Capitalism moves manufacturing to a location with less regulation or the overhead from regulation, resulting in more profits for the capitalists. This is clearly not because of capitalism.
This is not a result of capitalism. It’s simply the result of competition. Now if you want to erase country borders, that’s a different discussion. But as long as one country doesn’t regulate fossil fuel emissions, it doesn’t matter what economic system they use, capitalism, communism, or whatever, they’re going to be able to produce goods for cheaper. Because they’re ignoring the real costs.
nice stats, now lets talk about emissions per person - neat how you picked the stat that ignores the current state of things and only focuses on how even more emissions the west used to produce
also, the reason the wheels haven’t well and truly fallen off of the global economy is because china has halved oil imports recently to avoid the ill advised us war on iran leading to an oil availability cliff. they (regrettably, but perhaps unavoidably) have used coal heavily (in combination with larger oil reserves than the rest of the world combined) to cut their own demand dramatically and abruptly to bail out the rest of the world
it isn’t unreasonable to see china’s short term reliance on more dirty forms of energy as a tool for energy independence (critical when the us can single handedly cause an international fuel crisis) being used strategically while china continues to rapidly switch to renewables at a rate that puts most western countries to shame
in short, maybe china isn’t to blame; capitalism and neoliberalism is
I mentioned this in another thread which tried to use “emissions per capita”, but that isn’t a great metric because it is biased towards low productivity. We had very low emissions pre-1800s, for example. And North Korea has 4x less emissions per capita than China, are we supposed to follow North Korea’s lead?
Also I hate how everybody constantly frames China as a poor helpless victim of capitalism. This was also mentioned in another thread here. China chose to shift to capitalism at the end of the 1900s. And they can choose to impose stricter regulation on fossil fuel emissions. They choose not to because it hurts their bottom line. Simple as that.
The US and EU have controlled their emissions, while China’s continues to grow. China has the highest GDP in the world, and 7th highest GDP per capita, it has no excuse anymore.
China has all the hallmarks of capitalism - widening wealth gap, massive housing speculation, horrible working conditions, etc. If China gets to use dirty energy as a “short term strategy” with some vague promise to do better in the future, then why not the West? We could call all the evils of the world just “short term strategy”.
not some vague promise - china is famously switching to renewables very quickly - check the same website you linked in your previous comment if you need a source for china outpacing the west on renewables - and did the whole thing about china leveraging coal right now to very literally save the world economy from the very predictable crisis caused by the us aggression towards iran just bounce silently off your brain? china focusing on energy resiliency is a trade-off but one you should be presently grateful for (and again, despite that trade-off, china is at or near the top of the list for rate of renewable adoption)
do you really expect china to cap their per capita emissions well below the current per capita emissions of the us? let’s be serious. as you point out, to do so would be to expect china to kneecap itself economically in a way you wouldn’t demand of a western country - are you just mad china has so many more citizens? or are you scared of how far china would be ahead economically if it allowed itself as many emissions per person as the us?
on the subject of china not being a “poor helpless victim of capitalism” i will just point at cuba and so many historical examples of what the global north does to counties that don’t bow sufficiently to capital to be labeled comfortably capitalist enough to slot easily into the neo-liberal international economy. (even if not capitalist enough to not constantly be called communist at the same time)
out of one side of your mouth you say that emissions per capita isn’t a great metric because it is biased towards low productivity - presumably meaning you think it makes china look better unfairly because you are lumping it in with north korea and you see both as under-developed backwaters (also it’s cute how you put “emissions per capita” in quotes as if it’s some made up measure and not literally the first stat on the page for each country on the webpage you use as a source)
but out of the other side of your mouth you point out that china has the highest gdp in the world and is in the top ten for gdp per capita and so it is an advanced, economically powerful country and so should be more strictly controlling its emissions per capita (dramatically more strictly than the us, you seem to believe)
you can’t have it both ways. instead, let’s be consistent and expect the countries with the highest emissions per capita to aggressively reduce those emissions and expect developing countries, like china, to stay below or equal with the emissions of developed countries
(we could argue about if the huge headstart the currently developed countries have means that is already unfair but at this point, personally, i believe the need to work together to reduce emissions makes that a backseat issue.)
out of one side of your mouth …but out of the other side of your mouth
Both can be true. I’m saying that even though China is less advanced than the US (as evidenced by the lower GDP per capita and lower emissions per capita), China still has enough GDP per capita to be amongst the top nations of the world.
