It was actually pretty easy. Fifth result down under Wikipedia when searching China+Coal. Were we planning on debunking this or is whining about sources the best you can do?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cont: Global warming discussion V
- Thread starter lobosrul5
- Start date
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 37,878
I see Spike Milligan has been resurrected and is writing releases for the UN:
www.stuff.co.nz
World set to blow past crucial 1.5C climate limit within years, UN admits
The United Nations has acknowledged that Earth has lost its chance to prevent some of the worst of global warming's harms.
www.stuff.co.nz
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Good of you to admit that it is bunk, so that people can stop wasting their time on you.
Lol wut? Do you really believe that Climate Home News is bunk, or are you just being a chump and playing follow the leader?Good of you to admit that it is bunk, so that people can stop wasting their time on you.
Following the mob it is then. Baaaaaaaa
Look I know it can be triggering to read that China is wasting renewable energy in favour of burning coal, especially when you have your lips firmly glued to the CCPs ass and the only thing you have in your toolkit is but, but, but...TRUMP!
Now that the UN has come out and basically admitted that the strategy of complaining about fossil fuel use while simultaneously burning buckets of fossil fuels has been a miserable failure and floated a sort of Plan B where someone, somewhere, sometime (probably China
) will come up with something to reverse the process. What's the plan, continue burning and bitching until that happens?
Look I know it can be triggering to read that China is wasting renewable energy in favour of burning coal, especially when you have your lips firmly glued to the CCPs ass and the only thing you have in your toolkit is but, but, but...TRUMP!
Now that the UN has come out and basically admitted that the strategy of complaining about fossil fuel use while simultaneously burning buckets of fossil fuels has been a miserable failure and floated a sort of Plan B where someone, somewhere, sometime (probably China
) will come up with something to reverse the process. What's the plan, continue burning and bitching until that happens?Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Not just hope, expect it from those who say they are committed to reducing emissions. But the news media thrives on controversy, not boring facts. China says it's still on track to meeting its emissions target. Detractors point to new coal plants as evidence that it's backtracking, but don't supply any evidence other than plant capacity. Until we see how much coal was actually burned we won't know what effect that capacity increase had.
It would be great if we could apply a Covid-style economy forever. But this isn't possible because most people are too entrenched in a lifestyle of consumption. That's not going to change any time soon, so we have to look for other ways.
Trump likes coal, but the industry doesn't.
Quarterly Coal Report
In April 2026 only 11.5% of electricity in the US was generated from coal. Solar produced 11.6%. In 2025 some states (including California, the 4th largest economy in the World) used no coal at all.
China likes coal because they have lots of it, but not much gas. Despite that, China's CO2 emissions are falling.
Analysis: China’s CO2 Emissions Fall in Q2 2026 Due to Plummeting Oil Use
Betting on electric vehicles is paying off. The challenge now is to make better use of renewables so that coal consumption can be reduced. If a country whose president hates renewables can do it, I'm sure China can do it too. It's building out renewables and nuclear much faster than coal. I'm betting that in a few years a large proportion of that new coal plant capacity will be sitting idle.
One thing we can 'hope' for is reduced energy consumption in AI data canters. China is leading the way there with open-source AI models that are concentrating on low operating cost and improved efficiency. This will reduce AI energy consumption not just in China, but everywhere AI is used. US AI companies have been increasing their energy consumption much faster than China has, but this may not continue for long. Their business models rely on users eventually paying high prices. More efficient Chinese AI could quickly destroy that 'premium' market, and US AI companies will have to reduce their own energy consumption to survive.
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Admit it, at this point you're just trolling.
We will continue to burn coal, and do other things that cause cause global warming. Realists understand this and don't go into fits of apoplexy over it. Realists know that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and don't throw in the towel because there's no quick fix. Realists constantly track the progress of their efforts and modify them as the situation changes, rather than throwing their hands up and calling it a 'miserable' failure.Now that the UN has come out and basically admitted that the strategy of complaining about fossil fuel use while simultaneously burning buckets of fossil fuels has been a miserable failure and floated a sort of Plan B where someone, somewhere, sometime (probably China
But not everybody is a realist. Some are Luddites who don't want to change their lifestyle in any way. Having been forced to admit that global warming is real, they now desperately cling to any indication that efforts to curtail it are failing, 'justifying' their own lack of action.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
I see Spike Milligan has been resurrected and is writing releases for the UN:
World set to blow past crucial 1.5C climate limit within years, UN admits
The United Nations has acknowledged that Earth has lost its chance to prevent some of the worst of global warming's harms.
We all knew this. 1.5C was just a target to aim for, one that many of us didn't expect to meet. The important thing wasn't the number, but making the effort. The good news is that now everybody knows what the consequences of not taking action will be. This makes taking stronger action more politically viable, whereas 10 years ago when we could actually have kept the temperature below 1.5C it wasn't. The outcome will be worse than it could have been, but still a lot better than if we did nothing.
