There is an alternative. And it’s proving to be effective. But you’re not allowed to know about it. And if you do know, you’re not allowed to think about it objectively. The evidence will be framed in such a way that makes you think that tackling climate change and corporate power is the most dangerous thing on earth: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009152655
Haha. It does look dodgy. I used it for transparency, though, as doi links tend to be trusted. If you have a look at almost any recent academic article, it’ll have one. Look up doi’s before clicking that link if you like. Academic publishers use them to make sure that links to research always work. From doi.org:
A DOI is a digital identifier of an object, any object — physical, digital, or abstract. DOIs solve a common problem: keeping track of things. Things can be matter, material, content, or activities.
A DOI is a unique number made up of a prefix and a suffix separated by a forward slash. This is an example of one: 10.1000/182. It is resolvable using our proxy server by displaying it as a link: https://doi.org/10.1000/182.
Designed to be used by humans as well as machines, DOIs identify objects persistently. They allow things to be uniquely identified and accessed reliably. You know what you have, where it is, and others can track it too.
From the summary of the introduction (emphasis added):
In the past decade, the Chinese government has resorted to forcibly shuttering entire industries or industrial areas to clean up the air. These “blunt force” measures are often taken as a sign of authoritarian efficiency; the state uses its coercive powers to swiftly eliminate polluting industries and then silence social dissent. This chapter introduces an alternate perspective: that blunt force regulation is a sign of ineffective bureaucratic control. When institutions are too weak to hold bureaucrats accountable, central leaders increase oversight by drastically reducing the number of steps and resources required to produce a regulatory outcome – resulting in blunt force measures. Through an overview of the causes and consequences of China’s blunt force pollution regulation, this chapter challenges the tenets of authoritarian environmentalism, forcing us to rethink what it means to be a “high-capacity” state.
The book is rather clever, as you can see from this excerpt. It reframes the narrative to support the argument that although China has been successful in ‘swiftly eliminating[ing] polluting industries’, it did not do so efficiently and it had to ‘silence social dissent’. Hard to imagine how someone can present the evidence that China’s methods worked in the same breath as trying to convince you that such success means that it failed. That’s western academics for you. Just wait till you look at chapter 2, which explains that if the author is right, there are:
two underlying logics [to] regulatory enforcement, namely, “rules-based” regulation (which prioritizes effectiveness) and “risk-based” regulation (which prioritizes efficiency). … [But] blunt force regulation fits into neither category, offering neither efficient nor effective regulation in the long-term.’
As if China, with one of the most advanced technologically advanced infrastructures in the world, is going to instal a hodgepodge, disconnected network of tiny, polluting, inefficient coal power stations because it chose the wrong (effective-but-ineffective) regulatory model.
Don’t get me wrong. China could very probably improve its efficiency re: meeting environmental goals. Perhaps it could take seriously some of the analysis in this book when doing so; some if it is very good. But although the author argues for readers to disbelieve the evidence presented in the same book, it outlines an effective alternative to the capitalist mock sigh of despair. The question is, should society listen to the social dissent or do what’s best for life on earth?
I need to read up more on dois, since I don’t understand why not just use a url, they’re already unique.
The sketchiness actually came from that as well as the “you’re not allowed to talk about it” comment which to me screams crypto scam or cult or both.
Here’s my issue with your general argument
As if China, with one of the most advanced technologically advanced infrastructures in the world,
You seem to be taking it a given that what China is doing is more or less correct, and then deducing how you should interpret the world from that. Of course China wouldn’t do anything stupid, at best they might just need minor improvements to the process.
This book criticizing China isn’t right, it’s just Western indoctrination.
To me that makes it likely that you’re someone who’s drank the kool aid, and you’re emotionally invested in defending China, which makes a fruitful conversation with you unlikely.
It’s because websites go down. If a journal website goes down, for example, the doi can be redirected so that people searching old links can still find the article.
The book argues that China’s ‘blunt force regulation’ will not work in the long term, suggesting that China may have clean air today but that its air will become dirty again because its regulatory model is defective. I’m saying that is a weak argument as it presupposes that the factories and inefficient (greenhouse gas-wise) infrastructure, etc, that were shut down will be re-used, which is baffling. Those factories are gone. And as it has one of the most technologically advanced infrastructures in the world, it is highly unlikely that anyone would re-install the technologically backward infrastructure. It wouldn’t be very competitive in the world market, would it?