At the very least, they should be reducing their emissions like the other top nations. I’m not asking more from China than I am from western nations. I’m asking for them to do the same.
Most greenhouse gas emissions occurred when colonizer Western countries were industrialized. They were not “properly regulated”, instead they were offshored in order to discipline labor and extract even greater profits. The offshoring was not exclusive to China, GHGs accordingly increased everywhere that further industrialized as a result of this. This effect is about as capitalist as it gets, trying to maximize profits via labor discipline and opening new fronts for increased exploitation (more profit per worker).
China’s approach to this shift was to realize it was an opportunity to build their own productive forces, that capitalists would give up productive centers and move them to other countries, and those countries should be able to domestically gain and upper hand so long as they ensured that production could broadly increased with every investment. For example, China requires technology transfer as part of direct foreign investment. China was correct in this and it is why it is an exception to the rule for national development as a former peripheral country. Compare ita development to India, which did not require such transfers or focus on building production.
Now, again, this means that industrial production moved outside the imperial core and into other countries, including but not limited to China. That industry did not suddenly become green nor did it become immune to the global economic system. It meant being wed to it. As we all know China’s strategy is one of interdependency with global capitalism even as they try to steer an otherwise anarchic process in a coherent direction via the commanding heights of the economy.
And yet we can see the difference those commanding heights make even on this specific issue. China is the global exporter and consumer of green energy, leading the charge on solar panels that countries like the US sanction and tariff, instead promoting fossil fuels. China is taking the actual steps you’d imagine Western nations doing (even though they never have), like setting public targets and meeting or exceeding them, and sticking to their obligations.
Imagine what could be done if every country could work in concert for those developments. Specifically, against the anarchic tendencies of the market and capitalist profit seeking.
Why are you acting like China is a poor helpless victim to capitalism here. China chose to shift to capitalism at the end of the 1900s. And they can choose to impose stricter regulation on fossil fuel emissions. They choose not to because it hurts their bottom line. Simple as that.
The US and EU have controlled their emissions, while China’s continues to grow. China has the highest GDP in the world, and 7th highest GDP per capita, it has no excuse anymore.
Why are you acting like China is a poor helpless victim to capitalism here.
I didn’t. I gave a pretty dry analysis. Maybe ask yourself why that feels overly sympathetic to you.
China chose to shift to capitalism at the end of the 1900s.
That’s not a particularly accurate or useful description of China’s gambit to allow (mostly foreign) capital to exploit its people to build productive forces while maintaining overall control over sweeping aspects of their economy. If China simply switched to capitalism one then has to explain why it is so different from every other capitalist country. China’s trajectory is responsible for the vast majority of global poverty index improvements and this runs in dramatic contrast to the rest of the periphery that was already fully capitalist and continues to be. The redirection of funds and productive capacity to infrastructure, education, housing, direct poverty alleviation. The limits/outright bans on the financialization and speculation that characterize imperial core economies. The policy of embedding the party in large firms and turning developed industries into state-meditated co-ops. The lack of imperialist expansion required by monopolized, financialized capital. But I digress.
And they can choose to impose stricter regulation on fossil fuel emissions.
Sure. They could set them to any arbitrary level. What is the correct rate for it to be sustained? Remember, they’re almost alone in meeting targets among countries as advanced as they are. What level of production flight should they unilaterally sacrifice, if any, and who picks up the slack? At which limits do they begin sacrificing that production? Are their regulations too loose or strict for the optimal trajectory? Why are we focusing on one of the only countries meeting their targets and making progress on renewables?
They choose not to because it hurts their bottom line. Simple as that.
It is, in fact, not as simple as that and this ignores the active work and debate within China that produces the results we are discussing. They aren’t making their targets because that’s just what capitalism does. It’s deliberate, literally a result of deliberation, research, modeling, and pulling levers at the commanding heights.
