Can we fix the climate without China??

[@catandtheostrich]

I look forward each week to your videos. Thank you!

[@richardgoldsmith7278]

I’ve never had cause to doubt the seriousness with which China’s central Government takes decarbonisation and climate change mitigation. Understanding that they don’t have ultimate power over all the regional decision makers comes as a surprise but explains the contradictions between new coal plant commissioning in some parts when new coal plants have been abandoned before completion in other parts. I think they stand a better chance of success than we do, frankly because the top leadership is so committed, whereas ours is only committed to APPEAR to be acting.

[@iareid8255]

Richard, you have far more confidence in the way the chinese are going than I. They have far more sense than to shut down reliable cheap power and replace it with renewable generation. They are not going to go against the west, at least publicly, as that will cause even more tariffs being imposed on Chinese goods, and if the west continue in their lemming like destruction of the power sector, by 2060 the chinese together with other asian countries will have all the manufacturing base and by 2060 it will dominate. America is headed for a substancial economic and commercial decline with it's power systems' intentions which simply cannot work..

[@leonmilner9994]

There is also a different set of incentives there. State governments try to hit GDP targets, not spending efficiency targets, so building coal is a unfortunately a good way of creating a lot of GDP. This episode of the Energy Transition Show lays it out in more detail: xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-138-transition-in-china/

[@billybobhobnob101]

They have a better chance because they can make long term plans and carry them out - America is so divide on everything that there are radical changes in policy when control switches to either party - the truth is our governmental structures were designed in a very different time and it is struggling mightily to be effective - it is neither good in long term planning nor when rapid response is needed.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

@@iareid8255 Why do you think we can't decarbonize the power sector? In the next 30 years, we will install a LOT of storage capacity, along with much more clean generation.

[@billybobhobnob101]

@Marc Jackson There is no winning in a U.S. China war just different degrees of losing -even just an economic war is dangerous, for the last 30 years China has been the engine of world economic growth and it is very unlikely that India or another country or countries can replace that anytime soon - America will be lucky to maintain 2-3% growth and that my be optimistic because eventually all this stealing from the future that has gone on for close to 50 years is going to come to a head - infrastructure, pensions, environmental degradation, educational deficits, non-development of human capital, and a lack of preparation from the here and now and increasingly coming effects from global warming.

[@zetajolyne3689]

As a Chinese, I'm rationally skeptical about the goals set our centre, but optimistic and supportive from a macro perspective. Anyway, my lifestyle is low-carbon enough: EV bus and metro, solar heater, smart AC, private solar panel on the roof even can sells power to the company sometime.

[@info6linevale118]

China is a selfish nation and will keep polluting and will defy their critics as they don't care

[@jamesgrover2005]

@@info6linevale118 China is making all our shinny crap and much more, by moving our production to south east Asia and our pollution.. it is still ours.

[@info6linevale118]

@@jamesgrover2005 If China didn't falsely claim developing country status with WTO and was not granted concessions under Paris agreement to enable ongoing unlimited CO2 emissions and if carbon border taxes were applied on Chinese imports then in time the jobs and manufacturing will eventually return back and be on-shored to Western Countries where the manufacturing can then be carried out and supervised in an environmentally responsible way reducing global Co2 emissions and maybe avert global warming but we would have to pay higher prices and experience lower living standards

[@jamesgrover2005]

@@info6linevale118 that isn't how capitalism works, the work will be moved to where it is most profitable for corporations and their share holders, if your environmental regulations and workers rights are degraded sufficiently then maybe the work will move back home.. woopie-doo! Lose/lose situation.

[@zetajolyne3689]

@@info6linevale118 Calculate the Per Capita plz, I don't think there's any problems that Chinese reach the level of W.European or American. Also put in another way, every people living in developing countries, they deserve too.

[@sunspot42]

I assume China’s old coal fired plants are horribly inefficient and polluting, and that newer ones will operate more cleanly in comparison. If excess capacity becomes a big issue, presumably they’ll just decommission their older plants.

[@nikolatasev4948]

They are doing exactly that for the last decade. The average efficiency of coal power plants in China is higher than the one in US. Then again, US is using only 40% of the coal they used in 2008, and planned closing of plants makes sure the trend will continue. China, on the other hand, is replacing older plants with newer ones instead of retiring them entirely.

[@tylerdurden3722]

They have to import a lot of coal, etc. China uses a merchantilist economic strategy. So they don't like buying the products of others. Normally they employ regulation, tariffs, or import bans. That's not really possible with energy. Renewable is how they aim to solve this...as long as it doesn't affect their competitiveness in terms of others buying their products.

[@iemozzomei]

Yup, I've annecdotally heard similar things. I'd be curious as to seeing the estimated efficiency of different countries coal fire power stations. China hasn't been reliant on eking out the most for an investment anyway due to the reduced autonomy on the private sector it seems. All this reminds me of old hydro-electric generators (and coal for that matter) run past their use-by and replace date due to them having yet to catastrophically fail. Anyway, worth pointing out that I'm not saying higher efficiency is a way of achieving net-zero goals, but as a short term mitigation strategy it makes more sense when we also consider China's economic development by construction model.

[@WanneSomeSoup]

I'm an energy consultant. Actually, most of our coal plants are pretty efficient compared to the majority of the rest of the world. And that's why they are so hard to be replaced by renewables since high efficiency also means low price.

[@ScarletFlames1]

@@WanneSomeSoup That makes it even worse that you're building new ones if the new ones offer no tangible benefit.

[@MrMineHeads.]

> 40 MtCO2 are captured through CCS Wow that's a lot > one tenth of one percent of annual CO2 emissions 😔

[@dr.OgataSerizawa]

I did the same thing. Kind of a let down when he said.......that’s 1/10 of 1%.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

That's today. Imagine where it will be in 30 years.

[@kimweaver3323]

How much carbon fuel will have to be used to build out the clean energy system? All technologies require all of the preceding technologies to make the next leap. So, if you do CCS, you need to build an enormous infrastructure that first has to suck up the carbon that it took to build it. Then it can go to work on the waste from carbon fuels burned for other uses during the time of the build out. And the natural emissions that are increasing every year. Then it can start sucking up the legacy carbon. Ummmm, we don't have that much time.

