This bold statement is apparently an attempt to counter a perception that coal’s future as an energy source in a warming world may be in danger. Shi complains that, both “globally and in China…many people think that the coal industry has no future”.

Shi goes as far to suggest that given the improving emission intensity of the coal industry in recent years, the industry itself is actually destined to become a “zero emission” energy source.

There are a number of critical problems with this assertion, however the most glaring deficiency is that the paper explicitly ignores the booming coal industry’s sustainability in the context of its greenhouse gas emissions. Surprisingly, Shi states that, “although greenhouse gas emissions are a major concern, the most immediate phenomenon is local ambient air pollution”. It is explained that the improving emission intensity of the coal industry is based solely on three pollutants whose effect is mainly local; namely, sulphur dioxide (SO2), industrial smoke and dust.

While it is indisputable that the air pollution caused by China’s coal industry is directly responsible for significant health problems and, according to Shi, 13per cent of China’s GDP by 2020, his conclusion flies in the face of every report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC states categorically that, “changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases…alter the energy balance of the climate system”. Shi also claims that carbon dioxide emissions, “although a popular topic and probably significant, are not included because there are no current data for them”. (Ironically, the volume in which Shi’s paper was published, the companion to the China Update itself, contained no less than five contributions from experts making use of data on China’s CO2 emissions.)

It is true that Shi’s primary source, the China Environmental Year Book 2007, published annually by the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), does not contain specific data on CO2 emissions, providing statistics only for Sulphur Dioxide, Industrial Soot, Industrial Dust and Nitrogen Dioxide. This data has been ably exploited by Shi to demonstrate his point about recent improvements in emission intensities. To suggest that a lack of data makes it impossible to discuss carbon dioxide, however, seems neglectful at best.

Shi is also keen to demonstrate the positive intentions of the CCP government in Beijing, making sure to mention the 660 “ministerial and local environmental rules and regulations related to environmental protection” that have been introduced since 1949. Interestingly, every source mentioned by Shi in support of his praise for the government’s efforts, is from the government itself. For instance, his claim that government measures had led to “a significant improvement in environmental quality” was referenced to the State News Office.

Fortunately, Shi elaborated on his visions for coal’s bright future. The improving emissions intensity forecasted is based squarely on “technical progress”. Shi looks back at the numerous improvements to coal-fired technology over recent decades and suggests that “some of these methods, although straightforward now, seemed unrealistic in the 1970s”. Unfortunately, no evidence is given that might suggest if or when technological innovation will continue this trend.

Shi states that “zero or near-zero emissions from coal-fired power plants are technologically feasible”. What he means, in fact, is that such plants are theoretically possible, something that becomes clear when Shi reluctantly acknowledges that the “cost and reliability” of the proposed integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) plants are yet to be proven. Shi goes on to point out that “Rio Tinto and BP are working together on decarbonised energy projects, which can generate almost carbon-free electricity from coal”. The following sentence, however, reveals the tenuous nature of Shi’s argument, when he suggests that “further progress might mean that such techniques could be applied commercially’ (emphasis added).

The uncertainty surrounding these technological developments goes further than achieving an affordable way of dealing with coal’s GHG emissions, but also goes to the potential risks that such practices actually present in to the future. The most advanced “clean coal” technology discussed at present, and the one in which coal advocates place most hope, is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). This is the process whereby emissions from coal-fired plants are captured and pumped in to underground reservoirs. However, any full-cost economic analysis of the prospects for CCS must take into account the aspect of risk.

After all, when Shi propounds the benefits of CCS, he is not really talking about “carbon-free” power at all, but coal-fired power whose greenhouse gas emissions are to be pumped underground, post-production. If national or international agreements are established, as expected, that set a price for carbon based on stringent carbon accounting and targets for GHG reduction, then identifiable reserves of greenhouse gases with potential to enter the atmosphere pose substantial risk for those with responsibility for those reserves.

If this risk is to be factored into analysis of CCS, there must be adequate insurance or financial reserves to cover the potential risk in the future. Unfortunately, insurance bodies worldwide have been publicly declaring that they would be unable to insure against the reliability of CCS technology. This leads to the obvious question: who would foot the bill should this technology fail to deliver on its high expectations? Will the public end up paying not just for investment in these technologies through public grants, but also the costs of its failure to adequately secure captured emissions? This is not to suggest that investment should not be directed toward the development of CCS technology. It is dangerous, however, to place the future of emission reductions from energy in the hands of an as-yet unproven technological solution, ahead of proven zero-emission, renewable technologies.

It is important that emerging Chinese scholarship must be tested and critiqued to the same degree as other contributions, given the critical importance of the nature of China’s development to the global environment.