With all the hostility between the United States and China, one area of common ground is a commitment to clean coal and moving away from inefficient energy sources like solar and wind power.
Eight months into the Trump presidency, the administration’s China policy is still incoherent. When it comes to energy, however, there are surprising signs that the two sides are searching for common ground.
When it comes to energy, however, there are surprising signs that the two sides are searching for common ground.
This November, Washington and Beijing will hold a joint clean coal meeting in West Virginia to compare best practices on carbon capture and similar technologies that both governments have been funding. The meeting comes in the context of major shifts in energy policy in the US and China, marked by a more pragmatic approach to questions about how to meet base load power needs affordably, efficiently, and cleanly.
As the upcoming meeting signals, both parties have decided investment in clean coal technologies, as well as in renewables, will be a viable way to meet these requirements. And the unexpected meeting of the minds on such contentious energy policy issues has major implications for what will constitute future power projects not only domestically, but also through funding channels like the World Bank.
On the U.S. side, Washington has made a concerted shift away from Obama-era subsidies for renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydropower and prioritized the clean, efficient use for fossil fuels in conjunction with green energy sources. In line with this shift, the Department of Energy has been examining the robustness of the national electric grid and the potential dangers of overreliance on intermittent sources of energy like wind farms.
Several weeks ago, the department warned that subsidies and regulations favoring renewable energy and natural gas were speeding up the closure of coal and nuclear plants, threatening to put the resilience of the power grid at risk. They recently proposed a new rule that would revamp the way regional power markets price electricity, potentially giving a boost to coal and nuclear installations. Key to this shift will be the administration’s parallel support for clean coal technology, which they hope to leverage both domestically and export abroad.
When it comes to implications for global energy policy, however, Washington’s most widely discussed step has been its new directive for the World Bank and other multilateral development banks.
In a direct rebuttal to the Bank’s 2013 decision to severely restrict financing for coal-fired plants, the Treasury Department announced that the US would urge the development powerhouse to help countries access and use fossil fuels “more cleanly and efficiently,” as well as leverage renewables and other green energy sources.
Earlier this year, China made headlines with the announcement that it would spend more than $360 billion through 2020 on renewable energy sources like wind and solar. The news came after a year in which Beijing boosted its overseas investment in renewable energy by 60 percent to attain a record $32 billion, including 11 new foreign investment agreements worth more than $1 billion each. Media coverage has framed all of these developments in the context of America’s alleged backtracking on clean energy.
The truth is more complicated.
Under the radar, Beijing has continued to provide funding for coal installations abroad, not only across its sphere of influence but also in Europe. According to a new tally, Chinese companies are building or intending to build over 700 new coal plants domestically and abroad, from Indonesia to Pakistan to Turkey. One Chinese energy conglomerate is even discussing a $1.2 billion investment in a coal power scheme in Bosnia, one of the largest energy projects in Balkans.
Unfortunately, unlike China’s new domestic coal installations like the Waigaoqiao No 3 plant – which uses highly efficient ultra-supercritical boilers – not all of these new coal projects leverage the newest technologies. Even so, for countries like Pakistan that rely on highly polluting sources like kerosene, they’re a definite improvement.
As for the AIIB, despite its initial investments, the bank, in fact, has a far more flexible policy than the World Bank when it comes to coal plant financing, has already signaled that it is open to funding coal power plants in India and Indonesia.
The fact that both the U.S. and China acknowledge that fossil fuels will continue accounting for the majority of energy generation through 2040 – will not please everyone. However, these pragmatic efforts to collaborate on clean coal technologies should be cause for optimism at a time when no government has yet solved the question of how to keep up with rapidly growing demand for energy while threading the needle between emissions and affordability.
For too long, in fact, world powers have clashed over this critical question. The debate has only resulted in a stalemate between those who advocate cutting out fossil fuels completely and those who call for a more measured approach – with power-hungry countries in Africa and Asia caught in the middle and still failing to provide electricity for hundreds of millions of people. Though the West Virginia meetings will be bilateral, the impact of closer Sino-American cooperation could extend to many other energy markets as well.
With all the conflict on other issues between the United States and China, hopefully, one area of cooperation would be to support clean coal technologies while getting away from inefficient and unreliable energy sources like wind and solar.
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.
Derrick Wilburn Explains Why Democrats Are So OLD
Derrick Wilburn of Rocky Mountain Black Conservatives (RMBC) explains in a stirring new piece shared on Facebook why the Democratic Party leaders are so old, while the Republican Party — adherent to its own term-limit laws — provides fresh faces in committee leadership.
