Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China Power

China To Cut Fossil Fuel Use To Below 20% By 2060 186

Posted by BeauHD from the what-to-expect dept.
China is targeting a clean energy goal of reducing fossil fuel use to below 20% by 2060, according to an official plan published by state media. The Guardian reports: The cabinet document, released on Sunday, follows a pledge by President Xi Jinping to wean the world's biggest polluter off coal, with a target of peaking carbon emissions by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality 30 years later. But the country has been criticized for pushing ahead with opening dozens of new coal-fired power plants. Authorities have also been wanting to ramp up production, with coal prices surging and supplies running low, both factors behind recent power outages. The guidelines come as countries gear up for a new round of climate talks in Glasgow starting on 31 October, from which Xi will be conspicuously absent. China faces a struggle to wean itself off coal, which fuels nearly 60% of its energy-hungry economy.

But on Sunday guidelines published by China's official Xinhua news agency laid out a host of targets in its path towards carbon neutrality. Among them was the proportion of non-fossil fuel consumption reaching about 25% of total energy use by 2030 -- when the nation targets peak emissions. By then, carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP would have dropped by more than 65% from 2005 levels, while the total installed capacity of wind and solar power is targeted to reach more than 1,200 gigawatts, Xinhua said. The guidelines also reiterated an earlier aim for carbon emissions per unit of GDP to fall 18% in 2025, from 2020 standards.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China To Cut Fossil Fuel Use To Below 20% By 2060 More

China To Cut Fossil Fuel Use To Below 20% By 2060

Comments Filter:

  • LOL Ok (Score:2, Insightful)

    by LondoMollari ( 172563 )

    China says a lot of things. You need help if you believe communists.

    • Re:LOL Ok (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2021 @05:24AM (#61927609)

      Well, at least they have a motivation to actually get that done. In a democracy, I can easily promise you something to happen in 10 years because I can be fairly sure it's not gonna be me that has to pull through.

      • They have the ability. Whether they have the interest or intention is dubious to say the least.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        They have motivation to use their official english propaganda arm to tell far left outlets like The Guardian what they want to advertise to its far left readership in the West.

        That's all we can read from this story. Everything else is your imagination.

        • One of the games they're playing is the "my system is better than your system" spiel. And they know that an eco friendly industry is the big theme of the day. If they can actually pull that off, it sure will impress a couple of people in the west.

          So yes, they do have a motivation to accomplish that and work towards that goal.

          The question is rather how far they want to take it. Going down to 50% will probably be easy considering they're now one of the biggest polluters in the world. So claiming a big success

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            Your point A: If they can actually pull that off, it sure will impress a couple of people in the west.

            Your point B: So yes, they do have a motivation to accomplish that and work towards that goal.

            To go from point A to point B requires assumption that "a couple of people in the West" or more accurately the "far left Westerners" that I mention above are naturally curious people who would take time to learn the language and the culture and then check if promises are being delivered on.

            When in real world, Weste

            • You'll notice that the far anything is devoid of curiosity beyond finding something that reinforces their already established ideas of how the world has to be.

              • Re:LOL Ok (Score:4, Interesting)

                by Luckyo ( 1726890 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2021 @02:00PM (#61929301)

                Find me a widely read far right news source that is as popular and as extreme as The Guardian. Criteria would be "comparable readership and public acceptance" and "willingness to run the kind of defense of regimes actively engaged in genocide as The Guardian is".

                And that's the problem in the Anglo world today. Far Left extremism is widely accepted. Far Right is an anathema. No one in public sphere will offer you a defense of German rail network efficiency in shipping Jews to Treblinka. But you will have The Guardian run the same story about rail efficiency in China in shipping Uighurs. Even with one of those being so far behind us in history, that there are almost no people left alive who actively participate in the former, while latter is an ongoing process.

                And so, I focus my attention on what I see as the relevant and existing problem, not a hypothetical one.

