International cooperation is complicated by competing foreign policy philosophy.
If we look at the big picture, we have the democratic West and their insistence on exporting their "New Rules Based Liberal World Order", also known as Regime Change.
It couldn't be clearer, given the failed Western adventurism in the Middle East, and when the Leader of the Free World, publicly invokes his Western religion, "For God's sake, this man (Putin) cannot remain in power!", while the ostensibly "defensive" nuclear powered NATO is expanding right up to the Russian border.
On the other hand, there's the vast majority in the world that is either diametrically opposed to so called "Western values", also known as patronizing colonialism, or they are just happy exploiting the West's penchant for financing both sides of every dispute with the vast amount ($billions) in "humanitarian aid". that goes to the West's enemies, like Palestine, Iran, Cuba North Korea, and many African and South American countries. In Pakistan every year they have the monsoons which causes annual flooding, and the West sends them aid, which only goes towards their Nuclear Weapons Program, not to such mundane projects as dams, flood control, and hydro generating projects.
Feeding the populations of your enemies, frees their governments of the responsibility to feed their people, and allows them to build the strong military infrastructure that keeps them in power. Full bellies don't revolt!
It defies common sense.
Given the World is divided along political lines, and the minority West gradually losing hegemony, the options for the future are clear in dealing with it's avowed enemies.
1, Eliminate them all! A non starter for obvious reasons.
2. Pursue co-existence, detente, trade, cultural exchanges and seduce them with the once great benefits of freedom and capitalism, like Reagan did with Gorbachev, which kept the World at relative peace for 50 years, until the Obama Administration decided a new Cold War with Russia was in their best political interest.
I'm very leery of renewing the STA with China on any more than a token level. China made "offers that couldn't be refused" to sovereign African countries, making them share croppers on their own land. They've, through cutouts, negotiated below cost agreements with US companies that were little more than technology transfer schemes. I agree with your premise, that a strong Sino/American STA would Be a good thing. I just do not believe they will bargain in good faith.
Roger, your statement of principle concerning "the noble lie" that you have added to this post is very good and timely. I sense that several commenters at THB recently have expressed concern that your discussions of detection and attribution of extreme weather events might provide a rationale for reducing the priority of future climate action. The implication is that maybe you should tone it down so as not to give the "deniers" ammunition. I welcome your statement of principle and I think you are doing a good job of maintaining objectivity and "playing it straight" with the data.
Isn't it clear, but likely too late, that China is not a moral player in this game of global cooperation? China has clearly been farming an agenda to loot everything it can from the free democratic west by exploiting corporate greed. Continuing the sharing of scientific and industrial advances with them only feeds what is going to be our next and likely final enemy in WWIII.
What we have learned, and apparently refuse to accept, that the Global Order has run its course, it was never a good idea even though you can say that we have netted about 75 years of relative peace in the world, and overall global prosperity has advanced. China is the water in the oil for that experiment. They have successfully exploited what was supposed to be an offer for the US to help and protect those nations that adopted western democratic principles. Allowing communist China into the WTO was a giant mistake that was only pushed by the Wall Street-funded establishment to fatten corporate profits.
The time to decouple from China was about 20 years ago. Today it is an emergency.
Roger, how well did the STA work when we asked China for their lab records at the Wuhan virology lab when COVID hit? What do we say to critics who point out that the STA works better for transferring taxpayer money from the US to Chinese research labs than it does getting information to flow the other direction?
Excellent post, thank you. For what it's worth, this voter agrees with you; choose (d)!
In the process, figure out how we can use their technology to build our nuclear plants in a more expedited manner, without sacrificing safety or design standards. They've got 8 on paper - surely we must learn something from that!
