Mikko 2
Some factual clarity about data there.
China may be active on renewables but coal power still dwarfs that.
And…there is no steady state equilibrium for coral reefs, as their history shows.

Ah yes, Mikko2.

The tiresome old “China builds coal plants, so nothing we do matters” routine. Cute, but incomplete.

Yes, China’s building coal. They’re also adding renewables faster than the rest of the world combined. Over half of all new global solar and wind capacity last year was in China. They’re doing both at once, which is why serious analysts look at the whole picture, not just the coal stat that sounds good in a gotcha post.

And here’s the inconvenient detail you left out:

Many of those new coal plants are flexible backup stations - meaning they’re designed to run part-time, stabilising the grid when wind and solar output dips. They’re more efficient, often run at about 50% capacity, and can ramp up or down quickly. That’s still an emissions problem, but it’s not the “permanent coal surge” fantasy that climate deniers like to picture.

So no, “China coal” isn’t the magic excuse for us to keep polluting.

On a per-capita basis, Australia is one of the worst emitters on the planet. If we want to lecture anyone else, maybe don’t turn “but they’re worse!” into our national climate policy.

That would be a tu quoque fallacy.

they don’t replace data.
John Daysh,
Data is irrelevant when it is produced by self-serving science, seeing the conditions for yourself offers the doubt the science deserves.
Scientists always & only seem to monitor & comment on the Coral, I'm observing marine life & that's where the difference lies among the lies !
You're conveniently ignoring marine life & the interruption of its breeding cycles. Coral growth does not suffer as the reef ecology does from overfishing. Of course recreational fishers vehemently denounce claims of overfishing as it isn't in their selfish DNA to admit. I see lots of regenerating coral since the last cyclone however, the number of fish seen is drastically down since the early 80's. Yes, the live trout & other fishers still bring back handsome hauls but only because they go into protected areas at night.
Recreational fishers are opportunists & it's time they're made to pay for fish stock to be released to restore the breeding cycles.

Predictably our resident expert John D refers to CO2 emissions on a "per capita" basis which is totally irrelevant to the amount actually going into the atmosphere which at just over 1% is negligible even if anthropogenic emissions were actually driving climate change. That was even admitted by former Chief Scientist Allan Finkel during a Senate hearing several years ago. (He said cutting emissions immediately would have negligible effect on world climate).
The huge and growing amount emitted by China won't be sucked up like a sponge by unreliable intermittent "renewables" which are largely built using Uyghur slave labour (a fact ignored by Bowen and Albanese) and which use more energy in mining and construction than they will ever save during their limited lifetime.
But on the bright side, in 15 or 20 years, China will be able to build a new shining Great Wall made of glass, aluminium, copper, silver, silicon from redundant solar panels and concrete and toxic crumbling wind turbines releasing microplastics and lethal BPA into the environment.

John Daysh
I liked this part of your comment—
“ Many of those new coal plants are flexible backup stations - meaning they’re designed to run part-time, stabilising the grid when wind and solar output dips. They’re more efficient, often run at about 50% capacity, and can ramp up or down quickly. That’s still an emissions problem, but it’s not the “permanent coal surge” fantasy that climate deniers like to picture.”

Now this is what I would like to see here in Australia. Perhaps just 2 or 3 in the NEM.
Given your enthusiasm for this model, could I rely on your support to push this option with AEMO and Min Bowen?
I think I’ll quote it elsewhere.
Thank you, glad your views are showing flexibility. Very heartening.

it’s not me who’s predictable here, Mikko2.

Yes, the “per capita is irrelevant” routine - because if you ignore the fairest way to compare national responsibility, you can pretend one of the world’s highest emitters per person has no obligation to act.

Neat trick.

Finkel’s “negligible effect” line (which climate deniers love to quote) is the same mathematical reality for every country in isolation - including China. The point, which he also made, is that climate change is solved by cumulative action, not by each country waiting for the others to go first.

Back to China, yes, they’re still building coal. And, once again, they’re also adding renewables faster than the rest of the world combined.

Those new coal plants?

Again, many are flexible backup stations that run part-time to stabilise the grid. That’s not a free pass, but it’s a more complex picture than your “permanent coal surge” fantasy.

The Uyghur slave labour conspiracy and “toxic wind turbine” imagery?

That’s just dressing up an old anti-renewables talking point in sensational language. If you want to talk supply chains, fine, but fossil fuels don’t exactly come wrapped in ethically-sourced brown paper either.

So no, none of this changes the basic point: hiding behind China’s emissions to excuse
___

Let’s not get carried away, Lytton.

Describing China’s “flexible backup” plants isn’t the same as endorsing building new coal here. That wasn't the self-own you thought it was.

China’s energy mix and grid stability challenges are totally different to ours. In the NEM, the cheapest, fastest, and cleanest firming capacity comes from batteries, pumped hydro, and demand management - not locking in decades of new fossil fuel infrastructure.

Those Chinese plants were built in the context of an already huge coal fleet, with flexibility added to smooth the transition. Here, building brand-new coal - even “flexible” - would still be expensive, high-emission, and out of step with market trends.

If you’re quoting me, make sure it’s in the context I gave it: as an explanation of what China’s doing, not an argument for Australia to copy it.