BYD ranks at the bottom for human rights. But interestingly, BYD’s proponents seem to brush it away.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/10/human-rights-...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/10/human-rights-...
> BYD’s policies do not address gender-responsive due diligence. BYD states that it engages with stakeholders. However, it does not provide policies for engaging with communities affected by the battery supply chain or incorporating their views into decision-making processes. There is no reference to Indigenous Peoples or their rights in BYD’s reports.[68]
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ACT30/8544/2024/en/
I don't at all disagree with the importance of these topics and I'm glad to see them addressed but this entire metric seems to be based on specific language/terminology in a company's public commitments. And this terminology seems to be biased towards a western audience. For example, the United States (a settler-colonial nation) is ofc going to have more discourse around the rights of indigenous people. Whereas the term "indigenous" isn't used very much at all in China.
I also feel like you've buried the lead here. Yes BYD ranks the lowest of the 13 brands they looked at but not by much and they also explicitly state that ALL of the brands they looked at failed to meet their minimum baselines. The report is more of a critique of the industry as a whole than any individual actor
At the end of the day, you aren’t going to convince consumers in Southeast Asia, South America or Africa to buy more-expensive American or European cars on account of human rights. Not while they’re middle-income economies.
More importantly, this highlights a pattern of selective scrutiny:
- When Western companies (like Tesla) source batteries from the same regions (or use batteries from BYD or CATL), human rights concerns rarely drive mainstream criticism or policy actions
- When industries dominated by Western monopolies (eg: Big Tech's app stores or cloud services) face human rights allegations (like labor abuses in global supply chains or censorship complicity)= the backlash is often muted or just silenced
- But when a non Western competitor like BYD gains traction, human rights rhetoric suddenly intensifies, even without evidence matching the severity of claims against established Western companies
It's geopolitically convenient criticism, FUD against what threatens a western monopolistic ecosystem
So I have mostly lost interest in the argument. Not that it is an incorrect or irrelevant argument, but none of that has really mattered.
I am curious when will other countries would actually start of defend their industries properly.
I mean, so does Germany.
Technically, the USA only has the massive subsidies part since the IRA came to be but they also have tariffs so, not doing too bad distortion-wise.
At this point in time, pretty much everyone is already defending their industries. China is just playing its cards better than the others and with a head start when it comes to EV.
In the case of the US with respect to China they are mostly a retaliation to the above anti-competitive practices.
But I hear you on who is playing their cards better. I don’t think China is playing theirs very well. They pissed off both the US and EU, and even Mexico is enacting tariffs on Chinese products. American and European countries are taking action to stop Chinese anti-competitive practices. Nice factories you have there, too bad there’s nobody to sell those products to.
I also don’t know what you mean when you say for example the US and Germany are suppressing wages. I’m interested in what you mean by that specifically.
> 1. Run other companies outside of China out of business
Why?
> 2. Keep people employed even if what they produce is worth less than their labor and energy/materials input.
Why don't they have them do something with positive utility, like sweeping streets or providing elder care, or a myriad of other jobs?
> Why?
Are you asking why they’re doing it?
> Why don't they have them do something with positive utility, like sweeping streets or providing elder care, or a myriad of other jobs?
They do, but they need people to be working in manufacturing facilities too, otherwise the gig is up. You can’t have millions or tens of millions of people sweeping streets all day - better to give them the illusion that the future is better by having them build and ship products.
If people are buying it voluntarily, who are we to judge?
Ice cream also only lasts a single use and is gone afterwards, and no one complains.
> Are you asking why they’re doing it?
Sorry, I should have quoted more.
> because they need to 1. Run other companies outside of China out of business,
Why do they 'need to' run other companies out of business? What need do they have?
> They do, but they need people to be working in manufacturing facilities too, otherwise the gig is up. You can’t have millions or tens of millions of people sweeping streets all day - better to give them the illusion that the future is better by having them build and ship products.
Maybe. Sweeping streets was but one example. There's lots of other positive utility things to do, even in manufacturing.
I'm sure they are in shamble knowing they made their main rival mad.
Apart from some moderate posturing to appease the US and a bit of moderate protectionism, the EU is still very much a trade partner however. A casual look at all the new Chinese brand factories in Hungary probably tell you everything you need to know.
