Global Warming - what about China???

[Mike Honcho 4,040]

 

Quote

 

China Added More Solar Panels in 2023 Than US Did In Its Entire History

A surge in clean energy in China, the top polluter, helped to drive the world’s adoption of renewables to a record 510 gigawatts last year, according to the International Energy Agency. Nations are getting closer to a pathway needed to meet the target set at the COP28 climate summit to triple renewable power by the end of the decade, the IEA said.

China probably accounted for 58% of global solar installations and 60% of global wind last year, according to BNEF.

 

 

Quote

 

China's wind, solar capacity forecast to overtake coal in 2024

China's installed wind and solar capacity will overtake coal for the first time this year, an industry body forecast on Tuesday.

The China Electricity Council (CEC) in a yearly report said grid-connected wind and solar would make up around 40% of installed power generation capacity by the end of 2024, compared with coal's expected 37%.

By comparison, wind and solar together were around 36% of capacity at the end of 2023, and coal was just under 40%.

China will have built around 1,300 gigawatts (GW) of wind and solar capacity by the end of 2024, the CEC expects, meaning it will have already exceeded its official target of 1,200 GW by 2030.

 

 

[Strike 3,985]

Now do coal plants

[RLLD 3,455]

Liberal Logic : "If we do it first, then they will do it too...because people are inherently good and will make good decisions if we just show them"

[iam90sbaby 2,127]

Why do lefties always simp for china 

[Mike Honcho 4,040]

49 minutes ago, Strike said:

Now do coal plants

I put it in the quotes for those who need it spoon fed to them.

 

Quote

The China Electricity Council (CEC) in a yearly report said grid-connected wind and solar would make up around 40% of installed power generation capacity by the end of 2024, compared with coal's expected 37%.

 

[Mike Honcho 4,040]

53 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Liberal Logic : "If we do it first, then they will do it too...because people are inherently good and will make good decisions if we just show them"

That's great, except that China is doing it first. Y'all really should trt reading first instead of going straight to the talking points.

[thegeneral 1,422]

13 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Why do lefties always simp for china 

Only when you need them to make some shet hand bags or giant red clown ties

[RLLD 3,455]

12 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

That's great, except that China is doing it first. Y'all really should trt reading first instead of going straight to the talking points.

China.....is pretending....and doing it well enough, but they also are invested in coal as a solution.....

You should really consider more than just reading, there is a truth to be discovered past the propaganda the news media feeds...

 

[Strike 3,985]

48 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I put it in the quotes for those who need it spoon fed to them.

 

 

How many coal plants are they building?

[Mike Honcho 4,040]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

How many coal plants are they building?

Less than the amount being invested in Solar and Wind.  

[Mike Honcho 4,040]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

How many coal plants are they building?

Pssst.  Nobody thinks the world will only be reliant on solar and wind.  HTH, YWIA

[jerryskids 5,212]

10 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Pssst.  Nobody thinks the world will only be reliant on solar and wind.  HTH, YWIA

Really? Nobody?

[Mike Honcho 4,040]

Just now, jerryskids said:

Really? Nobody?

Yes, he told me so.

And you are correct, I didn't ask the entire world, but let's say people with a basic understanding of the issue(people who don't resort to talking points immediately, like those above did), know it will be a combination of sources in the future. 

[edjr 5,573]

The World's Premier
Private Aviation Network

 

https://flyxo.com/

 

[jerryskids 5,212]

8 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Yes, he told me so.

And you are correct, I didn't ask the entire world, but let's say people with a basic understanding of the issue(people who don't resort to talking points immediately, like those above did), know it will be a combination of sources in the future. 

I think a lot of people in the climate cult think we will be 100% renewable in the not too distant future.

[TheNewGirl 1,033]

20 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I think a lot of people in the climate cult think we will be 100% renewable in the not too distant future.

They are counting on it. 

I mean isn't the #1 issue for our country climate change? Our "biggest threat?" 

[Mike Honcho 4,040]

28 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I think a lot of people in the climate cult think we will be 100% renewable in the not too distant future.

What you call a "cult", most of us call math.  

[jerryskids 5,212]

22 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

What you call a "cult", most of us call math.  

Perhaps "cult" is too strong.  People need "religion," a belief in some higher authority.  Those that don't believe in God often replace God with climate change.

This is an interesting analysis of the subject, written in 2010 I believe but still very relevant.  It's a long essay; I've only pasted the section I believe is most relevant, but the whole thing is worth a read.

Quote

Carbon Calvinism

Beyond influencing — one might even say colonizing — Christianity, the ecological movement can increasingly be seen as something of a religion in and of itself. It is “quasi-religious in character,” says Lugo. “It generates its own set of moral values.”

