Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Fox, READ MY POST AGAIN. US coal is building conventional plants. China is building more the more efficient, greener plants. And they're building them cheaper. WHO IS FOCUSING ON ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY? WHO IS FOCUSING ON EFFICIENCY? It's not us.

Your lips don't seem to be able to speak what is actually happening though. Most licenses for new US coal fired plants have been denied or quietly abandoned since 2007 while despite whatever improvements they have made in technology, China emits far more green house gasses than the USA, Europe, and Japan combined. So lets keep things in perspective okay?

There is still plenty of reason for the USA to focus on developing technologies that will allow us to use our cheap, plentiful, and efficient natural resources in responsible, environmentally friendly ways as well as developing new technologies, and that's where the focus should be.

Impossible Foxy. You're the dirtiest folks on earth statistically and by some distance.

Compared to the people of Chad you're a shite sluice on maximum pressure and working on upping it. And we are not far behind.

Monterey Jack is from California--right?

He is not from Indiana. And the governor there is not a fan of the left wing crazies.

Note:

Note; Great Article from the Wall Street Journal by Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana( closely aligned with Senator Bayh, of course)
****************************
OPINION MAY 15, 2009 Indiana Says 'No Thanks' to Cap and Trade
No honest person thinks this will make a dent in climate change.
By MITCH DANIELS
This week Congress is set to release the details of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill that purports to combat global warming by setting strict limits on carbon emissions. I'm not a candidate for any office -- now or ever again -- and I've approached the "climate change" debate with an open-mind. But it's clear to me that the nation, and in particular Indiana, my home state, will be terribly disserved by this cap-and-trade policy on the verge of passage in the House.

The largest scientific and economic questions are being addressed by others, so I will confine myself to reporting about how all this looks from the receiving end of the taxes, restrictions and mandates Congress is now proposing.

Quite simply, it looks like imperialism. This bill would impose enormous taxes and restrictions on free commerce by wealthy but faltering powers -- California, Massachusetts and New York -- seeking to exploit politically weaker colonies in order to prop up their own decaying economies. Because proceeds from their new taxes, levied mostly on us, will be spent on their social programs while negatively impacting our economy, we Hoosiers decline to submit meekly.

The Waxman-Markey legislation would more than double electricity bills in Indiana. Years of reform in taxation, regulation and infrastructure-building would be largely erased at a stroke. In recent years, Indiana has led the nation in capturing international investment, repatriating dollars spent on foreign goods or oil and employing Americans with them. Waxman-Markey seems designed to reverse that flow. "Closed: Gone to China" signs would cover Indiana's stores and factories.

Our state's share of national income has been slipping for decades, but it is offset in part by living costs some 8% lower than the national average. Doubled utility bills for low-income Hoosiers would be an especially cruel consequence of the Waxman bill. Forgive us for not being impressed at danglings of welfare-like repayments to some of those still employed, with some fraction of the dollars extracted from our state.

And for what? No honest estimate pretends to suggest that a U.S. cap-and-trade regime will move the world's thermometer by so much as a tenth of a degree a half century from now. My fellow citizens are being ordered to accept impoverishment for a policy that won't save a single polar bear.

We are told that although China, India and others show no signs of joining in this dismal process, we will eventually induce their participation by "setting an example." Watching the impending indigence of the Midwest, and the flow of jobs from our shores to theirs, our friends in Asia and the Third World are far more likely to choose any other path but ours.

Politicians in Washington speak of a reawakened appreciation for manufacturing and American competitiveness. But under their policy, those who make real products will suffer. Already we observe the piranha swarm of green lobbyists wangling special exemptions, subsidies and side deals. The ordinary Hoosier was not invited to this party, and can expect at most only table scraps at the service entrance.

No one in Indiana is arguing for the status quo: Hoosiers have been eager to pursue a new energy future. We rocketed from nowhere to national leadership in biofuels production in the last four years. We were the No. 1 state in the growth of wind power in 2008. And we have embarked on an aggressive energy-conservation program, indubitably the most cost-effective means of limiting CO2.