Meanwhile they dominate the South American, African and South-East Asian markets.
> American and European countries are taking action to stop Chinese anti-competitive practices.
Personally, as a European, I would really appreciate if American started by stopping their own anti-competitive practices. It's objectively worse than what China is doing.
> I also don’t know what you mean when you say for example the US and Germany are suppressing wages.
Germany is suppressing wages. They have been doing so since the 2000s. It's indolore for them because their money can't appreciate as it's anchored by the rest of the union. It's terrible for the other members however especially considering Germany doesn't reinvest their surplus in the union.
The US is still a trade partner too, but this will change to a varying degree (as it will with the EU) over the next 5-10 years as both blocs move away from Chinese imports. You really nailed it though with your comment - China has to build the factory and staff local Hungarians precisely because the EU will continue to mandate that to continue to sell products in the market factories and jobs will have to be created in the EU.
The EU is extremely protectionist. As is China. Much more so than the United States. A lot of folks look at tariffs and then think the US is protectionist but that’s not the case, more so it has been very friendly toward the exact anti-competitive tactics that the EU and China have engaged in until only recently. To be clear the US of course has its own protectionist policies like the Jones Act, but it has been a much more easy country to do business in and much more tolerable to losing factories and such.
> Personally, as a European, I would really appreciate if American started by stopping their own anti-competitive practices. It's objectively worse than what China is doing.
It’s not. But these comments are boring. aS ‘MurICAN EuRope SHOuld PAY 4 defEncE. That’s what these comments sound like. It feels good to say, and it makes you feel like you know the real deal, but it’s such a banal thing to say that it’s barely worth saying.
“America shouldn’t pay for Europeans defenses”
But but here is all these ways it benefits you too, and of course we should pay more to meet it obligations but.. and… we all agree on this… and we help you with your international endeavors and we stand by you on trade, and you can count on us and… … yes but..
“America is the same thing as China’
But but no we’re not, we have a shared history, and… but despite the current admin we also uphold international law… and yes… but… look… we have your factories making your cars here in the US and we sell you software… and … but..
When you shoot off one line sentences that feel good, you miss out on actually interesting and productive conversations.
> Germany is suppressing wages.
How exactly?
Well tried but no, not even close. Presenting tariffs as a tit-for-tat is Trump government propaganda. It's baseless however and as connected to facts as looking at the trade balance for goods while ignoring services.
> It’s not. But these comments are boring. aS ‘MurICAN EuRope SHOuld PAY 4 defEncE.
It is. Nice stawman with the irrelevant parallel by the way.
America has an aggressive subsidies program targeting European industry (IRA) and high tariff on key part of the export chain notably steel. And I'm not even talking about the political meddling and threat of invasion by your government.
China is honestly a significantly more reliable trade partner at this point.
> How exactly?
The Hartz reforms.
How does German gov't subsidize their automakers' overcapacity? Their EV subsidies aren't/weren't exclusive to domestic EVs or EVs using certain domestic part. No issue with subsidies that are equally available to all eligible producers, domestic or foreign.
This is unlike in China where market access and EV subsidies were conditioned on forced tech transfer since 2011 -- for which China was litigated before the WTO (see WT/DS549 China - Certain Measures on the Transfer of Technology). Or worse, conditioned on using local batteries made by local battery "champions," CATL/BYD/etc only to funnel all NEV subsidies back to the local battery industry and undermine foreign competitors. In other word, no NEV subsidies to any EV with foreign batteries to protect local "champions." This practice is also illegal under Article 3(b) "Prohibition" of the WTO's Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement.
>> Technically, the USA only has the massive subsidies part since the ...
Biden's IRA subsidy ended in September. And let's realistic, the IRA was a weak and short counter measure against China's illegal practices past 15 yeras.
The government could for example impose a tariff that covers half the difference thus maintaining an unfair advantage for Chinese companies. Thus profiting from the manipulation without placing excessive burden on domestic companies.
However, they don’t have to be high enough to change who wins, even small ones adjust how much foreign subsidies manipulate the market. Foreign governments should consider how much US corn syrup impacts domestic consumption for example as a separate issue from how it impacts domestic sugar production.
China’s currency manipulation has second order effects that benefits Americans. We don’t necessarily want China to stop, instead the goal should be to minimize the harm while extracting maximum benefits. A small tariff that caused them to double down on currency manipulation would be a massive win.
