EU, US accuse China of "steel dumping"

[Surlethe]

Are we really going to feel even a 10% decrease in our average standard of living? In terms of per-capita GDP, that would involve returning to 2002. Even a 30% reduction in per-capita GDP would take us back to the mid-1980s. Is that really so bad, especially since the basket of typical consumer goods has changed since then? That seems like it's not much of a sacrifice to make to help decrease the relative wealth gap in the US and abroad.

[Ryan Thunder]

Yes, but their success depends on more urbanization not less. Besides, like I said, they already instituted policies of birth control superior to ALL other Third World nations. What else do you want from them?

Delaying their industrialization until those superior birth control policies have a chance to reduce their population to manageable levels, at which point their industrialization won't hurt my pocket book or be liable to flood our coastal cities anyway. I hope, anyway.

They won't stop industrializing because you say so; their economy has grown too large to simply ignore it - and every year as they shift from export to domestic industry consumption, it will mean less and less what others think and do.

Oh, it's inevitable that they're going to do it, short of some sort of cataclysm. I thought we were discussing whether it was right for them to do so or not.

It's better to help them do it cleaner than to spit into a tsunami. The tsunami won't stop because you are spitting. You should simply evacuate people.

Yes, relative wealth of the First World will have to reduce; it's inevitable, you can't run an army of cheap slaves to maintain your cheap MADE IN CHINA products - when they get a little more expensive, the Chinese will get a little richer and you will get a little poorer, but so? Help them do it cleaner. That's all.

I'm not a big fan of that cheap "made in China" stuff, so if it means that they make higher quality products and people have to actually take care of them and have an incentive to make what they buy last longer, that's fine by me.

Stas, I know that. Is it worth sacrificing millions of lives through famine and floods and severe weather to do it?

To do what? To raise China to a tenth of our living standard, or to maintain our current living standard? You say the former is unacceptable while the latter is necessary. Any reason why it shouldn't be the other way around?

You lost me there. A: China industrializes right now => world fucked by climate change. B: First world continues to become cleaner => world maybe not totally fucked by climate change. A and B => world still fucked by climate change, just--faster.

Stas, I know that. Is it worth sacrificing millions of lives through famine and floods and severe weather to do it? If we raise the sea level another few metres there are going to be millions of displaced refugees that China and India are going to have to deal with. Can they handle that? Can we? Is it worth it just so they can do it faster?

Would that not depend on the total amount of damage done during industrialisation？If a more rapid industrialisation ends up releasing fewer pollutants than a more gradual industrialisation, then rapid industrialisation would be a good thing, right?

That's a good point.

I don't quite get why he's crying over the loss of the cheap MADE IN CHINA products anyway. Most of it is crap that we don't need. If it becomes more expensive, then we can just stop buying it and have less junk to clean off of our desks. I'm unconvinced that the needed drop in "quality of life" is actually a drop in quality of life at all - it always seemed to me more like a reduction in waste.

Well, that I could live with. If its just a matter of higher-quality stuff displacing the cheap shit, that won't affect me at all. I never buy that stuff--if I can help it--because it doesn't last.

[ray245]

You lost me there. A: China industrializes right now => world fucked by climate change. B: First world continues to become cleaner => world maybe not totally fucked by climate change. A and B => world still fucked by climate change, just--faster.

If there is continued population growth due to an lack of industrialised economy, the amount of damage done to the world will be even larger.

The only difference in a slow industrialisation process is the fact that the pollution and observable damage will be more spaced out.

[K. A. Pital]

Darth Wong raised a good point - maintain the current standard of life and pollution and Global Warming still happens. You're saying that the First World overconsumption should persist despite the damage it deals, but China's industrialization should halt because of the damage it deals.

Not hard to see the hypocrisy. But I feel other posters dealt with the arguments sufficiently well. And indeed, a crash industrialization often ends making less pollution than otherwise would be made.

[Darth Wong]

To do what? To raise China to a tenth of our living standard, or to maintain our current living standard? You say the former is unacceptable while the latter is necessary. Any reason why it shouldn't be the other way around?

You lost me there. A: China industrializes right now => world fucked by climate change. B: First world continues to become cleaner => world maybe not totally fucked by climate change. A and B => world still fucked by climate change, just--faster.

