I have to say I'm struggling to find any consistency in your posting. For example, you seem to be arguing (in different posts) both that China has 'developed' by following the western 'international trade' model (which it has, over the last 2 or 3 decades), but also (previously) by following a western model when it wasn't engaged in much international trade !
It's true in broad-brush terms, of course - but so obvious that it's a truism - that in the past couple of centuries or so all development models have increased the use of fossil fuels, and therefore emissions. So what? They were the energy sources available. But things change - just as in the past they changed from wood-burning, etc, to fossil fuels.
Are you indeed making the doomster argument that the only possible future is that of the extreme right: all development is inevitably destructive, so let it rip while the super-rich retire to their gated communities and private islands - or forcibly halt development in currently 'poorer' countries to preserve the rich (which of course would require the same kind of armed oppression as the bunkers) ?
Of course those are possible futures - but so (I believe) are futures following different development models. By chance, I was just reading this interview with one of the authors of a new book (Comment bifurquer - les principes de la planification écologique) which ends with:
"On peut regarder la politique de la Chine comme un pari sur ce que va être l’économie du XXIe siècle. Ils ont pris de l’avance dans toute une série de productions vertes en se disant, « oui on subventionne massivement, oui, ça nous coûte cher aujourd’hui et on prend des risques, mais finalement, on est en train de développer les technologies de demain »."
https://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/cedric-durand-ny-a-de-chemin-credible-vers-un-capitalisme-res/00110176
Bread and Circuses (npub1a6c…mqgc) Bill Orcutt (npub1860…d2dk) RustyBertrand (npub1hw2…xxzd) bouriquet (npub1u9y…pqt8)
GeofCox /
npub1vl…zwvr0
2024-04-28 17:08:29
in reply to nevent1q…hp6j
Author Public Key
npub1vlytzan7n5hw4pctchr9kdgy3q77k2nmgk6lpwk7mapufl9ssrvsyzwvr0Published at
2024-04-28 17:08:29Event JSON
{
"id": "e68485475a6112e8bc44282fdadc4903e5075976fe4b73c637fd96c09ffdbeb3",
"pubkey": "67c8b1767e9d2eea870bc5c65b3504883deb2a7b45b5f0badedf43c4fcb080d9",
"created_at": 1714324109,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"3e9ff55cab3897499323059f267d917683cf74c4d5d4b87c9e07aca702c6de7c"
],
[
"p",
"bb9482d6fa775623cd6efc29893249ae9d8707a0d784ecc5557d1a9b9acd04a1"
],
[
"p",
"67c8b1767e9d2eea870bc5c65b3504883deb2a7b45b5f0badedf43c4fcb080d9"
],
[
"p",
"eeb176be491fceec57c1da56a053eab36075cab6f49e7cfa388659a2e319ef34"
],
[
"p",
"e149926a6f839550eda52bc11664804aba1d599e4c53c4f1497b3ae5e35b2bcd"
],
[
"p",
"422a4bbf478625b950ea19cf13fc04775a26ca8a690ca2b17a38ef61cf36d255"
],
[
"e",
"d1a6b61d086fed60a2247991521175159cea8cf1cf463a6024b74a20552fd4aa",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"bf6fb41ee6dc4b9995adc815fdbdfd484a1de676b50ac6d4e2bf7674f1bf8186",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://climatejustice.social/users/GeofCox/statuses/112349944807010412",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://climatejustice.social/users/GeofCox/statuses/112349944807010412",
"pink.momostr"
]
],
"content": "I have to say I'm struggling to find any consistency in your posting. For example, you seem to be arguing (in different posts) both that China has 'developed' by following the western 'international trade' model (which it has, over the last 2 or 3 decades), but also (previously) by following a western model when it wasn't engaged in much international trade !\n\nIt's true in broad-brush terms, of course - but so obvious that it's a truism - that in the past couple of centuries or so all development models have increased the use of fossil fuels, and therefore emissions. So what? They were the energy sources available. But things change - just as in the past they changed from wood-burning, etc, to fossil fuels.\n\nAre you indeed making the doomster argument that the only possible future is that of the extreme right: all development is inevitably destructive, so let it rip while the super-rich retire to their gated communities and private islands - or forcibly halt development in currently 'poorer' countries to preserve the rich (which of course would require the same kind of armed oppression as the bunkers) ?\n\nOf course those are possible futures - but so (I believe) are futures following different development models. By chance, I was just reading this interview with one of the authors of a new book (Comment bifurquer - les principes de la planification écologique) which ends with:\n\n\"On peut regarder la politique de la Chine comme un pari sur ce que va être l’économie du XXIe siècle. Ils ont pris de l’avance dans toute une série de productions vertes en se disant, « oui on subventionne massivement, oui, ça nous coûte cher aujourd’hui et on prend des risques, mais finalement, on est en train de développer les technologies de demain ».\"\n\nhttps://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/cedric-durand-ny-a-de-chemin-credible-vers-un-capitalisme-res/00110176\n\nnostr:npub1a6chd0jfrl8wc47pmft2q5l2kds8tj4k7j08e73csev69cceau6q8lmqgc nostr:npub1860l2h9t8zt5nyerqk0jvlv3w6pu7axy6h2tsly7q7k2wqkxme7qudd2dk nostr:npub1hw2g94h6watz8ntwls5cjvjf46wcwpaq67zwe32405dfhxkdqjssq7xxzd nostr:npub1u9yey6n0sw24pmd990q3veyqf2ap6kv7f3fufu2f0vawtc6m90xsrupqt8",
"sig": "74c2ee397ca9b4cdcb2d9706418fce26afc956f4a53f5aa4fc155aa10927ca6da7c60219017123e1adac0eda96216c409d5ce4042eb8379930678250b967a239"
}