Talk:Energy policy of China

China High‑importance

	China portal 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Top‑importance

	Energy portal 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Science Policy High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy 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.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Emissions map

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge proposal

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think the titles are fine as they are, and the dablinks could be changed to something like this:

On Energy security of China:
On Energy policy of China:

With clear dablinks, the title problems and worries about overlap should be resolved. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

Done ! --Yug (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ resource

Housing, Fuel Costs Ease in China October 10, 2011 in the Wall Street Journal by Aaron Back 99.190.87.127 (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page move consensus issue

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)[reply]

Energy vs. electricity

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)[reply]

Faulty source

The line 'energy includes energy losses that are 2/3 for nuclear power' was sourced to a PDF (which does not exist) about Swedish, rather than Chinese, nuclear power plants. I'm uncertain if I need to just find a better source on that particular line, or if somebody was invoking WPCalc the entire table is affected. RequiaAngelite (talk)

The original edit didn't make any changes to the numbers. A false source was used for almost 5 years on this line, removing it. RequiaAngelite (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]