Skip to main content

View Diary: The Myth of China's Coal Demand (66 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The NYTs has a different take on the situation (5+ / 0-)

    With China and India Ravenous for Energy, Coal’s Future Seems Assured

    Global demand for coal is expected to grow to 8.9 billion tons by 2016 from 7.9 billion tons this year, with the bulk of new demand — about 700 million tons — coming from China, according to a Peabody Energy study. China is expected to add 240 gigawatts, the equivalent of adding about 160 new coal-fired plants to the 620 operating now, within four years. During that period, India will add an additional 70 gigawatts through more than 46 plants.
    good thing they're a thoroughly discredited news sources (thanks Judith!!)
    •  yep, Greenpeace knows it's stuff it's .... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      forgore

      in the field

      Macca's Meatless Monday

      by VL Baker on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:19:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's some (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG, LakeSuperior

        stats from the US Govt (that seem to support the New York Times projections) insofar as fossil fuel use in China has absolutely been skyrocketing lately with no discernable end in sight.

        And even Greenpeace has projected that the world's largest "carbon bomb" from now until 2020 is expansion of coal in China:

        The 14 projects’ annual emissions by 2020 (millions of tonnes of CO2)

        China – Coal mining – 1,400
        Australia – Coal exports – 760
        Arctic – Oil and gas drilling – 520
        Indonesia – Coal exports – 460
        USA – Coal exports – 420
        Canada – Tar sands – 420
        Iraq – Oil drilling – 420
        Brazil – Oil drilling – 330
        Gulf of Mexico – Oil drilling – 350
        Kazakhstan – Oil drilling – 290
        USA – Shale gas – 280
        Africa – gas drilling – 260
        Caspian Sea – Gas drilling – 240
        Venezuela – Tar sands – 190

        Total 6,340 million tonnes of CO2 by 2020

        Oh well, false alarm it seems.  Yay!!
      •  Just don't ask Greenpeace to get anything done (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy

        locally that requires persistence and detailed technical help, as is characteristic of many controversies involving local industrial facilities.

        Greenpeace uses local citizen environmental groups by coming to town, running an organizing, PR and fundraising operation, paying token attention to regulatory processes or a public hearing, and then they leave town and you don't hear from Greenpeace again.    But the local industrial issue causing a problem remains.

        Greenpeace is not an organization that exercises environmental stewardship to address local environmental problems.   Addressing serious problems involving high emitted cement plants, power plants, hazardous waste combustion operations, paper mills, petroleum refineries and synthetic organic chemical manufacturing requires the exercise of such stewardship and the application of several scientific and engineering disciplines.   However, all Greenpeace wants to do is use the local environmental problem and the local citizens as a backdrop for public relations.....and then they leave town.

    •  Don't forget their anti-electric car debacle (10+ / 0-)

      Oh, and those growth numbers for India are wildly optimistic given India's economy has stagnated with the global economy. China's feeling the strain on their growth as well. At this point I'm pretty sure anything we see about energy in the NYT is just short of a paid for advertisement for the fossil carbon fuel industry.

      What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

      by ontheleftcoast on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:21:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. NYT's has purged it's environmental (4+ / 0-)

        writing.  And what it had has been discredited.

        Macca's Meatless Monday

        by VL Baker on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:27:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Is Science Daily also a shill for the fossil (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LakeSuperior

        fuel industries?

        Cause they have this rather sobering article:Record High for Global Carbon Emissions

        Dec. 2, 2012 — Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are set to rise again in 2012, reaching a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes -- according to new figures from the Global Carbon Project, co-led by researchers from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

        It shows the biggest contributors to global emissions in 2011 were China (28 per cent), the United States (16 per cent), the European Union (11 per cent), and India (7 per cent).

        Emissions in China and India grew by 9.9 and 7.5 per cent in 2011, while those of the United States and the European Union decreased by 1.8 and 2.8 per cent.

        Bottom line, the stats show the India and China aren't as stagnant as you suggested.  
        •  They grew in the past (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias, mythatsme

          That in no way contradicts anything in the diary. Unless you have an article saying that China isn't instituting five year plans that are going to reduce coal use then what you're linking to has no connection to the diary.

          Yes, energy usage had shot up drastically. Yes, they are now dealing with it.

