3 ms·

I’m interested in how this editorial got written. It’s not attributed to anyone and the language and perspective seem to me to be CCP talking points. “Sustaina

I’m interested in how this editorial got written. It’s not attributed to anyone and the language and perspective seem to me to be CCP talking points. “Sustainability, equity and security are all at risk in the rush to break China’s dominance over their production.” - I can think of one entity which wouldn’t want China’s dominance of rare earth production broken and it’s not the DRC. “China’s ascendancy is the result of forward thinking by the country’s leadership” - Seems strangely flattering since it doesn’t seem like it adds anything to the arguments or the context. “it is not in the interests of any nation to partner with just one other country or group of countries” - I believe this is explicitly a CCP talking point (link below for reference). Obviously, other people might say it but it seems sort of… suspect? Like the article purports to make a moralistic claim about exploitation and then goes into pure realpolitik. In my opinion that’s the sort of thing you’d only say if you were wearing social justice as a mask and didn’t actually believe in it yourself. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjbxw/202302/t20230220_11027664.html https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjbxw/202302/t20230220_1102...

tough 3y ago
I guess like you can buy -articles- on my local newspaper for your local business, now you can buy -papers- on nature or whatever, must be a case of how much money you paying for the ad Submarines are pretty easy to detect once you've been here for a while tho http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
0xDEF 3y ago
Is there any open data about how big a market China is for Nature, Elsevier etc.?
metacritic12 3y ago
I think it just happens in this case that the pie-maximizing-in-cooperative-state behaviour == not duplicating mining efforts == China favoring. An opposite argument could be make for semiconductors. In that case, the environmental approach is to NOT make multiple fabs, keep them in Taiwan / the Netherlands, and discourage China from making new fabs. This would be against China. Generally, the environmental position favors not duplicating effort, which favors the current incumbent.
- icegreentea2 3y ago
  The editorial actually very carefully (and rightfully) isn't arguing for 'let China do all the mining' (or even avoiding duplicating mining efforts). It clearly says so "But it would be unwise for the rest of the world to rely on just one country for the processing of critical minerals" (and logically the same would be true for mining). The editorial is arguing against trading blocs. In fact, it's arguing for some form of free trade. This benefits China in both that it is currently in a dominant position in terms of market and capacity, and also favors China in that it neutralizes one area where the US generally holds advantages - better soft power, and a being generally thought more favourably than China.
hker 3y ago
> “Sustainability, equity and security are all at risk in the rush to break China’s dominance over their production.” Chinese dominance of rare earth production is not sustainable, either, using lax regulations to externalize environmental and health hazards: leaking radioactive residue (like thorium) and other toxic waste, polluting water sources (including the Yellow River), neglecting worker safety, and abusing human rights.[1] > “China’s ascendancy is the result of forward thinking by the country’s leadership” One forward thinking of China is to move its operation through its state-owned enterprises to Africa, contaminating outside communities instead.[1] [1]: https://hir.harvard.edu/not-so-green-technology-the-complicated-legacy-of-rare-earth-mining/ https://hir.harvard.edu/not-so-green-technology-the-complica... "Not So “Green” Technology: The Complicated Legacy of Rare Earth Mining"
- soco 3y ago
  That "forward thinking" - just done by occidental leaders and called outsourcing - is what brought China in this privileged position in the first place. Should we expect next an African country rising to superpower statute?
steve76 3y ago
[dead]

tough 3y ago

I guess like you can buy -articles- on my local newspaper for your local business, now you can buy -papers- on nature or whatever, must be a case of how much money you paying for the ad Submarines are pretty easy to detect once you've been here for a while tho http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

0xDEF 3y ago

Is there any open data about how big a market China is for Nature, Elsevier etc.?

metacritic12 3y ago

I think it just happens in this case that the pie-maximizing-in-cooperative-state behaviour == not duplicating mining efforts == China favoring. An opposite argument could be make for semiconductors. In that case, the environmental approach is to NOT make multiple fabs, keep them in Taiwan / the Netherlands, and discourage China from making new fabs. This would be against China. Generally, the environmental position favors not duplicating effort, which favors the current incumbent.

icegreentea2 3y ago
The editorial actually very carefully (and rightfully) isn't arguing for 'let China do all the mining' (or even avoiding duplicating mining efforts). It clearly says so "But it would be unwise for the rest of the world to rely on just one country for the processing of critical minerals" (and logically the same would be true for mining). The editorial is arguing against trading blocs. In fact, it's arguing for some form of free trade. This benefits China in both that it is currently in a dominant position in terms of market and capacity, and also favors China in that it neutralizes one area where the US generally holds advantages - better soft power, and a being generally thought more favourably than China.

hker 3y ago

> “Sustainability, equity and security are all at risk in the rush to break China’s dominance over their production.” Chinese dominance of rare earth production is not sustainable, either, using lax regulations to externalize environmental and health hazards: leaking radioactive residue (like thorium) and other toxic waste, polluting water sources (including the Yellow River), neglecting worker safety, and abusing human rights.[1] > “China’s ascendancy is the result of forward thinking by the country’s leadership” One forward thinking of China is to move its operation through its state-owned enterprises to Africa, contaminating outside communities instead.[1] [1]: https://hir.harvard.edu/not-so-green-technology-the-complicated-legacy-of-rare-earth-mining/ https://hir.harvard.edu/not-so-green-technology-the-complica... "Not So “Green” Technology: The Complicated Legacy of Rare Earth Mining"

soco 3y ago
That "forward thinking" - just done by occidental leaders and called outsourcing - is what brought China in this privileged position in the first place. Should we expect next an African country rising to superpower statute?

steve76 3y ago

[dead]