That is not a technological question. The Chinese are now settling on two GW scale reactor designs, Hualong One, and the CAP-1000 (a licensed version of the Westinghouse AP-1000). Their new experimental thorium nuclear reactor TMSR-LF1 (2MW) is based on work done in the 1960s at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, in an example of voluntary scientific collaboration. The Chinese have a nationalized energy policy, and can standardize easier than the democratic west. I think the west will have to consider nuclear plants as public works and back stop excess risk on overnight construction costs. Nuclear is still too expensive everywhere including China, but those costs seem to be falling on subsequent builds. Of course we could take money being dedicated to wind and solar, and redirect it to nuclear energy, but I don’t see that in the cards. Because of uranium and thorium density, we will eventually find a way to lower costs, and I believe that is happening now.
Someone will find a way to lower costs but I doubt it will be us. Nuclear phobia is so deeply ingrained in the US psyche that I doubt it will ever achieve wide scale adoption, whatever technology we try to use.
My mother use to tells us, “Never say never.” Attend any nuclear energy conference, or visit a nuclear plant, or a start up SMR company and you’ll know we can build these things affordably. If you don’t agree with my mother, Bob Dylan also offers some insights, “Times, they are a changing”
It’s not me nor people like me that have to be convinced. I’m an engineer and understand very well the advantages of nuclear over windmills and solar panels. And yet when I talk to friends and relatives I can make absolutely no headway. Why would they listen to someone who actually designs power plants when they learned all they need to know watching CNN?
Your toughest audience is your friends and family. Talk to everyone else, they’ll eventually come around. Thanks fr being an engineer, we sure need more like you.
They steal everything. Any deal with them is one sided. The CCP controls everything. They are a main supplier of fentanyl which kills our youth. I disagree.
"The STA offers a timely topic for the Harris campaign to begin to articulate a muscular but practical approach to collaboration with China on issues of science and technology."
You want Kamala to actually state a real policy position? That would be a first. Although she might articulate a "joyful" policy position on it.
One thing not said and very well not said was "The US and China need to cooperate on Climate Change policy." The US should have a tax on CO2 emissions on its territory [excise tax on fossil fuels sales in proportion to carbon content] and a border adjustment fee that mimics the effect on the after-fee price of the imported good, of an equivalent tax in the exporting country if said exporting country does not itself have such a tax.
China or any other country could enact the tax or not. No "cooperation" is needed.
So in your carbon tax scenario, wouldn't China end up being the undisputed global super power if they chose not to cooperate? Wouldn't the U.S. economy implode from hyperinflation? Our currency is essentially a claim on energy, and our debt is essentially a claim on future energy. So any policy that destroys demand for energy is by its very nature Inflationary. It's interesting to think about. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that China would love to see the United States accelerate its green energy transition for this reason....like a net zero by 2050 cold war sorta thing against the West...all while Chinese energy consumption and manufacturing capacity continues to increase. Since China already dominates the global renewable energy supply chain, we will have to beg them to replace our solar panels and wind turbines in 2050😂
Exactly! China should, and I believe will, do everything it can to promote net zero ideology in the West. It greatly weakens western democracies by encouraging the diversion of massive capital resources away from other priorities including defense for very little benefit.
As Roger has pointed out, until accurate and up to date science is used to formulate a "climate change" policy, nothing should be done. Or, have the agreement state the science that will be used and that would not be based on the IPCC or biden administration's faulty science
The two most important developments for economic growth are the internal combustion engine and the electric grid. Both run on fossil fuels. You want to impose punitive taxes on the biggest sources of economic growth. Why?
Regarding COVID-19 origins Ive not seen a robust debate of whether Gain of Function research should be prohibited? Is that realistic? As a result of Gain of Function research can we say millions have died? Rand Paul seems to be the only sane voice on this topic. Please consider a post on this.
Does optimal regulation (whatever that is) of Gain of Function research depend on being able to determine whether COVID was the outcome of GOF research, with or without the involvement of the USG? I don't see much of a link.
The risks of Gain of Function research can be analyzed independent of COVID-19. It appears the scientific community is enthused about this branch of research. It is not clear these same scientists can be trusted to do an objective risk assessment.
“Trust but verify”, if the US can’t do that what’s the point.