          And you have absolutely no solutions to offer, only despair. You come into every climate change diary and say that any action being taken is useless.

          •  Oh, did I not post that? My bad (0+ / 0-)

            Here it is, from Scientific American

            Asian Demand Forecasts Boom for Coal

            For the next several decades, a growing appetite for power in Asia will mean more coal is mined and burned, according to a research report

            China will widen its gap with the United States as the world's largest coal-producing country by the end of the decade, riding continued strong demand from its electric power and steel-making sectors, according to a new analysis from New York-based GBI Research.

            By 2020, the report projects China will produce 4.5 billion metric tons of coal annually, reflecting a 3.5 percent compounded annual growth rate over the next eight years.

            •  And that report makes a flawed assumption (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias, DeminNewJ

              Which the greenpeace report does not.

              By 2020, the report projects China will produce 4.5 billion metric tons of coal annually, reflecting a 3.5 percent compounded annual growth rate over the next eight years.
              And that isn't a report from Scientific American, it's an article about a report from some company that assumes that all current trends are going to continue. They clearly missed the fact that China has altered it's policies.
              •  China has been on a crash green energy (0+ / 0-)

                program since 1986  - and then officially redoubled (quadrupled?) their efforts in 2006.

                Yet the acceleration of fossil fuel use did not slow one iota.

                So they can alter their policies all they want - unfortunately what they cannot do is alter reality.  And that reality is reflected in numerous projections out there that their production of carbon pollution will continue to grow by leaps and bounds into the foreseeable future.  There is really no way around that unless they gut their economy, which they will not do (not on purpose at least).

                Seriously, think about it - Germany, a really rich technologically advanced country has been going whole hog into green energy over the past decade and made absolutely huge investments in wind and solar and yet their carbon emissions have remained flat (largely because of their idiotic shutdown of nuclear leading to increased usage of coal, but whatever) even w/o a vibrantly growing economy.  It totally boggles the mind  that China - still a relatively poor country -  could do better than that.

                •  China possesses the mean to produce (4+ / 0-)

                  far more green technology than any other country. And if they can afford to buy coal and build coal plants then they can afford to put up solar and other green energy sources. They've been increasing their production of solar cells by about 50% per year for the last five years. If you want to extrapolate exponentially like the other study does that is a metric fuck ton of solar cells in a pretty short time.

                  And that link does not say that they've had a crash green energy program since 1986. You're lying to make your point.

                  It totally boggles the mind  that China - still a relatively poor country -  could do better than that.
                  You're stuck ten or twenty years ago. China is an economic powerhouse and will be able to completely switch off of carbon within twenty years.
                  •  They will HAVE to revolutionize before that....... (0+ / 0-)

                    happens, though. The "Communist" Party knows it's days are running short and are trying to cover their asses as much as possible before the inevitable fall of the system comes. Now, whether or not it will also result in the collapse of China, period, is still up in the air, but let us hope for the best.....

          •  China is in the 2nd year of the 2011-2015 plan (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LakeSuperior

            but in 2012 Chinese coal use increased by 223 million tons.

            I liked Roadbed Guy more before his sarcasm glands started working overtime, but he raises a valid point and cites statistics that Chinese coal use is increasing, not decreasing.

            Climate Wire claims in September, 2012, that India plans 455 new coal fired power plants, and China plans another 350 +-, with about another 400 planned elsewhere.

            I'll have to see announcements that China is cancelling those  300-odd plants before I'll believe that China's coal use is indeed declining.

            I'd like some good news on climate change myself but I doubt I'll get it from the Chinese coal industry for awhile.

            Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

            by 6412093 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 12:42:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  My main issue here is that I have no idea (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG, ban nock, LakeSuperior

        why anyone wishes to pretend that things are getting better, when they're not.  They're not even staying the same in fact - they're getting worse.

        And getting worse in a dramatically accelerating fashion.  Deluding ourselves otherwise is not going to solve anything.

        •  you've never even written a diary in 8 years here (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jasan, aliasalias, mythatsme

          perhaps if you busied yourself taking some sort of action you would be less negative.  In addition to writing I am an environmental activist and have a very low carbon footprint. That all takes work..it's empowering..try it.