        • The far left in Europe wouldn't read The Guardian as it would be considered far too right wing.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            As someone from Europe, with quite a few people I know in far left circles who routinely site The Guardian Opinion side of the site as sources for their claims, I would disagree. That said, there will always be those who are too extreme even for the extremists.

            Which begs the question of the circles you travel in.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

              As someone from Europe, with quite a few people I know in far left circles who routinely site The Guardian Opinion side of the site as sources for their claims, I would disagree.

              I am in Europe. A true devotee of the far left would be reading something like Socialist Worker and consider the Guardian to be an organ of the bourgeois, with its concentration on middle-class concerns - a far left hardliner is not going to have much time for reviews of the latest expensive tofu. Its writers espouse a number of views on economic and social issues that would not get much support on the far left. Either I doubt the far left credentials of the people you know who claim to be far left, or they

              • The Guardian is far left, emphasis on identity politics. Papers like the Socialist Worker and The Morning Star are for the far left still focussed on class war. Different sects, equally far left.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

                "No true scotsman" fallacy engaged in the opener. Why am I not surprised?

                That said, if you think that The Guardian is a centrist publication, and you consider yourself a centrist, I suppose that's evidence enough of your political leanings toward far left.

                Mysterious Preacher addressed the reasoning below.

    • China says a lot of things. You need help if you believe communists.

      And capitalists corpocrats are somehow more inherently believable? If you believe anybody uncritically, anybody at all, you are the one who needs help.

    • Americans say a lot of things too and we don't deliver as well. It is almost like these different political structures and ideologies don't have any tangible differences. What seems to be more effective is when there is an educated, active, and correctly informed group of people who is able to make sure that the people in power are kept in check.

      China is being ruled by one political party, America is ruled by two. That isn't really that different nor does it offer the people any real tangible benefits fo

      • China is being ruled by one political party, America is ruled by two. That isn't really that different nor does it offer the people any real tangible benefits for the complex issues that we have today.

        Some people see a two party system's inherent obstructionism as a feature. If you don't like the agendas of either side, gridlock becomes preferable.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

        > China is being ruled by one political party, America is ruled by two.

        When Obama, the Clintons and Bush come out to tell Trump to concede the election...
        When Bernie Sanders is the front runner for the Democrats but the DNC choses Hillary anyways...

        There is one ruling class in the US and they play both sides like a WWE wrestling match.

        When an outsider like Trump gains control, that's when they lose it.

    • You need more help if you think Chinese government officials are communists in anything but name. One of the many groups they persecute is...actual communists.

      I laughed at the headline because it's a hilariously unambitious goal that does nothing to address global warming. They need to be carbon negative by 2060 like everyone else.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by khchung ( 462899 )

      China says a lot of things. You need help if you believe communists.

      Like they signed the Paris Accord, and not only met, but exceeded their targets.

      Like for the past 40 years they set their GDP growth targets, and met them every year. MSM kept saying they faked their numbers, now their GDP is so large that it was impossible if they didn't had their reported growth in the past 30 years.

      Like 20 years ago they said they were going to build thousands of miles of high speed rails around the country, and have done it.

      Like about 15 years ago when they left Europe's Galileo projec

    • Jane says Gonna kick tomorrow.
  • ... by nuking the entire free world sometime before 2060 on their psychotic quest to seize control of the great independent nation of Taiwan. Dead people don't emit. China be like "see, we weren't lying". Grand pooh bear Jinping has already set the wheels in motion.

  • I will also reduce my masturbation 20% (Score:3, Funny)

    by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2021 @05:22AM (#61927603)
    By 2060. Like China, I need a super-long time horizon just in case the future is sexy...

  • China takes care of China (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SeaDuck79 ( 851025 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2021 @05:38AM (#61927631)

    The rest of the world be damned. It's one reason China has existed for as long as they have. Their selfishness is brutal, but effective.

    If they actually do what they said they'll do, it will be because it is in China's interests to do so, not from some sense of moral responsibility to anyone else.

    A nation that doesn't care about the welfare of its own citizens cannot be expected by reasonable people to care about the citizens of other nations.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      How is that different to most other nations? When did the UK or US take care of anyone else?

