Graham,

You've just cherry-picked a graph to argue that the other side cherry-picks, and an obsolete graph at that.

//Cherrypicking is the hallmark of climate change alarmists.//

That's a bold claim in a thread where the only cherry-picking done so far has been from the denial camp.

The OP simply noted that "China's energy sector emissions remained flat, even as the demand for electricity increased" - if that's what you're referring to - which is a new trend backed by Carbon Brief and CREA, based on monthly emissions data. That's tracking a shift in real time, not cherry-picking.

//China's growth emissions varies from year to year, going into reverse frequently, as you can see from this series of graphs.//

The chart you linked to shows a clear long-term rise, with brief dips during the GFC, coal crackdowns, and COVID. What's different now is that emissions have plateaued despite demand growth, which is a first for China.

//...if it is topping out, according to IEA projections, at this stage of the game that topping out is most likely to be caused by increasing amounts of nuclear and gas.//

China's solar additions in 2023 alone exceeded 216 GW. That's more than the US has in total. Gas remains just 3-4% of generation and is constrained by cost and supply. This flattening is being driven by renewables, not fossil fuels.

You've cited a chart showing that coal is projected to be 47% of the energy generation mix by 2040. But this comes from a 2017 EIA projection. In reality, China has already blown past that chart's forecasts for wind and solar. More recent forecasts show coal dropping to below 30%.

//They know renewables are only ever going to be an occasional supporting act.//

China's own Five-Year Plans, massive battery deployment, and grid reform contradict your claim here.

So basically, your sources are dated, your trend analysis misreads the data, and your argument assumes nothing's changed - when it clearly has.

WTF?

mhaze states: "My point about the USA was that reductions in emissions is a result of modernisation, not renewables."

Brandolini's Law does not apply here (the relevant rebuttal can be easily found) as analysis by Tsangyao Chang presented in ResearchGate concludes: "results imply that an increase in the consumption of renewable energy and technological innovation can curb CO2 emissions in the USA; these effects tend to be more lasting when technological innovation and the consumption of renewable energy are combined. Therefore, future policies focused on curbing the emissions of CO2 should pay attention to the combined effect, which is the promotion of technological innovation and the exploitation of renewable energy sources in the USA."

//They know renewables are only ever going to be an occasional supporting act.//
John Daysh,
Once your eyes are fully open & your wallet is thick enough you'll see that that statement is in fact correct when one looks at the renewables technology of today. They're not even workable as a stepping stone to renewable energy. We can't as yet foretell what future inventions will put on the table but one thing is certain, the renewables of today are exactly as described above. They're not working on the grand scale we're being told & cost too much in every way imaginable.
There'd far less pollution without them & using coal until a real solution is found would prove far more realistic & better all round.

mhaze,

So first it was "Where's the evidence?" - now it's "Well we won't really know until 2040." Sounds like the goalposts are solar-powered.

No one's claiming CO2 emissions data is pinpoint accurate - but when multiple independent sources show China's emissions flattening despite growing electricity demand, that's not noise. That's a signal.

The US reductions you're celebrating? They're based on the same level of emissions tracking - and driven by a mix of gas and yes, renewables (which now dominate new capacity in most states).

You mock with emotive language like "CO2 jihad" and "renewables evangelists," but then criticise China for modernising without climate rhetoric. So which is it? Should they chant the slogans, or just get on with cutting emissions?

And citing an old Carbon Brief article to try to "gotcha" a newer Carbon Brief article isn't the slam dunk you think it is. It just shows you'll use a source you don't trust when it suits your angle.

If we're being honest, what bothers you isn't the data - it's that the transition might actually be working.

If China is burning more thermal coal every year, then how can the CO2 emissions from power generation not be increasing?

It is probably a consequence of less concrete and steel production. It is certainly not because of wind and solar.

WTF?... I wasn't assuming who your sources were, just hoping one was 'Carbon Brief' for reasons already stated. Struth, you comprehensions skills are almost as bad as JD's.

The point is this (I'll write slowly).... you asserted that the mere fact that China's emissions were stabilising or even falling proved they were "taking carbon dioxide emissions seriously." I was just pointing out that under that logic, falling US emissions would mean that they must be "taking carbon dioxide emissions seriously" as well. A proposition I knew you couldn't stomach.

"The "renewables are bad" alarmists"...

This'll probably go over your head but most of us don't think renewables are bad, just that the way they are being implemented in Australia and Western Europe is bad.... and expensive...and unsustainable.