Global warming

[Eric the Green]

Getty Images, Inc. is an American stock photo agency, with headquarters in Seattle, Washington, United States. It is a supplier of stock images for business and consumers with an archive of 80 million still images and illustrations and more than 50,000 hours of stock film footage.
In April 2003, Getty Images entered into a partnership with Agence France-Presse (AFP) to market each other's images.
Jupiterimages (including the sites stock.xchng and StockXpert) is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Getty ["STR?"]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images

Stock photography is the supply of photographs, which are often licensed for specific uses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_photography

[Bob Butler 54]

I visited The Atlantic and bumped into a story about the Pacific.  On Hawaii, they call it 'the King Tide'.  You put enough factors together such as El Nino, full and new moon tides, storms, and general global warming, and you get flooded streets and huge piles of sand washed into parking lots.  Some aren't calling the present King Tides a problem, just a warm up for what will become the new normal in a decade or three.

Not an abstract theory or a new computer model.  Photos of what's already happening.

The Ghost of Climate-Change Future.

[Eric the Green]

Probably not. Without AGW, there might be a slight cooling trend. Sea level might have begun to fall on its own without global warming. With global warming and continued fossil fuels, the sea level rise will not be "slightly" higher, but catastrophic for all peoples who live near the sea. It's best not to deny the facts.

One report:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.

Higher sea levels mean that deadly and destructive storm surges push farther inland than they once did, which also means more frequent nuisance flooding. Disruptive and expensive, nuisance flooding is estimated to be from 300 percent to 900 percent more frequent within U.S. coastal communities than it was just 50 years ago.

The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. The oceans are absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.

With continued ocean and atmospheric warming, sea levels will likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century. In the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high-population-density coastal areas, where sea level plays a role in flooding, shoreline erosion, and hazards from storms. Globally, eight of the world's 10 largest cities are near a coast, according to the U.N. Atlas of the Oceans.

Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors such as land subsidence from natural processes and withdrawal of groundwater and fossil fuels, changes in regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers. In urban settings, rising seas threaten infrastructure necessary for local jobs and regional industries. Roads, bridges, subways, water supplies, oil and gas wells, power plants, sewage treatment plants, landfills—virtually all human infrastructure—is at risk from sea level rise.

[Eric the Green]

Sea Level Rise
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/enviro...evel-rise/

Ocean levels are getting higher. Why is this happening, and what can we do to stem the tide?




Families in Kiribati, especially those new to the island nation, are often forced to live in marginal areas, where flooding from high tides is increasing.
PHOTOGRAPH BY KENNEDY WARNE

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

Over the past century, the burning of fossil fuels and other human and natural activities has released enormous amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. These emissions have caused the Earth's surface temperature to rise, and the oceans absorb about 80 percent of this additional heat.

The rise in sea levels is linked to three primary factors, all induced by this ongoing global climate change:

Thermal Expansion: When water heats up, it expands. About half of the past century's rise in sea level is attributable to warmer oceans simply occupying more space.

Melting Glaciers and Polar Ice Caps: Large ice formations, like glaciers and the polar ice caps, naturally melt back a bit each summer. In the winter, snows, primarily from evaporated seawater, are generally sufficient to balance out the melting. Recently, though, persistently higher temperatures caused by global warming have led to greater-than-average summer melting as well as diminished snowfall due to later winters and earlier springs. This imbalance results in a significant net gain in the ratio of runoff to ocean evaporation, causing sea levels to rise.

Ice Loss from Greenland and West Antarctica: As with the glaciers and ice caps, increased heat is causing the massive ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica to melt at an accelerated pace. Scientists also believe meltwater from above and seawater from below is seeping beneath Greenland's and West Antarctica's ice sheets, effectively lubricating ice streams and causing them to move more quickly into the sea. Higher sea temperatures are causing the massive ice shelves that extend out from Antarctica to melt from below, weaken, and break off.