China will face myriad problems in the future. Dirty air from inefficient processing and usage of fossil fuels is unlikely to be one of them. If that’s right, and if I’ve interpreted the author’s argument right, then the thesis fails for being reduced to an absurdity. That’s not to throw the baby out with the bath water. There’s some great analysis in the book. The evidence and analysis just do not lead to the author’s conclusion unless one accepts two essential premises: the primacy of private property and the basic principles of liberalism.
I’m emotionally invested in evidence and conclusions that can be drawn on its basis. You say I’ve drunk the Kool Aid while dismissing the maturity of 80+ million members of the CPC and millions more supporters in the rest of the population.
When I said, you’re not allowed to talk about it, this is exactly what I was referencing. Any presentation of a counter argument is treated with derision. As if there’s only one permissible narrative—which happens to be mainstream only in the west. Such that academics will write a book detailing the successes of Chinese environmental policy and conclude that it’s failed because one day it might fail. Again, there is very likely room to improve efficiency and there is some good analysis in the book. Insisting on nuance does not a cult make.
Any presentation of a counter argument is treated with derision
It would be helpful if the vast majority of the “good faith” arguments in favor of Chinese policies didn’t so frequently turn out to be from state-funded actors pushing propaganda. After having a few conversations with these types, you learn to spot red flags (no pun intended)
And as it has one of the most technologically advanced infrastructures in the world
Praise for China interjected seemingly at random, in a superlative nature is a common one. And very suspicious. Chinese shills are not as advanced as their Russian counterparts, in that they’re not allowed to criticize their masters and in fact gain points for effusively praising their masters. Makes em easier to spot. The goal of a China shill is to say that China is superior. The goal of a Russia shill is to say that everyone is equally shit.
My concern with you is that you’re not trying to take an idea that happens to be Chinese and promote it towards the rest of the world. We could talk about the merits of that. It’s that you’re taking a Chinese system and trying to promote it towards the rest of the world. With all the baggage that comes with it.
You understand the difference? My worry is that your primary concern is not the idea, but rather the fact that it came from China.
But let’s discuss the idea itself. You’re basically saying that unilaterally shutting down processes is a good approach to fix the climate. How would you port that concept to countries which are not primarily manufacturing-based, like the US and Western Europe?
It would be helpful if the vast majority of the “good faith” arguments in favor of Chinese policies didn’t so frequently turn out to be from state-funded actors pushing propaganda.
The ratio of truly state-funded actors to genuine human participation is nowhere near what you’re implying. If you think it is as bad as you say, you should be able to prove that comment. Just because someone holds different opinions than you doesn’t mean they’re being paid to do so (if only that were true!).
Praise for China interjected seemingly at random, in a superlative nature is a common one.
Mentioning China where it truly is irrelevant is weird; mentioning China when it is relevant, but just because you don’t think it is, isn’t weird. If a thing is legitimately near the top of a particular ranking, then “superlative” praise of it is not superlative at all; that’s like saying praise for the the #1 gold medal olympian is superlative–it’s not, they’re literally at the top.
Chinese shills are not as advanced as their Russian counterparts, in that they’re not allowed to criticize their masters and in fact gain points for effusively praising their masters.
You have a very active imagination. This is a satement about two different countries, so you have twice as much opportunity to find evidence that (at least one side of) what you’re saying is true. Can you provide evidence that this isn’t just your imagination?
The goal of a China shill is to say that China is superior. The goal of a Russia shill is to say that everyone is equally shit.
Again, you present this as if it’s obviously true. It’s not.
If you assume everyone is operating in bad faith and is a paid actor, why participate at all? You’re not saving the world by fighting against an imagined state-funded actor foe. You’re feeding on (imagined) outrage.
If a thing is legitimately near the top of a particular ranking, then “superlative” praise of it is not superlative at all
I’m not going to bother to get a ranking of countries by “technologically advanced infrastructure” (see above point about sealioning). But the point is it doesn’t matter. The point could be made by saying “since China has a technologically advanced infrastructure” or, even more to the point, “since China has an interest in actively guiding its infrastructure”. No one would argue that China is a 3rd world country. But no. It’s not a technologically advanced infrastructure. It’s “one of the most technologically advanced infrastructures in the world”. That’s superlative relative to the topic at hand, and that’s why it’s a red flag. The verbiage is familiar.
