4 ms·

Lead by example? If you think China gives a crap about your example you’re horrendously naive.

jhgfddjn 5y ago
Especially when you consider the economic impacts of "going first" it puts the CCP in a position where they're likely to gain the economic output you've banned, and then use that to gain even more of an upper hand against you
- 0xB31B1B 5y ago
  What are you talking about. China has already “gone first” they drove solar costs down below fossil fuel energy production cost. The change to green energy and decarbonization is a huge Keynesian economic stimulus. Decarbonizing is not about impoverishing yourself it’s about modernizing everything with tools that are demonstrably better in almost every way using government backed debt. It’s going to be a huge driver of GDP growth for the next 25-50 years. The political blocker here is that a lot of members of the capital class are very invested in the current fossil fuel energy production paradigm and will have relatively less wealth on the other side of this transition. The reality here is we can and should use a nearly infinite amount of debt to finance decarbonization. Debt is “borrowing money from the future” and do you think anyone 50 years from now will be saying “I think we should have spent less money on decarbonzing?”, absolutely not. There is no world in which we can muscle the political will to spend that much money today, so for all intents and purposes consider it an unlimited credit line.
  - iNane9000 5y ago
    “ China has already “gone first” ” Nobody believes this. China has a horrible record when it comes to pollution, and to make the opposite claim is a bit outlandish. Here’s a question: why does 75% of all Bitcoin mining occur in China[0]? [0]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22256-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22256-3
chmod775 5y ago
Naive is only considering the absolute amount of emissions within some arbitrarily drawn lines on a map. The only metric that is fair, and countries like China will consider fair, is per-capita emissions. A Canadian can't justify causing three times as many CO2 emissions as a Chinese by virtue of being Canadian alone.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  Per-capita emissions may be fair if it looked at where products are consumed, but in my experience the data only looks at emissions produced divided by population. Producer countries like China and especially Canada with their energy industry will look worse than they actually are because other countries have effectively outsourced their CO2 emissions to these countries.
  - chmod775 5y ago
    That's very true. You have the option of either attributing these emissions to the consuming country, or to not do so and hope that it creates a trade-equilibrium as a side-effect, where each country produces within their CO2 limits. Either way, even though China is a producer country and far from being clean or sustainable, its emissions are still way behind certain large first world countries. We (that is North America and the heart of Europe save France) really need to make more of an effort, only if to not look like massive hypocrites when we ask China to turn green. There is a large push towards nuclear within China right now though - with a lot of research coming out of that country as well - they might beat us to the punch anyways.
    - kergonath 5y ago
      > that is North America and the heart of Europe save France Rest assured that France is really keen on carbonising its electricity supply and closing a significant number of its nuclear plants, thus going back into the fold of its European neighbours. Stupidity knows no border.
  - rocknor 5y ago
kzrdude 5y ago
China cares about its reputation. You can't push China around, but it is a bit sensitive to it.
vegetablepotpie 5y ago
Not OP, but I can address this. Leading by example does not compel anyone to act, it works the same way that nuclear treaties do not reduce nuclear arms. But we still have treaties and we have had no nuclear war in the last 70 years. Leading by example is necessary but not sufficient for carbon reduction. But it removes accusations of hypocrisy when talking about solutions, which makes discussions much more productive. China does have climate policy and it’s and issue that they do not ignore. They plant trees at the interface of deserts to prevent their expansion, they produce 80% of the worlds solar panels. China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China has a lot to lose from climate change. They will see reduced agricultural production from prairie land, in a country of over a billion people. A starving population will not allow the current regime to continue and the Chinese government has every reason to come to the table.
- mercy_dude 5y ago
  > China does have climate policy and it’s and issue that they do not ignore. They plant trees at the interface of deserts to prevent their expansion, they produce 80% of the worlds solar panels. China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. Sounds like you are avoiding the core question surrounding the real issue at hand - China and India are among one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas. There is no policy that can change that fact.
  - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
    > There is no policy that can change that fact. That statement is completely false. There are many policies that China and India can enact to reduce production of greenhouse gasses. - put a price on carbon emissions (ex: California cap and trade) - put a tax on carbon (ex: Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act) - provide grants or tax breaks to clean energy projects
    - 5y ago
sandworm101 5y ago
>> If you think China gives a crap about your example you’re horrendously naive. Tell that to the legions of Chinese immigrants who have flocked to Canada in recent years. It happened during the Hong Kong handover too. The Chinese see Canada as the more tolerant alternative to the US. Canada's opinion on China matters because that opinion is shared by the many Chinese people living in Canada. What is naïve is to ignore the family and social connections between the countries.
- poutine 5y ago
  By and large the CCP shapes the internal narrative with respect to China, and increasingly globally. Social connections be damned. The Chinese will think what the CCP wants them to think. I say this as someone who has lived in China and with family in China.
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    There are different groups in China. The bulk of the people will never travel internationally. They don't have much money/influence in the country. The ones that visit Canada are the rich and powerful. They are the leaders. They are the ones that will go home and set CCP policy. They visit Canada and see clean water and reasonable living standards are possible. When they go home they will demand those things. They will demand change when their college-age kids studying in Canada don't want to come home, or don't stay long when they do. That sort of slow influence can be more effective than the threat of violence.
LightG 5y ago
If that's true, then it's doesn't take a genius to sugget a multi-pronged strategy. 1) Lead be example. If that fails: 2) Import-tax the f@ck out of them, unless they comply with regulations. 3) Goto (1).
- poutine 5y ago
  Carbon taxes and tariffs would work yes. But you're imposing serious costs on people that they haven't shown any desire to support. Further, tariffs would disproportionately impact the poor in the developing world.
  - LightG 5y ago
    I'm 100% against the embargo of Cuba ... but let me use that as an example of: "it's not as if the US hasn't/isn't doing exactly that in other arenas". But I take your point, and I'm not sure of the solution.
    - poutine 5y ago
      The solution is economic, just not via tariff or tax. Clean energy must supplant dirty energy at scale. The only way for this to happen is to make it cheaper so the developing world will use it instead.
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    > tariffs would disproportionately impact the poor in the developing world. So will climate change, and more so.

