3 ms·

This would work about as well as appeasing the Nazis did

throwaway894345 5y ago
Here are a couple of not-rhetorical questions for you: * Which is worse in your mind? China's treatment of the Uyghurs or global civilizational collapse? * Does holding China accountable for its treatment of Uyghurs increase or decrease the likelihood that China will cooperate on climate?
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  You're being silly. The US can quietly cancel China by just banning them from US capital markets. Trump almost did, but ran out of time. China will never "cooperate on climate" since they have 3,000 coal electric plants (6x the US.)
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Not who you're asking but I feel like answering on my own behalf. 1) the treatment of the Uyghurs, hands down. Sometimes standing on your principles is what you have to do. Justice be done though the heavens may fall. 2) neither. China will do nothing that makes it harder for them to become the dominant economic, social and military force on earth. If burning coal gets them there that's what they'll do, and if lip service buys them time that's what they'll do. In case you haven't noticed, nobody is holding their feet to the fire on climate change. Turning a blind eye to genocide is not about climate change, it is about access to the lucrative Chinese middle class.
- FredPret 5y ago
  China is a dictatorship. If civilizational collapse or not depends on the mood of the Pooh Bear, we’re fucked. Luckily, it does not. Manufacturing is already shifting out of China to multiple other countries, and with increasing automation, might even end up back in the West. We’ll almost certainly have to do a combo of the following anyway: - limit emissions as much as possible using nuclear and solar - scrape carbon et al out of the atmosphere somehow - take a certain amount of warming on the chin and roll with it… again, somehow Luckily, our species is incredibly resourceful at coming up with hail-mary’s when our lives are on the line (past examples are global trade, fertilizers, vaccines, WW2)
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Luckily, it does not. Manufacturing is already shifting out of China to multiple other countries, and with increasing automation, might even end up back in the West. I'm nearly certain that it's not moving out of China into significantly greener countries, and certainly not at a rate that allows us to meet climate targets. > We’ll almost certainly have to do a combo of the following anyway: Yes, we will have to do those things anyway, but we in the west aren't even on track to hit targets that are based on the assumption that China and others will do some reasonable share. Unless the west kicks it into gear, we need China. > Luckily, our species is incredibly resourceful at coming up with hail-mary’s when our lives are on the line (past examples are global trade, fertilizers, vaccines, WW2) No, our civilization is incredibly resourceful. We've never had an advanced civilization until global temperatures stabilized within a few degrees. And we're threatening that because we're worried about the moral implications of allowing China to save face in order to save the world. Ironically you mention WWII, which involved far more, far worse moral tradeoffs than the one I'm proposing: firebombing and nuking civilians in Germany and Japan, starving the Indian subcontinent, etc. To be clear, those may well have been the right tradeoffs to make, but they cost far more lives and saved far fewer than what we're discussing here.
    - FredPret 5y ago
      Any manufacturing moving out of China is a good thing, even if it isn’t to a green country. If Vietnam, Phillipines, et al, then those are countries that can be strong-armed / sweet-talked into getting greener. If the West, well, then it’s even more in our hands. If we take this far enough, and we will, it also takes power out of China’s hands, meaning we don’t really need them to have the warm and fuzzies when we ask them nicely not to pollute. We tell them to stop polluting or we pull a boycott, divest, and sanctions on them. WW2 was a last resort to stop a very nearly unstoppable madman, but we pulled together and we did it. The insane tradeoffs made was only needed because it was during wartime. Pressuring China need not lead to WW3 (perish the thought) nor need it involve death on a large scale. What’s needed is an intelligent 5-10 decade economic strategy. We did this to scuttle the USSR and it worked, with minimal total deaths. Regarding the Uyghurs: a million-person concetration camp isn’t about “saving face”. Human civilization isn’t worth saving if we just let this slide because it’s easy and convenient to do so.
- codechicago277 5y ago
  I feel like there’s a disconnect between people who believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity within the next few years and those who believe it’s a problem that will get worse over time, but not an immediate existential threat. It’s worth pointing out that all doomsday prophesies so far haven’t come true, not just about climate change but nuclear warfare, asteroids hitting the earth, over-population, etc. overstating the immediate risks of climate change will lead to ignoring clear abuses like what China is doing to the Uyghurs.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > I feel like there’s a disconnect between people who believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity within the next few years and those who believe it’s a problem that will get worse over time, but not an immediate existential threat. I agree. One of many disconnects. > It’s worth pointing out that all doomsday prophesies so far haven’t come true, not just about climate change but nuclear warfare, asteroids hitting the earth, over-population, etc. Of these, I think only "nuclear warfare" was an alarm bell widely raised by scientists and it was precisely that alarm bell that led to nuclear disarmament and anti-proliferation policy (which averted the disaster). "We should do nothing because it always works out" is kind of silly when it has only worked out because people have done something. See also Y2K. > overstating the immediate risks of climate change will lead to ignoring clear abuses like what China is doing to the Uyghurs. Climate change isn't about the immediate risks (wealthy nations can largely live with a little drought, flooding, and wildfire), it's about the next century and beyond. But yes, I do think we should let this existential threat affect our decisions about Chinese human rights abuses, as a special case. Personally, I would love for the world to have invested heavily in nuclear 50 years ago to the extent that we don't have to worry about China's ego threatening all of civilization, but that's a reality we sadly don't inhabit.
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  >global civilizational collapse This is not even a remote possibility, or indicated in the IPCC reports.

