China and India are making the planet greener, NASA says

[NED funded]

China is creating energy as cheeply as possible. Corporations will almost always use the source that costs the least. If China raises the cost of production in its factories would those corporations want Chinese manufacturing?

China already subsidizes energy and are currently having constant excess of energy.

The advantage of China wasn't the cheap energy costs, it was the large labor pool and potentially its lucrative business opportunities since at the time China was growing incredibly fast.

[Nalera]

"Greener" doesn't necessarily mean less green house gases. In Canada where I live the forest hasn't been a net carbon sink since 2001, it actually produces more carbon through decaying trees and forest fires.

[Ivanstone]

China already subsidizes energy and are currently having constant excess of energy.

The advantage of China wasn't the cheap energy costs, it was the large labor pool and potentially its lucrative business opportunities since at the time China was growing incredibly fast.

China's advantage was lower costs. Energy is part of that. They've discovered that relying too heavily on coal was a problem and they're moving to rectify that. They're certainly not trying to rely solely on carbon based energy so executives from a particular industry can maintain their salaries.

[Monster Hunter]

High carbon dioxide emissions definitely make the world greener.

Think of all that green space we can have in Antarctica once it thaws!

Man if I get some cash together I'm gonna make two solid investments. One is a house in the middle of the Netherlands, so I can have a nice beach front property by the time I retire. And the 2nd is a slice of Antarctica so my gran kids can set up a nice palm tree resort.

[Independent voter]

OP is trying to boost his social credit score.

[shadowmouse]

@Coolthulhu Probably not, although without context I have no idea if you mean that was on the news. Chinese parents (and the grandparents get in on the act as well) go beyond anything as simple as being helicopter parents and mianzi plays into that as well. That's going to make something like imported milk powder a status symbol, and if it dodges customs that just makes it seem cooler. I'm sooooooo happy my former students have gotten past that age and their kids are generally five years old or up.

As far as your comments on pollution and climate change? Hey, take it up with NASA -- I don't write 'em, I just reference 'em. You may have missed it in my comments though, it didn't take dioxin storms -- regular dust storms and AQI that could ding 1,000 during Spring Festival did the job just fine.

@Puupi Nah, I'm stuck here in Beijing, although she is trying to coax me into moving there. As it stands, I'm giving serious thought to retiring there, although I may do a stint in Xinjiang before that happens.

Go for it! If you visit Inner Mongolia, go ahead and go during the peak season to get the full experience of Spring in the grasslands. There are winter festivals too, but you're from Finland and have probably already seen it all when it comes to snow. If you visit Manchuria, remember that name is still used sometimes in English but it has too many connections to the Japanese occupation and Northeast or Dongbei are the preferred use here. I'm rather fond of the region and its people. Although I've nearly wound up moving to the South a couple of times because I almost married Southern women, on my own I find the South to be to damned hot and prefer to stay up North.

@Zantos Well, again, I'd have to say take it up with NASA. Apparently they thought it was worth mentioning. For my part, when I was a kid, rivers in the US were catching fire, and while AQI wasn't a thing then one could go to a major city and as you drove towards it you could see the air start to look like someone inverted an amber colored glass bowl over it. Things improved, and I'm hopeful the same is starting to happen here. By the way, WTF? Can't grow trees without clean water ... wait a sec, then where the hell did those trees come from? /facepalm

[Puupi]

@Puupi Nah, I'm stuck here in Beijing, although she is trying to coax me into moving there. As it stands, I'm giving serious thought to retiring there, although I may do a stint in Xinjiang before that happens.

Go for it! If you visit Inner Mongolia, go ahead and go during the peak season to get the full experience of Spring in the grasslands. There are winter festivals too, but you're from Finland and have probably already seen it all when it comes to snow. If you visit Manchuria, remember that name is still used sometimes in English but it has too many connections to the Japanese occupation and Northeast or Dongbei are the preferred use here. I'm rather fond of the region and its people. Although I've nearly wound up moving to the South a couple of times because I almost married Southern women, on my own I find the South to be to damned hot and prefer to stay up North.