CONSEQUENCES
When sea levels rise rapidly, as they have been doing, even a small increase can have devastating effects on coastal habitats. As seawater reaches farther inland, it can cause destructive erosion, wetland flooding, aquifer and agricultural soil contamination, and lost habitat for fish, birds, and plants.

When large storms hit land, higher sea levels mean bigger, more powerful storm surges that can strip away everything in their path.

In addition, hundreds of millions of people live in areas that will become increasingly vulnerable to flooding. Higher sea levels would force them to abandon their homes and relocate. Low-lying islands could be submerged completely.

FLOODS 101 No other kind of natural disaster in America has caused more death and destruction than floods.
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/vide...eos/floods

HOW HIGH WILL IT GO?

Most predictions say the warming of the planet will continue and is likely to accelerate. Oceans will likely continue to rise as well, but predicting the degree to which they will rise is an inexact science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we can expect the oceans to rise between 11 and 38 inches (28 to 98 centimeters) by 2100, enough to swamp many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. More dire estimates, including a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, place sea level rise to 23 feet (7 meters), enough to submerge London.

[pbrower2a]

In the end, global warming will be bad for many business interests -- from shipping to property ownership (especially along coasts). The people most hurt will be peasant farmers near current sea levels, the people most vulnerable in any societies because they have little power against their landlords and against giant corporations.

Peasant farmers are the mass support of many conservative parties worldwide. High taxes really hurt them, and governments can often do little for them that they do not already do themselves. When 'conservatism' becomes little more than an endorsement of the worst tendencies of economic elites, then where do the peasant farmers go?

[Eric the Green]

Global Warming Gas Can Now Be Extracted from Air and Resold

http://www.livescience.com/59308-facilit...Yx05A.gbpl

[Eric the Green]

(05-31-2017, 11:35 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(05-31-2017, 01:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Probably not. Without AGW, there might be a slight cooling trend. Sea level might have begun to fall on its own without global warming. With global warming and continued fossil fuels, the sea level rise will not be "slightly" higher, but catastrophic for all peoples who live near the sea. It's best not to deny the facts.

One report:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.

Higher sea levels mean that deadly and destructive storm surges push farther inland than they once did, which also means more frequent nuisance flooding. Disruptive and expensive, nuisance flooding is estimated to be from 300 percent to 900 percent more frequent within U.S. coastal communities than it was just 50 years ago.

The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. The oceans are absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.

With continued ocean and atmospheric warming, sea levels will likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century.  In the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high-population-density coastal areas, where sea level plays a role in flooding, shoreline erosion, and hazards from storms. Globally, eight of the world's 10 largest cities are near a coast, according to the U.N. Atlas of the Oceans.

Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors such as land subsidence from natural processes and withdrawal of groundwater and fossil fuels, changes in regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers. In urban settings, rising seas threaten infrastructure necessary for local jobs and regional industries. Roads, bridges, subways, water supplies, oil and gas wells, power plants, sewage treatment plants, landfills—virtually all human infrastructure—is at risk from sea level rise.

Eric you should study geology and paleoclimate. Sea Level stand is at its max at the end of each interglacial. There is no debate on this matter. The geological record does not lie.

It is clear that human fossil fuel use, deforestation and agriculture are a major added factor today to whatever the natural cycles have been in the past and will be in the future. This is what needs to be studied now (and I have), as well as the alternatives, and the political and ideological problem in the USA that stalls them.

[Galen]

(05-31-2017, 09:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: In the end, global warming will be bad for many business interests  -- from shipping to property ownership (especially along coasts). The people most hurt will be peasant farmers near current sea levels, the people most vulnerable in any societies because they have little power against their landlords and against giant corporations.

Peasant farmers are the mass support of many conservative parties worldwide. High taxes really hurt them, and governments can often do little for them that they do not already do themselves. When 'conservatism' becomes little more than an endorsement of the worst tendencies of economic elites, then where do the peasant farmers go?

Funny thing is that large corporations are trying to get Trump to stay in the Paris agreement.  This is yet anther example of established players asking for regulation.  Almost invariably to keep smaller players out and thus reducing competition.