Especially when you consider the economic impacts of "going first" it puts the CCP in a position where they're likely to gain the economic output you've banned, and then use that to gain even more of an upper hand against you

0xB31B1B 5y ago
What are you talking about. China has already “gone first” they drove solar costs down below fossil fuel energy production cost. The change to green energy and decarbonization is a huge Keynesian economic stimulus. Decarbonizing is not about impoverishing yourself it’s about modernizing everything with tools that are demonstrably better in almost every way using government backed debt. It’s going to be a huge driver of GDP growth for the next 25-50 years. The political blocker here is that a lot of members of the capital class are very invested in the current fossil fuel energy production paradigm and will have relatively less wealth on the other side of this transition. The reality here is we can and should use a nearly infinite amount of debt to finance decarbonization. Debt is “borrowing money from the future” and do you think anyone 50 years from now will be saying “I think we should have spent less money on decarbonzing?”, absolutely not. There is no world in which we can muscle the political will to spend that much money today, so for all intents and purposes consider it an unlimited credit line.
- iNane9000 5y ago
  “ China has already “gone first” ” Nobody believes this. China has a horrible record when it comes to pollution, and to make the opposite claim is a bit outlandish. Here’s a question: why does 75% of all Bitcoin mining occur in China[0]? [0]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22256-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22256-3