[@macmcleod1188]

The same thing occurs when you do an analysis of growing trees. It sounds like a big number until you spread it over the 20 years it takes for the trees to grow. But even the amount captured over 20 years is a drop in the bucket compared to burning thousands of years worth of plant growth growth every year as coal and other fossil fuels

[@kimweaver3323]

@@macmcleod1188 And a bunch of tiny bark beetles undoes your work. Over 200,000,000 trees are dead or dying on the western half of the US and Canada. The beetles are now well established in the Jackpine population which spreads from coast to coast in Canada. Gypsy moths are devastating the semi-tropical forests in Florida, Georgia, S. Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama. Japanese murder hornets are clobbering bee colonies in the southeast. Deer tick range is increasing in the Northeast, spreading Lyme disease. Most pollinator species are in decline.

[@johnm2879]

China only has 3 or 4 decades worth of (their own) coal reserves left. If true, and knowing China values social stability above all, meaning minimizing import dependency, maybe the effort to go green makes sense on more than just the climate level.

[@brianwild4640]

they are just going the nuclear route john

[@terencefield3204]

Not true. The northern provinces contain vast quantities. IN addition, Russia is retrofitted, and it is unlimited in supply.

[@johnm2879]

@@terencefield3204 I've always loved the description of "unlimited" for a resource we mine.

[@Alex-ig2xr]

The reason why China continue to build more coal power plants is because national security concerns. Sea routes that ship oil and natural gas is controlled by American. Any conflict could disrupt the supply completely. So China needs coal power plants as backup in case there is no oil or natural gas supplies.

[@generalco2554]

This is the answer that should have been given in the video. They're overproducing power generation to reduce risk of a future energy embargo. Why else would you build plants when existing plants are running at less than 40% capacity.?

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

OK, but then eastern Europe needs coal as well (even more troublesome dependency on Russia)

[@pietersteenkamp5241]

@@generalco2554 Yes exactly. If supplies are disrupted or war breaks out you are going to be happy to restart old polluting plants while the USA blows up the most modern new one's first.

[@polanve]

Great job as always! I was unaware of China's internal political dynamics. Amazing how little actual useful information makes it's way into the corporate media. Thank goodness for independent media!

[@elaiej]

I found that interesting too, but it makes sense. Coal-producing provinces would fight any such change tooth and nail.

[@billybobhobnob101]

Heaven is high and the emperor is far away

[@leonmilner9994]

This podcast gives a lot more of the local political perspective as well. It's well worth buying the annual subscription for: xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-138-transition-in-china/

[@ElGato1947]

From the outside, China appears uniform in its decisions. Hearing of internal differences was a real eye-opener.

[@walter3950]

@Marc Jackson GZ present a lot of questioning information about Xinjiang too. Sometimes it's hard for me to get over what I'm *supposed* to believe, and Grayzone helps.

[@thomasgeorgecastleberry6918]

I'm a retired electrical engineer who has worked in both coal fired power plants and nuclear plants. Coal is absolutely filthy;- nuclear much cleaner, however my solution to the electrical power crisis is to develop Thorium Reactors no containment dome needed! A Thorium reactor can't go critical and there's a lot more Radioactive Thorium laying around then Uranium.

[@pk47831]

But I've read that nuclear has high upfront costs and it takes too long to build.

[@grindupBaker]

​ @Pratik K The issue is that all this total bull shit that anything huge related to reduced carbon burn (AND THE WARMING, THE "CLIMATE LAG", THE GLOBAL HEATER) can be achieved in just 30 years has caused a highly-incorrect understanding of the time scale of the plan, leading to this "takes too long to build" everywhere. It's exactly analogous to governments, they get a few years in office just enough time to reverse everything the previous opposing government did, then the opposing government gets in again with enough time to reverse everything the previous opposing government did and bring their own brand of crap back, and so it goes on for ever. What'll happen is the same as "climate lag" and Jim Hansen's warning 30 years ago (30 years ago !) in 30 years time people will start mumbling "shit this is only doing 1/3rd of the job and getting problematic. We need some nuclear fission or something". Then better nuclear fission will START being developed in 30 years and be ready and start operating in 60 years instead of 30 years. The human species, all of you, is all about latest quarterly reports and me me me and now now now. No planning at all.

[@ElGato1947]

Thx, Thomas. Thorium is the way to go. Clean. Efficient.

[@alaneasthope2357]

Check out ThorCom. They are building a molten salt reactor for Indonesia. The Indonesian government amended their regulations to allow its construction and operation.

[@JonathanFrost]

@@alaneasthope2357 Thorcon

[@6theseeker]

Majority of the CCP members are engineers, they love numbers and predicted outcomes. They can also follow through on long term targets without the need to fight for terms. Very likely to achieve this goal.

[@weltwind]

Five-year planned economies are never efficient and the CCP government is definitely not driven by engineering and science. From my visits to Hainan, China, I remember seeing rows of empty 30+ story hotels built years ago in anticipation of some future flood of tourists. Coal power plants are no different. They are generally built for the economic benefit and narcissistic satisfaction of corrupt local government officials.

[@acmefixer1]

If that were true, the "majority of the CCP" would not have let the overbuilt, wasteful coal plants be constructed. It's a total lack of common sense to proceed with projects that will be a waste of resources.

[@info6linevale118]

So says CCP acolytes & lackies

[@pietersteenkamp5241]

@@acmefixer1 Thing is it wasn't centralled planned at all. Local and state governments basically competed in an internal chinese market; basically a somewhat publicly owned 'free market' of sorts which had the sort of negative free market consequences and infficiencies you would expect! You may be happy to hear that after almost 30 years of ever decreasing central government involvement in the economy they have since the 2008 financial crisis adopted more centralized directed industrial policy and may now finally bring these market/competition inefficiencies under control.

[@collins1860]

“Majority of the CCP members are engineers” - how to prove yourself an idiot in one sentence

[@weetuber]

Dave... waiting whole week for next video is making me very restless. Anticipation of what is coming is very suspenseful for me... it is worth the wait. BEST CANNEL ON KZbin...

[@daggerdan12]

Excellent content as always - keep up the great work!

[@crazyhank99]

Thank you for the great research and reporting.

[@fehzorz]

I'd be interested in a round up of the renewable technologies that can be retrofitted around old coal plants

[@bobwallace9753]

Gut them. Install grid storage batteries inside the buildings. Install solar panels on top of the buildings and on the grounds. Using the old plants in that way allows for less site cleanup. It makes it less of a financial burden to close the plant and return the ground to potential residential use quality. And since there was already an ugly coal plant there it's unlikely there will be NIMBY problems installing solar.

