Hacker News Reader

Comment by themodelplumber | Hacker News Reader

What was their position prior to this? What changed to make this happen? Really curious.

Environmental stewardship is actually something that economists refer to as a luxury good --- it's something you'll start purchasing the more disposable money you have. Which makes sense, if I have to choose between starvation and air pollution, I'll take air pollution. Now my belly is full, but I can't breath? Now maybe I'll think about spending some money on cleaner air. That's why I find the West's scolding of developing economies for environmental degradation to be hypocritical. If we really care, then we'll give those countries the money to preserve their environment.

It shouldn't be a zero-sum game where you have to choose between starvation and air pollution. The west did not go about industrial development in an environmentally friendly way and that only increases the onus on the developing countries to learn from their mistakes, instead of repeating them.

The west hasn't ceased industrial development, and we'd be remiss to pretend that we have. The fact that we've outsourced a lot of the costs to China and then to other countries doesn't change the fact that we extract growth from dumping toxins and pollutants into the environment.

If we want to preach learning from mistakes, we should take our privileged position and lead the charge. We do the opposite of that, externalizing the costs of ongoing industrialization to societies that can least afford the costs.

The ultimate math is a zero-sum game. Industrialization produces efficiency and waste, and a lot of the meaningful waste comes in the form of harm to our future environment. We haven't actually devised a way to produce industrial goods without producing massive byproducts that harm people somewhere.

Until we have, the best course of action we can take is to reduce consumption. But so far we've done the opposite.

> The ultimate math is a zero-sum game.

It is most definitely not a zero sum game so far, but there certainly are losers.

>externalizing the costs of ongoing industrialization to societies that can least afford the costs.

We regulate pollution, China mostly doesn't. It's not clear to me what policy you think the West should adopt to fix this.

Tax imports of products that pollute as part of their manufacturing process. There, this both evens the paying field, creates an incentive for everyone to play ball, and promotes non-polluting economic growth.

That's reasonable, but hard to enact without inviting retaliation. I'm not sure if the resulting retaliation would make the overall policy a net win or loss.

The west doesn't really do more than hand wrong China on the environment, and why should they? China is basically destroying their country so they can make cheap junk for the west! I mean, where else can they process rare earth elements so cheaply? Why China continues to do this at this point is a mystery, but the west isn't complaining much. Perhaps the CCP is afraid of moving to a consumer driven economy, people whose lifestyles are raised too much begin demanding political rights....

Honestly, if China wants to avoid complete environmental collapse, they'll have to drastically change their ways soon. You can say the west did it and survived, but the west didn't have 1.4 billion people doing it with the level of toxicity of a modern economy. The brink China is at now (and India is approaching) is unprecedented.

It's funny because we produce more pollution per capita in the US (even if China produces more overall).

Because the level of life of US citizens is much higher on average. The wealthier you are the more you consume and therefore pollute.

I think the problem (for Chinese people) is that China ha much more dense population than the US.

The US has more arable land, so can be a net food exporter, though we have to wonder if China's almonds are worth so much California water during a drought. But otherwise the rest of our net exports are fairly high value, airplanes and IP so to speak, and have low environmental impact.

I must be misunderstanding you - you're not saying that US industry has a low environmental impact are you?

Export industries in the states have lower environmental impact than those in China. For example, the environmental impact of IP, e.g. Software development, is pretty low. Making an airplane is also low impact on a dollar-dollar basis (they have an impact, but it is well amatorized in the price). China, in turn, does $2 of environmental damage to make $1 in profit.

Software development depends on Chinese pollution. It's difficult to say what the cost of software would be if we had to pay full price for the externalities involved in computer manufacturing.

But the Chinese are paying those cost, not us. My point is exactly that China is pooping on their environment mostly for our westerner benefits. It is weird that they stand for it, but the current government doesn't feel like they have a choice.

I'm surprised that making aircraft are is low impact. Things like smelting aluminium are pretty bad. However there is more to a plane than aluminium and more to US industry than aircraft.

The airplanes don't so much have low impact, rather they have a high sales price. Divide it out and it works out well enough. Airplanes have a lot of IP going into them.

Also, there is a good reason Boeing setup originally in Seattle. The smelting of aluminum is much cheaper when an abundance of surplus hydroelectricity is available.

Smelting wouldn't really count as an environmentally friendly activity, but having a relatively low impact source of electricity helps. Interesting regarding their location, thanks.

Production produces pollution, people dont. Per capita pollution is mostly similar to per capita GDP.

The manufacturing centers of China do not employ 1.4 billion people. Lets stop exagerating please. China is still rural at ita core despite a few regions with massive cities.

I didn't make that claim, only that China has a population of 1.4 billion. Chase your shaggy dog elsewhere.

China is now majority urban (more people live in cities than on rural land) and has been for a few years now.

