No matter what your take on climate change, it’s hard to make any progress without China. But guess what China’s doing.
Please note China Orders Coal Mines to Increase Production as power shortages bite.
Authorities in Inner Mongolia, China’s second largest coal-producing province, have asked 72 mines to boost production by a total of 98.4 million metric tons, according to state-owned Securities Times and the China Securities Journal, citing a document from Inner Mongolia’s Energy Administration. The order, which was approved on Thursday, took effect immediately, the state media outlets said.
The figure is equivalent to about 30% of China’s monthly coal production, according to recent government data. Inner Mongolia’s energy authorities didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment by CNN Business.
Power shortages have spread to 20 provinces in recent weeks, forcing the government to ration electricity during peak hours and some factories to suspend production. These disruptions resulted in a sharp drop in industrial output last month and weighed on the outlook for China’s economy.
The order comes only days after China’s top economic planning agency asked the country’s three biggest coal producing provinces — Inner Mongolia, Shanxi, and Shaanxi — to deliver 145 million metric tons of coal in the fourth quarter, so that the “livelihood use of coal” is not interrupted, according to separate statements by the provincial authorities last week.
Coal Shortages Push Up Prices
The Wall Street Journal reports Coal Shortages Push Up Prices, Weigh on Economies
Coal supply shortages are pushing prices for the fuel to record highs and laying bare the challenges to weaning the global economy off one of its most important—and polluting—energy sources.
The crunch has many causes—from the post-pandemic boom to supply-chain strains and ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions. And it is expected to last at least through the winter, raising fears in many countries of fuel shortfalls in the months ahead.
Australia’s Newcastle thermal coal, a global benchmark, is trading at $202 a metric ton, three times higher than at the end of 2019. Global production of coal, which generates around 40% of the world’s electricity, is about 5% below pre-pandemic levels.
In Europe, the rising prices for coal and other energy resources have hit factory output and driven household energy bills higher. Major coal importers in Asia, including Japan and South Korea, are jostling to secure supplies.
In China, dwindling supplies and surging costs have resulted in electricity shortfalls on a scale unseen in more than a decade, hitting industry and prompting some cities to turn off traffic lights to conserve power.
Globally, coal supply hasn’t kept pace with demand driven by the buoyant economic recovery world-wide after last year’s pandemic slump.
Glasgow Climate Summit
The COP26 Climate Summit is in Glasgow, UK. It runs from October 31 to November 12, 2021.
COP stands for the conference of the Parties to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which set the stage for all international cooperation on climate. The COP is the top decision-making body for implementing the Convention and follow-up instruments like the 2015 Paris Agreement. Generally meeting once a year, the COP reviews national reports on emissions reductions and other climate measures. Glasgow will host the twenty-sixth COP.
Top Priorities
- Keep global temperature rise to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius through rapid, bold emissions cuts and net-zero commitments.
- Increase international finance for adaptation to at least half the total spent on climate action.
- Meet the existing commitment to provide $100 billion in international climate finance each year so that developing countries can invest in green technologies, and protect lives and livelihoods against worsening climate impacts.
COP 26 Details
The Washington Post has COP26 Details.
Tens of thousands of people from every corner of the globe are preparing to gather in Glasgow for a two-week United Nations summit that could shape how — and whether — the world effectively slows climate change in the years ahead.
Irony abounds. If activists were so concerned, perhaps they would stay home and do this summit virtually instead of jet-setting tens of thousands of people to discuss ways to reduce emissions.
Compounding the irony: “Climate protesters are planning to arrive in force to demand that world leaders match their rhetoric with real-world action.”
Questions Abound
- What about Covid concerns of putting tens of thousands of people from all over the globe together?
- Where is the great social distancer when you need one?
Already a Failure
Top officials have made clear their desire to finally “consign coal to history,” in the words of Alok Sharma, the U.K. politician serving as president of COP26.
In late 2015, nations agreed to work together to limit the warming of the planet to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius and, if possible, to stop at 1.5 Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
Since then global temperatures have allegedly risen 1.2 degrees of that 1.5 degree goal.
Catastrophic Nonsense
A recent U.N. analysis found that even if nations meet their current promises, the globe would still be on pace to experience an average temperature rise of 2.7 Celsius by the end of the century — a path U.N. Secretary António Guterres has described as “catastrophic.”
Investigating the Mass Hysteria Over 1 Degree in Climate Change Since 1850
Please consider my September 5 report Investigating the Mass Hysteria Over 1 Degree in Climate Change Since 1850
Key Snip Synopsis
- Temperatures have risen a a best estimate of 1.07°C since 1850 due to man-made causes.
- The sea rise between 1971 and 2006 was 1.3 mm per year. That’s 0.0511811 inches per year.
- The sea rise between 2006 and 2018 was 3.7 mm per year. That’s 0.145669 inches per year.
