Even in normal times, power outages and natural disasters in China alarm people as temperatures plummet. But this year has not been normal. A sudden energy crunch shuttered factories in northeast China and cut power to residential compounds. Pregnant women and older adults found themselves trudging up long flights of stairs in darkened hallways. Earlier weather “anomalies” reduced wind- and solar-powered generation capacity.
Then China’s coal belt suffered heavy flooding. When freezing temperatures arrived three weeks earlier than usual, anxious officials urgently demanded an “all-out” boost in coal production. Some coal mines, mothballed in a bid to curb emissions, abruptly roared back to life, churning out the dirtiest of fossil fuels.
All of this made for terrible optics when global leaders gathered this month for the UN climate change summit in Glasgow, Scotland, known as COP26. But Chinese President Xi Jinping was a no-show. US President Joe Biden criticised the absence of China’s leadership — “a gigantic issue, and they walked away” — and sniped at China’s unwillingness to sign onto his big pledge to reduce methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Meanwhile, green policy gurus hoping for bold new commitments from Xi have been mollified with lip service and incremental shifts. Top Chinese climate change negotiator Xie Zhenhua defended his government’s updated national climate plans, pointing out that Beijing now vowed to reach peak carbon “before 2030” and carbon neutrality “before 2060,” rather than “by” those dates.
Beijing’s been talking green for years, but the road to renewables still looks pretty black. This matters because China’s the top greenhouse gas polluter on the planet. It’s the world’s top coal consumer as well as its top producer. Chinese officials cite many reasons for China’s obsession with energy security and its economy’s continuing coal addiction. China’s economy is still developing, they say, and it isn’t fair for developed nations that have grown willy-nilly in the past to cramp Beijing’s development. “It would take 71 years for the EU, 43 years for the US, and 37 years for Japan, all of which are developed economies, to move from carbon peak to carbon neutrality. However, China has set itself a time limit of only 30 years,” said Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin. He insisted developed nations bore an unshakable historical responsibility for greenhouse emissions during their 200 years of industrialization.
Beijing isn’t alone. Many other countries have been chastised for talking the talk without walking the walk, including Russia, India, and the United States, where Biden was pleading for increased oil output from OPEC to stem rising energy prices at home while grandstanding in Glasgow. And China has made strong statements about embracing green energy. It has the world’s most ambitious civilian nuclear program and one of its most robust renewable-energy build-outs.
Xi’s goal for China to reach peak carbon emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060 is no small matter; it will require an investment of up to $46.6 trillion by 2060, said Zhang Xiaohui, economics dean of Tsinghua University’s PBC School of Finance. And unlike in past years, when China simply sought to offshore its dirty energy, Xi is taking steps to rein in China’s sooty footprint overseas: At the United Nations General Assembly in September, Xi vowed that China would not finance new coal-fired power projects abroad.
Such pledges “caught many people by surprise”, acknowledged Li Shuo, senior global policy advisor for Greenpeace. Even Biden’s climate change envoy, John Kerry, told CNN in Glasgow, “the Chinese see climate to be as existential as it is to us”. The big question is whether Beijing’s timetable is viable and sincere. “If China is serious about reaching carbon neutrality in 2060, it should peak at 2025, not 2030,” said one energy analyst in Beijing. “The curve between 2030 and 2060 is too steep — to the point where some people feel it’s science fiction.”
But the gap between China’s climate ambitions and its energy realities are made a lot clearer when one examines exactly why Xi wouldn’t travel to Glasgow.
Viewed through the prism of domestic Chinese politics, there was never much chance Xi would attend COP26 in person. First, his government is fanatical about eliminating COVID-19; Xi hasn’t left China since the pandemic began. Glasgow clashes monumentally, moreover, with a key Chinese Communist Party meeting that kicks off Monday. It’s expected to trigger a period of intense political activity and represents the most important political fight of Xi’s career.
