10 ms·

How is it a good thing to have more efficient dictators?

burnte 6y ago
China isn't ignoring climate change, understands geopolitics, learns from it's mistakes, etc. The US is falling behind in all of those areas.
- ghostcluster 6y ago
  China isn't ignoring climate change in their rhetoric. What they are actually doing is building record amounts of coal power plants, right now, this year. https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insane-number-of-new-coal-plants/ https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insan... The US' greenhouse emissions peaked years ago and have been in steady decline. China is the #1 emitter, #1 coal consumer, and building record amounts of new coal domestically. And not just in China, but all over the developing world through their Belt and Road program.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    This is true, however these plants are being used quite rarely and are instead base load. Chinese emissions per capita and per dollar are falling, and total emissions seem to have plateaued, so I'm not sure that really qualifies as ignoring it. Same in the developing world, while some kinds of fossil fuels for baseload generation is necessary so long as nuclear is taboo, they are on track to never even get close to the level of emissions per capita of the US, and indeed plateau in total emissions soon. Of course, you can make the argument that this isn't enough. That being said, for places stricken by poverty, it's certainly a hell of a lot more effort than the US that doesn't even deign join the Paris Climate Agreements.
    - pueblito 6y ago
      > This is true, however these plants are being used quite rarely Hence the need for more of them at record pace? Ridiculous
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Yes, they do to build more plants at a record pace, because they need to increase total generation at a record rate. Since renewables, which are also being built at a record pace, are not very reliable time-wise, it is needed to build reliable capacity. Now, that capacity might be used 15-20% of the time, but it still needs to be built. For example, the UK went multiple days without ever using its fossil fuel electric plants, but they were still necessary in case of bad weather. I agree that this is not optimal. In the best of worlds, they should use nuclear energy and hydro for base load generation. However, not everywhere in China is good for either, and their very-high-voltage long-range grid is still being built, so for many regions, which tend to be those that are poor and growing the fastest, they have opted to use fossil fuels. This isn't inconsistent with their goals.
    - ghostcluster 6y ago
      China's carbon emissions are still growing and even by their own forecasts won't stop for at least another ten years. I think it's premature to take them at their word when they've been so publicly dishonest in other arenas. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/World_fo...
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        This data is obsolete : https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/ Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Chinese emissions have taken a dive and will recover over a multi-year period, over which other projects to minimize emissions will come online. As a result, independent projections show that Chinese emissions will probably stay at more or less their current level, maybe a bit more, and start decreasing by 2030. This data could, of course, be dishonest, but as a result there has been a lot of interest in third party data on Chinese economic activity, which is used to provide high-reliability estimates of CO2, based on which they do seem to be on track for this.
  - justicezyx 6y ago
    Well, us peaked because it’s a developed country. You cannot require a developing country to reach peak at the same time as the developed one, can you? Also, please consider the per capita number as well https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS768US768&hl=en-US&q=united+states+co2+emissions+per+capita&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgUeLUz9U3sEw2LzfQsk9JttLPSU1PTK60yslPTizJzM-LLy4B0sUlmcmJOfFFqekgoeR8o_jU3MziYiCnOL4gtSg-ObEgsyRxEataaV5mSWqKAkhTarECUKECXKECUKECRCEABduEwHcAAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwia-d2Yz4ztAhWDtp4KHSKDCcUQtx8wAnoECAMQAw&biw=1024&bih=728&dpr=2 https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS768US768&hl=en... Everyone deserve the good life enjoyed by anyone else. Unless China is 4x of us emissions, I would not consider them less responsible than the world leader. Look at US track record in the past four years in climate control, and think about how US can lead instead of excusing for its own slack...
- octoberfranklin 6y ago
  So you've moved to China?
jychang 6y ago
The best system of government is a benevolent dictatorship. If you can’t make it less dictatorial, at least make it more benevolent.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Power corrupts. The only way to make a government more benevolent is to make it weaker.
  - edgyquant 6y ago
    The governments of the feudal era, let alone the night watch states of the 1800, were certainly more corrupt than the more centralized nations of China and the US. Disproving this hypothesis that I hear too much.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Were they? Did the feudal era monarchies exert control over foreign governments in far away continents? The feudal era was marked by constant churn and shifting allegiances and there was always somewhere to escape to. Many escaped to the Americas, coincidentally, where they did eventually launch revolutions against the English and Spanish monarchy, which grew quite powerful and corrupt during the Imperial era. At any rate, the entire design of the U.S. is to prevent corruption through decentralization of power. That includes division of power among the Federal and State governments as well as the several branches of government. To the extent that experiment has worked, it has done so through the successful application of those principles. To the extent that it hasn't, it has been when too much power has rested in too few hands for too long.
      - edgyquant 6y ago
        Yes they objectively were and yes late feudal lords did exert control over far away lands (early ones as well like Charlemagne and even Charles Martel to a lesser extent.) Also the design of the US is to find a balance between a strong federal government and state governments. That is why the issue has dominated our politics, in one form the other, and we’ve had a two party system based around it, ever since.
aikinai 6y ago
The comment says nothing about it being "good."

