Let's say you're +Andreas Schou, and you're commenting on a Greenpeace study on Chinese energy, emissions, and economic activity. You discover a dissonance with your personal model of both the source and the study subject.
Do you:
(a) Accurately comment what Greenpeace actually reported, or;
(b) Make shit up?
Oh, you picked (b)? That's ... uh... an interesting choice.
What did Greenpeace in fact say:
Greenpeace’s Energydesk team say they based the findings on a variety of sources including China’s industrial output data for April and customs figures which show a 38% drop in coal imports.
One reason for sluggish coal use could be the state of China’s economy, which may experience its worst year in a quarter of a century, Reuters reports.
The news comes as Forbes reports on the rise of wind energy in China to become the third largest source of electricity – behind Hydro and coal.
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/05/13/dispatch-warning-over-uk-renewables-japan-goes-for-space-solar-china-coal-collapse-the-pope/
I see nothing here that supports your implied state of affairs here, Andreas.
Facts as related by Greenpeace:
1. China's emissions have fallen (this has been reported variously).
2. China's economic output is in free-fall. Also reported variously.
3. Given both a reduction in use of fossil-fuel energy and at the very least a constant state of renewable energy deployments if not a net increase, then as you decrease use of fuel-based thermal power generation, the share of energy generated by renewables increases. As Greenpeace's reports state. And quotes Forbes as its source on increased wind energy capacity in China.
You're far better than this, Andreas.
Do you:
(a) Accurately comment what Greenpeace actually reported, or;
(b) Make shit up?
Oh, you picked (b)? That's ... uh... an interesting choice.
What did Greenpeace in fact say:
Greenpeace’s Energydesk team say they based the findings on a variety of sources including China’s industrial output data for April and customs figures which show a 38% drop in coal imports.
One reason for sluggish coal use could be the state of China’s economy, which may experience its worst year in a quarter of a century, Reuters reports.
The news comes as Forbes reports on the rise of wind energy in China to become the third largest source of electricity – behind Hydro and coal.
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/05/13/dispatch-warning-over-uk-renewables-japan-goes-for-space-solar-china-coal-collapse-the-pope/
I see nothing here that supports your implied state of affairs here, Andreas.
Facts as related by Greenpeace:
1. China's emissions have fallen (this has been reported variously).
2. China's economic output is in free-fall. Also reported variously.
3. Given both a reduction in use of fossil-fuel energy and at the very least a constant state of renewable energy deployments if not a net increase, then as you decrease use of fuel-based thermal power generation, the share of energy generated by renewables increases. As Greenpeace's reports state. And quotes Forbes as its source on increased wind energy capacity in China.
You're far better than this, Andreas.
So, let's say you're Greenpeace. You discover that there's been a huge drop in greenhouse gas emissions and coal usage in China. Mysteriously, there's been no new deployment of cleaner power plants. Do you attribute this to:
(a) A worrying collapse of the Chinese economy, or;
(b) Sudden success of liberal environmental policy despite dire enforcement and institutional constraints.
Oh. You picked (b)? That's... uh... an interesting choice.
(a) A worrying collapse of the Chinese economy, or;
(b) Sudden success of liberal environmental policy despite dire enforcement and institutional constraints.
Oh. You picked (b)? That's... uh... an interesting choice.
