Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Thursday May 18, @01:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the smoke-the-competition dept.

As corporations, citizens and governments continue to urge the Trump administration to stick with the Paris Climate Agreement, a new analysis is undercutting one of the climate naysayers primary objections:

China and India are actually years ahead of their climate commitments.

Those, at least, are the findings from Climate Action Tracker which suggest that scaling back of coal consumption in both countries is likely to be enough to 'cancel out' the expected slowing down of progress by the United States under President Trump. India, for example, had pledged to lower the emissions intensity by 33 to 35 percent by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. The new analysis suggests they will leap past that mark to a 42 to 45 percent cut in emissions intensity by 2030.


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Reply to Article

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @02:17AM (17 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @02:17AM (#511501)

    There are different kinds of coal plants, the ones that operate at higher steam pressure are more efficient - generating more electricity per ton of coal (and thus less CO2 and other pollutants per kwh).
    The US has just 1 ultra efficient coal plant. China has 90.

    Also China's laws on coal pollution (particulate levels, etc) are moving ahead of the USA. As it stands now, by 2020 every single coal plant in the USA would be illegal to operate if it were in China.

    https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/15/15634538/china-coal-cleaner [vox.com]

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 18, @02:41AM (7 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 18, @02:41AM (#511511) Journal

      "The US has just 1 ultra efficient coal plant. China has 90."

      Well, AC - I find that difficult to believe. I guess I'll just have to do a little research to verify your claim. Can't do it at this time, but I hope to get back to this when I get home from work.

      If China has 90 super efficient coal plants, how many do they have that use shoddy technology, comparable to US coal plants in the 1950's? How many coal plants total? I've pictured Chinese coal generators belching black columns into the atmosphere, just as I witnessed at Penn Power's coal plant in West Pittsburgh, Pa, up through about 1970 or so.

      --
      This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Zyx Abacab on Thursday May 18, @02:56AM (2 children)

        by Zyx Abacab (3701) on Thursday May 18, @02:56AM (#511514)

        Until someone coughs up something the Ancients called "evidence", this is no more than schoolyard bickering.

        But if I had to put money down, I'd definitely put it on Runaway1956....

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @03:18AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @03:18AM (#511518)

          > Until someone coughs up something the Ancients called "evidence", this is no more than schoolyard bickering.

          Are neither you able to click the provided link?

          • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @03:27AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @03:27AM (#511523)

            You're not the boss of us!

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Thursday May 18, @03:27AM (3 children)

        by Whoever (4524) on Thursday May 18, @03:27AM (#511522)

        Runaway1956: Typical Trump voter: can't see the information when it's right in front of his face.

        Can't accept the facts when they contradict his worldview.

        • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday May 18, @02:49PM (2 children)

          by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 18, @02:49PM (#511697)

          As a bystander here, my first thought is, "Right, because China never lies about its air quality." If you know absolutely anything about China, you will know of their AQI scores in the bigger cities like Beijing and how when they say, "Perfectly safe air today in Glorious China! Pregnant women - go have a jog!" translates, in reality, to people wearing face masks to prevent their lungs and/or eyes from burning.

          • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday May 18, @10:22PM (1 child)

            by Whoever (4524) on Thursday May 18, @10:22PM (#511865)

            And, as I told another poster: you are an idiot who doesn't recognize that particulates and CO2 are different.

            • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday May 20, @04:55AM

              by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 20, @04:55AM (#512522)

              The fact of an environmental organization lying about particulates released to the atmosphere is not mutually exclusive to them lying about gases they release to the atmosphere in any way. In syntax you may understand: China lie about environment. China lie about particulates. China lie about gases? Me no know. That is the entire extent of the suggestion in my original comment.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 18, @02:50AM (2 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 18, @02:50AM (#511512) Journal

      A picture is worth a thousand words? This picture is a little better than I have visualised, but not a whole lot better. I expect a "super efficient" coal plant to show no visible smoke or soot. What is visible in that photo is about 1/2 to 3/4 steam, and the rest is particulate matter.

      --
      This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @03:47AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @03:47AM (#511530)

        What is visible in that photo is about 1/2 to 3/4 steam, and the rest is particulate matter.

