JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

China boosts coal again: set for record in 2022: Official says energy security trumps carbon neutrality

A week ago our newspapers were full of dire warnings that the Australian coal mining industry was going to be left in the lurch by declining orders from China. “The End of Australia’s coal export boom is Imminent” said the AFR — parroting a report by a group that includes Alex Turnbull, someone known to profit from renewables.

What none of the headlines mentioned was that China is set to hit a new all time record of coal use this year.

China  now wants to boost coal production by 300m tons —six times* as much coal as Australia uses each year

China already burns 32  82 times as much coal each year as Australia does. Soon that will be 34 88 times as much. But who’s counting?

China promotes coal in setback for efforts to cut emissions

By Joe McMoncald, AP Business Writer, 25th April 2022

Official plans call for boosting coal production capacity by 300 million tons this year, according to news reports. That is equal to 7% of last year’s output of 4.1 billion tons, which was an increase of 5.7% over 2020.

Chinese officials are blunt about why they need more coal:

Coal is important for “energy security,” Cabinet officials said at an April 20 meeting that approved plans to expand production capacity, according to Caixin, a business news magazine.

“This mentality of ensuring energy security has become dominant, trumping carbon neutrality,” said Li Shuo, a senior global policy adviser for Greenpeace. “We are moving into a relatively unfavorable time period for climate action in China.”

Clearly these new levels of 4.4 billion* tons are going to set a record high for coal production, with or without Australian imports: 

Chinese coal production,

Source: CEICdata

The ABC worked to mislead Australians during an election campaign, right in the headline. It’s if the Australian coal industry has no future and “needs to transition” at a time when the largest user of coal in the world is set to use even more coal.

A new report warns Australian thermal coal exports to China could fall by 20 per cent by 2025 as China invests in domestic mines and a major coking coal mine in Mongolia.

The report also predicts coking coal exports to China could fall by more than 20 per cent.

The modelling by ANU energy economists Jorrit Gosens and Frank Jotzo suggests that if China commits to its current climate policy, coking and thermal coal imports will drop by a quarter within three years, from 210 megatonnes (Mt) in 2019 to 155Mt by 2025.

Like all election advertising ABC fake news stories should be legally required to name the Green or Labor party official that approved them.

The real stories and the trends that matter to Australians lie unnoticed:

IEA: Coal hit a new record high in 2021

December 2021: After falling in 2019 and 2020, global power generation from coal is expected to jump by 9% in 2021 to an all-time high of 10,350 terawatt-hours, according to the IEA’s Coal 2021 report, which was released today.

Coal production is set to rise even higher  in 2022 predicts the IEA

 However, global coal trends will be shaped largely by China and India, who account for two-thirds of global coal consumption, despite their efforts to increase renewables and other low-carbon energy sources.

Australia exports about 400m tons of coal a year and only consumes about 50m tons itself. We’re the first or second largest exporter of coal in the world, but we’re only digging up about a tenth as much coal as China does.

We have a 300 year supply of coal, even at this rate of production, so there’s no reason to transition out of it.

_________________
* ERRATA: “Million” was obviously meant to be billion. Apologies for the typo. Likewise 32 times larger was really 82, and “twice as much coal” is really six times as much as used in Australia. Originally based on Australian coal consumption published in  a different unit. Who knew coal was measured in anything other than megatons.?

10 out of 10 based on 58 ratings

113 comments to China boosts coal again: set for record in 2022: Official says energy security trumps carbon neutrality

  • #
    Erasmus

    We continue to be governed by pollies and clerks who think winning approval from the activists (including the UN) is more important than looking after Australia’s interests. We the people don’t matter.

    441

  • #
    Joao Martins

    ” energy security trumps carbon neutrality ”

    A real necessity trumps a fictitious ideological construct.

    371

  • #
    Graham Richards

    The MSM will certainly not publicise this news. They are “honour bound” to maintain the lies & BS the PM together with the opposition force on us.
    For this reason I & many, many others will not be voting for the LNP. I will not vote for more
    Net zero medicine. It’s just as bad, if not worse than vaccine madness!

    261

    • #
      David Maddison

      Hopefully, under an uncensored Twitter owned by Musk, the truth might get out to the masses, apart from the excellent job that Jo does.

      Also, I will be putting the pro-freedom parties such as UAP, Liberal Democrats, ON etc. above the Green-Lib-Labs. In fact, all the thinking people I know will be.

      (Overseas readers, Australia has a compulsory preferential voting system not “first past the post” and even the profoundly ignorant are also forced to vote. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting?wprov=sfla1)

      211

      • #
        yarpos

        Also for overseas readers, preferences only come into it if you dont get more than 50% of the vote.

        81

        • #
          William

          Also it doesn’t mean that the most popular candidate gets elected on preferences, it is the least unpopular.

          31

    • #
      Forrest Gardener

      Not that I want to support the LNP but may I suggest considering putting the incumbent last on your preferences?