China isn't ignoring climate change, understands geopolitics, learns from it's mistakes, etc. The US is falling behind in all of those areas.

ghostcluster 6y ago
China isn't ignoring climate change in their rhetoric. What they are actually doing is building record amounts of coal power plants, right now, this year. https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insane-number-of-new-coal-plants/ https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insan... The US' greenhouse emissions peaked years ago and have been in steady decline. China is the #1 emitter, #1 coal consumer, and building record amounts of new coal domestically. And not just in China, but all over the developing world through their Belt and Road program.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  This is true, however these plants are being used quite rarely and are instead base load. Chinese emissions per capita and per dollar are falling, and total emissions seem to have plateaued, so I'm not sure that really qualifies as ignoring it. Same in the developing world, while some kinds of fossil fuels for baseload generation is necessary so long as nuclear is taboo, they are on track to never even get close to the level of emissions per capita of the US, and indeed plateau in total emissions soon. Of course, you can make the argument that this isn't enough. That being said, for places stricken by poverty, it's certainly a hell of a lot more effort than the US that doesn't even deign join the Paris Climate Agreements.
  - pueblito 6y ago
    > This is true, however these plants are being used quite rarely Hence the need for more of them at record pace? Ridiculous
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Yes, they do to build more plants at a record pace, because they need to increase total generation at a record rate. Since renewables, which are also being built at a record pace, are not very reliable time-wise, it is needed to build reliable capacity. Now, that capacity might be used 15-20% of the time, but it still needs to be built. For example, the UK went multiple days without ever using its fossil fuel electric plants, but they were still necessary in case of bad weather. I agree that this is not optimal. In the best of worlds, they should use nuclear energy and hydro for base load generation. However, not everywhere in China is good for either, and their very-high-voltage long-range grid is still being built, so for many regions, which tend to be those that are poor and growing the fastest, they have opted to use fossil fuels. This isn't inconsistent with their goals.
  - ghostcluster 6y ago
    China's carbon emissions are still growing and even by their own forecasts won't stop for at least another ten years. I think it's premature to take them at their word when they've been so publicly dishonest in other arenas. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/World_fo...
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      This data is obsolete : https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/ https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/ Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Chinese emissions have taken a dive and will recover over a multi-year period, over which other projects to minimize emissions will come online. As a result, independent projections show that Chinese emissions will probably stay at more or less their current level, maybe a bit more, and start decreasing by 2030. This data could, of course, be dishonest, but as a result there has been a lot of interest in third party data on Chinese economic activity, which is used to provide high-reliability estimates of CO2, based on which they do seem to be on track for this.
- justicezyx 6y ago
  Well, us peaked because it’s a developed country. You cannot require a developing country to reach peak at the same time as the developed one, can you? Also, please consider the per capita number as well https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS768US768&hl=en-US&q=united+states+co2+emissions+per+capita&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgUeLUz9U3sEw2LzfQsk9JttLPSU1PTK60yslPTizJzM-LLy4B0sUlmcmJOfFFqekgoeR8o_jU3MziYiCnOL4gtSg-ObEgsyRxEataaV5mSWqKAkhTarECUKECXKECUKECRCEABduEwHcAAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwia-d2Yz4ztAhWDtp4KHSKDCcUQtx8wAnoECAMQAw&biw=1024&bih=728&dpr=2 https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS768US768&hl=en... Everyone deserve the good life enjoyed by anyone else. Unless China is 4x of us emissions, I would not consider them less responsible than the world leader. Look at US track record in the past four years in climate control, and think about how US can lead instead of excusing for its own slack...
octoberfranklin 6y ago
So you've moved to China?

jychang 6y ago

The best system of government is a benevolent dictatorship. If you can’t make it less dictatorial, at least make it more benevolent.

chrisco255 6y ago
Power corrupts. The only way to make a government more benevolent is to make it weaker.
- edgyquant 6y ago
  The governments of the feudal era, let alone the night watch states of the 1800, were certainly more corrupt than the more centralized nations of China and the US. Disproving this hypothesis that I hear too much.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Were they? Did the feudal era monarchies exert control over foreign governments in far away continents? The feudal era was marked by constant churn and shifting allegiances and there was always somewhere to escape to. Many escaped to the Americas, coincidentally, where they did eventually launch revolutions against the English and Spanish monarchy, which grew quite powerful and corrupt during the Imperial era. At any rate, the entire design of the U.S. is to prevent corruption through decentralization of power. That includes division of power among the Federal and State governments as well as the several branches of government. To the extent that experiment has worked, it has done so through the successful application of those principles. To the extent that it hasn't, it has been when too much power has rested in too few hands for too long.
    - edgyquant 6y ago
      Yes they objectively were and yes late feudal lords did exert control over far away lands (early ones as well like Charlemagne and even Charles Martel to a lesser extent.) Also the design of the US is to find a balance between a strong federal government and state governments. That is why the issue has dominated our politics, in one form the other, and we’ve had a two party system based around it, ever since.

aikinai 6y ago

The comment says nothing about it being "good."