[@acmefixer1]

There is interest in converting coal boilers to use natural gas, which cuts the emissions in half. Two reasons are that the infrastructure is already there (generating and transmission plant) and the conversion could use CCS to cut the CO2 to zero. I think the best use is to use most of the surrounding land for solar or wind farms. There is no need for any fuel and transmission plant can be reused.

[@bobwallace9753]

@@acmefixer1 It makes some sense to convert from coal to NG. The particulate problem disappears. And gas plants can be brought online faster than coal. That makes NG a better fill in when there isn't adequate RE and storage. Over time they can move from running the gas plants from a few hours per day (on average) to only a few hours per year. Just keep adding more RE and storage. I'm not sure about the CCS part. It might make more sense to spend that money on RE and storage and cut gas use faster.

[@fehzorz]

I think for example you can use large scale thermal storage (solar thermal or from renewable electricity) then use the same turbine to turn that heat into electricity

[@tristanschreiber5279]

@@acmefixer1 Sonetimes natural gas is responsible for the same Co2-emissions as coal. Total emissions depend heavily on production and transport: leaking gas from fracing, leaky gas pipelines, conversion to LNG and transport on diesel ships can sum up significantly.

[@nikolatasev4948]

Thank you for pointing out the difficulties in crafting national policies. I often hear that this nation or that nation is doing something deliberately, as if it is a single person. People forget that a vast country always has different interest groups that try to pull it in their own direction. I sincerely hope China will reduce their coal consumption. More centralized government means they can more easily do whatever they plan. On the other hand, this means the economy is not exposed to pure market forces, the ones that reduced US coal consumption by 60% in the last 13 years.

[@Borishal]

Thanks for including the plight of the Uighur people. They need all the support they can get.

[@Alex-ig2xr]

If you want the truth, just go there and find it yourself. Don’t be spoon fed with BS propaganda.

[@shuaige3360]

I agree, every time we speak about usa global warming goals, we should speak about usa wars including Irak which destroyed a country and cause hundred thousands of people dying… at least China does not cause hundreds thousands people dying… (I personally disagree with with China actions in Xinjiang, but should not mix all subject to always come to that).

[@Borishal]

@@Alex-ig2xr I want to go there. I have been advised that it would not be wise for a practicing Muslim to go to the region and fratenise with the Uighur people. Is this advice untrue?

[@Borishal]

@Marc Jackson thanks. It seems I have been badly misinformed. I'll speak to the embassy here about going. Much of what I gleaned was from tourist advice by tourists.

[@shuaige3360]

​@@Borishal If you just want to go to visit, enjoy tea with people, and so on, it is totally fine. But if you go there, and start to speaks politics, spread extremist ideas, and start to try to push people to fight the government... then you might be kicked out of the country.

[@mikefox1735]

The best carbpn sequestration method would be to put it back into the soil through photosynthesis. This is how mother nature done it last time. Good for the atmosphere, good for the soil, good for our food chain with higher quality foods. Less flooding, less draught, with improved water infiltration. Good for aquifer replenishment, good for everything. Stop using N and P fertilizers which use huge amounts of energy to process. Theres enough enough N in the air for all our requirements if we look after free living Nitrogen fixing bacteria. And most soils have enough P in them for a thousand years if we use fungi and bacteria to release it from the soil matrix

[@terencefield3204]

That will not fly. Not enough landmass if food to be produced.

[@mikefox1735]

Terence Field. Of course it would. Can be done at the same time as producing any crop . Nature done it last time without us interfering. And it's the same landmass basically as it was then. If we wait too long and all the ice sitting on land melts, there will be less landmass.

[@EarthCreature.]

Refreshingly critical of China without any inappropriate gusto. All governments should be held to this standard

[@dr.OgataSerizawa]

Absolutely! I agree 100%. Edit: he’d make a super ambassador.

[@ryanpiotr1929]

The main take-away from this video for me is that China building that many coal plants might not be so bad after all. What I've heard before is that they're the latest, most efficient coal plants. But if wind and solar are really going to vastly outcompete soon and most of the coal plants turn out to be wasted money, that is going to be an actual relief. Although it seems hard to believe the central government would just allow the local governments to waste this amount of money for special interests..

[@MarkMARk-ww6rt]

PV and Wind are not reliable during extreme weather it's always need backup capacity , remember the February Texas polar vortex power outbreak ? coal fire plants will be cheaper than Tesla battery pack for maga city with 10M ppl (china have 8 currently and project to have 12 in the next decade ) , currently technology can't scale battery pack to this order of magnitude

[@ryanpiotr1929]

@@MarkMARk-ww6rt As long as they're for rare emergencies, the coal plants shouldn't do much harm. About the texas energy crisis, iirc renewables were not hit as much and the whole thing could have been avoided if they had combined their power grid with the rest of the states, which reduces the necessity of fossil fuels in general and is something China is definitely doing.

[@pietersteenkamp5241]

@@MarkMARk-ww6rt If you do not prepare your energy distribution grid for extreme weather nothing is ready; it was the gas pipelines freezing that caused much of the disruption in texas but the general un-hardened network could in either case not provide in the peak needs as it had nowhere to draw such energy from being stupidly unconnected to regional grids. battery packs are not meant to replace actual power generation as much as they are to ensure that peak needs or droughs in generations can be smoothed. Coal power will only get more expensive where Solar, wind and battery is only getting cheaper in even developing markets.

[@pietersteenkamp5241]

@@ryanpiotr1929 Since China will rise to super power status somewhere at the end of this century it probably will hurt if on the way there they ensure their own security by overbuilding power generation.If the USa should overreach in trying to curb their rise & start another war with China their 1500 odd coal power plants will be among the first targets; too much of a bad thing can be a good thing in such a extreme situation.

[@ryanpiotr1929]

@@pietersteenkamp5241 I'm not sure I ger your comment. Are you saying China having excess coal plants might be good, because they'd be a liability in a possible war?

[@SimonHollandfilms]

excellent....i was searching for China information to reply to my viewers comments....you exceeded all i hopes to learn with good information, thank you. Prof Simon.

[@rajivpokharel88]

Excellent video. Always looking forward to these type of topics. Keep up with it sir!

[@larslrs7234]

Chinas goal is being energy independent without scarcity. They will run out of cheap coal eventually. By 2050, other technologies will be ready.

[@info6linevale118]

Too Too late by then ... just keep appeasing China and encourage China polluting exponentially year on year until coal runs out as China pleases as long as they wish and see fit As gratitude for your understanding China may invade your country last before turning it in to a vassal state and you into an obedient slave to carry their water

[@larslrs7234]

@@info6linevale118 I was merely stating the obvious instead of guessing if China wants to save the climate or not. Did not evaluate if good or bad.