      • Re:China takes care of China (Score:4, Informative)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2021 @07:24AM (#61927853)

        Marshall Plan. English style decolonization and Commonwealth project.

        • The Marshall Plan was not entirely without self-interest as functioning economies were more likely to be stable politically, and creating strong economies also meant a potential market for it source of goods. So it was in some ways generous and in some ways pragmatic. In terms of things like loans for industrial tooling it was quite lucrative as the best source of industrial tooling at the time was... Well, you can probably work out the answer. In terms of decolonisation... The UK was broke after WW2 so it

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            This is the far left mind at work. "The good thing that my mortal ideological enemy, the Western Capitalists did was not done for purely altruistic reasons. Therefore, it cannot be used as example of them taking care of other nations".

            I mean you're not even aware of the different kinds of colonisation that was in existence, and how things like French and Spanish colonial projects ended at the same time frame for largely same reasons, much less how Chinese colonisation projects are actively ongoing.

            Pesky rea

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

              This is the far left mind at work.

              No, it's just history. You don't seem to be able to see anything through a very odd left-right political lens which is not even based in the reality of the breadth of left and right.

              You also seem to be suggesting I am 'far left' whereas I am centrist.

              I mean you're not even aware of the different kinds of colonisation that was in existence, and how things like French and Spanish colonial projects ended at the same time frame for largely same reasons, much less how Chinese colonisation projects are actively ongoing.

              The particular question was, I thought, about UK decolonisation. I am very aware of French and Spanish colonial projects, having read history quite widely. That you think I am not aware is quite odd.

              much less how Chinese colonisation projects are actively ongoing.

              The original post was about an immediately post-WW2 timeframe

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

                Considering your definition of centrism aligning perfectly with modern far left in the other part of this thread, your own admission in this post of having a highly selective memory in that you just suddenly forget the thread being about China and far leftist deflection of "but US and UK aren't perfect!" with references to colonialism where supposedly we're not even allowed to note the other forms of colonialism for comparison because... no reason given. And this nonsensical narrative about "far left being

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

                  Considering your definition of centrism aligning perfectly with modern far left

                  This is all in your own head, like the rest of your post. You are presuming to know me. You are not, and seem to be making up nonsense about my political views which are absurd, and any of my friends would be laughing at your for your idea that I am far left. I'd give it up if I were you, or get some sort of grip on reality if you can.

      • Lend-Lease in WW2? Seems to me we gave away a LOT of stuff to the UK and China and the USSR. And that was before we were at war. After Pearl Harbor, we gave away even more stuff....

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The official name of Lend-Lease was "An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States". It was helpful, but not really selfless.

          • To some extent the act had to be called that to get support. There was still interest involved, but the name wasn't 100% honest. However, fighting Germany would have been harder if the UK had thrown in the towel, or the USSR overrun. The B-36 bomber programme, for example, was designed to bomb Germany from the USA, and only later saw value as a strategic bbee against the USSR.

    • Indeed - and on this point, they're way ahead of "the west".

      They've figured out that there's really no choice - we all have to clean up. If they refuse, then eventually we'll all stop doing business with them. However, if they do clean up, they'll have to create thousands of jobs installing clean tech and removing the old dirty stuff, they'll have to develop new technologies and refinements of existing tech too. All of this is entirely saleable to the rest of the world. In 10 years, you'll have Chinese sola

    • Wow! What a level of arrogance! Do you know anything about the shit show the Brits had, addicting their population to opium and demanding their drug ships be given full and free access to their population?

      The entire GDP of UK is simple compounded return of the dividends paid by East India Company. The level of exploitation done to the colonies in the the 19th century is heart breakingly cruel.

      If Chinese are shockingly selfish, it is simply them being better students than their British teachers.

  • Plausible, yes. Likely? Unsure. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipakNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Tuesday October 26, 2021 @06:13AM (#61927697) Homepage Journal

    China is investing vastly more money into science and engineering R&D than America or Europe. That much we know. Even their fusion research has been verified as streets ahead, although whether they'll succeed is another matter.

