Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 . .. )

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site