Hacker News Reader

Comment by seanmcdirmid | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com