[pbrower2a]

(06-01-2017, 02:19 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-31-2017, 09:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: In the end, global warming will be bad for many business interests  -- from shipping to property ownership (especially along coasts). The people most hurt will be peasant farmers near current sea levels, the people most vulnerable in any societies because they have little power against their landlords and against giant corporations.

Peasant farmers are the mass support of many conservative parties worldwide. High taxes really hurt them, and governments can often do little for them that they do not already do themselves. When 'conservatism' becomes little more than an endorsement of the worst tendencies of economic elites, then where do the peasant farmers go?

Funny thing is that large corporations are trying to get Trump to stay in the Paris agreement.  This is yet anther example of established players asking for regulation.  Almost invariably to keep smaller players out and thus reducing competition.

The military considers global warming a risk for

(1) creating pointless instability, and
(2) putting military installations (especially naval bases) at risk of loss due to inundation.

[Eric the Green]

(06-01-2017, 02:19 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-31-2017, 09:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: In the end, global warming will be bad for many business interests  -- from shipping to property ownership (especially along coasts). The people most hurt will be peasant farmers near current sea levels, the people most vulnerable in any societies because they have little power against their landlords and against giant corporations.

Peasant farmers are the mass support of many conservative parties worldwide. High taxes really hurt them, and governments can often do little for them that they do not already do themselves. When 'conservatism' becomes little more than an endorsement of the worst tendencies of economic elites, then where do the peasant farmers go?

Funny thing is that large corporations are trying to get Trump to stay in the Paris agreement.  This is yet anther example of established players asking for regulation.  Almost invariably to keep smaller players out and thus reducing competition.

If businesses, whether large or small, cannot do the right thing in regard to protecting the environment on which we all depend, they should not be in business; period. It's usually the big companies, like the car companies now lobbying Trump to repeal car mileage standards, that oppose regulations, while smaller companies like Tesla pioneer green energy. Wrong again, Galen the Goofy.

[Galen]

(06-02-2017, 12:46 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(06-01-2017, 02:19 PM)Galen Wrote: Funny thing is that large corporations are trying to get Trump to stay in the Paris agreement.  This is yet anther example of established players asking for regulation.  Almost invariably to keep smaller players out and thus reducing competition.

If businesses, whether large or small, cannot do the right thing in regard to protecting the environment on which we all depend, they should not be in business; period. It's usually the big companies, like the car companies now lobbying Trump to repeal car mileage standards, that oppose regulations, while smaller companies like Tesla pioneer green energy.

 
You have pointed out many times that corporations main purpose is profit.  Not something that I would particularly, provided they are getting the money from willing customers and not taxpayers, have a problem with but you do .  So let us look at your example of Elon Musk and Tesla.  It seems that Elon's ventures get a large amounts of government money.  I suspect that if you look into the list of companies in favor of the Paris agreement benefit directly or indirectly while many other businesses will be hurt.

As for the car companies they want to build cars that people actually want to buy with prices customers can afford.  This is how an automobile manufacturer makes money.  Saying that would seem to be redundant to most people but its hard to say how much Eric the Obtuse actually knows.

[pbrower2a]

(06-03-2017, 12:23 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-02-2017, 12:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-01-2017, 02:19 PM)Galen Wrote: Funny thing is that large corporations are trying to get Trump to stay in the Paris agreement.  This is yet anther example of established players asking for regulation.  Almost invariably to keep smaller players out and thus reducing competition.

If businesses, whether large or small, cannot do the right thing in regard to protecting the environment on which we all depend, they should not be in business; period. It's usually the big companies, like the car companies now lobbying Trump to repeal car mileage standards, that oppose regulations, while smaller companies like Tesla pioneer green energy.

 
You have pointed out many times that corporations main purpose is profit.  Not something that I would particularly, provided they are getting the money from willing customers and not taxpayers, have a problem with but you do .  So let us look at your example of Elon Musk and Tesla.  It seems that Elon's ventures get a large amounts of government money.  I suspect that if you look into the list of companies in favor of the Paris agreement benefit directly or indirectly while many other businesses will be hurt.