Interesting! How's Xinjiang safety-wise for a foreigner?

[Zantos]

@Zantos Well, again, I'd have to say take it up with NASA. Apparently they thought it was worth mentioning. For my part, when I was a kid, rivers in the US were catching fire, and while AQI wasn't a thing then one could go to a major city and as you drove towards it you could see the air start to look like someone inverted an amber colored glass bowl over it. Things improved, and I'm hopeful the same is starting to happen here. By the way, WTF? Can't grow trees without clean water ... wait a sec, then where the hell did those trees come from? /facepalm

If water is too polluted no, nothing will grow. Obviously they found water that wasn't too polluted and toxic to grow them. Its a no brainer that water that is too polluted can't support even plants. I mean, why /facepalm at basic facts?

Second, who cares? Just because they report that they see more green that doesn't offset the damage their doing. Again, big picture.

Third, the last fire on a river in the US was 1969, and it promted the clean water act. Unless you're a really tech savy grandpa, rivers were not "catching fire" when you were a kid. Guess what country had a river catch fire in 2014? China.

Finally, even Nasa admits that what they are doing doesn't offset anything. They even say that there isn't a direct correlation between the greening and a reduction of Co2.

In short, Nasa said there is more green. Not less Co2 nor that they are even making an impact on that. Especially since some of that was from crop lands.

[shadowmouse]

@Hubcap @Hubcap You betcha! I've shown several times that this doesn't actually exist, particularly in the form you claim, but just in case I want to get all the free loot. Nice graph, but ... take it up with NASA: "Using the MODIS data, researchers discovered that China is the source of a quarter of the increase in green leaf area, despite possessing only 6.6% of the world's vegetated area."

How's clean coal working for y'all these days?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...coal-industry/

@Puupi Nothing that would concern me, then again I'm a boring fellow. I have fewer Chinese minority students these days and none of my current Muslim students are from Xinjiang, but I still have Uighur and non-Uighur friends from Xinjiang and keep up on things. If I were to go, I'd be going with introductions and contacts and I'd be in a university environment. I'd worry more about going to Thailand; girls in Xinjiang may carry knives, but they don't have ducks!

Edit/Update As of 2/25/19 I can't say this continues to be the case. I look at teaching in Xinjiang as an option about once a year when it is time to renew my contract and visa. This year I was given clear waive offs by everyone and was told on street violence is rising to a level where they felt I wouldn't be safe.

I mean, why /facepalm at basic facts?

Because you were abusing them. As you said, it is a no brainer that they must be using water that *could* grow trees, so what was your point? My point was, yeah, it is a no brainer that they are growing trees and that makes your point irrelevant.

Just because they report that they see more green that doesn't offset the damage their doing.

OK, I realize that not everyone here is a native speaker, so apologies if this comes off as nit-picking, but pronouns need to refer back to something and you've used "they" for NASA and China in the same sentence. "They report", that's NASA, not a part of the Chinese government at all. Typo aside, "they're doing" is China. You've expressed it poorly or your thinking is sloppy.

Unless you're a really tech savy grandpa, rivers were not "catching fire" when you were a kid.

I'll let you check the pictures thread and make up your mind. Apology accepted. Now, go back and read where I posted the link to that river, and note that I brought it up as a sign of those times and that they eventually led to improvements -- well, have led, until the Cheeto-in-Chief rolls everything back.

Finally, even Nasa admits that what they are doing doesn't offset anything. They even say that there isn't a direct correlation between the greening and a reduction of Co2.

You mean this part, right here?

The researchers emphasized however that this phenomenon does not make up for negative impacts on environmental ecosystems elsewhere. "The gain in greenness, which mostly occurred in the Northern temperate and high latitudes, does not offset the damage from loss of leaf area in tropical natural vegetation," the study authors wrote, citing depleted areas in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Brazil and Indonesia.

You do realize the point is global, and that gains in China and India do not offset depleted areas in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Brazil and Indonesia, right?

Does NASA assert that the increased green area will have any effect? How about this part?