Once a year, the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Central Committee holds a plenum; this year, between November 8 and November 11, more than 300 members of the 19th Party Congress will meet for what is expected to be an exceptionally pivotal Sixth Plenum. Xi needs to be there in person at this key gathering if he hopes to achieve his ultimate goal in the autumn of 2022. That’s when, during the 20th National Party Congress, Xi is slated to officially jettison the two-term limit for party head, which had been observed by his recent predecessors, and go for a highly unusual third five-year term. Assuming he does so, Xi will have consolidated power in a manner unparalleled since the era of former Chinese leader Mao Zedong, who died in 1976.
Had Xi gone to Glasgow, he’d likely be in quarantine right now, just as he needs to be promoting his own ambitious agenda. Party plenums involve political horse-trading and factional tussles. This time, sinologists also expect a new so-called historical resolution summarising the CCP’s first 100 years and laying the groundwork for Xi’s third term. It would only be the third such resolution in the party’s 100-year history: Mao oversaw one in 1945, as did former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1981. Now Xi can write his own party narrative. It’s expected to be full of “praise and self-praise” for Xi, in the words of Deng Yuwen, a one-time party loyalist who is now a critic of the Chinese Communist Party and is based in the United States.
But the runup to the plenum has not been auspicious. After all the alarm about power outages, new jitters erupted in early November when officials instructed citizens to stock up on food and “a reasonable amount of daily necessities”. The comment went viral. Some anxious Chinese assumed food shortages were coming; others worried an invasion of Taiwan was imminent.
At a time when Xi is trying to cement his place in history, there’s zero room for citizens to be freezing, starving, or receiving shoddy medical treatment (which goes some way toward explaining the country’s insistence on stamping out every case of COVID-19).
When power supplies dwindled alarmingly last month, it was a no-brainer that Beijing would resort to its default solution: coal. Authorities opened previously closed mines and built new coal-fired facilities with a vengeance. Xie, China’s top climate negotiator, didn’t even try to hide the fact that China “may need to build some new coal-power plants to ensure the safety and stability of our power grid. But [they] will all apply the highest possible standard in terms of technology, emissions, and energy consumption”.
On the surface, electricity outages reflected a mismatch between supply and demand. As the pandemic appeared to recede, Chinese manufacturing rebounded more quickly than expected, spiking energy demand. The cost of state-provided electricity is cheap and subsidised; serious outages resulted. And there are structural flaws: inadequate reform, limited availability of renewables, foot-dragging by vested interests in the coal sector, and tussles between the central government and local government bureaucracies.
One big roadblock has been local authorities’ reliance on carbon-intensive real estate and infrastructure development to fuel growth, despite years of exhortations from the central government to rebalance the Chinese economy more toward a Western-style consumer-driven economy. “We need to pivot away from infrastructure-oriented growth to focus on domestic consumers — meaning ‘green’ consumption, not just eating more beef and driving bigger cars,” said Li of Greenpeace.
But that age-old tug-of-war between the center and the localities has also dogged Beijing’s efforts to go green. As one Chinese proverb says: “The sky is high, and the emperor is far away.” Local and provincial officials keep betting on coal — a source of local jobs and patronage — and try to pass off central government directives with lackluster compliance. But Xi wants to make sure the emperor is even closer. This year’s energy consumption and intensity targets turned out to be strict and nonnegotiable. “Local governments may have been anticipating some relaxation of energy consumption quotas in an effort to bolster economic growth. But in fact, the central government is very determined,” reported the Global Times.
Paradoxically, the electricity crunch might offer Beijing an opportunity to go green more quickly. For one thing, it brought home the need to diversify energy sources instead of relying so heavily on coal use, which currently accounts for nearly 57% of China’s primary energy mix. For another, it brought home the need to introduce more market-based pricing into the energy system. China’s top economic planning body, the National Development and Reform Commission, admitted that “soaring costs for power generation and unchanged electricity prices may have also contributed to the power shortages”, and it cracked down on coal hoarders and others who manipulated a lopsided energy market.
China, for now, appears to have pumped the brakes on its big green push, overwhelmed by short-term emergencies and political exigencies. But green policymakers like to say Beijing under-promises and overdelivers. And Xi, despite his privileged background, has more hands-on experience with energy than most world leaders — even compared to Biden’s crusade against methane.
