China, Russia, Canada, northern Europe and northern USA would hugely benefit from a 5c increase in temperature...Russia was also absent from climate talks. Today I asked why, and I couldn't help but think global warming would be in my best interest if the majority of my country is frozen for half the year....
I wonder if China had similar thoughts given the video @Smurf1976 posted
Completely false.China, Russia, Canada, northern Europe and northern USA would hugely benefit from a 5c increase in temperature...
Completely false.
A 2 degree change has massive global implications, while 5 degrees is nothing short of catastrophic.
Your knowledge of climate and CO2 effects is abysmal.
Suggesting regional winners from increasing temperature ignores detrimental ecological and environmental impacts, and neglects increased number and intensity of adverse weather events, bushfires and floods.
On topic, for China to compensate for a few percentage points increase in electricity demand is almost equivalent to adding Australia's total energy generation capacity. And as @Smurf1976 notes changes in daily weather, let alone seasonal weather patterns, can have a massive impact on China's grid. China is also the global leader in adding renewable energy to their grid so will have a bigger problem than most other countries in terms of adding commensurate backup.
Having watched China's economy for a few decades the issue of power shortages is not new. The greater issue nowadays is that China's role in the global supply chain is so pronounced that any and every energy misstep gets noticed and has flow-on effects. China is also adding energy intensive industry at a much greater rate than the developed world, so their supply and demand imbalance continues to worsen during manufacturing and weather peaks.
None of this is a surprise to China, and that's why it was reluctant to commit to abandoning coal at COP26. China has a roadmap for it's energy future but needs the next decade to put it in place. In the meantime watch the weather.
china are building hundreds of new coal fired power stations! that gets ignored by the usual champaign socialists and useful idiots and continue to blame cows farting in Australia and USA for the so called climate crisisSo, a 2 degree change will have massive impact, but China are the one's who are now in the drivers seat to actually cause it. As you say, their energy intensive industry requirements are far outstripping the developed World, yet they are not going to reduce coal and gas for a couple of decades, well past the hypothetical tipping points where there's runaway climate change catastrophe.
If we're serious that CAGW is going to cause catastrophe at some tipping point of 2 degrees, or 2030, then China have the con.
Their announcements of building 150 new nuclear plants are very welcome, but it doesn't change the fact they're building dozens of coal plants as well and unlikely to stop building to meet immediate energy demands in the next 2 decades.
So the fact that China did not get the world to where we are today is not relevant to you!So, a 2 degree change will have massive impact, but China are the one's who are now in the drivers seat to actually cause it. As you say, their energy intensive industry requirements are far outstripping the developed World, yet they are not going to reduce coal and gas for a couple of decades, well past the hypothetical tipping points where there's runaway climate change catastrophe.
If we're serious that CAGW is going to cause catastrophe at some tipping point of 2 degrees, or 2030, then China have the con.
Their announcements of building 150 new nuclear plants are very welcome, but it doesn't change the fact they're building dozens of coal plants as well and unlikely to stop building to meet immediate energy demands in the next 2 decades.
So what is the key difference between China and the west?So, a 2 degree change will have massive impact, but China are the one's who are now in the drivers seat to actually cause it. As you say, their energy intensive industry requirements are far outstripping the developed World, yet they are not going to reduce coal and gas for a couple of decades, well past the hypothetical tipping points where there's runaway climate change catastrophe.
If we're serious that CAGW is going to cause catastrophe at some tipping point of 2 degrees, or 2030, then China have the con.
Their announcements of building 150 new nuclear plants are very welcome, but it doesn't change the fact they're building dozens of coal plants as well and unlikely to stop building to meet immediate energy demands in the next 2 decades.
So the fact that China did not get the world to where we are today is not relevant to you!
So the fact that China did not get the world to where we are today is not relevant to you!