The US and EU have controlled their emissions
lmfao you can’t be serious they can’t even meet their own targets. France is the only one that ever does and it’s because they became a primary source of nuclear weapons materials (producing low emission energy as a nice side effect).
while China’s continues to gro
[Edit: nearly] Everyone’s continue to grow. The targets are set, at the moment, for when they will hit peak and then begin dropping. China’s peak target is set to 2030 and they are slated to beat that.
China has the highest GDP in the world, and 7th highest GDP per capita, it has no excuse anymore.
Which part of “the only ones taking this seriously” is not registering?
Everybody’s economy is different, China is no snowflake. But I am not going to debate whether China’s capitalism is “good capitalism” or not, that feels like pulling hairs and is a digression as you yourself said.
How much should China regulate? At the very least enough to stop the growth. I think that’s a simple enough answer.
Everyone’s continue to grow
Not true. The US and EU have been lowering emissions for the past 20 years.
Everybody’s economy is different, China is no snowflake.
Actually it is. The trajectory of other peripheral countries is quite different. Compare to India, look at poverty stats when China is removed.
But I am not going to debate whether China’s capitalism is “good capitalism” or not, that feels like pulling hairs and is a digression as you yourself said.
You can’t debate the topic at all, clearly, but sure want to continue making the claim that it simply switched to capitalism. Maybe don’t say things your can’t bc defend?
How much should China regulate? At the very least enough to stop the growth. I think that’s a simple enough answer.
It doesn’t address the obvious trade-off I laid out. Why are India’s Paris commitments currently greater than zero?
So, what was China’s target for peak emissions? What does peak emissions mean? How are they doing regarding that target?
Not true. The US and EU have been lowering emissions for the past 20 years.
If you focus solely on production you can eke out such numbers, but it ignores the basics of imperialism and the aforementioned offshoring where industry doesn’t just magically become green. Shuffling around where industry is located didn’t decrease emissions by itself. Emissions targets do not stick exclusively to production and, I have to repeat again because you keep ignoring it, the US and EU are failing to meet their commitments. Yet you focus on one of the few countries that is. I wonder why. I wonder why you ignore 80% of what I say. Perhaps you should take a little break.
If you include consumption the plots look very different. And I’m not aware of easily available stats that track based on industry ownership.
The reason I’m not debating China’s flavor of capitalism is because it’s irrelevant. They don’t get a free pass on carbon emissions no matter what economy they have.
And yes there’s a trade-off, regulating fossil fuels increases production costs. That’s the trade-off everybody makes.
Bottom line is that China’s emissions are huge and still growing. They are meeting commitments because those commitments were low in the first place. For example China only commited to peak emissions by 2030. The US and EU never needed to make such a commitment because they had already reached their peak in 2005.
And yes they perform a large portion of the world’s manufacturing, this “shuffling” of industries that you mentioned. But their lower regulations on emissions is precisely one of the reasons why manufacturing moves there. If they regulated more heavily, then some manufacturing would move out, but at least total global emissions would go down. Every country needs to participate in raising the cost of fossil fuels, in order for it to work.
The reason I’m not debating China’s flavor of capitalism is because it’s irrelevant.
You brought it up (and are reasserting it in this quote), same as how you bring up China unasked. Clearly you thought it was relevant, you are just trying to avoid responsibility for your claims.
They don’t get a free pass on carbon emissions no matter what economy they have.
Which part of “meeting or exceeding their Paris targets” reads as “get a free pass” to you?
And yes there’s a trade-off, regulating fossil fuels increases production costs. That’s the trade-off everybody makes.
Oh so the decision of what to target isn’t just “no increases immediately”? Glad we agree and can stop pretending it’s so simplistic. Though I see you neglected to acknowledge India’s targets.
Bottom line is that China’s emissions are huge and still growing. They are meeting commitments because those commitments were low in the first place.
The commitments of China were nearly an order of magnitude higher than the EU and US actually. By the way the US withdrew and is going hog wild.
For example China only commited to peak emissions by 2030.
