As a Canadian, I wish my country was better about energy use per capita. In Alberta, a lot of that comes from coal too. China does pollute a lot, but per capita they are far from the worst
But, also remember that a lot of pollution in China subventions our life-style in the west.
If someone is able to build factories and produce basically any piece of plastic, electronic device or clothing we use, far cheaper than over here, there’s bound to be trade-offs.
These trade-offs concern human rights and the environment.
If we were to, say, halve our consumption of “stuff”, this would have a massive effect on pollution in China.
There's no inevitability about economic growth in China and reduction in human rights. That's entirely a political decision. By themselves, economic growth and increasing standards of living provide more opportunities and freedoms.
Environmental impact is trickier, less economically developed nations struggle to contain the environmental impacts of growth due to the costs involved.
There’s no denying they have taken it upon themselves.
I see it as a highly conscious longish term strategy for them, as now they have become a player to count on.
I also believe it’s been stupidly greedy, not to mention short sighted, of us (or “the market”) in the west.
You seem to be implying that moral and ethical considerations doesn’t really exist in our economy, which is exactly what I’m sorta’ trying to get across in my point.
Edit: I wasn’t referring to Chinas growth, I was actually thinking about BNP etc “over here”.
And while expanding on the topic - using BNP as a sole metric of success is just such a bad idea.
Every country has excuses. Russia is cold. Brazil is poor, can't afford paying for clean energy. China is making everybody's stuff.
Canada's emissions don't come from its empty land. Half of its electricity comes from hydro power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Canada), which is used for heating in a lot of houses. Canada has among the world's worst CO2/capita emissions because of its oil sector, and because most Canadians have big houses, big cars (2+ per family), high consumption, and frequent air travel.
Energy use and pollution are not exactly correlated. Neither is carbon footprint and pollution, these are all separate things that have to be managed almost separately.
you do realize that per capita measurements benefit China, and a few other countries, immensely because a good portion of their population does not participate in their new economy.
So in China it is considered less than 60% live in urban areas whereas in the US that number is just over 80%. So a better method of impact determination would be, how much is that portion contributing to the pollution of the country.
So always question per capita measurements with large segments of the population in a country don't truly participate.
Finally, only a free press and scientific society can confirm the truth
It's impossible to say without some type of dedicated study focused specifically on the question, but my sense is that those examples are rather extraordinary exceptions, and not the rule.
Color me unsurprised that the Mafia is breaking laws; there are also vanishingly few organizations like the Mafia in the developed West.
When carmakers means employment for voters and tax income, it seems obvious governments will let them get away with crap, their motivation is to remain in power and that is easier when the voters are happily employed: https://qz.com/1045619/germanys-diesel-scandal-shines-a-ligh...
Ouch. Good analog to when the metric is of highest importance rather than the spirit the metric is supposed to capture. Eg "be productive programmer" -> "code commits per time unit" -> bork.
Yes, this is a significant problem because of the strange irony that for a communist country, the Chinese government is run like a business. There are targeted metrics and goals and promotions and pay increases tied to them. They've had a long documented history in the past with suspected gdp reporting fraud. Every time they add a new metric to monitor as a target there is the possibility of potential fraud or gaming the metric in an unproductive way such as planting and unplanting trees.
Interesting point made in other threads is whether the trade war would reduce pollution.
There is, theoretically, an opportunity. As supply lines move away from China to other SE Asian countries, Western countries could make environmental standards a requirement for trade.
In new facilities, say in Vietnam, one could try to start with a blank slate. Since its new, prices likely would not rise much more than they would anyway.
It wouldn't matter how sensible the environmental standards were, because the Trump administration was making them.
For instance, a year or so ago the EPA placed heavy new restrictions on asbestos, all-but-banning most of the previously legal uses by requiring manufacturers and importers to prove their safety to the EPA's satisfaction and indicating that wouldn't be possible. (They couldn't just outright ban them.) This is how you'd have seen this action described if you found out about it from HN: "EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing".
Now, this was of course completely untrue. Prior to the rule, companies were allowed to import, manufacture and sell every asbestos-containing product covered by it whenever they liked, without any EPA approval. The new rule replaced that free-for-all with an intentionally hostile approval process where companies had to convince a skeptical EPA that actually, asbestos was safe before they started manufacture or import and wait for them to complete their risk assessment (which they've indicated will probably be "fuck no" in all circumstances). Anyone who read the notice or researched the status quo should've know that. It also wasn't particularly suprising; it was the culmination of a years-long process that started under the previous administration, and it ended in about the toughest restrictions they could legally place.
It didn't matter, though, because it fitted into the correct narrative about the current administration - and this was a restriction on a really unsafe substance that was in the pipeline for years and didn't even have anything to with Trump or his trade war.
i'm against the use of asbestos and have been for years, but my understanding has been that the fear of lawsuit has been an effective force preventing companies from introducing additional uses of asbestos in recent decades. most manufacturers were already avoiding the use of asbestos in their products like the plague. in any case, i don't think federal regulators had sufficient legal authority to actually ban it.
but, I think the way the press is handling this is interesting and I'm glad you highlighted it. when I searched for "epa asbestos rule" I found about 10 articles stating that the EPA was ignoring its own scientists in issuing its latest ruling about the use of asbestos in products.
The EU is based on the free movement of goods, capital, and people. America has essentially open borders for the first 2 but not the third. I wonder if it had picked a different 2, what would've happened?