In general, can the EV industry survive without government subsidies? Maybe now it can in the US.
Also not convinced EVs (as they are currently) are vastly superior to ICE cars. Not accounting for the potential for ICE cars to vastly improve if there wasn't so much vested interest. So the whole EV industry seems a bit unsustainable...
ICE cars can’t get vastly better they are simply too close to fundamental limits. It’s quickly becoming a competition between hybrids and EV’s.
ICE itself is close to fundamental limits. But iiuc other parts like frames and chasis are not, like they could be lighter and stronger.
ICE cars have bigger mileage than equivalent EVs? Meaning you fill gas once every few weeks in 5 mins.
> EV’s are a substantial win even without subsidies
Why are they subsidized then? It is somehow better than no subsidies from the company's viewpoint.
Home charging supplies more energy with less cost and effort. It’s physically impossible for ICE cars to win here as I will park at home and stay at home for a while, I don’t need to go to a gas station and then stand around for a few minutes.
> Why are they subsidized then?
Initially it was all about helping the technology become competitive, which it has.
As to why it’s a good idea, ICE cars have negative externalities due to tailpipe emissions. Much like cigarettes burning stuff = public health hazard. Mandatory catalytic converters help, but as I benefit when you buy an EV instead of a ICE car I don’t mind chipping in for some of the cost of an EV.
The alternative of simply taxing ICE engines or gas etc would be equally effective tool, just harder to pass politically.
Tesla might be responsible but almost all other EVs are likely externalizing a lot in their supply chain.
Anyway according to Gemini: ``` In the U.S., a typical EV becomes "cleaner" than a gas car after about 15,000 to 20,000 miles (roughly 1.5 to 2 years of driving).
If your primary concern is climate change, the EV is the clear winner after about 1.5 years. If your concern is local land/human rights impact, the EV has a heavier "upfront" cost that requires better regulation to solve. ```
EV is the way to go but is it going to scale sustainably to say 25% or more of all cars? Apparently yes, with the new battery tech in the pipeline.
Extracting, manufacturing, and transporting gas more than offsets those differences. Oil refineries are nasty not to mention mid to large scale oil spills.
> EV is the way to go but is it going to scale sustainably to say 25% or more of all cars?
EV’s are already 20% of global sales, will it scale isn’t some deep question 5x current production would be completely replacing ICE cars.
If you can charge at home it’s like 1/4 the price of driving on gasoline per mile. That’s not counting the fact that it takes basically zero maintenance other than tire rotation. I think there’s some fluids you want to refresh at 100k miles, but that’s it.
Compared to a gas car it’s like a free to drive car.
It also drives better. You get used to instant full torque fast. Even an economy EV like the Leaf feels like driving an ICE sports car. In some ways it’s better since the response has no latency. When I drive an ICE car it feels laggy and mushy. Also seems loud and smelly and “steampunk”.
Recharge time and range are still better for ICE, but that’s literally the only advantage. EVs are superior in every other way: cost to operate, lack of maintenance, efficiency, acceleration, torque, quiet operation, and so on.
I’ve read a few analyses that claim that driving an EV is still better in terms of emissions than an average gas car even if you get 100% of your power from coal (very few do). This is because small heat engines suck and because gas takes tons of energy just to go from oil well to pump. A big supercritical turbine in a coal plant has much better thermal efficiency than any car engine, and oil has to be shipped and refined (very energy intensive) then post-processed then shipped again and all that counts against the overall efficiency.
EVs are just better. If the charge and range gap can close, ICE is obsolete for all but niche uses.
I agree that Chinese workers and tax payers are hurt. But why do we need to 'defend' anything from their generosity?
I'd write a BIG thank you note to the Chinese taxpayers if they could send a direct cash payment instead, so I can use it towards my next EV purchase (of my own choosing).
Otherwise, I prefer not to participate in China's predatory pricing tactic enabled by illegal export subsidies to undermine foreign competitors and distort global market.
In any case, feel free not to buy goods you don't like. No one is forcing you to buy, or are they?
Sure, China's NEV subsidies are illegal and that's why Chinese EVs should stay in China. Too many folks still don't understand why Chinese EVs are countervailed not only in the US, the EU, Turkiye, Canada, but also why China's ally countries such as Russia and Brazil are imposing restriction on Chinese EVs (or the legal basis).