Since when is the first world becoming cleaner? They do feelgood things that make them think they're helping, but the reality is that their emissions continue to go up every year, and they offload a lot of their pollution onto the third world anyway so they're actually understating the true extent of their polluting. As long as we have this mentality that our lifestyle should not decline, we will be an environmental problem. Do you think your consumer conveniences are magic? They require energy. They produce waste. Efficiency improvements don't make nearly as much difference as increased consumption, and per-person consumption has shot up dramatically in the last few decades, due entirely to social factors since we were already industrialized.

[Fr33ze]

Delaying their industrialization until those superior birth control policies have a chance to reduce their population to manageable levels, at which point their industrialization won't hurt my pocket book or be liable to flood our coastal cities anyway. I hope, anyway.

One can always hope, despite the fact that the world doesn't run the way YOU want it to.

As to say "made-in-China" stuff, there are goods with high quality (unless you go to supermarkets searching for cheap stuff only), but their prices are quite high as well. Whether you are able to afford them is another story.

[Intio]

I appreciate this was from two posts removed:

I can get a job that will let me pay for the needs of a family and (hopefully) have a flatscreen TV/monitor for us to watch movies and stuff on, in a house, with a grassy lawn out front that I'll maintain with a push-mower and a rake. And a plug-in electric car rather than an I.C.E.-based one, if I can manage it.

And I will fucking deserve that, asshole, regardless of your screeching.

No, you will deserve the money that you have earned from the effort put into your job. You then have the choice of spending that money in a first-world free market economy. You do not deserve that, it just happens to be the case.

Please separate those two things in your mind.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I can get a job that will let me pay for the needs of a family and (hopefully) have a flatscreen TV/monitor for us to watch movies and stuff on, in a house, with a grassy lawn out front that I'll maintain with a push-mower and a rake. And a plug-in electric car rather than an I.C.E.-based one, if I can manage it.

And I will fucking deserve that, asshole, regardless of your screeching.

No, you will deserve the money that you have earned from the effort put into your job. You then have the choice of spending that money in a first-world free market economy. You do not deserve that, it just happens to be the case.

Please separate those two things in your mind.

No fucking kidding. Ryan, are you aware of all the blood spilled by various interests and governments over the past decades to keep your position as a consumer in a state of steady growth? Every time an American bought cheap, abundant fruit in the middle of the century, South Americans had suffered enormously in order for that consumer leverage to be achieved.

Tell me, do you deserve that? The right to exploit and dump onto the Third World?

[mr friendly guy]

Yeah, okay, so I'm a 20-year-old student making $17 an hour working part time. No, I can't afford a fucking flatscreen TV because I'm putting that money into school instead, so that when I'm done, I can get a job that will let me pay for the needs of a family and (hopefully) have a flatscreen TV/monitor for us to watch movies and stuff on, in a house, with a grassy lawn out front that I'll maintain with a push-mower and a rake. And a plug-in electric car rather than an I.C.E.-based one, if I can manage it.

And I will fucking deserve that, asshole, regardless of your screeching.

Come back to us and brag about it when you do dumbshit. Until then even by your own warped standards on "who deserves what", you do not deserve your lifestyle because you don't earn enough. So its kind of funny you telling others they cannot have something when you fail your own test.

Clearly, you're ignoring my statements about the pollution involved in their doing so fucking over the entire world, not just me and you.

Wrong. You statements about pollution have been discussed, but since reading comprehension isn't your strong point, lets reiiterate.

1) Pollution can be better managed with things like nuclear power, more energy efficient coal power plants etc. Links have been posted about what China is doing in this regard.

2) Its been pointed out pollution decreases once a nation proceeds further along the industrialisation pathway. Examples used are... first world countries.

3) It is unfair for developed countries who already contribute more to pollution than China to complain about China's contribution, an argument you have totally dodged.

Of course if there were few enough of them for this to not be a huge problem then our lifestyle wouldn't be so seriously affected by it. That's just a side effect, though. Unfortunately there are people who seem to have a bug up their ass about my salary and want to lower it, so the change has to happen NOW NOW NOW for maximum vendetta effect.

If we apply your standards to the logical conclusion, any one richer than you is perfectly justified in wanting people in your situation not to become richer, since that would lead to greater competition. Ok, I don't want to lower your standard of living. I just don't want it to increase. Hey look, I can use Ryan Thunder logic too.

[Shroom Man 777]

Just remember that these chinamen are happily encroaching on the Spratly islands, which Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam etc. has some claim on.