In 1969, at the age of 15, he was sent to work on a farm in coal-rich Shaanxi province, where he helped villagers construct the province’s first biogas-powered lamp, thanks to methane produced from agricultural manure. But, like his current push to clean up China’s economy, success proved elusive at first. A blockage prevented gas from reaching the lamp. Xi peered into the end of the tubing and, according to state-run Xinhua News Agency, said “when we finally cleared the obstruction, the pipe splashed manure over my face”. Ultimately successful, the province’s first biogas lamp made Xi so popular he was elected village party secretary in 1974; the rest is history.
Xi wants a third term. But he also wants to be seen as a leader who promises and delivers — albeit, on his own terms. And he doesn’t care how dark or dirty the process seems at the time.
Never has been the biggest polluter on a per capita basis.
Ooops – should have been in reply to BH
The reality of Communist regimes is that, as Khruschev found, if you’re not careful the Central Committee might punt you.
It might be a one party dictatorship but Xi still has to shore up the numbers.
China is neither Communist nor a Dictatorship despite what you read in Western Media. China is Socialist, not Communist, and a Dictatorship is where there is an absolute ruler not one who is elected by the Central Committee in accordance with China’s Constitution. If Xi doesn’t do a great job, the Central Committee will replace him in a heartbeat. China is the closest thing to a Meritocracy that the World has ever seen.
Hence all the previous presidents who are female, right?
Good point!
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/30/chinas-communist-party-at-100-where-are-the-women
Australia has had how many female PM’s in our history? One? The US has had how many? Nil. Hardly a position in which to look down on other countries with a different culture and history.
Gender has no bearing on who is the best to run a country.
I’m not talking about just the leader, look at the whole Central Committee. Pure coincidence?
Nothing to do with either “Communism” or “a Dictatorship” and a completely different discussion
Plenty to do with ‘meritocracy’. No women of merit?
How many female PM’s have we had? Only one has had Merit? Different culture also and quite reminiscent of Australian Society in the 1960’s actually.
Nothing to do with either “Communism” or “a Dictatorship” and a completely different discussion.
Same can be said for that self-described “beacon of democracy”, the USA too.
That is exactly the point I am making. Certainly a dictatorship can be collective, which is exactly what Marx had in mind with his “temporary” dictatorship of the proletariat. If Xi has managed to sufficiently stack the numbers, he may prove as difficult to budge as Stalin and Mao, who retained power despite the catastrophic deaths of millions in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution,
That is Ancient History and the Central Committee are very much aware of allowing someone to have too much power or too stay in power too long (China is not the old USSR) . They are very much attuned to the vibe of the Chinese population and Xi will remain as long as he has the majority support of the people (which he does). The Chinese don’t see term limits as the “be all and end all”. The view is firmly if someone is doing a good job they should be allowed to continue until that situation changes. If China had as many COVID deaths as the US did, Xi would be gone already.
Thanks. A very well argued and informed reply. I stand corrected.
Steven, you’re way behind the times. If you go to China these days and ask about Mao, they’ll say “Who’s he?” If you ask about The Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution or the Tienanmen Square massacre they’ll say “What’s that?” This is a whole new era, the era of Xi Jinping.
Go and take a look for yourself at the wonderful things they are doing in Xinjiang, West China, feeding and training the population there. They give them free board and food (plenty of pork and alcohol), free training in Chinese and the skills that will guarantee them a job in a factory somewhere in China. The factories are quite modern with safety nets around them in case anyone sleepwalks off the top of the building at night (you’d be surprised how often this happens). Also, if you need quick cash, there’s a ready market for any organ you might like to sell.
Too good to be true, you say? Go and have a look for yourself. Just lob into the capital, Urumqi, go up to the nearest cop shop (they’re as plentiful as 7/11s are here) and shout the magic words “Allahu Akbar” as loud as you can. You won’t believe what happens next!!
Enjoy!!!!!
Ever spent any time there? No quite clearly is the answer.
No, I haven’t been to the sun, either,although I’ve got a pretty good idea what it’s like.