Most importantly, we are out to be the world leader in making clean coal -- including the potential for carbon capture and sequestration. The world's first commercial-scale clean coal power plant is under construction in our state, and the first modern coal-to-natural gas plant is coming right behind it. We eagerly accept the responsibility to develop alternatives to the punitive, inequitable taxation of cap and trade.

Our president has commendably committed himself to "government that works." But his imperial climate-change policy is government that cannot work, and we humble colonials out here in the provinces have no choice but to petition for relief from the Crown's impositions.

Mr. Daniels, a Republican, is the governor of Indiana .

Monterey Jack should read this article from the New York Times about the Chinese Coal Plants carefully.

Note:

Get Home Delivery Log In Register Now
TimesPeople
Home Page Today's Paper Video Most Popular Times Topics
Search All NYTimes.com

Asia Pacific

Published: May 10, 2009
TIANJIN, China " China’s frenetic construction of coal-fired power plants has raised worries around the world about the effect on climate change. China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined, making it the world’s largest emitter of gases that are warming the planet.



Doug Kanter for The New York Times
The Tianjin plant will be constructed in what is now a muddy field.
But largely missing in the hand-wringing is this: China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient, less polluting coal power plants, mastering the technology and driving down the cost.

While the United States is still debating whether to build a more efficient kind of coal-fired power plant that uses extremely hot steam, China has begun building such plants at a rate of one a month.

Construction has stalled in the United States on a new generation of low-pollution power plants that turn coal into a gas before burning it, although Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Thursday that the Obama administration might revive one power plant of this type. But China has already approved equipment purchases for just such a power plant, to be assembled soon in a muddy field here in Tianjin.

“The steps they’ve taken are probably as fast and as serious as anywhere in power-generation history,” said Hal Harvey, president of ClimateWorks, a group in San Francisco that helps finance projects to limit global warming.

Western countries continue to rely heavily on coal-fired power plants built decades ago with outdated, inefficient technology that burn a lot of coal and emit considerable amounts of carbon dioxide. China has begun requiring power companies to retire an older, more polluting power plant for each new one they build.

Cao Peixi, the president of the China Huaneng Group, the country’s biggest state-owned electric utility and the majority partner in the joint venture building the Tianjin plant, said his company was committed to the project even though it would cost more than conventional plants.

“We shouldn’t look at this project from a purely financial perspective,” he said. “It represents the future.”

Without doubt, China’s coal-fired power sector still has many problems, and global warming gases from the country are expected to continue increasing. China’s aim is to use the newest technologies to limit the rate of increase.

Only half the country’s coal-fired power plants have the emissions control equipment to remove sulfur compounds that cause acid rain, and even power plants with that technology do not always use it. China has not begun regulating some of the emissions that lead to heavy smog in big cities.

Even among China’s newly built plants, not all are modern. Only about 60 percent of the new plants are being built using newer technology that is highly efficient, but more expensive.

With greater efficiency, a power plant burns less coal and emits less carbon dioxide for each unit of electricity it generates. Experts say the least efficient plants in China today convert 27 to 36 percent of the energy in coal into electricity. The most efficient plants achieve an efficiency as high as 44 percent, meaning they can cut global warming emissions by more than a third compared with the weakest plants.

In the United States, the most efficient plants achieve around 40 percent efficiency, because they do not use the highest steam temperatures being adopted in China. The average efficiency of American coal-fired plants is still higher than the average efficiency of Chinese power plants, because China built so many inefficient plants over the past decade. But China is rapidly closing the gap by using some of the world’s most advanced designs.

After relying until recently on older technology, “China has since become the major world market for advanced coal-fired power plants with high-specification emission control systems,” the International Energy Agency said in a report on April 20.

China’s improvements are starting to have an effect on climate models. In its latest annual report last November, the I.E.A. cut its forecast of the annual increase in Chinese emissions of global warming gases, to 3 percent from 3.2 percent, in response to technological gains, particularly in the coal sector, even as the agency raised slightly its forecast for Chinese economic growth. “It’s definitely changing the baseline, and that’s being taken into account,” said Jonathan Sinton, a China specialist at the energy agency.

But by continuing to rely heavily on coal, which supplies 80 percent of its electricity, China ensures that it will keep emitting a lot of carbon dioxide; even an efficient coal-fired power plant emits twice the carbon dioxide of a natural gas-fired plant.