Here are a couple of not-rhetorical questions for you: * Which is worse in your mind? China's treatment of the Uyghurs or global civilizational collapse? * Does holding China accountable for its treatment of Uyghurs increase or decrease the likelihood that China will cooperate on climate?

redis_mlc 5y ago
You're being silly. The US can quietly cancel China by just banning them from US capital markets. Trump almost did, but ran out of time. China will never "cooperate on climate" since they have 3,000 coal electric plants (6x the US.)
betwixthewires 5y ago
Not who you're asking but I feel like answering on my own behalf. 1) the treatment of the Uyghurs, hands down. Sometimes standing on your principles is what you have to do. Justice be done though the heavens may fall. 2) neither. China will do nothing that makes it harder for them to become the dominant economic, social and military force on earth. If burning coal gets them there that's what they'll do, and if lip service buys them time that's what they'll do. In case you haven't noticed, nobody is holding their feet to the fire on climate change. Turning a blind eye to genocide is not about climate change, it is about access to the lucrative Chinese middle class.
FredPret 5y ago
China is a dictatorship. If civilizational collapse or not depends on the mood of the Pooh Bear, we’re fucked. Luckily, it does not. Manufacturing is already shifting out of China to multiple other countries, and with increasing automation, might even end up back in the West. We’ll almost certainly have to do a combo of the following anyway: - limit emissions as much as possible using nuclear and solar - scrape carbon et al out of the atmosphere somehow - take a certain amount of warming on the chin and roll with it… again, somehow Luckily, our species is incredibly resourceful at coming up with hail-mary’s when our lives are on the line (past examples are global trade, fertilizers, vaccines, WW2)
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Luckily, it does not. Manufacturing is already shifting out of China to multiple other countries, and with increasing automation, might even end up back in the West. I'm nearly certain that it's not moving out of China into significantly greener countries, and certainly not at a rate that allows us to meet climate targets. > We’ll almost certainly have to do a combo of the following anyway: Yes, we will have to do those things anyway, but we in the west aren't even on track to hit targets that are based on the assumption that China and others will do some reasonable share. Unless the west kicks it into gear, we need China. > Luckily, our species is incredibly resourceful at coming up with hail-mary’s when our lives are on the line (past examples are global trade, fertilizers, vaccines, WW2) No, our civilization is incredibly resourceful. We've never had an advanced civilization until global temperatures stabilized within a few degrees. And we're threatening that because we're worried about the moral implications of allowing China to save face in order to save the world. Ironically you mention WWII, which involved far more, far worse moral tradeoffs than the one I'm proposing: firebombing and nuking civilians in Germany and Japan, starving the Indian subcontinent, etc. To be clear, those may well have been the right tradeoffs to make, but they cost far more lives and saved far fewer than what we're discussing here.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    Any manufacturing moving out of China is a good thing, even if it isn’t to a green country. If Vietnam, Phillipines, et al, then those are countries that can be strong-armed / sweet-talked into getting greener. If the West, well, then it’s even more in our hands. If we take this far enough, and we will, it also takes power out of China’s hands, meaning we don’t really need them to have the warm and fuzzies when we ask them nicely not to pollute. We tell them to stop polluting or we pull a boycott, divest, and sanctions on them. WW2 was a last resort to stop a very nearly unstoppable madman, but we pulled together and we did it. The insane tradeoffs made was only needed because it was during wartime. Pressuring China need not lead to WW3 (perish the thought) nor need it involve death on a large scale. What’s needed is an intelligent 5-10 decade economic strategy. We did this to scuttle the USSR and it worked, with minimal total deaths. Regarding the Uyghurs: a million-person concetration camp isn’t about “saving face”. Human civilization isn’t worth saving if we just let this slide because it’s easy and convenient to do so.
codechicago277 5y ago
I feel like there’s a disconnect between people who believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity within the next few years and those who believe it’s a problem that will get worse over time, but not an immediate existential threat. It’s worth pointing out that all doomsday prophesies so far haven’t come true, not just about climate change but nuclear warfare, asteroids hitting the earth, over-population, etc. overstating the immediate risks of climate change will lead to ignoring clear abuses like what China is doing to the Uyghurs.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > I feel like there’s a disconnect between people who believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity within the next few years and those who believe it’s a problem that will get worse over time, but not an immediate existential threat. I agree. One of many disconnects. > It’s worth pointing out that all doomsday prophesies so far haven’t come true, not just about climate change but nuclear warfare, asteroids hitting the earth, over-population, etc. Of these, I think only "nuclear warfare" was an alarm bell widely raised by scientists and it was precisely that alarm bell that led to nuclear disarmament and anti-proliferation policy (which averted the disaster). "We should do nothing because it always works out" is kind of silly when it has only worked out because people have done something. See also Y2K. > overstating the immediate risks of climate change will lead to ignoring clear abuses like what China is doing to the Uyghurs. Climate change isn't about the immediate risks (wealthy nations can largely live with a little drought, flooding, and wildfire), it's about the next century and beyond. But yes, I do think we should let this existential threat affect our decisions about Chinese human rights abuses, as a special case. Personally, I would love for the world to have invested heavily in nuclear 50 years ago to the extent that we don't have to worry about China's ego threatening all of civilization, but that's a reality we sadly don't inhabit.
defaultprimate 5y ago
>global civilizational collapse This is not even a remote possibility, or indicated in the IPCC reports.