        And Runaway is an expert on emissions? Well, I guess he would be. Trump-voter, but even worse, Trump voter in denial. And Runaway has proven many times that he knows nothing, and especially nothing about China. Trump-voter, so, Chia-na.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19, @12:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19, @12:20PM (#512135)

        To calm down your jingoism from extreme to moderate or high, the US is probably surprisingly also meeting its goals, because of using more nat gas and less coal. Of course, purely for economic reasons. On the other hand while this is good for climate (which probably arguably is the most critical issue at this time) it's certainly not environmentally sound as shale extraction uses questionable fracking and threatens groundwater.

        I too wish the world was real simple and there would only be good people and bad people, good choices and bad choices etc but unfortunately it is not so.

    • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Thursday May 18, @06:48AM

      by Aiwendil (531) on Thursday May 18, @06:48AM (#511568) Journal

      Since this turned into bickering - what AC is referring to are Ultra Supercritical Coal Plants.

      USA has one [wikipedia.org], China 80-100, and other countries (like australia) also uses them.

      If we drop to "only" supercritical then usa and china has quite a few each.

      Since the tech (Ultra, normal SCW is old) is quite new it only tells us that China has built a lot more coal in the last 15 years.

      This is also pointed out in the link AC posted.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 18, @01:07PM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 18, @01:07PM (#511668) Journal

      The US has just 1 ultra efficient coal plant. China has 90.

      While that appears correct, we need to note that the single US plant has received extraordinary opposition [arktimes.com] to that one plant.

      SWEPCO has signed a confidential settlement of lawsuits challenging the construction of the John W. Turk Power Plant in Hempstead County, according to a news release from the power company. The Hempstead County Hunting Club and other plaintiffs have withdrawn their challenges to the plant's air permit and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for the plant. The Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society, along with the local affiliate group Audubon Arkansas, will continue their challenges to the plant's air and Corps permits in the Arkansas Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court, respectively. SWEPCO hopes to begin operations at the plant next year. The release, including a few details on the settlement, is on the jump.

      It's a sure bet that the Chinese plants haven't seen a bit of this sort of opposition. As another example of Green hypocrisy, the article you linked also advises against the US conducting research into such plants by titling a section:

      The US shouldn’t emulate China’s plan, but it should emulate China’s ambition

      Or we could just ignore a toxic ideology that wants to hamstring progress and build what the US needs? The US still uses coal after all.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @02:36PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @02:36PM (#511692)

        > The US still uses coal after all.

        The US still uses coal but the US does not need coal.
        The only reason we continue to use coal is because of the sunk costs of building the plants.
        NatGas is cheaper, cleaner and more efficient in that it is relatively easy to modulate output to match demand.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 19, @04:32AM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 19, @04:32AM (#512014) Journal
          In other words, when China builds coal burning plants, it's "years early on climate goals". When the US does the same thing, it's "the US doesn't need coal". I think it's reasonable to ask for equal treatment here.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 19, @04:40AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 19, @04:40AM (#512018) Journal
            For an example of equal treatment, I advocate global trade even though it does have a modest negative effect on low skilled labor in the US - because it creates such a tremendous improvement in the lives of everyone outside of the developed world.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday May 18, @06:58PM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday May 18, @06:58PM (#511788) Journal

        the local affiliate group Audubon Arkansas, will continue their challenges to the plant's air and Corps permits in the Arkansas Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court,

        No wonder Runaway did not know about this! The one American plant is in Arkansas! No one ever knows what's going on in Arkansas, especially Arkansawans.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @04:51AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @04:51AM (#511545)
    • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday May 18, @05:19AM (1 child)

      by Whoever (4524) on Thursday May 18, @05:19AM (#511549)

      You know that there is a difference between particulates and CO2, right?

      Idiot!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @11:20AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @11:20AM (#511635)

        So we are pretending that the most polluted countries in the world are doing anything about global warming. More likely they are lying, resulting in the shackling the US economy; thus giving them an unfair business advantage that is ending the US ability manufacture anything.

        Nice use of nme calling. We are all very impressed.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @10:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @10:57PM (#511878)

    India and China were allowed to increase their CO2. Your article alludes to say they decreased their CO2, therefore the rest of the world are not conforming to the agreement.

    What is the point?

    Who pays you to put such trash up here?

(1)