Freeman Dyson, the brilliant and contrarian octogenarian physicist, agrees. In a 2008 essay in the New York Review of Books, he described environmentalism as “a worldwide secular religion” that has “replaced socialism as the leading secular religion.” This religion holds “that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible.” The ethics of this new religion, he continued,

are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world…. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists — most of whom are not scientists — holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.

Describing environmentalism as a religion is not equivalent to saying that global warming is not real. Indeed, the evidence for it is overwhelming, and there are powerful reasons to believe that humans are causing it. But no matter its empirical basis, environmentalism is progressively taking the social form of a religion and fulfilling some of the individual needs associated with religion, with major political and policy implications.

William James, the pioneering psychologist and philosopher, defined religion as a belief that the world has an unseen order, coupled with the desire to live in harmony with that order. In his 1902 book The Varieties of Religious Experience, James pointed to the value of a community of shared beliefs and practices. He also appreciated the individual quest for spirituality — a search for meaning through encounters with the world. More recently, the late analytic philosopher William P. Alston outlined in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy what he considered the essential characteristics of religions. They include a distinction between sacred and profane objects; ritual acts focused upon sacred objects; a moral code; feelings of awe, mystery, and guilt; adoration in the presence of sacred objects and during rituals; a worldview that includes a notion of where the individual fits; and a cohesive social group of the likeminded.

Environmentalism lines up pretty readily with both of those accounts of religion. As climate change literally transforms the heavens above us, faith-based environmentalism increasingly sports saints, sins, prophets, predictions, heretics, demons, sacraments, and rituals. Chief among its holy men is Al Gore — who, according to his supporters, was crucified in the 2000 election, then rose from the political dead and ascended to heaven twice — not only as a Nobel deity, but an Academy Awards angel. He speaks of “Creation care” and cites the Bible in hopes of appealing to evangelicals.

Selling indulgences is out of fashion these days. But you can now assuage your guilt by buying carbon offsets. Fire and brimstone, too, are much in vogue — accompanied by an unmistakable whiff of authoritarianism: “A professor writing in the Medical Journal of Australia calls on the Australian government to impose a carbon charge of $5,000 on every birth, annual carbon fees of $800 per child and provide a carbon credit for sterilization,” writes Braden R. Allenby, an Arizona State University professor of environmental engineering, ethics, and law. An “article in the New Scientist suggests that the problem with obesity is the additional carbon load it imposes on the environment; others that a major social cost of divorce is the additional carbon burden resulting from splitting up families.” Allenby, writing in a 2008 article on GreenBiz.com, continues:

A recent study from the Swedish Ministry of Sustainable Development argues that males have a disproportionately larger impact on global warming (“women cause considerably fewer carbon dioxide emissions than men and thus considerably less climate change”). The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that those who suggest that climate change is not a catastrophic challenge are no different than Hitler…. E.O. Wilson calls such people parasites. Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman writes that “global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”

The sheer volume of vicious language employed to recast social and cultural trends in terms of their carbon footprint suggests the rise of what Allenby calls a dangerous new “carbon fundamentalism.”

Some observers detect parallels between the ecological movement and the medieval Church. “One could see Greenpeacers as crusaders, with the industrialist cast as the infidel,” writes Richard North in New Scientist. That may be a stretch, but it does seem that this new religion has its share of excommunicated heretics. For example, since daring to challenge environmentalist orthodoxy, Freeman Dyson has discovered himself variously described as “a pompous twit,” “a blowhard,” “a cesspool of misinformation,” and “an old coot riding into the sunset.” For his part, Dyson remains cheerily unrepentant. “We are lucky that we can be heretics today without any danger of being burned at the stake,” he has said. “But unfortunately I am an old heretic…. What the world needs is young heretics.”

Many of those making the case that environmentalism has become a religion throw around the word “religion” as a pejorative. This disdain is rooted in an uncontroversial proposition: You cannot reason your way to faith. That’s the idea behind the “leap of faith” — or the leap to faith, in Kierkegaard’s original formulation: the act of believing in something without, or in spite of, empirical evidence. Kierkegaard argued that if we choose faith, we must suspend our reason in order to believe in something higher than reason.

So those on the right side of the political spectrum who portray environmentalism as a religion do so because, if faith is inherently not achievable through rationality, and if environmentalism is a religion, then environmentalism is utterly irrational and must be discredited and ignored. That is the essence of Michael Crichton’s 2003 speech. “Increasingly,” he said, “it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief.” Environmentalism, he argued, has become totally divorced from science. “It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.”

