As a product they can sell. Let’s not pretend like this has some altruistic motivation.
focusing on mutual economic benefit
In fact, the BRI is trapping numerous countries in unsustainable levels of debt. At the same time, bilateral trade, though often increasing after the conclusion of a deal, remains one-sided, where China extracts resources for exports but imports cheap finished goods of questionable quality that undermine local manufacturers.
reference
India has repeatedly said it will not join BRI because it does not offer a level playing ground to the country’s businesses.
reference
Sorry, which part of what you wrote is relevant to the bad shit that China has done?
instead of imperialism like the NATO bloc, etc etc
Let’s stay on topic. If you want to discuss NATO, we can do that after.
That China does significantly more for it’s people than other countries do for theirs. You’re a lib that needs to be able to categorize in good or bad, when nothing in life is black and white.
Typical PRC apologist, incapable of acknowledging or addressing any faults on the part of China so just tries to deflect by pointing fingers in other directions. You know this tactic is super transparent right?
Giving me examples of Chinese private companies doing shitty business practices when most other private companies do the same is just you holding China to higher standards and is reeking of chauvinism. You know this tactic is super transparent right?
OK, so China has looked out for its own interests and created an economic advantage for a fraction of its own population.
800 million people being lifted out of poverty is a massive achievement. How dare the evil communists do good things because it keeps them popular for some reason /s
And yet, still the largest source of methane emission.
As a product they can sell. Let’s not pretend like this has some altruistic motivation.
Making solar cheaper and selling it to people who would otherwise use fossil fuels is good actually.
In fact, the BRI is trapping numerous countries in unsustainable levels of debt. At the same time, bilateral trade, though often increasing after the conclusion of a deal, remains one-sided, where China extracts resources for exports but imports cheap finished goods of questionable quality that undermine local manufacturers. reference
You didn’t read this critically, if you did you’d see some of their sources being guardian articles that are like “some people are concerned about how much money China is loaning out” which doesn’t really prove anything. If you look at their history of debt forgiveness you’d realize this rhetoric is just projection from IMF ghouls.
India has repeatedly said it will not join BRI because it does not offer a level playing ground to the country’s businesses. reference
Okay? They’re free to do protectionism for local bourgeois industry. You’ll note China hasn’t sailed ships into their harbors and insisted with rifles, unlike the Europeans.
Let’s stay on topic. If you want to discuss NATO, we can do that after.
Imperialism is the main contradiction of our era. China presenting a viable alternative to US/European hegemony and helping to usher in a multipolar world is a major accomplishment that will improve global wellbeing.
Let’s stay on topic. If you want to discuss NATO, we can do that after.
Imperialism is the main contradiction of our era. China presenting a viable alternative to US/European hegemony and helping to usher in a multipolar world is a major accomplishment that will improve global wellbeing.
You’re not capable of having a rational, on-topic discussion in good faith. You want to play stupid games with moving goalposts, so we’re done.
Honestly it sounds like you’re just coping by suggesting this argument:
Imperialism is the main contradiction of our era. China presenting a viable alternative to US/European hegemony and helping to usher in a multipolar world is a major accomplishment that will improve global wellbeing.
Isn’t:
Rational- it is, the argument is based on an understanding of anticolonial and multipolar theory. If you’d like to learn Id suggest starting off with “wretched of the earth” and “imperialism the highest stage of capitalism” before moving on to more modern stuff
On topic- you were complaining about China doing bad shit without getting into specifics, I said “yeah, like (examples of massive accomplishments)” and then I mentioned that they were helping erode a unipolar imperialist system. I think helping to erode a unipolar imperialist system is a big accomplishment and fits into the topic.
Good faith- I don’t see how I’ve given any indication that I’m not being earnest in my beliefs.
Moving goalposts- i really don’t know how to respond to this, where do you think I initially placed them, and where do you think I moved them to?
You want to talk about methane emissions? Let’s talk about underreported methane emissions.
As you we’ll know, natural gas has been the most significant contributor to the US’ emissions reductions in recent years. Natural gas use has skyrocketed, supplanting coal because of its “50% reduction in CO2 emissions.” This is true at the consumption point, but what’s often forgotten is that methane, CH4, is small and leaky, and methane is a much worse GHG than CO2 (~80x worse over 20 years).
What does that mean? A 1.25% leakage rate for methane over the entire extraction/distribution process would double methane’s GHG effect. What’s a realistic leakage rate, then? Well…
Remember that natural gas makes up the most significant part of the US electricity supply (as well as a significant portion of primary energy for heating and industrial applications). Draw conclusions appropriately.
The US is significantly underreporting it’s own methane emissions.
Edit: in case it wasn’t clear, natural gas is methane
OK, so China has looked out for its own interests and created an economic advantage for a fraction of its own population.