But also, the context. If someone said “Germany has one of the most technologically advanced infrastructures in the world”, well, we could debate that, but I wouldn’t suspect any bad faith. Because there hasn’t been a history of state-motivated actors pushing that agenda on the internet on behalf of Germany.
No, we haven’t. For someone so hellbent on pretending they’re calling out bad-faith arguments, you’re falling in to one now: asking for sources is not always sealioning. If someone is spewing bold claims, sometimes in sequence in an effort to combine them to come to conclusions that are questionable by nature of not having a grounding in fact, without providing evidence, is that not a problem? Seemingly, you’re saying the problem only comes about from someone who responds and asks for a source. Making bold claims should require you to provide evidence; asking for evidence of bold claims is not the problem.
At this point, I really shouldn’t bother talking to you anymore. You’ve made it very clear you are not actually here in good faith (your version of good faith is playing games, not to have real discussion). I’m offended by your approach, and haven’t been driven to meaningful thought by your comments.
There is an alternative. And it’s proving to be effective. But you’re not allowed to know about it. And if you do know, you’re not allowed to think about it objectively. The evidence will be framed in such a way that makes you think that tackling climate change and corporate power is the most dangerous thing on earth: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009152655
Well that’s the world’s sketchiest link
Haha. It does look dodgy. I used it for transparency, though, as doi links tend to be trusted. If you have a look at almost any recent academic article, it’ll have one. Look up doi’s before clicking that link if you like. Academic publishers use them to make sure that links to research always work. From doi.org:
The link I posted, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009152655, takes you to Cambridge University Press website for an academic book called, Clean Air at What Cost? The Rise of Blunt Force Regulation in China by Denise Sienli van der Kamp. A few chapters are accessible. Otherwise, you’ll have to search online for a full PDF. Here’s a more usual form of link to the introduction: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/clean-air-at-what-cost/introduction/2A72A1AACE376312BDD4B005439AAC41.
From the summary of the introduction (emphasis added):
The book is rather clever, as you can see from this excerpt. It reframes the narrative to support the argument that although China has been successful in ‘swiftly eliminating[ing] polluting industries’, it did not do so efficiently and it had to ‘silence social dissent’. Hard to imagine how someone can present the evidence that China’s methods worked in the same breath as trying to convince you that such success means that it failed. That’s western academics for you. Just wait till you look at chapter 2, which explains that if the author is right, there are:
As if China, with one of the most advanced technologically advanced infrastructures in the world, is going to instal a hodgepodge, disconnected network of tiny, polluting, inefficient coal power stations because it chose the wrong (effective-but-ineffective) regulatory model.
Don’t get me wrong. China could very probably improve its efficiency re: meeting environmental goals. Perhaps it could take seriously some of the analysis in this book when doing so; some if it is very good. But although the author argues for readers to disbelieve the evidence presented in the same book, it outlines an effective alternative to the capitalist mock sigh of despair. The question is, should society listen to the social dissent or do what’s best for life on earth?
I need to read up more on dois, since I don’t understand why not just use a url, they’re already unique.
The sketchiness actually came from that as well as the “you’re not allowed to talk about it” comment which to me screams crypto scam or cult or both.
Here’s my issue with your general argument
You seem to be taking it a given that what China is doing is more or less correct, and then deducing how you should interpret the world from that. Of course China wouldn’t do anything stupid, at best they might just need minor improvements to the process.
This book criticizing China isn’t right, it’s just Western indoctrination.
To me that makes it likely that you’re someone who’s drank the kool aid, and you’re emotionally invested in defending China, which makes a fruitful conversation with you unlikely.
It’s because websites go down. If a journal website goes down, for example, the doi can be redirected so that people searching old links can still find the article.
The book argues that China’s ‘blunt force regulation’ will not work in the long term, suggesting that China may have clean air today but that its air will become dirty again because its regulatory model is defective. I’m saying that is a weak argument as it presupposes that the factories and inefficient (greenhouse gas-wise) infrastructure, etc, that were shut down will be re-used, which is baffling. Those factories are gone. And as it has one of the most technologically advanced infrastructures in the world, it is highly unlikely that anyone would re-install the technologically backward infrastructure. It wouldn’t be very competitive in the world market, would it?
China will face myriad problems in the future. Dirty air from inefficient processing and usage of fossil fuels is unlikely to be one of them. If that’s right, and if I’ve interpreted the author’s argument right, then the thesis fails for being reduced to an absurdity. That’s not to throw the baby out with the bath water. There’s some great analysis in the book. The evidence and analysis just do not lead to the author’s conclusion unless one accepts two essential premises: the primacy of private property and the basic principles of liberalism.
