3 ms·

I recently discovered that their energy transition policy goes back to 10th 5 year plan (2001-2005). I think though a lit of focus was then transitioning from c

by bgnn 2y ago

I recently discovered that their energy transition policy goes back to 10th 5 year plan (2001-2005). I think though a lit of focus was then transitioning from coal to natural gas and nuclear, which isn't surprising. What is interesting is they odentified PV and wind energy as key technologies for future to de-caebonize. 5 years later, with 11th 5 year plan they have made reducing energy intensity and emissions by 20% a binding target, which was binding for everyone including the higher ups and lowest level of government employees. This made a lot of funds availabile for these projects and R&D. They went beyond the target. Currently they have a massive edge to the West, because contemporary capitalism focuses heavily on quarterly earnings rather than lobger term goals. So there are two systems competing and optimizing for different metrics.

hagbard_c 2y ago
> Currently they have a massive edge to the West, because contemporary capitalism focuses heavily on quarterly earnings rather than lobger term goals You're forgetting about the environmental impact studies and the resulting bans to build anything in areas which are deemed to be important habitats. About the miles of red tape and stacks of regulations which need to be followed to build anything in 'the west'. Having an autocratic government which can just dictate whatever they want does help to get things going but in the west such a government style is only ever seen in times of war and even then they do not have as much authority as the CCP has in China. This is unrelated to the economic system - a capitalist dictatorship could achieve the same by pushing through its demands - so it does not make sense to blame it on 'capitalism'. It is the autocracy which makes it possible.
- chii 2y ago
  > It is the autocracy which makes it possible. which is the whole point of the ideology of the CCP - that autocratic gov't, rather than democracy, is a better governing structure. The idea is not even new - it stems from ancient china, from the days of the emperors. That their rule is mandated by heaven, and that they know what's best for the country.
  - hagbard_c 2y ago
    The same idea was tried in Europe some 2500 to 2000 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_dictators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_dictators The difference here is that Roman dictators were appointed to fix specific problems and did not derive their mandate from the heavens. Eventually the dictatorship took on a life of its own which then led to the fall of the Roman republic and the start of the Roman Empire - which later fell due to mismanagement and possibly the effects of a cooling climate [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
- bgnn 2y ago
  I don't believe democracies cannot build big infrastructure because it's hard to get permits. This ignores the reality of last 200 years, especially the cold war. I don't believe capitalism inherently incapable of this either. China, as you said, an autocratic country but not a socialist one. It is plainly capitalist, and they are able to make German EV manufacturers sweat.
  - hagbard_c 2y ago
    Democracies are certainly capable of building infrastructure but they tend to be less agile than dictatorships since they can not just appropriate land and disown whomever they please. This is a good thing in times of peace and prosperity but it can be a hindrance in times of war. China is not a capitalist country though, the system is closer to some form of fascism which is just one of the many forms of collectivism under which socialism and communism also reside. Fascism and socialism/communism are closely related through their reliance on central economic planning and the fact that they empower the state over the individual, it is mostly rhetoric which divides them. Socialism is the pre-stage to communism, the difference being that in a socialist state the means of production are owned by the state while the state is supposed to wither away under communism because it is no longer needed.

by bgnn 2y ago

hagbard_c 2y ago

> Currently they have a massive edge to the West, because contemporary capitalism focuses heavily on quarterly earnings rather than lobger term goals You're forgetting about the environmental impact studies and the resulting bans to build anything in areas which are deemed to be important habitats. About the miles of red tape and stacks of regulations which need to be followed to build anything in 'the west'. Having an autocratic government which can just dictate whatever they want does help to get things going but in the west such a government style is only ever seen in times of war and even then they do not have as much authority as the CCP has in China. This is unrelated to the economic system - a capitalist dictatorship could achieve the same by pushing through its demands - so it does not make sense to blame it on 'capitalism'. It is the autocracy which makes it possible.

chii 2y ago
> It is the autocracy which makes it possible. which is the whole point of the ideology of the CCP - that autocratic gov't, rather than democracy, is a better governing structure. The idea is not even new - it stems from ancient china, from the days of the emperors. That their rule is mandated by heaven, and that they know what's best for the country.
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  The same idea was tried in Europe some 2500 to 2000 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_dictators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_dictators The difference here is that Roman dictators were appointed to fix specific problems and did not derive their mandate from the heavens. Eventually the dictatorship took on a life of its own which then led to the fall of the Roman republic and the start of the Roman Empire - which later fell due to mismanagement and possibly the effects of a cooling climate [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
bgnn 2y ago
I don't believe democracies cannot build big infrastructure because it's hard to get permits. This ignores the reality of last 200 years, especially the cold war. I don't believe capitalism inherently incapable of this either. China, as you said, an autocratic country but not a socialist one. It is plainly capitalist, and they are able to make German EV manufacturers sweat.
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  Democracies are certainly capable of building infrastructure but they tend to be less agile than dictatorships since they can not just appropriate land and disown whomever they please. This is a good thing in times of peace and prosperity but it can be a hindrance in times of war. China is not a capitalist country though, the system is closer to some form of fascism which is just one of the many forms of collectivism under which socialism and communism also reside. Fascism and socialism/communism are closely related through their reliance on central economic planning and the fact that they empower the state over the individual, it is mostly rhetoric which divides them. Socialism is the pre-stage to communism, the difference being that in a socialist state the means of production are owned by the state while the state is supposed to wither away under communism because it is no longer needed.