Looks like the adjectives you use when it comes to China is no better than the fake western media. Examples, “China ruthlessly” and China prioritises energy over environment. What’s ruthless about energy security? The write up is either another subliminal China bashing or the author of the write up has a poor grasp of the English language.
China prioritises energy over environment? Utter codswallop. For anyone to pen that amply demonstrates the author has not been to China recently and is neck deep in the false western narrative.
Thank you for sharing your perspective — dissenting views are essential to honest discourse. That said, I think your interpretation may have missed both the context and the broader thrust of the conversation.
The term “ruthless” wasn’t used as a pejorative, but rather as a candid observation from someone with direct industrial experience, referencing China’s highly competitive posture in the solar sector. It was not a moral judgment, but an acknowledgment of strategic and operational efficiency — qualities we repeatedly noted as enviable when contrasted with the West’s often platitude-driven policymaking.
As for the notion that China prioritizes energy security over environmental virtue signaling — that is less an insult and more an empirical reality. China is building out more nuclear capacity than any other nation, leads the world in coal use, and dominates the global refining and materials supply chain. These are not “Western narratives” — they’re facts. And in fact, a core theme of the dialogue was a critique of Western blindness, not Chinese policy.
To suggest this was a veiled attempt at “China bashing” is to invert the message entirely. The broader point was to underscore China’s strategic realism and long-term thinking, something the West might do well to emulate.
That said, I appreciate the exchange. The goal is never uniform agreement, but informed and civil dialogue.
If ones wants to use an adjective to describe strategic and operational efficiency in the solar sector, the last word anyone would use with any basic grasp of the English language and its diction would be the word “ruthless”. The word means pitiless or merciless or even cruel. I can think of other adjectives to use but definitely not “ruthless”. The use of such a word is a perjorative and there are no ifs or buts about it.
30 years ago China’s environment was shockingly bad. I should know because I have been travelling to this country for 30 years. Since 2014 the government began to clean up the environment and they have succeeded. When was the last time you were in China? China has planted forests the size of Belgium every year. Close to 50% of the world’s renewable energy infrastructure has been installed in China. They have cleaned up their waterways and rivers. The new coal plants being built are modern mark IV ultra super critical coal stations with the highest net efficiency and carbon capture. For every new plant built an old one would be closed. The headline used was China prioritises energy over environmental rhetoric NOT over environmental “virtue signalling”. Adding these 2 words do change the context but they weren’t there before.
If AI is the future it will take huge amounts of energy. Supposably MicroSoft is reopening 3mile Island reactors. Google reopening Diablo Canyon reactor. In Oregon a mfg is making or starting to mfg SNR’s. Small nuclear reactor for residential and commercial use. Is the U.S. too late? Time will tell
There's also people like Dr. Happer who have researched and believe we are in a carbon famine for c02 in the air, and commercial greenhouse run at 1000parts per million, from what he says we are just under 400.
After perusing your content on the media's myths surrounding the West’s renewable energy transition policies, I decided to reach out with a discovery of mine about the 2015 PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT.
My name is Carl L. McWilliams. I am a 76 year old serial entrepreneur, a self-employed sociologist and I have been involved in renewable energy, disruptive technologies and regional/local economic development for over forty years. In 2012, I began a personally funded socioeconomic inquiry into the energy transition from the carbon-based industrial revolution economy - into the low-carbon renewable energy infrastructure of Alvin Toffler's THIRD WAVE. This is a Google Docs link to a working draft manuscript of my on-going scientific inquiry and is a work in progress:
That said, I would like you to become aware of a discovery I made in my socioeconomic research into the THIRD WAVE. FYI: The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement does not include the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) in it's climate change modeling. Please be cognizant; the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement is silent on entropy and that is illogical to me.
Ignoring the Second Law of Thermodynamics in global warming science is the equivalent of ignoring Newton's Second Law (f=ma) in rocket science!
However, the reason this entropy discovery of mine is of national-energy importance is because the 2nd Trump Administration is unaware of the fundamentally flawed 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, they are subsequently now making energy policy decisions based upon the flawed science of the Paris Climate Agreement. The major fundamental flaw in the Paris Agreement's modeling is the ignorance in believing that man made CO2 is a GHG, but instead CO2 is an energy carrier.
PLEASE BE COGNIZANT: CO2 IS NOT A GHG - CO2 IS AN ENERGY CARRIER!
Accordingly, these three AI-ChatGPT postings of mine regarding the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement are available for public viewing;
Looks like the adjectives you use when it comes to China is no better than the fake western media. Examples, “China ruthlessly” and China prioritises energy over environment. What’s ruthless about energy security? The write up is either another subliminal China bashing or the author of the write up has a poor grasp of the English language.
China prioritises energy over environment? Utter codswallop. For anyone to pen that amply demonstrates the author has not been to China recently and is neck deep in the false western narrative.
Thank you for sharing your perspective — dissenting views are essential to honest discourse. That said, I think your interpretation may have missed both the context and the broader thrust of the conversation.