A similar attack from the right comes from Ray Evans, an Australian businessman, politician, and global-warming skeptic:

Almost all of the attacks on the mining industry being generated by the environmentalist movement [in the 1990s] were coming out of Northern Europe and Scandinavia, and it didn’t take me long to work out that we were dealing with religious belief, that the elites of Northern Europe and Scandinavia — the political elites, the intellectual elites, even the business elites — were, in fact, believers in one brand of environmentalism or another and regardless of the facts. Some of the most bizarre policies were coming out of these countries with respect to metals. I found myself having to find out — “Why is this so?” — because on the face of it they were insane, but they were very strongly held and you’d have to say that when people hold onto beliefs regarding the natural world, and hold onto them regardless of any evidence to the contrary, then you’re dealing with religion, you’re not dealing with science….

Secondly, it fulfills a religious need. They need to believe in sin, so that means sin is equal to pollution. They need to believe in salvation. Well, sustainable development is salvation. They need to believe in a mankind that needs redemption, so you get redemption by stopping using carbon fuels like coal and oil and so on. So, it fulfills a religious need and a political need, which is why they hold onto it so tenaciously, despite all the evidence that the whole thing is nonsense.

Leftists also sometimes disparage environmentalism as religion. In their case, the main objection is usually pragmatic: rationalism effects change and religion doesn’t. So, for instance, the Sixties radical Murray Bookchin saw the way environmentalism was hooking up with New Age spirituality as pathetic. “The real cancer that afflicts the planet is capitalism and hierarchy,” he wrote. “I don’t think we can count on prayers, rituals, and good vibes to remove this cancer. I think we have to fight it actively and with all the power we have.” Bookchin, a self-described revolutionary, dismissed green spirituality as “flaky.” He said that his own brand of “social ecology,” by contrast, “does not fall back on incantations, sutras, flow diagrams, or spiritual vagaries. It is avowedly rational. It does not try to regale metaphorical forms of spiritual mechanism and crude biologisms with Taoist, Buddhist, Christian, or shamanistic ‘Eco-la-la.’”

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/environmentalism-as-religion

[Maximum Overkill 658]

Shhhh, Libs don't discuss China 

[weepaws 2,464]

Here in Reno we have climate change, it happens every hour, few min, days.  The climate here changes from winter to spring , summer and fall.  It’s been that way since I’ve lived here, oh my soul.  Lol at climate change, keep chasing the bull that this government is great at dishing out.  And the lost sheep keep chasing, cause they need to have something empty in their grasp.  

[Bert 1,092]

4 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

 

 

The most important quote:  However, they did not give a forecast for actual production.

China is way behind the US in getting off coal.  China consumes about 54% of the total world consumption of coal compared to the US consumption of about 6%.  

[weepaws 2,464]

1 hour ago, Bert said:

The most important quote:  However, they did not give a forecast for actual production.

China is way behind the US in getting off coal.  China consumes about 54% of the total world consumption of coal compared to the US consumption of about 6%.  

He Saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of His own Mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.  Titus 3:5.  Amen. 

God bless , I hope.  

[TheNewGirl 1,033]

Where's @Voltaire when we need him? 

[seafoam1 1,879]

5 hours ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Shhhh, Libs don't discuss China 

Their brother land and ultimate political soul mates. 

[Flipper 57]

5 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Perhaps "cult" is too strong.  People need "religion," a belief in some higher authority.  Those that don't believe in God often replace God with climate change.

This is an interesting analysis of the subject, written in 2010 I believe but still very relevant.  It's a long essay; I've only pasted the section I believe is most relevant, but the whole thing is worth a read.

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/environmentalism-as-religion

Fire and brimstone, too, are much in vogue — accompanied by an unmistakable whiff of authoritarianism: “A professor writing in the Medical Journal of Australia calls on the Australian government to impose a carbon charge of $5,000 on every birth, annual carbon fees of $800 per child and provide a carbon credit for sterilization,” writes Braden R. Allenby, an Arizona State University professor of environmental engineering, ethics, and law.

So much for inalienable rights.  I suppose that we can find other countries to subsidize this tax for allegiance to a better cause.  Fools.

[Horseman 1,515]

China has never hit any forecast theyve put out there, ever, but sheeple keep eating it up. 

I've posted the numbers before: The US could go to 70% electric vehicles tomorrow and it would only offset the carbon China puts out in cement production alone.  There is a reason everything plastic comes from China. 

One thing is for sure: If the world wants to go green it has to start with China. Problem is that wind farms and solar wont cut it, they need those just to keep up with their own increasing demand.  

