Slashdot Mirror


China's Coal Power Plants Mask Climate Change

Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports on new research revealing that the huge increase in coal-fired power stations in China, up from just over 10 gigawatts (GW) in 2002 to over 80GW in 2006, has masked the impact of global warming in the last decade because of the cooling effect of their sulphur emissions. But scientists warn that rapid warming is likely to resume when the short-lived sulphur pollution – which also causes acid rain – is cleaned up and the full heating effect of long-lived carbon dioxide is felt. 'Reductions in carbon emissions will be more important as China installs scrubbers [on its coal-fired power stations], which reduce sulphur emissions,' says Dr. Robert Kaufman. 'This, and solar insolation increasing as part of the normal solar cycle, [will mean] temperature is likely to increase faster.' The effect also explains the lack of global temperature rise seen between 1940 and 1970 as the effect of the sulphur emissions from increased coal burning outpaced that of carbon emissions, until acid rain controls were introduced, after which temperature rose quickly. 'Warming due to the CO2 released by Chinese industrialization has been partially masked by cooling due to reflection of solar radiation by sulphur emissions,' says Prof Joanna Haigh. 'On longer timescales, with cleaner emissions, the warming effect will be more marked.'"

7 of 464 comments (clear)

  1. The line from Corporate America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is why many American companies outsource manufacturing to china. lax regulations, and those regulations are ignored. It's far cheaper to make your phone in a location where waste can be dumped into the stream behind the building or just thrown into the trash stream and bury those heavy metals in the landfill.

    But as long as we ignore that and enjoy low priced products it will all be ok.

    Environmental regulations hurt jobs and business! And because of them, business has to outsource overseas because they won't be able to compete! And then there are the taxes .... American business has to go overseas for the cheap labor and the lower taxes in order to compete with the rest of the World.

    Translation:

    We want to lower our costs to the bare minimum so the CEO and other executives can get filthy rich off of the backs of the workers and shareholders all the while poisoning the people and land of foreign nations because their leaders want to enrich themselves - (fascist) capitalism working with despots.

    In the meantime, the super rich propaganda machine has brain washed us peons into thinking that if we work hard and get educated, we too can one day join their ranks - it's a given! As long as we can keep those pesky environmental regulations and taxes low for the very wealthy ($10 million+ assets) out of the way.

    In the meantime, the entire World spirals down economically and ecologically and the super rich hang out on their yachts and private jets.

    Want to know who to go after? Get the Gulfstream, Bombardier, Cessna (Citation Jets), and the other "corporate jet" makers client lists and then get the individuals behind those corporations.

    1. Re:The line from Corporate America by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Environmental regulations hurt jobs and business

      Local environmental regulations do. I'd love to see the US and EU impose large import duties on anything that was produced in a factory that had not been inspected for conformance to the environmental laws at the point of sale.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:The line from Corporate America by tmosley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, it's funny. 40 years ago, prior to all this regulation, the average CEO made about ten times as much as the average worker in his company. Today, post regulation, the average CEO makes some 40+ times as much (it's rising so fast I can't keep up) as the average worker. This is American companies with American workers.

      In other words, your post ignores not only cause and effect, but correlation as well. Total ignorance of reality. The fact is that the more regulations imposed by the government, the rich CEOs get, because the corporations own the government, and use those regulations to squelch competition. This drives new industry abroad.

      But it's not the corporations who are to blame. Hate the game, not the player. More specifically, hate the system, and those who created it, and made the rules. This means Republicans and Democrats.

      You want to fix this? Get rid of these two parties, and bring in a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. Don't settle for the choice between a turd burger and a shit sandwich.

    3. Re:The line from Corporate America by scamper_22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are times I think the old America which was more focused on classical liberalism would actually have more 'social justice' than the current one.

      Just think about 'free-trade' in a classical liberal sense.

      Minimum wage laws - how can the government apply different laws to different people. Why should the government restrict the right of an American to compete against his Asian competitor. Why should the American have to obey a $10/hour minimum wage, but his Asian counterpart does not?

      Solution - either stop free trade or mandate that every country exporting goods to the US must obey the American minimum wage.

      This kind of thinking is actually what America used internally when different states wanted different minimum wages. I mean how could New York impose a minimum wage, but Alabama doesn't. Obviously, jobs would flow to Alabama. So the US federal government created the federal minimum wage for goods destined for inter-state commerce. If you were just a local pizza shop in Alabama, not involved in interstate commerce, you didn't have to obey the federal minimum wage.

      It made a lot of sense. So why wasn't this same great logic used when we started international trade deals? My own view... this occurred when the government stopped trying to be just the law. When the government began looking at outcomes and goals. So it made sense to expand trade deals... I mean Americans are too good to work in textiles... those are not jobs Americans should be doing right?

      The same kind of logic and and should be done for environmental laws.

      I say all this from a libertarian mind set.
      Having different laws for different people is a far greater violation of individual rights than restricting free trade.

  2. Re:Complex Model by GigaHurtsMyRobot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm all for them continually trying to figure it out. You're absolutely right it's incredibly complex, and I postulate we may never fully comprehend it or be able to simulate or predict it to any level of accuracy. That said, It would be nice if (while figuring it out) the grand claims weren't made. We have a very small history of good temperature data, a very questionable network of sensors for collecting a certain quantity of temperature readings, and very little data (comparatively) on the suns impact. I love science and scientists, but they need to continue to be skeptics. If the system is too big to actually figure out, they should be able to always admit that.

  3. Re:Trust Us. by chemicaldave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't understand statistics or concepts that are beyond my grasp. Therefore, the scientists must be wrong.

  4. Re:Complex Model by superposed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes it's a complex system, but that doesn't mean we have to understand every last detail before we take action. We've known for over a hundred years that CO2 is transparent to visible light and absorbs infrared. Therefore, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming (allowing sunlight in, but reducing the amount of heat radiated back to space). The only scientific question left is how much warming, where and when. The most natural (and safest) assumption is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will change climate. "We should wait until we perfectly understand this insanely complex system" is not a rational response.

    People can differ over whether they think climate change will be a bad thing, or whether they should have to pay to prevent bad things from happening to other people or the natural environment, but there is no question we are causing climate change. People who argue otherwise are blinding themselves for their own convenience.