Yes.

Worth looking at this piece:

‘China’s the Engine’ Driving Nations Away From Fossil Fuels, Report Says

I gifted as a free article for anyone wanting to understand just how significant China’s actions are.

When the world’s fossil fuel use will peak also comes down to the pace of that change in China itself.

China still burns more coal than the rest of the world combined and emits more climate pollution than the United States and Europe together. The country has not yet seen a decline in coal usage overall, though its total greenhouse gas emissions have reached what looks like a plateau.

But last year, China met 84 percent of its electricity demand growth with solar and wind power, according to the report. That meant it was able to cut fossil fuel use by 2 percent, despite a growing demand for power.

Mr. Black said that decline in fossil fuel use was largely due to burning less coal to produce electricity. He pointed to a number of recent policy directives that have reallocated subsidies and production incentives away from coal and toward solar and wind.

China is still building dozens of new coal-burning power plants, he said, but instead of running constantly like many existing ones, they might be at full capacity only during peaks in energy demand. Meanwhile, the contribution of wind and solar to the grid was quickly growing, he said.

“Coal is increasingly acting like training wheels,” said Yuan Jiahai, a professor at North China Electric Power University. “It provides balance and backup while the clean electricity system gains strength and confidence.”

:up:

“China is the engine,” said Richard Black, the report’s editor. “And it is changing the energy landscape not just domestically but in countries across the world.”

If Beijing is trying to wrest the future of energy from anyone, it would be the United States, the world’s biggest oil and gas producer and exporter. The Trump administration has eliminated almost all federal support for renewable energies and has pressured countries to purchase American fossil fuels as part of trade deals.

The falling cost of renewable energy, though, means that many countries, particularly poorer ones, have a strong incentive to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

Mikie's link above.

Oh, the US is the biggest oil and gas producer? Let's look at coal instead. Why do we still have to waste time on this nonsense. We have to phase out all the fossil fuels, and the sooner we do it the less disruptive and catastrophic it will be.

And adaptation is what we also have to do anyway, and the slower we are at stopping making it worse by stopping burning fossil fuels, the more stringent our adaptation will have to be. And none of this is remotely controversial.

Oh, the US is the biggest oil and gas producer? Let's look at coal instead. Why do we still have to waste time on this nonsense. We have to phase out all the fossil fuels, and the sooner we do it the less disruptive and catastrophic it will be.

And adaptation is what we also have to do anyway, and the slower we are at stopping making it worse by stopping burning fossil fuels, the more stringent our adaptation will have to be. And none of this is remotely controversial. — unenlightened

How many people actually want mankind to survive?
How many people actually want all the currently living people to die of natural causes?
Is mere survival even a universally desirable goal? Does everyone want it?
How many people are even willing to survive even if that meant a significant lowering of their quality of life?


Efforts to combat climate deterioration are doomed as long as people in general would rather die than merely survive.

That meant it was able to cut fossil fuel use by 2 percent, despite a growing demand for power.

Is this supposed to be encouraging? Catastrophic warming is already baked in. By the time China makes a meaningful reduction in fossil fuel use (say half), we'll be well into uncharted territory, and they'll still be pouring GHG's into the air.

Is mere survival even a universally desirable goal? Does everyone want it? — baker

Mere? I'm not going to speak for everyone, or most people, or universality. Are you merely asking questions, or are you seriously asking them?

I don't know what to make of this. There are people who at least behave as if they would rather die than live without their car. But for thousands of years, everyone managed without a car. Does that answer anything?

Is this supposed to be encouraging? Catastrophic warming is already baked in. By the time China makes a meaningful reduction in fossil fuel use (say half), we'll be well into uncharted territory, and they'll still be pouring GHG's into the air. — RogueAI

And coal is concerning because when all the other sources are tapped out, coal availability will continue for a few more centuries. The magnitude of climate change is primarily down to what we do with coal. I don't get why China is accelerating coal use now. They could go nuclear instead.

The issue I see is that even if the west were to get its act together and transition off of fossil fuel, China will be off doing their own thing. I'm not saying that couldn't change, it's just hard to picture how.

These and further related questions tend to be taboo when it comes to discussing climate change deterioration and how to counteract it. Climate activists are often displeased with people's aparent indolence, or they criticize people for not trusting science. It seems that for many climate activists, it should be taken for granted that climate change deterioration is something that should be combatted, not merely accepted as yet another fact of life over which we have no control.

I think that for successfully taking action against climate deterioration, the above questions, and then some, would need to be openly discussed.

By the time China makes a meaningful reduction in fossil fuel use (say half), we'll be well into uncharted territory, and they'll still be pouring GHG's into the air. — RogueAI

Why blame China?

Why buy cheap Chinese stuff?