Sort of like the hell Muslims in Xinjiang are experiencing.
Western claims about Xinjiang derive from a single dodgy (to say the least) mathematical “source” (religious nutbag) called Adrian Zenz and have gone from 100K to now M1+?. His claims make the WMD claims by the US in Iraq look accurate and truthful. To say it’s all political is an understatement and we conveniently forget our transgressions. You only have to look at Afghanistan and increasingly, Iraq to see what Western approaches to terrorism have wrought and continue to do so. Is it better to simply kill them as the West does?
Again, you should look up the East Turkestan Islamic Movement which is a UN Designated (and Confirmed) Terrorist Organisation. You may also care to look up “Terrorism in China” in Wikipedia and pay attention to the lengthy list of terrorist attacks. China has a Confucian ( thats Confucian not the confusion that you experience) culture which firmly believes in work as part of rehabilitation.
You should look up Kashmir Muslims and the Rohingya Muslims but that may confuse you as to why the West hasn’t taken up its cudgel on these. No political benefit to it for the West is the answer (and one sainted member of “The Quad” is the perpetrator against Kashmir Muslims but let’s ignore that as they “share our values”) . Yet another example of Western Hypocrisy.
Thank you Sir. China’s politics are very different to the West. The vast majority of the population could not care one whit who is in charge as long as they do a good job. Contrary to popular belief in the West, you can complain about the Government. Basically, you complain to your local Party Office. If the Central Government gets enough complaints about the same thing from enough people in enough cities they actually do something about it (unlike here where the Government only responds to bad press and lost By-elections). The Chinese population values harmony, order and safety and expect a strong Central Government to manage issues flowing from a population of B1. 4 people. There are probably more Protests in China than the West on any given day but they are local protests about local matters. Local Governments don’t like these as it sends a message that the Local officials are not doing a good job so they pay attention. The Central Committee is composed of people who have held positions at all levels of Government and have gained experience in various roles. It wasn’t always that way but since Deng, this is the process. The Chinese people are aware of this and it goes a long way towards explaining why they have over 90% approval rating.
Down votes from the usual Cold War Relics that frequent Crikey are a badge of honour!
Are you familiar with the term “useful idiots/fellow travellers”?
How about “Fifth Columnist”?
Yes but, you know, actually spending a lot of time there, having family, friends and personally witnessing some events that were very much misreported in the West does change your one-eyed, white, Western view of the world.
Combine that with an acute awareness of Western Hypocrisy across the board as well as our infamous ability to cherry pick “facts” (Uyghurs but not Kashmir or Rohingya Muslims for example) and its quite easy to see which side has the “useful idiots”.
Paul Keatings recent comments at the National Press Gallery were spot on.
Keating I understand. He’s got a plum job with the China Development Bank. No mystery there.
Phryne, I get your drift, and it’s a distinct possibility, but let’s not be too hasty. There are other reasons for Lexus bizarre comments. First, he spent some time in the military so there’s a possibility of PTDS. Also, he may have some position in a Chinese owned business which forces him to express such comments. Finally, as he says below, he has family and friends so he may need to appear pro-CCP in order to protect them.
Let’s wait and see before branding him a traitor to his country.
Ah the China hater emerges yet again. Yes I have proudly served my country, unlike some. I have an open mind and have actually, unlike you, spent considerable time in China. I am not senile, unlike some and no, I do not work for a Chinese Owned Business. I am also not a One-eyed, White, Old, Nationalist and believe that other countries have rights to their own systems. That comment alone shows complete ignorance of anything China related (obviously you have only read Western Media and never been there).
Now, lets deal with some of your other Uninformed China comments shall we?
Tiananmen Square (note the correct spelling) – Interesting article in P&I
https://johnmenadue.com/gregory-clark-lies-and-distortions-about-western-policies-in-asia-the-media-and-the-tiananmen-massacre-myth-part-2-of-2/
Mao – Both Mao and Sun Yat-Sen are revered in China. You might want to visit Mao’s Mausoleum in Tiananmen Square (just don’t leave any metal in your pockets when you try and enter) and the massive memorial to Sun Yat-Sen in Nanjing.
