Mark: > > What I was trying to say is that both coal and renewable use are growing. > And the answer to that seems fairly well documented if you page through > Wikipedia pages on coal in China, > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China. There is also > https://discoveryalert.com.au/energy-security-clean-transition-geopolitical-tensions-2026 > : China has increased production practically every year up to 2025, but > only by 1.2% in 2025. >
> > So, David, you cannot say "no" to my claim that the growth coal and > renewables are positively correlated and also agree with the > widely-available available data that coal mined is growing in tonnage. You > might claim that it is growing more slowly, it is, but it is already far > too high for 1.5C. Will they reduce it to a negligible amount with respect > to GHG? That has not happened historically. Maybe China is really > exceptional. > I was honestly asking what you meant. Here is another fact: RE (renewables), coal, hydro, gas, and nuclear are "positively related". My issue here is that the Chinese have "positions" to build tons of low carbon energy, specifically hydro, RE, and nuclear. The problem being is that this is all subordinated to producing vast quantities of commodities and thus coal stays. Actual plans 15 or more years ago do show coal a lot more in use than it actually is. Their "phasing out of coal" is not "2030" but more like "2050" and that is the starting time. Coal and gas are of course low hanging fruit that can be phased out, even with China trying to dominate world trade for all commodities. So they use this excuse that they have to "catch" up in economic activity with the "West" as their reason for not adhering to climate goals. My conclusion, even with the massive amounts of low carbon generation being built, more than anyone in the world combined, IS a function of the negative aspect of "demand" which you raised and I questioned. There is nothing stopping them, even including their insane trade goals, from more than doubling their projections of low carbon generation (again: hydro, RE, and nuclear). So this is purely a political question not a technological one. What needs to address by those that adopted the unfortunate term "de development" is how this applies the the developing world (think China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, ALL of Africa, and most of Latin America? They are all trying to follow these countries in order to raise their standard of living. This is what needs to be discussed, IMO. David > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#40560): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/40560 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/117439078/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
