Talk:Energy policy of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Energy (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Emissions map[edit]

Would it be possible to get a map of total emissions per country, as well as/instead of per capita emissions? The story that's making the headlines now is China overtaking the US in total emissions, but that isn't reflected in the existing map. -- Hongooi 12:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I went to the per capita image, found the link to List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita. From this, I then tried and had success with List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions and found Image:Countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_world_map_deobfuscated.png there and copied the source and pasted it in this page. In future, it might be easier for you to find such an addition which already exists and add it yourself. Cheers Nil Einne 20:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose to merge the Energy security of China article into this article. Ensuring its energy security is a corner stone of the energy policy of China and these topics are closely interrelated. Beagel (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a merge is necessary. They're closely related topics, which is why the subsection and {{further}} link in this article is good...on the other hand, though, "Energy security of China" may be too big a topic to cover within this article. I would treat it as a spin-out. The current version of that article has a lot of problems (like the one-source thing), but cleaned up it could certainly be a stand-alone article. It could also be a subtopic of energy policy, and have a {{main}} link back to here at the top. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Rjanag : currently, I prefer to keep 2 articles. I added a one-line disambiguation template on both article, to put it more clearly : Energy policy of China is a China internal issue (local, politic, economic, energy efficiency, laws) ; Energy security of China is worldwide or even 'foreign relate' (diplomatic, economic, import-dependance, military, how to hold foreign oil fields, oil compagnies abroad, malacca strait security, russian pipelines).
I hope editor will see these 2 sentences, and respect them. Yug (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Renaming ?

This 2 stand-alone articles system may be strengthen by renaming the 2 articles :

  • Energy policy of China → China internal energy policies ;
  • Energy security of China → Energy security of China (worlwide) ;

your opinion ? Yug (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "worldwide" is the most accurate description for that article (and, in fact, I think the dablink added to the top of that article needs to be tweaked a little). The difference between the two topics isn't one of internal vs. external, but just a difference in topic: "energy policy" also refers to things like energy use, emissions, R&D, etc., whereas "energy security" refers more to trying to gain and secure energy sources, both internal and external. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your concern. I'm French, and I do my best to find suitable words. Better words may be found (articles' name, dablink = English help welcome).
I agree with your concern, if we apply my proposed rename, title are a bit too much exclusive. But I try to express clearly the distinction : policies/management apply mainly inside China, since it include the management of 'how do we use energy' ; while security apply worldwide (China+abroad), with 'abroad' being more specific to secure the supply sources.
I understand your concern: But I look at current trouble : titles are not clear enough, and thus overlapping. The current names will produce confusion and lost of man power/edits. Yug (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the titles are fine as they are, and the dablinks could be changed to something like this:
With clear dablinks, the title problems and worries about overlap should be resolved. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Yes check.svg Done ! --Yug (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WSJ resource[edit]

Page move consensus issue[edit]

Duplicating comment made elsewhere. As far as I am aware, there was a consensus reached to rename the page on China to be about the PRC, rather than China as a historical or cultural entity or whatever. I am not aware of a "consensus" that says that every instance were "People's Republic of China" appears in a title it should be changed to China. Consensus is reached, as far as I know, on the pages in which things are discussed. I have not heard of a process by which consensus by a group of editors discussing one matter on one page is then automatically extended to a number of other related pages in terms of what they are to be titled. I strongly suspect this would call for individual consensus on the various pages which moves were desired for. If I am mistaken, please correct me. In any case, I suggest first beginning with a proposal, explanation, and an attempt to form consensus about the move. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Energy vs. electricity[edit]

Electricity is a form of energy, but not all energy is electricity. Writers about energy policy need to be careful not to conflate the two, especially in quantitative statements and comparisons.

In the section "Electricity generation," the subsection "Coal" begins with the statement "China currently generates around two thirds of its electricity from coal-fired power station." Oddly enough, the same subsection has a table of statistics from the IEA stating that 78% to 81% of electricity production came from coal in 2004 to 2010. Why the discrepancy? If we look at the ref for the two-thirds number, we find this statement: "China currently depends on coal to meet two-thirds of its energy needs." That's right: two-thirds of its energy needs, not two-thirds of its electricity needs. It's not the same thing.

The article has been corrected to reflect the IEA data. Piperh (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)