| ▲ | matthewdgreen 17 hours ago |
| It's great news in the sense that this new energy storage and EV production capacity is (part of) our best chance to avoid catastrophic outcomes from climate change. It's terrifying because we (in the West) can't seem to motivate ourselves to do anything like this on the same timescale, and nations that suffered similar disparities in industrial capacity (not to mention energy production) haven't done well in the past. |
|
| ▲ | pbmonster 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > It's terrifying because we (in the West) can't seem to motivate ourselves to do anything like this on the same timescale The sad thing is, we still can if we want to. When Russia throttled down the natural gas pipelines into the EU, it took them mere weeks until the first new floating natural gas terminal was put into operation. And they've collectively dumped an astonishing number of new terminals into the North Sea since then, all at the same time. Germany alone spent $6B in infrastructure investments before that first winter without Russian gas. We could if we wanted to. But by and large, we don't want to. |
|
| ▲ | tomcam 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Of course we can motivate ourselves. But they're acting like we did in the 1800s through the mid 1900s. They just build anywhere no matter what. They have no interest in dealing with environmental concerns. The officially released pollution levels in China are mind-boggling and they still do not represent how bad it really is. You think US manufacturers wouldn't be delighted to just buy a few hundred acres land and start building stuff? They'd do it in a heartbeat. For better and for worse, it is not a level playing field. Conforming to government regulations over here is stifling for a 100-house development in Arkansas, but it's almost impossible in California, Illinois, or New York. Now imagine what it's like to build a huge factory. It is nearly impossible to get permission, and inspections, endangered wildlife concerns, waste removal, etc. handled in under 5-10 years. |
| |
| ▲ | Aperocky 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The air quality in China is lot better now than a decade ago. The smog was so bad in 2012 and I remembered the AQI hitting 999 (the max it would go) on more than one occasions during Beijing winter. Went back again in early 2024 and it was so much better, pollution still noticeable on more days than not but at least half the time I spent had AQI below 100. | | |
| ▲ | aurareturn 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | I was in Shenzhen in 2017 and again recently. The difference is huge. The air quality walking around the street is very good and you never smell gasoline. |
| |
| ▲ | underwater 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I’d argue that vested interests in oil and coal have done more to damage the US’s ability to invest like this than any regulatory red tape. Huge parts of America hate EVs. There is endless debate about nuclear vs clean energy vs coal, which prevents any change from happening. | |
| ▲ | robwwilliams 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Counterpoint: See the speed with which Colossus has been (is being) assembled in Memphis Tennessee. Yes, on an existing industrial site but this is still one damn impressive accomplishment. https://www.servethehome.com/inside-100000-nvidia-gpu-xai-co... | | |
| ▲ | HeatrayEnjoyer 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A data center is much easier than building an industrial factory | | |
| ▲ | inemesitaffia 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They had to build themselves because third parties gave longer timelines. | |
| ▲ | throwaway2037 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This seems like an apples to oranges comparison. They are completely different. Can you provide some specific examples? |
| |
| ▲ | tomcam 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is it your thought that is typical for large-scale development? |
| |
| ▲ | buran77 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Conforming to government regulations over here is stifling for a 100-house development in Arkansas, but it's almost impossible in California, Illinois, or New York. Now imagine what it's like to build a huge factory. It is nearly impossible to get permission, and inspections, endangered wildlife concerns, waste removal, etc. handled in under 5-10 years Reading this (and I completely agree, it's even worse in Europe), sounds like Chinese "management" implemented Agile on a whole new scale. The upside of a planned economy is that it can work like the internals of a private company, with one drive, "do what needs to be done". The downside is that it can work like the internals of a private company where you bite the bullet or look for another employer. This is much harder with countries, especially because planned economies are more likely to have taller fences around them. | | |
| ▲ | matthewdgreen an hour ago | parent [-] | | The flipside of this argument is that it enables Chinese industrial interests to operate on strategies with 10+ year time scales, whereas Western markets seem to focus on the next few quarters. This is probably very efficient for some businesses, but not for big industrial corporations with long development timelines. |
| |
| ▲ | Dalewyn 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is why Trump has pushed for mass deregulating, America (let alone the west) can't compete against China when our politicians demand that we straight up don't. | | |
| ▲ | cmrdporcupine 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | So we compete with a highly regulated planned economy by getting rid of regulations? Gotcha. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | harrall 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The bread and butter of progress is competition and I think a lot of American companies “won” like Boeing or Intel in the 90s and no one else could compete. Unfortunately winning is disastrous because it makes you complacent. Perhaps the most flagrant and dumbest example is Internet Explorer 6. I do not approve of raising tariffs on foreign vehicles because it will dull our edge in the long term. Protectionism is a short term bandaid. |
| |
| ▲ | azinman2 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Tariffs are a good way to ensure you still have a domestic capability. If Germany/korea/japan/China outcompete all US auto makers and they die, along with it goes a ton of jobs, manufacturing knowledge & capacity, cultural influence, an ability to keep capital flowing domestically, downstream suppliers, and ability to change factories from autos to military equipment in wartime. If China just keeps taking industry, then all we have left is an outpouring of all capital and a bunch of “content creators” left. Not a good prospect. US auto companies already try to compete globally in situations with/without tariffs. That provides plenty of competition too. | | |
