I've seen quite a few SMR proposals over the last couple of years and not a single one that dared to address the whole cycle from deployment to eventual decommission as a function of the total revenues - costs to operate. Most of these projects seem to be made to bilk investors or governments rather than to actually produce power. The day Italy produces the first KWh that is net profitable to the operators without counting subsidies I will be highly amazed, and that's assuming they get to operational in the first place.
I agree, I tell everyone who will listen that no country, not Russia, China, Japan, France, USA etc has ever made nuclear power profitable. And you can't blame it on the environmentalists in China and Russia.
That being said, many countries consider it a national security issue not to be held hostage to foreign oil.
China, Russia and the USA all have massive and vested interests in fossil fuels. In the US for example we’ve been subsidizing the everloving hell out of fossil, eroding regulations that would hold them accountable for externalities…
…and then people wonder why nuclear isn’t competitive. When you hold one thing under a microscope because “radiation” scares people, we end up with millions dead per year from air and water pollution due to fossil fuels.
China has some coal reserves but overall they're a major net fossil fuel importer. They're quite short of crude oil and natural gas reserves relative to demand. This is a serious national security risk which is why they've been rapidly electrifying their economy and building solar, nuclear, and hydro power plants (along with coal fired power plants).
That link is out of date. China's coal share fell under 50% this year (your link says 58%), and their CO2 emissions dropped 1% the first half of 2026.
So yes, it can be reasonably claimed that China is greening. "greening", not "green" -- 49.7% coal is still a lot of CO2.
Maybe emissions fell because industrial activity fell instead? Maybe oil and gas have been used less because the cost has risen. Maybe that explains coal as well depending on how it is used. I’m speculating coal might be used in the production of steel - what if that product is highly tariffed in the US and EU so China had to cut back?
China is “greening” but we should be skeptical that it’s out of some lofty moral goal. If it was they wouldn’t be hoarding the production of rare earth minerals and would be freely giving away technology for the sake of the planet.
Where did "some lofty moral goal" come from? The only motive anyone in this thread has proffered for electrifying was because "they're quite short of crude oil and natural gas reserves relative to demand. This is a serious national security risk."
You can see the same dips hit at the same time for the same reason.
In terms of Chinese coal though there's a reason boosters always talk about percentages and not absolute number... one goes down, but the other keeps rising. Even if China continues on the current course in terms of tonnage burned they won't reach "peak coal" until at least 2030.
> China is “greening” but we should be skeptical that it’s out of some lofty moral goal
Why does the "why" matter? Tons are tons, right?
> they wouldn’t be hoarding the production of rare earth minerals and would be freely giving away technology for the sake of the planet.
You can freely buy as many panels and batteries and EVs from China as you like. Those come with minerals. What are they "hoarding" exactly that the planet needs to go green?
Well it doesn’t entirely matter but we should just acknowledge that it’s a geopolitical strategy and not really something they are doing for the planet.
> You can freely buy as many cheap panels and batteries and EVs and heat pumps from China as you like (unless your country is stupid enough to tariff or ban them). Those come with minerals. When they reach end-of-life they can be recycled. What exactly are they "hoarding" that the planet needs to go green? It hasn't prevented Pakistan or Vietnam from going ham on PV deployment.
Are you unfamiliar with China’s restrictions on rare earth exports for example due to alleged “dual use” as they continue to apply military pressure on democratic Taiwan? I’d encourage you to read up on these restrictions with respect to Japan for example who is alarmed by Chinese and North Korean provocations.
You can buy so many cheap panels practically only from China because they subsidized the industry so other countries couldn’t compete and build their own solar panels. For some these tariffs and bans are responses to these anti-competitive strategies. It’s not just the US, by the way. The EU is tariffing China too.
They are entitled to pursue these strategies but we are also entitled in the west to recognize them and combat them how we see fit.
> not really something they are doing for the planet
If it doesn't matter why do you feel the need to acknowledge it?
> Are you unfamiliar with China’s restrictions on rare earth exports [to Japan] for example due to alleged “dual use”
How do these restrictions prevent Japan from using Chinese PV and batteries in their grid?
> You can buy so many cheap panels practically only from China because they subsidized the industry
Translation: they gave the world a ton of deeply discounted goods. And you said they didn't do anything nice for anyone!
