And the IEA, for its part, expects China to continue to be the sole meaningful over-achiever. It recently revised upwards by 728 GW its forecast for total global renewables capacity additions in the period 2023–27. China’s share of this upward revision? Almost 90 percent. While China surges ahead, the rest of the world remains stuck.
Capitalist nation-states have no ability to solve collective action problems because they’re explicitly designed to be unable to. Nation-states exist to make their own nation rich and powerful, which requires them to treat all other nation-states as adversaries. When a problem comes up that would require the barest-minimum level of trust between adversaries just to avoid mutually disastrous outcomes, we end up with things like the Cold War or climate change. Nation-states don’t solve the really big, hard problems collaboratively. They use them as geopolitical contests.
They can cut deals with each other, they can respond to pressure campaigns with PR, but they’ll never be able to do anything other than the shabbiest, most selfish bullshit in response to one of the greatest challenges in human history. So far, it’s all they’ve done.
…as long as it isn’t profitable to solve climate change. And that’s pretty much it. Capitalism is going to be the band playing on the sinking Titanic, except it’s actively drilling more holes in the bottom of the ship.
China has another advantage. They don’t ask the market or the people of they are fine with the idea.
In the meantime, US and Europe don’t do anything is because of the neoliberal idea that the market will solve all problems through the magic of capitalism. This has been true for the past 3 decennia now. And, we knew renewable must be a thing.
Climate change WILL NOT be solved. Monkey brains are never going to be able to break away from consuming. The best we’ll be able to do is mitigate it’s effects.
Monkey brains are never going to be able to break away from consuming.
We seemed to manage pretty well without rampant consumerism for the first couple of hundred thousand years. Only since capitalist consumerism was invented have people become convinced greed and endless consumption are “just human nature”.
That was before people had experienced consumerism. It doesn’t make sense to compare people existing without knowing of consumerist luxuries to asking people to give them up. Not saying it’s hopeless, but it is human nature. It’s animal nature. We’ve just moved ourselves into a world where those advantages have become disadvantages.
Are there any examples of large companies, especially stock corporations, that have voluntarily given up short-term profits in favor of long-term calculation or sustainable management? Or examples of cooperation between competitors outside of common (short-term) profit interests? I am only aware of “sustainability campaigns” that have been staged mainly for publicity purposes, which in the vast majority of cases are nothing more than a drop in the ocean.
As far as I know, it has always been necessary to use legal regulations to force the companies to pay even the slightest attention to the common good. One example of this is the ban on CFCs to protect the ozone layer - and that took more than a decade (from 1987 until 1999).
I would be really interested to know if there was ever a company that tried this - a company for the people, so to say. As I said, I’m not aware of anything like that. Of course, there are also privately owned companies that are less focused on the logic of short-term profit maximization. But even these companies, such as Valve, can ultimately only apply the same standards, because otherwise they would be at a competitive disadvantage. That’s why I find it interesting to wonder whether there might have been a company at some point that, despite all the resistance, managed to assert itself with an alternative logic. It’s very unlikely, of course, but I’m asking anyway because it would be very desirable imo.
The statement is not that these changes require legislation, though, the claim is that legislation under capitalist (presumably also socialdemocrat?) regimes will not be enough and full centralized control in the vein of China, rather than liberal democracies, is required.
Which is some delusional crap, honestly. There is obviously the capacity to enact regulation in democratic societies, and it's obviously been put to use for the "common good". Anarchocapitalists may disagree that it's useful or positive, but I refuse to give them ownership over representative democracy, or to give totalitarian regimes ownership over all functional regulation.
Plus the data itself is misrepresented, but that's a different question.
If the company is public, it could be argued that any optimization that isn’t towards short-term profits is harmful to the shareholders and can be used to unseat the relevant executive
Yes, China is ahead of the West in production of renewables, but it's also skyrocketing (along with India) in energy demands, while the EU and the US remain flat or are going down. Renewables production will offset growth on both the US and China, according to the linked report. China's forecast for reduction in coal energy generation is actually lower than in the EU and the US.