And they are meeting their commitments, even exceeding them, despite being the primary seat of global production while the EU continues to deindustrialize.
The US and EU never needed to make such a commitment because they had already reached their peak in 2005.
In production, yes. They are deindustrializing. Their targets are much easier to hit, they follow the global capitalist economic trend re: imperialism, offshoring. It is actually much harder to reduce emissions while taking on the industry that’s being outsourced.
And yes they perform a large portion of the world’s manufacturing, this “shuffling” of industries that you mentioned. But their lower regulations on emissions is precisely one of the reasons why manufacturing moves there. If they regulated more heavily, then some manufacturing would move out, but at least total global emissions would go down.
It’s really not. You move production to China because overall it is vastly cheaper, primarily due to the much lower costs of labor reproduction and how tightly integrated industries are and can be due to infrastructure and colocation of technical ability. If you want to make something in the US something like half your cost goes to maintaining the humans doing it, and they’re expensive due to massive economic leeches: real estate, finance, insurance. When 80% of a paycheck goes to having a place to live (just renting), going to the doctor, and eating, your labor costs are just subsidizing rent seeking and finance.
Every country needs to participate in raising the cost of fossil fuels, in order for it to work.
Every country needs to meet their climate commitments. Is yours?
First off, I’m not talking about India. I’m not a fan of their emissions either, but this discussion is about China.
It is actually much harder to reduce emissions while taking on the industry that’s being outsourced.
That’s the thing, they don’t have to take on those industries. If everybody regulates emissions properly, then industries can’t just run off to whatever country has lower regulations. They are forced to adapt green energy alternatives.
And again, China’s commitments were low, meeting them has no meaning. Let’s see them actually start lowering their emissions like the other top nations.
Various global poverty stats produced by major entities, e.g. below $x per day by the World Bank (which keeps changing its metrics but that’s a different discussion). Capital apologists like (incidentally Epstein-tied) Pinker attempt to claim improvements to human development and well-being for capitalism, but these statistics are highly sensitive to exactly which countries you include as well as what metrics you use. But a trend re: global poverty alleviation is that China is responsible for most of it, sometimes the vast majority for certain statistics, and trends can reverse when you remove it from the equation.
India is a good metric for comparison. Similar population size, similar location, formerly colonized and formally liberated around the same time, but two very different paths. Capitalist economist Amartya Sen estimated tens of millions of deaths in India alone every decade in comparison to China.
World Bank (which keeps changing its metrics but that’s a different discussion)
i call that discussion the “the best macroeconomic model that doesn’t fuck up the quantification problem is only 60% accurate and my magic 8 ball gets better predictive results because it include i don’t know”
US and Europe carbon emissions have gone down in the past 20 years, while China’s has grown rapidly. China accounts for %35 of the world’s emissions. Of course lots of manufacturing for goods happens in China, but this just tells me that capitalism is not to blame here, China is. China needs to raise their carbon taxes. Or maybe manufacturing needs to come back to the US and Europe, where it can be properly regulated.
Capitalism moves manufacturing to a location with less regulation or the overhead from regulation, resulting in more profits for the capitalists. This is clearly not because of capitalism.
Spoiler
/s for those who need it.
This is not a result of capitalism. It’s simply the result of competition. Now if you want to erase country borders, that’s a different discussion. But as long as one country doesn’t regulate fossil fuel emissions, it doesn’t matter what economic system they use, capitalism, communism, or whatever, they’re going to be able to produce goods for cheaper. Because they’re ignoring the real costs.
nice stats, now lets talk about emissions per person - neat how you picked the stat that ignores the current state of things and only focuses on how even more emissions the west used to produce
also, the reason the wheels haven’t well and truly fallen off of the global economy is because china has halved oil imports recently to avoid the ill advised us war on iran leading to an oil availability cliff. they (regrettably, but perhaps unavoidably) have used coal heavily (in combination with larger oil reserves than the rest of the world combined) to cut their own demand dramatically and abruptly to bail out the rest of the world
it isn’t unreasonable to see china’s short term reliance on more dirty forms of energy as a tool for energy independence (critical when the us can single handedly cause an international fuel crisis) being used strategically while china continues to rapidly switch to renewables at a rate that puts most western countries to shame
in short, maybe china isn’t to blame; capitalism and neoliberalism is
I mentioned this in another thread which tried to use “emissions per capita”, but that isn’t a great metric because it is biased towards low productivity. We had very low emissions pre-1800s, for example. And North Korea has 4x less emissions per capita than China, are we supposed to follow North Korea’s lead?
