


Old king coal


See article

Readers' comments



It is surprising that the article does not allude to the increasing possibility that shale (or unconventional) gas may play a very significant role in reducing coal usage. Gas, while not ideal, is the cleanest of fossil fuels. The Economist Intelligence unit cited a US estimate of 1,275trn cu ft of shale gas beneath Chinese soil—nearly 50% more than lies under second-ranked US. Given that the glut of gas in the market is already driving down prices and coal demand in the US, it is not unreasonable to imagine that the impact in China would also be highly significant.

guest-iemiijw in reply to JamesD65

Frac'ing has little relation to siesmicity. It has been documented that disposal wells, which have been around for a cuntury disposing brine produced in conjuction with crude, are the culprits for any underground activity. There are tens of thousands of disposal wells in Texas and only once case that I have heard of causing increased tremors. I think research would show that in such cases those wells were drilled into faults purposefully to dispose of the brine water.
Shale gas will probably play a huge part in the energy future of China. They are learning the drilling and completion techniques in joint ventures in Texas.
In the mean time we should continue carbon capture and sequestration research.



The biggest hurdle is a gluttonous West (US mainly) that refuses to reduce its consumption. It is amazing that the West refuses to see that the correct metric is per capita emissions and not total emissions.


Policy makers care more about energy independence and air pollution from coal than CO2 emissions, the former is very visible and the latter is let's face it mostly an international political gimmick. Funds will be given to increase energy efficiency, renewable/alternative energy and emission filtering technologies, which is already being done, but I wouldn't count on carbon capture and storage getting much attention since it doesn't do anything to address the two main concerns.

Connect The Dots

The Industrial Age in Britain, Germany and America was fueled predominantly by Coal. That is historic fact.

The Industrial Revolution in China and India it will be no different.

The conversion of an Agricultural Economy to Factory Industry in America took 100 years. In China it took 20 years.

The trick is to bring the Computer, Tech, Information and Green Revolution along in an accelerated fashion. Allow free technology transfers from West to East and it will lower world carbon consumption and improve our atmosphere.

The high energy use of industrialization will yield to more reasonable, lower wattage sustainable green power.


One may entail scrutiny to the good gone relative property of proportion which makes CO2 out-compete O2 in the atmosphere by concentration. What is left is a gaping hole where our breathing is supposed to be since co2 is just like air with no effect whatsoever when inhaled. That even our own biosphere can burgeon tonns of CO2 per year out is a good and gone item with so many environmentalists.


Did I just read that storing emissions underground is a good idea? Mind boggling! The same mentality, leave it for the kids to clean up. I will venture to say it will not stay down there (gases and liquids are hard to contain with out purpose made containers) and while its there, it is poison. If it were just pure CO2 maybe. But its not.
I believe it was from Juan Enriquez where I first heard the idea of creating a kind of bio gas from coal.
Quite often gas is found with coal. Also bacteria. Why is that?
Can we design/find a bacteria that eats coal and emits natural gas? No more mountain top removal, much less harmful emmisions. And the gas can be be burned in all kinds of places, like your car.


The Economist seriously doesn't get it. Do you really believe that coal will fuel Asian growth forever? do you not get that natural gas will replace oil and coal eventually? Why is the Economist so lame brain when it comes to environmental policies? Why does the Economist break out in hives at the mere mention of coal? Why does The Economist not get that coal has given man unbelievable weath? If coal is so bad, why isn't the avg lifespan of man decreasing rather than increasing. Complete lame brain whomever wrote this article.

So do you believe that making your pen name the "Stanford-Berkeley-Grad" gives you any more credibility in what you say on a completely anonymous internet forum whatsoever? (Of course you do, because otherwise you wouldn't have named yourself "Stanford-Berkeley-Grad.")
Apparently the Stanford kids are not as smart as they used to be....

This is disappointing. The Economist should not be a forum for personal attacks. One would expect arguments from "Stanford-Berkerley Grads" to be based on facts and analysis. The gas point is valid, some validating evidence is provided in the comment above.

AB ve

Somethings you missed:

1) Quality of coal from various countries.
2) Not all coal burns the same, not all needs to be washed the same.
3) Washing coal requires water, which again is in short supply.

