3 ms·

I've always found it amusing that the primary driver for solar innovation stems from China's goal ending its civil war with Taiwan. Any conflict with Taiwan wou

I've always found it amusing that the primary driver for solar innovation stems from China's goal ending its civil war with Taiwan. Any conflict with Taiwan would involve the US, which would blockade the Straits of Malacca and halt Chinese oil imports, putting on enough economic pressure to drive the war to a halt after several months. Any attempt to reclaim Taiwan would end in failure. This was a P0 national security issue, So China hyper-invested into alternative energy technologies, subsidizing and overproducing solar technologies at a loss, while investing in electric transportation and moving away from fossil fuels. It's paying off. Over the past 25 years, this strategy is proving to be very successful and by the end of this decade, the Malacca weakness will be overcome. As a result, the rest of the world gets to enjoy cheap solar energy and cheap EVs.

wahern 6mo ago
The fact China had a huge smog problem, with hundreds of millions of people choking on coal emissions like it was 19th century London, also had something to do with it.
- unixhero 6mo ago
  And Shenzen as an example would be an absolute hellhole if they hadn't mandated all electric vehicles, from tuktuks, motorbikes (must be electric) and taxis. This would have impacted ability to engage in the rapid economic growth seen there.
vrganj 6mo ago
It also sets up a Chinese-European green energy based alignment of interests to counter the toxic fossil Russo-American axis.
- tristanj 6mo ago
  Any alignment between China and Europe will be short lived. China is more technologically advanced than Europe, it doesn't need anything from Europe. Europe has little to offer China other than being a market to export Chinese goods, and political sway to hamper the Americans. The relationship has no mutual self-interest, it's one sided, and is bound to fall apart. China's undemocratic political system and mercantilist behavior are not reconcilable issues. These issues will compound over time to a breaking point. To counter the persistent trade deficit with China, Europe will need to impose a tariff on Chinese imports, otherwise its industry will be overrun by Chinese manufacturing and millions of jobs will be lost. This is already happening. Or Europe can accept China as the senior partner in the relationship, which it won't, due to pride and the European ideal that all countries are equal on the world stage. These are not solvable issues, the EU and China are not aligned at a fundamental level. In contrast, EU/Russia and EU/US relationships actually make more sense, because both partners have mutual self-interest to maintain a relationship.
  - bryanlarsen 6mo ago
    Europe doesn't offer anything for China except customers, which is pretty much the only thing China wants from the world.
  - taffydavid 6mo ago
    > In contrast, EU/Russia and EU/US relationships actually make more sense, because both partners have mutual self-interest to maintain a relationship. Would love to know how you can defend the claim that the EU and China are fundamentally not aligned, unlike the EU Russia and EU US. Russia is at war with a country that wants to join the EU. The US almost invaded EU territory at the start of this year and threatened to leave NATO. China and the EU have done nothing but sign trade agreements throughout all that time
    - shmeeed 6mo ago
      To be fair, up until 2022 and 2025 respectively, the common understanding was that EU/US and even EU/Russian relationships were beneficial for all parties involved. Then both relationships were unnecessarily and unilaterally broken, and China profited from that. People here like to dump on the EU, but I' argue that considering they were betrayed by two of their most important strategic partners within a span of four years, they're still holding up quite well.
    - tristanj 6mo ago
      Russia has cheap energy and abundant natural resources, but lacks industrial capacity. Europe needs both, and has decent industry. There is mutually beneficial trade. The US has the world's strongest military. The US offers Europe military protection in exchange for military access and political sway to maintain its position as the global hegemon. In exchange, Europe gets to export its goods to the US, backs up the US on the world stage, and Europe profits from a trade surplus. It's win-win. A Europe-China deal has neither of these. China does not have abundant natural resources to export. And China will never provide military protection to Europe. And China does not need anything from Europe. The best Europe can offer is market access, to buy Chinese overproduced manufacturing, but that will decimate Europe's industry. Europe doesn't have an equivalent good that China needs, so it will run a trade deficit, which is a losing trade in the long term. It's win-lose: China wins, Europe loses. A relationship with China will never provide the same level of benefits as Europe's relationships with the US or Russia. Any idea of Europe replacing its relationships with a new one with China is a short sighted knee-jerk reaction.

wahern 6mo ago

The fact China had a huge smog problem, with hundreds of millions of people choking on coal emissions like it was 19th century London, also had something to do with it.

unixhero 6mo ago
And Shenzen as an example would be an absolute hellhole if they hadn't mandated all electric vehicles, from tuktuks, motorbikes (must be electric) and taxis. This would have impacted ability to engage in the rapid economic growth seen there.

vrganj 6mo ago

It also sets up a Chinese-European green energy based alignment of interests to counter the toxic fossil Russo-American axis.

tristanj 6mo ago
Any alignment between China and Europe will be short lived. China is more technologically advanced than Europe, it doesn't need anything from Europe. Europe has little to offer China other than being a market to export Chinese goods, and political sway to hamper the Americans. The relationship has no mutual self-interest, it's one sided, and is bound to fall apart. China's undemocratic political system and mercantilist behavior are not reconcilable issues. These issues will compound over time to a breaking point. To counter the persistent trade deficit with China, Europe will need to impose a tariff on Chinese imports, otherwise its industry will be overrun by Chinese manufacturing and millions of jobs will be lost. This is already happening. Or Europe can accept China as the senior partner in the relationship, which it won't, due to pride and the European ideal that all countries are equal on the world stage. These are not solvable issues, the EU and China are not aligned at a fundamental level. In contrast, EU/Russia and EU/US relationships actually make more sense, because both partners have mutual self-interest to maintain a relationship.
- bryanlarsen 6mo ago
  Europe doesn't offer anything for China except customers, which is pretty much the only thing China wants from the world.
- taffydavid 6mo ago
  > In contrast, EU/Russia and EU/US relationships actually make more sense, because both partners have mutual self-interest to maintain a relationship. Would love to know how you can defend the claim that the EU and China are fundamentally not aligned, unlike the EU Russia and EU US. Russia is at war with a country that wants to join the EU. The US almost invaded EU territory at the start of this year and threatened to leave NATO. China and the EU have done nothing but sign trade agreements throughout all that time
  - shmeeed 6mo ago
    To be fair, up until 2022 and 2025 respectively, the common understanding was that EU/US and even EU/Russian relationships were beneficial for all parties involved. Then both relationships were unnecessarily and unilaterally broken, and China profited from that. People here like to dump on the EU, but I' argue that considering they were betrayed by two of their most important strategic partners within a span of four years, they're still holding up quite well.
  - tristanj 6mo ago
    Russia has cheap energy and abundant natural resources, but lacks industrial capacity. Europe needs both, and has decent industry. There is mutually beneficial trade. The US has the world's strongest military. The US offers Europe military protection in exchange for military access and political sway to maintain its position as the global hegemon. In exchange, Europe gets to export its goods to the US, backs up the US on the world stage, and Europe profits from a trade surplus. It's win-win. A Europe-China deal has neither of these. China does not have abundant natural resources to export. And China will never provide military protection to Europe. And China does not need anything from Europe. The best Europe can offer is market access, to buy Chinese overproduced manufacturing, but that will decimate Europe's industry. Europe doesn't have an equivalent good that China needs, so it will run a trade deficit, which is a losing trade in the long term. It's win-lose: China wins, Europe loses. A relationship with China will never provide the same level of benefits as Europe's relationships with the US or Russia. Any idea of Europe replacing its relationships with a new one with China is a short sighted knee-jerk reaction.