While the current subject of our discussion is China, we can always replace the 'chinamen' with 'hindoos' or 'musslemen' or 'people of color'. The discussion of Chinese foreign policy when it comes to disputed territory is, well, for another discussion entirely. Since we're not just talking about China, but the rest of the developing world as well (rite?).

Shroom was talking the general idea that people living in third world has a right to raise their living standards just like everyone else.

Yeah. China is just a representation of the developing world. Or, well, that's how I'm approaching the discussion.

I am sure Ryan was one of those people who had apoplectic fits when Barack Obama talked about "spreading the wealth around". Because it is wrong to cause minor inconveniences in the lifestyles of the relatively rich and prosperous to merely slightly better the lives of shitpieces living in squalor and deprivation. It is just not ethical.

This is nothing like that. At all.

This is a family with parents who have had far too many children whining that they can't afford to live like the family with the same income who lives down the street with a single child, and then demanding that the smaller family give it up for them.

You are also complaining when the Parents of the Big Family get the same job as the Parents of the Small Family and the Parents of the Small Family end up losing their job.

Oh that's a good strawman. Whee, I'm a racist now if I don't want to significantly reduce my standard of living to accomodate a billion people who act as a bloc and are run by incompetent morons who I don't trust! Yay!

You are also complaining about how the Chinese are raising their standard of living, with detrimental effects to you and your society when you and your society are causing detrimental effects on others because of your standard of living as well.

You're complaining that the Chinese are planning to do something that America and the First World has already done.

EDIT:

Your argument is basically "nu-uh, they can't have my first world standards of living because I'm sitting on it and I'm not giving 'em anything, I'm not letting 'em have any!"

But what if the ChiComs kick you out of your first world standard of living (by developing their nation at breakneck speed!) and take your cushy seat and tell you that they're not "giving anything" and not letting you "have any"?

[Lusankya]

Just remember that these chinamen are happily encroaching on the Spratly islands, which Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam etc. has some claim on.

While the current subject of our discussion is China, we can always replace the 'chinamen' with 'hindoos' or 'musslemen' or 'people of color'. The discussion of Chinese foreign policy when it comes to disputed territory is, well, for another discussion entirely. Since we're not just talking about China, but the rest of the developing world as well (rite?).

The thing about foreign policy is that it's not even something where there's a particularly huge difference between the developing world and the first world. I mean, Australia claims sovereignty over its entire continental shelf as its territorial waters, except nobody cares because they're Australia. Except for Indonesia, because parts of their country happen to extend onto Australia's continental shelf. Not to mention the cases where America decides to go and spread democracy in random countries. The biggest difference is who they have as allies.

[Ryan Thunder]

Okay, look;

My numbers for CO2 emissions are from here, and population data is from the CIA world factbook.

Code: Select all

         Population    Pollution  Pollution per Capita
America  307 million   5.76 GT    18 tonnes/capita
China    1.34 billion  3.47 GT    2.5 tonnes/capita

Clearly, America produces a ridiculous amount of pollution, but that's its own issue. If China manages to industrialize and produce as much pollution per capita as Sweden (the lowest-polluting First World country per capita, by that site), they'll produce 25% more pollution than the United States does, and more than double what they produce now. This would lead to a 16% overall increase in world emissions.

That sounds pretty bad to me. What do you think?

[Intio]

Your argument is basically "nu-uh, they can't have my first world standards of living because I'm sitting on it and I'm not giving 'em anything, I'm not letting 'em have any!"

Ha ha. Seriously though, that seems to be the crux of these "first dibs" arguments. People indulge the illusion that first world development barely impinged on anyone, as we lightly and gracefully stepped into the hallowed halls of peaceful technological grandeur, but that anyone else trying to do the same is crudely bumbling and elbowing themselves into the same position.

Ryan keeps justifying his position by reducing things down to how his personal lifestyle will be affected - when we are talking about an entire nation trying to develop itself. It may be that citizens in developed countries have to make changes in their lives, but when we're juxtaposing personal affrontment against millions being better off...

I wonder if these are the same people who sit in traffic jams complaining about the traffic - without realising that they are part of the traffic.


EDIT:

Just read Ryan's above post. Don't have much time to respond right now, but isn't that assuming that ecological technology remains stagnant at its current level of development?

