Clean power is a fucking joke

[Thanas]

If "I want to have more jobs in my country" were a valid reason for subsidies then we would be back to 19th century mercantilism.

[K. A. Pital]

If "I want to have more jobs in my country" were a valid reason for subsidies then we would be back to 19th century mercantilism.

So what? EU keeps subsidizing agriculture, it does not really alleviate the suffering of billions as very few people work there. China getting richer helps a huge number of people. Not that China is not protecting all other sectors - automobile taxes are high and main producers have no choice but to produce in China. Same for many other goods.

[Broomstick]

I take a longer term view of this, and note that as countries industrialise, they eventually become better at cleaning up their mess. So if a poorer nation wants to tolerate a certain level of pollution to improve their standard of living in the short term, more power to them.

Yeah, funny thing that - the people who decide to "tolerate a certain level of pollution" never seem to be the ones who actually wind up living with the mess in their backyard.

Certainly saw that in the US back when pollution was unregulated, we see that now in the third world.

Just as the West starting cleaning up as it got richer, countries like China are less tolerant of environmental damage and are moving to act on it.

In the 19th Century, when the current First World was industrializing, there was at least the excuse that no one knew just how damaging some of the industrial shit was. Now we do know, yet the people polluting the third world seem not to care about that knowledge and not inclined to even mitigate exposure of workers and surrounding inhabitants. Of course, some of that is due to focusing solely on getting the lowest price rather than shopping at the most ethical producers/suppliers. That is where the West can have an impact, by refusing to buy from the worst offenders no matter how low the price but that's on the West, not China or anyone else.

[Purple]

In the 19th Century, when the current First World was industrializing, there was at least the excuse that no one knew just how damaging some of the industrial shit was. Now we do know, yet the people polluting the third world seem not to care about that knowledge and not inclined to even mitigate exposure of workers and surrounding inhabitants. Of course, some of that is due to focusing solely on getting the lowest price rather than shopping at the most ethical producers/suppliers. That is where the West can have an impact, by refusing to buy from the worst offenders no matter how low the price but that's on the West, not China or anyone else.

The problem with that is that it would completely stump any efforts at industrialization for many nations out there. Plenty of those nations literally rely on having cheap production costs by cutting corners to remain competitive compared to each other and rich countries in the west. After all, if factories in random-poor-stan have to follow the same ecological, labor and other standards as those in random-rich-country the costs of production would skyrocket and there would be no reason not to just produce things in the rich country in the first place. So investments would newer come to these countries, they newer industrialize and we are back to the 19th century.

Obviously the above written is an extremely simplified version but I am strapped for time and I think you get the general idea.

[Thanas]

If "I want to have more jobs in my country" were a valid reason for subsidies then we would be back to 19th century mercantilism.

So what? EU keeps subsidizing agriculture, it does not really alleviate the suffering of billions as very few people work there. China getting richer helps a huge number of people. Not that China is not protecting all other sectors - automobile taxes are high and main producers have no choice but to produce in China. Same for many other goods.

It is not a legal way to do business as the courts decided, that's what.

[K. A. Pital]

It is not a legal way to do business as the courts decided, that's what.

The courts of what, WTO (Wealthy Tycoon Organization)? Yeah.

[Thanas]

The court China consented to have the case heard before? Yeah.

[K. A. Pital]

The court China consented to have the case heard before? Yeah.

I'm still not sure what that's supposed to mean. Morally this measure is right. Legally - maybe not, but so what?

[Thanas]

Meaning that the chinese measure was illegal by the rules they consented to, meaning that it was in fact an illegal subsidy and a market grab and not an environmental issue.

[madd0ct0r]

In the 19th Century, when the current First World was industrializing, there was at least the excuse that no one knew just how damaging some of the industrial shit was. Now we do know, yet the people polluting the third world seem not to care about that knowledge and not inclined to even mitigate exposure of workers and surrounding inhabitants. Of course, some of that is due to focusing solely on getting the lowest price rather than shopping at the most ethical producers/suppliers. That is where the West can have an impact, by refusing to buy from the worst offenders no matter how low the price but that's on the West, not China or anyone else.

