While the U.S. backtracks on green steel commitments, Chinese companies are starting to make iron with hydrogen. One just made its first export deal to…
They reached 50%+ electricity from renewables in 2024. Their emissions almost fell except for other sectors. Coal and NG electricity production fell 10%+ each. Their emissions will go down, despite yet more massive energy use increases (over 8% growth in 2024) in 2025. Coal plant constuction is irrelevant if they are used as resilience/backup power instead of baseload.
They’ve been aggressively surrounding themselves with US military outposts this whole time!!! Much aggression.
But for those who haven’t drunk the kool-aid, Xinhua claims 50% capacity, not 50% generation. Renewable energy generation according to the National Bureau of Statistics of China remains at 25.9% - and nuclear is included in that number. Many observers have noted that China overbuilds housing capacity, only to demolish empty or nearly finished buildings - suggesting a scheme to over-report GDP and other favorable numbers. They are experiencing an ongoing property crisis as a result of poor economic planning. Given that context, their report that the state is celebrating reaching 50% capacity solar energy goals while using much less than half of that capacity should be alarming. There is no indication that their coal infrastructure is meant only for backup power - the use of coal is being subsidized by the state, and the existing infrastructure is under constant use.
Both capitalism and whatever you call the economic system China is using are extremely ecologically destructive. While the small improvements in renewable energy technology under these systems can benefit humanity, it’s important not to ignore the deep inequality and inefficiency inherent in these modes of production. Things made under these regimes will never be truly “green” – and it benefits only the powerful to pretend that they are.
Your XInhua link is from 2023. I said 2024 data. Its mwh produced not mw capacity.
China’s central leadership will burn their nation’s children to fuel their expansionist ideology
While you accuse me of propaganda for pushing back on this with the last 20 years of propaganda points on “theory that China has always been losing”… in 2024, over 8% electricity demand growth is a big/real number, and 4.5% auto sales growth for all of 2024 is representative of real middle+ class wealth growth. 18.1% in june 2025. vs. US flat in June/July this year.
While the small improvements in renewable energy technology under these systems can benefit humanity, it’s important not to ignore the deep inequality and inefficiency inherent in these modes of production.
Degrowth is not a socially or democratically viable policy. Massive job losses that people depend on buying nice and necessary things that employ others. You can advise people on the benefits of dropping out of consumerism, perhaps a few people would agree with the lifestyle change, but structurally imposing on them will not go over well, and the job part is not something most people have the option of letting go of.
Renewables is able to provide all energy needs on the planet. Green H2 stabilizing electricity with transportable fuel and heat. It is vital base element in fertilizer and Iron ore reduction as per OP. It is a viable alternative to both degrowth and Oligarchy protection. Job replacement instead of job destruction.
It seems you’re spreading false information about what degrowth represents. In case you or anyone else is interested in what it stands for, here are some resources to help you better understand the movement.
Degrowth is an academic and social movement aimed at the planned and democratic reduction of production and consumption as a solution to purported social-ecological crises. Commonly cited policy goals of degrowth include reducing the environmental impact of human activities, redistributing income and wealth within and between countries, and encouraging a shift from materialistic values to a convivial and participatory society. Degrowth is a multi-layered concept that combines critiques of capitalism, colonialism, patriarchy, productivism, and utilitarianism, while envisioning more caring, just, convivial, happy, and democratic societies.
Striving for a self-determined life in dignity for all. This includes deceleration, time welfare and conviviality.
An economy and a society that sustains the natural basis of life.
A reduction of production and consumption in the global North and liberation from the one-sided Western paradigm of development. This could allow for a self-determined path of social organization in the global South.
An extension of democratic decision-making to allow for real political participation.
Social changes and an orientation towards sufficiency instead of purely technological changes and improvements in efficiency in order to solve ecological problems. We believe that it has historically been proven that decoupling economic growth from resource use is not possible.
The creation of open, connected and localized economies.
Researchers in ecological economics call for a different approach — degrowth. Wealthy economies should abandon growth of gross domestic product (GDP) as a goal, scale down destructive and unnecessary forms of production to reduce energy and material use, and focus economic activity around securing human needs and well-being. This approach, which has gained traction in recent years, can enable rapid decarbonization and stop ecological breakdown while improving social outcomes. It frees up energy and materials for low- and middle-income countries in which growth might still be needed for development. Degrowth is a purposeful strategy to stabilize economies and achieve social and ecological goals, unlike recession, which is chaotic and socially destabilizing and occurs when growth-dependent economies fail to grow.
