I am fond of many quotes from Mark Twain and in the age of social media one is particularly apt:
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.“
As the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) reports (www.public.wmo.int/en) greenhouse gases reaching new heights, if media reports are to be believed (and I am not saying that they can’t), China is producing circa 70% of its’ energy from Coal powered power stations. Websites such as www.politifact.com have quoted the New York Times article published on July 1, 2017, as saying that “Overall, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries.”, however corrected down (“fact-checked”) this number to less than 460, mostly across Asia.
Any number in the order of 460 is still a staggering number, especially when it is likely that the economies of China and India will see increased demand for coal generated electricity over the immediate future. The Guardian article of November 2019 “China’s appetite for coal power returns despite climate pledge” lists not only China’s coal-fuelled energy growth, but also how China is helping to fund coal plant construction projects around the world.
Whether the number is at, above or below 460 isn’t the key issue given 46 is too many, let alone 460. Cross referencing with the NRP and a statement as to China building “hundreds” (“more than 300” is the number quoted) of coal power stations within China and abroad is front and centre. Following the Guardian report comes the report in the online journal for Carbon Brief (www.carbonbrief.org) titled “Global coal power set for record fall in 2019”. So, which is it?
Coal remains one of the less expensive fossil fuels, one that is readily available and is easy to handle for power generation. The same dialogue could be applied to most other fossil fuels. Coal is just one of many that bridge the gap between renewables and humanities growing energy demands. The scale of mining operations out of Newcastle, Australia is staggering (as is the “economic value”) – so it is somewhat disingenuous to single out the end user without also considering the suppliers.
Interestingly, people often look upon the Oil and Gas industry in an opposite way (when it suits) in so far as protesting the operators without considering the many, many end users and products hydrocarbons end up in.
Understanding why there is the need for such an expansion of coal fired power stations is as an important question. The Elephant in the room, while we still have Elephants as a living species, it that at a time we need to decrease our carbon footprint, we are seeing an increase in human population. This population increase is driving ever more the need for energy and consumption (and resultant waste and pollution).
The irony here is that China is one of the few (if only) country to actively legislate to reduce population growth – oddly something that is often portrayed in the media as a negative despite the overwhelmingly positive impact on climate change. It would seem that the socio-economic forces that drive most of our economies, in 2015 also drove China to announce the abolishment of the one child policy.
The problem in China is thus two-fold in that it needs to provide for the food, energy, textiles, etc. for it’s own population it does so also for the wider world also. One could argue that the need for China’s expansion of coal fired power stations is as much globalisation as it is China’s own making. Where would Australia’s economy be without coal exports? Or the many technology industries that import vast tonnages of electronics from China?
With increasing population comes increased consumption of both energy and materials. Politicians “promise” a future “net-zero” carbon footprint, yet don’t address the fundamental economic driver for most economies is population growth and increased consumerism. Is the flaw in that argument not obvious? Governments and environmental groups really need to stop the hyperbole and consider the science and practicable alternatives.
If we do nothing about population growth, consumption and globalisation, then we accept that climate change is inevitable unless we radically change consumption and the economic basis that most economies run upon. Surely population growth must be part of this “climate change” discussion given it seems self-defeating to reduce carbon footprint whilst adding 160 million human feet (80 million new humans) onto the planet most years (Reference: UN World Population Prospects 2019)?
As someone born in 1970, I read with interest on www.worldometers.info/world-population
“In 1970, there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now.”
Whilst overall population growth rates have declines somewhat since I was born, there are still twice as many of us taxing the earth’s precious resources since I was born. This is the other side of the climate change equation that gets little attention and few protests/activists.