Perhaps the biggest question now is how much further China can go beyond the recent steps. In particular, how fast will it move toward power plants that capture their emissions and store them underground or under the seafloor?

That technology could, in theory, create power plants that contribute virtually nothing to global warming. Many countries hope to develop such plants, though progress has been halting; Energy Secretary Chu has promised steps to speed up the technology in the United States.

China has just built a small, experimental facility near Beijing to remove carbon dioxide from power station emissions and use it to provide carbonation for beverages, and the government has a short list of possible locations for a large experiment to capture and store carbon dioxide. But so far, it has no plans to make this a national policy.

China is making other efforts to reduce its global warming emissions. It has doubled its total wind energy capacity in each of the past four years, and is poised to pass the United States as soon as this year as the world’s largest market for wind power equipment. China is building considerably more nuclear power plants than the rest of the world combined, and these do not emit carbon dioxide after they are built.

But coal remains the cheapest energy source in China by a wide margin. China has the world’s third-largest coal reserves, after the United States and Russia.

“No matter how much renewable or nuclear is in the mix, coal will remain the dominant power source,” said Ashok Bhargava, a China energy expert at the Asian Development Bank in Manila.
end of quote

First of all, it is clear that only 40% of China's Coal Plants are "cleaner"

Secondly, it is obvious that China is not petrified with fear concerning Nuclear Power( neighter is France).

Thirdly, as the article points out, a coal fired plant( even an efficient one) emits twice the Co2 of a natural gas fired plant.

Fourthly, American coal fired plant emissions are still lower than Chinese plant emissions because China built so many plants that had more emissions in the past.


I think that most states and industries in those states would be happy to get subsidies to build more efficient plants like the Chinese are beginning to do.

Why, as the article points out, the emissions would descend to 3 % a year, down from 3.2%.

How much money would that cost? Can we do that in the face of the fact that Global Warming as a result of co2 emissions has not been positively established? Would that be a cost-effective move?

There are many unanswered questions. They may be solved at this December's world wide meeting concerning the alleged "global warming".

I predict that China and India(AS THEY DID WITH THE KYOTO PROTOCOL) will largely exempt themselves from any responsibilities on the ground that they are "developing countries".

No, I am not from California, unless you consider New England part of California. To repeat, Mitch Daniels is governor of a state that has produced far more than its share of dirty energy which has been cheap for residents of his state because those of us farther east have borne the costs it has created. Their dirty power produces disproportionate amounts of polluting sulfur and nitrogen compounds as well as CO2. Even birds don't **** in their own nests, but Indianans **** in ours. Daniels is a two-faced hypocrite, and Indianans can damned well bear their own costs. If their energy costs go up, it's because they haven't paid the costs for what they've created up to now.
Every time you cut and past that, massagato, I'm gonna repost the truth to Daniels' unmitigated bull.

New England? I am sorry, Monterey Jack. I apologize. Now, I understand.

Are you from Massachusetts? The wonderful Governor there, Deval Patrick, grew up in Chicago, where I grew up. He is such a successful man and probably in line for a much bigger job in the future than governor of Massachusetts.

Are you from New York? My hero from New York is a man who could probably become the next governor of New York--The Attorney General-Cuomo. ( Please disregard the rumors about his Mafia connections).

The New England Area is beautiful. It's too bad they will lose so many seats in the House of Representatives after the next census.

Are there too many abortions, Monterey Jack? Or are so many men so impotent that they can't father babies?

******************************************************

I can see that you are upset at Governor Daniels. You say that "Indianans **** in ours"(nests).

You are aware, of course, that the Robin-like emanations from Indiana are nothing compared to the vulture sized defecations coming from China and India.

I advise you to contribute heavily to any future opponent of Mitch Daniels. That way you can assuage your anger.

PS- You missed my post about Chinese coal fired plants.

Monterey Jack should read this article from the New York Times about the Chinese Coal Plants carefully

Published: May 10, 2009
TIANJIN, China " China’s frenetic construction of coal-fired power plants has raised worries around the world about the effect on climate change. China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined, making it the world’s largest emitter of gases that are warming the planet.