“It is bad economics and it is also anti-scientific,” says Jason Hickel, the author of Less Is More. “People need to understand that ‘growth’ is not the same as social progress.”
Hickel is one of the leading lights in a growing post-growth or degrowth movement. Its proponents argue that economic success cannot be measured through the crude metric of gross domestic product (GDP) and that there needs to be a managed reduction in growth in carbon-intensive countries and industries.
“Growth simply means an increase in aggregate production, as measured in market prices,” says Hickel. “So, according to GDP growth, producing £1m worth of teargas is considered exactly the same as producing £1m worth of affordable housing or healthcare.”
reducing the environmental impact of human activities, redistributing income and wealth within and between countries, and encouraging a shift from materialistic values to a convivial and participatory society
I never said anything contrary to this. Reducing climate impact of energy is more important to human sustainability than local environment cleanliness, but certainly environment sustainability is also important. Degrowth is not needed. Taxes on pollution GHGs and polution (or better, regulatory obligation to clean up any) are. UBI in general and with those taxes as a specific funding component is great policy, and voluntary. Don’t want to pay pollution or income taxes, then don’t produce anything. Can still get rich from work, and letting UBI trickle back up to those who produce. UBI/wealth redistribution increases consumption, as more of it can be afforded by more people. The natural way of redistributing income among nations is to not protect domestic oligarchy.
There are systemic approaches to achieving clean growth that makes everyone, except those dependent on profit from slavery, happier. Evangelizing veganism and carbon footprints is fine when voluntary. Evangelism being successful on a mass scale, however unlikely, still leads to the usual coalition for fascist solutions, or accusations of it.
There are perfect effective systemic voluntary solutions (UBI, carbon taxes) to sustainability. Degrowth, will never be popular. Carbon footprint, was a shift to personal responsibility PR ploy paid for by BP. Degrowth, as a policy goal, or just loose association (like DEI) with one political party, would have a divisive benefit to oligarchism, and making reactionary oligarcho-fascism “populist”.
We got here, because I was arguing with dishonest troll spouting loser US empire propaganda, btw. Climate terrorism is awesome, because China did not solve it in 2023, according to them. By coincidence, the climate terrorist supporter also advocates for degrowth.
They reached 50%+ electricity from renewables in 2024. Their emissions almost fell except for other sectors. Coal and NG electricity production fell 10%+ each. Their emissions will go down, despite yet more massive energy use increases (over 8% growth in 2024) in 2025. Coal plant constuction is irrelevant if they are used as resilience/backup power instead of baseload.
Are you getting those numbers from Xinhua? You don’t have a lot of credibility given you think degrowth is cannibalism and your embrace of Chinese propaganda:
But for those who haven’t drunk the kool-aid, Xinhua claims 50% capacity, not 50% generation. Renewable energy generation according to the National Bureau of Statistics of China remains at 25.9% - and nuclear is included in that number. Many observers have noted that China overbuilds housing capacity, only to demolish empty or nearly finished buildings - suggesting a scheme to over-report GDP and other favorable numbers. They are experiencing an ongoing property crisis as a result of poor economic planning. Given that context, their report that the state is celebrating reaching 50% capacity solar energy goals while using much less than half of that capacity should be alarming. There is no indication that their coal infrastructure is meant only for backup power - the use of coal is being subsidized by the state, and the existing infrastructure is under constant use.
Both capitalism and whatever you call the economic system China is using are extremely ecologically destructive. While the small improvements in renewable energy technology under these systems can benefit humanity, it’s important not to ignore the deep inequality and inefficiency inherent in these modes of production. Things made under these regimes will never be truly “green” – and it benefits only the powerful to pretend that they are.
Your XInhua link is from 2023. I said 2024 data. Its mwh produced not mw capacity.
While you accuse me of propaganda for pushing back on this with the last 20 years of propaganda points on “theory that China has always been losing”… in 2024, over 8% electricity demand growth is a big/real number, and 4.5% auto sales growth for all of 2024 is representative of real middle+ class wealth growth. 18.1% in june 2025. vs. US flat in June/July this year.