Quick, name a nationally-prominent Republican who’s under 60 years of age. Those who pay even the least bit of attention to the political game can likely name Tim Scott (52), Marco Rubio (46), Mia Love, (48), Ted Cruz (46), Rand Paul (54), Trey Gowdy (51), Nikki Haley (46) among others.
In recent weeks as many as 7 Republicans who are current committee chairmen have announced their intentions to retire from Congress. Why? Many in the media are attempting to sell the narrative that its because they sense impending doom. Not true. Its’ because the Republican caucus term limits its chairmanships and these have reached the end of their terms.
A recent piece in TheHill.com spotlights a key difference between the way the Republican caucus & Democrat caucus in Washington D.C. operate, but a difference few in the USA are aware of: “The term-limit policy, put in place by former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in 1994, was designed to keep the party from growing stale by regularly injecting new blood and fresh ideas into the mix.”
The GOP’s self-imposed rule is that legislators can not serve more than six years as the party’s top lawmaker on a committee. So once you’ve chaired a committee for six, you’re out and it someone else’s turn. And there’s no back-dooring it. Once you’re done, you’re done. You can’t return to committee member status for a year or two then run for Chair again. They can chair another committee, but not the same one again.
Democrats have no such rules and its at least a part of the reason there’s such a lack of youth in the Dem caucus leadership.
Apply the same question which opened this newsletter to today’s Democrat party leadership — *quick*, name a prominent Democrat, someone with presence on a national level — who’s under 60 years of age. Nancy Pelosi (78), Harry Reid (tho now retired most can name him, 80), Diane Feinstein (84), Chuck Schumer (68), Maxine Waters (80), Elizabeth Warren (70), Bernie Sanders (76 – tho technically an Independent not a Democrat) & the list goes on. All nationally prominent, all 70, 75, 80+ years of age.
Where’s the youth? Blame, at least in part, a lack of (self-imposed) term limits.
Democrats pay their dues early in their careers by carrying the water (i.e. providing necessary votes) and one day ascend to the desired position of Committee Chair, then stay there, …forever.
So what happens often times is younger Democrats win local elections, get to D.C., look up and realize that these old farts aren’t going anyplace! The old guard is from districts in which they can’t be un-elected; they’ve been their for 25 years; been chair for 14; are currently 72 years old meaning they’ll be Committee Chair for at least another 10 or 15 until they retire (if they ever do.) So the young bucks realize, “I’m frozen out.”
For example: Rep. John Conyers, who was forced to (finally) resign in December amid the #MeToo scandal, was born in 1929. Conyers helped draft the presidential articles of impeachment — against Richard Nixon! Conyers first won a seat on the Judiciary Committee in 1965. He first became Chair of the House Oversight Committee in 1989.
Imagine you’re a young lawyer, say 46 years old, a Democrat who just won an election and your dream has been to get to D.C. one day and chair a committee that’s chaired (when Dems are in power) by 70 y/o Elizabeth Warren. You know good & darn well that you’ve no hope of that chairmanship for another 10 or 15 years! What’s that do for your hopes for your future?
You’ve heard of, seen and know Trey Gowdy, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Tim Scott, and they’re nationally prominent because they get a shot at the top much earlier in their careers and that, at least in part, summarizes why pretty much the only Democrats you see on the nightly news speaking from a podium into a microphone at press conferences are old farts. Nancy Pelosi, Chuch Schumer. That’s just about it.
The situation caused the National Review to write a major piece which it titled “Old-Guard Democrats Refuse to Leave the Stage” sub-title “They’re keeping new leaders from emerging.”
Are term limits a good thing? That debate rages on. But the Capital Hill Republican party took the step of self-imposing them 25 years ago and it cannot be argued that the step has not created some very noticeable separation and differences between the parties.
-A Derrick Wilburn original
CNN Commentator Says Cop Killer’s Book ‘Saved his Life’ in Gushing Instagram Post
A violent leftist CNN commentator praised a cop killer in a recent Instagram post. “Thinking about Assata Shakur on her...
Facebook to Impose New Policy of Investigating Posts for “Misinformation”
Facebook has announced that the social media company will begin implementing a new policy of removing “misinformation” that “leads to...
KENYA: Nairobi News Outlet Declares ‘Barack Obama is Home, Finally’
Barack Obama is home. That is, according to The East African, a verified news agency in Nairobi, Kenya. The former...
DRUDGE: The Left Has A ‘Fetish’ For Trump’s Death
One of the most powerful media men in the world sent a rare tweet this morning regarding the political left’s...
Local Government Demands Christian Family SHUT DOWN Bible Study on Their Own Farm
A Pennsylvania town has sent a cease and desist order to a family that held bible study sessions on its...