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

291–300 of 666 posts

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

#291

Post by dangus »

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?

China is plainly and obviously many times more successful than the Soviet Union ever was, even if you ignore all the propaganda and just rely on yourself as a primary source - I.e., “hop on a plane and see for yourself.”

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

#292

Post by chii »

leodler wrote: post #282
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…

Somehow we (the United States) accomplished generational projects that are currently out of the realm of possibility such as the interstate system without risking anything like a famine. I think a lot of people in America have been overly-empowered to stand in the way of the most modest progress through NIMBYism, litigation, local government, etc. To a lot of people it increasingly feels like a form of private author…

> To a lot of people it increasingly feels like a form of private authoritarianism over tiny fiefdoms for absolutely no benefit to a vast majority of people.

that is what it means to have property rights.

It prevents your interests from being usurped by someone else without first consulting you. Of course, like anything, it can be taken too far, but getting the balance right is important.

If it tips too far towards gov't authoritarianism, the people who are not connected tends to suffer silently (while the majority who gets told these "nation building" projects benefits them).

If it tips too far towards the private individual, then you get nimby-ism and such.

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

#293

Post by corimaith »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #268
corimaith wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? No, because China is also exporting to other markets. The counterfactual is that we don't do global industrialization and let the global poor remain poor.

The US introduced China to western manufacturing markets. So if they would otherwise be poor and non-industrialized, the US is responsible for it all. We can't claim we rose them from poverty while also denying culpability for the consequences thereof... Though I think everyone is just saying Chinese emissions should be counted, proportionally, against the people they're making products for . And the US is one of the…

>The US introduced China to western manufacturing markets. So if they would otherwise be poor and non-industrialized, the US is responsible for it all.

Who is "We" here? I am speaking from a global perspective. Chinese industrialization has internal agency, drivers and motivation, the US did not force China to industrialize. Secondly Global Demand is not US-Specific, Europe, Japan and other markets contributed with their own agreements so the claim that the US is "responsible" is overstated here.

>Though I think everyone is just saying Chinese emissions should be counted, proportionally, against the people they're making products for. And the US is one of their biggest customers.

That's not what anyone serious is saying because it's just splitting hairs. Everyone buys from China, the US accounts for 15% of China's total imports so clearly their role here is exaggerated again. China also consumes much of their own manufacturing, while the US also exports many services elsewhere, so should US emissions be counted in other countries? And then there are also structural dynamics in how surplus economies intentionally suppress their demand to run surpluses.

In a world of comparative advantage, I don't see the particular value in performing funny calculations to divy up moral blame according to shifting trade dynamics, just much easier to point it out as shared global responsiblity in the path for Modernity.

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

#294

Post by LAC-Tech »

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.

Really? I always thought people made a massive deal about an incredibly poor country that become... middle income, and seems to be stuck there.

I'm glad they don't have self-induced famines anymore I guess, but it's not exactly japan in the 80s.

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

#295

Post by omikun »

leodler wrote: post #282
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…

Somehow we (the United States) accomplished generational projects that are currently out of the realm of possibility such as the interstate system without risking anything like a famine. I think a lot of people in America have been overly-empowered to stand in the way of the most modest progress through NIMBYism, litigation, local government, etc. To a lot of people it increasingly feels like a form of private author…

The interstate was for the military. The new deal was in part thanks to left wing communists/unionists voicing for the gov to do more for the people. Then came McCarthyism.

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

#296

Post by chii »

dangus wrote: post #291
jopsen wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

China is plainly and obviously many times more successful than the Soviet Union ever was, even if you ignore all the propaganda and just rely on yourself as a primary source - I.e., “hop on a plane and see for yourself.”

China's success has come _after_ they economically liberalized in a way that resembles the west's free markets.

Soviets never did any of this. They "stubbornly" kept to a command economy. While china does have their 5-year plans and command economy, they have loosened that up for private individual's enterprises, and allowed special economic zones for which free market capitalism thrives.

With a bit of state help in infrastructure etc, this enabled china to leverage their enormous human capital to simply out-muscle their way into industrial dominance. Now with such a dominant position, they can call shots in a way that irks the US. Compounding the problem is that the authoritarian style of gov't in china enables long term strategic planning and execution - something that seems sorely lacking from the US for the past 3 decades.

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

#297

Post by omikun »

free652 wrote: post #264
onethought wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A mean not to go too deep into whataboutism… but at least they only persecute their own Muslims rather than picking random countries on a map and persecuting them.

Ohhh so they aren't like selling weapon to Russia? Right. Keep going.

Is that better or worse than aiding/supporting genocide?

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

#298

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

kulahan wrote: post #56
cyberax wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is opposite to everything I've ever read. A brief "greening" period was expected (and is now nearing its end) as climate change started taking off due specifically to this effect. Edit: to clarify, I'm saying the greening thing already happened due to increases in CO2 levels (though it's possible this is due to heat and not CO2 itself, I guess?).

So, it turns out that there are two types of plants: those whose growth is rate-limited by available CO2, and those whose aren't, as the latter evolved a more efficient pathway during a previous era of low CO2 concentrations.

So depending on which kinds of plants, you can both be right.

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

#299

Post by AniseAbyss »

andai wrote: post #219
gchamonlive wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question, aren't coral reefs also very sensitive to climate change? How much of that loss is because of regional activities and how much is due to global environmental changes?

So, something has been bugging me. Coral is one of the oldest animals. They've been around for over half a billion years. They survived the Great Dying, which killed 80-95% of marine species. And now the ocean gets 0.9 C warmer and it's game over for coral?

[dead]

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

#300

Post by dangus »

chii wrote: post #296
dangus wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is plainly and obviously many times more successful than the Soviet Union ever was, even if you ignore all the propaganda and just rely on yourself as a primary source - I.e., “hop on a plane and see for yourself.”

China's success has come _after_ they economically liberalized in a way that resembles the west's free markets. Soviets never did any of this. They "stubbornly" kept to a command economy. While china does have their 5-year plans and command economy, they have loosened that up for private individual's enterprises, and allowed special economic zones for which free market capitalism thrives. With a bit of state help in…

Why does the added qualifier in your first paragraph matter?

You’re literally just explaining why the Soviet Union was less successful.

Nothing stopped the Soviet Union from liberalizing their economy and running it better like China. They just didn’t do it. Which loops us back to my original comment.

I didn’t bring my point up as some kind of communism versus capitalism thing, I’m just plainly stating that as far as single-party mostly-authoritarian governments go, China is far more accomplished than the USSR was.

Post reply on HN