"What green surfaces do less ambiguously is increase the fraction of energy that goes into evaporating water, rather than heating the surface, so they tend to cool the surrounding area, which can offset some of the impacts of climate change."

[NED funded]

China's advantage was lower costs. Energy is part of that. They've discovered that relying too heavily on coal was a problem and they're moving to rectify that. They're certainly not trying to rely solely on carbon based energy so executives from a particular industry can maintain their salaries.

Is that why they subsidize energy production when they power plants enter into the negatives. The US is retiring coal power plants at a record pace, China on the other hand:



https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45640706

[Ivanstone]

Is that why they subsidize energy production when they power plants enter into the negatives. The US is retiring coal power plants at a record pace, China on the other hand:

China actively admits coal is bad. Your article clearly states that the central Chinese government is trying to rein in coal although individual provinces are resisting them. The US is only swapping one carbon resource for another (natural gas). The US Federal government and many states want to expand production of carbon based energy generation and do not believe this is a problem. Many US governments are full of conspiracy theorists who resist factual scientific consensus.

[shadowmouse]

The US is retiring coal power plants at a record pace, China on the other hand

While I'd prefer different sources, here are a couple of points to consider. First, about that article, it has been the subject of criticism:

The claim by CoalSwarm that 259 GW of coal plants are under construction in China could be a gross overestimation by 350%. Other authoritative sources such as the Platt’s World Electric Power Plant Database suggest that 74 GW of plants being built in China. In fact, the 259 GW claimed by Coalswarm is 35% higher than the 192 GW of capacity being built around the whole world across more than 30 countries.

As mentioned near the end of the article, power stations in China tend to run at part load. Thus the actual emissions will be lower than if the plants are assumed to be running at capacity. Another point to note is that 80% of all new capacity is the latest ultrasupercritical (USC) power designs which produce more than 20% less CO2/MW, use less fuel and emit less pollution than typical old subscritical stations operating at lower efficiencies elsewhere around the world. The increase in USC plant, particularly in Asia, provides an opportunity to equip the plants with carbon capture and utilisation or storage (CCUS) in coming years. CCUS is a tested technology already proven in North America on two coal plants, and has been in use in the gas processing industry for decades.

Source: https://www.worldcoal.org/iea-clean-...limate-warning

About a plant to plant comparison:

Not all coal-fired power is created equal. Emissions and efficiency—the latter being the amount of coal consumed per unit of power produced, which also affects emissions—vary dramatically based on the type of coal and coal-burning technology used. What many U.S. analyses of China’s coal sector overlook is the fact that Beijing has been steadily shutting down the nation’s older, low-efficiency, and high-emissions plants to replace them with new, lower-emitting coal plants that are more efficient that anything operating in the United States.

To better understand where China’s coal fleet is going, CAP compared the top 100 most efficient coal-fired power units in the United States with the top 100 in China. (see Tables A1 and A2) The difference is astounding.

Compared with the Chinese coal fleet, even the best U.S. plants are running older, less efficient technologies. Coal-fired power plants can generally be broken down into three categories:

Subcritical: In these conventional power plants, coal is ignited to boil water, the water creates steam, and the steam rotates a turbine to generate electricity.3 The term “subcritical” indicates that internal steam pressure and temperature do not exceed the critical point of water—705 degrees Fahrenheit and 3,208 pounds per square inch.4
Supercritical: These plants use high-tech materials to achieve internal steam temperatures in the 1,000–1,050 degrees Fahrenheit range and internal pressure levels that are higher than the critical point of water, thus spinning the turbines much faster and generating more electricity with less coal.5
Ultra-supercritical: These plants use additional technology innovations to bring temperatures to more than 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit and pressure levels to more than 5,000 pounds per square inch, thus further improving efficiency.6

The U.S. coal fleet is much older than China’s: The average age of operating U.S. coal plants is 39 years, with 88 percent built between 1950 and 1990.7 Among the top 100 most efficient plants in the United States, the initial operating years range from 1967 to 2012. In China, the oldest plant on the top 100 list was commissioned in 2006, and the youngest was commissioned in 2015.