[@info6linevale118]

@@larslrs7234 Greedy and heartless China is the elephant in the room everyone is tip-toeing around rather than confronting and demanding reduced emissions to rescue humanity but without China giving sizeable emissions reductions any efforts by other countries are totally negated and pointless and futile and worse wasted money that could otherwise be redeployed to R&D and with hard work and some luck a miracle technological solution could be invented or discovered to save the planet to decarbonize the world while allowing us to ample power generation to improve the lives across the globe

[@larslrs7234]

@@info6linevale118 I am not tip-toeing around.

[@tgdomnemo5052]

... all of your content, not just todays, is so much easier to understand thanks to all the work that must go into your channel. Thx again 👍🏼☯️🖖🏼

[@Earth1960]

Great video, very informative. Well done.

[@solardiymadesimple.3779]

Just Have A Think,👏👍

[@weltwind]

An excellent video on a serious macro topic! Governments everywhere tend to overpromise on their 10+ year goals, knowing that by then they won't be there to be held accountable. Subsequent governments will blame their predecessors, or simply change those goals. My Florida government is no different in talking renewables while speeding up natural gas installations. CCGT is of course better than coal but by far not enough to make the type of change required. If the UN were an apolitical global organization, it could create a world body of independent scientist to examine each country's plan and hold them accountable. It is not. Some serious research and science-based journalism are urgently necessary to critically evaluate every nation's plan and try to hold their current governments accountable. Regarding China, adding coal capacity is not only wasteful but adds to emissions due to production of unnecessary metal and concrete and removal of vegetation for those unnecessary coal plants, mines and infrastructure. I am also quite skeptical about the cited 670 g/kWh energy-specific emissions figure (btw, I assume it is incorrectly labeled as "coal emissions", should be "CO2-equivalent emissions"), given that U.S.'s figure is 418 g CO2-equiv/kWh and that a 2017 UK research paper* projected China's 2020 emissions at 821-860 g/kWh. {*"China’s electricity emission intensity in 2020 - an analysis at provincial level", 9th International Conference on Applied Energy, ICAE2017, 21-24 August 2017, Cardiff, UK.}

[@brianwild4640]

they are not addicted to coal they are using it as a way out of poverty thats all. the starve no starve later most people pick later. the local areas are doing what they can to survive

[@info6linevale118]

Nonsense

[@jaxstax2406]

@@info6linevale118 what's nonsense about it?

[@info6linevale118]

@@jaxstax2406 Ur a Fwit stick to what u know the square root of bugger all

[@SinisterPuppy]

No point in being rich if you're dead. Even if they're using it for a good cause; if prolonged use leads to millions of lives to parish due to fresh water scarcity, wet bulb temperatures, crop failures, etc; what good is it? I'm hopeful they're going to do the right thing; which is against my pessimistic nature. So here's hoping everyone gets out of poverty and we still have nice planet.

[@brianwild4640]

@@SinisterPuppy yes the perfect point. except for the people in the 3rd world its shall i give up my life and starve or shall i save the planet for the millions of children down the line which will not be mine because i will starve before I have them. easy for us in rich countries but even the people trying to save the planet here never give up enough to live in real poverty near to starving. in true harmony with the planet

[@andrewpaulhart]

Presumably renewables wil be cheaper than coal as it is now in the west. If that is the case, surely building an excess of coal plants will end up being more about wasting money rather than adding to co2 emissions. Increasing renewable a capacity should reduce coal used regardless of an increase in number of coal plants

[@TrudeauhugspandasnotCanadians]

You are an idiot. Renewables are more expensive and CCP brought coal 75% of the worlds new coal power plants online last year to build solar panels with forced labour so you can feel green and happy inside

[@andrewpaulhart]

@@TrudeauhugspandasnotCanadians www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/renewable-energy-cheaper-coal/ If coal is so cheap why are coal fired power stations increasingly being closed down in the US for example? As for feeling happy inside … only a moron ignores climate change and would rather choose to do nothing. Renewable energy is a existential necessity.

[@nicnordic6143]

STEP 1: CO2 tax STEP 2: import tull depending on co2 of exporter Result: pressure for global decarb, markets adapt.

[@arturneland4057]

Both systems are vulnerable to accounting fraud.

[@nicnordic6143]

@Eric C I believe a tax and pay back via income tax/social fares is the only way. The market needs prices, else it will never work. certificates are underlying manipulation. Start low, but communicate for decades to come. Other instruments can be added.

[@mikeferris8033]

I reinforce Neil's comment, really good content and subject matter, thank you!

[@davidgoodwin4148]

China's population is aging and production is moving to other countries. This will both help them reach their targets and explains the push for alternative energy. They hope to sell alternative energy solutions to the other nations that increasing their industrial capacity. This isn't about "good" or "evil", it's just business.

[@bobwallace9753]

Interesting, "just business" may be how we move from fossil fuels to renewables/EVs and how we achieve world peace. Economics now favor renewable energy and EVs. Businesses respond to costs. If they don't they lose market to competitors who can provide at a lower cost. Businesses, especially large corporations, do not want their supply stream, labor force, and markets disrupted by conflict.

[@ElGato1947]

I remember Sonny Corleone telling Mikey the same thing. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oouWmoCsrNJ6iMk

[@bobwallace9753]

@Marc Jackson China has crested the mountain. They've done an incredible job of improving the lives of most of their citizens. I spent some time in China in the mid 1980s and people lived tough lives. Life was hard. I've been back briefly a few times since and today's China bears no resemblance to the China of 35 years ago. People in more remote areas of China still need some help but the Chinese government has the resources to improve their quality of life as well. I don't think China will fall but I do see a problem coming for China. As the populace becomes more highly educated and more familiar with the outside world they are likely to become less tolerant of a non-representative government. China may have to make a transition to a more democratic form of government over time and that may lead to internal struggles. Overall I expect China to supplant the US as the world's most important economy. There are simply more Chinese and the people take education and work more seriously than does the US population. The US is being harmed by the "Know Nothings".

[@relativityboy]

*Love* the way you put things!

[@kerrymartyn2253]

Regardless of the politics, which is by no means minimal, at least they have publicly committed to a zero objective. China, UK, USA, Australia etc are all failing politically to do “what they say” when it comes to black energy, scientific fact has been ignored for over 50 years. It would be great to hear some examples and analysis of countries doing “it right”.

