> On Feb 6, 2026, at 16:18, David Walters via groups.io > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark: > > What I was trying to say is that both coal and renewable use are growing. And > the answer to that seems fairly well documented if you page through Wikipedia > pages on coal in China, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China. There is > also > https://discoveryalert.com.au/energy-security-clean-transition-geopolitical-tensions-2026: > China has increased production practically every year up to 2025, but only > by 1.2% in 2025. > > So, David, you cannot say "no" to my claim that the growth coal and > renewables are positively correlated and also agree with the widely-available > available data that coal mined is growing in tonnage. You might claim that it > is growing more slowly, it is, but it is already far too high for 1.5C. Will > they reduce it to a negligible amount with respect to GHG? That has not > happened historically. Maybe China is really exceptional. > > I was honestly asking what you meant. Here is another fact: RE (renewables), > coal, hydro, gas, and nuclear are "positively related".
I wrote "positively correlated." We are in violent agreement. > My issue here is that the Chinese have "positions" to build tons of low > carbon energy, specifically hydro, RE, and nuclear. The problem being is that > this is all subordinated to producing vast quantities of commodities and thus > coal stays. Actual plans 15 or more years ago do show coal a lot more in use > than it actually is. Their "phasing out of coal" is not "2030" but more like > "2050" and that is the starting time. Coal and gas are of course low hanging > fruit that can be phased out, even with China trying to dominate world trade > for all commodities. So they use this excuse that they have to "catch" up in > economic activity with the "West" as their reason for not adhering to climate > goals. My conclusion, even with the massive amounts of low carbon generation > being built, more than anyone in the world combined, IS a function of the > negative aspect of "demand" which you raised and I questioned. There is > nothing stopping them, even including their insane trade goals, from more > than doubling their projections of low carbon generation (again: hydro, RE, > and nuclear). So this is purely a political question not a technological one. Is China a capitalist country? If it is, it might do what Western capitalists have done, which is to select energy inputs to optimize value and little more, unless coerced by the government. In the US the industry coerces the government. > > What needs to address by those that adopted the unfortunate term "de > development" I do not use the term "de-development" because I think the production of use values instead of exchange values is a form of development. Simple reproduction is development, and reproduction that is equitable to the entire population is equitable development. We don't have that today in the US. Public ownership of fossil industries would be the best course for decreasing fossil fuel extraction and use. But that would strand trillions of dollars of untapped fossil reserves. Is that de-development? > is how this applies the the developing world (think China, India, Vietnam, > Indonesia, Malaysia, ALL of Africa, and most of Latin America? They are all > trying to follow these countries in order to raise their standard of living. > This is what needs to be discussed, IMO. I don't feel the need to answer this because (1) I'm in the US, which is the worst polluter in the world per capita; greatly reducing USA GHG emissions alone will slow the race past 1.5C. (2) I'm in the US, which has a history of conquering other countries; eliminating USA domination of those countries is our goal and not telling them how to power their nations. (3) I don't know what the world would look like if we get to decarbonizing the USA because that will be a much different USA. So far, China and many other "developing countries" are following the USA development model, which isn't sustainable even in the USA, let along China, India, Indonesia, etc. So we need an alternative model to decarbonize while giving time back to workers. This will alter how we work and live in ways that I cannot predict. Maybe if we figure that out here, Marx's prediction will once again ring true: The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future. Mark -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#40589): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/40589 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/117439078/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