The United States only has one ultra-supercritical power plant.8 Everything else is subcritical or, at best, supercritical. In contrast, China is retiring its older plants and replacing them with ultra-supercritical facilities that produce more energy with less coal and generate less emissions as well. Out of China’s top 100 units, 90 are ultra-supercritical plants.

When the capacity of each of the top 100 units in each nation is taken into account, ultra-supercritical technology accounts for 92 percent of Chinese top 100 capacity and less than one percent—0.76 percent—of U.S. top 100 capacity. Because the technological makeup of the Chinese plants is different, their emissions levels are different as well. In the United States, the total nameplate capacity of our top 100 most efficient coal-fired power units is 80.1 gigawatts, and their cumulative annual carbon emissions amount to 361,924,475 metric tons.9 Meanwhile, the total nameplate capacity of China’s top 100 units is 82.6 gigawatts, and their cumulative annual carbon emissions are an estimated 342,586,908 metric tons.10 Since China’s fleet uses more advanced technology, it also consumes less coal: an average of 286.42 grams of coal equivalent, or gce, consumed per kilowatt-hour of power produced in China versus 374.96 gce consumed per kilowatt-hour produced at lower heating value in the United States.

Source: https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...l-china-wrong/

[NED funded]

While I'd prefer different sources, here are a couple of points to consider. First, about that article, it has been the subject of criticism:


Source: https://www.worldcoal.org/iea-clean-...limate-warning

About a plant to plant comparison:

Source: https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...l-china-wrong/

So the excuse is that China is burning "clean coal" nice to know. Trumpian if you ask me but whatevs.

- - - Updated - - -

China actively admits coal is bad. Your article clearly states that the central Chinese government is trying to rein in coal although individual provinces are resisting them. The US is only swapping one carbon resource for another (natural gas). The US Federal government and many states want to expand production of carbon based energy generation and do not believe this is a problem. Many US governments are full of conspiracy theorists who resist factual scientific consensus.

They can recognize it however many times they want, the reality is that their actions peak louder. Their latest stimulus resulted in a massive increase in CO2 as it most of it went to carbon-intensive industries. @Hubcap linked it for me, but the US has seen massive reductions in their CO2 where are China's?

[Airlick]

Now if they could just work out their insane levels of CO2 emission and ridiculous amounts of plastic they throw into the ocean... but it's a good start.

They are producing stuff for the whole world. If China wasn't doing this, the emissions would be spread out all over the world's countries and it would be just the same, if not worse. Meanwhile, you have USA, for example, producing over twice as much CO2 per capita than China, and that's without being the world's factory. So yeah...

Plastic waste is a whole different topic, though, it's just horrifying to me how much plastic they waste on everything, it's literally layers upon layers of plastic on any given product. A bag of cookies will obviously be packed in a thick plastic bag, have a plastic tray, and every cookie may be packed in separate bags. Best case scenario, they are split into 2 halves and then packed up again.

[Barnabas]

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/13/w...ntl/index.html

I remember when I first came here. Dust storms were a growing problem in Beijing and there was a lot of talk at universities about deforestation and the environmental impact of disposable chopsticks in particular. It is good to see that those discussions and the resulting programs have had results.

China, it's a big place with a lot of people who are not actually the Borg collective. That tends to get overlooked, it takes something like a global warming story to get a positive story into the news but not everything is frozen in the 1980s or a scandal about tainted milk powder.

Sounds like fake news. This is making the planet greener?

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/soci...-shrouded-smog

[Ivanstone]

So the excuse is that China is burning "clean coal" nice to know. Trumpian if you ask me but whatevs.

- - - Updated - - -



They can recognize it however many times they want, the reality is that their actions peak louder. Their latest stimulus resulted in a massive increase in CO2 as it most of it went to carbon-intensive industries. @Hubcap linked it for me, but the US has seen massive reductions in their CO2 where are China's?

Recognizing the problem means taking steps to fix it. They're at least trying other sources of energy. The US only changed because natural gas is cheeper. That it burns cleaner than coal is a side effect. Intent matters.

[shadowmouse]

So the excuse is that China is burning "clean coal" nice to know.