      A constant turnover of sitting members just might get the attention of the political powers that be. And knowing that they are only ever going to get one term in parliament no matter what might just prompt politicians to act a little more independently from the party machines.

      41

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

        Nah F G,
        I can’t do that. That would mean putting someone after the Greens and Labor. Not on for me.
        I’ve gotta work on the generalisation of putting the worst worst last.
        Cheers
        Dave B

        41

  • #
    David Maddison

    When it comes to giving the Chinese cheap, reliable, clean energy for the masses, and the world’s greatest CO2 emissions (not that CO2 is a problem but the ignorati think it is), for the Left, Chinese coal doesn’t count.

    It’s all about destroying the West.

    The CO2 emissions of USA, Europe, Russian and Japan haven’t changed significantly or have reduced since 1990. That’s total CO2, not per capita. See graph at https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2015-report (Someone posted a later graph a few days ago but I can’t find it right now.)

    The anti-energy lobby of the Left are wicked. Expensive energy primarily harms the poor in Western countries and the Third World such as Africa. It benefits the Elites.

    231

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      And poor countries suffer ‘collateral’ damage. Lebanon is in severe economic problems as is Sri Lanka, with food shortages and high prices. I haven’t surveyed further but there must be other countries heading down the Venezuala path.
      The Greens must be happy as most of them rely on Govt. pay checks and cannot conceive of any problem affecting them.

      141

      • #
        Ross

        Interesting how the Sri Lankan food crisis has been reported recently. Most don’t realise this was an own goal by their own government because they ordered the country’s 2 million farmers to go organic. So all synthetic fertilisers and pesticides were banned and organic farming was supposed to be implemented over 10 years. It very quickly became a disaster for all the obvious reasons. They have since gone back to more conventional farming.

        51

  • #
  • #
    David Maddison

    Sorry b, that was meant to be a “thumbs up”.

    52

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Coal is quite a useful asset unless our stupid & ignorant politicians ban it.
    South Australia leads the nation! The coal-fired stations and mine built to stop endless variable electricity generation problems (with blackouts) have been shut down and destroyed so we can have the ‘benefit’ of endless variable electricity generation problems (with blackouts) by using renewables.
    At least 20% of the State has brown coal deposits but the government has banned any use (or exploration) of that.
    And because renewables don’t work we get to use lots of gas (and imports of brown coal-fired electricity from Victoria) to actually keep the electricity supply ‘working’. Personally I am getting tired of resetting the clock on my wall oven as it doesn’t reset itself after an interruption, unlike other electronic devices – but it does make it bvious how fragile the system has become.

    171

    • #
      yarpos

      The wall oven clock-o-meter is a handy guage of grid stability.

      When we first moved into our area the grid was quite fragile, and we had that syndrome quite often.

      Post fire network upgrades and more agressive tree clearing programs have improved things a lot. Now I guess “RE” will start pushing us over the edge again

      51

    • #
      Ross

      Same with the oven clock. In my case the oven wont work unless the clock is reset.

      31

  • #
    Erasmus

    Bridget McKenzie positive about coal while Morrison kyboshes QLD coal fired power station!

    101

  • #
    Simon

    There is a limited carbon Budget to keep global surface temperature below 2 degrees of warming and thermal coal is the most CO2 inefficient means of energy production. Unfortunately, Chinese and Australian politicians want to drop kick the problem to 2050, but the reductions must happen much earlier. Fortunately, Australian politicians are removable.

    341

    • #
      el+gordo

      Thermal coal is the most efficient means of energy production.

      Leave out CO2 because it doesn’t make the world warmer, El Nino is responsible for that.

      290

      • #
        Simon

        ENSO is merely a measure of relative heat distribution between ocean and atmosphere. You can’t create energy from nothing.

        117

        • #
          el+gordo

          ‘You can’t create energy from nothing.’

          I beg to differ, where does the Western Pacific Warm Pool get its heat from?

          Its the heat engine of the world and it never slackens.

          70

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            you could do a search, and you would find this

            Simon is right

            09

            • #
              b.nice

              Starts with the words “Due to human-caused climate change, “

              So wrong in the very first line.. ideologically driven nonsense.

              Absolutely nothing to do with humans.

              Is it any wonder the tropical oceans have become warmer when we have had a longest period of sustained solar maxima since the Little Ice Age. Or are you another scientific illiterate who thinks the sun doesn’t heat the ocean.

              Simon is WRONG.. so are you.

              70

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                then prove it, stop with waffle and the attacks and provide links (and at least at the level that I linked)

                07

              • #
                b.nice

                Again, Peter. Global warming by human CO2 is your fantasy….

                It is totally in your court to prove that it exists, which would be counter to the basic physic of energy transfer.

                You obviously have zero clue about basic physics, so it really does make it impossible for you to even start presenting a scientific case.

                You obviously do not understand the basics of radiative energy transfer.