The problem with that is that it would completely stump any efforts at industrialization for many nations out there. Plenty of those nations literally rely on having cheap production costs by cutting corners to remain competitive compared to each other and rich countries in the west. After all, if factories in random-poor-stan have to follow the same ecological, labor and other standards as those in random-rich-country the costs of production would skyrocket and there would be no reason not to just produce things in the rich country in the first place. So investments would newer come to these countries, they newer industrialize and we are back to the 19th century.

Obviously the above written is an extremely simplified version but I am strapped for time and I think you get the general idea.

Oh good. I, a poor subsistence farmer, am so pleased a huge factory has opened upstream. Sure my crops will poisonous, my skin crack and my lungs fail, but I feel glad knowing I have helped a rich fellow countryman become much richer.


Sarcasam aside, manufacturing would still happen out there since Labour costs are the key determinant, not environmental or safety rules

[K. A. Pital]

Meaning that the chinese measure was illegal by the rules they consented to, meaning that it was in fact an illegal subsidy and a market grab and not an environmental issue.

So because some measures are against the law, they can't be an environmental issue? Are you seriously suggesting this? Well flash news, asbestos was legal in the US for several decades despite everyone in the industry knowing about the dangers posed by it. Polluting was and always is perfectly legal until it becomes illegal.

"Market grab" - that's silly. If anything, China's market share in the supply of RE slightly fell because of the export restrictions. So what exactly did they 'grab'?

[Purple]

Sarcasam aside, manufacturing would still happen out there since Labour costs are the key determinant, not environmental or safety rules

Environmental rules make producing energy harder. And energy is required for manufacturing. I am relatively sure that the price of electricity to keep the factories going is just as much a factor as the price of workers assembling any form of consumer goods more advanced than umbrellas and fake designer clothing.

[Thanas]

Meaning that the chinese measure was illegal by the rules they consented to, meaning that it was in fact an illegal subsidy and a market grab and not an environmental issue.

So because some measures are against the law, they can't be an environmental issue? Are you seriously suggesting this? Well flash news, asbestos was legal in the US for several decades despite everyone in the industry knowing about the dangers posed by it. Polluting was and always is perfectly legal until it becomes illegal.

You are not getting it. If China were to be trusted that they would voluntarily go back to normal levels after having raised their own, ok. But they cannot be trusted to do that. Illegal subsidies is not a good way to go about business.

"Market grab" - that's silly. If anything, China's market share in the supply of RE slightly fell because of the export restrictions. So what exactly did they 'grab'?

A bigger share in electronics as their electronics industries got better treatment.

[Broomstick]

In the 19th Century, when the current First World was industrializing, there was at least the excuse that no one knew just how damaging some of the industrial shit was. Now we do know, yet the people polluting the third world seem not to care about that knowledge and not inclined to even mitigate exposure of workers and surrounding inhabitants. Of course, some of that is due to focusing solely on getting the lowest price rather than shopping at the most ethical producers/suppliers. That is where the West can have an impact, by refusing to buy from the worst offenders no matter how low the price but that's on the West, not China or anyone else.

The problem with that is that it would completely stump any efforts at industrialization for many nations out there. Plenty of those nations literally rely on having cheap production costs by cutting corners to remain competitive compared to each other and rich countries in the west. After all, if factories in random-poor-stan have to follow the same ecological, labor and other standards as those in random-rich-country the costs of production would skyrocket and there would be no reason not to just produce things in the rich country in the first place. So investments would newer come to these countries, they newer industrialize and we are back to the 19th century.

Bullshit.

I'm talking about basic shit, like proper ventilation in factories and proper disposal of waste instead of simply dumping it into the water supply drinking water comes from. If foreign investors want to take advantage of low labor costs China or India or Malaysia could still insist on basic safety measures and continue to have a market advantage over the First World.

As an example - the Ancient Greeks and Romans recognized respiratory disease in stonecutters, so the concept is nothing new, and there is protective gear and techniques now available but workers sandblasting denim in Turkey and cutting stone in India have not even that simple level of protection and slowly suffocate from the sand in their lungs, dying young. There is no goddamned reason for that to happen other than callous indifference to human suffering and life.

[slebetman]

Wait, we're talking about magnets here. Wouldn't we also need magnets if we move to nuclear? Or is there an alternative to dynamos that can be employed by a nuclear powerplant?

Is the problem then just scale? That is to say the same amount of magnets generate significantly more power in a nuclear plant than it does in a wind turbine?