Doug Kanter for The New York Times
The Tianjin plant will be constructed in what is now a muddy field.
But largely missing in the hand-wringing is this: China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient, less polluting coal power plants, mastering the technology and driving down the cost.

While the United States is still debating whether to build a more efficient kind of coal-fired power plant that uses extremely hot steam, China has begun building such plants at a rate of one a month.

Construction has stalled in the United States on a new generation of low-pollution power plants that turn coal into a gas before burning it, although Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Thursday that the Obama administration might revive one power plant of this type. But China has already approved equipment purchases for just such a power plant, to be assembled soon in a muddy field here in Tianjin.

“The steps they’ve taken are probably as fast and as serious as anywhere in power-generation history,” said Hal Harvey, president of ClimateWorks, a group in San Francisco that helps finance projects to limit global warming.

Western countries continue to rely heavily on coal-fired power plants built decades ago with outdated, inefficient technology that burn a lot of coal and emit considerable amounts of carbon dioxide. China has begun requiring power companies to retire an older, more polluting power plant for each new one they build.

Cao Peixi, the president of the China Huaneng Group, the country’s biggest state-owned electric utility and the majority partner in the joint venture building the Tianjin plant, said his company was committed to the project even though it would cost more than conventional plants.

“We shouldn’t look at this project from a purely financial perspective,” he said. “It represents the future.”

Without doubt, China’s coal-fired power sector still has many problems, and global warming gases from the country are expected to continue increasing. China’s aim is to use the newest technologies to limit the rate of increase.

Only half the country’s coal-fired power plants have the emissions control equipment to remove sulfur compounds that cause acid rain, and even power plants with that technology do not always use it. China has not begun regulating some of the emissions that lead to heavy smog in big cities.

Even among China’s newly built plants, not all are modern. Only about 60 percent of the new plants are being built using newer technology that is highly efficient, but more expensive.

With greater efficiency, a power plant burns less coal and emits less carbon dioxide for each unit of electricity it generates. Experts say the least efficient plants in China today convert 27 to 36 percent of the energy in coal into electricity. The most efficient plants achieve an efficiency as high as 44 percent, meaning they can cut global warming emissions by more than a third compared with the weakest plants.

In the United States, the most efficient plants achieve around 40 percent efficiency, because they do not use the highest steam temperatures being adopted in China. The average efficiency of American coal-fired plants is still higher than the average efficiency of Chinese power plants, because China built so many inefficient plants over the past decade. But China is rapidly closing the gap by using some of the world’s most advanced designs.

After relying until recently on older technology, “China has since become the major world market for advanced coal-fired power plants with high-specification emission control systems,” the International Energy Agency said in a report on April 20.

China’s improvements are starting to have an effect on climate models. In its latest annual report last November, the I.E.A. cut its forecast of the annual increase in Chinese emissions of global warming gases, to 3 percent from 3.2 percent, in response to technological gains, particularly in the coal sector, even as the agency raised slightly its forecast for Chinese economic growth. “It’s definitely changing the baseline, and that’s being taken into account,” said Jonathan Sinton, a China specialist at the energy agency.

But by continuing to rely heavily on coal, which supplies 80 percent of its electricity, China ensures that it will keep emitting a lot of carbon dioxide; even an efficient coal-fired power plant emits twice the carbon dioxide of a natural gas-fired plant.

Perhaps the biggest question now is how much further China can go beyond the recent steps. In particular, how fast will it move toward power plants that capture their emissions and store them underground or under the seafloor?

That technology could, in theory, create power plants that contribute virtually nothing to global warming. Many countries hope to develop such plants, though progress has been halting; Energy Secretary Chu has promised steps to speed up the technology in the United States.

China has just built a small, experimental facility near Beijing to remove carbon dioxide from power station emissions and use it to provide carbonation for beverages, and the government has a short list of possible locations for a large experiment to capture and store carbon dioxide. But so far, it has no plans to make this a national policy.

China is making other efforts to reduce its global warming emissions. It has doubled its total wind energy capacity in each of the past four years, and is poised to pass the United States as soon as this year as the world’s largest market for wind power equipment. China is building considerably more nuclear power plants than the rest of the world combined, and these do not emit carbon dioxide after they are built.