                Net energy transfer is determined by temperature difference.

                CO2 does not influence the gravity based temperature gradient, therefore cannot change net energy transfer. period.

                This is basic physics that you are absolutely unable to counter.

                30

              • #
                b.nice

                You also need to show that tropical oceans are not warmed by the sun.

                Good luck with that, because again, you will have to go against all known physics, and just invent some anti-science little fantasy.

                40

              • #
                b.nice

                “Or are you another scientific illiterate who thinks the sun doesn’t heat the ocean.”

                Seeing as you avoid answering this, it seems that you are ..

                Answer this quick question….

                Do you think that the Sun warms the tropical oceans?
                …. yes or no.

                20

            • #
              b.nice

              And please, show us where they did all the surface measurements to get the data for their graphs.

              ARGO didn’t come into effect until 2005, and they wouldn’t have a clue what the temperatures were in the early 1900s.

              Its all fake, fabricated or modeled with assumption driven models.

              60

        • #
          b.nice

          Great that you show that you are totally clueless about ENSO and what drives it.

          Totally expected, though.

          30

        • #
          b.nice

          Simon obviously thinks that the Sun, which just happens to be always over the tropics, doesn’t cause any ocean warming.

          That seems to be about the extent of his understanding of “science”… below zero !

          20

        • #
          b.nice

          “You can’t create energy from nothing.”

          Yet that is exactly what the AGW scam pretends CO2 does.

          The AGW farce counters all known physics and makes up a fantasy physics all of its own.

          10

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Hilarious 🙂 🙂

      110

    • #
      Neville

      AGAIN just for Simon I provide this very simple graph of Countries’ co2 emissions since 1970 or 1990.
      What is it about this data/evidence that you don’t understand?
      AGAIN note that the combined EU + USA co2 emissions haven’t increased since 1970 or 1990.
      Then look at China, India and other developing countries soaring co2 emissions since 1990, AFTER Dr Hansen’s alarmist talk in 1988.
      This is 30 years of data, so when will you WAKE UP?
      And the 0.8 billion people in the SH already have their co2 emissions finding a home in a NATURAL SINK, see CSIRO Cape Grim data.
      And even Dr Finkel had to admit to the Senate that Aussies could stop all of our emissions today and it wouldn’t make any difference at all, or “virtually nothing”.
      But by all means tell us about your crazy EXISTENTIAL threat and why you BELIEVE your FANTASIES?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png

      160

    • #
      GlenM

      Still trotting out the same old nonsense about climate sensitivity when no body has a clue- even if such a thing exists in reality. Mills and Boon scientists put out a 2 degree warming as disastrous. Alarmism to keep non thinking types in their place.

      150

    • #
      Ronin

      Are you saying that humankind can only exist in a band of 2 deg.

      100

    • #
      Ronin

      “Fortunately, Australian politicians are removable.”

      That’s true but not for China, so that puts a big crimp in you nut zero aspirations, suck it up sunshine.

      110

    • #
      yarpos

      No there isn’t. We don’t control climate. That is just a political/social construct for those who identify as omnipotent climate controlling gods who bear zero responsibility if their claims do not work and/or the economy and national security are destroyed for zero net value.

      [wee edit. – LVA]

      70

    • #
      Forrest Gardener

      You first Simon. Live without anything derived from fossil fuels for a week and get back to us.

      60

    • #
      yarpos

      No there isnt a limited budget nor even a meaningful temp measure. We dont control climate. That is just a social construct for those who identify as climate controlling gods.

      50

    • #
      b.nice

      “There is a limited carbon Budget to keep global surface temperature below 2 degrees of warming and thermal coal is the most CO2 inefficient means of energy production.”

      What a load of scientifically unsupportable balderdash you keep parroting.!

      1. The 2 degree meme is “just made up”

      2. Warming by CO2 is an anti-science myth.

      3. Coal is the most cost efficient and biosphere beneficial way of producing electricity

      4. Coal, oil and gas, are responsible for building modern society and civilisations.. its understandable that the far-left want to get rid of it.

      50

      • #
        Simon

        Evidence please. Once again, you’re contradicting 120 years of scientific peer-reviewed scientific literature. It takes incredible hubris to continue advocating a contrarian position against expert consensus.

        09

        • #
          MP

          Evidence, you want him to prove a problem that does not exist, does not exist.
          He will get right on it after he proves there is no such thing as ghosts.

          expert consensus.

          Do you know every criminal in prison is innocent, according to the consensus conducted by the criminals

          40

        • #
          b.nice

          And warming by human released CO2 counters all basic physics. Its your story.. find some actual science to support it.

          You have yet to show anywhere where warming by atmospheric CO2 has been observed or measured (models with anti-science assumptions don’t count)

          Still relying on Arhennius, who couldn’t even get the same physical units on each side of his equations (T^4 = dimensionless number).

          Yes, we have known that CO2 is a radiative gas for a long time, but warming the atmosphere has only ever been a conjecture.