Plenty of economic activities have been profitable. Piracy, slave trafficking, drug dealing, child pornography, gladiatorial games, supplying lions for Roman circuses, transactions in the body parts of endangered creatures, peonage, and outright theft... in such cases profit is a reward for doing great harm. Evil people can exploit the profit motive and thus pervert it into an agency of harm.  It is up to the state and any halfway-credible religious authorities to make such deeds  so abominable and to make their practive ultimately futile.

Quote:As for the car companies they want to build cars that people actually want to buy with prices customers can afford.  This is how an automobile manufacturer makes money.  Saying that would seem to be redundant to most people but its hard to say how much Eric the Obtuse actually knows.

No fooling. Of course there is advertising to break sales resistance.

[Galen]

(06-03-2017, 07:39 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-03-2017, 12:23 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-02-2017, 12:46 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(06-01-2017, 02:19 PM)Galen Wrote: Funny thing is that large corporations are trying to get Trump to stay in the Paris agreement.  This is yet anther example of established players asking for regulation.  Almost invariably to keep smaller players out and thus reducing competition.

If businesses, whether large or small, cannot do the right thing in regard to protecting the environment on which we all depend, they should not be in business; period. It's usually the big companies, like the car companies now lobbying Trump to repeal car mileage standards, that oppose regulations, while smaller companies like Tesla pioneer green energy.

 
You have pointed out many times that corporations main purpose is profit.  Not something that I would particularly, provided they are getting the money from willing customers and not taxpayers, have a problem with but you do .  So let us look at your example of Elon Musk and Tesla.  It seems that Elon's ventures get a large amounts of government money.  I suspect that if you look into the list of companies in favor of the Paris agreement benefit directly or indirectly while many other businesses will be hurt.

Plenty of economic activities have been profitable. Piracy, slave trafficking, drug dealing, child pornography, gladiatorial games, supplying lions for Roman circuses, transactions in the body parts of endangered creatures, peonage, and outright theft... in such cases profit is a reward for doing great harm.

What I am talking about is the corporations using the power of the state to further their own interests at the expense of others.  No one in their right mind would think that any of the corporations on the list are acting out of altruism but from the fact that they want to profit and lock smaller competitors out of the market.

Given that the limits in the Paris agreement are not enforceable and so it will accomplish nothing then I can only conclude that it was about getting more money out the US taxpayer and transferring it to other nations.  There is also the increased cost of energy to the poor.  No doubt you remember them since you and Eric the Obtuse bleat about them constantly and yet mysteriously ignore the effects of policies you back on them.

(06-03-2017, 07:39 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-03-2017, 12:23 AM)Galen Wrote: As for the car companies they want to build cars that people actually want to buy with prices customers can afford.  This is how an automobile manufacturer makes money.  Saying that would seem to be redundant to most people but its hard to say how much Eric the Obtuse actually knows.

No fooling. Of course there is advertising to break sales resistance.

Advertising can only get you so far.  Eventually word gets out that your product is crap and sales go into the toilet.  There is also the small matter of making it harder for the poor to drive since you are pushing up the cost of a car.  This is yet another example of you and Eric the Obtuse [URL="https://mises.org/library/war-cars-war-workers-and-poor"not giving a shit[/URL] about the poor you bleat on about.

[Eric the Green]

The Paris Accord is a great opportunity; we got China on board to commit to reducing its emissions, and that had been elusive for a while. The USA also, even under Obama, had been dragging its feet and complaining it might not be a good enough deal for us. America owes the world a lot toward cleaning up the mess that it did the most to create. Trump just wants out of it so that his car, coal and oil company buddies can make more money giving us dirty cars and fuels. Trump's decision is all about the profit of the bosses, and only the bosses. Fewer regulations means more money for the bosses, which Trump has convinced his base of followers will trickle-down to the workers. It never does. Luckily there are plenty of blue state governors and mayors who don't subscribe to the retrograde thinking found only here in Red America, and are willing to observe and promote the agreement. The REAL America will keep it.

