SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Carbon-heavy development in countries part of China's Belt and Road Initiative could render the Paris climate goals unreachable, according to a new analysis on the gargantuan global infrastructure project released Monday.
The massive network of ports, railways, roads and industrial parks spanning Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe will see trillions invested in new infrastructure across 126 countries.
While the Chinese state is putting up a significant part of the cash, the project will also see other national and private-sector investment, and opponents warn of its devastating environmental impact.
An analysis of the possible carbon footprint of infrastructure development in Belt and Road (BRI) countries said there was a significant risk of the initiative alone producing enough greenhouse gas emissions to derail the Paris climate goals.
The 2015 accord enjoins nations to cap temperature rises to "well below" two degrees Celsius (3.6 Farenheit) above pre-industrial levels.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Coward, Anonymous on Tuesday September 03 2019, @06:30AM (13 children)
Of course developing countries will massively increase CO2 output, and there are a lot of developing countries. If warming stays below 2 C, it will be because the climate models are wrong, not because people reduced CO2 emissions.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday September 03 2019, @06:54AM (11 children)
The response needs to be dump money into energy technologies that would often be superior to fossil fuels and reduce emissions, i.e. solar and nuclear fusion.
If the problem persists, get ready for stratospheric aerosol injections [wikipedia.org] or objects in orbit dimming the planet.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday September 03 2019, @07:25AM (3 children)
Won't happen, too expensive on the "by 2050" horizon and riskier than the problem is meant to solve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 03 2019, @07:29AM (2 children)
GUESS WE'LL DIE 🌞🔥😎 👽
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 03 2019, @07:46AM
Sooner or later, it's as inevitable as de... err, ummm... taxes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday September 03 2019, @06:42PM
Why did you swallow the fly?
This sig for rent.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 03 2019, @07:43AM (5 children)
Im sure there are already trials going on but i think if this death cult of climate psychos really does try to force everyone to deal with some large scale cooling project there will be huge pushback. It is just such an obviously retarded idea, well beyond most idiotic socialist plans that inevitably fail terribly for obvious reasons.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 03 2019, @07:56AM (4 children)
If it wasn't clear, I want solar and fusion to end up cheaper than everything else, so the market just switches to them and electric cars. No carbon credits necessary, or subsidies. Money is already being dumped, but maybe in the wrong places, such as ITER.
The stratospheric injection could be a very cheap way of countering warming. Like millions or billions instead of trillions of $.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 03 2019, @10:28AM
RAST [wikipedia.org] borrowed from ITER and reached 100MK [soylentnews.org] this year.
As a member of ITER consortium, China's EAST was designed to test elements that will make back into the ITER [wikipedia.org].
At $20B [wikipedia.org] since 1985, with costs split between 8 parties, is certainly way cheaper than the inflation adjusted average yearly budget for NASA ($22.03 billion) [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 03 2019, @02:55PM
No, this is literally a civilization destroying idea. The cost of doing something like this is infinite. They want to lower the temperature 2 degrees for pretty much no reason, then another cold period will naturally happen and everyone will be far worse off.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday September 03 2019, @11:37PM (1 child)
Dropping the massive coal and oil subsidies that a lot of countries insist on keeping would help solar and wind a lot.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday September 03 2019, @11:45PM
I obviously agree. But ideally, renewables should be more cost effective than coal, natural gas, etc. even without subsidies, which will lead to rapid adoption.
Solar power will reach $1 per watt by 2020 [nextbigfuture.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 03 2019, @08:47AM
You do realize that putting our dimmest objects in orbit, would result in the asphyxiation of most of our democrats? I mean, we certainly can't afford separate life support systems for each of them!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Tuesday September 03 2019, @07:22PM
Despite the continued optimists, I think that we are currently already committed to a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees.
That said, it's hard to object to China's developing infrastructure when Trump has just removed limits on methane. I wish they would find a less polluting infrastructure, but certainly the US doesn't have any room to talk.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 03 2019, @06:47AM (20 children)
At one time, virtually all of those pulluting industries were located in the US and western Europe. Not all, of course, but most of it. In the US and Europe, regulations kept pollution to minimal levels, with those levels coming down all the time.
Globalists moved all of that to unregulated countries, and NIMBY's were happy to see it go.