If lifting hundreds of millions of your poorest into the middle class is just naked self interest, why are Western countries so unwilling to do it? Are they stupid?
And yet, still the largest source of methane emission.
They also have the largest population. Per-capita they are not the largest source. It’s ridiculous to evaluate countries’ outputs without regard for the size of their populations.
As a product they can sell. Let’s not pretend like this has some altruistic motivation.
That’s true, and yet they also chose to massively subsidize their solar industry in order to meet climate goals.
Where is “the bad shit that China has done?” You still haven’t said anything about this.
OK, so China has looked out for its own interests and created an economic advantage for a fraction of its own population.
And yet, still the largest source of methane emission.
As a product they can sell. Let’s not pretend like this has some altruistic motivation.
Sorry, which part of what you wrote is relevant to the bad shit that China has done?
Let’s stay on topic. If you want to discuss NATO, we can do that after.
Technically true. 800M is indeed a (large) fraction
Typical western chauvinist pointing to china’s emissions when most of his treats get produced there. Never mind checking per Capita numbers
Yeah it’s not altruism, but I don’t see anyone else producing the amount of solar that is needed to stop climate change
Removed by mod
That China does significantly more for it’s people than other countries do for theirs. You’re a lib that needs to be able to categorize in good or bad, when nothing in life is black and white.
Giving me examples of Chinese private companies doing shitty business practices when most other private companies do the same is just you holding China to higher standards and is reeking of chauvinism. You know this tactic is super transparent right?
800 million people being lifted out of poverty is a massive achievement. How dare the evil communists do good things because it keeps them popular for some reason /s
Wow, I bet China hasn’t thought about that. https://dialogue.earth/en/climate/what-does-chinas-new-methane-plan-mean-for-the-climate/#:~:text=Implementation is key&text=For example%2C the plan requires,and exceed 85%25 by 2030.
Making solar cheaper and selling it to people who would otherwise use fossil fuels is good actually.
You didn’t read this critically, if you did you’d see some of their sources being guardian articles that are like “some people are concerned about how much money China is loaning out” which doesn’t really prove anything. If you look at their history of debt forgiveness you’d realize this rhetoric is just projection from IMF ghouls.
Okay? They’re free to do protectionism for local bourgeois industry. You’ll note China hasn’t sailed ships into their harbors and insisted with rifles, unlike the Europeans.
Imperialism is the main contradiction of our era. China presenting a viable alternative to US/European hegemony and helping to usher in a multipolar world is a major accomplishment that will improve global wellbeing.
You’re not capable of having a rational, on-topic discussion in good faith. You want to play stupid games with moving goalposts, so we’re done.
Honestly it sounds like you’re just coping by suggesting this argument:
Isn’t:
Rational- it is, the argument is based on an understanding of anticolonial and multipolar theory. If you’d like to learn Id suggest starting off with “wretched of the earth” and “imperialism the highest stage of capitalism” before moving on to more modern stuff
On topic- you were complaining about China doing bad shit without getting into specifics, I said “yeah, like (examples of massive accomplishments)” and then I mentioned that they were helping erode a unipolar imperialist system. I think helping to erode a unipolar imperialist system is a big accomplishment and fits into the topic.
Good faith- I don’t see how I’ve given any indication that I’m not being earnest in my beliefs.
Moving goalposts- i really don’t know how to respond to this, where do you think I initially placed them, and where do you think I moved them to?
sigh
You want to talk about methane emissions? Let’s talk about underreported methane emissions.
As you we’ll know, natural gas has been the most significant contributor to the US’ emissions reductions in recent years. Natural gas use has skyrocketed, supplanting coal because of its “50% reduction in CO2 emissions.” This is true at the consumption point, but what’s often forgotten is that methane, CH4, is small and leaky, and methane is a much worse GHG than CO2 (~80x worse over 20 years).
What does that mean? A 1.25% leakage rate for methane over the entire extraction/distribution process would double methane’s GHG effect. What’s a realistic leakage rate, then? Well…
Stanford estimates 9% leakage over the Permian Basin
The EDF estimates methane leakage to be 3.75x to 8x worse than the EPA estimate of 1.2%
Remember that natural gas makes up the most significant part of the US electricity supply (as well as a significant portion of primary energy for heating and industrial applications). Draw conclusions appropriately.
The US is significantly underreporting it’s own methane emissions.
Edit: in case it wasn’t clear, natural gas is methane
If lifting hundreds of millions of your poorest into the middle class is just naked self interest, why are Western countries so unwilling to do it? Are they stupid?
They also have the largest population. Per-capita they are not the largest source. It’s ridiculous to evaluate countries’ outputs without regard for the size of their populations.
That’s true, and yet they also chose to massively subsidize their solar industry in order to meet climate goals.
Where is “the bad shit that China has done?” You still haven’t said anything about this.