I wonder which one of us gives off the air of being more outraged at the moment? 🤣
For the record, all I did was call his article "amusing" and say it "quite spectacularly jumps the shark". Never attacked his character, yet the dude with 282100 followers leaps to ad hominem.
In which the best Noah can do on short notice is to desperately pull up presumably what was one of the first (dated) Google results, red-faced at having written an article on coal in China that didn't even mention the words "steel" or "cement".
Cheap coal + state support unquestionably help, but competitive low-margins factories is partly legitimate technical/business success, has yielded dominance in sectors like solar. Not total malinvestment.
Silly highway projects, public works, and ranks upon ranks of empty apartment buildings are another matter, driving hefty steel + cement demand and thus coal.
This is one of the truly big areas of malinvestment, but Noah doesn't really mention it (or industry) in his piece.
I never said this was unique to China, thus it in no way implies that coal-dependent industry is waste.
Japan, Korea, Taiwan, India all face similar challenges.
China has perhaps gone a step further w the extent of coal chemicals + derived fuels though.
Yes, China should maintain its coal reserves for the low-likelihood contingency in which it gets sent back to the iron age, so it can re-industrialize. Chinese civilization collapses from time to time, after all. My point stands /sarcasm
Overall, a very carefully selective defense from Noah, quietly + delicately dancing around a number of my other critiques, complete with acrobatics to claim that he was arguing some of my other points all along.
I'll just leave this passage up and let y'all judge for yourselves.
Noah's explanations for China's continued marriage to coal-fired energy are essentially as follows:
- addiction to low-quality investment to drive economic growth
- internal power politics that favor perpetuation of coal economy and the jobs/local econ activity it creates
Both correct! But he only scratches the tip of the iceberg. Here's what's missing:
1) Coal is inseparable from the heavy industry at the heart of both China's construction boom + for-export sectors. Real estate + megaprojects feed steel/cement demand synonomous with coal 🔥.
In light of human rights issues associated with solar PV manufacturing in Xinjiang, what general principles should guide ethical diversification of the solar PV supply chain?
@juzel_lloyd and I have assembled a list of policy + industry recommendations.
“It is time for the solar industry to accept that—if it is truly committed to ethically sourcing solar equipment—it will be easier to just go all-in on building new large manufacturing capacity outside China.”
“You can’t fix what you can’t talk about. And if the climate community still can’t even talk meaningfully about Xinjiang, then it’s time to stop pretending the solar supply chain problem is anywhere close to being solved.”
First, in this piece, I critique the current response of many solar sector actors to forced labor risks in Xinjiang polysilicon plants: minimal, slow-moving tweaks to supply chains that avoid problematic factories, but maintain business ties with the corporations running them.
I took some time to think on the provocative new @cpluscp report on lithium + transportation.
- demand reduction modeling overstates ability to avert near-term lithium demand
- thus key challenge today is articulating how to mine fairly + well at scale.
Overall, I support the mechanisms for change the @cpluscp report articulates: reduce mining needs by minimizing car dependence in denser urban design w good transit, and hold the mining sector accountable for enviro + social harms in lithium regions in Latin Am, American West
Do enough minerals exist to transition to clean power? (Yes)
Will we blow the 1.5C CO2 budget to produce these materials? (No worries)
How much materials do we need? (A fair amount, it depends)
Do we need to mine more? (Yes, to varying degrees)
We investigated 75 different integrated assessment model runs in the @IIASAVienna 1.5C database. Looking at a range of models (2020-2050) that limit warming to 2C/1.5C, technology choices, energy pathways helps show what material demands are sensitive to.