We also get to enjoy technologies that wouldn't have otherwise been developed. EVs do a lot more than just reduce global warming, they also reduce noise and air pollution, and are much nicer to drive. I bought a used Leaf in 2019 and loved it, especially the next year during lockdown when it was so peaceful and calming during that stressful time. Like most EV owners, I will never go back to a gas car. My next plan is to install solar panels, not to prevent global warming but for energy security. Cyclone Gabrielle was a wake up call there.
BTW that flash flood in Nepal confirms a theory I had about global warming causing seismic events. A scientist I worked with who specialized in geology assured me that it wouldn't have any effect, but I doubted him. Turns out that when ice melts on steep rock faces and exposes them to sunlight the combination of reduced pressure and temperature change can have dramatic effects. Drying out of lakes and aquifers can also cause earthquakes due to reduced pressure and voids. Interestingly New Zealand is experiencing an increase in earthquake activity, and not just on fault lines.
String of earthquakes in Southern Alps not due to Alpine Fault - seismologist
Luckily we don't have high populations living in the Southern alps, but...
What happened in Nepal, could it happen here and does climate change play a role?
That's what it actually would have taken to hit the 1.5C target. That and an equal amount of reductions in the following years. Most people know this but refuse to admit it. It's a lot easier and more convenient to shrug your shoulders, complain, burn fossil fuels all while demanding a solution that nobody would like very much. Politicians especially know this which is why bleating for a "political solution" is a mug's game.
Suit yourself. I linked to an article from Climate Home News, an archive link because the live link was pay/subscriberwalled. The article referred to China as the world's largest emitter and three people went all weird about it. Who, exactly, was trolling?
Now is the time to get in on the ground floor of NOT using AI if you're worried about it, and there's a lot of reasons to be worried. Just don't fire up ChatGPT or it's equivalent ever. Way, way easier than avoiding fossil fuels however I did run into an interesting stat today that pretty much guarantees that AI and it's attendant data centers isn't going to go away.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Many countries have net zero plans that are achievable if they keep the pressure on. The governments in those countries haven't just 'shrugged their shoulders'. However most are beholden to voters, many of whom have been 'shrugging their shoulders' or worse. The challenge is to get these people onboard.
Covid showed that people are willing to change their behavior if they know it's necessary for their own welfare. But many people don't trust their governments to do the right thing. They need something more direct to get them onboard. The more the World burns, the more people realize that to stop it they need to change their behavior. The current oil crisis is helping too, as people are starting to realize (or remember) how much we are addicted to it. The backlash against AI is another positive.
It's a pity that people have to suffer before they see the right path, but that's just the way humans are. In 2015 most people treated global warming as an inconvenience that they hoped would go away if they ignored it. A decade later they are finally getting it. Having endured a global pandemic, extreme weather events and high fuel prices, people are now more used to the change they feared.
Do you even know what trolling is? Accusing people of being 'triggered', having 'lips firmly glued to the CCPs ass', and suffering from TDS is not rational debate.
I hear you. I have not and will not ever use AI unless forced to. But then I also refuse to use other modern 'labour-saving' devices like 3D printers, FPGAs and IDE's too. I program 80's home computers in assembly langauge and make web pages with a text edictor. I do carpentry and metalwork with hand tools. It may be slower and the results not as polished, but I enjoy it and the creations are all my own work. I like technology, but the idea of spending all day trying to goad an AI into doing what I want is not appealing.
As for avoiding fossil fuels, it's not that hard. I've been avoiding them for 50 years. Having plenty of renewable energy in New Zealand helps. At 7:30pm tonight the country is using just over 5GW of electricity, 98.5% of which is renewable.
James Talarico seems to follow in the footsteps of Biden/Harris.
And so it never will be – much like in the Harris campaign – until the day when it has become the main 'priority'.
On the one hand, there's MAGA GOP's 'Drill, baby, drill', and on the other hand, there are the corporate Democrats, who dare not mention it because they'll attempt to appeal to the sentiment of people brainwashed by Big Oil and its astroturfing campaigns than argue against them and thus enlighten their constituents.
Corporate Democrats don't bite the hand that feeds them ...
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 37,878
Quite right. I trust the good voters of Texas will vote for the other bloke.
Dumping on Talarico is archetypal cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Which Texas candidate is climate-friendly?
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Who are they? Name names and then we can investigate.
Yes, that's what I've been saying all along. Get those voters on side actually doing something meaningful rather than simply complaining about fossil fuels while burning fossil fuels. To be fair, complaining about fossil fuels is all climate activism has ever asked from people because deep down they know that asking anyone to compromise their lifestyle to "save the planet" is a total non-starter that's no way, no how going to ever happen.
I'm saying this approach is, and was, always doomed to failure.
