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.

▲

nradov 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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).

▲

EA-3167 3 hours ago | parent [-]

They’ve been building out every form of power generation they can. Nuclear, solar, wind and fossil. It’s all skyrocketing.

The talking point that they’re going green doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

https://www.globalelectricity.org/china-electricity-producti...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China

▲

bryanlarsen 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That link is out of date.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.

https://finance.yahoo.com/energy/articles/china-pushes-coal-...

▲

ericmay 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

	▲	triceratops 16 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> China is “greening” but we should be skeptical that it’s out of some lofty moral goal Why does the "why" matter? Tons of carbon are tons of carbon, right? That's what people say when you tell them about per-capita emissions. > 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 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.
	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	EA-3167 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Oh you're correct, the same thing is happening in India without any of the nonsense fanfare. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coal-power-drops-in-chi... 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.

▲

rgmerk an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

To add to this, China’s overall greenhouse gas emissions have been flat or declining for a couple of years now: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-ha...

	▲	EA-3167 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Your own link says the following: > 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.

▲

triceratops 18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Fossil is flat or declining. Everything else is skyrocketing.

▲

nradov 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I never claimed that China is "going green" (whatever that means), merely that they're gradually reducing their dependence on imported fossil fuels.

▲

XorNot 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

China can be going green while also refusing to constrain it's economic growth on the short term.

When you actually build things, throwing up a coal plant for 10 years because you need it while you grow your solar and battery industries or wait for reactors to cover your base load is just sensible.

All narratives about China always have this static world baked into them: "they're currently like this, and that's all they'll ever be". But China develops fast. Shenzhen was a farming village by a ditch. 10 years ago buying a Chinese car was inconceivable - I took delivery on one yesterday, etc.

At some point in the very near future China is going to hit a cross over point on their emissions and they'll start falling fast because reactors + renewables will be building out fast enough they'll want the coal plants gone - no one likes ruling over a polluted wasteland.

Edit: it can also be the case that they don't care at all about going green...but renewable energy technology is the most sovereign possible energy security. No one can take away your access to the sun.

▲

lukan 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People who know how much effort it takes to constantly measure and contain radioactivity and what a mess it is to mine for Uranium in the first place also don't wonder.

If not, reading a list of this helps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and...

But sure, oil leaks can be bad as well. Solar leaks on the other hand seem bearable.

▲

batisteo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I believe burning coal realease far more Uranium and radioactive material than nuclear ever did. Listing the plane crashes over the last century wont buldge the statistics of the safety of this mean of transportation.

▲

lukan 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Did I imply anywhere anyhow that I am a fan of coal?

I just don't think it is a good idea to replace something dirty with something else dirty that is indeed quite safe if all goes well, but is horrible if something goes wrong.

Italy has lot's of sun and wind (and geothermal potential).

	▲	EA-3167 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Everything is a comparison to what exists, not your dreams. The alternative to coal today isn't just renewables, and thinking in those absolute terms is in large part what's handed the fossil fuel lobby decades of default victories. We don't have time for perfect solution, do all of what you said AND THEN ALSO MORE.

▲

EA-3167 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am someone who knows, hence my disgust. Time to learn about the radioactivity of coal fly ash and how carefully that’s managed.

	▲	lukan 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Oh, I know and am in favor of shutting coal down asap and before nuclear. But you seem to imply handling radioactivity is not a big problem compared to fossils, but I believe it is, considering how faulty and corrupt individual humans are, or corporations or government bodies doing the oversight.

▲

otherme123 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

China also? How is that? China is a big importer of oil, and is heavily burning coal (more than 50% their energy mix), that is also partly imported. They are fighting for a cleaner energy not because they are green but because they don't want to be dependent on imports, and some people even accuse them of undercutting solar panel pricing to get all the world market.

They are installing nuclear power like no other country (1 GW yearly since 2014), and Wikipedia says that 50% of all nuclear capacity being built is in China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country): 37 new reactors, followed by India with 6 and Russia, Egypt and Korea with 4. USA and France, which are both pro-nuclear or nuclear neutral, are building 0 reactors. But yeah, China has interests against nuclear power.

You are not helping your case by spreading misinformation and calling other people misinformed by making a strawman ("radiation scares people"). I am against nuclear (or rather not pro-nuclear) because it is not economically sound, because it is massively subsidized by Governments for the private sector to profit.

	▲	hnedeotes 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If china that is the number one producer of solar panels and batteries is investing in nuclear perhaps that shows that indeed it's not such a bad bet? Specially taking into account the military applications of such capabilities. It would also seem that investing into it may perhaps render significant gains into the future as R&D becomes more involved with actual running systems and funded (skin in the game?) It seems the only ones who lost by abandoning their nuclear programs were European countries (specially Germany) in detriment of Russia and other Oil trading countries... It's even probable that much of the "bad press" nuclear has had for the past decades was in fact instigated by oil-producing countries doesn't it?
	▲	bryanlarsen 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Coal's share of electricity production in China fell below 50% in 2026 for the first time ever. This is despite idling nat gas plants due to the war in Iran messing up shipments. Nuclear's share of electricity in China is below 4% and dropping. They do not use a significant amount of nuclear. That this insignificant amount of nuclear is more than any other country is quite telling.