4 ms·

I understand you were talking about energy. My point is that an argument that boils down to "you did this in the past, so I get to do it now" loses its consist

by geebee 14y ago

I understand you were talking about energy. My point is that an argument that boils down to "you did this in the past, so I get to do it now" loses its consistency if the person (or country) making it is so clearly willing to benefit from the fact that they are not industrializing in the 1800s. Clearly they don't plan to do everything the same way England did in the 1800s. China is industrializing in an era when we have technologies that can increase survival rates and extend lifetimes dramatically, when we have greater awareness of the negative externalities of dirty fossil fuel technology, and we have far greater options for generating energy. This leads to a different set of obligations and opportunities. I don't think that the "west", or the US in particular, has come close to meeting those obligations. But that's a different issue. My point here is a more narrow one - if you're going to pick and choose which technologies you're going to use, the claim that you get to do this the 1800s way loses almost all its moral force. Instead, this is "if it benefits us to do things the old way, we will remind you that you did it this way and insist that we get to do it that way too. If it benefits us to do things the new way, hey, we're a modern country, why on earth should we be shacked to the crappy old way you used to do things"

protomyth 14y ago
"you did this in the past, so I get to do it now" No, it boils down to "I did it this way and nothing has come along to replace this way". There is no energy revolution at scale, reliability, and continuous 24x7 (through the night / in the calm) production. "China is industrializing in an era when we have technologies that can increase survival rates and extend lifetimes dramatically, when we have greater awareness of the negative externalities of dirty fossil fuel technology, and we have far greater options for generating energy. This leads to a different set of obligations and opportunities." Yet, they still use coal to an excess. It is simple economics. Nuclear has been demonized, and coal is cheap, easy, and well understood. The 1800's way is the 1900's way is the 2000's way. Coal and oil are still the way. Until someone beats coal and oil on all features, it won't change. It is that way in a lot of human activities.
- jbooth 14y ago
  It's not simple economics, accounting for externalities is really complex and fraught with subjectivity. What price on early deaths, reductions in labor force and increased medical bills? I've been to China a couple times, the pollution is bad. Any place where hello kitty surgical masks are a fashion item, that should tell you something about the air quality. This is why China is actually investing a ton in renewables now -- it's not about the US pulling up a ladder behind us (as if we could), it's about what's best for Chinese and for the world. They are not obligated to use coal for 100 years before moving up the ladder -- heck, they can beat us up it, since they're actually willing to invest in infrastructure and we're not.
  - geebee 14y ago
    This is the saving grace of the situation. China's leadership must be aware of what will happen if they try to meet the energy needs of a billion people through dirty coal. China's challenges are very different from what England faced in the 1850s. But in that sense, perhaps their path will be similar - they will face unprecedented challenges, and will have to innovate to solve them. And if they do solve them, they will now have a massive first-mover advantage.

by geebee 14y ago

protomyth 14y ago

"you did this in the past, so I get to do it now" No, it boils down to "I did it this way and nothing has come along to replace this way". There is no energy revolution at scale, reliability, and continuous 24x7 (through the night / in the calm) production. "China is industrializing in an era when we have technologies that can increase survival rates and extend lifetimes dramatically, when we have greater awareness of the negative externalities of dirty fossil fuel technology, and we have far greater options for generating energy. This leads to a different set of obligations and opportunities." Yet, they still use coal to an excess. It is simple economics. Nuclear has been demonized, and coal is cheap, easy, and well understood. The 1800's way is the 1900's way is the 2000's way. Coal and oil are still the way. Until someone beats coal and oil on all features, it won't change. It is that way in a lot of human activities.

jbooth 14y ago
It's not simple economics, accounting for externalities is really complex and fraught with subjectivity. What price on early deaths, reductions in labor force and increased medical bills? I've been to China a couple times, the pollution is bad. Any place where hello kitty surgical masks are a fashion item, that should tell you something about the air quality. This is why China is actually investing a ton in renewables now -- it's not about the US pulling up a ladder behind us (as if we could), it's about what's best for Chinese and for the world. They are not obligated to use coal for 100 years before moving up the ladder -- heck, they can beat us up it, since they're actually willing to invest in infrastructure and we're not.
- geebee 14y ago
  This is the saving grace of the situation. China's leadership must be aware of what will happen if they try to meet the energy needs of a billion people through dirty coal. China's challenges are very different from what England faced in the 1850s. But in that sense, perhaps their path will be similar - they will face unprecedented challenges, and will have to innovate to solve them. And if they do solve them, they will now have a massive first-mover advantage.