chmod775 5y ago

Naive is only considering the absolute amount of emissions within some arbitrarily drawn lines on a map. The only metric that is fair, and countries like China will consider fair, is per-capita emissions. A Canadian can't justify causing three times as many CO2 emissions as a Chinese by virtue of being Canadian alone.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Per-capita emissions may be fair if it looked at where products are consumed, but in my experience the data only looks at emissions produced divided by population. Producer countries like China and especially Canada with their energy industry will look worse than they actually are because other countries have effectively outsourced their CO2 emissions to these countries.
- chmod775 5y ago
  That's very true. You have the option of either attributing these emissions to the consuming country, or to not do so and hope that it creates a trade-equilibrium as a side-effect, where each country produces within their CO2 limits. Either way, even though China is a producer country and far from being clean or sustainable, its emissions are still way behind certain large first world countries. We (that is North America and the heart of Europe save France) really need to make more of an effort, only if to not look like massive hypocrites when we ask China to turn green. There is a large push towards nuclear within China right now though - with a lot of research coming out of that country as well - they might beat us to the punch anyways.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    > that is North America and the heart of Europe save France Rest assured that France is really keen on carbonising its electricity supply and closing a significant number of its nuclear plants, thus going back into the fold of its European neighbours. Stupidity knows no border.
- rocknor 5y ago

kzrdude 5y ago

China cares about its reputation. You can't push China around, but it is a bit sensitive to it.

vegetablepotpie 5y ago

Not OP, but I can address this. Leading by example does not compel anyone to act, it works the same way that nuclear treaties do not reduce nuclear arms. But we still have treaties and we have had no nuclear war in the last 70 years. Leading by example is necessary but not sufficient for carbon reduction. But it removes accusations of hypocrisy when talking about solutions, which makes discussions much more productive. China does have climate policy and it’s and issue that they do not ignore. They plant trees at the interface of deserts to prevent their expansion, they produce 80% of the worlds solar panels. China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China has a lot to lose from climate change. They will see reduced agricultural production from prairie land, in a country of over a billion people. A starving population will not allow the current regime to continue and the Chinese government has every reason to come to the table.

mercy_dude 5y ago
> China does have climate policy and it’s and issue that they do not ignore. They plant trees at the interface of deserts to prevent their expansion, they produce 80% of the worlds solar panels. China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. Sounds like you are avoiding the core question surrounding the real issue at hand - China and India are among one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas. There is no policy that can change that fact.
- vegetablepotpie 5y ago
  > There is no policy that can change that fact. That statement is completely false. There are many policies that China and India can enact to reduce production of greenhouse gasses. - put a price on carbon emissions (ex: California cap and trade) - put a tax on carbon (ex: Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act) - provide grants or tax breaks to clean energy projects
  - 5y ago

sandworm101 5y ago

>> If you think China gives a crap about your example you’re horrendously naive. Tell that to the legions of Chinese immigrants who have flocked to Canada in recent years. It happened during the Hong Kong handover too. The Chinese see Canada as the more tolerant alternative to the US. Canada's opinion on China matters because that opinion is shared by the many Chinese people living in Canada. What is naïve is to ignore the family and social connections between the countries.

poutine 5y ago
By and large the CCP shapes the internal narrative with respect to China, and increasingly globally. Social connections be damned. The Chinese will think what the CCP wants them to think. I say this as someone who has lived in China and with family in China.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  There are different groups in China. The bulk of the people will never travel internationally. They don't have much money/influence in the country. The ones that visit Canada are the rich and powerful. They are the leaders. They are the ones that will go home and set CCP policy. They visit Canada and see clean water and reasonable living standards are possible. When they go home they will demand those things. They will demand change when their college-age kids studying in Canada don't want to come home, or don't stay long when they do. That sort of slow influence can be more effective than the threat of violence.

LightG 5y ago

If that's true, then it's doesn't take a genius to sugget a multi-pronged strategy. 1) Lead be example. If that fails: 2) Import-tax the f@ck out of them, unless they comply with regulations. 3) Goto (1).

poutine 5y ago
Carbon taxes and tariffs would work yes. But you're imposing serious costs on people that they haven't shown any desire to support. Further, tariffs would disproportionately impact the poor in the developing world.
- LightG 5y ago
  I'm 100% against the embargo of Cuba ... but let me use that as an example of: "it's not as if the US hasn't/isn't doing exactly that in other arenas". But I take your point, and I'm not sure of the solution.
  - poutine 5y ago
    The solution is economic, just not via tariff or tax. Clean energy must supplant dirty energy at scale. The only way for this to happen is to make it cheaper so the developing world will use it instead.
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  > tariffs would disproportionately impact the poor in the developing world. So will climate change, and more so.