But coal remains the cheapest energy source in China by a wide margin. China has the world’s third-largest coal reserves, after the United States and Russia.

“No matter how much renewable or nuclear is in the mix, coal will remain the dominant power source,” said Ashok Bhargava, a China energy expert at the Asian Development Bank in Manila.
end of quote

First of all, it is clear that only 40% of China's Coal Plants are "cleaner"

Secondly, it is obvious that China is not petrified with fear concerning Nuclear Power( neighter is France).

Thirdly, as the article points out, a coal fired plant( even an efficient one) emits twice the Co2 of a natural gas fired plant.

Fourthly, American coal fired plant emissions are still lower than Chinese plant emissions because China built so many plants that had more emissions in the past.


I think that most states and industries in those states would be happy to get subsidies to build more efficient plants like the Chinese are beginning to do.

Why, as the article points out, the emissions would descend to 3 % a year, down from 3.2%.

How much money would that cost? Can we do that in the face of the fact that Global Warming as a result of co2 emissions has not been positively established? Would that be a cost-effective move?

There are many unanswered questions. They may be solved at this December's world wide meeting concerning the alleged "global warming".

I predict that China and India(AS THEY DID WITH THE KYOTO PROTOCOL) will largely exempt themselves from any responsibilities on the ground that they are "developing countries".

Which country has four operating commercial-grade ultra supercritical coal plants, the most efficient, significantly lower polluting plants, in operation now? China

Which country has none? The US.

Whcih country builds them as 40% of its new energy mix? China.

Which country is only building the super-polluting conventional coal plants? The U.S.

Whcih country is retiring one conventional powerplant for each greener supercritical one it builds? China.

Whcih country is not retiring any conventional coal plants, and indeed keeps modernizing them without installing the pollution upgrades that the law requires be installed? The U.S. power industry.

Which country gets three times as much hydroelectric power as the other in terms of percentage (and twice as much in absolute terms of power produced)? China.

Which country has 13 of the top 14 largest non-polluting, non-CO2 producing hydroelectric power plants under construction now? China.

Which country has 22 of the top 26 largest hydroelectric power plants under construction now? China.

Which country is constructing over 104 GW of hydroelectric production, the equivalent of more than a hundred nuclear reactors, now? China.

Which country is not constructing any major hydroelectric projects? The US.

Which country is producing ultra supercritical coal power plants, CHEAPER than the other country is producing dirty conventional plants? China.

In other words, massagato, China, which pulled itself up by its bootstraps by producing dirty coal plants, THE SAME AS WE DID< but still produces far less energy per person, since they have between three and four times our population, which most of the world considers a fair basis for comparison, is doing far more than we are doing to reduce their carbon footprint, is doing it cheaper than we are doing, and has developed the technology to export it to the rest of the world, while the industry here has been pissing and moaning. Which means they're going to be making the bucks, or the yuans, that we should have been making, if we didn't have so many shortsighted fools denying the nature of the problem and avoiding looking for solutions.

People don't build power plants to produce power. They produce power to produce other things. If Americans buy those things because they are cheaper due to the labour costs being lower then they are the cause of the emissions and not the producers of the power.

The China/India argument is a sophistry. The end user is the only factor. And America is the largest end user. Competitive conspicuous consumption at bargain prices.

It's all a joke. The argument is the only reality.

Could you provide a source for that statement?

The only sources I can find don't support it at all
CO2 emissions by country

Yes I misspoke. China has surpassed theUSA and I should have said "China will soon be emitting far more green house gasses than the USA, Europe, and Japan combined." You link to 2006 data. By 2008 China had passed us and is increasing their output at a massive rate.

The projections I found show China emitting more than the US by 2030 but certainly not more than the US, Europe and Japan.

Of course if the US, Europe and Japan cut their emissions then it is possible for China to emit more than the 3 combined but cutting the emissions would be a good thing, don't you think?

You are poorly informed. Don't you read anything but Karl Marx, Parados?

Where did you get those projections? I would never believe anything you say without proof. Don't you know how to make a link or to give evidence?

If you know how to read, peruse this:

Monterey Jack should read this article from the New York Times about the Chinese Coal Plants carefully

Published: May 10, 2009
TIANJIN, China " China’s frenetic construction of coal-fired power plants has raised worries around the world about the effect on climate change. China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined, making it the world’s largest emitter of gases that are warming the planet.