[Flipper 57]

2 minutes ago, Horseman said:

China has never hit any forecast theyve put out there, ever, but sheeple keep eating it up. 

I've posted the numbers before: The US could go to 70% electric vehicles tomorrow and it would only offset the carbon China puts out in cement production alone.  There is a reason everything plastic comes from China. 

One thing is for sure: If the world wants to go green it has to start with China. Problem is that wind farms and solar wont cut it, they need those just to keep up with their own increasing demand.  

All the while China and Russia soak-up the natural resources that help out-gun our battery-powered boats when the sun goes down.

Guess we should consider invading them before 2030 when the oil runs out.

[gas 76]

12 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

Pssst.  Nobody thinks the world will only be reliant on solar and wind.  HTH, YWIA

True, but the idiots pushing that narrative are the same idiots who think Libs want to outlaw gas stoves, and that entire cities were burnt to the ground during the BLM protests.  The only facts that matter to them are what their social media pushes their way.

[Voltaire 4,564]

8 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

Where's @Voltaire when we need him? 

Florida

It seems to me that China has 'an all of the above' plan as it deals with energy and the environment. There are wind mills in China and solar is a thing but they still use plenty of coal and the rivers through major cities aren't clean. The rivers through major cities don't have fish, but if they did,  you wouldn't want to eat them anyway. 

There are concerns for the environment in China and sustainable living and whatnot. I don't know how prevalent it makes it when dealing with law and policies though as they seem to always take a backseat to making money.

[Maximum Overkill 658]

3 hours ago, gas said:

same idiots who think Libs want to outlaw gas stoves

The Libs did in Berkeley County, LA. 

 

[BuckSwope 654]

13 hours ago, Bert said:

The most important quote:  However, they did not give a forecast for actual production.

China is way behind the US in getting off coal.  China consumes about 54% of the total world consumption of coal compared to the US consumption of about 6%.  

To be fair, they have 5x the people we do and make a lot of our crap as well.  

[Dizkneelande 839]

18 hours ago, iam90sbaby said:

Why do lefties always simp for china 

It’s getting weird. 

[Bert 1,092]

2 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

To be fair, they have 5x the people we do and make a lot of our crap as well.  

Agreed and huge parts of China still live in 3rd world conditions.  Same for India.  What happens when those areas modernize?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/02/business/china-solar-energy-cop-28.html

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/theres-something-odd-about-where-china-is-building-solar-power/

 

[BuckSwope 654]

1 minute ago, Bert said:

Agreed and huge parts of China still live in 3rd world conditions.  Same for India.  What happens when those areas modernize?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/02/business/china-solar-energy-cop-28.html

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/theres-something-odd-about-where-china-is-building-solar-power/

 

Same for Africa.  They are lagging behind farther but will be there soon as well, and will also need a ton of energy. 

 

[Cdub100 3,384]

Global warming is a hoax. 

[Bert 1,092]

Just now, BuckSwope said:

Same for Africa.  They are lagging behind farther but will be there soon as well, and will also need a ton of energy. 

 

The same for huge chunks of Central and South America.  The massive undeveloped third world is a problem the environmental religion elitists ignore or simply dismiss.    

[Horseman 1,515]

6 hours ago, gas said:

True, but the idiots pushing that narrative are the same idiots who think Libs want to outlaw gas stoves, and that entire cities were burnt to the ground during the BLM protests.  The only facts that matter to them are what their social media pushes their way.

Oooof 

Quote

 

Despite pleas asking customers to turn down their thermostats to reduce strain on the energy grid during the state’s frigid cold snap earlier this month, Washington moved another step closer to banning natural gas today.

In a 52-44-2 vote, Washington’s House of Representatives passed House Bill 1589. Among other things, the bill:

Prohibits Puget Sound Energy (PSE) from providing natural gas service to new customers after June 2023; and

Removes the requirement that PSE continue serving natural gas to existing customers.

 

 

[BuckSwope 654]

13 minutes ago, Bert said:

The same for huge chunks of Central and South America.  The massive undeveloped third world is a problem the environmental religion elitists ignore or simply dismiss.    

Sure, but nowhere near the population of Asia + Africa.  

[Flipper 57]

Just now, BuckSwope said:

Sure, but nowhere near the population of Asia + Africa.  

Maybe they need Capitalism so that their birth rate will go down like it has in the Western Capitalized world.  Guess the folks in charge of climate change find it too difficult to reign-in these non-believers.

[BuckSwope 654]

14 minutes ago, Flipper said:

Maybe they need Capitalism so that their birth rate will go down like it has in the Western Capitalized world.  Guess the folks in charge of climate change find it too difficult to reign-in these non-believers.

Folks in charge of climate change?