[sudosysgen]

This is true, however these plants are being used quite rarely and are instead base load.

Chinese emissions per capita and per dollar are falling, and total emissions seem to have plateaued, so I'm not sure that really qualifies as ignoring it.

Same in the developing world, while some kinds of fossil fuels for baseload generation is necessary so long as nuclear is taboo, they are on track to never even get close to the level of emissions per capita of the US, and indeed plateau in total emissions soon.

Of course, you can make the argument that this isn't enough. That being said, for places stricken by poverty, it's certainly a hell of a lot more effort than the US that doesn't even deign join the Paris Climate Agreements.

[ghostcluster]

China's carbon emissions are still growing and even by their own forecasts won't stop for at least another ten years. I think it's premature to take them at their word when they've been so publicly dishonest in other arenas.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/World_fo...

[sudosysgen]

This data is obsolete : https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Chinese emissions have taken a dive and will recover over a multi-year period, over which other projects to minimize emissions will come online. As a result, independent projections show that Chinese emissions will probably stay at more or less their current level, maybe a bit more, and start decreasing by 2030.

This data could, of course, be dishonest, but as a result there has been a lot of interest in third party data on Chinese economic activity, which is used to provide high-reliability estimates of CO2, based on which they do seem to be on track for this.

[pueblito]

> This is true, however these plants are being used quite rarely

Hence the need for more of them at record pace? Ridiculous

[sudosysgen]

Yes, they do to build more plants at a record pace, because they need to increase total generation at a record rate. Since renewables, which are also being built at a record pace, are not very reliable time-wise, it is needed to build reliable capacity.

Now, that capacity might be used 15-20% of the time, but it still needs to be built. For example, the UK went multiple days without ever using its fossil fuel electric plants, but they were still necessary in case of bad weather.

I agree that this is not optimal. In the best of worlds, they should use nuclear energy and hydro for base load generation. However, not everywhere in China is good for either, and their very-high-voltage long-range grid is still being built, so for many regions, which tend to be those that are poor and growing the fastest, they have opted to use fossil fuels. This isn't inconsistent with their goals.