I hope this reply is obtuse enough for Galen the Goofy. I wanted to make sure I ignored the role of the market in my remarks

At least my name for HIM has some alliteration....

[Eric the Green]

(06-05-2017, 10:27 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(06-05-2017, 10:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Paris Accord is a great opportunity; we got China on board to commit to reducing its emissions, and that had been elusive for a while. The USA also, even under Obama, had been dragging its feet and complaining it might not be a good enough deal for us. America owes the world a lot toward cleaning up the mess that it did the most to create. Trump just wants out of it so that his car, coal and oil company buddies can make more money giving us dirty cars and fuels. Trump's decision is all about the profit of the bosses, and only the bosses. Luckily there are plenty of blue state governors and mayors who don't subscribe to the retrograde thinking found only here in Red America, and are willing to observe and promote the agreement. The REAL America will keep it.

There is no reason why two surging great powers like China and India should not have to make sacrifices on par with the US. They have the technology. But of course they want to dump cheap products. To do that they need to cut corners. To hell with that. This is another rare point I agree with Trump on. We should not compete with one arm tied behind our back when others have both arms at the ready.

I don't trust anything the Drump says. Just because Drump says the agreement hurts the dirty businesses that he promotes and supports, doesn't mean there's any competitive disadvantage for the USA. Observing the agreement would help put the USA in the lead again in alternative energy, which is where the jobs and the future are. Now without the agreement, which requires the USA to switch to the alternative energy industry that's surging and growing, China will be able to forge further ahead of us and dump their cheaper solar panels in our country. I'm sure the agreement required China to make more sacrifices in their dirty energy sector than they would have made without it. Fortunately they have committed along with Europe and India to observe the agreement, because they know the lives of their people are at stake.

Always and completely, the only people at all hurt or inconvenienced by the switch to green energy and the Paris Agreement, are the CEOs and investors in the dirty energy and transportation economy. The ONLY ones. Yet our Republican Party president and congress cares ONLY about them.

[pbrower2a]

(06-05-2017, 02:38 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Whenever I've been to China, one thing that struck me was the constant smell of coal being burned. Americans, even ones near coal fired power plants, largely do not know this smell. In China, the reminders of how much CO2 they are emitting are constant. The Paris Accord would have given them a pass meanwhile we Americans would have been making sacrifices ala colonial guilt. Except, neither China nor India were ever our colonies. And there is no reason to feel colonial guilt any more toward such major important great powers.

My sojourns outside the United States are limited to short passes through the southern tier of Ontario, so all that I can know about the 'rest of the world' is clearly second-hand.

I cannot imagine being in a place with smog from coal smoke and not thinking "how do people here live with the dread of getting lung cancer or emphysema from this stuff? I really can't tolerate cancerweed smoke -- or even smog, Los Angeles style (sunset at noon, in view of the reddish-brown pigmentation that nitrogen dioxide gives to air)? Nitrogen dioxide reacts with water to form nitric acid, which is even worse. The Chinese are beginning to recognize that early deaths from cancer are no longer worthy sacrifices for some quick gain.

I have heard much the same of the dirty-industry area from Ostrava in the Czech Republic to Krakow in Poland. Coal is king around there, but that area is a poor one in which to live if one has respiratory problems of any king. Indeed, live there and you will get respiratory distress.  Such is a consequence of the Communist (and Gilded Age -- face it, even Marx could not escape all the assumptions of the Gilded Age) belief that the environment is a free good to be ravaged at will.

The environment is not a free good. We cannot selectively reject the particulates in the air, even if those particulates contain the nasty acids (including sulfuric acid and nitric acid) of acid rain  -- or such other toxic substances as benzene.

With Trump and the environment, I have gone far beyond the question "What is he thinking?"

[Eric the Green]

(06-06-2017, 12:19 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Under the agreement China was allowed to belch away, burning coal with abandon, until 2030.

