Clean Energy Just Put China's CO2 Emissions Into Reverse For First Time (carbonbrief.org)
- Reference: 0177546915
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/05/16/052233/clean-energy-just-put-chinas-co2-emissions-into-reverse-for-first-time
- Source link: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-clean-energy-just-put-chinas-co2-emissions-into-reverse-for-first-time/
> The new analysis for Carbon Brief shows that China's emissions were down 1.6% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2025 and by 1% in the latest 12 months. Electricity supply from new wind, solar and nuclear capacity was enough to cut coal-power output even as demand surged, whereas previous falls were due to weak growth.
>
> The analysis, based on official figures and commercial data, shows that China's CO2 emissions have now been stable, or falling, for more than a year. However, they remain only 1% below the latest peak, implying that any short-term jump could cause China's CO2 emissions to rise to a new record.
[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-clean-energy-just-put-chinas-co2-emissions-into-reverse-for-first-time/
China is to be congratulated (Score:3)
No matter what your politics is.
Re: China is to be congratulated (Score:3)
Not sure that's true so much as most of the rest of the world deserves condemnation. It's not like they have crossed net zero, they have only (hopefully) passed their peak... Way too late.
But those of us whose emissions are still increasing ought to check ourselves and fix it. Drill baby drill doesn't let us have a future, and impacts our present as well.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
China drastically reduced world C02 emissions in 2020 with COVID. amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
That's stupid. China new about climate change and then proceeded to expand in the most ecologically destructive manner.
Praising them for merely reducing their emissions would be like praising someone who decided not merely to up smoking but to take up chain-smoking and then deciding to reduce how much they smoke.
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like a similar administration if you want to go that route.
Re: (Score:2)
Doubt it includes rural solid fuel burning for heat, which is 44% of rural energy consumption in China.
Not reverse: slowing down (Score:4, Informative)
If emissions were in reverse then they would be removing CO2 faster than they were emitting it which is not happening. Instead what is happening is the rate of emission has decreased since the prior year. There is a significant difference between these two things.
It's not even pedantry because if you were to described to someone as person slowing down their car as "driving reverse" then they would be very confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Journalists can be lazy when writing about gossip and sport.
But when writing science and technical news, they need to think about what their words mean.
And they fully deserve to be called out when they write nonsense, as here.
Just as "Editors" deserve to be called out when they parrot nonsense, as here.
Re:Not reverse: slowing down (Score:5, Informative)
Right but this is still a laudable accomplishment. They have achieved net-negative emissions growth while increasing energy production.
That is a big deal. The questions are how far can it take them. Shuttering some of your dirtiest coal plants and swapping them for solar works might net you some quick wins; but you continue before you hit base load and reliability problems?
A 1.6% YOY decrease in emissions is a big deal if you are a big emitter like China, but it only changes the math in a meaningful way if you can continue such decreases for 25, 26, 27 and on...
Right now all this amounts to is, Chinese emissions peaked, and it might even be a local event in time, nothing says they don't decide to become the AI compute capital of the world and spin up a bunch more old coal because its quick and cheap.
Re: (Score:3)
They're not shutting down their coal plants, they're reducing the duty cycle of their coal plants. They have more coal capacity in 2025 than they did in 2024; they're just using them less. So they're not going to have base load and reliability problems.
They can continue on this path forever. One can certainly imagine a scenario where they maintain a coal plant for emergency purposes but never hit the emergency situation that needs the plant. They can have 0% coal usage yet still have significant coal
Re: (Score:3)
See this is exactly why I don't but it fully. You can't have significant coal capacity and 0% usage. That is not now large industrial scale machinery works.
You don't just not run something like a coal plant. You can mothball it and then restart it sure but that isn't an instantaneous process. So it does not work as peaker or back up.
You have run have to hot-idle it. Those turbines can't just sit there not running for months and then just fire up the like hair dryer you pulled out of the drawer and plugg
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, it's not quick and cheap anymore. Coal is more expensive than solar now - it would be cheaper for them to spin up solar. And that's exactly what's happening - even though new coal plants are being built, and sadly at the highest rate this year for 10 years, the actual amount of burned coal is predicted to be lower.
[1]Here's a good look [sustainabi...umbers.com] at what's happening. More plants are being built, but it's expensive so less coal is being burned. Renewables, mostly solar, are in the ascendant there.
[1] https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants
Re: (Score:3)
Is deceleration anything but reverse acceleration when you really think about it? It's like in rocketry, if you want to slow down, you flip and burn in the opposite direction.
No matter how you parse it, it's still good that they may have hit their emissions-per-year peak. That's something the US is trying to undo for ourselves.
And it's cheap? (Score:5, Insightful)
So wait, somehow China managed to
a. Get electricity cheaper than here
b. Develop a gigantic new industry
and
c. Actually reverse course on carbon intensity while still being far-and-away the world's manufacturer of traditionally dirty products like steel?
Boy am I sure glad we went all in on drill-baby-drill. That sure worked out for us.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you miss the part where their emissions are *falling*?
I mean, it's right there in the story title. You didn't even have to read the summary, which we know you didn't:
> Electricity supply from new wind, solar and nuclear capacity was enough to cut coal-power output even as demand surged, whereas previous falls were due to weak growth.
For fucks sake.
Re:And it's cheap? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing what you can accomplish with a tyranical governement, no human rights, and slave labor, isn't it ?
Re: (Score:2)
But solar power is gay!
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
"The analysis, based on official figures and commercial data, shows that China’s CO2 emissions have now been stable, or falling, for more than a year."
If you are foolish enough to trust Chinese government information you basically are begging to be shocked, SHOCKED, at the inevitable revelation that they were a fantasy.
Re:And it's cheap? (Score:4, Informative)
These days the Chinese government isn't any less trusty than that of the USA.
Nevermind that, the research in TFA is from a Finland-based organization that looks fairly independent and not taking political sides. What are your specific reasons to distrust them or their reports?