3 ms·

> 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 th

> 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.
- throwaway894345 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. Maybe given enough time, but there's no way this is happening fast enough to meet climate targets. > The insane tradeoffs made was only needed because it was during wartime. This is cyclical reasoning. "We only needed to resort to warfare because we were in a war". Typically we justify warfare by something like, "if we didn't go to war, many more lives would have been lost". And if you can firebomb and nuke entire cities to save millions, can we not withhold a rebuke on Uyghurs to save hundreds of millions? > Pressuring China need not lead to WW3 (perish the thought) nor need it involve death on a large scale. If we can pressure China on Uyghurs without risking climate, then great. I'm not confident considering the tenuous relationship between China and the West. > 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. We had a functional government and a more politically united population in the second half of the 20th century. Today we have one party that largely thinks climate change is a hoax and the other does little more than lip service.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    I disagree with you on the Uyghurs but I think there should be more thinking people in politics. You should go into it.

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.

throwaway894345 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. Maybe given enough time, but there's no way this is happening fast enough to meet climate targets. > The insane tradeoffs made was only needed because it was during wartime. This is cyclical reasoning. "We only needed to resort to warfare because we were in a war". Typically we justify warfare by something like, "if we didn't go to war, many more lives would have been lost". And if you can firebomb and nuke entire cities to save millions, can we not withhold a rebuke on Uyghurs to save hundreds of millions? > Pressuring China need not lead to WW3 (perish the thought) nor need it involve death on a large scale. If we can pressure China on Uyghurs without risking climate, then great. I'm not confident considering the tenuous relationship between China and the West. > 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. We had a functional government and a more politically united population in the second half of the 20th century. Today we have one party that largely thinks climate change is a hoax and the other does little more than lip service.
- FredPret 5y ago
  I disagree with you on the Uyghurs but I think there should be more thinking people in politics. You should go into it.