
Chinese companies building numerous overseas coal plants - woodandsteel
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html
======
woodandsteel
The article also says:

"Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62
countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal
Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power
capacity by 43 percent. "The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually
impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to
keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6
degrees Fahrenheit."

~~~
calafrax
So the Paris climate accord will have the same impact as all previous
international climate agreements: zero. That is shocking, positively shocking.

------
zaro
"The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the
goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in
global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit."

I've been watching some lectures on climate change recently, all of the
climatologist I've seen in the lectures were claiming that staying below 2℃ is
impossible to achieve anyway. Staying at 2℃ or less, requires around 2050 the
world going into negative carbon emissions, which nobody know yet how to do
exactly.

~~~
xiaoma
Don't believe everything you hear from talking heads on TV.

We could put the earth into an ice age for under 1% of global GDP. Discussing
geo-engineering is generally seen as a moral hazard, though, so western
commentators act like no such possibility exists.

The real threat is ecosystem collapse.

~~~
Symmetry
The only way to do it that cheap is with sulfate aerosols. We don't have the
data to use the right amount yet but that's fixable. A larger problem is it
would make ocean acidification even worse. That might end up being better than
the alternative but its not a step to take casually.

~~~
xiaoma
Thus the moral hazard. If geo-engineering were a major point in climate change
discussions, some would feel a false sense of security. Ultimately, this could
increase the odds of such drastic measures would be needed. The other thing is
that we just can't know how much acidity it would take to cause an ecosystem
collapse until it's too late.

That said, sulfate aerosols are one of the oldest proposed plans and our
technology has advanced considerably since then. Perhaps some people working
on or funding work on a better solution are on reading this thread.

I sure hope someone is quietly tackling it because the political efforts
around CO2 emmissions agreements of the past 50 years are not working very
well despite a great deal of activism.

------
averagewall
Come on. Pakistan has an energy crisis which is ruining the country. You want
to hold them back economically in the name of the environment? This really is
on western countries to pay for them to get clean energy if that's what they
really want.

Malawi? Don't develop electricity generation in Africa! You might make them
less poor!

~~~
leojg
Totally agree. As a citizen of a not (so) developed country I saw all this
complains as hypocritical thinking from the developed nations that for
centuries did the same but now that the rest of the world tries to catch up
start crying.

~~~
CM30
This is where inequality and different stages of society are going to make
environmentalism and nature conservation a pain in the ass.

As you said, the developed nations did the exact same thing (including to less
developed ones they also stole resources from), and now they expect the rest
of the world not to do the same?

People won't give up on a 'modern' lifestyle or better conditions just because
it's bad for the environment. Even less so because a bunch of people living in
better conditions say it could be bad for them in the distant future.

The only fix is to figure out how to make renewable energy cheaper and easier
than non renewable energy worldwide. So it wins on a financial level rather
than a moral feel good one.

~~~
leojg
I believe that renewable is the solution, more so now that the price has
become viable. My country for example went from being oil dependant to produce
energy to be almos 100% renewable in less than 5 years by building hundreds of
eolic turbines.

But we have a small population and our economy is stable, there are other
places where we can not expect to do this.

------
guelo
Fuck our grandkids, they can spit on our graves all they want, we need to keep
the GDP growth rate positive.

~~~
opportune
At least the shareholders and party leaders will be happy!

------
basicplus2
Coal should be gasified then the gas product used. This releases something
like 75% more energy than burning coal directly and it is a cleaner process
once produced.

~~~
jlebrech
you mean Nazi oil?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II)

------
Synaesthesia
So, the US denies climate change, is not a signatory to the Paris accord, is
the biggest fossil fuel user, and is now the biggest oil producer thanks to
ita fracking programme. They can’t exactly be pointing fingers.

