US coal is Largest contributor to THE RISE… But china coal is still ‘by far’ the largest overall contributor. They write titles kinda misleadingly dramatic.
The issue is that an increase in US coal consumption exists solely to placate Appalachians that can’t imagine a future beyond what Grandpappy did.
And it’s like, Appalachians do, in my opinion, fit the definition of “marginalized group,” but at the same time the only way of advancement that they accept is pretending the world can or should be like it was before the rust belt was the rust belt, which Republicans are happy to give them.
Leaving aside the importance of per capita, much of China’s emissions is western emissions in a trench coat. And I’m not saying that as a China glazer.
You can pin power use to exported products, but how that electricity is generated is chinas state decision.
It’s not like they did nothing but they could also be way more emission free than they are now.Aren’t they the number 1 in solar and new solar?
Sometimes I look at them and think, well at least they decided to do something about it.
Yes, China is using a lot of energy in general, and not just for its export-focused economy. The Chinese middle class is huge. They are top consumers of energy in both coal and renewables.
They’ve been intentionally using coal to develop away from coal for decades. It’s been a long term strategic thing, using coal power plants to build solar panel factories, then shutting down the coal plants. Meanwhile the USA keeps using coal for fun basically, while being like “well the Chinese are using it too!”. It’s hard for me to see China as the villain here
It’s says rise in the headline. Idk what your comment is supposed to be except for ‘china bad’ whataboutism.
I was misled upon first reading and so I wrote this to help others by changing emphasis. Their pull quote strikes me as a misdirection.
I see what you are saying but I don’t think it’s a misdirect. I think it’s the nature of fast reading. And I’m right there with you.
Or how about this - what should the headline have been?
I think it’s pretty straightforward
US increased coal use. China did not. So change in global emissions is US’s fault, because global change is based on sum of changes. Headline is fine.
US increased coal use. China did not.
China increased coal usage too.
China’s coal power on the rise again in 2026, reversing first-in-a-decade decline
So one year of increase vs 9 years of decrease is still an overall decrease.
Also there’s a difference between China choosing to do something with their planned economy, vs. random wacky shit happening here in Freemarketstan
So one year of increase
You’re moving the goalposts of this discussion. We’re talking about 2025-2026 activities. From the OP article:
"According to the Energy Institute’s latest Statistical Review of World Energy, US coal consumption increased by 10% in 2025, compared to a 0.7% rise globally. "
vs 9 years of decrease is still an overall decrease.
…so that point is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Also there’s a difference between China choosing to do something with their planned economy, vs. random wacky shit happening here in Freemarketstan
In this context, no there isn’t a difference. A net increase in coal usage is the only measure. Under that measure both the USA and China have increased domestic coal consumption for energy production.
Even if you want to try to play the “planned economy” card, I doubt in the 15th Five-Year Plan (2026–2030), which was formally approved at the National People’s Congress in March 2026, did the concept of $100+Brent crude prices exist as a recorded target. China has been buying up cheap Urals oil from Russia’s sanctioned shadow fleet of tankers for a couple years now increasing their strategic reserves (far higher than even the USA). Even those Urals shipments have largely curtained as its now open season for Ukrainian drones knocking out shadow fleet tankers by literally the dozen.
China is not sinning by increasing coal use any greater than the USA by just reacting to geopolitical market conditions and the need to continue to power its nation.
Looking at this again later, I think it’s the embedded 'quote ’ thing headlines like to do. Sometimes they’re like ‘Banana fiddlesticks’, vet says protect against fleas
Even the clean coal?
Smiling Garak: Especially the clean coal.
When you type out memes like this it really is a Picard and Dathon at el-adrel moment
Picard his hand on his forehead.
Clean from what?
Trump made up some shit
No way burning the lumps of carbon increases the amount of emitted carbon. :surprised_pikachu
But we burn carbon! How can we have carbon if we burn carbon, smarty-pants?
Probably a good time to deregulate even more!
he just did. no more emissions regulations on power plants. welcome back to 1965.
1965 regulation with 2026 demand
At what point might we consider that the americans are conducting a grey war against the rest of us?
As an American, I have been screaming basically this to anyone who will listen for my entire adult life.
Government and the rich, not “Americans”. Americans are just as pissed.
but you elected him twice. Another posted suggesting that we name heat waves after usa fossil fuel companies. what a great idea. Last summer in Spain? The Chevron heat wave.
no, i didn’t. statistical analysis also shows it is very likely Elon changed the votes in several states, so I’m unconvinced a majority was achieved through legal means.
So the USA government elections are pretty corrupt
We had about 5 heat waves in SW Europe this summer, so we can go through a few more names. I’m almost tempted to name the brief gaps of normal summer heat as well.
NO FUCKING SHIT (sorry not at you OP, just the . . . powers that be I guess)
Yes, because coal is considered “technology”.
Is power generation not considered technology?
From the article: “Make no mistake: China is still by far the biggest CO2 emitter in the world” in absolute terms, Law stressed.
But what does the amount of CO2 by China or any other country matter for the increase in CO2 by the U.S.? Yes China has more overall but that’s not an excuse for us to start emitting more, you know?
I do not know if it’s an excuse to for us to start emitting more tbh. I agree that a cleaner future is good for all of us and climate change is real.
I do wonder if there are times when figuratively putting your foot on the gas might be useful.
Would you agree that China’s excessive use of coal has worked out very well for them so far? I mean economically and by every other metric that you would consider a country successful.
It has worked well for them. They’re able to produce crazy amounts of electricity. I don’t disagree either that the U.S. could “put their foot on the gas” but only if it were going towards something like producing solar panels for every house, or building EV factories, stuff like that, to help us use less fossil fuels.
thanks. I personally do not see the point of what we are doing if we are linking to outside things alone. Its good to have sources but the convo should start here. Right now you have given me the only information I have because im not going to that other website. I would only do so to verify what is put in the federation.
Which doesn’t contradict the headline in any way.
You’re right. It doesn’t. Would you say the contents of the article are relevant to what’s linked though? Or just the headline?
Is that overall, per capita, per unit GDP, per WonTon served, or…?
Overall