- Under all emissions scenarios, global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century.
Future Emissions Projections Table
Future Emissions “What If?”
- If by some miracle we follow the SSP 1-1.9 row in the table, the current best estimate is temperatures will rise anyway until 2100 by 1.4 degrees.
- According to row SSP 2-4.5, if there is no further progress at all until 2050, temperatures would only rise an additional 1.3 degrees vs SSP 1-1.9.
- Under SSP 1-2.6, there’s a mere 0.4 degrees difference from a very radical effort to cut emissions to 0 by 2050!
Media Can’t Handle the Climate Truth
Please consider the WSJ Op-Ed Media Can’t Handle the Climate Truth
After 41 years of promoting a fuzzy and unsatisfying estimate of how much warming might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, the world’s climate science arbiter has finally offered the first real improvement in the history of modern climate science.
The U.N. panel now says the dire emissions scenario it promoted for two decades should be regarded as highly unlikely, with more plausible projections at least a third lower.
Cost Comparison
The cost of following scenario SSP 1-1.9 would be in the tens of trillions of dollars if not higher. The alleged benefit is 0.4 degrees by 2100, phased in over roughly 80 years.
The cost of following SSP 1-2.6 is arguably little. We may very well already be on a path to reduce emissions by 50% by 2050.
AOC wants an 80% reduction by 2030 and 100% by 2035. That is far more radical than SSP 1-1.9.
It’s also economically crazy. I believe, anything beyond SSP 1-2.6 is economically crazy.
AOC and the progressives are hell bent on an absurd proposal of an 80% reduction in carbon by 2030. And that is without China on board.
How to Avoid a Carbon-Based Global Trade War
An 80% carbon reduction by 2030 will never happen. But there will be huge economic pain if they try.
In How to Avoid a Carbon-Based Global Trade War in Simple Steps, World Trade Online presents one idea.
I present another, far simpler idea: Don’t Do Anything Stupid Like Start One.
Thanks for Tuning In!
Like these reports? If so, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.
Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen.
Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.
Mish
Dear Mish,
here. If I am a bad boy generally I get a lump of coal in my stocking at
Christmas but if coal is in short supply and if I get a lump of coal meaning
something valuable then what does that say for Santa’s system for punishing bad
behavior and rewarding good ones if in both cases children, the good and the
bad, receive something valuable? If children do not learn the difference at an early age would not that result in the fall of Civilization and massive unemployment for the hard-working little folk like me?
A Concerned Elf
home and do this summit virtually instead of jet-setting tens of
thousands of people to discuss ways to reduce emissions.”
We should go to green hydrogen to fuel our vehicles however
hydrogen is hard to contain and has a tendency to explode at inopportune times.
As a gas it is too diffuse to keep much capacity. We could cool it down for it
to become a liquid but that itself it takes energy. We need to be able to turn
the green hydrogen into something that is liquid at room temperature.
Fortunately if we add carbon atoms to the hydrogen we can come up with
configurations where the hydrogen and carbon atoms combined become a
high-energy liquid which could be used to run motors in a dependable manner. A
tankful could easily run the car for hundreds of miles and could be filled to capacity
in a few minutes.
The way to go is to use windmills to generate electricity to
generate green hydrogen which we combine with carbon atoms to make a
high-energy liquid that will run cars for hundreds of miles. If there is a more
efficient way to get a hydrogen-carbon liquid full of useful energy I would
love to hear about it.
To be electric, or not
to be: that is the question:
Whether ‘tis nobler in
the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of
outrageous hydrocarbons,
Or to take arms against
the Big Oil companies,
And by opposing end
them? To electrify; to Tesla;
No more; and by a Tesla
to say we end
The heart-ache and the
thousand natural shocks
That the Planet is heir
to, ‘tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d.
To electrify, to Tesla:
To Tesla: perchance not
to find a charger; ay, there’s the rub.
gasoline and liquid hydrocarbons are the perfect fuel if not for the CO2
problem. They easily to find, easy to refine, contain a very high energy
content, easy to transport and relatively safe. Electric cars existed in the beginning
too but soon enough the advantages of using hydrocarbons became apparent. If we
want to keep the same advantages and we do then we must invent something like hydrocarbons
in any case. If EVs can recharge in a few minutes and if the network can handle
peak traffic loads then EVs will be just fine but for the foreseeable future
recharging your car will take you much too long. Flexibility is a very
important factor and shouldn’t be underestimated.
Cost is a BS excuse. The only relevant criteria are (a) Do we have the technical know-how? (b) Do we have the material resources needed? and (c) Do we have the time?
Cost is just a number. If an alien civilization sent a signal to us that they will be here to destroy us in 30 or 40 years and we have good reason to believe that they will, those are the things we will be looking at. Not whether we are balancing our budgets!