cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/50183000
In 2025, China’s new and reactivated coal power project proposals surged to a record high, while capacity additions that came online reached the highest annual level in a decade, even as clean energy put China’s CO2 emissions into reverse for the first time and drove down coal power generation.
TL;DR:
- 2025 saw China’s current coal power build-out cycle reach a new high. Coal power capacity additions reached their highest level in a decade, even as coal power generation declined, and clean energy met all net growth in power demand.
- New and reactivated coal power project proposals surged to a record high. If built, the projects proposed in just this one year would commit China to years of coal expansion beyond power demand growth and climate requirements, reflecting a rush by the coal industry stakeholders to advance projects ahead of tighter policy constraints.
- With a large pipeline of projects still under construction and permitted, rapid growth of coal power capacity risks extending into the early years of the 15th Five-Year Plan (FYP) period, while coal power retirements remain low.
- Meeting China’s 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) target implies a shift away from baseload coal power and a decline in operating hours. Yet coal capacity commissioned in 2025, and much of the remaining pipeline, remains dominated by large units designed for high-utilisation, reflecting incentives that favour energy and capacity over flexibility.
Actually western countries are completely blameless here. Why would western countries be blamed for Chinese emissions? Western companies could be blamed sure but when it comes to climate we expect this to be handled at a policy level. When we look at this issue we see that Western countries did make policy changes that hurt their manufacturing and growth in pursuit of better climate change outcomes but china didnt. So when it comes to blame no one forced China to undercut manufacturing by artificially deflating their currency, lying about climate change goals and having no environmental regulations. China could have implemented environmental regulations and labour laws on par with the west. They could have started transitioning to renewables a decade and a half earlier. They choose not to and they choose to scale coal knowing the damage they are doing to the world.
Hell they still lie about their climate change impacts and sponsor green washing propaganda media overstating their progress. Their emissions graph looks like the stock market and when it drops .8% “people” act like its about to come crashing down.
There is no way we would talk about this the same if Europe got rid of their min wage,labour laws, environmental laws, and invested in non clean energy and manufacturing.
Isn’t that like saying I’m morally fine for knowingly buying stuff made with slave labour because they aren’t my slaves?
No I dont think thats equivalent. Climate change emissions is an issue that needs to be addressed on a country scale. We dont blame individuals for climate change.
Its fine to let the blame rest on china for their own emissions. They intentionally choose that route.
If a company comes to new Zealand their emissions are regulated by the nz government and nz is responsible for those emissions. In no reality would we blame another country.
I honestly think we should.
If I’m a massive climate polluter, say, I use a lot of coal to produce steel. If my company decides to set up a subsidiary in China to make it, then claims they just reduced their climate emissions by 90%, I would say that’s a bunch of bullshit, all they did was move where the chimneys were.
I’m an advocate for having carbon credits decided based on supply chains not based on borders, otherwise all we do is move our pollution to countries that don’t care.
A company moving their steel plant offshore is a negative for that country. So the country isnt going to want to drive it out just to brag about a co2 reduction. The company might brag but so what. If the company wants to claim 90% reduced emissions by getting rid of their steel mill to a subsidiary company thats a different more.pointless argument imo.
China gets a huge advantage from having the steel plant in their country and the wildest part to me is that people will even defend them when someone points out that they are already polluting a ton and should take measures to reduce pollution instead of subsiding coal plants and more steel mills.
Those same people will turn around and say nz needs to axe its own industry to reduce emissions even though our emissions are tiny and not spiraling out of control. Its the most cucked stance and causes me psychic damage.
Isn’t that my point though? That everything got offshored to China, then we complain about China’s emissions.
We(average people) dont choose to offshore those companies. We only wanted to stop climate change.
Everything went offshore because the world’s countries added regulations and policy to try reduce emissions and manufacturing became cheaper in china because they did the opposite and raced to the bottom. China was in climate talks at the same time and was more than developed enough to have been making similar changes. Instead they went in the opposite direction. Intentionally deflating currency, scaling coal,mass deforestation, lying about emissions and policy direction.
Why would i ignore all that and blame individual international companies that are just trying to make and sell product? Thats nitpicking tiny parts of a large problem.
If its ok for china to do what they did then why is nz implementing climate policy? What’s the point we hurt ourselves for a 1% reduction only to have china increase emissions by more than out total emissions in a single year. If thry do make changes no one should and they didn’t. We are fucked unless china can actually make a serious reduction in emissions which thry seem completely unlikely to do in the next 5 years.
When I say “we” are blameless, “we” includes the government “we” voted in.
Our government could have easily applied regulations to imports to counteract this.
It reminds me how we introduced pig farm welfare regulations. Almost overnight, the pork industry collapsed and was replaced by an import industry from countries without the regulations. The government could have easily said you also can’t import pork that wasn’t raised in those welfare conditions, but they chose not to.
I see this the same. Surely we could have regulations around the emission history of products regardless of the country of manufacture.
You had an interesting debate, but if I may, I think that looking for someone to blame is misleading.
Firm moving offshore, allowing China to have economical power is a structural effect. A firm earn money in doing so, a country earn power in doing so. Blaming one firm or one countries will, at most, make another one do the same thing afterward. The incentives are still there, so the outcome shall be the same. We have to build other incentive to make thing change
You underlined how governments could reduce this incentive, but their is 2 issue :