          That is why you and your fellow brain-washed anti-science zealots are totally incapable of supporting it with any actual science.

          You do know that funding and religious based consensus is not related to any sort of science, don’t you !

          You say the science exists.. then present it. (If you even know what real science is.)

          30

        • #
          b.nice

          It takes incredible stupidity to keep pushing anti-science that you know you cannot support with any actual science.

          30

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Simon:
          your comment about 120 years indicates that you believe Arrhenius’s claim that CO2 traps solar heat, causing Global Warming. Even at that time this was disputed by Angström, Boltzmann, Planck and Einstein. If you are so keen on consensus then I am sure you will side with them.

          And by the way, my attention was drawn to the claim that CO2 ‘traps heat’ (Infrared radiation); some one who believed tIhis trialled double glazing with CO2 inside. Surprisingly it turned out that CO2 was worse than plain air for insulating the houses from loss of heat to cold surroundings.
          I would recommend you not enter the double glazing market (with your own money)..

          40

          • #
            Simon

            And after several years of debate, Arrhenius was proved to be correct. That’s how science works. The greenhouse effect is empirically proven fact.

            08

            • #
              b.nice

              Rubbish.. Arhennius only ever made a conjecture.

              That conjecture was incorrect.

              As you keep showing us.. there is no evidence that human atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

              40

            • #
              b.nice

              Svante Arrhenius won a Nobel Prize in chemistry for his excellent work in electrolytes, but his 1896 paper about the CO2 impact on climate and the atmospheric “greenhouse effect” (http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf) was a colossal failure!

              In this publication, Arrhenius shows remarkable inability to distinguish between a-priori assumptions and empirical evidence.

              (Just like climate science today.. they and their followers can’t tell the difference between assumptions and actual evidence)

              He proposed a mathematical model to “predict” the effect of atmospheric CO2 on the global surface temperature (his Eqs. 3 & 4) that violates a basic principle of dimensional analysis, i.e. measurement units on the left-hand side of his equation do NOT match the units on the right-hand side! Specifically, his Eq. 4 claims T^4 = dimensionless number which, of course, is a total physical nonsense.

              It’s really pathetic … Everyone, who cares about the truth regarding climate change, should read Arrhenius (1896: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf) in order to understand the unphysical roots and ABSURDITY of the climate “greenhouse theory”…

              I suspect that reading it would be too much for you though, let alone comprehending the problems in the paper.

              50

            • #
              b.nice

              “The greenhouse effect is empirically proven fact.”

              LOL, I bet you haven’t got a clue what that even means.

              If you think you do, then present the empirical evidence.

              No more regurgitated mantra.. just bring science…..

              … or don’t 😉

              40

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Arrhenius eventually conceded that his concept of atmospheric CO2 heating was WRONG.

              Straight from the horses mouth.

              P.V = n.R.T means that CO2 does exactly what it is told to do by the surrounding gases and local conditions.

              No special privileges.

              40

              • #
                b.nice

                Yep, Basic physics RULES !!

                The atmospheric temperature is controlled by the pressure-temperature gradient.. proven by the Connelly father/son duo using 2 million sets of balloon data.

                ie P.V = n.R.T

                And by SB laws, net radiation between altitudes is defined only by temperature differences.

                There is no room for any tiny change in a trace gas like CO2 having any influence whatsoever.

                Only H2O can alter the atmospheric gradient, via latent heat and changes in form and specific energy.

                H2O is the only real “greenhouse gas”, but is rapidly turned around and is actually the major coolant/regulator of the Earth’s lower atmosphere because of its ability to transfer bulk energy to higher in the atmosphere.

                40

          • #
            b.nice

            Really…. you mean that adding more radiatively active gas to a radiatively cooled atmosphere, actually enhances radiative energy transfer.

            Well who would guessed 😉

            A bit like using thicker copper wire, hey 😉

            It has been shown by actual measurements that while there is a drop in outgoing radiation in the thin weak CO2 band, there is a consequent increase in outgoing radiation in the much wider atmospheric window.

            Data also shows that OLR is totally related to atmospheric temperature..

            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/tlt-vs-olr-trop-erbs1.png?w=640&h=401

            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/tlt-vs-olr-trop-ceres1.png?w=640&h=301

            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/olr-60-60-erbsceres-c.png?w=640&h=251

            CO2 doesn’t trap any energy whatsoever.

            20

        • #
          Gary S

          Simon – ‘It takes incredible hubris to continue advocating a contrarian position against expert consensus.’ THAT is how every important scientific advance in history has come about – one lone voice questioning the ‘consensus’.

          40

          • #
            b.nice

            It takes a totally brain-washed “follower” not to question the so-called consensus.

            In actual fact, the top atmospheric physicists, Happer, Soon, etc etc know the whole AGW farce is just a load of non-science baloney. !

            40

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    In the early fifties many homes in Australia did not have electrical cooking devices; wood and coal fired stoves were the go along with some gas.