I hope more learned ones write for TE.


I am always amused to read posts that suggest the most important thing to consider is CO2 production per capita. Well sure, if your main concern is assigning blame. If your actually concerned with stopping the climb of CO2 in the atmosphere then it is more important to go to where it will be mainly produced in the future and stop it there.

Houshu in reply to outsidethebox

Because just to stop the climbing of CO2 is neither feasible nor fair, one has to also look at reduction, that's when you go to where there is most room for reduction and where there is financial as well as technological wherewithal.


Cheaper Electricity generated from coal should also priced in the cost of producing the pollutants and greenhouse gases.


Creative bespoke heating solutions are a necessary path forward for a bright global future that is independent of fossil fuel.

time featherstorm

"So attention is focused on mitigating the harm coal power will do."

What about using energy more efficiently? I know the parts of Asia that I've been to could massively benefit from investments in insulation for buildings. Just having an electricity meter that shows what I'm spending while I'm using electricity would be amazing for my own household. I think there are plenty of other routes left entirely unexplored by this article.


Well, coal would not be so appealing to poor developing countries like China and India, had oil trade not been restricted in order to break Iran.

Just a thought.

Michael Dunne in reply to Houshu

For electrical generation, I suspect natural gas would be the leading substitute for coal (it turned out to be the case in the US since the 1980s).

Leading producers of natural gas include Canada, US, Russia (with natural gas is off of Sakhalin Island), although some enormous fields are in Qatar and Iranian waters (placing them in the top ten of producers I believe).

Michael Dunne

Some thoughts:

I guess the Economist should apologize for being anti-nuclear energy for so many years?

Otherwise, is this really practical - “carbon capture and storage” are still no more than a good idea yet to be realised - can all emission really be scrubbed clean or sequestered?

If so, what are the chances of some bizarre carbon leak and poisioning of local communities (like what happened in Camaroon with Lake Nyios?)?

Good to see that slightly anxious, sense of hopelessness that UK documentaries excel at be direct at someone else (not sure I detected that dripping sanctimoniousness thats rife with those documentaries).....

I would have hit the recommend but this is pretty much old news.....


When related to the problem of globle warming,articles always think China ,as well as any other developing counties,should be responsible to the problems.I think developed counties should help the developing to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide.Making the world peaceful!


Just a question for fellow commenters whom seem to be more educated compared to other online commenting areas. Why hasn't algae fuel caught on as a feasible source for energy? I don't expect it to replace oil or coal but instead of investing in solar and wind, why not put the money towards building algae farms. Skyfarms to grow algae for fuel?


I wonder why articles about global warming always seem to bring up countries like China and India before they bring up countries like the United States, Canada, and Australia.


Emissions per capita really should be the only statistic that matters.

nadekodayo in reply to nadekodayo

Not to mention, don't forget the reason countries like China and India are opening up the coal plants that they do: to make stuff for us "developed country people" on the cheap.

So really, the crux of the problem is the developed countries' insatiable need for cheap goods. At least Europe is taking some action. America, on the other hand, is failing incredibly.

Thoth28 in reply to nadekodayo

I sort of agree in the case of China; not so much for India. The reason being that China has taken aggressive action to limit their population growth. India on the other hand, is still rapidly growing in population. If the central government isn't willing to take tough measures to be a responsible international player, they shouldn't benefit from a per capita measuring stick.

jeeves_gg in reply to Thoth28

Pls check, the Indian population growth has fallen over the years....how do you determine a "irresponsible International player" from one of the lower per capita carbon consumers; first priority for India is to fight poverty levels and build up basic infra...


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
GM's recall woes: Much old in the new
Schumpeter 1 hrs 2 mins ago
Daily chart: Who pays as America greys?
Graphic detail 1 hrs 13 mins ago
Climate science: Touchy subjects
Babbage 1 hrs 20 mins ago
GM crops, Indian farmers and suicide: GM genocide?
Feast and famine 1 hrs 13 mins ago
Herbalife: The House of Cards put
Schumpeter 2 hrs 58 mins ago


Products & events