[Tribble]

Out of curiosity, what about fusion power? From what I've heard it's still a long way off from happening, if it will ever be practical at all, but if and when it eventually becomes available would it be a better solution than what we have now? Obviously we still have to address our problems in the meantime, but is it worth it to keep spending money on progressing towards nuclear fusion as a source of power? Or would the money be better spent elsewhere?

[AniThyng]

Let us not pretend the Chinese decided to stop rare earths due to environmental impact. They did so because they wrongly thought they could control the market and give their industries an advantage. Let us also not pretend that the west forces itself on the third world when it comes to them making products for sale. So far the only Malaysian posting in this thread does seem to be in favor of it.

As to coal mining, I refer you to Alyrium's first post in this thread.

I have to say though that I speak from a position of relative privilege, being middle class and working an IT job in the capital, with the Lynas plant being "far away" in "someone else's" backyard for all intents and purposes, typing this on a computer made in China (or Penang) by low paid wage slaves. I am in effect, already one of the "enemy" if the revolution comes.

[K. A. Pital]

You are not getting it. If China were to be trusted that they would voluntarily go back to normal levels after having raised their own, ok. But they cannot be trusted to do that. Illegal subsidies is not a good way to go about business.

Germany with "Lex Volkswagen" isn't the one to talk. Legal subsidies to First World agriculture are also immoral since their goal is a purely 'mercantilist', as you'd say, concept of food security and not either fair or free trade.

A bigger share in electronics as their electronics industries got better treatment.

Well that's a moral right - they bear the brunt of pollution, so it is moral to have them get a greater compensation for the suffering.

[mr friendly guy]

NYT said this about the Mitsubishi plant:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/busin ... nvironment

The company and Malaysian regulators said that it was statistically possible that the leukemia cases were a coincidence because tin mining towns tend to have above-average levels of background radiation. But an academic study of another tin mining town suggested that communities of Bukit Merah’s size should only have one leukemia case every 30 years.

I am also not sure the studies correctly identify the affected population, since if they did, the numbers would not support any need for cleanups or closures. Or anything at all.
On rechecking my maths I think I made a mistake, and the population is 5600 instead of 56 (damn percentages). So that population doesn't seem unreasonable to me in 1979 given current population is 11000. Again though you would think the rate is comparable to elsewhere ie one new case per year.

[mr friendly guy]

In the 19th Century, when the current First World was industrializing, there was at least the excuse that no one knew just how damaging some of the industrial shit was. Now we do know, yet the people polluting the third world seem not to care about that knowledge and not inclined to even mitigate exposure of workers and surrounding inhabitants. Of course, some of that is due to focusing solely on getting the lowest price rather than shopping at the most ethical producers/suppliers. That is where the West can have an impact, by refusing to buy from the worst offenders no matter how low the price but that's on the West, not China or anyone else.

Despite the pollution in China, life expectancy has increased. So your choices are damaging shit from pollution or damaging shit from poor public heatlh, being dirt poor etc. There does however appear to be a way to compare their effects - look at life expectancy. So the pollution gives China more money which can in turn improve the life of its citizens. The other caveat is as I noted earlier, a once former poor country can now better combat pollution once they become richer / hit the middle income range.

Has there ever been a case where a country brought its citizens out of poverty without pollution first? Now pollution is bad, but unless its like Bhopal or Captain Planet villainy level, its most probably tolerable.

[madd0ct0r]

Sarcasam aside, manufacturing would still happen out there since Labour costs are the key determinant, not environmental or safety rules

Environmental rules make producing energy harder. And energy is required for manufacturing. I am relatively sure that the price of electricity to keep the factories going is just as much a factor as the price of workers assembling any form of consumer goods more advanced than umbrellas and fake designer clothing.

No.
In most of the countries we're talking about, the grid is heavily oversubscribed and thus brown's out fairly frequently. In vietnam you could buy a schedule for the brownouts in your area to plan around them. For serious heavy industry (the subject of this thread), this is unacceptable, so all factories will use their own generators. For larger factories and refineries especially, the amount of backup generation you'd need means you may as well just build your own power plant. As an example, 13% of India's coal power stations are 'tethered' power - meaning they supply a factory or complex directly and not the grid itself.
Download the India IES 20437 model here: http://www.indiaenergy.gov.in/supply_coalpower.php
The data is (unsuprisingly) on the coal power stations worksheet

In those cases, we're talking about the cost of the primary fuel (ie, coal) and unless you happen to be next to a coal mine, you're going to be paying market price. Material costs like that are fairly flat over the world, it doesn't matter whether you're buying it in Birmingham or Bangladesh. Do you have a reputable source for 1) energy costs being driven up by enviromental regs and 2) energy cost being a deciding factor in factory location?