    I suspect that a lot of China uses wood or coal or charcoal to get them by; the pollution must be enormous.

    Modern coal fired power generation is a good step up in terms of reducing atmospheric pollution.

    The new restrictions placed on the developed world in the name of CO2 and COVID19 are crippling, unjustified and basically just Evil. We live in difficult times.

    140

    • #
      David Maddison

      In Africa, respiratory diseases are common because of the use of wood stoves inside their huts.

      As too is deforestation to get the wood.

      You can’t cook with solar and wind power in any practical sense in Africa.

      But the Left are against Enlightenment values and the marvels of the Industrial Revolution. They have Africa at exactly the standard of living they want for the non-Elites. I.e. living in mud huts with wood stoves.

      130

      • #
        Graeme#4

        According to the UN, around 3 billion people cook using polluting open fires or simple stoves fuelled by kero, biomass such as wood, animal dung and crop waste, and coal.
        Each year, around 4 million people die prematurely from illnesses attributable to household air pollution.
        One billion people don’t have access to electricity, and two billion don’t have access to reliable electricity.
        And lastly, around half the deaths due to pneumonia among children under 5 years are caused by soot inhaled from household air pollution.
        WHY are the alarmists and greens so keen in denying these folks access to clean, cheap electricity?

        170

        • #
          Gary S

          Graeme, that two billion people who don’t have access to reliable electricity would quickly become almost eight billion if the alarmists had their way.

          100

    • #
      Chris

      Keith to add to your list. Many people did not have refrigerators, but they did have ice chests. This was a timber cupboard lined with tin. The top of the cupboard lifted up and the ice man who came once a week dropped a solid block of ice into it. Over time the tin lining rusted and water pipe broke – it took melted ice into a bucket. So people then bought the more expensive DRY ice , same size block and kept food colder .

      DRY ICE is solid frozen CO2 . CO2 goes from a solid-state to a gaseous state, one of CO2’s many benefits.

      70

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Yes, we had the ice man, and then modernised to the eternal flame version; kerosene.

        The good news was that, unlike a lot of the rest of the world, we had very effective chimneys to at least draw gaseous and particulate pollution outside the house where it was diluted.

        40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      KK:
      Yes, many old style homes were heated by (low grade hence cheaper) coal open fires. Switching consumers to electric climate control was an aim to reduce polution in Chinese cities, as it was in the UK after the thousands of deaths in the Great Smog in the 1950’s.
      Dickens wasn’t exaggerating when he wrote of “a typical London pea super”.
      Stephen Grey observed a white flash on the sun in 1705 when observing the sun in the polluted air in 1705.
      Others e.g. soldiers on parade were able to observe large sunspots while viewing it through the polluted London air in Victorian times.
      Low grade coal burnt without precautions by multitudes doesn’t help air quality. A central and efficient generation plant with scrubbers is much, much better.

      30

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        “A central and efficient generation plant with scrubbers is much, much better.”

        That’s the message.

        20

  • #
    el+gordo

    The key takeaway is that Beijing is boosting domestic production capacity by about 300 million tons, so that they are not so reliant on Australia.

    70

    • #
      yarpos

      Although large, China is not the only market in the world. As many business owners find out some customer relationships are toxic , no matter how big their nominal value is.

      90

    • #

      China will be pushed to boost production further from their existing coal mines which I understand are already being pushed hard at ever increasing depths.

      10

  • #
    Mike Jonas

    It looks like the Nationals are splitting the coalition over “net zero”. If that costs Scott Morrison and the LNP the election, they deserve it. The LNP are elected so that things like “net zero” don’t happen. Pandering to the Greens is an exercise in futility because there is absolutely nothing that an LNP government could do which would ever make a greenie vote for them.

    To my mind, Scott Morrison and the Nationals lost the election when SM bullied the Nats into agreeing to “net zero”. Barnaby Joyce I think it was who had the chance to destroy “net zero” as an LNP policy, and he caved in. He may regret it now and move against “net zero” but it’s too late. He lacked spine when it mattered. They have all let us down, and they don’t deserve to win the election.

    Anthony Albanese doesn’t deserve to win either, of course, but a timely dose of coronavirus has taken him out of the campaign and thus put his party well ahead. When he comes back, he might be able to deliver a win to the LNP but I doubt it. Looks like AA and “climate change” will rule Australia for the next three years. What a nightmare.

    The big question is: should I sell my immensely profitable coal shares, or will AA quietly recognise the reality that Australia needs the coal export income?

    180

    • #
      Neville

      Mike I agree with everything you’ve written, but I’ll also be putting the Labor, Greens idiots last in the house of REPS and the Senate.
      I wouldn’t sleep at night if I didn’t and I’d be ashamed of myself if I didn’t care enough to do it.