Also I hate how everybody constantly frames China as a poor helpless victim of capitalism. This was also mentioned in another thread here. China chose to shift to capitalism at the end of the 1900s. And they can choose to impose stricter regulation on fossil fuel emissions. They choose not to because it hurts their bottom line. Simple as that.
The US and EU have controlled their emissions, while China’s continues to grow. China has the highest GDP in the world, and 7th highest GDP per capita, it has no excuse anymore.
China has all the hallmarks of capitalism - widening wealth gap, massive housing speculation, horrible working conditions, etc. If China gets to use dirty energy as a “short term strategy” with some vague promise to do better in the future, then why not the West? We could call all the evils of the world just “short term strategy”.
not some vague promise - china is famously switching to renewables very quickly - check the same website you linked in your previous comment if you need a source for china outpacing the west on renewables - and did the whole thing about china leveraging coal right now to very literally save the world economy from the very predictable crisis caused by the us aggression towards iran just bounce silently off your brain? china focusing on energy resiliency is a trade-off but one you should be presently grateful for (and again, despite that trade-off, china is at or near the top of the list for rate of renewable adoption)
do you really expect china to cap their per capita emissions well below the current per capita emissions of the us? let’s be serious. as you point out, to do so would be to expect china to kneecap itself economically in a way you wouldn’t demand of a western country - are you just mad china has so many more citizens? or are you scared of how far china would be ahead economically if it allowed itself as many emissions per person as the us?
on the subject of china not being a “poor helpless victim of capitalism” i will just point at cuba and so many historical examples of what the global north does to counties that don’t bow sufficiently to capital to be labeled comfortably capitalist enough to slot easily into the neo-liberal international economy. (even if not capitalist enough to not constantly be called communist at the same time)
out of one side of your mouth you say that emissions per capita isn’t a great metric because it is biased towards low productivity - presumably meaning you think it makes china look better unfairly because you are lumping it in with north korea and you see both as under-developed backwaters (also it’s cute how you put “emissions per capita” in quotes as if it’s some made up measure and not literally the first stat on the page for each country on the webpage you use as a source)
but out of the other side of your mouth you point out that china has the highest gdp in the world and is in the top ten for gdp per capita and so it is an advanced, economically powerful country and so should be more strictly controlling its emissions per capita (dramatically more strictly than the us, you seem to believe)
you can’t have it both ways. instead, let’s be consistent and expect the countries with the highest emissions per capita to aggressively reduce those emissions and expect developing countries, like china, to stay below or equal with the emissions of developed countries
(we could argue about if the huge headstart the currently developed countries have means that is already unfair but at this point, personally, i believe the need to work together to reduce emissions makes that a backseat issue.)
Both can be true. I’m saying that even though China is less advanced than the US (as evidenced by the lower GDP per capita and lower emissions per capita), China still has enough GDP per capita to be amongst the top nations of the world.
At the very least, they should be reducing their emissions like the other top nations. I’m not asking more from China than I am from western nations. I’m asking for them to do the same.
Most greenhouse gas emissions occurred when colonizer Western countries were industrialized. They were not “properly regulated”, instead they were offshored in order to discipline labor and extract even greater profits. The offshoring was not exclusive to China, GHGs accordingly increased everywhere that further industrialized as a result of this. This effect is about as capitalist as it gets, trying to maximize profits via labor discipline and opening new fronts for increased exploitation (more profit per worker).