[@pennyoflaherty1345]

Yes, Australia is slow & running behind the Eight Ball - a land of many & great inventions RARELY BACKED BY GOVERNMENT , developed sadly overseas sold bk to us 10 times the price. Coal capture is only a phrase , no action following!! Coal reduction might truly lead to loss of job however, Gov. grants could * Properly start the Ball rolling * with these coal locations transferring over toward * Solar & Wind * acceleration while other industry slowly winds down. Prompted by President Biden toward 2030 needing more incentives we’ll be trying to drag this out according to governments to 2050 . Quite slow & wet behind ears when Snowy Mt hydro- electric scheme part 1 happened 50+ years back , and only NOW has phase 2 been on the go - I along with many other people, holding our breath won’t suffice!! What ever became of....* Advance Australia Fair * ??!

[@jamesp3902]

The US made no claims (eg no to Kyoto, no to Paris accords, etc.) If your talking President Biden, even he couched promises based on other countries actions.

[@terencefield3204]

Scandinavia with hydro power, but they still sell vast amounts of gas to the Britunculi, and their hydrocarbon SWF is immense! Wales, since it is an essentially Middle Ages size of economy. Tierra Del Fuego is doing well. The Antarctica is doing a good job, save for the penguin farts. The greens want them wiped out, along with the cows, I hear.

[@Lazarosaliths]

Keep it up, I like your work so much. Its amazing how you can talk so calm about humanity literally destroying the only planet which can harbor life!

[@Memoiana]

The destruction has been going on for a very long time. I don’t blame humans. I blame entropy. Entropy is a bitch. 😉

[@jameswells2826]

This Video Is Fantastic

[@abhishektandon8373]

Make a video on India's solar park in gujrat which will be larger than Singapore and will generate 30 GW of energy

[@avejst]

Great video as always Thanks for sharing :-)

[@fredchappin]

Very nice presentation!!

[@markgalperin6160]

Amazing video. Didn't realize coal fleet utilization was so low. Maybe worth a mention that infrastructure building in China is as much a jobs program as it is a rational economic exercise.

[@tigercasey1554]

Brilliant as always.

[@katzda]

I think a tax for CO2 would be the right push and the answer for anyone to make renewable energy cheaper etc

[@TrudeauhugspandasnotCanadians]

How about a tax on genocide and organ harvesting until the CCP falls? Nuclear is by far the most effective and efficient with the least environmental damage

[@katzda]

Well actually we would want to tax food production so maybe just CO2 produced by energy suppliers?

[@s4098429]

You have to remember the existence of accountants. A pollution tax, like an income tax, is only ever paid by the poor; those that can’t afford enough accountants and lawyers. Even now Co2 figures are mostly fiction, just accounting tricks used to dupe the intellectually poor.

[@KJSvitko]

Wind and solar energy combined with battery storage are safer, cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels. Any investment in new fossil fuels will become stranded assets.

[@terencefield3204]

Maybe in many decades from now.

[@markuslang1869]

@@terencefield3204 Maybe in zero to ten years. In germany/ Hamburg a six year old coal plant is shut down and going to be decomissioned because it is now not commercially viable anymore because of solar and wind taking operating ours from the plant.

[@pdxyadayada]

Bravo! Nicely done, as usual

[@richardabrahams585]

Thanks team for the real truth!!! Bravo.. excellent education!!!! Peace Solidarity Truth cheers

[@TehPwnerer]

I'm not a huge fan of China for reasons but I can see them pulling this off. If the Party can maintain stability they have proven to be resourceful with time and focus. See the rover. Better yet, hopefully America is back and will solve the energy-carbon problem and export the solution to the world as a leader and not what it has recently been.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

@Marc Jackson "Broken every promise he's made"? Nope.

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

@Marc Jackson I thought that when big media and big tech whipped population in to frenzy during his predecessors term, Biden main selling point was not being the evil Trump, and even I have to admit, he clearly kept that one.

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

@Marc Jackson Indeed. Trump's variant of "America first" policy had some isolationists undertones, Biden seems to return to business as usual.

[@MrFoxRobert]

Thank you!

[@shuaige3360]

In China, there is still electricity shortage with often some factories that have to shut down or work at night. Many coal plant can also be built because at the same time they close a lot of small none efficient coal plant, to replace them with big more efficient coal plant... and install renewal as fast as they can (and fastest worldwide).

[@kennethbarr6842]

HI Your Reserch IS The Best On This Platform, Thank You And Your Team?

[@christopherrains9685]

Thank you, great info! As a Queensland Australia resident, the power of the coal lobby dominates many decisions. Bravus Adani Carmichael mine for example. Surprised that Xi Jinping has similar problems.

[@eriksundell1400]

You mentioned that shutting down coal implies they would need more renewables to meet their emission targets ( about 5 min into the video i think ). But: renewable biomass isnt having low lifecycle emissions while non-renewable nuclear does. I'd appreciate if you would decouple the idea of renewables as a synonym for low-carbon emission tech in future videos. Include nuclear when it comes to low-carbon emission tech and exclude biomass. See IPCC table A.iii.2 on page 1335 and Figure 7.6 on page 539 in IPCC 2014 (AR5) for details about what is low carbon tech and what isnt.

[@LamarreAlexandre]

I hope China is actively working on thorium nuclear power plants. I am by no means an expert in the field, but this technology seems interesting. There is less nuclear waste of products and these plants, due to their low pressure design appear safer. Renewable energies are fine, but it will never be enough for a huge country like China. The nuclear option is the only one which can allow a sustained and stable production of energy.

[@hasanchoudhury5401]

Your analysis and discussions are factual and very reasonable. I remain cautiously optimistic but we hope China will do better for their own people.

[@reuse_or_die]

Hello. I'd like to thank the patreons for doing what many of us can't do. Hopefully whatever reasons we have for lack of investment ability, will be temporary. Disabled, retired and low waged people especially need this free access to allow us to remain engaged. Patreons your contribution is very much appreciated. ❤️

[@Ssyphoned]

No. The answer to both the header and sub header are no.

[@jimmyrichardson67]

RE Job creation I’m afraid many of the jobs we rely on to provide the ‘wants’ we in the West use are exploiting millions around the world, not just in the sector mentioned here, it makes me not want to buy anything. Nice video content once more

[@rakeadams3162]

great way of thinking about it. Start with what you what you "need" to live and be "happy" and for everything else you can invest some time in research to find companies that do it the right way.

