Chinese coal consumption in the power sector DID drop over the first half the year as renewables performed well. It only rose in the second half after hydropower production faltered later in the year. Of course I don't like being wrong with my prediction in the end, but I don't think it was a bad call at the time. I caveated those predictions several times throughout the year by adding "assuming hydropower performance remains strong" and so I'm not particularly surprised that once hydropower indeed slipped, coal had to fill in. A bummer, but I'm not losing sleep over it.
The silver lining is I was incorrect in my production in TWO ways: I assumed that if the power sector failed to peak emissions, then the entire economy would fail to peak emissions; this may not be so clear cut after all, since declining emissions in heavy industry may have made up the gap. That's more Lauri's space than mine, but he was pretty bullish at the end of Q3 that we were on track for a whole-of-economy emissions decline in 2024 and I have no reason to doubt him. We'll see once the whole year gets counted.
Of course, the deadline is 2030, and so I doubt we'd see any strong change between 2025 and 2030 (a plateau most likely) unless market actors again exceed expectations, like they did in 2022-2023. The profit-seeking behavior of market actors (not government mandate, or some deep well of Xi Jinping's green energy convictions) has been the key driver of most renewables projects. I wouldn't look for evidence among government actors and regulators to figure out whether coal or carbon peaks early - I'd look for the evidence that companies (both SOEs and private sector) see a pathway to profitability by building renewables, and that such an environment has been created for them, letting the market do its thing. That's clearly happening - hence my optimism.
As for your swipe at my character - I see my block on Twitter is quite justified...I feel you practice a kind of public persona cultivation based around smug quips and clashing with other public commentarians to raise your own profile, and if you want to be seen as that kind of China Whisperer, that's your business, but I find it very abrasive. The people I want to spend time interacting with (or "my people" as I describe in the thread you helpfully linked) are shorter on the *wink wink nudge nudge* "well we all know how cHiNa is" quips, shorter on the smugness, shorter on the complaining, and much longer on the expertise. Take care, and happy new year.
Hi David, don't take it personally. That easily could have been half a dozen other analysts quoted — it was only you, thanks to the more entertaining language.
Thank you for the comments. Always good to be told who you are, and why you're doing things. On "I find it very abrasive", may I post your most recent tweet, to someone posting some basic facts to China's CO2 figures?
"Oh look, it's that recycled normie slop about China energy and emissions I just wrote about. Timely... Pay close attention to who says this kind of stuff, and who boosts it approvingly. It's an entry-level litmus test to figure out who is a tourist."
Since we are doing constructive feedback: I'll quip at length. I read you regularly. And while fantastic on (pun alert) the coal face of China's energy industry, I do think you sometimes lack some 'broader picture' thinking, get lost in the micro, and have a (self-protectionist?) tendency to gloss over/omit the politics.
For example. Above, you say "Profit-seeking market actors — not government mandate — has been the key driver" and "I wouldn't look for evidence among government actors".
I could not disagree more. China's almost unique in the statist way it can alter vast industries practically overnight (see Alibaba, English schools...etc). Energy too. (See: Russian coal tariffs, greenlighting new coal plants, green finance pilot zones, FiT rates etc.) I wonder, too, how much "real market" there is, given the sheer size of state lending, regulation, schemes? I also quibble you pooh-poohing "Xi's deep well of green energy convictions" There's more than enough evidence ecology is a personal policy area for Xi, and the impact his interests can have on development activity. (See: Football, Han traditional culture, TCM etc).
Diminish the role of the state, and its conflicting priorities, and of course nailed-on predictions might get blindsided.
I think the mistake state media often makes is that even when China makes progress, it leaves out obvious context that might work if Chinese media is your sole source of information, but for anyone outside China, it doesn’t. The graph you included shows that while coal remains the dominant energy source, its proportion relative to other energy sources has started to plateau, and its overall dominance in the energy mix is declining.
It’s rare to hear state media openly acknowledge that China is still so heavily reliant on coal. But if it highlighted the progress China is making in renewables while also providing context for its continued reliance on fossil fuels, I think viewers might actually feel more inclined to celebrate China’s achievements in this area.
Also, just want to add that even if I don’t always agree, I do find David’s takes on social media consistently thought-provoking. I interviewed him once for a news segment—he’s a really top bloke. Just my two cents worth. Great read, as always.
In 2022, Germany produced twice the number of vehicles per head as China, while Japan produced almost 3 times more than China. Finland has a heavily industry-focused economy (steel, chemicals, logging), yet produces a quarter less CO2 per head, and falling.
Something feels not quite right. China produces both cars and heavy industry ala steel, chemicals, (logging is heavy industry?), etc. and a lot more diversified economy than either Germany or Finland, so is a cars per-capita vs. C02 informative about a general ecological standard? Finland produced few cars, so it's cars per capita probably isn't even measured.
"Only when western nations grew wise to this evasion, and threatened sanctions against China itself, and only when China’s domestic coal producers struggle to compete with this cheap influx, did China put the tariffs back on, and trade collapse."
Cause and effect is often difficult to establish without a good inside source. Please, do you have documents about the causes of China's putting tariffs off and back on, and rates before and after?