Since the Agreement is voluntary, actually everyone is allowed to do anything. The hope is for further and more stringent requirements soon. This was the first time an Agreement was reached. The USA is now out of the deal-making on this issue. We the USA have abdicated our role, thanks to the slaveholders of the 18th century.

CHINA’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT

https://www.c2es.org/docUploads/chinas-c...eement.pdf

On June 30, 2015, China formally submitted its intended
nationally determined contribution (INDC) to the new
global climate agreement to be concluded this December
in Paris. China committed to the following actions by
2030:
• Peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030
and making best efforts to peak early;
• Lowering carbon dioxide intensity (carbon dioxide
emissions per unit of GDP) by 60 to 65 percent from
the 2005 level;
• Increasing the share of non-fossil fuels in primary
energy consumption to around 20 percent; and
• Increasing the forest stock volume by around 4.5
billion cubic meters from the 2005 level.1

Based on analysis by some of the world’s leading
energy institutes, China’s INDC represents a significant
undertaking beyond business-as-usual and will help slow
the rise in global greenhouse gas emissions. According to
the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), International
Energy Agency (IEA), Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT) and Tsinghua University, peaking
carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 would reduce
China’s emissions by at least 1.7 Gt or 14 percent from
the most optimistic business as usual scenario.

[Eric the Green]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...ign=buffer

[Eric the Green]

China Looks to Capitalize on Clean Energy as U.S. Retreats

By KEITH BRADSHER
JUNE 5, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/busin...ml?mcubz=0

LIULONG, China — China’s devastating pollution problems began here, in coal country, where legions of workers toiled and often died to exhume the rich deposits that fueled the country’s sooty rise to economic power.

Today, these muddy plains are home to a potent symbol of China’s new ambition: to bypass the United States and cement its dominant role in clean energy.

On a lake created by the collapse of abandoned coal mines, China has built the world’s largest floating solar project, enough to provide light and air conditioning to much of a nearby city. The provincial government wants to expand the effort to more than a dozen sites, which collectively would produce the same amount of power as a full-size commercial nuclear reactor.



The project reflects China’s effort to reshape the world order in renewable energy as the United States retreats. Such technological expertise will form the infrastructure backbone needed for countries to meet their climate goals, making China the energy partner of choice for many nations.

The wave-proof solar panels are an affordable and viable option for power-hungry countries. Delegations from Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore and elsewhere have come to study the project while the maker, Sungrow, prepares to license the technology for overseas sale.

China is capitalizing on the leadership vacuum left after President Trump said last week that he would pull the United States out of the Paris accord to limit climate change.

China has already started an expensive campaign at home and abroad to solidify its considerable hold on solar, wind and other energy-saving businesses. If successful, China would win the economic and diplomatic spoils that the United States and some European countries have long enjoyed from dominating businesses like software, computer chips and airplanes.

China’s sway will be on display in Beijing this week at the Clean Energy Ministerial, a gathering of top energy officials from two dozen countries and the European Union that represent producers of three-quarters of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. While the United States will be there, its representatives reflect the country’s deep split. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, an enthusiastic supporter of fossil fuel industries, will attend, along with Gov. Jerry Brown of California, a vocal supporter of renewable energy.

China is an unlikely champion in fighting climate change. The country is the world’s largest polluter, and its problems could grow as people buy more cars and use more power. It remains deeply dependent on coal, an especially dirty source of power.

And the race in renewables hasn’t been won. The United States and European Union accuse Beijing of unfairly subsidizing its green industries and have raised trade barriers against Chinese-made goods. American companies and local governments are set to continue their clean-energy push despite Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accord.

As with much in China, the clean-energy drive is much more about economic advantage, national security and political stability than an idealistic commitment to saving the earth.

The country’s “Made in China 2025” program, the heart of Beijing’s domestic industrial policy, calls for heavy spending on clean-energy research and development, as a way to bolster the economy. State-owned banks are pouring tens of billions of dollars each year into technologies like solar and wind along with energy conservation strategies like high-speed rail and subway lines.

