Couple of things that need to be stated here. 1. China isn't going to listen to Kerry no matter what kind of transportation he takes to get there. Even if they agree with him, they will reject him. They will not stand for the US lecturing them on anything. 2. The issue isn't that coal is cheap and that's why China is still so highly dependent on new coal plants, the issue is the nature of the way it built its power grid and structure how power gets delivered. Unlike the US, in China there isn't a market where energy can be moved around the grid. So even though there's plenty of new renewable energy - a lot of it can't get to places its needed. They need to reform their grid.
exactly. and exactly the point the editorial was making. exactly. which means for the foreseeable future, China will need to continue doing what works right now, given existing infrastructure limitations. which is exactly the point the editorial was making.
the editorial was not about his private jets. that was the antecedent conversation here in this thread.
Ok, let me ask you a question. Knowing that China will never listen to the US, and knowing that the US ALSO knows this already....why do you think Kerry still goes over there and lectures them?
And what is that exactly? You two are making arguments without stating much of what China is actually doing. You seem to be stating that China is sticking with fossil fuels while SweetLou is saying China can transition to clean energy faster. China is doing all of the above. They have a growing energy need while also recognizing that fossil fuels are a legacy energy source that will need to be phased out. In 2022, they released their updated 5-year plan (2021-2025) for renewable energy development. They plan to increase renewable energy generation by 50% (from 2.2 trillion kWh to 3.3 trillion kWh). This would represent 33% of their total energy needs. As a comparison, the current US energy mix consists of 20% renewable energy. Looking back a decade, you may remember that the argument was that China was not doing anything to tackle climate change (which was correct). Now, China is actually leading the transition, but the argument (which is also correct) is that they aren't doing enough. The reality is, if you consider the goal of limiting the global temp increase to 2.5°C, no one is doing enough. But let's not confuse not doing enough with lack of what they are actually doing. P.S. Of course, Kerry wants to pressure China to do more, as he should in his position. But the social media attention on him is a pretty crappy sideshow mostly for people who are more interested in the usual politics than real problems and solutions.
Kerry is running a marketing campaign. Essentially that's his job. But before we trash him for that role, let's keep in mind that there is a counter marketing campaign going on - one which many on here (including yourself at times) enjoys reposting on this very BBS. Kerry is just another side of that coin. The "Climatistas" as you like to call them, and the "Climate hoaxers" or some variant of that. Then there is the actual science and reality of what needs to be done - which rarely gets discussed in a thoughtful manner.
John Oliver might've did a thing about uncapped decaying gas fields, and the entire infra is leaky. Next Big Debate in climate activism: Who ever smelt it dealt it Vs. Whoever laid it paid it www.nytimes.com /2023/07/13/climate/natural-gas-leaks-coal-climate-change.html Leaks Can Make Natural Gas as Bad as Coal for Climate, Study Says The findings cast doubt on the idea that natural gas can serve as a transitional fuel to a future powered entirely by renewables like solar and wind.
Yes, and I see the WSJ EB in the same context as social media political culture, as I stated in the P.S.
"what needs to be done" is a political and moral issue, not really a scientific one Science certainly informs the political and moral, obviously, but it does not dictate the political and moral.
I think it's more of a pragmatic issue. Politics get in the way, it shouldn't be a political issue. Morality means crap at the end of the day. What it comes down to is the impact on our lives - our pocketbooks. And that should dictate us to take action and find a plan to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change.
strongly disagree with the bolded. Inasmuch as political decisions affect real people with real problems and differing levels of well-being, morality means everything. That's my strong opinion, probably my strongest belief.
I respect that, but I'm cynical in that I rarely see the moral route being taken on so many issues. Seems morality loses out far more often than not these days. Which is why I think if you want to effect change, it has to appeal to people's self interest, and not to their sense of morality.
self-interest is itself a moral issue, and for some a moral theory (egoism). You can't get away from morality. It's always present whether folks acknowledge that fact or not.
I guess I see morality as something different then...but again, I profess to not being a student of philosophy.