          Macca's Meatless Monday

          by VL Baker on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:36:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, China is burning lots of coal (6+ / 0-)

          But they actually are taking steps to use less. Are they there yet? Hell no. But the US coal industry is acting like their demand today will be their demand in twenty years. They want to invest in major infrastructure, ports, rail, etc. to push a product to market for a market that maybe gone in 5 years. Of course they also want the public to fund those efforts and they want to take the profits for themselves. Why shouldn't we point out how terrible that is?

          What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

          by ontheleftcoast on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:36:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, no they're not. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LakeSuperior
            But they actually are taking steps to use less.
            they're building new power plants right now.  That's not what they'd be doing if they planned to use less.

            What about Scientific American? Are they a believable source in your world?

            Asian Demand Forecasts Boom for Coal

            For the next several decades, a growing appetite for power in Asia will mean more coal is mined and burned, according to a research report

            By 2020, the report projects China will produce 4.5 billion metric tons of coal annually, reflecting a 3.5 percent compounded annual growth rate over the next eight years.

            Regionwide, coal consumption for the power generation in Asia stood at an estimated 2.7 billion metric tons in 2011. From 2012 to 2020, that figure is expected to rise to 4.4 billion tons annually, according to GBI.

            •  And yet their increase in coal use is lower than (6+ / 0-)

              their increase in other energy sources or their growth in energy consumption. They are using more power and less of it is coming from coal. The 2020 predictions (damn, it's hard to type that and not think it's the distant future) seem to assume no increase in other energy providers. Yet China is claiming they're going reduce GHG emissions by 40-45% from 2005 levels by 2020. The only way that will be achieved is by increasing wind/solar/nuclear.

              What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

              by ontheleftcoast on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:15:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  They can claim whatever they want (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LakeSuperior

                like this:

                Yet China is claiming they're going reduce GHG emissions by 40-45% from 2005 levels by 2020.
                But that is not remotely possible. What that means is that they'd have to

                1) ensure that all * new * energy sources are non-carbon based

                2)   * replace * two thirds of their existing fossil fuel use (WHICH IS HUGE!!) with non-carbon based energy.

                Currently renewables (primarily hydroelectric, and there's no new Three Gorges Dam on the horizon) are at about 10% and are projected to rise to 16% by 2020 (according to sources referenced in Wikipedia).

                Similarly, nuclear will increase, but only from 1.9 to 4.0%

                So, overall it looks like about a 6% increase in non-carbon energy sources in China by 2020.  If their economic growth is maintained at all, that will not even be enough to meet * new * demand - much less cut into existing carbon sources.

          •  I was not aware (0+ / 0-)

            that any public money is invested in coal export. Could I get a reference, please?

            Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

            by 6412093 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 12:26:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The source of the coal being exported.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias

              A big chunk of the MT-WY coal that will ultimately be exported are produced from publicly-owned resources on federal lands.....the leasing and production of that coal is a form of subsidy to the coal export market.

              •  While true, (0+ / 0-)

                the coal does come from public lands leases, I'd hesitate to call that a subsidy. Private companies actually produce the coal, not the gov't.

                The coal barons are supposed to pay fair market value for the coal and fully reimburse the taxpayers, in which case their's no subsidy, instead there's gov't income. (cough)

                Of course the coal companies are screwing the taxpayer on the royalty payments through "front" companies and phony in-house coal sales, but that's lawbreaking and government stupidity, not a government subsidy. Hopefully that's still under investigation.  Its been diaried.

                My original concern was about ontheleftcoast's original comment which said the coal companies wanted the public to fund those efforts ... to invest in major infrastructure, ports, rail, etc. for coal export.

                 I questioned whether there was actually public money subsidizing that infrastructure expansion because I've heard of none.

                Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

                by 6412093 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 01:33:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •   the railroad goes only have to pay 'up to' 5% of (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AoT

                  all costs on the necessary upgrade of crossings and any other mitigations like pedestrian overpasses, bridges or tunnels than must be built to accomodate the public.

                  Just speaking for this area we will see 18 more mega trains a day thru town, and there will have to be have to be upgrades at every crossing, overpasses built (cars and/or people) and sidings added (one will take the place of a popular park). 95% of all those costs will be on the taxpayers, robbing us of funding which will negatively impact other services and govt. operations.
                  All to help the operations of private interests. That's some serious subsidies for a private company and a huge cost to the public sector.

