EPA Head Zeldin on "Ruthless" podcast
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
China is double the US emissions. You are looking at emissions per capita. The environment doesn't respond to emissions per capita, but to CO2 in the atmosphere. China's emissions per capita is higher than the global average too. Perhaps if climate science moves in a new direction where leveling off of emissions solves global warming, these stats you show would be relevant. Instead China has to reduce by at least 80%. |
Anonymous
Your argument is predicated on China not putting in another solar panel, not another wind turbine, abandoning its thorium reactors and other innovative sources of non-fossil-based energy production. However, by every indication they are NOT slowing down on solar, wind and other alternatives, they are in fact accelerating. So what's your excuse? What's Trump's? You don't have one, just the same old talking points from 20 years ago which ignore the current realities. And in the current reality, "drill baby drill" is not the way forward. Not for us, and not for China. Do better. |
Anonymous
This |
Anonymous
No, my argument is predicated on what China is doing with regards to coal. Putting on line more coal power plants and proposing to put in even more capacity than the current US total. |
Anonymous
| The solution is not to make fossil fuel energy more expensive and force other countries to do the same, but to make clean energy so cheap other countries will flock to it. |
Anonymous
Again, yes, it's true that China is still building coal plants, but that is not their main strategy, nor is it their permanent strategy, and that's where you're missing the big picture view. China approved 11.29nGW of new coal capacity this year and currently has 200nGW under construction, but compare that to wind and solar. In comparison, China hit its 2030 wind and solar targets six years early, with 1,482 GW of installed renewable capacity, now surpassing thermal power. In fact, renewables are outpacing electricity demand growth, meaning a majority of their new energy demand is being met by clean energy, not coal. Even in coal-heavy provinces like Shanxi, solar and hydrogen investments are transforming the energy mix. And what about those thorium reactors? China’s molten salt thorium reactor in the Gobi Desert is now operational, the first of its kind globally, and it was reloaded mid-run, a major technical milestone. That’s not a country stuck in the past. So while coal is still part of China’s energy strategy, especially for grid stability and peak demand, it’s increasingly being repositioned as a backup, not a mainstay as you keep wanting to suggest. The real trajectory is toward a flexible, renewables-dominant grid, with coal gradually sidelined. If you’re arguing that China’s future is locked into coal, but you’re ignoring the scale, speed, and strategic depth of its clean energy pivot. That’s not denial that's not refusal, that's not a lack of cooperation toward solving the problem, it’s evolution. And it makes your complaints rather irrelevant and missing the point in the grand scheme of things. And it most certainly does not justify the Trump administration's climate denial, it's abandoning of renewables, and it's "drill baby drill" attitude. Your "yabut China" is a fail. |
Anonymous
Even China's own claims is that they will increase and then plateau CO2 emissions/coal usage in 2030. China will do what is best for China, meaning what is cheapest. They will pretend to reduce to get money from Europe. And Europe will pretend to believe them as a means of passing their own targets. The only question is whether the US will follow along. England is already refusing to publicise the deal they have with China regarding NetZero. If there is an 80% reduction in Chinese emissions, it is because the technology made it cheaper. If that is the case, then there is no need for any subsidies or mandates regarding fossil fuels in America, as technology will have solved the problem. Already coal is reduced because natural gas is cheaper. If nuclear or some other technology becomes cheaper, then no need to worry. |
Anonymous
This is what China is doing, by scaling up their capabilities for manufacturing solar panels and other clean energy infrastructure. Making clean energy cheap was what the US WAS doing but Trump put a stop to it, and instead he wants to make polluting, non-renewable energy that's in finite supply cheapest. This administration is so backasswards. |
Anonymous
It's hilarious that you keep pretending that China is "pretending" even as China pumps vast resources into building out its renewable energy infrastructure, surpassing the entire rest of the world combined year over year. And the numbers are not just "talk" - they are independently verifiable. Basically reality is making a fool of you and your "pretending" narrative. |
Anonymous
| I won’t deny climate change, but it’s doubtful we can stop it. All we can do is cope. |
Anonymous
I’m a climate scientist and basically I agree. Today’s emissions will continue heating the Earth until deep ocean circulation takes up the excess, which takes something like 300 years. Our window for avoiding major disruption ended some years ago. That said there’s a good argument for not making a bad situation worse. For example, rapid emissions of methane from the Arctic or the sea floor could produce shot term warming much more catastrophic than what is forecast by the IPCC. But ultimately I’ve come around to believing adaptation and suffering are the two routes to the future. Wealthy jurisdictions will adapt by building sea walls, having air conditioning, and buying agricultural products from less-affected areas. Poor countries will experience starvation and heat deaths. And we’ll just shrug and get used to it. |
Anonymous
Shouldn't we be shooting ourselves in the foot to make other countries happy? Isn't it our duty to disadvantage ourselves because of white colonialism 200 years ago? |