Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 666 posts

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#321

Post by mdeeks »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #227
mdeeks wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the places where per capita doesn't matter as much as total emissions. We have one planet. The yearly total and cumulative matters the most. China is by far the leading emitter. Over double of the US as of 2023 (latest available data I can find). China's emissions also aren't falling, they are skyrocketing. The US emissions ARE falling. The US dominates in cumulative, which is essentially the measure o…

Per capita most definitely matters. Every human is equal, there is no reason why one human has the right to emit much more than another. If we go by your reasoning, then all developing countries should figure out how to raise living standards without consuming more resources so the Americans don’t have to reduce theirs. You are incorrect that China isn’t doing anything to lower its impact. It’s emissions would be muc…

I didn't say China isn't doing anything. They are rolling out a mind boggling amount of clean energy right now. More than any other country by far. It's honestly incredible scale. It unfortunately isn't keeping up with their emissions though. The data is from 2023. It's very possible that in the last two years China has been able to stabilize emission growth.

I actually disagree a bit on the first part. I think developing countries have a right to have higher per capita emissions as they raise their standard of living and economy where they can get to the point of widely adopting clean energy.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#322

Post by somenameforme »

andrewflnr wrote: post #251
yanhangyhy wrote: post #233

I don’t know how it is in other countries, but nearly thirty years ago when I was in elementary school, a Chinese propaganda slogan stuck with me: “If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees.” Every part of that slogan has been put into action, continuously, for decades. Although low birth rates have now become a problem, back then it seemed like a solution. Xi Jinping may be a…

I would really respect the hell out of the nation of China if it wasn't for the authoritarianism and imperialism.

Not to be coy, but what do you mean by that? The reason I ask is because I think many of us use these terms, but without ever thinking about exactly which behaviors we're critiquing, or how they relate to what we truly value. For instance both the Roman and Greek Empires deserve immense respect, yet they were both often imperial empires ruled by dictators. The same is no less true of many societies that played key roles during The Renaissance, and patrons of the talents of the era.

I hold immense respect for China, because I think they're achieving great things. I also think there is a high probability that they will be the first society to start creating permanent off-planet colonizations, which is what will probably signal the birth of the next era of humanity, so that in the future a name like Wang Yie might lie right alongside Neil Armstrong.

On the other hand I certainly don't think the US should emulate them. It's important for the world to be multipolar, not only in alliances, but also in ideology, perspective, and behavior. What will happen to China once they inevitably find themselves with a leader who is not socially motivated, or who is incompetent? In such a centralized system outright collapse is not out of the question. Or perhaps they'll be just fine? Who knows? By maintaining a wide diversity of systems across the world, I think we maximize our chances of collective success and minimize our chances of collective failure.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#323

Post by SR2Z »

vishnugupta wrote: post #314
andrewflnr wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would really respect the hell out of the nation of China if it wasn't for the authoritarianism and imperialism.

I’m really curious to better understand what aspects of China’s government would hurt your day to day life. From what I read online the people there are free to rant and get things fixed. Their local government representative is held accountable if the people in his/her province are unhappy. Not too different from a typical democratic setup I guess? But this could be off because I don’t know anyone personally there.

> I’m really curious to better understand what aspects of China’s government would hurt your day to day life.

For tech workers in particular, the structure of the economy would prevent high equity-based compensation. I also distinctly recall China's heavy-handed enforcement of COVID lockdowns, and the sudden about-face when discontent reached a boiling point. Then there's the censorship too - disagreeing on low-stakes local issues is one thing, but if you disagree with national policy, you cannot exactly discuss it in the open the way that we do here.

I have known a few Chinese people, and they downplay this stuff. Some of them are even political refugees from the purges following Mao's death, and they downplay the level of authoritarianism in the country. As bad as the US has gotten recently, we're still not at that level.

It really does seem like both nations are slowly converging on similar systems of government, but hopefully this authoritarian swing in the US can be limited.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#324

Post by dukeofdoom »

I always wondered why Western democracies want carbon taxes, when just reverting more land back to managed forests, seems like a much more reasoned solution. It would trap carbon, help wild life, and provide fresh air, and jobs in forestry, and renewable resources like wood. Seems to me Carbon Taxes primarily benefit the banks, and grow bureaucracy.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#325

Post by deadfoxygrandpa »

jopsen wrote: post #285
scoopertrooper wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They go hand in hand. The authoritarianism of China allows it to undertake generational projects of immense scale with mass popular support through propaganda. It works well when the government is pursuing welfare maximising initiatives, but limits self-correction when the government goes off track. A small example of it going wrong, was when Mao convinced peasants to exterminate Sparrows and other ‘pests’ only to se…

> They go hand in hand. The authoritarianism of China allows it to undertake generational projects... Lack of free press makes it easy to look successful. It was the same thing with the Soviet union, was it ever really successful at any point?