> so other countries couldn’t compete and build their own solar panels
Other countries are free to subsidize their own solar and battery industries. Godspeed to the ones doing it right now. But also is it really that amazing of an industry to have? Low-margins, constant price wars, not much of a moat. Rich economies tend not to have those anyway.
> For some these tariffs and bans are responses to these anti-competitive strategies
Surely then the US must be approving solar projects at record pace then? And wind too?
> The EU is tariffing China too.
There are no EU tariffs on Chinese solar panels or grid-scale batteries or heat pumps. They are considering tariffing heat pumps right now.
> If it doesn't matter why do you feel the need to acknowledge it?
Just to make sure nobody is ever confused. Why do you feel the need to defend China?
> How do these restrictions prevent Japan from using Chinese PV and batteries in their grid?
It limits Japan from developing their own home grown market or utilizing technology for what China considers dual use?
> Translation: they gave the world a ton of deeply discounted goods. And you said they didn't do anything nice for anyone!
Other translation: Those cheap goods weren’t worth the cost to the environment or to empower an autocratic regime.
> Other countries are free to subsidize their own solar and battery industries.
When that happens there can be retaliatory measures against countries who are in for example the WTO or have other trade agreements. You don’t just subsidize products in a vacuum.
> Godspeed to the ones doing it right now. But also is it really that amazing an industry to have? Low-margins, constant price wars, undifferentiated commodity product without much of a moat. Rich economies tend not to have those industries anyway.
You’re focusing on solar panels but that’s not all we’ve been discussing.
> Surely then the US must be approving solar projects at record pace then? And wind too?
That doesn’t follow from what you quoted.
> There are no EU tariffs on Chinese solar panels or grid-scale batteries or heat pumps. They are considering tariffing heat pumps right now.
They are tariffing other products/industries and working on additional ones.
That a country is acting in its own interests? I don't think that's news.
> Why do you feel the need to defend China?
I think climate change is the biggest problem of our lifetime. China's output of green tech is our best chance. I think useful idiots for the fossil fuel industry demonize China to transitively discredit renewables (i.e. not for "lofty moral reasons" like democracy). There's a genuine double standard.
> It limits Japan from developing their own home grown market or utilizing technology for what China considers dual use?
Drill deeper. How does this prevent Japan from "greening" today? That's the topic we're discussing. Why can't Japan source rare earths from somewhere else? They aren't actually that rare. Japan could invest in mines and processing facilities in Africa or the US or Canada.
> Those cheap goods weren’t worth the cost to the environment
Cheap, abundant PV and batteries that can decarbonize the world? I'm ok with localized damage to one country's environment, done voluntarily, for that.
> there can be retaliatory measures against countries who are in for example the WTO
How did China do it then?
> You’re focusing on solar panels but that’s not all we’ve been discussing.
Ok what else then? You want battery manufacturing? Motors? Has China somehow restricted countries from building their own industries?
> > Surely then the US must be approving solar projects at record pace then? And wind too?
> That doesn’t follow from what you quoted.
Ok what is the US doing for renewable energy under this administration?
> They are tariffing other products/industries and working on additional ones.
We're focusing on renewable tech here. That's the focus of this thread.
> That a country is acting in its own interests? I don't think that's news.
You changed the topic though, that wasn't what we were talking about.
> I think climate change is the biggest problem of our lifetime. China's output of green tech is our best chance. I think useful idiots for the fossil fuel industry demonize China to transitively discredit renewables (i.e. not for "lofty moral reasons" like democracy). There's a genuine double standard.
That basically proves my initial point lol. That's why it's important to make sure while the effects may be good for the climate, it's not done with any intention for the planet's benefit and specific tactics that are being used are harmful to other countries.
> Drill deeper. How does this prevent Japan from "greening" today? That's the topic we're discussing.
I'd challenge you to do the same thing. How can Japan "green" when China has restricted exports of rare earth materials to Japan because China and its junior partner North Korea are engaging in provocative military activities near Japan?
If your version of "Japan can green by buying China's products" you're being immature in your understanding of international relations, the importance for countries like Japan to maintain their industrial base, and how the environment is an important consideration, but just one of many.
> Why can't Japan source "dual use" rare earths from somewhere else? They aren't actually that rare. Japan could invest in mines and processing facilities in Africa or the US or Canada.
Well Japan and western allies and democracies are working on it, but the problem isn't the location of rare earths it is the ability (as far as I understand) to process them. It'll take time for those capabilities to be stood up, and they have to be subsidized or benefit from tariffs because China has built up so much excess industrial capacity that other countries can't build their own without such policies.