      140

    • #
      Ross

      I’m having a dejavu because I would have been happy for the LNP to lose the last election, if they had actually gone out swinging. At least been honest with the electorate regarding energy policy, rather than their perception of being “green” to attract voters from that side of the political fence. But, alas they managed to fall in by a slim margin. Looking back probably wouldn’t have made much difference if Labor/Greens had won that last election anyway. The bureaucrats run government and I suspect our COVID response would have been similar. Energy policy – probably similar under L/G. There would have still been bushfires and floods, so no difference there! The ABC would have been untouched by any reform- so same as LNP for last 4 years. Immigration – Labor apparently would be implementing “turn backs”, so I doubt the there would have been another boat people problem.

      30

    • #
      el+gordo

      The Nets are in the tent on 2050, except Canavan, so if rhe Coalition lose the election we could see a split.

      01

    • #
      David Maddison

      Even before any of that, if Klaus Schwab student, Greg Hunt hadn’t stopped an inquiry into data fraud at the Bureau of Meterology as requested by then PM Tony Abbott, then the whole scam would have been exposed.

      100

    • #
      Simon

      Australia is currently a pariah in the international community because its climate targets are considered to be insufficient.

      18

      • #
        Graeme#4

        I doubt very much that most European countries would care about what happens climate-wise in Australia,
        particularly Ukraine.

        30

      • #
        b.nice

        Australia’s climate targets are way over the top.

        We should be totally avoiding any sort of renewable energy push whatsoever, because destroys industry and society.

        WT* is a “climate target” anyway.

        Its a made up fantasy based on zero-science, and far-left agendas.

        It is meaningless, a pointless waste of funds, and totally destructive to the Australia way of life.

        Australia should be looking after itself, rather than going along with this highly destructive, woke, virtue-seeking, anti-science, anti-civilisation agenda.

        That means boosting our reliable electricity supply systems, best done using coal and gas.

        The inner city pseudo-environmentalist/greenies will be the first to wet their nappies once we start having consistent electricity outages… yet it is them that will be totally responsible for the situation.

        30

      • #
        Graeme#4

        And do you have any comment to make on the subject of the issue being discussed here, namely China increasing its coal usage? I would have thought that was more important to other nations than what Australia is doing.

        30

        • #
          b.nice

          Funny that with many times the CO2 emissions of Australia, that China and India are never called “pariahs”

          Australia cutting its CO2 to whatever is considered “net zero” would firstly destroy the country, especially the cities (electricity cuts should target green voting woke inner-city suburbs first.)

          Secondly, it would make zero difference to global CO2 output because it would just transfer what is left of our industry to China and India, (so probably increase global CO2 emissions)

          The whole thing is so utterly anti-science, and utterly anti-human as to be one of the most evil cons perpetrated by elites/marxists on the human population in any part of history.

          If not stopped soon, it has the possibility of being one of the most devastating self-destructive acts in the history of human civilisation.

          30

          • #
            Ian

            “Funny that with many times the CO2 emissions of Australia, that China and India are never called “pariahs”

            They’re not called pariahs as they are classed by the UN and World Bank as being developing nations. This is because their average annual incomes are below the official “cut off point” required to be classed as a developed nation. That in reality they are both very rich countries is not taken into account.

            02

      • #
        b.nice

        This is what Simon and the “net zero” idiots want for Australia,.. utter destruction !!!

        https://ipa.org.au/research/ipa-report-net-zero-means-no-new-coal-gas-oil-jobs

        This research reveals that a policy of net zero emissions by 2050 will inflict significant and irreparable economic and humanitarian damage across regional Australia.”

        “Many regional communities face the risk of being entirely wiped out by the destruction of the industries which they rely on, as a result of net zero.”

        “Net zero emissions means net zero jobs.”

        And guess what happens to food supplies to the big cities if you wipe out regional Australia. !

        10

      • #
        MP

        Is that how you spend your life, worrying what others think of you?

        10

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s what I wrote a few days ago.

    I just checked the Wiki co2 emissions data and the graph up to 2018 and it does add up to 100%.
    China + other developing countries + India add up to 65.26% of all co2 emissions, USA and EU 23.34%, Russia 4.76% + Japan 3.56% + International shipping and Aviation 3.3%.
    This adds up to 100.22% from the Wiki countries’ co2 emissions, so close enough. But please check it out for yourselves.
    But don’t forget that the COMBINED co2 emissions from the USA and EU 2018 are actually less than they were in 1990 and 1970.
    Anyone not understand this real world data since 1970 now? And the very obvious implications for Glasgow COP 26 and since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
    Don’t forget that China, India will probably keep emitting increased co2 until 2060 and 2070. And ditto the “other poor developing countries”.

    80

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Do you mean all those countries planing or building new coal-fired power stations?
      Even outside China and India there are hundreds in the pipeline.

      30

      • #
        Neville

        Yes Graeme no 3 I should’ve said the “other developing countries” will also need to build RELIABLE BASE-LOAD energy into the future.
        Unless they’re as stupid as the so called wealthy, scientific OECD countries?
        But not many developing countries seems to be that stupid so far.

