Climate is Changing, but Should we do Anything?

[Endus]

You could be less agressive dude.

I respond to aggressive attempts to mislead with aggressive condemnations of that malfeasance. Sue me.

The decrease in the power generated by coal-fired power
plants, which produce about three-quarters of total
electricity (NBS, 2015b) and which contribute to about half
of the country’s CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel
combustion (Table 2.4), was due to the still relatively
‘slow’ growth rate of total electricity consumption of 0.3%
in 2015, compared to the previous decade which showed
double-digit growth figures (the lowest since 2000).

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_d...ort-103425.pdf

Using IEA data btw. I agre China is making effort, I don't believe however they are enough. Now go quote my previous posts ENDUS!!! Go Endus Go!!

1> That isn't the IEA report you claimed to be quoting.

2> That doesn't state that China's economic growth is slowing, just that their total electricity consumption was growing slowly. If you check table 2.1, just a page earlier than your quote, they cite China's GDP growth, which was still about 6.5% per year, even as their emissions rates shifted from increasing to their growth peak in 2013, to declining by 2015.

3> It shows China's coal consumption dropping, similarly.

4> You ignore the entire paragraph detailing China's explosive economic growth in the 21st Century. While the rapidity of that expansion is slowing, they're still expanding quickly compared to developed nations like the USA or the EU.

China's power consumption dropping while GDP growth is continuing means they've improved efficiency, not that it's tied to "slowing economic growth", which is a claim neither source you've cited supports.

[LMuhlen]

The decrease in the power generated by coal-fired power
plants, which produce about three-quarters of total
electricity (NBS, 2015b) and which contribute to about half
of the country’s CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel
combustion (Table 2.4), was due to the still relatively
‘slow’ growth rate of total electricity consumption of 0.3%
in 2015, compared to the previous decade which showed
double-digit growth figures (the lowest since 2000).


http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_d...ort-103425.pdf

If they had a positive growth of energy consumption and an absolute decrease in power generated by coal-fired power plants, seems like they are going the right way. China still has a huge population which would benefit from a higher energy consumption (keeping in mind that electricity consumption and HDI have a strong correlation, especially in the lower range). So it is expected that they will increase their energy demand. If they can do that AND reduce emissions, bravo for them.

[Mittens]

I respond to aggressive attempts to mislead with aggressive condemnations of that malfeasance. Sue me.

[I]

1> That isn't the IEA report you claimed to be quoting.

2> That doesn't state that China's economic growth is slowing, just that their total electricity consumption was growing slowly. If you check table 2.1, just a page earlier than your quote, they cite China's GDP growth, which was still about 6.5% per year, even as their emissions rates shifted from increasing to their growth peak in 2013, to declining by 2015.

3> It shows China's coal consumption dropping, similarly.

4> You ignore the entire paragraph detailing China's explosive economic growth in the 21st Century. While the rapidity of that expansion is slowing, they're still expanding quickly compared to developed nations like the USA or the EU.

China's power consumption dropping while GDP growth is continuing means they've improved efficiency, not that it's tied to "slowing economic growth", which is a claim neither source you've cited supports.

Unlike in developed countries, China’s manufacturing
industry is the sector with the largest consumption of
electricity and fuel. Therefore, the demand for energy,
in general, is largely driven by trends in basic materials
production (Table 2.2 and Figure 2.7). As Table 2.2
indicates, there has been a substantial slowdown in the
growth rate of the demand for materials, halving the
physical growth in this sector since 2012. First reports on
2016 show a further slowdown or even decrease in most
indicators.

Try reading a little bit below.

https://tradingeconomics.com/china/i...ial-production

During the same years bro. And China is still an export economy so don't come to me with deindustralization nonsense. Like I said there are signs of decoupling,but the bulk of it is slow economic growth. Have fun dude.

[Halyon]

Unironically, this is a position held by the CCP.

No end to the cringe over that...

[Endus]

Try reading a little bit below.

https://tradingeconomics.com/china/i...ial-production

During the same years bro. And China is still an export economy so don't come to me with deindustralization nonsense. Like I said there are signs of decoupling,but the bulk of it is slow economic growth. Have fun dude.

You are blatantly cherry-picking and ignoring the bigger picture. It's getting tiresome.

China's growth is continuing, no matter how much you don't want to admit that, and the entire point of the IEA report you referenced was that this economic growth has decoupled from emissions, which have begun to decline in China, despite that continuing growth.

Trying to desperately pick out a specific area where that growth isn't as strong is nothing more than a pretty obvious attempt to ignore the greater perspective, which is what you originally (and incorrectly) were referring to.

[Mittens]

You are blatantly cherry-picking and ignoring the bigger picture. It's getting tiresome.

China's growth is continuing, no matter how much you don't want to admit that, and the entire point of the IEA report you referenced was that this economic growth has decoupled from emissions, which have begun to decline in China, despite that continuing growth.

Trying to desperately pick out a specific area where that growth isn't as strong is nothing more than a pretty obvious attempt to ignore the greater perspective, which is what you originally (and incorrectly) were referring to.

A very specific sector that just so happens to be the major driver of the Chinese economy and electricity consumption.

[Endus]

A very specific sector that just so happens to be the major driver of the Chinese economy and electricity consumption.

And the source you're pulling from still shows that that sector is still growing, just not as rapidly as other sectors.

Which is not an argument for an overall economic collapse that would somehow explain a reduction in CO2 emissions, which was your claim.

You haven't backed up anything you've said. You've blatantly misrepresented everything you've cited.