> Describes most oil-producing countries. This is virtue signalling.
Norway is an oil-producing country and not an autocracy. Your point was disproven.
> Cheap, abundant PV and batteries that can decarbonize the world? I'm ok with localized damage to one country's environment, done voluntarily, for that. Climate change will wreck the global environment.
That's your opinion but it's not the opinion of others. I disagree, for example.
> How did China do it then?
You want me to explain the history of the World Trade Organization, the US advocating for China to do it under the guise that China was going to liberalize and democratize, and then how China used most-favored nation status, a regime of state subsidies, and artificially depressing its currency to boost exports? If you're not aware of this stuff, are you sure you should be speaking on this topic without even the basics?
> Ok what else then? You want battery manufacturing? Motors? Has China somehow restricted countries from building their own industries?
Already explained above.
> Ok what is the US doing for renewable energy under this administration?
Idk? We'll have a new administration in a couple of years though.
> We're focusing on renewable tech here. That's the focus of this thread.
Ok then you can stop replying to me since that's not the only thing I'm talking about. I'm focused on more than renewable tech and that's of little concern to me in the grand scheme of things including climate change.
> > Describes most oil-producing countries. This is virtue signalling.
> Norway is an oil-producing country and not an autocracy. Your point was disproven.
Are you somehow unfamiliar with the definition of the word "most"?
> That basically proves my initial point lol
I don't know what your "point" was honestly.
> Ok then you can stop replying to me since [green energy is] not the only thing I'm talking about
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49821986">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49821986 that's what you were talking about there.
> If your version of "Japan can green by buying China's products" you're being immature in your understanding of international relations
Japan's already "not green" by buying energy from other autocratic nations. Like I said this is all virtue signalling to avoid going renewable.
"Rare earths" are a strategic necessity for defence, and China won't sell them for that reason - fine. Countries who still need them can nationalize processing capacity and run it at a loss for the sole use of defence industries. No need to participate or compete in the market at all. China's subsidies and the WTO don't matter.
> Are you somehow unfamiliar with the definition of the word "most"?
Your point was still not great, but I apologize as I misread what you wrote.
> I don't know what your "point" was honestly because you yourself conceded it didn't "matter much".
If you don't know what we were discussing why are you arguing about it?
> <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49821986">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49821986 that's what you were talking about there.
Industrial output falling because of tariffs for example would be aligned with my initial post. You're being argumentative here for no good reason. If you just want to talk about the engineering technology I don't have much else to say about it. But if you want to talk about the important stuff, why it's not being adopted, why some countries are adopting it and others aren't, I think that's an interesting conversation to have.
> Japan (and most other countries) are already "not green" by buying oil from other autocratic nations. Like I said this is all virtue signalling to avoid going renewable. The fossil fuel industry loves it.
Well they're stuck between buying oil from autocratic nations (China also buys oil from autocratic nations) or buying green technology from autocratic nations which are also threatening them or stopping exports of the technology or industry. Saudi Arabia (or insert whatever country here) doesn't for example stop oil exports to Japan for example if Japan also does their own oil drilling or exploration. China does stop exports of certain technologies or even processed rare earth minerals.
> "Rare earths" are a strategic necessity for defence, and China won't sell them for that reason - fine. Countries who still need them can nationalize processing capacity and run it at a loss for the sole use of defence industries. No need to participate or compete in the market at all.
No lol they'll subsidize them and refuse to buy China's products to protect domestic industries and capabilities to build the products themselves. It won't be limited to defense. Plus as I have pointed out a few times China itself restricts exports because of the threat of dual-use (which is in response to Chinese provocations) so China will in effect stop the export of defense-related products even when they can be used by consumers.
> China's subsidies and the WTO don't matter.
To add to this, China’s overall greenhouse gas emissions have been flat or declining for a couple of years now: <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-have-now-been-flat-or-falling-for-21-months" rel="nofollow">https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-ha...
> After the first three quarters of the year, China’s CO2 emissions in 2025 are now finely balanced between a small fall or rise, depending on what happens in the last quarter.
And then goes on to describe how the largest drop (3%) is happening at a time when it just happens that fuel is increasingly expensive and scarce, shipping is increasingly expensive and slow, and the global economy has spent months grinding increasingly towards a terrible outcome.
People might as well brag about their incredible weight loss journey through amputation.