[Thanas]

You are not getting it. If China were to be trusted that they would voluntarily go back to normal levels after having raised their own, ok. But they cannot be trusted to do that. Illegal subsidies is not a good way to go about business.

Germany with "Lex Volkswagen" isn't the one to talk. Legal subsidies to First World agriculture are also immoral since their goal is a purely 'mercantilist', as you'd say, concept of food security and not either fair or free trade.

A bigger share in electronics as their electronics industries got better treatment.

Well that's a moral right - they bear the brunt of pollution, so it is moral to have them get a greater compensation for the suffering.

As if the ones suffering would be getting the money. Pipedream.

[K. A. Pital]

As if the ones suffering would be getting the money. Pipedream.

1. Considering Inner Mongolia has a greater GDP per capita than the rural provinces of China, they are getting the money already and will get more of it.
2. Considering that China's development and industrialization in general has brought a billion people out of poverty, it is certain that its further development and the ability to have a greater share of the production chain would improve living standards for a lot of people. Just beause some Westerners feel entitled to take what's there in someone's ground doesn't mean they have a moral right to do it. Even if they have or had a legal right to do so.
3. 'Pipe dream' is the desire to maintain an and improve an Elysium lifestyle for the First World while the rest of the world suffers from the consequences. That's the real pipe dream, since labour costs are rapidly rising across the Third World, and urban dwellers no longer want to work for the the same substandard pay they got 10 or 20 years ago, and the people are becoming increasingly ecologically conscious in the Third World too. The free lunch era for the West is over.

[Simon_Jester]

Wait, we're talking about magnets here. Wouldn't we also need magnets if we move to nuclear? Or is there an alternative to dynamos that can be employed by a nuclear powerplant?

Is the problem then just scale? That is to say the same amount of magnets generate significantly more power in a nuclear plant than it does in a wind turbine?

I would imagine that a turbine driven by superheated steam allows you to get a good deal more electrical power out of one alternator than you could get from a turbine driven by wind. Though I might be wrong, I suppose...

Out of curiosity, what about fusion power? From what I've heard it's still a long way off from happening, if it will ever be practical at all, but if and when it eventually becomes available would it be a better solution than what we have now? Obviously we still have to address our problems in the meantime, but is it worth it to keep spending money on progressing towards nuclear fusion as a source of power? Or would the money be better spent elsewhere?

It's hard to predict how cost-effective fusion energy could become in the distant future because it depends on advances that haven't happened yet. On the one hand the plasma physicists are still learning things about how to make their reactions more efficient; on the other hand advances in material science, computer simulation, and so on have a drastic effect on how practical and viable fusion reactors are.

The main reason why fusion power stayed "twenty years away" for about half the length of the twentieth century is simply that until the last few decades we lacked any practical means to simulate the behavior of the plasma in a fusion reaction. Having those means puts us closer in a concrete way. There are other obstacles, but they're less huge and insurmountable now that we have better tools- and that effect may be repeated in the future.

[Thanas]

3. 'Pipe dream' is the desire to maintain an and improve an Elysium lifestyle for the First World while the rest of the world suffers from the consequences. That's the real pipe dream, since labour costs are rapidly rising across the Third World, and urban dwellers no longer want to work for the the same substandard pay they got 10 or 20 years ago, and the people are becoming increasingly ecologically conscious in the Third World too. The free lunch era for the West is over.

I don't know why you feel the need to characterize any opponent in a debate as somebody who wants to oppress the third world, I suspect there is a deep pathological need for it. That being said, if China wants to be part of the first world, it needs to play by the same rules as any other member state of the WTO. The fact that they agreed to honour the ruling is all the reason I need for my position. And it is a pipedream to believe that states will just voluntarily stop unfair practices once they reach a certain level of wealth. This is not some huge western anti-colonial issue here. It is competition and fairness.