[@jimmyrichardson67]

@@rakeadams3162 There are many who try but are outnumbered. Buisness just makes things worse I don’t want to work because whatever I do adds to the problem

[@incognitotorpedo42]

@@jimmyrichardson67 Who pays for your food, clothing, and housing? Who pays for your internet connection?

[@jimmyrichardson67]

@@incognitotorpedo42 exactly I do but others around world have nothing. I work two days just to earn enough for what I need, grow as much as I can and avoid any kind of processed food I have one vehicle for work and pleasure but it’s not enough. We have to live in the system but I try to stay outside of it as much as I can. I’m not lecturing just saying how I feel

[@willm5814]

Great work! What about doing an analysis of the positive climate effects of precision fermenation and/or the predictions past and present provided by Tony Seba?? Seems brilliant to me!

[@hair2050]

China is very complicated and you have done a good job of diving into it, for a novice audience. Might I suggest that the over capacity, from a national government perspective, is not accidental at all. It gives you a buffer in case of war and potential losses. It sets you up to be a national exporter of power, further dominating and creating dependency in neighboring countries. And crucially it frees you from oil imports more quickly than would otherwise be the case because you can quickly electrify transport having no limit to the power available. One crucial point that you don’t seem to understand or wish to speculate about is the fact that China has no immediate interest in reducing emissions. It’s not even on the radar. What China says and what China is doing and will do are worlds apart.

[@340wbymag]

Anybody that doubts China is simply not paying attention.

[@CrRodney1]

What does that mean?

[@ccrg109]

If there is an single country that can actually meet the climate goals, I believe it is China. The comment you made on the regional governments not listening to the central government struck me as odd though. I remember watching a video a while back on how the government is structured. The 5 year plans are debated by the members of the Chinese government, after which a consensus is reached, then that become the official policy of all of China. There ought to be no regional government acting out of turn. This leads me to think that there is a reason those plants are being constructed. Alternatively, China is now cooperating with Russia on new nuclear power plants for future energy. In my opinion this is the only way forward for energy production in the long term. So this is good news.

[@NightHawk92929]

There's no currently operating commercial direct air capture plants, but there are a number of firms that are in the process of changing that at the moment. It's impossible to say for certain what the cost of direct air capture will going to be, but it'll likely be cheaper than a lot of other mitigation efforts. I wouldn't be too pessimistic on that.

[@acmefixer1]

Direct air capture is not as cheap as planting myriads of trees.

[@NightHawk92929]

@@acmefixer1 there's a finite amount of trees we can plant, and their sequestration is temporary. The amount of underground storage space for co2 is almost infinite.

[@andrewday3206]

Steam methane reformation combined with carbon capture and storage could be a method of vast clean hydrogen production. Using CO2 to pressurize natural gas wells for increased production and then producing Hydrogen and CO2 from that natural gas is a sustainable form of energy. This would be a great niche market helping our species transition to a cleaner future.

[@andrewpaulhart]

Assuming that forced Labour is taking places in China, that is obviously something to be opposed. However if anyone in the USA is thinking of condemning this practice you should be aware that the US has the largest forced Labour force in the world. The US alone has 25% of all the worlds prisoners, far more than China. Prisoners can be forced to work for a few cents an hour, and this industry is absolutely huge. US army equipment and most white goods produced in the US uses this forced Labour force.

[@StephenRedmond]

Possibly the newer coal stations are to replace those that may be 30/40 years old and highly inefficient? Newer stations could also be more easily prepped to be fitted with carbon capture?

[@Youbetternowatchthis]

It’s good to just have a think. Sometimes I even have another think as well.

[@freebird875]

hi dave, thanks for another well documented video-))). i do believe that the chinese do want to be energy neutral(not carbon neutral)... if inflation rises much more than expected,they will have some advantages... that saying."will we get to 2060"????

[@mr.e170]

I love your videos and just want to say that I applaud all efforts to seek net zero that are well thought out. I am skeptical of some new technologies. When I’m looking at new things, I often look for pitfalls. Obviously the mistreatment of any workforce is abhorrent, but especially so when done along racial or prejudiced lines. Carbon capture is a huge waste of resources and in my opinion could have long term geologic consequences. Though plants grow slowly and die, trees stored carbon for us before we cut most of them down. If trillions of trees could be planted each year or quarter, couldn’t that be a more ecologically friendly option?

[@lokensga]

Better than planting trees is planting hemp, which grows much faster than trees, thus absorbing more CO2 more quickly. You can grow 3-4 crops/year and use the hemp to replace trees in the paper industry. Doesn't require much water, is easier to harvest than trees, and provides income for farmers, who already have the equipment, while also rebuilding the soil. Is that why Bill Gates is buying all that farmland?

[@Jay...777]

I don't know about you, but all these millions, billions and trillions leave me wondering what it all means. Here's a useful metric for comparison of size. Just remember: a million seconds is 11 DAYS A billion seconds is 31 YEARS And a trillion seconds takes us back to the Stone Age.

[@Haxerous]

Na, we won't need that much. Couple of decades of Rising emissions and and we will will be back in the stone age much sooner.

[@dr.OgataSerizawa]

@@Haxerous I must, reluctantly, agree.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

@@Haxerous That's hyperbole.

[@Jay...777]

@@Haxerous All the indications affirm your collapse of time is correct. But will the joker muse his poem before the lights go out tonight? From “what’s up” to “too late” is the thesis opposing its antithesis Its synthesis is a Fleur de Lys A new arising from the swamp

[@WeddingDJBusiness]