The Covid response was a government initiative and depending where you were different governments took different approaches with one thing in common, nobody actually knew what they were doing. IIRC, your NZ government went totally bonkers out of an overabundance of caution eg Charlotte Bellis. It would have been interesting to see how those people concerned about climate change would have reacted to the Covid economy being made permeant as that is what they were practically begging for when they stood outside with their signs trying to warn us that exceeding 1.5C equals doomsday.
As an aside, I've been getting off on watching these "bushcraft survival" videos lately. Not those Cambodian guy in blue shorts builds something ridiculous in the jungle using only a stick, but these Vietnameese ones where guy goes out and builds something cool using only hand tools. No doubt their fake but they were a nice ASMR experience however the creator has taken to speeding up the videos so the work is looking rather frantic, rather than relaxing. Oh well.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Not true.
Everything You Need to Know About Climate Activism
Types of Climate Activism
- Blockadia: taking direct action to block fossil fuel projects or extraction.
- Divestment: urging institutions and governments to divest from fossil fuel companies.
- Climate Liability: hold governments and fossil fuel companies legally accountable for their failures to act on climate change.
- Political Pressure: influence policy through a combination of direct actions, protests, lobbying, lawsuits and awareness raising.
- Being the Change: take every day actions to reduce your impact on the environment.
Examples of every day actions include driving an EV, improving building insulation and switching to more efficient devices to reduce energy use, repairing and recycling instead of buying new stuff and throwing it away, reducing meat consumption and walking more. These are 'lifestyle' changes that reduce costs and improve physical and mental health - worth doing even if it had no effect on the environment. The only thing being 'compromised' is an unwillingness to change.
Also not true. Climate activism is achieving real change. The only 'failure' is not having more of it.
Again not true. I hadn't heard of Charlotte Bellis before now, so you get a point for dredging her up. Rest assured that if I was in charge there would have been no quarantine issues - because I wouldn't have let anyone in, period. That's because unlike Jacinda Ardern I'm a heartless bastard who puts science above feelings. If most other countries had closed their borders tight like we (and some others) did then Covid would have been quickly snuffed out and most of the pain avoided.
However while such extreme action for a few weeks worked for Covid, it won't work for global warming. There is no quick fix. We need to ease into long lasting change at a pace that is practicable and flexible enough to handle the inevitable challenges along the way. But not just kick the can down the road. This is why climate activism is so important. The more people understand the need for change and how they can help, the sooner we can get onto it.
Creating a permanent 'Covid economy' was never an option, and most activists know that. However that doesn't mean they are wrong to push for big changes. When an object has big inertia you need to push hard to get it moving.
Covid showed us that big changes can be made and have a big positive effect, and it showed us some practical ways to do that. For example the percentage of 'work from home' jobs continued to increase after Covid restrictions were removed, largely as a result of businesses and employees finding that it worked. Activists had been pushing for this for years, but many businesses hadn't tried it simply because they were set in their ways and saw no 'need' for change.
Entertaining for sure, and possibly useful information for people who like spending time in the bush. I've done a bit of it myself so I know how difficult it would be for the average 'city slicker' to survive without the right equipment. New Zealand has a lot of native bush on mountainous terrain that can easily kill you if you aren't careful. An average of 5 people per year go into the bush unprepeared and end up dead.
Who is "dumping on Talarico"?
I'm bloody quoting him!
Since when did quoting somebody become synonymous with dumping on them???
And it's nothing new!
It was just news to me:
And in the article's "breakdown of Talarico's plan to lower fuel costs," "nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal energy" are mentioned, but they're clearly peripheral to all the things he'll do to promote fossil fuels!
So the question now is, who is Talarico lying to? To global warming opponents or to global warming promoters?
I can see why Jasmine Crockett doesn't trust him:
... even though she also hasn't been entirely unambiguous on the topic of fossil fuels in Texas.
If you want to investigate, why don't you start with the article I linked to in the post you're replying to?
You can continue here:
Democrats Once Vowed to Stop Oil and Gas. Now They're Not So Sure. (NYT, June 11, 2026)
Google's summary of the NYT article:
The Earth is sizzling, but climate isn't a hot topic for Democrats in this year's campaigns (PBS, Aug 29, 2026)
Democrats' 'climate hushing' prompts activists to turn up the volume (The Guardian, Aug 1, 2026)
Is this enough for you to begin investigating? You know, it wouldn't have required much investigating to find this yourself.
You could start here:
At al point when Democrats should stress how much cheaper wind & solar energy is than fossil fuels – this record-breaking summer would have been ideal for it – they're doing the opposite – at the bidding of their donors, I assume:
They are using the campaign slogan of the 'affordability crisis' to promise subsidies or tax exemptions (see Talarico) to the fossil-fuel industry.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Because it's paywalled.
I also don't do 'free' subscriptions.
You made the assertion so I presumed you had the names. Now I have to find them myself? I often spend hours researching my posts. It's actually becoming a problem because I'm not doing other stuff that should take priority. All I was asking for was a little help.