That's 50% of electricity, but not 50% of energy. Coal still provides ~80% of energy IIRC (roughly 10% is carbon-free and growing faster than the US). China burns so, so much coal, while much of the world has shifted to natural gas, which has much less carbon per energy.
You don't recall correctly. Coal is also 50% of energy. It's used a lot for heating, but that is dropping rapidly. It's used in manufacturing, but that is also doing rapidly, except for steel. It's not used for transportation.
jacquesm · · focus · HN ↗
asmodeuslucifer · · focus · HN ↗
That being said, many countries consider it a national security issue not to be held hostage to foreign oil.
EA-3167 · · focus · HN ↗
…and then people wonder why nuclear isn’t competitive. When you hold one thing under a microscope because “radiation” scares people, we end up with millions dead per year from air and water pollution due to fossil fuels.
nradov · · focus · HN ↗
EA-3167 · · focus · HN ↗
The talking point that they’re going green doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
<a href="https://www.globalelectricity.org/china-electricity-production/" rel="nofollow">https://www.globalelectricity.org/china-electricity-producti...
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China
bryanlarsen · · focus · HN ↗
So yes, it can be reasonably claimed that China is greening. "greening", not "green" -- 49.7% coal is still a lot of CO2.
<a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/energy/articles/china-pushes-coal-miners-lift-071500851.html" rel="nofollow">https://finance.yahoo.com/energy/articles/china-pushes-coal-...
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
China is “greening” but we should be skeptical that it’s out of some lofty moral goal. If it was they wouldn’t be hoarding the production of rare earth minerals and would be freely giving away technology for the sake of the planet.
wk_end · · focus · HN ↗
EA-3167 · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coal-power-drops-in-china-and-india-for-first-time-in-52-years-after-clean-energy-records" rel="nofollow">https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coal-power-drops-in-chi...
<a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/span-style_font-size_0.94em__Coal-power-drops-in-China-and-India-for-first-time-in-52-years-after-clean-energy-records.png" rel="nofollow">https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/span-...
You can see the same dips hit at the same time for the same reason.
In terms of Chinese coal though there's a reason boosters always talk about percentages and not absolute number... one goes down, but the other keeps rising. Even if China continues on the current course in terms of tonnage burned they won't reach "peak coal" until at least 2030.
triceratops · · focus · HN ↗
Why does the "why" matter? Tons are tons, right?
> they wouldn’t be hoarding the production of rare earth minerals and would be freely giving away technology for the sake of the planet.
You can freely buy as many panels and batteries and EVs from China as you like. Those come with minerals. What are they "hoarding" exactly that the planet needs to go green?
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
Well it doesn’t entirely matter but we should just acknowledge that it’s a geopolitical strategy and not really something they are doing for the planet.
> You can freely buy as many cheap panels and batteries and EVs and heat pumps from China as you like (unless your country is stupid enough to tariff or ban them). Those come with minerals. When they reach end-of-life they can be recycled. What exactly are they "hoarding" that the planet needs to go green? It hasn't prevented Pakistan or Vietnam from going ham on PV deployment.
Are you unfamiliar with China’s restrictions on rare earth exports for example due to alleged “dual use” as they continue to apply military pressure on democratic Taiwan? I’d encourage you to read up on these restrictions with respect to Japan for example who is alarmed by Chinese and North Korean provocations.
You can buy so many cheap panels practically only from China because they subsidized the industry so other countries couldn’t compete and build their own solar panels. For some these tariffs and bans are responses to these anti-competitive strategies. It’s not just the US, by the way. The EU is tariffing China too.
They are entitled to pursue these strategies but we are also entitled in the west to recognize them and combat them how we see fit.
triceratops · · focus · HN ↗
If it doesn't matter why do you feel the need to acknowledge it?
> Are you unfamiliar with China’s restrictions on rare earth exports [to Japan] for example due to alleged “dual use”
How do these restrictions prevent Japan from using Chinese PV and batteries in their grid?
> You can buy so many cheap panels practically only from China because they subsidized the industry
Translation: they gave the world a ton of deeply discounted goods. And you said they didn't do anything nice for anyone!
> so other countries couldn’t compete and build their own solar panels
Other countries are free to subsidize their own solar and battery industries. Godspeed to the ones doing it right now. But also is it really that amazing of an industry to have? Low-margins, constant price wars, not much of a moat. Rich economies tend not to have those anyway.