Carbon neutral by 2060 or carbon zero policies are all very much idealistic fantasies, but in reality practically redundant when most countries achieve these ambitious targets by simply buying offsets on the carbon markets or sign up to non-binding agreements. Trading carbon is evolving as a gold pot for some potential investors and a drain on countries that do the heavy lifting/manufacturing for the world. When money is sent offshore via carbon offsets, then the original problem generally remains. In NZ spends, 1.4 billion per year, according to sources as these things are usually hidden in secret from the public, goes to offshore carbon trading for allegedly not making a 30% less than 2005 carbon target. ( Hard to do when your population has drastically increased) That money could be spent on many things. E.g. 1. Saving the threatened native birdlife from imminent extinction. 2. Setting up local recycling stations and processing plastics so we don't have offload to Asia where it is not recycled correctly and tends to end up polluting the waterways, air/land. This is the real problem I have with, with having a hypersensitivity/phobia to CO2 and climate fascination ... things needing urgent attention are sidelined. The real issue/problem with coal is, of course, not the CO2 which has almost little/marginal effect on temperature at above 300ppm ( 20ppm are responsible for half the greenhouse effect from CO2, and then it is a reducing curve and now that it is reaching its saturation level of absorption of infrared on it frequencies that it can absorb. CO2 quantitatively can not increase the temperature by but the smallest of fractions and that is including the feedback from increasing relative humidity, which also has it limits. - This is the physics that never seems to make it through to channels like this, who see all CO2 as the climate control knob and become fanatic in its reduction. The main problem with coal/petrochemicals is pollution which causes respiratory problems/death. PM2.5 carbon particles. This is why we need a steady transition to cleaner, reliable ways to make energy. (Not just solar/wind) In the 1950s, the clean air act was brought in, and it quickly reduced pollution, new technology helped including catalytic converters for cars. I suggest to learn from what worked and that the best way forward is to set a new higher standard - air quality and require the providers of energy to reach it. That is where China needs to start and focus on the urgent issue that millions of its people are dying from pollution.

[@EdwinaTS]

I could think of good reasons to be building new coal electricity generation - to replace old plants which are far more polluting and less efficient, and to provide generation when renewables are intermittently not delivering. They are not fools who can't see that coal generation plants will be under utilised. As for Xinjiang 'force labour' involvement in the production of solar panels, it sounds like a political smear of everything associated with Xinjiang and China. China has and will have an increasing shortage of labour, so I expect people's state benefits is conditional in some ways. In which case, they may require taking up vacant jobs as a condition. I don't see this as force labour. Meanwhile, some mining workers are redeployed to green mountains & deserts. That should be worthwhile employment for years to come.

[@stonedsnakestudios]

Another reason for the building of those coal powerplants could be that the Chinese govt. uses infrastructure projects to help economic growth. Everywhere I was in China things were being built. It provides jobs. So it could well be they full well know they arent gonna use those powerplants, but just build them to keep the money flowing. Just a thought.

[@Elviloh]

Always appreciate your work. One thing lacking in my opinion, is the social cost of the solutions. China can't afford to stop coal mining, because of its high population. They need jobs. So the question of viability of carbon reducing solutions is also : "can they provide enough employement to be accepted"? A theorically working solution won't take place if it's rejected by the masses because they'll end up jobless. Can you take this in account in your videos ? The human cost.

[@KGopidas]

Remarkably well balanced and insightful. Perhaps Chinese can aim at one kwh/time(hour or day) till it goes upsolar per rooftop, without prosecuting uighurs and others, used to replace, coal intensive usages

[@Jeff-gq2tq]

Dave - I think your title is missing the letters e and t, 'et' at the end!

[@tedrees5989]

At 12:15, the emission factors of 672 and 356 grams/KWH(?) are confusing. The EPA gives numbers of 205 to 227 pounds of CO2/MBTU(heat) for US coal, referring to the heat content from burning US coal. There are 293 KWH per MBTU, and 454 grams per pound, so the CO2 emission factor of US coal varies from 318 to 352 pounds of CO2 per KWH(heat) in US coal. When burning coal to produce electricity, these emission factors go up. If we assume the Chinese numbers are the emission factors for electricity production from their coal, then their current heat to electricity efficiency comes to a minimum of 318/672 = 47%. That is quite a bit higher than the maximum published efficiency of 42% claimed in 2019. Is there coal that much better than US coal? Or have further improvements been made in their power plants?

[@Yanquetino]

As I commented in Patreon… herding cats!

[@kensmith5694]

With cats: Show them the container the treats come in. When you want them to gather, display the bag and shake it. With politicians it will likely just mean a bigger bag and the bag needing to be filled with tokens for money and power.

[@Yanquetino]

@@kensmith5694 Mammon flavored catnip.

[@terencefield3204]

Hydrocarbon burning is great for global dimming, which we all know - or should know - has a VERY large downward effect on global temperature rise.

[@stanleytolle416]

You missed the nuclear angle. It appears that China is going nuclear with hydrogen supplying most power needs for things like steel and cement making. While presently in the beginning stages it looks like modular plants are being develop which will enable a fast ramp up of nuclear power. Both older light water designs and forth generation designs are being developed. Once these reactor designs are perfected rabid build out of these zero carbon power sources is possible thus making the zero net carbon emissions goal of 2060 quite possible.

[@crhu319]

Except that's just stupid in cost terms. They have big dams and can build other kinetic storage.

[@stanleytolle416]

@@crhu319 the molten salt reactors designs appear to tackle the cost problem. They do not need all the back up systems or the heavy containment structure. Like if the operators get pissed and walk off the job the reactor will will just shut it's self off all by it's self. The Oakridge test reactor the reactor was shut off on the week ends so people would have weekends off. There is also simplicity. The molten chloride fast reactor design is nothing more than a tank with a heat exchanger in it. Once developed and proved such a reactor will not be expensive. The actual historical costs of even currently built reactors were actually cheaper to build per megawatt output than coal plants. The costs of these plants only became prohibitive in the 90's because of redundant safety add-ons. Essentially what is needed now is the development of these systems which of course will be costly, so called first mover cost, for systems to be developed that have the potential to greatly reduce the costs associated with nuclear power.

[@doritoification]

China has ambitious plans for nuclear energy too.

[@industrealised2326]

China is heavily investing in new generations of reactors, such as the small modular reactor, where they are soon to commission the first operating power plant with that type of reactor. It will be really exciting to see how it works out!

[@doritoification]

@@industrealised2326 they really are going to be the world leaders in nuclear energy. All those thorium reserves from their rare earth mining will come in quite handy! I'm really hoping Dave comes round to nuclear. You can't exactly discuss China's net zero goals without mentioning their largest source of low carbon base load and all the new innovation in the space.

[@industrealised2326]

@@doritoification Agreed, nuclear power while not perfect certainly can't be dismissed anymore, not just in China but globally. If China can utilise this next generation of nuclear reactors it might open the door for nuclear in Europe and America again. In saying that, renewables like solar, wind and hydrogen have a big role to play, areas that China is also heavily investing in.

[@synchro-dentally1965]

Thanks for the video. Are there any bio-engineered CCS in the works? Perhaps, improving on diatoms/phytoplankton?

[@AlbertoHernandezD]

EXCELLENT ! .... GREEN ENERGY WHILE INCREASING COAL PRODUCTION ARE A CONTRADICTION ! 🌳🌏

[@kensmith5694]

Maybe not. China has a lot of people who still live in poverty. It might make sense for them to build all types of electrical power generation until solar and wind overtakes the rising demand. They may be fine with stranding some assets because that is not the priority.