[Ryan Thunder]

Just read Ryan's above post. Don't have much time to respond right now, but isn't that assuming that ecological technology remains stagnant at its current level of development?

Yes. It's not a perfect estimate by any means.

It's also assuming (very generously) that they only pollute as much per capita as Sweden.

Does anybody else have trouble believing they could manage to keep it that low by comparison?

I wonder if these are the same people who sit in traffic jams complaining about the traffic - without realising that they are part of the traffic.

That's a terrible example. I complain while sitting in traffic for 2 reasons;
1. There aren't enough buses or trains to get everybody to work.
2a. If I took the bus, I'd be late, because I'd still be stuck in traffic.
2b. The train -> subway/bus is more expensive than driving there, even if it is faster, and I'd never get a seat because the people in Oshawa inevitably pack the train before it gets to my stop.

[fgalkin]

Okay, look;

My numbers for CO2 emissions are from here, and population data is from the CIA world factbook.

Code: Select all

         Population    Pollution  Pollution per Capita
America  307 million   5.76 GT    18 tonnes/capita
China    1.34 billion  3.47 GT    2.5 tonnes/capita

Clearly, America produces a ridiculous amount of pollution, but that's its own issue. If China manages to industrialize and produce as much pollution per capita as Sweden (the lowest-polluting First World country per capita, by that site), they'll produce 25% more pollution than the United States does, and more than double what they produce now. This would lead to a 16% overall increase in world emissions.

That sounds pretty bad to me. What do you think?

What makes you assume that China will not take advantage of emerging technologies to reduce pollution. Or, in fact, that the increasing amount of pollution produced by China will not be compensated by pollution being reduced in the First World?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[AniThyng]

Okay, look;

My numbers for CO2 emissions are from here, and population data is from the CIA world factbook.

Code: Select all

         Population    Pollution  Pollution per Capita
America  307 million   5.76 GT    18 tonnes/capita
China    1.34 billion  3.47 GT    2.5 tonnes/capita

Clearly, America produces a ridiculous amount of pollution, but that's its own issue. If China manages to industrialize and produce as much pollution per capita as Sweden (the lowest-polluting First World country per capita, by that site), they'll produce 25% more pollution than the United States does, and more than double what they produce now. This would lead to a 16% overall increase in world emissions.

That sounds pretty bad to me. What do you think?

I think maybe chinese people should just immigrate to the US and demographically conquer it

But seriously, isn't the comparision tempered by the fact that indirectly, seeing as that a large proportion of the developing world's industrial output is actually a surrogate for western industrial concerns, that the actual carbon footprint of the average westerner is going to be a lot more relative to ours?

[Ryan Thunder]

I think maybe chinese people should just immigrate to the US and demographically conquer it

But seriously, isn't the comparision tempered by the fact that indirectly, seeing as that a large proportion of the developing world's industrial output is actually a surrogate for western industrial concerns, that the actual carbon footprint of the average westerner is going to be a lot more relative to ours?

How does that change that world emissions could increase by as much 16% (conservatively) if China industrializes to the point where they produce less than 30% of the pollution per capita that the United States does now while maintaining a First World standard of living?

What makes you assume that China will not take advantage of emerging technologies to reduce pollution. Or, in fact, that the increasing amount of pollution produced by China will not be compensated by pollution being reduced in the First World?

Well, for one thing, I don't know how significant the effect of that will be on these numbers. Which is why I was conservative in my estimate and chose the lowest-polluting country per capita from the First World when working it out.

[ray245]

How does that change that world emissions could increase by as much 16% (conservatively) if China industrializes to the point where they produce less than 30% of the pollution per capita that the United States does now while maintaining a First World standard of living?

Like what other has pointed out, you are assuming that we are arguing China must have a first world standard of living. We aren't doing that.

[Darth Wong]

What makes you assume that China will not take advantage of emerging technologies to reduce pollution. Or, in fact, that the increasing amount of pollution produced by China will not be compensated by pollution being reduced in the First World?

Well, for one thing, I don't know how significant the effect of that will be on these numbers. Which is why I was conservative in my estimate and chose the lowest-polluting country per capita from the First World when working it out.

You're still assuming that any country truly needs or has an intrinsic right to live at current First World standards. Justify this. For that matter, justify your continued use of the strawman claim that anyone is saying China should rise up to current First World standards even though most of the goddamned space in this thread is taken up by people saying that the First World should reduce its living standard to maintain ecological sustainability.