International cooperation is complicated by competing foreign policy philosophy.
If we look at the big picture, we have the democratic West and their insistence on exporting their "New Rules Based Liberal World Order", also known as Regime Change.
It couldn't be clearer, given the failed Western adventurism in the Middle East, and when the Leader of the Free World, publicly invokes his Western religion, "For God's sake, this man (Putin) cannot remain in power!", while the ostensibly "defensive" nuclear powered NATO is expanding right up to the Russian border.
On the other hand, there's the vast majority in the world that is either diametrically opposed to so called "Western values", also known as patronizing colonialism, or they are just happy exploiting the West's penchant for financing both sides of every dispute with the vast amount ($billions) in "humanitarian aid". that goes to the West's enemies, like Palestine, Iran, Cuba North Korea, and many African and South American countries. In Pakistan every year they have the monsoons which causes annual flooding, and the West sends them aid, which only goes towards their Nuclear Weapons Program, not to such mundane projects as dams, flood control, and hydro generating projects.
Feeding the populations of your enemies, frees their governments of the responsibility to feed their people, and allows them to build the strong military infrastructure that keeps them in power. Full bellies don't revolt!
It defies common sense.
Given the World is divided along political lines, and the minority West gradually losing hegemony, the options for the future are clear in dealing with it's avowed enemies.
1, Eliminate them all! A non starter for obvious reasons.
2. Pursue co-existence, detente, trade, cultural exchanges and seduce them with the once great benefits of freedom and capitalism, like Reagan did with Gorbachev, which kept the World at relative peace for 50 years, until the Obama Administration decided a new Cold War with Russia was in their best political interest.
I'm very leery of renewing the STA with China on any more than a token level. China made "offers that couldn't be refused" to sovereign African countries, making them share croppers on their own land. They've, through cutouts, negotiated below cost agreements with US companies that were little more than technology transfer schemes. I agree with your premise, that a strong Sino/American STA would Be a good thing. I just do not believe they will bargain in good faith.
Roger, your statement of principle concerning "the noble lie" that you have added to this post is very good and timely. I sense that several commenters at THB recently have expressed concern that your discussions of detection and attribution of extreme weather events might provide a rationale for reducing the priority of future climate action. The implication is that maybe you should tone it down so as not to give the "deniers" ammunition. I welcome your statement of principle and I think you are doing a good job of maintaining objectivity and "playing it straight" with the data.
Isn't it clear, but likely too late, that China is not a moral player in this game of global cooperation? China has clearly been farming an agenda to loot everything it can from the free democratic west by exploiting corporate greed. Continuing the sharing of scientific and industrial advances with them only feeds what is going to be our next and likely final enemy in WWIII.
What we have learned, and apparently refuse to accept, that the Global Order has run its course, it was never a good idea even though you can say that we have netted about 75 years of relative peace in the world, and overall global prosperity has advanced. China is the water in the oil for that experiment. They have successfully exploited what was supposed to be an offer for the US to help and protect those nations that adopted western democratic principles. Allowing communist China into the WTO was a giant mistake that was only pushed by the Wall Street-funded establishment to fatten corporate profits.
The time to decouple from China was about 20 years ago. Today it is an emergency.
Roger, how well did the STA work when we asked China for their lab records at the Wuhan virology lab when COVID hit? What do we say to critics who point out that the STA works better for transferring taxpayer money from the US to Chinese research labs than it does getting information to flow the other direction?
Excellent post, thank you. For what it's worth, this voter agrees with you; choose (d)!
In the process, figure out how we can use their technology to build our nuclear plants in a more expedited manner, without sacrificing safety or design standards. They've got 8 on paper - surely we must learn something from that!