National Language – Unlike Australia, China has a De Jure National Language called Mandarin. Every Citizen is required to learn it. Each Village, Town and City has its won local language also. My wife speaks 3 Local Languages, Mandarin and English. Does Australia have any language other than English on its currency (China has 5 languages on its currency).
Xinjiang – You may care to Look up the East Turkestan Islamic Movement which is a UN Designated (and Confirmed) Terrorist Organisation. You may also care to look up “Terrorism in China” in Wikipedia and pay attention to the lengthy list of terrorist attacks. China has a Confucian ( thats Confucian not the confusion that you experience) culture which firmly believes in work as part of rehabilitation.
You may also care to look up Kashmir Muslims and the Rohingya Muslims but that may confuse you as to why the West hasn’t taken up its cudgel on these.
The rest of your “comments” are not even worthy of rebuttal they are so jingoistic.
Before you criticise any other country, you should actually at least, you know, spend some time there before forming an opinion (positive or negative) instead of just reading what passes for “China News” in the West.
I love Australia but it has a lot of faults. As Paul Keating said, Australia is looking for Security from Asia instead of seeking Security in Asia. Thats code for just being in the Anglosphere.
Lexus, I am neither Nationalist nor jingoistic. I agree with whoever (maybe Shaw) said that a patriot is someone who thinks his country is better than others because he was born in it. I don’t love any country, but I do respect and admire some to the degree that they are democratic. This means my admiration and respect for Australia is at a very low level at the moment and if Morrison is re-elected next year, it will disappear.
As for Keating, apart from my previous comment, the man made a fool of himself by fawning over the murderous Indonesian dictator Suharto, who was widely reviled in his country. Great way to seek security in Asia.
Your comments were uninformed but typical of Westerners that have not spent time in China. I love Australia but not the Government and some aspects of society which have developed over the years. I admire and respect China for what it has achieved (along with my family connections) and I respect the US but do not admire them. The difference between us is that I don’t care about what political system is in place as long as it delivers results to the population of that country. By results I mean improvements in health, living standards, infrastructure and security. The rest is up to the people concerned.
My major issue with Australia and “the West” is that they expect countries with fundamentally different cultures, traditions and histories to adopt Western attitudes and approaches to everything. There is no willingness to even attempt to look at situations from the Asian perspective and the hypocrisy is palpable. Kashmir and Rohingya Muslims we don’t care about but terrorist Uighurs we do? After our rampant wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? And our claims about Xinjiang derive from a single dodgy (to say the least) mathematical “source” (religious nutbag) called Adrian Zenz and have gone from 100K to now M1+?. His claims make the WMD claims by the US in Iraq look accurate and truthful. To say it’s all political is an understatement and we conveniently forget our transgressions. You only have to look at Afghanistan and increasingly, Iraq to see what Western approaches to terrorism have wrought.
Keating sits on an Advisory Council to the CDB. I’m not a huge fan but he made some very sound points on Australia’s Foreign and Defence Policy. The main one is that we are located in Asia but insist on running to the Anglosphere instead of accepting our geography and working with Asian nations (pretty much all of which are unhappy with us). His point concerning the change from Defence of Australia to attack is also valid but probably doesn’t matter as by the time these subs show up, if they ever do, it will all be over.
Australia has turned into a “Mini-Me” of the US under successive LNP Government’s and fears anything that isn’t from the Anglosphere. I can’t blame China for securing their sea lines of communication given the treatment they received from the Japanese and the West (along with being surrounded by US bases) . A visit to the Nanjing Massacre Memorial in Nanjing would quickly explain the “never again” military buildup by China in itself.
My firm view is that we need to look to Asia for both our economic future and security and that will mean reducing but not completely eliminating our historical links to the Anglosphere.
It’s odd that Lex (Luthor?) ticks all the boxes – veteran, successful business man, knows China including spouse, vast experience…nothing suss there then.
Are you still here Selkie? What, your job in the Centrelink Call Centre not keeping you busy enough?