>> In any case, feel free not to buy goods you don't like. No one is forcing you to buy, or are they?
Sure, but no point in marching around virtual-signaling as if Chinese EVs and illegal subsidies are pro-consumer.
> Sure, but no point in marching around virtual-signaling as if Chinese EVs and illegal subsidies are pro-consumer.
Huh? Where's the virtue? And how can cheap stuff not be good for the consumer?
The subsidies are bad for the Chinese economy and the Chinese tax payer. But they are excellent for the overseas customers who benefit from them.
This is weak sauce.
Buying anything from China is supporting that regime.
Firstly it's not relevant to a discussion about China's behavior.
Yes the US under Trump has become increasingly authoritarian, but besides being not as oppressive as China, the US remains a democracy and there is a chance to vote bad people out of the White House and more importantly reverse the direction of the country.
While it definitely attacks threats and has perpetrated plenty of unjust deeds, it also is responsible for the food security of much of the world. It has lifted more people out of poverty than any other party. It has brought poor nations to the point of industrialization.
The US has been a far greater force for good in the world than evil.
The leadership changes frequently, so it's hard to point to any single responsible party. It's democratic, so its institutions are subject to scrutiny. The free press sheds light on corruption and rule breaking.
Despite changing immigration narratives, the US has been an early and strong proponent of multiculturalism and welcoming people.
With declining US hegemony, the world is likely to become a much more dangerous place. We'll see more economic strife, more war, higher costs, greater tensions.
Food (eg. protein, fisheries, etc.), water (eg. dams), materials (eg. rare earths), land, strategic geography, trade, labor, security, political upheaval, power struggles, sectarian violence, terrorism, religion, historical claims, climate, etc. etc. etc.
Under a single global order, disagreements were normally put aside to participate in global trade. As we begin to move to distributed trading blocs and factions, many of these disagreements will boil over. Parties won't step up to stop them.
The Chinese government does this a lot.
really doesn't seem to be as stark a difference as there once was.
China’s system has produced outcomes the US cannot come close to matching. In a few decades it lifted hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty. It built nationwide high speed rail, dense urban transit, modern housing, and large scale infrastructure at a speed the US has not achieved since the mid 20th century. Many Chinese cities are cleaner, more connected, and more functional than American ones. Long term planning, industrial policy, and state coordination have delivered tangible improvements in daily life for a huge share of the population. Those are not propaganda achievements. They are measurable.
China’s downsides are also real. Political dissent is not protected. Surveillance is pervasive. Ethnic repression, especially in Xinjiang, is severe. There is no internal mechanism to safely challenge the regime when it abuses power. Prosperity is conditional on alignment. When the state decides someone or some group is a problem, there is no lawful way to resist.
Now look honestly at the US. The US has political freedoms China does not. Speech, courts, elections, civil society, and the ability to oppose the state without being erased are real advantages. That matters enormously. But the US also has a long record of extreme violence and moral failure. It slaughtered millions abroad in wars like Vietnam and Iraq, often based on lies. It overthrew governments, backed death squads, enforced sanctions that killed civilians, and built a mass incarceration system that destroyed entire communities. At home, it tolerates deep inequality, decaying infrastructure, and political paralysis. It cannot build basic transit or housing at scale, and millions live worse materially than citizens of far poorer countries.
So if the standard is “this regime has blood on its hands,” then the US fails that test as well. If the standard is “this regime produces good outcomes for its people,” China clearly succeeds in ways the US does not. If the standard is “this regime allows its citizens to challenge power and correct abuse,” the US is better.
That is the real comparison. Different systems optimize for different things and fail in different ways. One is not a moral fairy tale and the other is not a cartoon villain.
That’s why “buying anything from China is supporting evil” is not a serious ethical framework. Global trade does not map cleanly onto endorsement, and the same logic would implicate participation in much of the modern world, including the US led order that produced enormous suffering of its own. A coherent position is to argue for strategic decoupling or limits on state coupled firms. A black and white call for regime destruction or moral purity ignores both China’s real achievements and the US’s very real crimes.
Once you include the full ledger, the issue is not good versus evil. It’s tradeoffs between flawed systems, not a simple moral referendum.
