The bad news is that China's coal use almost doubled in the past 5 years.
The Good news is that they introduced clean coal technology and are retrofitting existing plants.
Even better news is China's wind power that has nearly doubled production every year for the last five, and now has reached 100 GW installed capacity. Coal is now expected to diminish as an energy source in China.

Pres. Bush, who squashed almost all science research at Dept. of Energy for 7 years, in his last year, increased DOE funding 41% for research in 'cleaner'(not clean) coal power production. The Chinese will benefit from U.S. citizens' 'voluntary' 8 tenths of a billion dollars research as China with DOE help, build 1000 coal-fired energy plants. Hope Bush will have a nice retirement via China & U.S. citizens 'gifts'.

I am also impressed. Not by CCS, but by George Bush's continued audacity.

John Taylor wrote: "Coal is now expected to diminish as an energy source in China."

This does not jive with what I've read. They are still expanding coal use, and whatever 'clean coal' they are introducing does not include carbon sequestration as far as I have read.

In short, China is running away as the leader in greenhouse gas emissions, and it is a major problem. I see little reason for the optimism you express.

Where in the world did you get the figure that they have 100 GW of installed wind capacity?

This article (http://www.reportlinker.com/p090119/China-Wind-Power-Equipment-Industry-Report-2007-2008.html ) says they have 6 GW installed. Big difference.

BTW When I say "countries with the least controls on pollution" I include 'Alberta'

To feed the American addiction to oil we have increased our CO2 emissions almost 30% to dig out THE dirtiest oil on the planet.

China is building 2 new coal plants a week. That does not sound like "a diminishing energy source." Face it: China is stuck with "growth at any cost." China has to keep turning "cash from exports" into improvements in living conditions for average citizens in China. Otherwise China goes "poof!"

An interesting dynamic to watch is how the high cost of oil impacts China's ability to maintain increasing export volumes. China subsidizes fuel costs for its own citizens and industry, but how long can it continue to do so?

Americans need to stop imports from China.
This will reduce the CO2 production in China, improve the US trade deficit and fix the credit crisis.

What are you waiting for? Can't you buy American? Don't you love your country? Can't you save your money like the rest of the world?

Why don't Americans work on their efficiency instead of constantly playing the blame game:
US the Top Emitter/Person

Why don't Americans work on their solar hot water capacity instead of constantly playing the blame game:
China solar hot water capacity: 64.5%
USA solar hot water capacity: 1.7%
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf

Btw, did the socialist Clinton adminstration run the Dollar down or who's responsible?

Too weak for self-criticism?

"Emissions/person" is a flawed metric if not adjusted for GDP. Yes the U.S. has the highest energy consumption per capita and therefore the largest emissions but; when calcualting CO2 emissions or energy consumption per $ of GDP the U.S. is by no means the worse. It is about a third of the way down the list. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of room for improvement and there is no excuse for inaction; but blindly labeling it as the sorse offender is just U.S. bashing. Specialy when considering that almnost every other country in the world has a trade surplus with the U.S. and to a certain extent makes a bit of its living of the U.S.'s economy.

ai_vin:

Yes, it is a well known (voluntarily unpublished) fact that China requires two new power plants a week to produce all the goods they manufacture for us. If this trend goes on for another 15 to 25 years, our manufactured goods and associated GHG may be much closer to zero.

Who will be the winner and looser?

High pollution Alberta tar sand oil extractioin is another similar story. At least, wind normally blows in the right direction.

Victor:

GHG per GDP $$ is also flawed. How can you compare GHG from Microsoft versus car parts factories in China?

Harvey:

The GDP comparisson is not flawed, the fact of the matter is that the U.S. has a higher economic output and this has to be included in the estimation of energy consumption per capita. The U.S. also has dirty industries and China also has none polluting economic activities. Under your line of thinking we could also an extremely poor country with next to 0 economic activity is very clean, even if its people are starving.

But if you want to blame the U.S. for its pollution and for the pollution others create on its behalf (never mind they make money of the U.S. for it) then I do not see the point in discussing anything, it does not matter always damn the U.S. right? Besides other countries also buy from China, they should be as guilty of shipping their emissions elsewehere shouldn't they, even if the quantities are smaller?

We are all on the same boat. We all use energy, we all pollute and most people and countries in the world sell to and make money from the U.S. (me included). Shure the U.S. can do a lot better in energy efficiency; but so can all other countries in their own way

By the way I am not an American and I do not live in the U.S.

@Stan Peterson

RE: The Bush administration painfully recreated the ITER international consortia and doubled the membership to build the last Fusion experiment before building fusion power plants.
The Clinton administration reneged on its international commitment and it had collapsed. That is a great way to win foreign friends and influence people, leaving them in the lurch.
No sooner did the wonderful liberals take power in Congress and they temporarily zeroed out research money for ITER, one again. Not on its merits, but in a debate over Iraq war-funding, while double crossing our allies once again.
But then liberals are reknowned for their constancy and reliability, to stand by friends in difficult times.