Doug Kanter for The New York Times
The Tianjin plant will be constructed in what is now a muddy field.
But largely missing in the hand-wringing is this: China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient, less polluting coal power plants, mastering the technology and driving down the cost.

While the United States is still debating whether to build a more efficient kind of coal-fired power plant that uses extremely hot steam, China has begun building such plants at a rate of one a month.

Construction has stalled in the United States on a new generation of low-pollution power plants that turn coal into a gas before burning it, although Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Thursday that the Obama administration might revive one power plant of this type. But China has already approved equipment purchases for just such a power plant, to be assembled soon in a muddy field here in Tianjin.

“The steps they’ve taken are probably as fast and as serious as anywhere in power-generation history,” said Hal Harvey, president of ClimateWorks, a group in San Francisco that helps finance projects to limit global warming.

Western countries continue to rely heavily on coal-fired power plants built decades ago with outdated, inefficient technology that burn a lot of coal and emit considerable amounts of carbon dioxide. China has begun requiring power companies to retire an older, more polluting power plant for each new one they build.

Cao Peixi, the president of the China Huaneng Group, the country’s biggest state-owned electric utility and the majority partner in the joint venture building the Tianjin plant, said his company was committed to the project even though it would cost more than conventional plants.

“We shouldn’t look at this project from a purely financial perspective,” he said. “It represents the future.”

Without doubt, China’s coal-fired power sector still has many problems, and global warming gases from the country are expected to continue increasing. China’s aim is to use the newest technologies to limit the rate of increase.

Only half the country’s coal-fired power plants have the emissions control equipment to remove sulfur compounds that cause acid rain, and even power plants with that technology do not always use it. China has not begun regulating some of the emissions that lead to heavy smog in big cities.

Even among China’s newly built plants, not all are modern. Only about 60 percent of the new plants are being built using newer technology that is highly efficient, but more expensive.

With greater efficiency, a power plant burns less coal and emits less carbon dioxide for each unit of electricity it generates. Experts say the least efficient plants in China today convert 27 to 36 percent of the energy in coal into electricity. The most efficient plants achieve an efficiency as high as 44 percent, meaning they can cut global warming emissions by more than a third compared with the weakest plants.

In the United States, the most efficient plants achieve around 40 percent efficiency, because they do not use the highest steam temperatures being adopted in China. The average efficiency of American coal-fired plants is still higher than the average efficiency of Chinese power plants, because China built so many inefficient plants over the past decade. But China is rapidly closing the gap by using some of the world’s most advanced designs.

After relying until recently on older technology, “China has since become the major world market for advanced coal-fired power plants with high-specification emission control systems,” the International Energy Agency said in a report on April 20.

China’s improvements are starting to have an effect on climate models. In its latest annual report last November, the I.E.A. cut its forecast of the annual increase in Chinese emissions of global warming gases, to 3 percent from 3.2 percent, in response to technological gains, particularly in the coal sector, even as the agency raised slightly its forecast for Chinese economic growth. “It’s definitely changing the baseline, and that’s being taken into account,” said Jonathan Sinton, a China specialist at the energy agency.

But by continuing to rely heavily on coal, which supplies 80 percent of its electricity, China ensures that it will keep emitting a lot of carbon dioxide; even an efficient coal-fired power plant emits twice the carbon dioxide of a natural gas-fired plant.

Perhaps the biggest question now is how much further China can go beyond the recent steps. In particular, how fast will it move toward power plants that capture their emissions and store them underground or under the seafloor?

That technology could, in theory, create power plants that contribute virtually nothing to global warming. Many countries hope to develop such plants, though progress has been halting; Energy Secretary Chu has promised steps to speed up the technology in the United States.

China has just built a small, experimental facility near Beijing to remove carbon dioxide from power station emissions and use it to provide carbonation for beverages, and the government has a short list of possible locations for a large experiment to capture and store carbon dioxide. But so far, it has no plans to make this a national policy.

China is making other efforts to reduce its global warming emissions. It has doubled its total wind energy capacity in each of the past four years, and is poised to pass the United States as soon as this year as the world’s largest market for wind power equipment. China is building considerably more nuclear power plants than the rest of the world combined, and these do not emit carbon dioxide after they are built.