Now those unregulated countries need infrastructure to make the most of their polluting industries? Well, WTF did everyone expect? Paris climate goals? Mmmmm - they should have thought of that BEFORE they started distributing the wealth around the world. Funny how you can control stuff inside of your own country, but not so much when stuff is outside of your own country.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday September 03 2019, @07:07AM (19 children)
Who are those they that you mention, precious?
'Cause surely:
- your capitalist masters don't give a fuck about pollution (unless forced by govt), they are only after your money; *and*
- your government masters aren't seeking to make the world better, just to get enough votes from one election to the other (so they will apply the minimal force on the capitalists necessary for keeping you barely happy enough to vote for them)
Neither of them fit the expectations you seem to imply as natural to have from a super-authority that can rule the humanity to its betterment. Do you wish for one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 03 2019, @08:00AM (8 children)
"They", in this case, would be all of the greenie people who are concerned about the environment. "They" should have been in line, blocking every effort to dismantle US/Euro industry, and shipping it offshore. Now, "They" are seeing in 20/20 hindsight that "they" were hoodwinked. The time for any positive action on their part is long past.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 03 2019, @08:12AM (2 children)
Because Runaway1956 didn't give a fuck about, but now finds convenient to have someone to point a finger to... or what? Did you have a medical exemption on those actions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 03 2019, @08:42AM (1 child)
Runaway1956 has been screaming about offshoring since about 1980. Runaway1956 expressed his disgust with China's "most favored trade partner" status. Runaway1956 was vocal in his opposition to NAFTA and every "trade agreement" that has come down the pike. Runaway1956 has done his best to spread the word that Walmart is an unAmerican, anti-capitalist monopolistic company. Medical exemption? There's nothing wrong with my lungs, or my typing fingers, thank you very much.
I think that I'm entitled to express some contempt for all the greenies who are just now waking up to real world facts.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 03 2019, @08:55AM
I didn't hear you. Is it a wonder you didn't hear me? Or other greenies?
I reckon you can get an explanation on why is that on your own (hint: think who controls the amplifier)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday September 03 2019, @11:49PM (4 children)
They were.
At least in my country they were.
The people protesting sending jobs (along with the pollution) offshore were largely drawn from the trades union movement. The same union movement that is and always has been the backbone of the environmental movement.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 03 2019, @11:58PM (3 children)
Interesting. Unions in the US haven't exactly been a vocal part of the green movement. Or, if they have, somehow I have missed it. Union members, to me, have always seemed similar to the monied capitalist investors. "I've got mine, and I'm going to get all I can while I can." I'll note that at the peak of their power, the unions did little to nothing for working women who made half (or less) of minimum wage in restaurants because "Well, they make their money on tips!"
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 04 2019, @01:17AM
You might find a lot of the trades unionists in your country are actually pretty passionate about the environment, even if it is not their "day job".
Several of our Green Party MP's have a previous career in a union, if that has any relevance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @08:08AM (1 child)
Moving the goalposts. Just yesterpost, you were arguing about the unions not being green enough. What's this about women, is feminism a green cause too now?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday September 04 2019, @01:58PM
Well, yeah, I think a fair, living wage is kinda a green issue. You do know how certain people were exempted from the minimum wage laws, do you not? Just in case - rich ranchers and resaurateurs went to Washington, and bribed their congress critters to exempt all the people who worked for them.
Very much like how Pelosi exempted American Samoa from the raise in minimum wages, because she and her husband own big stocks in the tuna industry.
"Oh, Americans deserve a decent wage, unless they work for me!"
I need X amount of green to get by, and most waitresses, farm workers, and whatever probably need some similar amount of green just to get by. Sucks that a waitress has to suck up to shit-head customers in the hopes of getting a tip to make up for the customer's crap attitude. You've seen it, I've seen it, we've all seen it, if you live in the US.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 03 2019, @08:12AM (7 children)
The Developed World, particularly the EU.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday September 03 2019, @08:51AM (6 children)
You talking particularly about that EU that is on its way to reduce it's CO2 emissions beyond what it promised [soylentnews.org]? The very one with an employment rate 73.2% [wikipedia.org] which is higher that the highest ever US employment rate (which was 64.70 percent in April of 2000 [tradingeconomics.com])?
The one that managed to do that while taking, over the last 4years, over a millions refugees from zones destabilized by American actions [wikipedia.org] (Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia) and surpassing the entire refugee intake of US over a decade [wikimedia.org]?