> For some these tariffs and bans are responses to these anti-competitive strategies
Surely then the US must be approving solar projects at record pace then? And wind too?
> The EU is tariffing China too.
There are no EU tariffs on Chinese solar panels or grid-scale batteries or heat pumps. They are considering tariffing heat pumps right now.
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
Just to make sure nobody is ever confused. Why do you feel the need to defend China?
> How do these restrictions prevent Japan from using Chinese PV and batteries in their grid?
It limits Japan from developing their own home grown market or utilizing technology for what China considers dual use?
> Translation: they gave the world a ton of deeply discounted goods. And you said they didn't do anything nice for anyone!
Other translation: Those cheap goods weren’t worth the cost to the environment or to empower an autocratic regime.
> Other countries are free to subsidize their own solar and battery industries.
When that happens there can be retaliatory measures against countries who are in for example the WTO or have other trade agreements. You don’t just subsidize products in a vacuum.
> Godspeed to the ones doing it right now. But also is it really that amazing an industry to have? Low-margins, constant price wars, undifferentiated commodity product without much of a moat. Rich economies tend not to have those industries anyway.
You’re focusing on solar panels but that’s not all we’ve been discussing.
> Surely then the US must be approving solar projects at record pace then? And wind too?
That doesn’t follow from what you quoted.
> There are no EU tariffs on Chinese solar panels or grid-scale batteries or heat pumps. They are considering tariffing heat pumps right now.
They are tariffing other products/industries and working on additional ones.
triceratops · · focus · HN ↗
That a country is acting in its own interests? I don't think that's news.
> Why do you feel the need to defend China?
I think climate change is the biggest problem of our lifetime. China's output of green tech is our best chance. I think useful idiots for the fossil fuel industry demonize China to transitively discredit renewables (i.e. not for "lofty moral reasons" like democracy). There's a genuine double standard.
> It limits Japan from developing their own home grown market or utilizing technology for what China considers dual use?
Drill deeper. How does this prevent Japan from "greening" today? That's the topic we're discussing. Why can't Japan source rare earths from somewhere else? They aren't actually that rare. Japan could invest in mines and processing facilities in Africa or the US or Canada.
> Those cheap goods weren’t worth the cost to the environment
Cheap, abundant PV and batteries that can decarbonize the world? I'm ok with localized damage to one country's environment, done voluntarily, for that.
> there can be retaliatory measures against countries who are in for example the WTO
How did China do it then?
> You’re focusing on solar panels but that’s not all we’ve been discussing.
Ok what else then? You want battery manufacturing? Motors? Has China somehow restricted countries from building their own industries?
> > Surely then the US must be approving solar projects at record pace then? And wind too?
> That doesn’t follow from what you quoted.
Ok what is the US doing for renewable energy under this administration?
> They are tariffing other products/industries and working on additional ones.
We're focusing on renewable tech here. That's the focus of this thread.
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
You changed the topic though, that wasn't what we were talking about.
> I think climate change is the biggest problem of our lifetime. China's output of green tech is our best chance. I think useful idiots for the fossil fuel industry demonize China to transitively discredit renewables (i.e. not for "lofty moral reasons" like democracy). There's a genuine double standard.
That basically proves my initial point lol. That's why it's important to make sure while the effects may be good for the climate, it's not done with any intention for the planet's benefit and specific tactics that are being used are harmful to other countries.
> Drill deeper. How does this prevent Japan from "greening" today? That's the topic we're discussing.
I'd challenge you to do the same thing. How can Japan "green" when China has restricted exports of rare earth materials to Japan because China and its junior partner North Korea are engaging in provocative military activities near Japan?
If your version of "Japan can green by buying China's products" you're being immature in your understanding of international relations, the importance for countries like Japan to maintain their industrial base, and how the environment is an important consideration, but just one of many.
> Why can't Japan source "dual use" rare earths from somewhere else? They aren't actually that rare. Japan could invest in mines and processing facilities in Africa or the US or Canada.
Well Japan and western allies and democracies are working on it, but the problem isn't the location of rare earths it is the ability (as far as I understand) to process them. It'll take time for those capabilities to be stood up, and they have to be subsidized or benefit from tariffs because China has built up so much excess industrial capacity that other countries can't build their own without such policies.
> Describes most oil-producing countries. This is virtue signalling.
Norway is an oil-producing country and not an autocracy. Your point was disproven.
