GeofCox on Nostr: I have to say I'm struggling to find any consistency in your posting. For example, ...
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)
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)