Me thinks you are speaking from your ass on this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 03 2019, @05:13PM (1 child)
How is the employment rate 60% but unemployment rate 3%? Seems to be 37% missing there.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 03 2019, @08:28PM
These are the times when "unemployed == receives welfare support". If one doesn't qualify for that support, one is simply not unemployed, even if s/he's living on the streets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday September 03 2019, @07:28PM (1 child)
Most of those things aren't directly related to pollution. It you want to argue political stances, and actions, you've got a point, but that's a different argument.
That said, the EU *has* done a terrific job at controlling pollution. I have no idea how much of their success is due to exporting it to other countries. That's no even clear (to me) of the US except in the case of recycling, which China has recently decided to opt out of.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 03 2019, @08:37PM
Was answering to the assertion of "EU is leader in globalization/job outsourcing"
How do you keep 72% of your workforce employed if you export jobs and import workforce?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Troll) by Captival on Tuesday September 03 2019, @09:28PM (1 child)
When you're Big Chief Libtard, millions of illegal freeloader terrorists from the Mid East become poor refugees that were destabilized by America. Good job taking some of them in and bragging about your numbers while conveniently ignoring the US's millions of illegal immigrants. Sorry that your dad abused you though, leaving you with lifelong resentment and jealousy towards your superiors.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 03 2019, @09:39PM
Don't give up your daily job until you learn how to clown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday September 03 2019, @11:06AM (1 child)
Whom you call capitalist masters are VERY interested in pollution. As a mean of control. Pollution is sold as an inevitable byproduct of human activity, but there are ample margins to reduce waste. But since this would necessarily imply a partial return to a more independent and well modularized pre industrial society, we will just have more red tape and speculation on resources.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 03 2019, @11:51AM
Eh, well, until that "partial return" that you speak of actually happens, I'm afraid the only pollution the capitalist masters are concerned about is the nocturnal one [wiktionary.org].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday September 03 2019, @06:56AM
TFA practically taken verbatim from AFP [afp.com].
Neither of them provide a link to that "new analysis on the gargantuan global infrastructure project released Monday" mentioned, fucking journos.
After spending some time hunting to the original doco, it seems I found one that fits the "Belt and Road" "Paris" and "Tsinghua Center for Finance and Development" [vivideconomics.com]
Titled "Decarbonizing the Belt and Road - A GREEN FINANCE ROADMAP), with the terminology of "B&RC = Belt and Road countries" and "2DS = 2-Degree Scenario levels, the upper limit of the Paris Agreement’s temperature increase target", the executive summary reads:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 03 2019, @01:39PM (6 children)
It's going to be really funny when the countries where China is building infrastructure decide they don't like taking orders from China and nationalize everything. Then Beijing will have to try to mobilize its military to project force in those places, and they'll be bogged down in a land war in Asia. Vizzini was very clear on that matter.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Wednesday September 04 2019, @01:07AM (5 children)
On PPP basis China is way bigger than the US. On pure $$ the US is still somewhat (1.4:1?) bigger than China. However, the US just accused China of manipulating the currency. Presuming that the US is not bitching about a few percents, this means the US just acknowledged that China's economy is close if not bigger in dollar terms.
If so, China has an obligation (not right, but obligation) to make sure the wold economy functions smoothly. Infrastructure is minor in this regard. China has to make sure the US has no funny ideas such as defaulting on her debt or even diluting it.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 04 2019, @10:50AM (4 children)
China, Europe, Canada, and Mexico have been enjoying lopsided trade with America for several decades. Their economies have grown at the expense of Americans. For a while that was alright because America was so rich and those others weren't. It was deemed positive for world stability and for spreading democracy etc so the powers that be let it continue; if you were a long-time reader of publications like the Economist or Foreign Affairs, which are mouthpieces of those elites, this was their constant refrain. However, the ulterior motive of that same suite of policies was to destroy labor movements and put extreme downward pressure on wages (for the low- to mid-level workers, not the ones at the top, of course). That has produced the same backlash across the West at nearly the same time and produced everything from Brexit to the Gillets Jaunes to Trump.
When it comes to China and their Belt and Roads initiative, it has nothing to do with making sure the world economy functions smoothly. It has to do with making sure China's economy functions smoothly. See, since Deng Xiaoping Chinese elites have been using big dollar construction projects to shovel kuai from government pockets into their personal pockets. Everybody who was anybody had a construction company, a skyscraper, a hotel. Generals in the People's Liberation Army had malls. But now China's all built up and they need another place to build. Voila, the Belt and Roads. Also, it helps China escape the encirclement the US has been building with South Korea, Japan, and ASEAN. The BRICS group is another stratagem of theirs to do the same thing.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday September 04 2019, @07:00PM (3 children)
I totally agree with you. My only point was that given the size of Chinese economy, she should and will be the leader and the policemen of the world with and at some point instead of the US. This is how modern economy works. If the US tries to keep military leadership without changing the current environment, the US will collapse similar to the USSR.