> Cheap, abundant PV and batteries that can decarbonize the world? I'm ok with localized damage to one country's environment, done voluntarily, for that. Climate change will wreck the global environment.
That's your opinion but it's not the opinion of others. I disagree, for example.
> How did China do it then?
You want me to explain the history of the World Trade Organization, the US advocating for China to do it under the guise that China was going to liberalize and democratize, and then how China used most-favored nation status, a regime of state subsidies, and artificially depressing its currency to boost exports? If you're not aware of this stuff, are you sure you should be speaking on this topic without even the basics?
> Ok what else then? You want battery manufacturing? Motors? Has China somehow restricted countries from building their own industries?
Already explained above.
> Ok what is the US doing for renewable energy under this administration?
Idk? We'll have a new administration in a couple of years though.
> We're focusing on renewable tech here. That's the focus of this thread.
Ok then you can stop replying to me since that's not the only thing I'm talking about. I'm focused on more than renewable tech and that's of little concern to me in the grand scheme of things including climate change.
triceratops · · focus · HN ↗
> Norway is an oil-producing country and not an autocracy. Your point was disproven.
Are you somehow unfamiliar with the definition of the word "most"?
> That basically proves my initial point lol
I don't know what your "point" was honestly.
> Ok then you can stop replying to me since [green energy is] not the only thing I'm talking about
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49821986">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49821986 that's what you were talking about there.
> If your version of "Japan can green by buying China's products" you're being immature in your understanding of international relations
Japan's already "not green" by buying energy from other autocratic nations. Like I said this is all virtue signalling to avoid going renewable.
"Rare earths" are a strategic necessity for defence, and China won't sell them for that reason - fine. Countries who still need them can nationalize processing capacity and run it at a loss for the sole use of defence industries. No need to participate or compete in the market at all. China's subsidies and the WTO don't matter.
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
Your point was still not great, but I apologize as I misread what you wrote.
> I don't know what your "point" was honestly because you yourself conceded it didn't "matter much".
If you don't know what we were discussing why are you arguing about it?
> <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49821986">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49821986 that's what you were talking about there.
Industrial output falling because of tariffs for example would be aligned with my initial post. You're being argumentative here for no good reason. If you just want to talk about the engineering technology I don't have much else to say about it. But if you want to talk about the important stuff, why it's not being adopted, why some countries are adopting it and others aren't, I think that's an interesting conversation to have.
> Japan (and most other countries) are already "not green" by buying oil from other autocratic nations. Like I said this is all virtue signalling to avoid going renewable. The fossil fuel industry loves it.
Well they're stuck between buying oil from autocratic nations (China also buys oil from autocratic nations) or buying green technology from autocratic nations which are also threatening them or stopping exports of the technology or industry. Saudi Arabia (or insert whatever country here) doesn't for example stop oil exports to Japan for example if Japan also does their own oil drilling or exploration. China does stop exports of certain technologies or even processed rare earth minerals.
> "Rare earths" are a strategic necessity for defence, and China won't sell them for that reason - fine. Countries who still need them can nationalize processing capacity and run it at a loss for the sole use of defence industries. No need to participate or compete in the market at all.
No lol they'll subsidize them and refuse to buy China's products to protect domestic industries and capabilities to build the products themselves. It won't be limited to defense. Plus as I have pointed out a few times China itself restricts exports because of the threat of dual-use (which is in response to Chinese provocations) so China will in effect stop the export of defense-related products even when they can be used by consumers.
> China's subsidies and the WTO don't matter.
That doesn't make any sense.
rgmerk · · focus · HN ↗
EA-3167 · · focus · HN ↗
> After the first three quarters of the year, China’s CO2 emissions in 2025 are now finely balanced between a small fall or rise, depending on what happens in the last quarter.
And then goes on to describe how the largest drop (3%) is happening at a time when it just happens that fuel is increasingly expensive and scarce, shipping is increasingly expensive and slow, and the global economy has spent months grinding increasingly towards a terrible outcome.
People might as well brag about their incredible weight loss journey through amputation.
coryrc · · focus · HN ↗
bryanlarsen · · focus · HN ↗
EA-3167 · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://clintel.org/chinas-massive-coal-to-liquids-expansion/" rel="nofollow">https://clintel.org/chinas-massive-coal-to-liquids-expansion...
coryrc · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china" rel="nofollow">https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china