You really owe it to yourself to visit (or if possible live in) China for a while to see this other perspective.
Also it's worth noting throughout history, the incumbent world power will have clashes with the up and coming power to the throne. A lot of propaganda will be dispensed from both sides. Be critical of such information lest you become a useful idiot.
The only thing left standing is this iron curtain through which we are allowed to perceive china, which let's us fantasize about how repressed they are and oh how free we are. We have nothing but lies left to hold on to.
Hello Greenland. Hello tariffs. Hello humongous incarceration rate of millions of people, particularly of one ethnicity.
wow, seems like US must pull from the NATO fast
that's why we have russo-ukrainian war right now, if EU is strong enough to counter russian, that wouldn't happen
US was involved in Bosnia and Kuwait. If they pleased they would be involved in Ukraine. But US got the fascist mind virus.
It WAS US policy to play the protector role for EU and other West Aligned nations. Such that they traded with US and bought weapons from the US. If US pulls out, they will be replaced by other players in the game.
The publicly released sections of the latest US National Security Strategy and sourced comments indicate that the US is looking to interfere in EU solidarity and its actions around Greenland are specifically anti-NATO, which is an alliance based on security of internationally recognized boundaries and resolution of disputes by peaceful means.
Members of NATO can't rely on the US commitment to the alliance, and members of the EU can't rely on the US commitment to their own political arrangements as democracies.
The trade war that the US has with its immediate neighbors also shows that even agreements made by the previous Trump administration (USMCA) are not binding on the US.
Why should anyone trust anything that the US says?
The trade “war” is pressuring without kinetic force, yes. And our populations need the help, because our governments are spineless.
This feels like a rather lazy strawman to debate against. Not sure there's anything interesting about it.
This discussion will proceed as follows: you will present a laundry list of examples, and if I answer NO to any of them, you win. It will play out as the illustration of the fallacy of all or nothing: if I am not 100% pure, then I am 100% wrong.
What you will fail to understand, is that in the real world "doing the best one can" still has an impact. So I might not answer 100% all of your questions, but it doesn't mean my decisions don't have any impact. The absurdity can be illustrated by rewording: "if we can't prevent all crime, we should stop enforcing it", or "if you can't feed all the hungry children, we shouldn't bother feeding any".
Unfortunately for you, I will not play your purity test game so that you can feel smug, but I will say that I do my best and I pay attention, and whenever feasible I vote with my wallet to buy from or invest in companies with stated goals that align with human rights, and I will feel disappointment over not making the "best possible choice" at every opportunity, but that will position me to do better next time. Because perfection is the enemy of progress.
Had OP said something like "How can you make an informed decision congruent with your ethics when so many ubiquitous companies violate human rights?" that would have been a genuine question. Instead OP said "Tell me why you don't do X" and behind that is "because I win." That's arguing from bad faith (a polite way to describe OP).
Though let me approach this from a more good faith angle, what are the steps you are trying to do to make better purchasing and consumption decisions?
I understand your point, it isn't all or nothing. I do try to make better decisions in regards to products created with blood, though I often falter, I use a Google phone, no idea how many children had to extract rare minerals for it to be created, and I buy cheap hardware from China and that's a whole other deal. However I avoid Temu and Shien, I don't eat meat due to the industry and carbon impact, I almost never use single-use and disposable plastic items to lower consumption in general, I avoid cars, almost always taking public transport, and regarding Fairphone, I am definitely eying them for a future phone, though right now there were some downsides that I couldn't take (for now, phone progress is slowing down, making it easier for them to catch up, hopefully soon). I don't do enough, and a lot of my decisions are based on climate impact and not human rights, I know, so, it'd be great to hear your thoughts!
But I will say that I ask specifically about the Fairphone because I've met many ethical, anti-capitalist, humanitarians, vegan, etc etc people who still don't apply any of their morals to the purchase of their cellphone and won't own up to it. I always found it an interesting piece of consistent dissonance.
But what about the environmental costs that are being externalized? EV car production is likely worse or equal to ICE car production at each step. And the only arg seems to be that some day all EVs will be powered by solar/clean energy somehow.
Does anyone feel otherwise? Is the net carbon and environmental footprint really lower over the entire lifecycle per car for an EV? Not today