> Why aren't the coal-burning energy utility companies paying for them, out of pocket?

Because no-one has the power to make them, I think. If it's easier (and probably cheaper) to take measures to address the problem yourself than it is to force compliance, then that's the sensible way to go.

Their customers stop sending them money? Would probably shut down most operations pretty quickly.

If nobody sends them money they could just print more. There is only one power company and it's owned by the state.

Why would their customers do that?

So that less coal product is emitted into the atmosphere? I thought that was the premise.

I think he wasn't being literal, and meant, "why wouldn't they want electricity?"

Well, if the production of your electricity kills or otherwise significantly harms you, you may not wish to have that electricity.

I agree, but it's not necessarily an obvious (or easy) choice to make for someone who's poor, for example...

And that's even if they can correlate them properly.

Much of the coal smog comes from individuals burning coal in small fires to heat their residences.

I don't know if this is a joke, but China is more like unregulated capitalism than communism, it's probably more capitalistic than most European countries.

You really really don't know what you're talking about.

The State in China explicitly picks winners and losers from state companies (in particular banks), tightly controls currencies, tries to resist movement of labour, and attempts to hide moral hazard through censorship. All the while guaranteeing full employment.

There are definitely still some communist elements there, like large state owned enterprises and a very controlling/authoritarian government.

But some of the key definitions of capitalism is quite entrenched in the society:

- means of production are privately owned

- profit-motive

- market-driven economy / competition

- inequality

- minimal government interference

China definitely does not fit all the hard-core capitalism definitions, especially the minimal government interference part, but it's closer to a capitalist economy than a communist one.

Lastly, no, the state does not guarantee employment, that has not been true for at least 30 years.

inequality as part of the definition of capitalism? talk about intellectual dishonesty. has inequality gone up or down since when China had more "communist elements"?

You ask a question that was already answered: inequality is entrenched in society. Yes, it has obviously gone way up during and since the transition from traditional communism, when almost everyone was pretty much equally Mao-suit + rice + red-book poor.

Corruption != capitalism.

With the right connections you can get away with ridiculous crap, but rules as written are not that friendly. Which creates lots of problems for small companies.

> Corruption != capitalism

Wealth disparities are always going to allow for corruption, aren't they?