What are you, a goddamned retard? How could you miss that point?

[AniThyng]

How does that change that world emissions could increase by as much 16% (conservatively) if China industrializes to the point where they produce less than 30% of the pollution per capita that the United States does now while maintaining a First World standard of living?

Admittedly it doesn't, but it serves to illustrate your refusal to contemplate that maybe instead the west needs to reevaluate at what price its "first world standard of living" is coming at, at home and abroad. Ironically too, it is western corporations that are pushing the western consumerist lifestyle on the middle class of developing countries.

Here's a thought though - do you honestly think a capitalist, democratic china would pollute less then the socialist dictatorship? Point to ponder - human nature being what it is, I can assure you, I want my 1st world freedoms to come with my 1st world luxuries. The ones you flaunt in our faces every damn day, while saying "you can't have them, it's bad for the planet.".

[ray245]

How does that change that world emissions could increase by as much 16% (conservatively) if China industrializes to the point where they produce less than 30% of the pollution per capita that the United States does now while maintaining a First World standard of living?

Admittedly it doesn't, but it serves to illustrate your refusal to contemplate that maybe instead the west needs to reevaluate at what price its "first world standard of living" is coming at, at home and abroad. Ironically too, it is western corporations that are pushing the western consumerist lifestyle on the middle class of developing countries.

Here's a thought though - do you honestly think a capitalist, democratic china would pollute less then the socialist dictatorship? Point to ponder - human nature being what it is, I can assure you, I want my 1st world freedoms to come with my 1st world luxuries. The ones you flaunt in our faces every damn day, while saying "you can't have them, it's bad for the planet.".

With the additional fact that China who was given the nickname the world's factory produce most of their goods for foreign demand.

In other words, the reason why China is polluting so much is due to the first world's demand for products.

[Intio]

That's a terrible example. I complain while sitting in traffic for 2 reasons;

Those are the very reasons why it is a good analogy.

1. There aren't enough buses or trains to get everybody to work.

Analogous to there not being enough resources on this planet for everyone to enjoy a first-world lifestyle. Extracting and refining these resources would create too much pollution for the planet to cope with. You are already part of the problem.

2a. If I took the bus, I'd be late, because I'd still be stuck in traffic.

Because you would still be contributing to the traffic. Switching to another vehicle type is irrelevant. You are taking the analogy literally - which is not what an analogy is for. The true comparision would be not using a vehicle that contributes to the traffic. And no, before you say that I'm suggesting no-one has access to their own vehicles, I'm making a point about you complaining about others who simply wish to do the same thing as you - albeit on a lesser scale.

2b. The train -> subway/bus is more expensive than driving there, even if it is faster, and I'd never get a seat because the people in Oshawa inevitably pack the train before it gets to my stop.

Yes, because they also wish to travel... just like you do. You seem to be seeing this through your own personal prism to the point that you miss the message. These examples are not about you being inconvenienced, they are about you not recognising the overview. Instead of seeing your place in the situation, you are only seeing it from your place in the situation.



The very fact that you cannot see how your own example actually highlights the point others are making even further, I would suggest, is the reason that so many people in this thread are becoming frustrated with your perceived intransigence.

[Isolder74]

Quote:
2a. If I took the bus, I'd be late, because I'd still be stuck in traffic.


Because you would still be contributing to the traffic. Switching to another vehicle type is irrelevant. You are taking the analogy literally - which is not what an analogy is for. The true comparision would be not using a vehicle that contributes to the traffic. And no, before you say that I'm suggesting no-one has access to their own vehicles, I'm making a point about you complaining about others who simply wish to do the same thing as you - albeit on a lesser scale.

This is rather good analogy as if that bus was full that say takes 30 cars off the road. Taking 30 cars off the road would do alot to reduce traffic. Traffic would never be as bad if people didn't feel like they were entitled to drive their own car to work.

As for being late, get up 20 mins earlier you lazy bastard like I DO EVERY DAY TO RIDE THE BUS TO WORK!

[Intio]

This is rather good analogy as if that bus was full that say takes 30 cars off the road. Taking 30 cars off the road would do alot to reduce traffic. Traffic would never be as bad if people didn't feel like they were entitled to drive their own car to work.

Yes, I suppose. I was thinking of him still not seeing the bigger picture, rather than the furtherance of the analogy. He seems to see every point in relation to how it will affect him on a personal level.