    So far, so good. That's the attitude you need to take to conquer climate change. And, certainly, they know that they're damaging their workforce excessively, inhibiting productivity and breakthroughs, through pollution. (Hey, I may be ethical, but we need to look at whether the Chinese have a motive. I'd say they do.)

    What we don't know is whether the Chinese are spending that time and money on projects that will clean the nation up. All we know is that they could be and that they have an interest in doing so.

    It makes more sense, then, to diplomatically encourage things that would foster a greener China than to go hard cynic, and to promote trade with them that would assist in going greener, even if there are tactical disadvantages. The Chinese are many things but stupid isn't one of them and if sounder environmental practices yield more profit and more soft power in the markets, they're going to pay attention.

    Every nation on Earth has suspect motives and has a history littered with unnecessary corpses due to stupid international conflicts that were all about internal politics and power-plays. We don't really have the time to psychoanalyze each one into sanity, we have to make do. Particularly with Britain's nationalism and America's theocratic States, along with an R&D budget you can barely make out with a microscope.

  • I'm going to cut mine 100% by 2060 (Score:3)

    by magzteel ( 5013587 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2021 @07:30AM (#61927863)

    It's easy to make such long term promises. I'm promise to cut my personal CO2 emissions 100% by 2060

    • Actually it maps out the path there, not just the eventual goal:

      Among them was the proportion of non-fossil fuel consumption reaching about 25% of total energy use by 2030 â" when the nation targets peak emissions.

      By then, carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP would have dropped by more than 65% from 2005 levels, while the total installed capacity of wind and solar power is targeted to reach more than 1,200 gigawatts, Xinhua said.

      The guidelines also reiterated an earlier aim for carbon emissions

      • Actually it maps out the path there, not just the eventual goal:

        Among them was the proportion of non-fossil fuel consumption reaching about 25% of total energy use by 2030 â" when the nation targets peak emissions.

        By then, carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP would have dropped by more than 65% from 2005 levels, while the total installed capacity of wind and solar power is targeted to reach more than 1,200 gigawatts, Xinhua said.

        The guidelines also reiterated an earlier aim for carbon emissions per unit of GDP to fall 18% in 2025, from 2020 standards.

        My path is much simpler and definite. I expect to be dead by 2060

  • "Soviet Union to increase grain production by 20% by end of next 5 year plan"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Wow. Look how far this crap and vacuous FP Subject propagated. Appears to span 90% of the discussion, judging by the scroll bar.

  • This guy is well educated, IIT grad no less. Like him a lot and respect him a lot. But he is shockingly skeptical about climate change. Takes a curious stand of correlation is not causation, forcing functions and phase lags.

    I made this point seemed strike home.

    "The sea level rise etc are insignificant compared to the dangers we are facing. The warming climate, no matter what the cause is, is reducing winter duration, hardness of frost. The weeds, insects etc that get killed by frost every winter are surv

    • Much of the world doesn't have, and never has had, a "winter" as you're defining it. (Eg, a season where temperatures are below freezing) They have a rainy season and a dry season. For example, in India the average winter temperatures are 10–15 C (50–59 F).

      So the argument that the lack of a frost during winter will increase the likelihood of killer organisms globally destroying food crops seems at best Eurocentric and at worst willfully ignorant. Last time I checked people have successfully grow

  • Why is it every time China makes some pronouncement about their climate change plans, they increment the calendar to add another 3 decades... A few years ago during the ballyhooed Paris Accords, CCP pledged to stop fossil fuels by 2030, now they push it out to 2060. Wait a couple years and it will be 2090 (or just round up to 2100).
  • ... and China does ... two wildly different things. Trusting the mouthpiece of a communist government is akin to allowing the fox to guard the hen house.
  • China continues to grow their emissions. Even now, for 2019-2021, they are expected to have added more than 10% to their emissions. As it is, China now accounts for more than 1/3 of global emissions, while only being 1/6 of the world population.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close