From a climate perspective, the ideal scenario would be for China to shut down all of its coal-fired power plants and switch over to clean energy full stop. In reality, China’s energy economy is a massive ship that cannot turn on a dime. The shift toward renewables is happening: China’s Paris commitment includes a promise to install 800 gigawatts to 1,000 gigawatts of new renewable capacity by 2030, an amount equivalent to the capacity of the entire U.S. electricity system.1 While China and the United States have roughly the same land mass, however, China has 1.3 billion people to the United States’ 325 million.2 It needs an electricity system that is much larger, so adding the renewable equivalent of one entire U.S. electricity system is not enough to replace coal in the near to medium term. To bridge the gap, China is rolling out new technologies to drastically reduce local air pollution and climate emissions from the nation’s remaining coal plants.

Energy solutions that work well for China will not necessarily work well for the United States. In addition to the massive population disparity, the United States has access to cheap and plentiful shale gas, and China does not. If China is going to reduce emissions substantially, more efficient coal generation has to be part of its equation, at least for the near to medium term. In the United States, investing in next-generation clean coal plants is not a good solution because natural gas is cheap, plentiful, and lower-emitting than all but the most expensive coal-fired power.

No, the point is that as the second article noted (see supra), the US has the option to switch to another fossil energy source. China doesn't, and is instead shifting to renewable energy sources and more efficient coal plants. Good of you to mention the clean coal though, because that is indeed part of the shift and had an impact on coal imports from Australia for example.

By the way, count the stacks in the article's accompanying photo? Notice two that look different? What are those?

[Zantos]

Because you were abusing them. As you said, it is a no brainer that they must be using water that *could* grow trees, so what was your point? My point was, yeah, it is a no brainer that they are growing trees and that makes your point irrelevant.

What does, abusing them even mean? Second of all, my point is perfectly relevant. It doesn't matter that they increase the greenery. If they keep polluting the water as they are, it wont be able to sustain life and thus, it will make all of their work up until this point wasted.

OK, I realize that not everyone here is a native speaker, so apologies if this comes off as nit-picking, but pronouns need to refer back to something and you've used "they" for NASA and China in the same sentence. "They report", that's NASA, not a part of the Chinese government at all. Typo aside, "they're doing" is China. You've expressed it poorly or your thinking is sloppy.

I'm a native speaker. You understood the context, so its fine. My thinking is fine. It's not my fault you're missing the points.

I'll let you check the pictures thread and make up your mind. Apology accepted. Now, go back and read where I posted the link to that river, and note that I brought it up as a sign of those times and that they eventually led to improvements -- well, have led, until the Cheeto-in-Chief rolls everything back.

The pictures are irrelevant to the topic at hand. The topic is the growth of greenery in their country. You're trying to show some pictures and go "See! See! they aren't polluting everywhere!" Doesn't matter that some spots are clean. Mostly its not. Second, it wasn't "a sign of those times". It was a freak occurrence that caused public outcry and the eventual passing of bills to clean the waters. You also said that when you were a kid, rivers in the US were catching fire. Rivers is plural, meaning you essentially said that it was happening on more then one occasion and with enough frequency that it was a problematic and common occurrence. It was 1.

You mean this part, right here?

You do realize the point is global, and that gains in China and India do not offset depleted areas in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Brazil and Indonesia, right?

Does NASA assert that the increased green area will have any effect? How about this part?

No. My point is that what China does doesn't even offset what THEY are doing. They are the largest, global contributes to the problem. I was referring more to this:

Pugh cautioned that a direct line cannot be drawn between an increase in global greening and a decrease in adverse impacts of climate change.

Now, if you missed it the first couple of times, here is my point: China is not offsetting THEIR contributions to the pollution. They had a river light on fire just in 2014. As I stated, even if they continue doing this, their own polluting will offset it and ultimately reverse anything they are doing.

[Neuroticaine]

China as a whole has made pretty significant strides towards being more green over the past decade, but hubs of extreme population still have very significant extreme pollution problems.

[shadowmouse]

Can't grow trees without clean water.