China's urban population is over 740 million[1]. For perspective the USA is almost 260 million[2]. I don't think your assumption holds up in the modern world. Maybe 20 years ago.

https://www.quandl.com/data/WORLDBANK/CHN_SP_URB_TOTL-China-...

https://www.quandl.com/data/WORLDBANK/USA_SP_URB_TOTL-United...

thats still half of China's population. Thats basically still a country in transition from a rural era to an industrial one. In any developed country the percentage of folks living in cities is way higher.

Census in 2000 in the US reported 79% of Americans living in Urban Areas. It is surely even higher now.

It's still wrong to call a country with over half its population in cities "rural at its core". It isn't transitioning from a 'rural era' either. It's more urbanized than Slovakia, Romania, Slovenia, and several other developed countries[1].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country

Even your Wikipedia link confirms what I said earlier. China is the bottom half for urbanization globally. Morocco is more urbanized than China, and I've never heard of anyone describing Morocco as an urbanized country. So this is really your bias at work. I have travelled in China several times and as soon as you go outside of the large cities, you'll see great poverty and rural life everywhere. It's changing, but it will take time to move hundred of millions of people to the cities.

It doesn't confirm that China is 'rural at its core' at all. When more than half the world lives in urban centers then being in the bottom half doesn't mean anything. If over half a country lives in urban centers then you simply can't call the country 'rural at its core'. It has a massive rural population, but it isn't 'rural at its core'.

To make an edit: I think we're arguing over semantics of terms at this point. I don't think we're actually disagreeing about anything important. I never asked for China to be called urbanized (although I would use that term if forced to use one or the other), just that calling it 'rural at its core' doesn't hold up anymore. If you still think that statement holds true, then I'm sorry that we're going to have different definitions of that term.

What's the point of having your belly full if you have asthma or get cancer at 30 or not have water to drink?

You're making a false dichotomy there, these countries are polluted not necessarily because they are more productive that way, or because it raises the standards of living, but more because of corruption. By saying that other countries should pay up, you're basically saying that other countries should pay for their corruption.

The problem is that we are all in this together. What India does in its territory affects me in Europe, so I'm left wondering why I should pay for that. And don't give me the per capita stats, when they have had a serious natality problem.

I have a better idea. What is hypocritical is for the west to have regulations, but then to allow imports from countries that don't. If this has no other solution, then the logical path is to tax or ban those imports. Wouldn't that be more fair?

> What's the point of having your belly full if you have asthma or get cancer at 30 or not have water to drink?

Making it to 30 as a member of your nation's populace is a better deal for your nation than starvation and food riots. When it comes to citizenry, nations have a weird, unspoken incentive to keep you alive and in the workforce so as to exploit your output. That's not sarcasm or pessimism; one just doesn't often think about it in that simple of terms, but that thought process is a useful illustration around the point you're making. I'm not well educated in economics but I'd wager this is a concept of some kind that is known.

Belly full is near the top of critical sovereign state priorities. Environment is near the bottom. That's not really a dichotomy, one just has to understand the incentives for a nation. If a nation can work you for twenty years that's a start, and helps build the budget for 30, then 40, then clean air. And so on.

> if I have to choose between starvation and air pollution, I'll take air pollution

Exactly this is driving the push for GMO food crops in Asia and Africa. I have a few biologist friends who've been around on field trips and conferences, meeting people who are absolutely outraged at how certain people in the West are trying to ban/sabotage GMO food.

If you have the choice between mass starvation and death versus maybe hurting some part of the local ecosystem, it's really a no-brainer.

China used to be the go-to place for cheap labor and manufacturing.

Now that they're richer than before,

Low-tech and highly pollutive manufacturing has moved to other countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh. [0]

They're willing to pay more for the environment.[1]

[0]: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/business/international/chi...

[1]: http://qz.com/769957/chinese-people-want-renewable-energy-mo...

I am guessing that the fact that they very visibly _see_ pollution might have something to do with it. Those that were in Beijing when things got bad with smog know -- after spending a day outside and coming home, you'd find your nose to have black debris. It's a really unsettling thing especially if you're not used to it. Beijing has gotten a lot better recently, the joke is that it's because the Politburo leaders mostly live in Beijing and if affects them the most.

> after spending a day outside and coming home, you'd find your nose to have black debris.

Travelling in to London zone 1 still does this for me, and yes it was unsettling when I first moved to London...

This has never happened to me. Is it possible it's nothing to do with being in central London but due to dust and debris in the tube system? The amount of stuff that gets blown around in the air in the deep level lines is blinding if you don't look away as a train approaches.

Their position on CO2 hasn't changed all that much. The major issue for them is particulates and other side effects from burning coal. However, switching to renewables and/or anything non-coal is something that would also help with the air quality problem they have. And there's been alot of diplomacy pushing them towards that anyway so why not sign up.

Their is little evidence that their position has changed on the ground. Green peace says China is still building a ton of coal. http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/07/13/china-keeps-buil...

China wasn't inclined to join climate deals when the US wouldn't

Reply on news.ycombinator.com