[Mittens]

And the source you're pulling from still shows that that sector is still growing, just not as rapidly as other sectors.

Which is not an argument for an overall economic collapse that would somehow explain a reduction in CO2 emissions, which was your claim.

You haven't backed up anything you've said. You've blatantly misrepresented everything you've cited.

Which is not an argument for an overall economic collapse that would somehow explain a reduction in CO2 emissions, which was your claim.

My claim was slow economic growth, not economic collapse. But I stopped expecting honesty on your end.

[Akka]

Of course it's meaningless because you cannot reduce pollution by immigration. But you can reduce per capita that way.

This is completely nonsensical.
It seems that, as usual, you don't have any idea what you're speaking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Planet has been warming up since the end of the ice age. Studies have shown that a lot of areas were of a tropical climate until the climate turned cold into a ice age. Who says its not just a cycle the planet goes through. Its cold and the planet starts to get warmer, it reaches a peak and it starts cooling of again until another ice age starts. Kinda like resetting the planet every few million years !

The amount of willfull ignorance in this post just blew up my ignorance detector.

It's both sad, frightening and pathetic at the same time.

- - - Updated - - -

Pollution per capita is only useful to determine which country is being more wasteful, not the one that pollutes the most, the latter is still important when we are talking about the effects on the enviroment.

You can enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Of course you're wrong, it's completely stupid to consider only the total and not the per capita. Other posters have pointed it and explained it already, but it seems you're just being purposedly obtuse here.

[LMuhlen]

Even a slow growth can't be the only relevant factor for a reduction in emissions. It is still a growth, and emissions were reduced, not only slowed. They are going in opposite directions.

And even with a reduction of growth, China is still growing much faster than most developed countries.

[Endus]

My claim was slow economic growth, not economic collapse. But I stopped expecting honesty on your end.

See, the difference is that I may have been exaggerating your position very slightly (since "slow economic growth" is just one step above said collapse), but your position is still based on absolutely nothing, and every single source you have cited has directly and thorougly contradicted this "slow economic growth" stuff you keep spouting.

China's economic growth is no longer meteoric, but it's still significantly stronger than, say, the USA's, proportionally. China's GDP growth in 2016 was 6.7%, whereas the USA's was 1.8%. Nobody thought that their growth in the early aughts was sustainable, but it isn't suffered anything like a slowdown; their economy is still growing relatively quickly. As your own sources stated. Despite your claims to the contrary, which are apparently based on nothing but your own imagination.

[Mittens]

See, the difference is that I may have been exaggerating your position very slightly (since "slow economic growth" is just one step above said collapse), but your position is still based on absolutely nothing, and every single source you have cited has directly and thorougly contradicted this "slow economic growth" stuff you keep spouting.

lol. Slow economic growth is not a step above economic collapse. Economic collapse is what's happening in Venezuela. Trying to downplay your lies eh?

Here is a definition I literally pulled just by typing "economic collapse definition".

A complete breakdown of a national, regional or territorial economy. An economic collapse is essentially a severe version of an economic depression, where an economy is in complete distress for months, years or possibly even decades.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/...c-collapse.asp

And my original claim, so that you cannot lie:

but most of China's reduction in emissions are literally the result of it's slowing economic growth.

This is an undeniable fact, China's economic growth is slowing.

[WhiteEagle888]

I heard years ago that a global ice age is coming, now it's global warming.
We should wait for them to balance each other out, and voila! Nothing will happen at all.
Problem solved Futurama style

[Endus]

And my original claim, so that you cannot lie:

This is an undeniable fact, China's economic growth is slowing.

That their growth is slowing is true, though it's still relatively rapid.

That their reduction in CO2 emissions is in any respect due to that is not a fact. It's a piece of fabricated nonsense you literally imagined up in your own head, and which every source you have cited has directly contradicted.

[Elim Garak]

This is completely nonsensical.
It seems that, as usual, you don't have any idea what you're speaking about.

You argumentation is impeccable, I surrender.

[Akka]

You argumentation is impeccable, I surrender.

Not MY fault that YOUR argument made absolutely no sense.

[Deleted]

Not MY fault that YOUR argument made absolutely no sense.

An argument not making sense to you != not making sense at all.

His argument is valid, you are simply not able to understand it.

[Akka]

An argument not making sense to you != not making sense at all.

His argument is valid, you are simply not able to understand it.

No, his argument is completely stupid and nonsensical - people who migrate to a country don't magically increase population without increasing energy consumption. That's just retarded.

But then, am I supposed to be surprised that the people unable to grasp even the simplest and most obvious mechanisms of climate change to be unable to construct a coherent reasoning ?

[Deleted]

No, his argument is completely stupid and nonsensical - people who migrate to a country don't magically increase population without increasing energy consumption. That's just retarded.

But then, am I supposed to be surprised that the people unable to grasp even the simplest and most obvious mechanisms of climate change to be unable to construct a coherent reasoning ?

A simple MCQ:

Let's assume, that ~140mil people would migrate this year to China (~10% of the current population)

Would the pollution by capita:

a) rise by > 0,5%?
b) stay ~ the same?
c) drop by > 0,5% and < 10%?
d) drop by >= 10%?

But please this time,apart from your colorful articulation. Try to think before you post.

[Noradin]

You are blatantly cherry-picking and ignoring the bigger picture. It's getting tiresome.

Their aim is to deflect attention away from the USA, that is why all those gymnastics are neccessary so China appears to be the worst offender.