Degrowth is not a socially or democratically viable policy. Massive job losses that people depend on buying nice and necessary things that employ others. You can advise people on the benefits of dropping out of consumerism, perhaps a few people would agree with the lifestyle change, but structurally imposing on them will not go over well, and the job part is not something most people have the option of letting go of.
Renewables is able to provide all energy needs on the planet. Green H2 stabilizing electricity with transportable fuel and heat. It is vital base element in fertilizer and Iron ore reduction as per OP. It is a viable alternative to both degrowth and Oligarchy protection. Job replacement instead of job destruction.
It seems you’re spreading false information about what degrowth represents. In case you or anyone else is interested in what it stands for, here are some resources to help you better understand the movement.
Wikipedia
Degrowth is an academic and social movement aimed at the planned and democratic reduction of production and consumption as a solution to purported social-ecological crises. Commonly cited policy goals of degrowth include reducing the environmental impact of human activities, redistributing income and wealth within and between countries, and encouraging a shift from materialistic values to a convivial and participatory society. Degrowth is a multi-layered concept that combines critiques of capitalism, colonialism, patriarchy, productivism, and utilitarianism, while envisioning more caring, just, convivial, happy, and democratic societies.
Degrowth.info
Essential for Degrowth is:
Nature: Degrowth can work — here’s how science can help
Researchers in ecological economics call for a different approach — degrowth. Wealthy economies should abandon growth of gross domestic product (GDP) as a goal, scale down destructive and unnecessary forms of production to reduce energy and material use, and focus economic activity around securing human needs and well-being. This approach, which has gained traction in recent years, can enable rapid decarbonization and stop ecological breakdown while improving social outcomes. It frees up energy and materials for low- and middle-income countries in which growth might still be needed for development. Degrowth is a purposeful strategy to stabilize economies and achieve social and ecological goals, unlike recession, which is chaotic and socially destabilizing and occurs when growth-dependent economies fail to grow.
The Guardian: ‘These ideas are incredibly popular’: what is degrowth and can it save the planet?
“It is bad economics and it is also anti-scientific,” says Jason Hickel, the author of Less Is More. “People need to understand that ‘growth’ is not the same as social progress.”
Hickel is one of the leading lights in a growing post-growth or degrowth movement. Its proponents argue that economic success cannot be measured through the crude metric of gross domestic product (GDP) and that there needs to be a managed reduction in growth in carbon-intensive countries and industries.
“Growth simply means an increase in aggregate production, as measured in market prices,” says Hickel. “So, according to GDP growth, producing £1m worth of teargas is considered exactly the same as producing £1m worth of affordable housing or healthcare.”
I never said anything contrary to this. Reducing climate impact of energy is more important to human sustainability than local environment cleanliness, but certainly environment sustainability is also important. Degrowth is not needed. Taxes on pollution GHGs and polution (or better, regulatory obligation to clean up any) are. UBI in general and with those taxes as a specific funding component is great policy, and voluntary. Don’t want to pay pollution or income taxes, then don’t produce anything. Can still get rich from work, and letting UBI trickle back up to those who produce. UBI/wealth redistribution increases consumption, as more of it can be afforded by more people. The natural way of redistributing income among nations is to not protect domestic oligarchy.
There are systemic approaches to achieving clean growth that makes everyone, except those dependent on profit from slavery, happier. Evangelizing veganism and carbon footprints is fine when voluntary. Evangelism being successful on a mass scale, however unlikely, still leads to the usual coalition for fascist solutions, or accusations of it.
There are perfect effective systemic voluntary solutions (UBI, carbon taxes) to sustainability. Degrowth, will never be popular. Carbon footprint, was a shift to personal responsibility PR ploy paid for by BP. Degrowth, as a policy goal, or just loose association (like DEI) with one political party, would have a divisive benefit to oligarchism, and making reactionary oligarcho-fascism “populist”.
We got here, because I was arguing with dishonest troll spouting loser US empire propaganda, btw. Climate terrorism is awesome, because China did not solve it in 2023, according to them. By coincidence, the climate terrorist supporter also advocates for degrowth.