> It was the same thing with the Soviet union, was it ever really successful at any point?

yes. the soviet union was wildly successful for most of its history. it went from a backwater poor agrarian country to an industrial superpower near peer with the US in a single generation, while simultaneously going through multiple brutal wars and crushing nazi germany at immense cost. despite all that, the soviet union had the fastest and greatest economic and quality of life rise of any country in the 20th century.

of course it had problems that led to its collapse but you cannot be serious and say it was never successful at any point

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#326

Post by devsda »

londons_explore wrote: post #266
devsda wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a Chinese propaganda slogan stuck with me: “If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees.” Why call it propaganda though ? That doesn't sound like a biased, deceptive or misleading policy. It hasn't been thought through much which is universally common for some govt policies everywhere, but it results have been positive for the most part ?

Not all propaganda is deceptive. The best propaganda is 100% true and still achieves it's goal.

So, the term is mainly used to convey an author's opinion on the subject of the topic and not necessarily related to the topic itself ?

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#327

Post by eks391 »

vishnugupta wrote: post #314
andrewflnr wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would really respect the hell out of the nation of China if it wasn't for the authoritarianism and imperialism.

I’m really curious to better understand what aspects of China’s government would hurt your day to day life. From what I read online the people there are free to rant and get things fixed. Their local government representative is held accountable if the people in his/her province are unhappy. Not too different from a typical democratic setup I guess? But this could be off because I don’t know anyone personally there.

I'm not sure where you are reading, but people are not free to rant in China. Many of my friends would lose privileges because they were foolish enough to openly speak poorly regarding certain topics, and suddenly they were banned from Wechat, which is equivalent to being banned from the internet, and from using money in noncash form. My sister was visiting and was dumb enough to get herself banned from way more services and she was scared she wouldn't be able to get back home. In a very few places, they check your social score to ensure that you aren't low-life enough to be barred from there too. I only spoke freely after checking an area for no cameras, so I always had all of my privileges, but me and a Chinese friend, after coming to the USA (I am not Chinese, only went there for school), hope we never end up back in China. Regarding day to day life in the USA, I am unaffected by China.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#328

Post by Arainach »

yonaguska wrote: post #319
Arainach wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Somehow" we did that back when we believed in a strong federal government working for the benefit of the people. It's no wonder that we lost the ability after decades of anti-government propaganda and regulatory capture.

I don't believe we are capable of a strong government that will also work for the benefit of the people today. Anti government sentiment didn't just spring up from a vacuum.

It sprung up from capitalist propaganda and intentional sabotage of the government by conservatives.

> I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

Grover Norquist said the quiet part out loud in 2001, but conservatives have been running that playbook since the New Deal.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#329

Post by steve_adams_86 »

londons_explore wrote: post #266
devsda wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a Chinese propaganda slogan stuck with me: “If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees.” Why call it propaganda though ? That doesn't sound like a biased, deceptive or misleading policy. It hasn't been thought through much which is universally common for some govt policies everywhere, but it results have been positive for the most part ?

Not all propaganda is deceptive. The best propaganda is 100% true and still achieves it's goal.

Propaganda is deceptive or misleading by definition.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#330

Post by yndoendo »

yanhangyhy wrote: post #233

I don’t know how it is in other countries, but nearly thirty years ago when I was in elementary school, a Chinese propaganda slogan stuck with me: “If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees.” Every part of that slogan has been put into action, continuously, for decades. Although low birth rates have now become a problem, back then it seemed like a solution. Xi Jinping may be a…

Are low birth rates a problem? The job market keeps being published about lack of employment. Recent was this UK having a 1,200,000 plus college graduates and less than 100,000 job placements. The USA market is also bad with very limited economic mobility based on years past.

Is the job market too restrictive with maximize profit over maximum knowledge transfer and upkeep? Not properly balancing older and newer labor. That is the reason for "low birth rate problem"?

ML is being pushed to condense the labor market even more. Along with growth of larger and more powerful businesses. Number of businesses are pushing to be an oligopoly and more to a duopoly or monopoly.

The current and future labor market with modern business ideology does not seem to match the statement _low birth rate problem_. The problem seems to be elsewhere.

Post reply on HN