That is not a technological question. The Chinese are now settling on two GW scale reactor designs, Hualong One, and the CAP-1000 (a licensed version of the Westinghouse AP-1000). Their new experimental thorium nuclear reactor TMSR-LF1 (2MW) is based on work done in the 1960s at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, in an example of voluntary scientific collaboration. The Chinese have a nationalized energy policy, and can standardize easier than the democratic west. I think the west will have to consider nuclear plants as public works and back stop excess risk on overnight construction costs. Nuclear is still too expensive everywhere including China, but those costs seem to be falling on subsequent builds. Of course we could take money being dedicated to wind and solar, and redirect it to nuclear energy, but I don’t see that in the cards. Because of uranium and thorium density, we will eventually find a way to lower costs, and I believe that is happening now.
Someone will find a way to lower costs but I doubt it will be us. Nuclear phobia is so deeply ingrained in the US psyche that I doubt it will ever achieve wide scale adoption, whatever technology we try to use.
My mother use to tells us, “Never say never.” Attend any nuclear energy conference, or visit a nuclear plant, or a start up SMR company and you’ll know we can build these things affordably. If you don’t agree with my mother, Bob Dylan also offers some insights, “Times, they are a changing”
It’s not me nor people like me that have to be convinced. I’m an engineer and understand very well the advantages of nuclear over windmills and solar panels. And yet when I talk to friends and relatives I can make absolutely no headway. Why would they listen to someone who actually designs power plants when they learned all they need to know watching CNN?
Your toughest audience is your friends and family. Talk to everyone else, they’ll eventually come around. Thanks fr being an engineer, we sure need more like you.
They steal everything. Any deal with them is one sided. The CCP controls everything. They are a main supplier of fentanyl which kills our youth. I disagree.
"The STA offers a timely topic for the Harris campaign to begin to articulate a muscular but practical approach to collaboration with China on issues of science and technology."
You want Kamala to actually state a real policy position? That would be a first. Although she might articulate a "joyful" policy position on it.
Took the words right out my mouth. Kamala first has to state a position on anything, let alone the STA with China.
One thing not said and very well not said was "The US and China need to cooperate on Climate Change policy." The US should have a tax on CO2 emissions on its territory [excise tax on fossil fuels sales in proportion to carbon content] and a border adjustment fee that mimics the effect on the after-fee price of the imported good, of an equivalent tax in the exporting country if said exporting country does not itself have such a tax.
China or any other country could enact the tax or not. No "cooperation" is needed.
So in your carbon tax scenario, wouldn't China end up being the undisputed global super power if they chose not to cooperate? Wouldn't the U.S. economy implode from hyperinflation? Our currency is essentially a claim on energy, and our debt is essentially a claim on future energy. So any policy that destroys demand for energy is by its very nature Inflationary. It's interesting to think about. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that China would love to see the United States accelerate its green energy transition for this reason....like a net zero by 2050 cold war sorta thing against the West...all while Chinese energy consumption and manufacturing capacity continues to increase. Since China already dominates the global renewable energy supply chain, we will have to beg them to replace our solar panels and wind turbines in 2050😂
Exactly! China should, and I believe will, do everything it can to promote net zero ideology in the West. It greatly weakens western democracies by encouraging the diversion of massive capital resources away from other priorities including defense for very little benefit.
As Roger has pointed out, until accurate and up to date science is used to formulate a "climate change" policy, nothing should be done. Or, have the agreement state the science that will be used and that would not be based on the IPCC or biden administration's faulty science
The two most important developments for economic growth are the internal combustion engine and the electric grid. Both run on fossil fuels. You want to impose punitive taxes on the biggest sources of economic growth. Why?
Regarding COVID-19 origins Ive not seen a robust debate of whether Gain of Function research should be prohibited? Is that realistic? As a result of Gain of Function research can we say millions have died? Rand Paul seems to be the only sane voice on this topic. Please consider a post on this.
Does optimal regulation (whatever that is) of Gain of Function research depend on being able to determine whether COVID was the outcome of GOF research, with or without the involvement of the USG? I don't see much of a link.
The risks of Gain of Function research can be analyzed independent of COVID-19. It appears the scientific community is enthused about this branch of research. It is not clear these same scientists can be trusted to do an objective risk assessment.