What is “suss” is your continued potshots at those you disagree with, your usual lack of actual contribution to discussions and repetitive use of the same lame attempts at insults (which is what gives you away).
Whatever Selkie.
Our PM turned up . Is the world a better place?
On a per capita basis is China still the biggest greenhouse polluter? Anyone?
Not even close
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
Per capita emissions headed by Qatar (37.3 tonnes CO2/yr/person), then Montenegro, Kuwait, Trinidad & Tobago, UAE, Oman, Canada, Brunei, Luxembourg and Bahrain to round out the top 10. Australia comes in 11th with 17.1 tonnes CO2/yr/person, and even the USA is looking weak at 16th (15.5 tonnes CO2/yr/person) just behind Saudi Arabia. Even Russia can only manage 23rd with 11.4 tonnes CO2/yr/person, Japan 26th with 9.7 tonnes CO2/yr/person, and poor old China can only manage 42nd with a piddling 7.4 tonnes CO2/yr/person – but I guess you know all this already, thanks for makeing me look.
Thanks lexusaussie for the reference
Are we all on the same planet and should we count our exports as runs for , against, no balls or just include them in the extras column. Should we ignore the pollution we have pumped into the atmosphere to reach our current standard of living as we deny others on this planet the chance to aspire to a standard of living a fraction of ours?
Our PM may think we are part of another planet and this is all a political game and his magic pudding and wand and his mythical friend will save the world .
I worry about our PM’s decision-making. Who is pulling his strings is it the mythical magic pudding in the sky ? Is it the fossil fuel lobby ? Is it some other group?
Regardless we need leadership, not politicians. we are all inhabitants of the same planet and unfortunately, religion or political hot air will not solve the problems we face. 2030 is eight years away and miracles are a bit thin on the ground. We can not afford another term of the star gazing coalition if we wish to avoid catastrophic climate change. We have the technology now let’s use it even if it cost the fossil fuel industry profit
And despite being continually told we should do nothing because some other country is not doing its best we have one planet and we are all its citizens. Should we be the only ones to enjoy its benefits? Have we caused more pollution than the countries now trying to escape from poverty? Does our PMs god think this is OK ?
This statistic is stupid and irrelevant. The biosphere doesn’t recognise where the emissions come from, only what the total amount is and the major emitters are China, USA, Russia and India. If we can’t get those countries to reduce their emissions, the human race is cactus.
The statistic is not “stupid and irrelevant”. It highlights the immensity of the task ahead. China’s emissions per capita are already 43.3% of Australia’s per capita yet instead of focusing on our contribution to the problem we arrogantly attempt to deflect attention. At 17.1 Tonnes per capita, Australia is one of the worst offenders (11th) and needs to do far more than China (42nd) does, on a per person basis, to get to Net Zero. China, in effect, has already exceeded our 2030 ambitions.
Of course China, India, Russia and the USA contribute more emissions than we do. Our entire pissant population of M25 equates to just Shanghai’s population. The COALition are not serious about Climate Change in any way. Morriscum sprouting electric cars as a solution in a country that derives the majority of its electricity generation from coal is evidence alone of that.
I will be gobsmacked if Australia actually manages to reduce its per capita emissions (without creative accounting) by 56.7% just to meet China’s existing (far lower) emission rates on a per capita basis. All talk and deflection appears the order of the day under the COALition.
I’m sure the biosphere will be most interested in your stats and will act accordingly.
The USA has always been the largest consumer of resources and thus the largest polluter, per capita & in toto.
Just as it has the largest prison population – never mind gulags or Uighur – in the world.
And compared to any other OECD (and a large number of developing countries) the worst ante & peri natal mother/baby mortality, lowest literacy, poorest overall health outcomes – despite, or because of. the highest expenditure, crumbling 19thC infrastructure etc etc.
All defended by the planet’s highest military expenditure, often STB equal to the rest of the world combined – which is probably why it has attacked, bombed, blockaded, destabilzed, overthrown and sanctioned 70 other countries since WWII.
Yay for our Great & Good Friend & Protector – all hail the Hegemon!