[@CaedenV]

On the one hand, ccs is going to be required for all major countries, not just to make up for work that cannot be transisionsed to noncarbon sources, but to actively mold out atmosphere because the world will not hit targets. Money will go to green things up first, and ccs will be one of the last things deployed likely after 2050 when we start to realize just what we are up against. On the China energy front, all politics are local,and local officials are hired by promises of energy security for a people who are quickly modernizing. Most of the Chinese public does not own a car, and those who will are going to only have a bev available. Most of the Chinese public does not have their own washer and drier, or air conditioning, or a refrigerator... That is likely to be a lot more than a 4% demand growth per year as cities move to these kinds of modern home equipment that we have enjoyed in the US for generations. Plus, even if they don't move to these modern conveniences, there is a large demand for make work programs, where deploying large projects to keep people in jobs help politicians stay in power... It's a complicated situation. While I understand the need to reduce energy consumption, I'm not about to give up my home washer or drier, or AC. I'll upgrade to more efficient units as they become available and drop in price, but I'm not going to go without, and don't blame others who want the same quality of life. As India and China modernize, we are going to blow waaaay past our climate requirements. But by 2050 we should stop growing demand and level off, and be able to focus on fixing the damage done the past several decades.

[@garytabor2069]

Over 1000 coal plants and over 180 under construction ☠️ Good luck and good night 😱

[@realvanman1]

Fascinating that they’re still building yet and still more coal power plants, and even more so when there is no forecast demand for them. There’s got to be something we’re not privy to here in the West... Nevertheless, it is nice to see some reporting that drives home the fact that it is by no means all about North America and Europe. China and India EACH have more people than would be good for the whole world, and are both rapidly industrializing. Those two nations alone will largely shape the human caused portion of the climate change. The greatest impact they could have would be to immediately go to a one child policy, saving not only carbon emissions, but all emissions, and all other resources.

[@frankfahrenheit9537]

Maybe Chine will bring the Co2 emissions under control. Concerning India I have my doubts. They will pursue uncontrolled coalfired plant growth.

[@crhu319]

Criminals control Indias coal.

[@JustNow42]

Good job. No fake news here.

[@Alex-ig2xr]

Except the Uyghur part.

[@docostler]

I've always been leery of CCS. I can see its potential when it's built in to the process generating the CO2 and can be powered by that process, however parasitically. But as a modifier of the existing atmosphere it seems to me that generating power to remove some of the effects of generating power has some flaws in it. It all depends on the source of the power, I suppose. It strikes me, from this perspective, that CCS seems more of a last ditch effort at eating a cake and still having it after. Sort of like "Solar freaking roadways!" (pat pend). A way to feel good about your climate efforts while retaining the right to drive your car.

[@piotr_jurkiewicz]

What about Africa? There are many undeveloped countries and they will use coal to boost thier economics/build infrastructure. Am I wrong?

[@kensmith5694]

Other nations can help them to skip over the coal burning phase. If you give a lot of villages their own solar, there will be less of a driver for coal. Also you can stop them using kerosene so much.

[@grindupBaker]

The amount will depend on the balance between how fast industrialized countries can design and manufacture cost-competitive technologies and how fast the African countries can increase their human populations and the amount of stuff each human unit wants. It's not a race to a win-lose finish line, it's continuous struggle of balance to achieve what most humans would consider a pretty good balance. Straightforward in concept.

[@andrewal410]

Building coal power stations includes millions of tons of concrete that is very polluting when it is made. So even building these plants will emit thousand of tons of CO2 and other dangerous gases.

[@drpk6514]

All these forecasts are based on the current technologies. There will be surely technologies that increase the performance and even new technologies which will help reduction of release and maybe absorption of CO2. Many thanks for mentioning the conditions of Uighurs in China. This shows you are not only looking at the technological sides but also include the moral and humanitarian sides which to my opinion is an obligation for us as human beings.

[@crhu319]

None of this analysis is of any value without considering oil. As ICEs are phased out and V2G and V2H work, a vast storage network is created. And a huge emissions source goes away. The coal is a win if it replaces oil burned in ICE, or fracked gas.

[@beebob1279]

All I know is that the Paris climate accord gives China until at least 2030 a free pass on pollution regulations. They can do basically anything they want to

[@MERRYPAN]

Much will come down to China's role as World manufacturer. If countries make more of their own goods then the Chinese "export" model falls down.

[@WeddingDJBusiness]

Just an interesting factoid of the power house - Since 2003, China has poured more cement every two years than the US managed in the entire 20th century. If you are concerned about coal and CO2 maybe cement might be the next.

[@quinnjin2]

Hemp based engineered construction lumber and boards. Locked up in buildings. done. Carbon capture.

[@mervynmorris613]

Most solar and domestic wind generators are manufactured in China so you'd have to take into account the carbon dioxide reductions the they produce in the country's they export them to. I think we should be asking what the country's (mainly in western democracies) that are exporting coal are doing to reduce emissions and why they're still digging up coal and opening new coal mines

[@EggBastion]

Not sure if I agree with/believe their stated (or intended) goals and/or methods but I gotta respect their brass.

[@TrudeauhugspandasnotCanadians]

Do you respect those stupid enough to believe someone who has never told the truth or ever been responsible for their actions?

[@EggBastion]

@@TrudeauhugspandasnotCanadians come again?

[@incognitotorpedo42]

@@EggBastion Apparently he's talking about Trumpians.

[@johndallara3257]

Has anyone noticed that everything said here is a hypothesis at best?

[@pdxyadayada]

I hope you know Charlie Kronick at Greenpeace (UK). If not, you should....

[@OAPerez40]

Great video. The only possible way China can reach its stated goals is to convert most-then all-of its currently and projected coal plants to nuclear plants, which is totally feasible and an already growing option to alternative sources. I welcome this idea with open arms. We already have the most efficient source of energy production ever invented, which has an extremely low carbon footprint-nuclear energy. No other alternative energy source even comes close. What are we waiting for?

[@ScottBakernewthinking]

What does "economically viable CCS" mean? Would changes in tax policies perhaps wholescale shifting to taxing ONLY carbon on a revenue neutral basis - make CCS economically viable?

[@emceegreen8864]

Instead of thinking taxes-a stick- consider reward policy-a carrot. GlobalCarbonReward.org