But coal remains the cheapest energy source in China by a wide margin. China has the world’s third-largest coal reserves, after the United States and Russia.

“No matter how much renewable or nuclear is in the mix, coal will remain the dominant power source,” said Ashok Bhargava, a China energy expert at the Asian Development Bank in Manila.
end of quote

First of all, it is clear that only 40% of China's Coal Plants are "cleaner"

Secondly, it is obvious that China is not petrified with fear concerning Nuclear Power( neighter is France).

Thirdly, as the article points out, a coal fired plant( even an efficient one) emits twice the Co2 of a natural gas fired plant.

Fourthly, American coal fired plant emissions are still lower than Chinese plant emissions because China built so many plants that had more emissions in the past.


I think that most states and industries in those states would be happy to get subsidies to build more efficient plants like the Chinese are beginning to do.

Why, as the article points out, the emissions would descend to 3 % a year, down from 3.2%.

How much money would that cost? Can we do that in the face of the fact that Global Warming as a result of co2 emissions has not been positively established? Would that be a cost-effective move?

There are many unanswered questions. They may be solved at this December's world wide meeting concerning the alleged "global warming".

I predict that China and India(AS THEY DID WITH THE KYOTO PROTOCOL) will largely exempt themselves from any responsibilities on the ground that they are "developing countries"

******************************************************************

You are probably unaware that a global meeting on climate will take place in December. I predict that China and India will NOT take sufficient steps to reduce their co2 output. They will, IN FACT, keep spewing co2 into the atmosphere at a 3% rate. 3 divided into 72 means that at the same rate, they will double their co2 output by 2033.

“No matter how much renewable or nuclear is in the mix, coal will remain the dominant power source,” said Ashok Bhargava, a China energy expert at the Asian Development Bank in Manila.
end of quote

First of all, it is clear that only 40% of China's Coal Plants are "cleaner"

Secondly, it is obvious that China is not petrified with fear concerning Nuclear Power( neighter is France).

Thirdly, as the article points out, a coal fired plant( even an efficient one) emits twice the Co2 of a natural gas fired plant.

Fourthly, American coal fired plant emissions are still lower than Chinese plant emissions because China built so many plants that had more emissions in the past.


I think that most states and industries in those states would be happy to get subsidies to build more efficient plants like the Chinese are beginning to do.

Why, as the article points out, the emissions would descend to 3 % a year, down from 3.2%.

How much money would that cost? Can we do that in the face of the fact that Global Warming as a result of co2 emissions has not been positively established? Would that be a cost-effective move?

There are many unanswered questions. They may be solved at this December's world wide meeting concerning the alleged "global warming".

I predict that China and India(AS THEY DID WITH THE KYOTO PROTOCOL) will largely exempt themselves from any responsibilities on the ground that they are "developing countries".

Page last updated at 23:11 GMT, Monday, 14 April 2008

China 'now top carbon polluter'
By Roger Harrabin
BBC Environment analyst



The new research suggests China's emissions were underestimated
China has already overtaken the US as the world's "biggest polluter", a report to be published next month says.

The research suggests the country's greenhouse gas emissions have been underestimated, and probably passed those of the US in 2006-2007.

The University of California team will report their work in the Journal of Environment Economics and Management.

They warn that unchecked future growth will dwarf any emissions cuts made by rich nations under the Kyoto Protocol.

The team admit there is some uncertainty over the date when China may have become the biggest emitter of CO2, as their analysis is based on 2004 data.

Until now it has been generally believed that the US remains "Polluter Number One".


Next month's University of California report warns that unless China radically changes its energy policies, its increases in greenhouse gases will be several times larger than the cuts in emissions being made by rich nations under the Kyoto Protocol.

The researchers say their figures are based on provincial-level data from the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency.


Advertisement
Video showing the extent of China's smog problem

They say analysis of the 30 data points is more informative about likely future emissions than national figures in wider use because it allows errors to be tracked more closely.

They believe current computer models substantially underestimate future emissions growth in China.

