> Meanwhile, they're currently building >200GW of new coal plants

Many are being built as backups and peakers rather than baseload, designed (or retrofitted in the case of existing plants being upgraded) to be able to cycle up and down to balance wind and solar. They are running at low capacity factors, not actually burning much coal.

Many of these are idle so much that their owners have financial difficulty keeping them open, and the government has had to start paying them for their idle time so they won't go under.

Most of the rest are to replace existing plants that cannot not yet be replaced with renewables, so are at worst neutral on coal usage and are usually actually more efficient than the old plants so there is a reduction.

Yeah, we've heard these:

* "More efficient, next gen coal plants"

* "Receiving capacity payments subsidies to stabilize grid"

* "We won't run these plants at full capacity"

When their carbon intensity still can't touch natural gas alternatives at scale, state owned enterprises are operating in a command economy, and they have no teeth to their carbon commitments.

They don't have to build new coal at 10:1 versus retirements to "replace aging coal" or stabilize the grid.

Coal is just too cheap and adds diversity,while nobody forces CN to enter climate agreements and looks the other way.