        20

    • #
      b.nice

      possibly just a rounding error ? Add a whole heap of 2dp estimates together, you start getting rounding errors in the first decimal place.

      10

  • #
    Ross

    As I commented in a previous post – we (Australia) need to make sure the Chinese don’t use that model of reduced consumption as a bargaining tool to reduce long term prices. Originally, when ( Sambar?) commented on that model I thought it was probably a Chinese ruse. Unfortunately, it appears the model/forecast originated in Australia. which in a lot of respects is heaps worse. What you would normally describe as white- anting.

    40

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Matt Kean won’t wait for Canberra

    As his federal Coalition colleagues threaten to splinter over the path to net zero emissions, NSW Liberal Treasurer and Energy Minister Matt Kean is clear: the state is going there anyway, and consumers will benefit.

    It’s a view that has brought friction with Canberra, and which threatens to drive a bigger wedge into the fracturing National Electricity Market.

    Kean goes so far as to assert that for NSW’s journey in the energy transition, it makes little difference which party wins the May 21 election.

    “From our perspective it doesn’t matter who’s in government, because we’ve got very clear plans and policies here in New South Wales that are in the interests of New South Wales taxpayers, and the families and businesses that operate here,” he says.

    “We’ll work with whoever sits in the federal parliament to make sure we get the best outcome for the public.”

    But Kean has plenty of energy left to talk up his vision for NSW’s future as he seeks to steer the state from its reputation as a global powerhouse in thermal coal exports to “an energy and economic superpower”, based on “some of the best renewable resources anywhere on the planet”.

    “This is not just a play for our environment, this is a major strategic economic play to underwrite the future prosperity of our state and our nation,” he says.

    Preparing for reality

    “Today, half of the world’s wealth is being created in jurisdictions that have committed to net zero, so those markets that have previously underwritten our state’s prosperity are changing, and we want to make sure we’re well-placed to take advantage of those global megatrends in a way that will create jobs, drive investment into New South Wales and underwrite prosperity like the state’s never seen before.”

    The transformation required is dramatic. Coal is the state’s largest export earner and contributed about $1.5 billion to the NSW budget in 2019-20, while 81 per cent of the state’s electricity still came from non-renewable sources. NSW also hosts major energy-intensive manufacturers such as the Tomago aluminium smelter and the BlueScope Steel works at Port Kembla, whose futures – and those of thousands of employees – have hinged on the availability of cheap coal power.

    40

  • #
    Fast Bowler

    The likely only explanations of why many Horsetralian politicians want renewables are:
    They are corrupted
    They are stupid
    They are both corrupt and stupid
    They can’t read past a first paragraph
    They are only there because of our “representative democracy”, not a true democracy
    They think critical thinking skills are subordinate to “but how does it feel”

    An old mate and I were enjoying an excellent dinner and wine last night and agreed it is the first time in history that it is good to be old. How sad is that?

    141

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    Whilst Australia plays ‘come in spinner’ by clarting about, relentlessly worshiping the Golden Calf of global warming, and hating our wonderful coal energy resource, the CCP does the switcheroo and has a love-in with coal-fired energy in order to forge their industrial might. The CCP are good at these tactics, plus they are great strategists. We are neither tacticians nor strategists. We may as well give our coal to China for free. They’re smart enough to know how to use it properly as a valuable resource.

    51

  • #
    Colin Spencer

    Germany has approved expansion of its brown coal mining leases in order to guarantee energy security. Reality bites, doesn’t it?

    110

  • #
    Serp

    It’s not specified in the story at https://www.denverpost.com/2022/04/24/wynn-bruce-climate-change-self-immolation/ exactly what sacred fuel was used for an Earth Day ultimate self sacrifice by Wynn Bruce but for fidelity to purpose it ought to have enabled combustion without emissions.

    71

  • #

    “But, but, but, China will follow our leeeeeeeead.”

    30

  • #

    You would think there would be at least one journalist somewhere who would actually go and look at the data, eh, and from there probably ask the question ….. WHY is China doing this?

    Last year 2021, China increased its power generation by 10.3% to 8312.8TWH. (Umm, so the increase alone was more than four times Australia’s (AEMO, sorry Joanne) yearly total power consumption)

    So for the sake of comparison, China generates Australia’s total power generation multiplied by 40.75. (Again, that’s just the AEMO coverage area)

    Also for comparison, China’s population is Australia’s total multiplied by 56.

    So China still has a long way to go yet to reach equivalence with Australia, and Australia is approximately the same as nearly all of the Developed World in respect of electricity consumption and population.