China’s approach to this shift was to realize it was an opportunity to build their own productive forces, that capitalists would give up productive centers and move them to other countries, and those countries should be able to domestically gain and upper hand so long as they ensured that production could broadly increased with every investment. For example, China requires technology transfer as part of direct foreign investment. China was correct in this and it is why it is an exception to the rule for national development as a former peripheral country. Compare ita development to India, which did not require such transfers or focus on building production.
Now, again, this means that industrial production moved outside the imperial core and into other countries, including but not limited to China. That industry did not suddenly become green nor did it become immune to the global economic system. It meant being wed to it. As we all know China’s strategy is one of interdependency with global capitalism even as they try to steer an otherwise anarchic process in a coherent direction via the commanding heights of the economy.
And yet we can see the difference those commanding heights make even on this specific issue. China is the global exporter and consumer of green energy, leading the charge on solar panels that countries like the US sanction and tariff, instead promoting fossil fuels. China is taking the actual steps you’d imagine Western nations doing (even though they never have), like setting public targets and meeting or exceeding them, and sticking to their obligations.
Imagine what could be done if every country could work in concert for those developments. Specifically, against the anarchic tendencies of the market and capitalist profit seeking.
Why are you acting like China is a poor helpless victim to capitalism here. China chose to shift to capitalism at the end of the 1900s. And they can choose to impose stricter regulation on fossil fuel emissions. They choose not to because it hurts their bottom line. Simple as that.
The US and EU have controlled their emissions, while China’s continues to grow. China has the highest GDP in the world, and 7th highest GDP per capita, it has no excuse anymore.
I didn’t. I gave a pretty dry analysis. Maybe ask yourself why that feels overly sympathetic to you.
That’s not a particularly accurate or useful description of China’s gambit to allow (mostly foreign) capital to exploit its people to build productive forces while maintaining overall control over sweeping aspects of their economy. If China simply switched to capitalism one then has to explain why it is so different from every other capitalist country. China’s trajectory is responsible for the vast majority of global poverty index improvements and this runs in dramatic contrast to the rest of the periphery that was already fully capitalist and continues to be. The redirection of funds and productive capacity to infrastructure, education, housing, direct poverty alleviation. The limits/outright bans on the financialization and speculation that characterize imperial core economies. The policy of embedding the party in large firms and turning developed industries into state-meditated co-ops. The lack of imperialist expansion required by monopolized, financialized capital. But I digress.
Sure. They could set them to any arbitrary level. What is the correct rate for it to be sustained? Remember, they’re almost alone in meeting targets among countries as advanced as they are. What level of production flight should they unilaterally sacrifice, if any, and who picks up the slack? At which limits do they begin sacrificing that production? Are their regulations too loose or strict for the optimal trajectory? Why are we focusing on one of the only countries meeting their targets and making progress on renewables?
It is, in fact, not as simple as that and this ignores the active work and debate within China that produces the results we are discussing. They aren’t making their targets because that’s just what capitalism does. It’s deliberate, literally a result of deliberation, research, modeling, and pulling levers at the commanding heights.
lmfao you can’t be serious they can’t even meet their own targets. France is the only one that ever does and it’s because they became a primary source of nuclear weapons materials (producing low emission energy as a nice side effect).
[Edit: nearly] Everyone’s continue to grow. The targets are set, at the moment, for when they will hit peak and then begin dropping. China’s peak target is set to 2030 and they are slated to beat that.
Which part of “the only ones taking this seriously” is not registering?
Everybody’s economy is different, China is no snowflake. But I am not going to debate whether China’s capitalism is “good capitalism” or not, that feels like pulling hairs and is a digression as you yourself said.
How much should China regulate? At the very least enough to stop the growth. I think that’s a simple enough answer.
Not true. The US and EU have been lowering emissions for the past 20 years.
Actually it is. The trajectory of other peripheral countries is quite different. Compare to India, look at poverty stats when China is removed.
You can’t debate the topic at all, clearly, but sure want to continue making the claim that it simply switched to capitalism. Maybe don’t say things your can’t bc defend?
It doesn’t address the obvious trade-off I laid out. Why are India’s Paris commitments currently greater than zero?
So, what was China’s target for peak emissions? What does peak emissions mean? How are they doing regarding that target?