China
Renewable energy sources
are expected to meet almost all the increase in electricity demand in our forecast
period and start displacing coal-fired generation together with increasing nuclear
generation. As a result, we forecast an average annual decline of around 1.5% in
coal-fired generation over 2024-2026,
US
Renewable generation is forecast to grow annually by 7% on average over the
outlook period. The increase in renewables is set to more than offset the additional
electricity demand and displace coal-fired generation, which is expected to record
a substantial 10% decline on average from 2024-2026. The United States
dominates these developments, where around two-thirds of the electricity in the
Americas is produced and consumed
EU
Over the outlook period, renewable generation is expected to grow at an average
rate of around 9%, offsetting all of the additional electricity demand and displacing
fossil-fired generation. Coal-fired power fell by around 26% in 2023 and is set to
decline at an average 13% from 2024 to 2026. Gas-fired generation fell by 17% in
2023, and is forecast to decline by a further 7% annually to 2026. Nuclear output
rose 1.4% last year and is forecast to grow by 2.2% annually to 2026, as the
maintenance schedule of the French nuclear fleet progresses, and the reactors
Flamanville-3 (France) and Mochovce-4 (Slovakia) commence operations
according to announced plans.
The US numbers are a fucking joke. All the US is doing is replacing coal with natural gas, moving electricity for export, and reporting domestic consumption numbers that completely ignore the blend of input resources.
Through accounting hacks, the US is able to claim that the vast majority of its consumption is actually not from the natural gas it’s burning at obscene quantities to replace coal, but from renewables (and to please ignore skyrocketing energy export numbers).
This is, mind you, with the consideration that natural gas is methane, that natural gas leaks into the atmosphere, and methane is something like a 85x more potent greenhouse has over a 20-year time frame. This switch from coal to gas has been rather recent, and so it’s expected that we should start seeing the effects of these short-term GHG emissions aroundabout… Today?
Again, the original article is about China is outperforming the west because it doesn't have to deal with all that pesky free enterpriese, and it's based on rephrasing data from a report in a misleading way.
I don't care about the underlying argument, I'm clarifying what the report actually says.
If you must know, I'm all for decarbonizing energy generation through renewables and more than willing to consider boosting nuclear power. But that has nothing to do with deliberate misrepresentations for political reasons being misleading.
It's the report linked in the article that is misquoting it.
I don't know if it's right or not. I know that it doesn't say what the article says it says. It doesn't support claiming the Chinese political system is the only one that can fix climate change.
That's as far as I can take it.
So no, I don't think my interpretation is "even more misleading".
Capitalism would just apply a subscription based patch on any given issue at hand if possible, it doesn’t even have to be logistical to the logical mind.
As the life-sustaining places become more scarce, they become more expensive. Your best play for survival is to play the game, amass wealth and afford the trip to Elysium. That’s why even the people understanding the problem are part of it.
I mean, does it count to be ‘stuck’ if you simply aren’t trying?
Because that’s what it seems like the rest of the world is doing. They aren’t even trying. Not even a little. Just more technocratic discussions on what trying might look like.
“Trying” isn’t really a thing on a national scale. What countries do and how they react just depends on their economic system / mode of production.
Capitalist countries, on account of being capitalist, can never really tackle climate change. China’s the only major country taking this seriously because a socialist nation doesn’t need the profit motive that’s required under capitalism.
Let’s not call China socialist when a single party dictates larger economic trends in an otherwise competitive global market. It’s just not “free” as in free market capitalism.
Otherwise I completely agree with the weaknesses of the western capitalist systems.
Global market. China itself is socialist (not as far along as the USSR’s fully planned economy, but even the USSR used a state-driven market economy for its first 20 years with Lenin’s NEP), i.e. the state uses the market for the good of the people, including when that goes against capitalists’ interests. You’re commenting on a post with an article talking about just that.
We’ve also been seeing this the last few months with how they’re tackling the real estate “crisis” by letting real estate developers go bankrupt and refusing to bail them out like capitalist countries do.
But isn’t the means of production still mostly controlled by capital owners? Sure, some industries are influenced by the government, but that is also the case in the West. The plan is certainly more detailed for China, but to me Socialism always meant labor is controlling the means of production. How’s that the case when an elitist single-party government influences the capital owners?
Enlighten me then. Means of production doesn’t seem to be controled by the party alone. Most of China’s economy still follows capitalist principles. Rich Chinese and owners of businesses are still private citizens. Sure, some influenced by the government, some industries very heavily regulated, but China still follows capitalist principles in most cases.
I always thought Socialism means that means of production is controlled by labor directly, not capital owners or an elists single-party government.
Just like how capitalism is a spectrum (in that, y’know, the US does not have purely free market capitalism but is still widely considered a capitalist state), socialism is also a spectrum. Marx and Engel’s writings do touch on this, but it was expanded on by the works of Lenin and Deng Xiaoping (among others). If you’re actually willing to learn, I’d recommend asking on hexbear.net because they’re much more familiar with the literature than me.
Really? I’m not convinced the Chinese government acts in the interests of its people at all. That’s probably the biggest reason I can’t call it Socialism. Just because government influence is stronger than in the West, the economic system isn’t completely different.
Add comment