Regardless of what you wish you had written, there is what you actually wrote. Not, "won't be able to keep them alive" but rather that one can't grow trees.

You understood the context, so its fine.

Ah, native speaker, good! Then I can speak frankly, no it isn't fine it is crap writing that counts on the audience (and not all here are native speakers) to be mind readers. Say what you mean and say it clearly.

The pictures are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Nice attempt at a dodge, junior. You pretty well called me a liar about my age, I referred you to the pictures *thread* of which we have only one. See that face? No, not a young guy and yes I was around back then.

You're trying to show some pictures and go "See! See! they aren't polluting everywhere!" Doesn't matter that some spots are clean. Mostly its not.

Tantrum over? Let's start with that last item -- you're just pulling "mostly it's not" out of your ass. As for what I'm "trying" you're deliberately taking me out of context. I was addressing another poster who had written as if all of China is exactly the same and it isn't. I'll repeat it for you since you seem to read rather carelessly:

Nice stories you have there, but try to get a sense of scale. Geographically, the US and China are close in size. Go figure, there are places in the US where the air or water might be good or might be bad, then travel to another region and you can find the opposite. Being probably a bit older than you, I recall a time when the US was also trying to deal with pollution and environmental damage. Those were years that gave us emission standards on vehicles, removed phosphates from detergents, and took lead out of gasoline. Hell, we had a river catch fire! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River China being equally large, you'll see the same and I'm happy to see that we're starting to see similar improvements here.

I was here when Beijing had frequent sandstorms. It has gotten better. I was here when the AQI during Spring Festival in particular could hit 1,000. It has gotten better. Having watched things get better in the US and Europe over the years (I wasn't joking about the horrors of Venice's canals back in the day), I'm happy and even hopeful to see that starting here. It wasn't an instant fix in the US, it won't be here either. The sheer inertia of managing this many people is immense.

You also said that when you were a kid, rivers in the US were catching fire. Rivers is plural, meaning you essentially said that it was happening on more then one occasion and with enough frequency that it was a problematic and common occurrence. It was 1.

That's how it was taught and talked about -- that rivers were catching fire --like this for example: https://www.environmentalcouncil.org...rs_caught_fire

I wonder why he said riverS!

John Hartig’s book chronicles fires on horrifically polluted Rouge River and three others, and the public outcry that stopped them.

When Lake Erie – or more exactly the Cuyahoga River which flows into Lake Erie – caught fire in 1969, it ignited a firestorm of public outrage over the indiscriminate dumping of sewage and industrial chemicals into the Great Lakes.

But the incident was not particularly unusual. Nor was it the most significant of a long history of fires fueled by the thick oily sludges that fouled the Lakes and their arteries. The Chicago and Buffalo rivers also repeatedly caught fire. So did Michigan’s Rouge River.

Source: https://www.environmentalcouncil.org...rs_caught_fire
See also: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...h-on-fire.html

Score -- China 1 USA 4 Go USA! So, what you meant was actually "It was 1 ... if we ignore the other three".

My point is that what China does doesn't even offset what THEY are doing.

I didn't miss the point you want to make, it simply has little to no bearing on the article and it comes down to "but what about"? Neither the article, nor I have claimed it is an offset. It is a change, and probably an improvement. As far as comparing the US and China in terms of pollution, consider this:

In 2015, China accounted for 29% and the US for 15% of global emissions. China’s population is of course far higher and when you look at per capita emissions China produces 7.5 tonnes a year against 18 tonnes for the US. So while China’s emissions fell 0.7% during the year, lagging behind those of the US (down 2.6%) it could be argued that the fall is from a much lower (per capita) base.

Source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/...limate-action/

As I stated, even if they continue doing this, their own polluting will offset it and ultimately reverse anything they are doing.

What, you think there is a magic switch somewhere? Just throw the switch and everything will change overnight? Nope. But if you want to see how the US and China stack up for who is trying to address current environmental problems, read the rest of the article I linked above. China is at least trying to do something, the US seems to be withdrawing from international agreements and rolling back our own environmental protections.