extraction that matters. If no one consumed it, we wouldn't be extracting it.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

per capita is a meaningless statistic in terms of CO2 damage. Canada's best case is saving 1.5% of global CO2 emissions (by not running anything and not breathing) and that will do didly squat to atmospheric CO2 (if you believe that to be a problem).

 

[Jinentonix]

Yep, that 73% of power generation derived from coal sure is showing us a thing or two about green energy. :lol:

 

[Nick Danger]

At the end of the day, it's consumption and not extraction that matters. If no one consumed it, we wouldn't be extracting it.

True, but enabling consumption certainly alters the shade of green we are painting ourselves with.

I'm of the mind that the days of burning fossil fuels are numbered, and that as long as we have the Albertan cash cow grazing in our favour, it would be wise to channel some of that wealth into alternative energy.

 

[Jinentonix]

Per capita is more accurate, since each person has a life to live, needing hot water to bathe, a means of transporation etc.

No, it's not more accurate. When you compare Canada to European countries for example, the comparison isn't fair because of our vast geographical size and relatively small population. When a ship arrives in port, say in Rostock, a truck can deliver those goods anywhere in Germany within a little over 24 hours, or less. But when ships arrive in Vancouver, you're looking at close to 24 hours just to get to Alberta. Vast distances in Canada account for a sizable percentage of our per capita emissions. Then you also need to take into account that we ARE an arctic nation with areas that also have very hot summers so heating and a/c are going to be contributing factors year round.
It's not like Canada has the highest per capita emissions for sh*ts and giggles, there's a sound and very valid reason for it. Take the population of any industrialized country with lower per capita emissions than ours and plop them into Canada and watch how quickly their per captia emissions increase simply by virtue of our geography and climate.

 

[Machjo]

No, it's not more accurate. When you compare Canada to European countries for example, the comparison isn't fair because of our vast geographical size and relatively small population. When a ship arrives in port, say in Rostock, a truck can deliver those goods anywhere in Germany within a little over 24 hours, or less. But when ships arrive in Vancouver, you're looking at close to 24 hours just to get to Alberta. Vast distances in Canada account for a sizable percentage of our per capita emissions. Then you also need to take into account that we ARE an arctic nation with areas that also have very hot summers so heating and a/c are going to be contributing factors year round.
It's not like Canada has the highest per capita emissions for sh*ts and giggles, there's a sound and very valid reason for it. Take the population of any industrialized country with lower per capita emissions than ours and plop them into Canada and watch how quickly their per captia emissions increase simply by virtue of our geography and climate.

As I said above:

Some relevant factors:

1. Population. A larger population will need to consume more resources than a small one.

2. Population density. A more spread-out population will need to consume more resources per capita for transportation. Higher density can share energy to keep warm too.

3. Climate. people in a cooler environment will need more energy to keep warm.

To be fair, all three ought to be taken into account. With that, we can reasonably expect that the Inuit will need to burn more fuel to keep warm than those in Brasil for example.