Chinese coal consumption in the power sector DID drop over the first half the year as renewables performed well. It only rose in the second half after hydropower production faltered later in the year. Of course I don't like being wrong with my prediction in the end, but I don't think it was a bad call at the time. I caveated those predictions several times throughout the year by adding "assuming hydropower performance remains strong" and so I'm not particularly surprised that once hydropower indeed slipped, coal had to fill in. A bummer, but I'm not losing sleep over it.
The silver lining is I was incorrect in my production in TWO ways: I assumed that if the power sector failed to peak emissions, then the entire economy would fail to peak emissions; this may not be so clear cut after all, since declining emissions in heavy industry may have made up the gap. That's more Lauri's space than mine, but he was pretty bullish at the end of Q3 that we were on track for a whole-of-economy emissions decline in 2024 and I have no reason to doubt him. We'll see once the whole year gets counted.
Of course, the deadline is 2030, and so I doubt we'd see any strong change between 2025 and 2030 (a plateau most likely) unless market actors again exceed expectations, like they did in 2022-2023. The profit-seeking behavior of market actors (not government mandate, or some deep well of Xi Jinping's green energy convictions) has been the key driver of most renewables projects. I wouldn't look for evidence among government actors and regulators to figure out whether coal or carbon peaks early - I'd look for the evidence that companies (both SOEs and private sector) see a pathway to profitability by building renewables, and that such an environment has been created for them, letting the market do its thing. That's clearly happening - hence my optimism.
As for your swipe at my character - I see my block on Twitter is quite justified...I feel you practice a kind of public persona cultivation based around smug quips and clashing with other public commentarians to raise your own profile, and if you want to be seen as that kind of China Whisperer, that's your business, but I find it very abrasive. The people I want to spend time interacting with (or "my people" as I describe in the thread you helpfully linked) are shorter on the *wink wink nudge nudge* "well we all know how cHiNa is" quips, shorter on the smugness, shorter on the complaining, and much longer on the expertise. Take care, and happy new year.
Hi David, don't take it personally. That easily could have been half a dozen other analysts quoted — it was only you, thanks to the more entertaining language.
Thank you for the comments. Always good to be told who you are, and why you're doing things. On "I find it very abrasive", may I post your most recent tweet, to someone posting some basic facts to China's CO2 figures?
"Oh look, it's that recycled normie slop about China energy and emissions I just wrote about. Timely... Pay close attention to who says this kind of stuff, and who boosts it approvingly. It's an entry-level litmus test to figure out who is a tourist."
Since we are doing constructive feedback: I'll quip at length. I read you regularly. And while fantastic on (pun alert) the coal face of China's energy industry, I do think you sometimes lack some 'broader picture' thinking, get lost in the micro, and have a (self-protectionist?) tendency to gloss over/omit the politics.
For example. Above, you say "Profit-seeking market actors — not government mandate — has been the key driver" and "I wouldn't look for evidence among government actors".
I could not disagree more. China's almost unique in the statist way it can alter vast industries practically overnight (see Alibaba, English schools...etc). Energy too. (See: Russian coal tariffs, greenlighting new coal plants, green finance pilot zones, FiT rates etc.) I wonder, too, how much "real market" there is, given the sheer size of state lending, regulation, schemes? I also quibble you pooh-poohing "Xi's deep well of green energy convictions" There's more than enough evidence ecology is a personal policy area for Xi, and the impact his interests can have on development activity. (See: Football, Han traditional culture, TCM etc).
Diminish the role of the state, and its conflicting priorities, and of course nailed-on predictions might get blindsided.
By-the-by, this article was (95%) written back in November, well before your excellent recent LinkedIn post. Recommend all go read that here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/focusing-chinas-carbon-emissions-misses-forest-trees-david-fishman-0grxc/ Particularly for the talk around China's moral obligations to climate change/is it unfair? I begrudgingly cut a similar section for space.
I think the mistake state media often makes is that even when China makes progress, it leaves out obvious context that might work if Chinese media is your sole source of information, but for anyone outside China, it doesn’t. The graph you included shows that while coal remains the dominant energy source, its proportion relative to other energy sources has started to plateau, and its overall dominance in the energy mix is declining.
It’s rare to hear state media openly acknowledge that China is still so heavily reliant on coal. But if it highlighted the progress China is making in renewables while also providing context for its continued reliance on fossil fuels, I think viewers might actually feel more inclined to celebrate China’s achievements in this area.
Also, just want to add that even if I don’t always agree, I do find David’s takes on social media consistently thought-provoking. I interviewed him once for a news segment—he’s a really top bloke. Just my two cents worth. Great read, as always.
Extremely horrifying! It seems like humanity is beyond doomed!! (I will aim to click on all the links)
In 2022, Germany produced twice the number of vehicles per head as China, while Japan produced almost 3 times more than China. Finland has a heavily industry-focused economy (steel, chemicals, logging), yet produces a quarter less CO2 per head, and falling.
Something feels not quite right. China produces both cars and heavy industry ala steel, chemicals, (logging is heavy industry?), etc. and a lot more diversified economy than either Germany or Finland, so is a cars per-capita vs. C02 informative about a general ecological standard? Finland produced few cars, so it's cars per capita probably isn't even measured.
"Only when western nations grew wise to this evasion, and threatened sanctions against China itself, and only when China’s domestic coal producers struggle to compete with this cheap influx, did China put the tariffs back on, and trade collapse."
Cause and effect is often difficult to establish without a good inside source. Please, do you have documents about the causes of China's putting tariffs off and back on, and rates before and after?