If you focus solely on production you can eke out such numbers, but it ignores the basics of imperialism and the aforementioned offshoring where industry doesn’t just magically become green. Shuffling around where industry is located didn’t decrease emissions by itself. Emissions targets do not stick exclusively to production and, I have to repeat again because you keep ignoring it, the US and EU are failing to meet their commitments. Yet you focus on one of the few countries that is. I wonder why. I wonder why you ignore 80% of what I say. Perhaps you should take a little break.
If you include consumption the plots look very different. And I’m not aware of easily available stats that track based on industry ownership.
The reason I’m not debating China’s flavor of capitalism is because it’s irrelevant. They don’t get a free pass on carbon emissions no matter what economy they have.
And yes there’s a trade-off, regulating fossil fuels increases production costs. That’s the trade-off everybody makes.
Bottom line is that China’s emissions are huge and still growing. They are meeting commitments because those commitments were low in the first place. For example China only commited to peak emissions by 2030. The US and EU never needed to make such a commitment because they had already reached their peak in 2005.
And yes they perform a large portion of the world’s manufacturing, this “shuffling” of industries that you mentioned. But their lower regulations on emissions is precisely one of the reasons why manufacturing moves there. If they regulated more heavily, then some manufacturing would move out, but at least total global emissions would go down. Every country needs to participate in raising the cost of fossil fuels, in order for it to work.
You brought it up (and are reasserting it in this quote), same as how you bring up China unasked. Clearly you thought it was relevant, you are just trying to avoid responsibility for your claims.
Which part of “meeting or exceeding their Paris targets” reads as “get a free pass” to you?
Oh so the decision of what to target isn’t just “no increases immediately”? Glad we agree and can stop pretending it’s so simplistic. Though I see you neglected to acknowledge India’s targets.
The commitments of China were nearly an order of magnitude higher than the EU and US actually. By the way the US withdrew and is going hog wild.
And they are meeting their commitments, even exceeding them, despite being the primary seat of global production while the EU continues to deindustrialize.
In production, yes. They are deindustrializing. Their targets are much easier to hit, they follow the global capitalist economic trend re: imperialism, offshoring. It is actually much harder to reduce emissions while taking on the industry that’s being outsourced.
It’s really not. You move production to China because overall it is vastly cheaper, primarily due to the much lower costs of labor reproduction and how tightly integrated industries are and can be due to infrastructure and colocation of technical ability. If you want to make something in the US something like half your cost goes to maintaining the humans doing it, and they’re expensive due to massive economic leeches: real estate, finance, insurance. When 80% of a paycheck goes to having a place to live (just renting), going to the doctor, and eating, your labor costs are just subsidizing rent seeking and finance.
Every country needs to meet their climate commitments. Is yours?
First off, I’m not talking about India. I’m not a fan of their emissions either, but this discussion is about China.
That’s the thing, they don’t have to take on those industries. If everybody regulates emissions properly, then industries can’t just run off to whatever country has lower regulations. They are forced to adapt green energy alternatives.
And again, China’s commitments were low, meeting them has no meaning. Let’s see them actually start lowering their emissions like the other top nations.
i’m a trained economist and i don’t know what this means. why would china be included when looking at india?
Various global poverty stats produced by major entities, e.g. below $x per day by the World Bank (which keeps changing its metrics but that’s a different discussion). Capital apologists like (incidentally Epstein-tied) Pinker attempt to claim improvements to human development and well-being for capitalism, but these statistics are highly sensitive to exactly which countries you include as well as what metrics you use. But a trend re: global poverty alleviation is that China is responsible for most of it, sometimes the vast majority for certain statistics, and trends can reverse when you remove it from the equation.
India is a good metric for comparison. Similar population size, similar location, formerly colonized and formally liberated around the same time, but two very different paths. Capitalist economist Amartya Sen estimated tens of millions of deaths in India alone every decade in comparison to China.
i call that discussion the “the best macroeconomic model that doesn’t fuck up the quantification problem is only 60% accurate and my magic 8 ball gets better predictive results because it include i don’t know”
schmalexa, adjust numbers for per capita emissions
I addressed that here