The China Thread

[Josquius]

Apparently?

Just going off what you're saying here but it sounds like "officially we totally snub you but in reality we recognise we have some very serious shit to talk about" "

[MadImmortalMan]

There's a lot of westerners being paid to be shills for China's state media right now. Cyrus Jansen, et al.

[Josquius]

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/04/what-a-chinese-academics-takedown-of-russia-says-about-beijings-view-of-moscow/

Some interesting discussion around China/Russia.

China might have subtly communicated that it's getting sick of Russias shit.

Which considering so much talk not too long ago was of china exploiting the distracted world for its own conquest. ... It's good things are even possibly looking this way.

[Jacob]

Current rumour:

Xi is putting his wife in charge of managing promotions on the armed forces.

On one hand - she did (does) have a military rank. On the other - it was in the entertainment section as she was a fairly popular pop singer in her day.

[Zanza]

After eight years where China was Germany's biggest trade partner, the United States is now Germany's biggest trade partner. One small factoid underscoring the geopolitical reorientation.

[Sheilbh]

Seems like this could be a huge deal - battery prices plummeting in China:


Add in to this China installing more solar energy in the last year than any other country has ever (ie more installed last year than, say, the US has installed at all). Solar plus storage - in an area with decent solar potential - is an awful lot of what needs to happen on net zero (especially if you then add similar EV "overproduction" - a genuine thought/question - is overproduction a thing in the context of energy transition/net zero?). And it feels that on this, in particular, it could help kickstart a virtuous cycle.

I think there are concerns for the impact back to those geopolitics, but I've argued with people that the key on net zero and energy transition wasn't Europe or even the US, but China and India. I didn't mean that as an argument that we should do nothing or less, but that we matter less and whether we achieve it or not will be a story told in Beijing and Delhi not Brussels and DC. And that it's also not a fatalism as that often seems to imply or be implied - there is an assumption that China and India aren't actually doing anything on net zero (they're both more exposed to the risks than Europe, say) - but I think that's also BS, as we're seeing here.

[HVC]

Promising, but at the same time I don't trust any numbers coming out of china. They're just as likely to paint solar panels on the roof of a new coal power plant to inflate numbers as much as anything else

[Sheilbh]

Maybe. Although as well as thinking it means we don't need to do something/fatalism - I think that sort of view can lead to complacency which I think is the other big risk in thinking about China

[HVC]

Just because I don't trust China doesn't mean I don't think we shouldnt do something. In fact i think relying on the china's of the world is folly. Like you said While we need 3rd world nations to get on board looking to them gives the west an excuse not to do what it needs. On both sides of the coin, as in "they don't reduce emissions so us doing so isn't worth it" and "look, they're reducing emissions so we don't have to". So, from an internal policy prospective it's best to ignore them.

[HVC]

I don't trust India either, really, but I don't know as much about them in regards to fabricating stats to have an opinion in this area.

[Sheilbh]

Just because I don't trust China doesn't mean I don't think we shouldnt do something. In fact i think relying on the china's of the world is folly. Like you said While we need 3rd world nations to get on board looking to them gives the west an excuse not to do what it needs. On both sides of the coin, as in "they don't reduce emissions so us doing so isn't worth it" and "look, they're reducing emissions so we don't have to". So, from an internal policy prospective it's best to ignore them.

I get that and I didn't mean you specifically or that you think all of them. As I say it's the responses I often get (off here too) to talking about China in the context of climate is: that it's borderline denialist/saying we should do nothing; that it's fatalist, as in China won't do anything so we're all doomed anyway; and, when I actually say I think China is doing stuff, scepticism bordering on disbelief. I think the outlines of those responses are also common responses to a lot of stories out of or about China: does it really matter, we're all doomed anyway and is it real anyway. I think all of those are slight traps or can be misleading.

My view is basically we should keep acting and need to on climate. At the same time, we don't really matter in climate scheme of things that depends on what China does and India's path (obviously given historic emissions we should contribute more on damage and loss/climate reparations). But at the same time, China is doing it and making genuinely astonishing progress which might be good for the world but also building in dominance in key sectors that is bad for the West and our order.

[Admiral Yi]

But at the same time, China is doing it and making genuinely astonishing progress which might be good for the world but also building in dominance in key sectors that is bad for the West and our order.

Are you talking about producing solar panels or something else?  Why would their dominance be bad for the West?

[HVC]

Fair enough, and I didn't think you were attacking me personally . My view on China is always "they're lying" so my view on anything related to China is ignore them and do what you have to, be it economics, environment, or political.

Not to say you shouldn't push or try to get them to do the right thing, just don't rely on their response for anything

[Jacob]

Perhaps if China dominates energy generation and storage technology, they might use it to influence the international order in ways we don't like and harm Western economies.

Could be a risk.

[Sheilbh]

Perhaps if China dominates energy generation and storage technology, they might use it to influence the international order in ways we don't like and harm Western economies.

Could be a risk.

Yeah. Generation, storage and end use - and a strategy of establishing control of supply chain including raw materials.

And it makes sense from China's perspective - they're more exposed to climate change than most rich western countries and also don't want their energy security be exposed to others as it is with oil and gas (which is why, at the same time, they're still expanding coal). And why I think the US and EU are starting to respond in a similar way. But also I am quite persuaded by the energy theory of the world and that it's an important part of the countries who dominated the 19th and 20th centuries - and I'm not sure the 21st will be different.

Edit: And - at the same time - it is good for the world overall/net zero. Which I find challenging to think about.