[JamisonM]

Do you have some data to back up this assertion? For me what I see in the numbers is that Chinese domestic quality of living improvements correlate better with increases in energy consumption than does US imports (or Chinese exports).

What is also interesting is that China's "energy intensity" - energy used per unit of GDP is pretty flat, if wealthier nations were exporting energy demand via imports I would expect that number to be climbing. I am at a bit of a loss as to how to determine exactly what is going on TBH.

[littlestymaar]

You can find data related to this phenomenon when searching for “imported emissions”. But then it's only going to be related to the CO2 emissions, not energy, and the measure appears to vary a lot depending on the methodology (from a quick search, France is estimated to import between 117 and 750Mt of CO2 a year, quite a large error margin…).

> if wealthier nations were exporting energy demand via imports I would expect that number to be climbing

Why? These exports from China generates GDP in China so it just grow the energy consumption as well as the Chinese GDP, making the ratio flat.

[JamisonM]

> France is estimated to import between 117 and 750Mt of CO2 a year, quite a large error margin…

I don't know, if your basis for your opinion is that you googled it and you got some very wide ranging and contradictory results then that seems like a poor foundation to start with.

> Why? These exports from China generates GDP in China so it just grow the energy consumption as well as the Chinese GDP, making the ratio flat.

If the ratio is flat then there isn't really much of an export of energy effect in my view. If you are exports were dominated specifically by the use of energy (over say human capital or laxer pollution standards) that intensity would rise because it would be the source of the economic advantage. I.e. if domestic consumption trade 1 unit of energy for one unit of growth but exports trades 2 units of energy for one unit of growth intensity will rise if exports dominate the energy mix. That does not seem to be the case.

A huge proportion of US imports seem to be based on "assembly" from what I can tell, the dominant categories from China are electrical/electronic goods and industrial machines - most of the stuff is the assembling of US & EU (and Taiwan for semiconductor reasons) made parts.. the energy mix of the import-export dynamic seems like it needs a lot of analysis - I would like something authoritative that shows an attempt at an analysis, I can't seem to find it.

[littlestymaar]

> If you are exports were dominated specifically by the use of energy (over say human capital or laxer pollution standards)

But nobody ever said that. Chinese exports don't have to be driven by the use of energy to actually consume the energy! Labor cost was the main factor (but not really anymore, and the most labor intensive industries like clothing have long transitioned to even lower-wage countries in South-East Asia), followed with the industrial expertise (with a enormous qualified workforce tailored for industrial production), but once the industrial production happens there, the energy is consumed there and not in the Western world.

[JamisonM]

You don't seem to be addressing my point in this reply. You have to make an affirmative case that growth and energy are decoupled in China but exports and energy are not to make your argument work.

If you don't have the data that's fine, I was hoping for data!

[littlestymaar]

> You have to make an affirmative case that growth and energy are decoupled in China

No I haven't. Actually I said the opposite, and I will reassert it here: growth and energy usage doesn't need to be decoupled in any way, for China to actually export energy. Export is appearing on both sides of the equation: on the GPD side, and on the energy consumption side.