Stop buying cheap Chinese stuff, and China will have no reason to burn so much coal anymore, or even none at all, for that matter.

It's not the Chinese who need to change; it's the rest of the world, esp. Westerners, who are eager to look wealthier than they are and so they buy cheap Chinese stuff.

Is this supposed to be encouraging? — RogueAI

Yes. Remember, that’s with rapidly increasing demand. The fact that it decreased at all is significant, and the impact it’s having elsewhere is likewise significant. I think the article outlines China’s influence on the rest of the world pretty well.

Catastrophic warming is already baked in. — RogueAI

True, but every tenth of a degree matters.

The issue I see is that even if the west were to get its act together and transition off of fossil fuel, China will be off doing their own thing. — frank

Actually, China is in many ways leading the way. Which you would know if you bothered to read anything. But please go on with your outdated slogans.

I don't get why China is accelerating coal use now. They could go nuclear instead. — frank

They are. They’re building more reactors than the rest of the world combined. Which you would know if you bothered to read anything.

How China Raced Ahead of the US on Nuclear Power

I think that for successfully taking action against climate deterioration, the above questions, and then some, would need to be openly discussed. — baker

This level of naval-gazing approaches satire.

“Before we turn on the air conditioner, certain fundamental questions must be addressed— like whether we all really want to not be sweltering, and if we want to even go on living.”

Good thing you’re not in charge of anything.

Why blame China? — baker

I don't blame them. In many respects they're still a developing country. Developing countries use fossil fuels. They're cheap, easy, and reliable. If I lived in a developing country and the choice was between a wind farm that would provide power to my neighbor and a coal plant that would provide power to my neighbor and me, I know which one I would be telling my government to build.

Why buy cheap Chinese stuff? Stop buying cheap Chinese stuff, and China will have no reason to burn so much coal anymore, or even none at all, for that matter. — baker

People should definitely cut down on all the crap they buy.

It's not the Chinese who need to change; it's the rest of the world, esp. Westerners, who are eager to look wealthier than they are and so they buy cheap Chinese stuff. — baker

The rich countries should be helping the poorer ones electrify responsibly with renewables, but the rich countries (e.g., America) can't even fund food assistance programs for their own people.

This level of naval-gazing approaches satire.

“Before we turn on the air conditioner, certain fundamental questions must be addressed— like whether we all really want to not be sweltering, and if we want to even go on living.”

Good thing you’re not in charge of anything. — Mikie

And you wonder why people aren't eager to combat the deterioration of climate!

This is supposedly a philosophy forum ... not Twitter ... ...

The rich countries should be helping the poorer ones electrify responsibly with renewables, but the rich countries (e.g., America) can't even fund food assistance programs for their own people. — RogueAI

Such is capitalist paradise.

I think this video explains the situation pretty well.

And you wonder why people aren't eager to combat the deterioration of climate! — baker

Yes, it must be because of unfriendly responses to silly comments on an online forum. Nailed it.

This is supposedly a philosophy forum — baker

And there’s all kinds of threads to naval gaze on. This one happens to be about climate change and its consequences. But I personally don’t care if you raise these questions — it’s just that it’s laughable in its childishness.

I just posted an article on China— care to discuss that? Or is that too hard?

The rich countries should be helping the poorer ones electrify responsibly with renewables, but the rich countries (e.g., America) can't even fund food assistance programs for their own people. — RogueAI

No. They can, of course they can, but they don't want to. The US crisis is deliberately created with malice aforethought. Disaster economics are being used to accumulate wealth in a few hands and the mass of the population is being deliberately impoverished, disempowered, and angered, because they are no longer needed by the rich and powerful. The economy used to run on mass production and mass consumption, but automation and 3d printing makes the mass of people unnecessary. The psychopaths no longer rely on the rest of us for their power. The plan is to get rid of most of the people, and sort out the climate later.

The last mass-production factories will be producing autonomous hunter-killer drones.

care to discuss that? Or is that too hard? — Mikie

You just answered some of my above questions.

You just answered some of my above questions. — baker

Oh? Please elaborate. Which one?

How many people actually want mankind to survive?
How many people actually want all the currently living people to die of natural causes?
Is mere survival even a universally desirable goal? Does everyone want it?
How many people are even willing to survive even if that meant a significant lowering of their quality of life? — baker

So what answer did I provide to those questions in my asking about discussing China’s role in tackling climate change? Like the fact that they’re building as many nuclear reactors as the rest of the world combined, and now sell half of all cars as EVs?

I can’t wait for your usual on-topic, detailed reasoning. Because there’s no way you just wanted to bring the discussion into the realm of naval-gazing bullshit so as to have some shot at participation, knowing next to nothing about the topic as you do, and being unwilling to read or learn and all. I know it couldn’t be that, given your sterling reputation.