    China is actually only 70% of the way there so if 8312TWH is 70%, then that effectively means they have another 30% to go to reach parity, so that’s another 3600TWH. (or another 18 Australia’s)

    (Spooky, isn’t it when the data is presented like that)

    That means coal fired power like there actually is no tomorrow. China currently gets 70% of all its power from coal fired sources.The most of that power generation goes to Industry, and the Residential Sector only gets 14% of that power. (In the Developed World, almost 35% (up to anyway) goes to that Residential Sector) So China has a long long way to go to give ‘parity’ electrical power to people in their homes.

    Okay then, work it out.

    Coal fired power, and nearly all the new Plants in China are younger than any here in Australia, and those new tech plants, (up to three levels of technology better than any here in Australia) will last 50 years, and there’s vast numbers still to be constructed.

    If they stopped all of that RIGHT NOW (yeah right) then the largest coal fired power concentration on the Planet will still be in place in 2070.

    Hey let’s do all we can here in Australia to cripple our own Country for the tiniest fraction of a fraction when compared to China.

    Huh! Who are we Kiddin’.

    Tony.

    Source – China Electricity Council

    240

    • #
      David Maddison

      Thanks Tony, the numbers say it all. That’s why they don’t teach real arithmetic or critical thinking in the “schools any more.

      70

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Wow!

      POP.

      Perspective on Politics.

      50

    • #
      Neville

      Thanks for that data Tony and here’s what I wrote here about 3 weeks ago.

      “So why are Humans so wealthy and healthy today and why has our global population grown so rapidly since 1800?
      In 1800 our population reached 1 billion people, then 2 billion by 1927,then 3 billion by 1960. then 4 billion by 1974, then 5 billion by 1987, then 6 billion by 1999, then 7 billion by 2011 and today about 7.9 billion and soon 8 billion by 2023.
      Yet the rate of global pop growth has DECLINED since about 1965, although a very young African pop ( about 19 years) has ensured a much more rapid growth in that continent since 1970.
      But the Malthusian donkeys plus some of the kiddies etc all tell us we are living in the end times and are facing a Climate CRISIS or EXISTENTIAL THREAT etc.
      AOC and Biden, UN, UK, EU, plus Aussie donkeys etc think we only have a few years left before we face the apocalypse and we’ll all be punished for our sins.
      So how come we now have a global life expectancy of about 73 today and increasing wealth and YET we’re supposed to fall over the precipice in just a few years time? Any ideas, anyone?”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population

      30

      • #
        Ross

        Read a book a few years back. “Empty Planet” by Darrel Bricker & John Ibbotson. It’s about the shock of population decline. Lays it all out with good proof and statistics. The earth’s population is about to top out and be nowhere near the doomsday estimates from the UN etc.

        50

        • #
          Neville

          Ross, Dr Rosling was an expert in population growth and he also estimated that global population wouldn’t be a problem by 2100.
          And the fertility rate has been falling since the mid 1960s and Elon Musk has also raised concerns about this fertility fall recently.
          But I think there’ll be at least another 2 billion people by 2100, but who knows?
          I know this fall since the 1960s is hard for most people to understand because we’ve lived with the fastest pop growth rates in Human history.
          Yet we’re much healthier and wealthier today as well and UN projections also tell us that people in 2100 will be 3 to 4 times wealthier than we are today, even with an increase in temperature.
          And Lomborg’s expert group also agrees with those projections.

          40

  • #
    David Maddison

    This short video illustrates the tragedy imposed by the Leftist anti-energy lobby on Africans by denying them access to cheap and clean coal and gas electrical energy and gas for cooking.

    They have to use dangerously polluting wood and dung stoves for cooking.

    Part of the solution proposed in this video is a more efficient stove design but it still uses wood resulting in deforestation.

    What Africans need is access to electricity from coal and gas for cooking or gas flame for cooking but these are deemed “bad for the environment” and the World Bank won’t lend them funds for proper coal and gas power stations (but will lend for useless wind and solar).

    Africans don’t care for virtue signaling. All they want is cheap, reliable power 24/7 As provided by coal and gas, and properly engineered hydro.

    https://youtu.be/aELeIVRqdDM

    70

  • #
    Neville

    Interesting to look up life expectancy for China since 1950.

    In 1950 43.45 years. IOW poor and sick.

    In 1982 67.3 years. See start of Jo’s graph for coal.

    In 2022 77.3 years and projected to be 10 years higher in 2100.

    Strange thing is I can’t seem to find any harm from that massive increase in the use of Coal or gas or oil etc.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/life-expectancy

    50

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s Human fertility rates since 1950 and until 2100.
    This is UN Data and Dr Rosling was a world expert on global health and wealth before his death from cancer a few years ago.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/fertility-rate

    40

  • #
    Philip

    If only we had such sensible leadership. But no, we get no option even.

    30

  • #

    More misleading guff about reasons for increasing AEMO wholesale NEM electricity prices from the ABC –

    Wholesale power prices soared 141 per cent, year on year, and households should brace for more 29Apr2022
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-29/power-pain-as-bills-tipped-to-rise-40-per-cent-on-surging-prices/101023488

    01