America has been the culprit, followed by Europe:
View attachment 133051
Aside from the above, China, which is already the world’s largest market for renewables, added 136 GW of new capacity in 2020, which is more than twice the total capacity of Australia (which is dominated by coal generation). It's also going to be class leading in wind turbines with this monster putting out 16MW. So you can't say that China is relying on the rest of the world to offer solutions to its energy needs as its doing comparatively well in decarbonising.
It would be good if China could decarbonise faster, but China remains a developing country and not a developed one. That's why despite China's total CO2 footprint, its per capita emissions are much lower than ours or America's. Again, that fact gets overlooked to indulge instead in a blame game.
Another solution is for all economies above average per capita emissions to reduce their footprint. Better still, let's drop our per capita CO2 levels to India's seeing their population is greater than Europe, North America and Oceania combined. That will get us to net zero in no time at all and seems a fair proposition.Nope, it's just how things worked out. Unfortunately, China missed the boat on the industrial revolution of the late 1800s / early 1900s well before CO2 became the temperature control knob. It's a matter of history that China have found themselves in this situation. If GHG emissions really are the problem, China (and all other 'developing' countries) need to do like the rest of us and stop emitting, now. Unless, Developing countries developing and stopping emissions are not mutually exclusive at this moment in time?
That quote sums it up, the western countries have pumped out carbon to build affluence and wealth in their countries, China now is doing the same so why shouldn't they be given the same concessions, well probably because they aren't starting from zero they are starting from a base that is already mature.So the fact that China did not get the world to where we are today is not relevant to you!
America has been the culprit, followed by Europe:
View attachment 133051
Aside from the above, China, which is already the world’s largest market for renewables, added 136 GW of new capacity in 2020, which is more than twice the total capacity of Australia (which is dominated by coal generation). It's also going to be class leading in wind turbines with this monster putting out 16MW. So you can't say that China is relying on the rest of the world to offer solutions to its energy needs as its doing comparatively well in decarbonising.
It would be good if China could decarbonise faster, but China remains a developing country and not a developed one. That's why despite China's total CO2 footprint, its per capita emissions are much lower than ours or America's. Again, that fact gets overlooked to indulge instead in a blame game.
The problem there is that in the Australian context it has made us the king of coal and not much else.All that has happened is the U.S, U.K, Europe and Australia has outsourced their advantage
no that's just s saying the idiot left dribble out. given that much of Australian trade is dictated to by the United Nations "lima declaration" thanks to oxygen thieves Gough Whitlam and bob Hawke.The problem there is that in the Australian context it has made us the king of coal and not much else.
That's not China's fault but it's a very definite issue.
Do you really believe there is that recognition? I doubt, we are just off the Glasgow green fairy fest ...The main consequence of the energy crisis in China for me is the recognition of the fact that green energy is not capable of replacing coal or nuclear power in a modern state now or in the near future. Despite all the harm to the environment, despite the changes in climate, the industry cannot yet exist without them.
https://www.orfonline.org/expert-sp...wer-outages-may-affect-xis-green-initiatives/
You need to check what has occurred in South Australia in less than a decade as, simply put, your statement is false.The main consequence of the energy crisis in China for me is the recognition of the fact that green energy is not capable of replacing coal or nuclear power in a modern state now or in the near future.
The energy infrastructure of many nations has legacy implications that make it physically impossible to replace current generating capacity with renewables. China, with over 1000 coal fired power plants (typical operating life over 30 years) will take several decades to physically make and install the same generating capacity in wind and solar it needs to replace. However, last year, for example, China added about 48GW of solar (Australia's NEM has a total capacity of 59.5GW) , but also added 30GW to its coal fleet to meet industry demand, which explains why China talks about 2030 as its inflexion point.Despite all the harm to the environment, despite the changes in climate, the industry cannot yet exist without them.
https://www.orfonline.org/expert-sp...wer-outages-may-affect-xis-green-initiatives/
Don't know what is so important about South Aus, except for the Calabrians in the hills?You need to check what has occurred in South Australia in less than a decade as, simply put, your statement is false.
This.What is false about the statement?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?