The other sense of "entitlement" people have is that they must be deposited at the very place they wish to be. There is nothing wrong with walking, people.

[Guardsman Bass]

Coal is still their main source of power, and at the rate at which they are building coal plants, will likely be their main source of power into the foreseeable future.

It will remain such forever even if they don't industrialize beyond what they have now. Unless you are wishing nuclear destruction of China or some other democide to strike that nation, those coal plants have only one way of stopping operation - being slowly replaced by nuclear in many decades. The problem has no peaceful solution other than allowing China to industrialize and slowly upgrade their energy.

No, it doesn't. I'm just pointing out that it could have serious consequences in terms of climate and the like.

What's going to happen (barring some type of economic collapse) is that the Chinese, with increased buying power, will probably drive the prices of the various inputs that go into things like cars and appliances through the roof for everyone, at which point everyone is forced to buy some type of substitute or cheaper version of stuff that doesn't use as many of said inputs as the previous thing.

It's not like you can "transfer" standard of living, since that is ultimately based in productivity.

Productivity depends on industrialization far more than on the human. A machine operator of any nationality would be more productive than a peasant of likewise any nationality. Industrialization is a sort of transfer, because the more human pool is industrialized, the cheaper industrial products become and it will depress life standard in places where it was artificially raised through the means of unequal exchange, prior historical opression or extortion, capital flight or otherwise.

Unless they come up with new products, or shift to a service economy.

The Chinese will not drive the prices "through the roof" - more likely they will depress the industrial product prices like they do now, which would be forcing the West either to take the losses incurred by administratively limiting competition, or drive the life standard down by lowering wages.

This seems to be assuming that there is some type of finite amount of types of products that can be produced. That's not really the case; drive down the price per unit steel, for example, and suddenly that steel can be used in a whole host of new and improved products, all of which may generate jobs, some with higher income than the old industries.

Take agriculture, for example. Let's say you have a situation where there is a finite amount of land realistically available, and a growing population. If the productivity of the individual farmer increases along with that, what happens? Less people can farm, but that also means that you can support a greater population that can do other stuff, like run businesses or other things in a more complex division of labor.

In any case that's the same thing - there would be a re-distribution of wealth. Relative wealth of the First World will fall, whether through rising prices or falling wages.

I only care about relative wealth in so far as it affects intra-society stability and external security. As long as everybody's overall livings standards and wealth are rising, then I'm fine.

It's not just sea levels, either; there are fun things like mega-droughts, shifts in rainfall, and so forth probably waiting in the wing.

That's extremely rich coming from a citizen of a nation that was, and remains, the largest cause of such climatic changes. "Hee-haw, I industrialized! Everyone else has to wait in poverty, because of mega draughts and such." I doubt such an approach would yield any positive results whatsoever, both diplomatically and economically.

The Earth's climate doesn't particularly care whether the emissions are coming from some American's Ford F150 or a Chinese coal plant. Either way, you get stuck with the consequences of it.

Don't lump me with Ryan. I'm actually in favor of policies designed to severely curb emissions both on a per capita and absolute basis here in the First World, but I also recognize that if China continues emitting like it does (and it's already the largest net emitter of CO2) and even grows in terms of emissions, all the First World attempts to curb emissions will mean jack shit, and that will undermine the political support for any type of emissions problem, leaving you with the negative consequences of climate change regardless.

I'm sure the Mayans and Easter Islanders thought something similar.

Yeah, let's compare a pre-industrial isolated civilization with the modern industrial society! Quick! Industry is doom! Back to the luddite shelters, these factories you are building are in fact stone idols! Seriously, that ugly and stupid luddite strawman was worse than I could ever expect from you.

I guess your nations should have never crawled out of the Dark Ages then, them forests would've stayed greener. That's the prime example of hypocrisy.

I'm honestly not shocked that you missed the point, which was that we don't really know what the "fuck-up" point is with climate change in particular and environmental destruction in general. What happens if, as Mark Lynas speculated, the entire Amazon basin dries up, or the rainfall into the Himalayas (which is a huge source for river water for rivers ranging from India to China) plummets as a result of the changes? Technology can compensate, but the cost would be staggering; try, for example, replacing the entire output of, say, the Ganges with de-salinization plants.

That's what happened with the Easter Islanders.