Extreme Weather Hits China With Massive Floods and Scorching Heat (nytimes.com) 73
China is grappling with extreme weather emergencies across the country, with the worst flooding in decades submerging houses and cars in the south and record-high heat waves in the northern and central provinces causing roads to buckle. From a report: Water levels in more than a hundred rivers across the country have surged beyond flood warning levels, according to the People's Daily, the ruling Communist Party's mouthpiece. The authorities in Guangdong Province on Tuesday raised alerts to the highest level after days of rainfall and floods, closing schools, businesses and public transport in affected areas. The flooding has disrupted the lives of almost half a million people in southern China. Footage on state media showed rescue crews on boats paddling across waterlogged roads to relieve trapped residents. In Shaoguan, a manufacturing hub, factories were ordered to halt production, as water levels have reached a 50-year high, state television reported. Guangdong's emergency management department said that the rainfall has affected 479,600 people, ruined nearly 30 hectares of crops and caused the collapse of more than 1,700 houses, with financial losses totaling $261 million, the official Xinhua News Agency reported.
Little hope. but still.. (Score:2)
Let's hope China as main CO2 pollutor will be getting their act together and curb the CO2 emissions as fast as possible. Otherwise, there will be alot more of these disasters coming.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's hope China as main CO2 pollutor will be getting their act together and curb the CO2 emissions as fast as possible. Otherwise, there will be alot more of these disasters coming.
China should be doing it somewhat faster, but they are doing lots and they look bad because goods they manufacture for other places count into their total. There are plenty of other countries that are much worse per head of population [visualcapitalist.com] (great visualisation - the only one I could find that sorted properly by per-capita also worth seeing Worldometer [worldometers.info] which you can sort yourself). Perhaps the USA and India should try to get their records in terms of building renewables and retiring old plants up to China's level
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, they are not doing lots. They are in fact growing their emissions at speed. Not because they particularly want to, but because that is the corollary of growing their economy as fast as they want. This is not 'doing lots'.
Remember, if the theory is correct, the only thing that matters to the climate is the total CO2 being emitted. Or CO2 equivalents to be more accurate. So the fact that China is now doing nearly 12 billion tons a year, double the US, and close to one third of global emissions. They
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that they don't believe it, but rather that they believe their authoritarian system can weather the blowback from it.
The CCP isn't dumb, but their core philosophy is that "might is right".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree China can and should do more your argument sort of falls apart when one takes a moment to consider your mention of them producing twice as much CO2 pollution as the US.
We have between a quarter and a third less people than China and unlike some of the other things that you dismiss per capita emissions are quite meaningful here as of course a country with drastically more people is going to have more energy needs which will inevitably lead to more non-renewables used.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing physics and ethics.
How much per capita a country is doing is immaterial to physics and thus to the planet. Its tons and not per capita emissions that are, on the theory, destroying the climate.
China is on track to do over 15 billion tons a year in emissions by 2030.
It is impossible for the world to get total emissions down below 15 billion, and doubly impossible to get them down to net zero, as long as China is emitting this much. If the alarmed are correct, then China on its own is emitt
Re: (Score:2)
The first AC post basically makes my case for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Past emissions are irrelevant to the physics.
That is wrong. As the past emissions are the ones that have accumulated now to the current level.
And who refuse to recognize that the main source of the crisis they supposedly believe in is China, emitting 12 billion of those 37 billion.
You are bad in math: 37 - 12 is 25. The 25 is the main source: and that is the rest of the world combined. If the developed world manages to go to zero till 2030, as Germany is aiming in electricity production, and then further
Re: (Score:2)
"They just do not believe in any climate crisis, they don't believe in the whole theory of global warming."
China is the world leader in renewable energy. It has three times the renewable generating capacity of the United States, and is on a path to reach almost half the growth in renewable generating capacity of the entire planet when the 2022 statistics are compiled.
Maybe you're right that they don't believe in the climate crisis, but whether they do or not, they're doing more to wean themselves off fos
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter how much renewable they have. The fact is nothing is weaning them off fossil fuels. They are actually increasing their fossil fuel use. They may be installing some renewable, but that is irrelevant to the planet.
Its just physics. The planet does not care whether some country is installing wind and solar. All that it cares about is whether CO2 parts per million is rising. And China is raising its own, and installing coal generating plants around the world to raise other countries' as
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, the facts remain. The US is doing jack "because the economy", yet China is expected to tank its economy "because GW". It's not going to happen. If you want to do something meaningful, stop buying all that "Made In China" stuff you and millions of other consumers buy because it will save you a few bucks. China won't continue to build quick/dirty generating capacity (even as they continue to expand their lead on the US in renewable generation) if its economy doesn't demand it.
Re: (Score:3)
No, that isn't the argument at all. The argument is that China is the biggest danger to the climate, by a mile.
One third of global emissions and rising. Twice as much as the next biggest emitter. More coal mined and used than the rest of the world put together. Plans for economy and energy that make it quite clear they plan to continue to increase emissions. As the consequence of planning for economic
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is that China is the biggest danger to the climate, by a mile.