I don’t know what reality you live in but it is not the real one. But more likely you are a republican propagandist who is spellbound by the dribble propagated by Rush Limbaugh.

True, reasoned, and critical thinking is devoid of party politics and the promulgation of false facts either intentionally or through mindless adherence to rote party doctrinaire.

Is your intent to convince or is it a mindless recitation of ingrained conservative mass media dribble?

These are the true facts about Bush science politics.

Reference:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/20085/

Excerpt:

For most of 2007, as Congress and the Bush administration debated the federal budget, support was strong from both parties for significantly increasing funding for three federal agencies that support the lion's share of basic research in the physical sciences: the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science. Indeed, the president's proposed budget included increased funding for these agencies, as part of a plan to double investment in physical-sciences research over the next 10 years. And early appropriations bills met these targets. But veto threats and one actual veto related to a cap on domestic spending imposed by President Bush kept these bills from becoming law.
Instead, a catch-all appropriations bill was passed in late December, with last-minute cuts that eliminated not only the proposed increases to these agencies, but also funding for some programs within these agencies. The cuts caught researchers by surprise just before the holidays and sent directors of at least two national labs scrambling to find ways to deal with the unexpected shortfalls. As a result of the cuts, hundreds of researchers at Fermilab, in Batavia, IL, and at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), in Menlo Park, CA, will be laid off.

To avoid a Bush veto that exceeding the Bush limit on domestic spending would bring, the congress was forced to cut deeply into US science.

And yet, we spend two billion dollars a day for a war to advance Bush’s place in the pantheon of presidents

This excerpt deals with ITER as follows:

Another important project, a proposed demonstration of nuclear fusion--called ITER--was slated to receive $160 million in federal funding this year; instead, it received no funding.

If funding had been constant, Hutchinson says, "we could have been at this stage 10 years ago." He calls the current cuts a "complete disaster" in terms of the message it conveys to the international community. "It's completely reversing ourselves from what we've been saying the last four years," he says, given that United States officials have publicly supported the project.

If Bush wanted this science funding then why did he sign the bill? The answer is he needed a scapegoat to take the blame for the cuts while still achieving his political goal: gut science!

Once again, the veto threat, the ultimate conservative bludgeon of power, gutted American support for ITER to our shame before the world.

Andrey, what you've said is only an explanation for why companies might say they aren't developing fields on leases they hold (i.e., they aren't economically recoverable now). Axil and his "sources" seem to be questioning that assertion by saying if there isn't anything there then give it back. Don't complain about us opening up additional land while you are sitting on 75 percent of available leases. Seems to be an equally informed position.

Andy:

I probably did not explain it clear enough.

Example. Oil company discovers oil in area A. Couple of years it searches for additional oil and leases additional adjacent areas B, C, D. Than it builds infrastructure for 3 billion $ (pipelines, terminals, etc.) and exploit area A for 5 years. When production from area A begin to decline, it moves gradually to area B, and maintain infrastructure utilization rate at 100% for another 7 years, then moves to area C, and in another 10 years to area D. Meanwhile, it leases additional areas E and F. In any particular moment only fraction of leased areas are exploited. This way oil company utilizes initial investment of 3 billion in infrastructure at full capacity for 30+ years.

In order to exploit all leases, oil company should build infrastructure for 18 billion (to exploit areas A,B,C,D,E,F simultaneously), and in 5-7 years dismantle it all. Such practice is terribly uneconomical, wasteful, and will have footprint many times bigger.

Oil company could choose to lease only area A, and lease area B in 5 years. But this is too risky: in five years competitor could overbid it, conditions of lease could change, or somebody will designate it as (A)NWAR.

Republican: All we need is to drill (everywhere), build more refineries, build more nuke plants and use *cough* clean coal to satisfy our energy needs.

Democrat: All we need is to use less energy (per person and industry) and invest in cleaner, renewable energy sources to satisfy our energy needs.

Truth: The former is not a solution to our short or intermediate term energy needs. Further, it's not sustainable long-term (except for nuclear).

The latter is a plausible short term solution but in the intermediate and long-term is dependent on technologic advances that are far from guaranteed.

Unfortuantely, ideologues like Bush can scarcely comprehend the notion of solutions focused on sustainability either as a fiscal or environmental factor. The foundation of the Bush administration energy policy was not fusion or any other next generation technology. The Energy Task Force came up with: 1) drill ANWR, 2) drill the coasts, 3) burn more coal, 4) nuke plants galore, 5) 'secure' Middle East and African sources of crude, 6) invest in electricity transmission infrastructure (arguably a good thing) and 7) weaken any environmental regulation that would stand in the way of 'progress'.