I’m emotionally invested in evidence and conclusions that can be drawn on its basis. You say I’ve drunk the Kool Aid while dismissing the maturity of 80+ million members of the CPC and millions more supporters in the rest of the population.
When I said, you’re not allowed to talk about it, this is exactly what I was referencing. Any presentation of a counter argument is treated with derision. As if there’s only one permissible narrative—which happens to be mainstream only in the west. Such that academics will write a book detailing the successes of Chinese environmental policy and conclude that it’s failed because one day it might fail. Again, there is very likely room to improve efficiency and there is some good analysis in the book. Insisting on nuance does not a cult make.
It would be helpful if the vast majority of the “good faith” arguments in favor of Chinese policies didn’t so frequently turn out to be from state-funded actors pushing propaganda. After having a few conversations with these types, you learn to spot red flags (no pun intended)
Praise for China interjected seemingly at random, in a superlative nature is a common one. And very suspicious. Chinese shills are not as advanced as their Russian counterparts, in that they’re not allowed to criticize their masters and in fact gain points for effusively praising their masters. Makes em easier to spot. The goal of a China shill is to say that China is superior. The goal of a Russia shill is to say that everyone is equally shit.
My concern with you is that you’re not trying to take an idea that happens to be Chinese and promote it towards the rest of the world. We could talk about the merits of that. It’s that you’re taking a Chinese system and trying to promote it towards the rest of the world. With all the baggage that comes with it.
You understand the difference? My worry is that your primary concern is not the idea, but rather the fact that it came from China.
But let’s discuss the idea itself. You’re basically saying that unilaterally shutting down processes is a good approach to fix the climate. How would you port that concept to countries which are not primarily manufacturing-based, like the US and Western Europe?
No, I do not understand the difference and you may have misunderstood my point(s). I’m unsure what you’re saying.
The ratio of truly state-funded actors to genuine human participation is nowhere near what you’re implying. If you think it is as bad as you say, you should be able to prove that comment. Just because someone holds different opinions than you doesn’t mean they’re being paid to do so (if only that were true!).
Mentioning China where it truly is irrelevant is weird; mentioning China when it is relevant, but just because you don’t think it is, isn’t weird. If a thing is legitimately near the top of a particular ranking, then “superlative” praise of it is not superlative at all; that’s like saying praise for the the #1 gold medal olympian is superlative–it’s not, they’re literally at the top.
You have a very active imagination. This is a satement about two different countries, so you have twice as much opportunity to find evidence that (at least one side of) what you’re saying is true. Can you provide evidence that this isn’t just your imagination?
Again, you present this as if it’s obviously true. It’s not.
If you assume everyone is operating in bad faith and is a paid actor, why participate at all? You’re not saving the world by fighting against an imagined state-funded actor foe. You’re feeding on (imagined) outrage.
lol
We’ve been over this
I’m not going to bother to get a ranking of countries by “technologically advanced infrastructure” (see above point about sealioning). But the point is it doesn’t matter. The point could be made by saying “since China has a technologically advanced infrastructure” or, even more to the point, “since China has an interest in actively guiding its infrastructure”. No one would argue that China is a 3rd world country. But no. It’s not a technologically advanced infrastructure. It’s “one of the most technologically advanced infrastructures in the world”. That’s superlative relative to the topic at hand, and that’s why it’s a red flag. The verbiage is familiar.
But also, the context. If someone said “Germany has one of the most technologically advanced infrastructures in the world”, well, we could debate that, but I wouldn’t suspect any bad faith. Because there hasn’t been a history of state-motivated actors pushing that agenda on the internet on behalf of Germany.
No, we haven’t. For someone so hellbent on pretending they’re calling out bad-faith arguments, you’re falling in to one now: asking for sources is not always sealioning. If someone is spewing bold claims, sometimes in sequence in an effort to combine them to come to conclusions that are questionable by nature of not having a grounding in fact, without providing evidence, is that not a problem? Seemingly, you’re saying the problem only comes about from someone who responds and asks for a source. Making bold claims should require you to provide evidence; asking for evidence of bold claims is not the problem.
At this point, I really shouldn’t bother talking to you anymore. You’ve made it very clear you are not actually here in good faith (your version of good faith is playing games, not to have real discussion). I’m offended by your approach, and haven’t been driven to meaningful thought by your comments.