That is a lie. Or you are simply completely utterly stupid.
The biggest danger are the countries that do nothing. Or nearly nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only the tonnage matters. It makes no difference if you install lots of renewables. Only the tonnage you emit matters.
If you are that stupid, then the solution is simple.
Divide China into 3 equally populated new states. Then each of them produces only 60% of what the US produces, so US is leader again, and: each of the 3 new countries will have 50% more population than the US.
Perhaps you grasp then why we measure CO/person and not simply kg or tonnes, as the latter is completely meaningless.
Here we go with Chinese trolls (Score:2)
Here is wind: Some examples: China( 425 kWh / Capita ), America ( 1,141 ), Germany( 1381 ), Sweden( 2688 ) [ourworldindata.org]
Apparently, China is a real loser on wind. Maybe China is a REAL winner with solar:
China( 448 kWh / capita ), America( 999 ), Germany( 1490 ), Australia( 2307 ) [ourworldindata.org]
No. Again, China is way down there. Well, perhaps Nuclear?
China( 282 ), America( 2,33 [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Good and useful comment - shame it's anonymous which makes it more difficult for people to see and to follow up on. Thanks anyway.
Re: Here we go with Chinese trolls (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, China has a favourable climate and should have a smaller need for energy than countries placed close to the poles.
So, you mean, in winter they should hope for global warming, so it is not freezing cold?
Sorry, you are an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Viet Nam is not china, but has similar weather to southern china. Hot. Humid, Muggy. Southern China is NOT mild weather.
Re: (Score:2)
No one says "they are great in cleaning". They instal both, clean energy and CO2 producing one. But China has over a billion citizens, and the US only 400million, and Australia, 25 million or something.
I mean: did you ever learn in school to put various numbers into perspective?
The big asshole in the room here is Australia, followed by USA. If you are to blind to see that, how can we help you?
Re: (Score:2)
CHina's emissions in 2020, was at 8.2 tonnes. More than your nation's 7.8.
According to initial reports of 2021, CHina exceeded 9 tonnes. America was in the 12s. Germany rose nearly 5% last year [bloomberg.com] and due to your burning LARGE quantities of brown coal to replace your clean nuclear energy and Russian nat gas, you are is expected to rise between 5-10% THIS YEAR. IOW, Germany will rise as fast as China does.
Oddly, Germany, CHina, AND America will likely be hitting 10 tonne
Re: (Score:2)
Germany did not rice last year.
And no one expects to increase this year.
The idiot is simply you. Germany does not produce much electric power with Gas. The las remaining nuke is producing 3% of our power. How the fuck would switching that off to more than a 3% increase in CO2? HÃ? How the fuck would that mathematically possible, considering that > 50% of our electricity is green?
Yes, we are dropping ours that fast, while you/Germany and CHina continue to grow yours.
What the fuck is wrong with you s
Re: (Score:2)
I do not care if you continue to lie to yourself, BUT when you post here and KNOWINGLY lie about it, and protect nations that are RAISING their co2 emissions, that is a problem. YOU continue to defend your building new coal plants, starting old one, and bur
30 whole hectares? (Score:2)
74 acres, so roughly 1/4 mile by 1/2 mile.
Clearly TFA has all the fine accuracy one would expect from the New York Times.
Re: (Score:3)
Last year they had truly massive floods. Hopefully this year won't be as bad. The government has been building flood defences but it's not easy to deal with that amount of water.
Re: (Score:3)
74 acres, so roughly 1/4 mile by 1/2 mile.
Clearly TFA has all the fine accuracy one would expect from the New York Times.
"30 hectares of crops" might be a mistranslation.
I'm guessing you skipped the " more than a hundred rivers ... 479,600 people, ... and caused the collapse of more than 1,700 houses" parts.
Weather reporting in $current_year (Score:4, Insightful)
All weather reporting these days starts with OMG WERE ALL GOING TO DIE.
Around here (British Columbia) the weather over the weekend will, for the first time this year, be seasonally warm. The media are screaming heat dome, special weather statements, you name it.
Some day something will come up that is genuinely worthy of concern. And people will ignore it.
...laura
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, your experience at the very edge of the heat dome at your very high Northern latitudes is indicative of the entire problem here. That's like saying a 7.0 earth quake in the US state of Washington wasnt anything because you only felt a tremble in British Columbia.
Re: (Score:2)
We set a new record here in Kamloops last year, 47C, demolishing the old record (42C) set in 1941. It was hot, but we're used to hot weather here. I ran my air conditioning wide open for a couple of days. Shrug.
The media are getting hysterical over 30-ish highs over the weekend. This is silly.
...laura
Re: (Score:2)
We set a new record here in Kamloops last year, 47C, demolishing the old record (42C) set in 1941
Wow that's hot.
Re: (Score:1)
We set a new record here in Kamloops last year, 47C, demolishing the old record (42C) set in 1941.
That can't be right if we have global warming that is getting worse year by year. If it is accumulating CO2 causing the problem then the last record would be more recent than that.
Oh, right, warming doesn't mean "warming" any more. It means things just get more wild.