The term “ruthless” wasn’t used as a pejorative, but rather as a candid observation from someone with direct industrial experience, referencing China’s highly competitive posture in the solar sector. It was not a moral judgment, but an acknowledgment of strategic and operational efficiency — qualities we repeatedly noted as enviable when contrasted with the West’s often platitude-driven policymaking.
As for the notion that China prioritizes energy security over environmental virtue signaling — that is less an insult and more an empirical reality. China is building out more nuclear capacity than any other nation, leads the world in coal use, and dominates the global refining and materials supply chain. These are not “Western narratives” — they’re facts. And in fact, a core theme of the dialogue was a critique of Western blindness, not Chinese policy.
To suggest this was a veiled attempt at “China bashing” is to invert the message entirely. The broader point was to underscore China’s strategic realism and long-term thinking, something the West might do well to emulate.
That said, I appreciate the exchange. The goal is never uniform agreement, but informed and civil dialogue.
If ones wants to use an adjective to describe strategic and operational efficiency in the solar sector, the last word anyone would use with any basic grasp of the English language and its diction would be the word “ruthless”. The word means pitiless or merciless or even cruel. I can think of other adjectives to use but definitely not “ruthless”. The use of such a word is a perjorative and there are no ifs or buts about it.
30 years ago China’s environment was shockingly bad. I should know because I have been travelling to this country for 30 years. Since 2014 the government began to clean up the environment and they have succeeded. When was the last time you were in China? China has planted forests the size of Belgium every year. Close to 50% of the world’s renewable energy infrastructure has been installed in China. They have cleaned up their waterways and rivers. The new coal plants being built are modern mark IV ultra super critical coal stations with the highest net efficiency and carbon capture. For every new plant built an old one would be closed. The headline used was China prioritises energy over environmental rhetoric NOT over environmental “virtue signalling”. Adding these 2 words do change the context but they weren’t there before.
If AI is the future it will take huge amounts of energy. Supposably MicroSoft is reopening 3mile Island reactors. Google reopening Diablo Canyon reactor. In Oregon a mfg is making or starting to mfg SNR’s. Small nuclear reactor for residential and commercial use. Is the U.S. too late? Time will tell
Really enjoyed listening to this. @Doomberg is always a bastion of information and this podcast is no exception. Energy is the economy!
There's also people like Dr. Happer who have researched and believe we are in a carbon famine for c02 in the air, and commercial greenhouse run at 1000parts per million, from what he says we are just under 400.
Would like a copy on the china energy video
The values I hold dear.
An enlightening presentation.
I cannot help to reflect upon accepting the lies presented to us today as truths and wonder how this could be a part of the malaise today.
I have a strong honour code. It guides me through life, standing apart.
Well done, Matthew.
Matthew Piepenburg
VON GREYERZ
Mar 13, 2025
After perusing your content on the media's myths surrounding the West’s renewable energy transition policies, I decided to reach out with a discovery of mine about the 2015 PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT.
My name is Carl L. McWilliams. I am a 76 year old serial entrepreneur, a self-employed sociologist and I have been involved in renewable energy, disruptive technologies and regional/local economic development for over forty years. In 2012, I began a personally funded socioeconomic inquiry into the energy transition from the carbon-based industrial revolution economy - into the low-carbon renewable energy infrastructure of Alvin Toffler's THIRD WAVE. This is a Google Docs link to a working draft manuscript of my on-going scientific inquiry and is a work in progress:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KOsd36mpOGRFpgrLsmNn0KNo7QwdIwgz9EZiQqVNkJ8/edit?usp=sharing
That said, I would like you to become aware of a discovery I made in my socioeconomic research into the THIRD WAVE. FYI: The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement does not include the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) in it's climate change modeling. Please be cognizant; the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement is silent on entropy and that is illogical to me.
Ignoring the Second Law of Thermodynamics in global warming science is the equivalent of ignoring Newton's Second Law (f=ma) in rocket science!
However, the reason this entropy discovery of mine is of national-energy importance is because the 2nd Trump Administration is unaware of the fundamentally flawed 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, they are subsequently now making energy policy decisions based upon the flawed science of the Paris Climate Agreement. The major fundamental flaw in the Paris Agreement's modeling is the ignorance in believing that man made CO2 is a GHG, but instead CO2 is an energy carrier.
PLEASE BE COGNIZANT: CO2 IS NOT A GHG - CO2 IS AN ENERGY CARRIER!
Accordingly, these three AI-ChatGPT postings of mine regarding the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement are available for public viewing;
https://chatgpt.com/share/67532c3a-6d48-8003-a8d3-481f363ba79e
https://chatgpt.com/share/674d9ff8-b924-8003-8a4d-8dd6fdbe0f20
https://chatgpt.com/share/6752eed6-95c8-8003-8855-3e4d53fb4569
Carl L. McWilliams
Glenwood Springs, Western Colorado
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FmZMHJmp3mMFgIpP3otf4dbYqjhNDluC7tdp1eEFg1U/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zuz3IvjX232XQ1oaT1he9XDBc1kO8qBbZZEYUbGyLt8/edit?usp=sharing