There are very few options available to prevent this, and they are all bad.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 05 2019, @02:22AM (2 children)
There's more to such things than a large economy, though. There's a military large enough and advanced enough to project power wherever you want, whenever you want. China's working on that but they have a long way to go. There're all the forms of soft power, which China has none of and probably will never develop; as an authoritarian state they just don't have the experience or knack of a robust civil society that can manage all that. There's the internal cohesion which is very thin, and very brittle in China; for all the talk of division in the United States it is an order of magnitude more united than Chinese are. There's diplomatic prowess, which China doesn't have. There are cultural ties with other nations, which China doesn't have; there are a couple hundred million overseas Chinese in mainly ASEAN countries, but the natives are deeply suspicious of them so they count as a net negative as far as relations with China go.
If China tried to throw its weight around now it would be duplicating the grievous error that Japan made in trying to precipitously construct its Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Apart from raw military and economic power, nobody else was Japanese or spoke Japanese or admired Japanese culture or wanted to be friends with Japanese or had any warm, fuzzy feelings toward Japanese at all and so could only react with hostility to the prospect of being absorbed into their empire.
Brushing China back on trade now sucks, and it may not work ultimately to deter their ambitions, but it's a less bad option than letting them vamp out the US, Europe, Japan, ASEAN, Africa, and South America for another 20 years until they're ready to crush everybody outright. That's why a lot of people are nervously watching what Beijing does with Hong Kong right now, because it will show their true colors in what they have planned for everyone else who has differences of opinion with Beijing but don't have the possibility of gentle treatment because of shared Chinese ethnicity. That is, if Beijing is willing to slaughter ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong because they won't do what they're told, how well would, say, Congolese fare when they complain about high-handedness from Chinese corporations in their country?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday September 05 2019, @02:45AM (1 child)
So, what you are basically saying is that because Chinese are bad they can't compete with Americans. But what if they do become good, should they rule the world instead of Americans? More to the point, should the US help China to become good (and replace the US) or bad (so they never challenge the US).
Those are rhetorical questions off-course. The real politic is different. The US has basically three choices. Nuke China all out now. Accept half of Chinese as immigrants. Divide China.
The last one is the old British plan and what is probably the most feasible. If the US succeeds in breaking China into 3-5 coastal republics and poor rural center disconnected from the sea, the hegemony of the US is protected.
Everybody in the world understands this play and the whole politics game is about it.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 05 2019, @12:53PM
Of course they can compete with Americans and have been for, oh, 50 years now. As autocrats, though, they are not to be trusted by those who value pluralistic democracy. So, yes, from among all possible choices it's probably best for people who like freedom to not want autocrats to rule the world.
The imbalance of trade with China was the US trying to help China become good, under the theory that once the Chinese people began to prosper economically they would demand greater say in their governance and eventually would insist on democracy. So, in a nutshell, capitalism --> democracy. But, as often happens, Beijing has other ideas what to do with that money and Americans have woken up to that.
I don't think your three choices are the suite of choices China and the world have. China can choose a different path than the one it's on, ie. muscling its way to regional hegemony; it can endeavor to be a good global citizen and build goodwill with humanitarian projects and the like for several decades (at least). It can let the US go broke with its superpower nonsense and stand ready to be a stabilizing presence when America shudders itself to pieces. America and the rest of the world can, for their part, continue encircling China and antagonizing it, or brush it back and say we're willing to play with them, but only if they play fair.
But I don't think carving China up into pieces works for anybody at all.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 03 2019, @01:42PM (1 child)
China built the Three Gorges Dam to provide green energy for its economy. Of course they had to wipe out a species of freshwater dolphin and countless cultural sites and a legendary landscape that inspired 4000 years of Chinese poets, artists, and writers to do it. They are all about saving the Earth as long as they can destroy it to get there.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by RamiK on Tuesday September 03 2019, @09:58PM
Don't be a dumb-ass people were dying because of the floods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam#Floods,_agriculture,_industry [wikipedia.org]
compiling...