| ▲ | tokioyoyo 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I completely agree with you, but it’s still funny how we were ok with the companies moving the jobs out of NA (so, we lost all the things you’ve listed) to save themselves money. But when it comes to saving money for the consumers, suddenly we’re not allowed to do the same thing, because it doesn’t help the bottom line. |
| |
| ▲ | robwwilliams 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Intel was famously not complacent. Perhaps a long lapse starting a decade ago. But even then “complacence” was not the problem. Ditto for Boeing. Managerial focus on just milking the cow has been the fundamental problem: and they milked frantically—not complacently. | | |
| ▲ | ahartmetz 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | One could perhaps say that short-termism is complacency about the future. | |
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I can't tell if I'm missing sarcasm here but ... Intel was paying customers Billions a year not to use their competitors products in the early 2000s. So not complacent about breaking the law to stifle competition but also complacent about actually building competitive chips that could win in the market. |
| |
| ▲ | cenamus 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well even with 100% tariffs BYDs new sub 10k vehicles will be far cheapet than anything else the US market has to offer |
|
|
| ▲ | throwawaymaths 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > our best chance to avoid catastrophic outcomes from climate change The US and EU are long off-peak carbon emissions (emissions even decreased during the Trump administration I, even using a trendline ignoring COVID). The biggest emitter right now is China, and it's emissions are growing not shrinking, and a considerable amount of that (including 90% of the worlds new coal plants) goes to projects like this. |
| |
| ▲ | matthewdgreen 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | China is building more renewable energy than the rest of the world combined. At this point there is no “let’s just reduce our emissions by 30% or so and hope things work out” plan that’s compatible with stopping worst-case outcomes, there is only a “let’s replace every single energy and fuel source with non-emitting ones on a ridiculously short timescale” plan. Insofar as we have a chance of doing that, it’s because of what China is doing right now. To the extent that they’re using fossil fuels to build the infrastructure for this renewable tech, I’m completely fine with that. That’s much better than using it to build iPhones or consumer nonsense. Insofar as they’re building a renewable grid backed by modern dispatchable coal and they’re also building out massive storage manufacturing capability and their emissions are on track to decline, I’m also fine with that. ETA: China’s emissions appear to be peaking and entering a structural decline. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2453703-clean-energy-ro... | | |
| ▲ | mike_hearn an hour ago | parent [-] | | China's emissions are continuing to climb sharply: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?country=CHN~USA~IND... The New Scientist article is terribly misleading. It suggests China's emissions have peaked because of a few months of reported stable numbers. What they don't tell you is that such periods have happened many times before. Between 2014-2016 Chinese emissions were stable or even fell slightly, according to their not very reliable data. Then it started climbing strongly again, even as US emissions dropped by a billion tonnes/year between 2008-2023. So there's no evidence China is turning anything around or is on track to decline. You can't extrapolate a few months out to decades in the future, and the New Scientist should know that. | | |
| ▲ | matthewdgreen an hour ago | parent [-] | | The analysis in New Scientist isn't based historical trends. It's a causal analysis based on the rapid deployment of new low-carbon generation on China's grid, which is being deployed at rates higher than expected demand. Of course you could be right -- maybe forward demand will be much higher than anticipated, or maybe all of those solar panels will turn out not to be plugged in or something. But you need to make a stronger argument for this than one that just casually glances at a historical time series. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Aeolun 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Kinda, but we’re not really in a position to blame them right? To some extend, sure, but that’s easy to say when you’ve already got yours. | | |
| ▲ | nradov 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | What does blame have to do with anything? Emissions are emissions. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Exactly: emissions are emissions. Reduce our own so we can credibly badger others about theirs. | |
| ▲ | Aeolun 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The tone of the message feels kinda like ‘China bad, look at all those emissions’ It’s possible that was not the intent. |
|
| |
| ▲ | t0bia_s 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | EU supports China economy by donting their products from EU citizen taxes. As EU citizen, you can ask donations for your new photovoltaic panels or EV up to 8000€. |
|
|
| ▲ | greenthrow 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Western country populations seem to be willfully falling for obvious fossil fuel propaganda over and over again. Future generations will rightfully curse our names. (Including today's children.) |
| |
| ▲ | _carbyau_ 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sadly it comes down to "Show me the money." I vote for change, but I don't have the money to buy electric. Even running costs don't make the difference when it comes to multiple tens of thousands of dollars in purchase price. I'd love to "care for our environment by buying an electric car". I can't afford to. | | |
| ▲ | aurareturn 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Affordable EVs are a solved problem. China has solved it. The world responded by putting up tariffs. | | |
| ▲ | XorNot 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I already own a car. An affordable EV is a thing I'll buy in like 15 more years when my already 20 year old Toyota finally dies maybe. If I bought it sooner, then my car would just go into the second hand market and do the same thing. "Affordable" isn't changing anything: I don't need another car, and I'm not going to prematurely crush mine into a cube. |
|
|
|