That won't work either. An unhealthy workforce doesn't work very well. China's massive environmental damage is going to catch up with them soon, and if they aren't ready to transition to a more sustainable industry it'll bring economic collapse.
Western countries used to have environmental problems as bad as China does now before we cleaned up our act. It didn't lead to economic collapse, just a lot of human suffering and the loss of some natural resources.
And China isn't doing much to get away from it. It'll get worse, and eventually there will be a breaking point, such as factory workers and farmers shooting at government officials. Some of that is already happening.
Not entirely true. In many cases, when they're putting in brand new infrastructure, they're going the extra mile to make it more sustainable and "green", figuring (rightly) that they're going to have to eventually anyways, and since that kind of infrastructure is more expensive, why not do it when you're flush with cash?
Secondly, it's an issue of energy dependence. China has a 75% urbanization target for 2050, mostly in three mega-city complexes:
Bay of Bohai region (Beijing, Tianjin, and assorted metros)
Yellow River Delta (Shanghai, Hangzhou, Nanjing, etc.)
Pearl River Delta (Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, etc.)
There's also a secondary urbanization hub in Sichuan, around a Chongqing-Chengdu axis that would likely be mostly heavy industry/military in focus.
If they don't find a way to make energy-efficient, low-impact mega-cities, they're going to be literally devouring every last chunk of coal and drop of oil on the planet just to keep them running. And choking on their own waste in the process. That's why the national government is sinking a ton of yuan into R&D in this kind of stuff.
Now, that said....as always in China, the problem is that no matter how good of an idea or how altruistic the national government might be, the devil of the problem is getting local officials to follow the plan (remember the bit I mentioned about an official painting a quarry green to "comply" with directives?). The other problem is the inevitable economic ripple effects. For instance, let's say that they build 100 large-scale coal gas plants, each generating 650Mw. All that electricity could heat a lot of houses, removing the need for them to use the ubquitous bitumen cakes (China's coal is almost entirely bituminous, as opposed to cleaner-burning anthracite). However, there are tens of thousands of Chinese who make and sell these bitumen cakes as their livelihood. They're out of a job. There are various other technologies that will improve quality of life (and environmental quality) for many Chinese, but are going to put people out of work. Managing that problem is going to be crucial -- ignore too many of them, and you wind up with the seeds for a neo-Luddite social revolt.
Another reason they've got to go green is that as much coal as China produces (48% of the world total), they've only got about a 50-year reserve left at the current rate. That means they've got 50 years to develop the infrastructure for wind, hydro, nuclear, etc. and shift the country to it, or the Chinese success story is going to grind to an earth-shattering halt. I know that some people look at the scenario and recall Japan in the 1930's and the fact that their industrialization was hampered by a critical shortage of oil, and the ramifications that ended up having. I don't see that happening with China, because their histories and national character are so different. A more realistic proposition is that they'll use trade and investment to strip Africa clean of resources first.
To kind of rerail, this is why I wish to god Huntsman had managed to stay in the race longer. Romney's stance on China seems to be the classic Republican "we need to be wary of the inscrutable ChiComs" stance, and Obama's is more of a puzzled laissez-faire attitude that's more concerned with human rights issues and trade. I don't particularly subscribe to other, although Obama's is at least less dangerous. I think we need to be actively engaged, we need to be offering assistance in technical issues that benefit both countries (like environmental technology), we need to quietly maintain pressure on internal reforms but have the sense not to publicly call them out on things and make their job that much more difficult because of the inevitable "national pride" backlash, and most of all we need to recognize that China is entitled to a certain sphere of influence along their borders. I worry (especially with Republican administrations) that Taiwan could be become what Israel is: an alliance with one small state in an unfriendly neighborhood that we maintain mostly for historical reasons rather than any current
realpolitik reasons.
Wow, lots of people discuss China in this "American Election Megathread", glad to see that.
你好菜鸟, 我們商榷中国因为中国非常重要美国政治. 请你原谅我笔调...我是 "菜鸟" 关于国语.
Author
Topic: American Election Megathread - It's Over (Read 765314 times)