We are awaiting a formal comment from the UK Chinese Embassy, but Dr Max Auffhammer, the lead researcher, said his projections had been presented widely and no-one had raised a serious complaint.

All those concerned about climate change agree that China's emissions are a problem - including China itself. CARBON EMISSIONS

Global carbon emissions statistics were last published in 2004. They show Chinese emissions began rising rapidly in 2002.
University of California research suggests China overtook the US as the worst producer of carbon emissions in 2006


But China and many other developing countries struggling to tackle poverty are adamant that any negotiated emissions reductions should not be absolute, but relative to a "business-as-usual" scenario of projected growth.

That is why this study is of more than academic interest.

If it becomes widely accepted that China's future emissions are likely to be much higher than previously estimated, that will have to factored into any future global climate agreement if the Chinese are to be persuaded to take part.

In brief, although this study looks bad for China's reputation, it may be good for China's negotiating position.

The Chinese - and the UN - insist that rich countries with high per capita levels of pollution must cut emissions first, and help poorer countries to invest in clean technology.

America's per capita emissions are five to six times higher than China's, even though China has become the top manufacturing economy.

US emissions are still growing too, though much more slowly.

Dr Auffhammer told BBC News that his projections had made an assumption that the Chinese government's recent aggressive energy efficiency programme would fail, as the previous one had failed badly.

"Our figures for emissions growth are truly shocking," he said.

"But there is no sense pointing a finger at the Chinese. They are trying to pull people out of poverty and they clearly need help.

"The only solution is for a massive transfer of technology and wealth from the West."

He acknowledged that this eventuality was unlikely.

Those scientists aspiring to stabilise global emissions growth before 2020 to prevent what they believe may be irreversible damage to the climate may be wondering how this can possibly be achieved.

But China and many other developing countries struggling to tackle poverty are adamant that any negotiated emissions reductions should not be absolute, but relative to a "business-as-usual" scenario of projected growth. (from BBC story above)

Will you guys not have it that it is the consumer who causes the pollution and nobody else. Is all this other stuff simply a way of distracting your minds from that obvious fact. You (we too) have been voting for pollution for as long as anybody can remember. In fact we choose the winner of elections on the basis of who will accelerate it most.

Monterey Jack has not kept up on his reading about China and the alleged Global Warming.

Note:

Wall Street Journal P. A6, May 22, 2009

Quote:

China, in a new document outlining its stance ahead of December climate talks in Copenhagen, says it wants developed nations to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 40% by 2020 from 1990 levels. But that is a far more aggressive cut than the level proposed in the U.S.'s Waxman-Markey bill. Europe, in turn, has pledged to cut emissions by at least 20% by 2020 from 1990 levels, and by 30% if other advanced economies follow suit.

The divergent views come as negotiations begin in earnest for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of 2012. China's 40% target represents the high end of cuts in emissions mentioned in the 2007 Bali road map, which stopped short of endorsing a specific target.


Beijing is urging wealthier nations to agree to tougher greenhouse-gas emissions standards.
China is also asking rich countries to donate at least 0.5% to 1% of annual gross domestic product to help poorer countries cope with climate change and greenhouse-gas emissions, it said in the document, which was posted on the Web site of the National Development and Reform Commission, its economic policy-making body.

China has resisted any mandatory quotas on carbon emissions. The country is widely considered to have surpassed the U.S. as the world's top polluter.

But the Obama administration's push to adopt limits on carbon emissions is also isolating China, which has argued that the U.S. should take steps before poorer nations do.

India has also refused to accept any carbon caps, arguing like China that they would limit economic growth and unfairly penalize late-developing nations. Europe and the U.S. generated the bulk of the carbon gas already in the atmosphere, they argue, and should bear a greater burden of the cost to fix it.

********************************************************

WHAT GALL!

China wants rich countries to donate o.5 to 1.0 of ANNUAL DOMESTIC PRODUCT to help poorer countries cope with climate change and Greenhouse Gas emissions???

When the US has a 10% Unemployment Rate?

When the Obama Administration is adding TRILLIONS to our national debt?

When large corporations are already (see GM) outsourcing jobs so that they do not have to spend the Billions necessary to attempt to reduce the alleged global warming?

**************************

Only Monterey Jack would buy something that quixotic and irrational.