                  I've been around a number of hearings over the proposed coal terminal north of Bellingham (Cherry Point) and whenever any representative for SSA Marine, or any person speaking for BNSF got a question about the costs the people will bear they didn't say the (up to) 5% figure was wrong.
                  There have been some statements about how negotiations weren't over so some agreement raising the percentage above 5%. How much?  Has there been an offer like that from BNSF or SSA Marine ?
                  No answer.
                   If any number has ever been given I'd like to know because I know that question has been asked often enuf  in hearings, via email petitions, phone calls and more (I've asked too) to warrant an answer.
                   

                  without the ants the rainforest dies

                  by aliasalias on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:49:19 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Not quite "dramatically", R.G. (0+ / 0-)

          Yes, the Earth is getting hotter, and things are steadily getting worse, at least in some ways.....but let us not exaggerate what is happening, either: remember, the deniers LOVE to use this kind of stuff against us, even if their influence is dying ever more each passing year.

          •  Go to US Energy Information Administration (0+ / 0-)

            site about China  (or Wikipedia for that matter, they nicely document the same thing) and click on any of the relevant links about China's carbon emission's.

            If you don't call a DOUBLING in less than a decade (a decade that included the Great Recession, btw, that diminished emissions in the first world) dramatic, I doubt that you would apply that word to * anything * . .. .

            To somebody like me, seeing a country go past us (formerly #1 in emissions by a country mile) at breakneck pace and now leave us in the veritable dust (and very real pollution) - I make no apologies about using the word "dramatically" to describe that.

            Again, for fuck's sake, why are * you * trying to minimize that?  (I've asked that in general an no one answers, will you?  I'm just trying to get some insight into this very strange denialism in full bloom right here at DailyKos . .. )

      •  Fitting summary of NYT's environmental reporting (5+ / 0-)

        Front page story today. A search for "climate change" or "global warming" is fruitless. But of course, on the last paragraphs we have:

        Drought Takes Its Toll on a Texas Business, a Town and Its Families

        Every Saturday morning, a group of residents and laid-off workers gather outside the plant to walk four miles around the perimeter. They do it not as a protest, and not strictly for the exercise. They encircle the plant with prayers.

        “It’s going to have to be a miracle,” said Manuel Balderas, a police captain who organizes the walks. “That’s what we’re praying for.”

        Granted, it's an interesting story. But it begs serious questions. And it's a fitting and quintessential summation of the catastrophic reporting we have. The New York Times finds a very real world case of the environment reacting violently against our highly tilled and industrialized lands, and it squanders it without much mention of the scientific backdrop so much as the faith-based one.

        It seems to trust the more scientifically aware readers' ability to read between the lines as a self-evident story of climate change. I see it, equally, as fodder for confirmation bias, that the science is irrelevant to the story. What a shame...

        "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~Edward Abbey ////\\\\ "To be a poor man is hard, but to be a poor race in a land of dollars is the very bottom of hardships." ~W.E.B. DuBois

        by rovertheoctopus on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:36:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is so profoundly sad (4+ / 0-)

          The drought is not going to ease up. Those people are left marching around that plant praying for a miracle while not being told the truth of their situation.

          I suppose since they are a state full of climate change deniers, they can't accept or even look at the drought predictions as global temperatures rise. The denial is so strong in Texas that though infuriating, I can see why their local media wouldn't cover the causes and predictions. The fact that the New York Times, won't even mentioning climate change & the predictions for continued drought is just a travesty.

          These people should be given the truth so they have a chance to make plans for their future that aren't based on praying for miracles that aren't going to happen. Maybe TPTB are worried how the people will react when the finally realize how long and how thoroughly they've been lied to.

          "Compassion is the radicalism of our time." ~ Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama -7.88, -6.21

          by Siri on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:17:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I suspect that vast majority of New York (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rovertheoctopus

          Times readers "believe" in climate change and accept it to be "self-evident"

          so they can go ahead and present amusing views of dumbasses out their in other parts of the country who think differently . .. .

          Just another example (but a good one!) of the "two Americas" meme.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site