It’s says rise in the headline. Idk what your comment is supposed to be except for ‘china bad’ whataboutism.

I was misled upon first reading and so I wrote this to help others by changing emphasis. Their pull quote strikes me as a misdirection.

I see what you are saying but I don’t think it’s a misdirect. I think it’s the nature of fast reading. And I’m right there with you.

Or how about this - what should the headline have been?

I think it’s pretty straightforward

US increased coal use. China did not. So change in global emissions is US’s fault, because global change is based on sum of changes. Headline is fine.

Looking at this again later, I think it’s the embedded 'quote ’ thing headlines like to do. Sometimes they’re like ‘Banana fiddlesticks’, vet says protect against fleas

Where did you learn that?

US increased coal use. China did not.

China increased coal usage too.

China’s coal power on the rise again in 2026, reversing first-in-a-decade decline

So one year of increase vs 9 years of decrease is still an overall decrease.

Also there’s a difference between China choosing to do something with their planned economy, vs. random wacky shit happening here in Freemarketstan

So one year of increase

You’re moving the goalposts of this discussion. We’re talking about 2025-2026 activities. From the OP article:

"According to the Energy Institute’s latest Statistical Review of World Energy, US coal consumption increased by 10% in 2025, compared to a 0.7% rise globally. "

vs 9 years of decrease is still an overall decrease.

…so that point is irrelevant to the current discussion.

Also there’s a difference between China choosing to do something with their planned economy, vs. random wacky shit happening here in Freemarketstan

In this context, no there isn’t a difference. A net increase in coal usage is the only measure. Under that measure both the USA and China have increased domestic coal consumption for energy production.

Even if you want to try to play the “planned economy” card, I doubt in the 15th Five-Year Plan (2026–2030), which was formally approved at the National People’s Congress in March 2026, did the concept of $100+Brent crude prices exist as a recorded target. China has been buying up cheap Urals oil from Russia’s sanctioned shadow fleet of tankers for a couple years now increasing their strategic reserves (far higher than even the USA). Even those Urals shipments have largely curtained as its now open season for Ukrainian drones knocking out shadow fleet tankers by literally the dozen.

China is not sinning by increasing coal use any greater than the USA by just reacting to geopolitical market conditions and the need to continue to power its nation.

Leaving aside the importance of per capita, much of China’s emissions is western emissions in a trench coat. And I’m not saying that as a China glazer.

You can pin power use to exported products, but how that electricity is generated is chinas state decision.
It’s not like they did nothing but they could also be way more emission free than they are now.

Aren’t they the number 1 in solar and new solar?

Sometimes I look at them and think, well at least they decided to do something about it.

If it wasn’t for them, oil companies would have managed to stall EVs and keep them as luxury vehicles.

China isn’t perfect but I can’t see them as the problem when they spit out solar panels while the orange moron is literally paying billions to stop renewable projects.

Yes, China is using a lot of energy in general, and not just for its export-focused economy. The Chinese middle class is huge. They are top consumers of energy in both coal and renewables.

They’ve been intentionally using coal to develop away from coal for decades. It’s been a long term strategic thing, using coal power plants to build solar panel factories, then shutting down the coal plants. Meanwhile the USA keeps using coal for fun basically, while being like “well the Chinese are using it too!”. It’s hard for me to see China as the villain here

The issue is that an increase in US coal consumption exists solely to placate Appalachians that can’t imagine a future beyond what Grandpappy did.

And it’s like, Appalachians do, in my opinion, fit the definition of “marginalized group,” but at the same time the only way of advancement that they accept is pretending the world can or should be like it was before the rust belt was the rust belt.