But I don't want to fight over how bad the CO2 levels are, and what that means for weather. How about we just look at what gets us closest to zero the fastest and do that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I've given that link before and people
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, right, warming doesn't mean "warming" any more. It means things just get more wild.
Wow blast from the past there, I havent heard anyone spout that stupidity in a few years now. Most climate denialists have moved on to things that make them look slightly less dumb by now. Maybe you should look into it.
Re: (Score:1)
Right, we should stick to solutions than fighting over the problem. We don't have to agree on the problem to agree on the solution. That works for global warming because we have low cost energy that is also low CO2 energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolute consensus is impossible, there are too many people like yourself that prefer conspiracy, cherry picked data, partisan nonsense, and the internet echo chambers that reinforce this nonsense. The rest of us have already agreed on the problem though https://www.pewresearch.org/sc... [pewresearch.org] .
C02 holds more heat then most of the other major elements of our atmosphere. Putting more CO2 into the atmosphere is therefore going to create both warming and a wide range of weather changes as it is incredibly well estab
Re: (Score:1)
More recent polling shows a different picture, and it wasn't hard to find. I clicked a link on the page you linked to. https://www.pewresearch.org/to... [pewresearch.org]
People want more natural gas. Opposition to nuclear power is small and shrinking: https://www.pewresearch.org/fa... [pewresearch.org]
If only one out of four people opposed nuclear power now then we will see more nuclear power after the next election. Opposing nuclear power is a political loser of a position to take because most people don't care, a large number of people
Re: (Score:2)
Oh nuclear power! The thing I never attempted to engage you on.
Yeah that's nice.
Re: (Score:1)
Someone got triggered. Am I a bit too close to the target?
Now you might be understanding why I don't want to talk about the problem any more. Just assume burning fossil fuels is bad and then move on to the solutions. What are those solutions? Onshore wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear fission, and hydrocarbon fuel synthesis.
Or, are you going to try to explain how a high temperature record stood from 1941 to today when global warming is supposed to be so obvious?
We are seeing politicians use global warming
Did they make some of the same mistakes as US? (Score:3)
Building in flood plains.
Re:Did they make some of the same mistakes as US? (Score:4, Insightful)
With that said, the flooding that China has been experiencing since 2020, is greater than they'd previously experienced since they started building large and expensive stuff like high-rise apartment complexes and whatnot. The first world had to face this sort of thing in the nineteenth century and so by now has had a hundred and fifty years to sort out how to deal with the consequences. We've long since had our San Francisco Earthquake and Triangle Shirtwaist Fire and Great Mississippi Flood and other historically-important disasters leading to critical reform, building codes and regulations, and so on. In principle, China *ought* to be able to study our history and learn from our mistakes and avoid repeating them; but in practice, humans are frequently not-so-great at learning from other people's mistakes. Add to that the CCP's deliberate adoption of Marxist/Leninist "shoot-the-messenger" culture in which anyone who speaks out warning about possible dangers is beaten down for it, and so here we arrive at the present situation.
When it's over... (Score:2)
Lets talk solutions, not problems. (Score:1)
Every weather event slightly out of the norm is another reason to panic over global warming. For many of them they scream "follow the science" and then fail to do so themselves. What are our options? Which ones give the most benefits at the least cost? There's no "good" options here, only ones with that do the least bad.
What metrics are important, and how do energy sources measure up on those metrics? I have some ideas on important metrics. For each link it's mostly just looking at the charts, no need
Re: (Score:1)
You are certainly free to post your own commentary, and links to sources to back that up. Name calling isn't going to win converts.
30 hectares? (Score:2)
Oh, lets increase China's CO2 emissions (Score:2)
This stuff is minor. And likewise, Western America's drought is not a big deal, since our politicians are doing little to nothing about. Right?
No doubt we will see loads of idiots screaming that America's 12% of the CO2 is massive and it is all due to Americans, while ignoring the massive growth of CHina, India, 3rd world nations that are buying CHinese coal/coal plants/etc. Such stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
The massive growth in the countries you mention, happened in the last 10 - 20 years.
During the last 20 - 30 years other countries, like Germany, reduced their CO2 footprint drastically.
The US: did nearly nothing. And on top of that, the US spitted and sputtered CO2 for over 100 years. And now idiots like you whine about China/India etc. last 10 - 20 years? And you think that is reasonable? Or "normal"?
It can't be helped anyway, they do what they do.
Our job is to be a good example and reduce as close to zero
Re: (Score:2)
America dropped our CO2 at the SAME RATE as Germany. Here, For Germany, you were 10.1 tonnes/capita in 2000, and then 7.9 in 2019. [worldbank.org]
For America, we were 20.5 in 2000, and 14.7 in 2019 [worldbank.org]
Germany dropped 20% over 19 years. America dropped over 25% in the same time.
That was based on BAD data. Personally, I prefer Edgar, which is the European numbers.
According to Edgar, in 2020, Germany is actually at 7.72, and America is at 13.68 [europa.eu]
BUT it gets better. What happened in 2021?
Well, America wen