China’s “One Belt, One Road” plan — a $1 trillion global offensive by President Xi Jinping to nurture economic and diplomatic ties through infrastructure building — is poised to bankroll clean-energy projects across Asia, including the Mideast; East Africa; and Eastern Europe. The projects give China an edge, pushing countries to buy from Chinese companies.

China is already dominant in many low-carbon energy technologies. It produces two-thirds of the world’s solar panels and nearly half of the wind turbines. China is also rapidly expanding its fleet of nuclear reactors and leads the world by far in hydroelectric power.

“It’s different from traditional energy, which is dominated by Western countries,” said Li Tao, the technical director at JA Solar, the Chinese supplier of Sungrow’s panels. “China has an opportunity to surpass Western countries in new energy.”

Choking pollution problems and worries that rising ocean levels could devastate coastal cities forced Beijing a decade ago to begin a campaign to find green solutions. Local governments provided land for nearly free, and state-owned banks handed out enormous loans at very low interest rates. Sometimes government agencies helped companies repay their loans.

Coal is getting far less attention. While China is still building some coal-fired power plants, it has canceled plans for others. Many existing ones are running well below capacity.

“Coal is over,” said Li Junfeng, a longtime renewable-energy official at the National Development and Reform Commission, China’s top economic planning agency. “Every year, it will be gradually reduced, city by city.”

China’s green campaign is still in the early stages.

The solar industry employs more than one million workers in everything from making panels for export to installing them domestically, though solar accounts for only 2 percent of its electricity needs. By contrast, China has four million coal miners to supply the power plants that generate 70 percent of the country’s electricity.

But the clean-energy effort is already transforming coal country.

For decades, Yang Xuancheng, a former coal miner in Liulong, here in Anhui Province in east-central China, toiled for 12-hour days in sweltering heat. A natural gas explosion killed half his 20-member drilling team.

When mines emptied of coal began collapsing underground, the land subsided and his boyhood village disappeared into a 25-foot-deep hole. The hole soon filled with rainwater and groundwater, creating a mile-wide lake.

The lake is now the home of Sungrow’s floating solar power project. Mr. Yang, 57, wires together the plastic tubes that carry the connective wiring for the panels.

“This aboveground work is so much more pleasant than the hot air down in a coal mine,” Mr. Yang said.

Such solar efforts have put China at the leading edge of renewables.

The United States and Japan invented many of the key technologies for solar panels over the past half century. But they were more cautious about building very large factories, fearing they would have to cut prices below cost to sell all the panels. Extremely cheap Chinese panels have driven dozens of Western companies out of business, including several more in recent months.

Chinese players like JinkoSolar and Trina Solar, the world’s biggest makers of solar panels, invested heavily in production. Their highly automated plants churn out vast numbers of panels with consistent quality at ever-falling cost.

GCL Group, a large manufacturer in Suzhou, now relies on robots for much of its production, from melting the raw materials for the silicon to assembling the final equipment. The company has nearly doubled production in the past four years even while cutting its work force nearly in half.

“If you don’t have the factories as a manufacturing base, then new ideas and technical innovation will stay in the air and not amount to anything,” said Lu Jinbiao, an executive vice president at GCL.

That technical know-how is helping Chinese companies capture sales in some of the world’s fastest-growing solar panel markets, like India and Saudi Arabia. China is tailoring the technology for developing markets that will need innovative and cost-effective solutions to meet their climate goals.

JA Solar is redesigning some panels for very hot, dry deserts and others for very humid jungles. Doing so will make them cheaper to manufacture than a module created to withstand extreme heat and extreme humidity.

The panels at the lake in Liulong are made to be waterproof. Xiao Fuqin, the chief engineer at Sungrow’s floating solar panel project, said delegations arrive almost daily from around China and across Asia to examine the nitty-gritty specifications, like how to lay large power cables underwater to connect many panels.

“This technology shows that China is keeping the leading role in solar, as it has for many years,” Mr. Xiao said. “We have been the pioneers, and pushed our industry another small step forward.”

[Galen]

How is this for irony? If the gaia worshipers have their way we will all end up living in caves again.