“In any event, China’s climate agenda is not so straightforward.
The country is the world’s largest coal consumer. Even as it is phasing out coal plants at home, it is building coal plants abroad as part of an ambitious “One Belt, One Road” initiative, designed to expand Chinese global influence. At the same time, China has embraced renewables: It is the largest producer of electric cars, and it has proposed to set up what would become the world’s largest carbon market.
Li Shuo, of Greenpeace China, said the projected rise in emissions would not affect China’s overall trajectory toward slowing emissions at home and stepping up diplomatically.
“China can continue to play a leading role in the global climate debate, despite this short-term increase of emissions, which is temporary,” he said.
One thing still lost in the fog of global climate negotiations is whether the Chinese leader really wants to be the global leader on climate. In his speech to the Communist Party conclave in October, Mr. Xi took a swipe at the United States by criticizing what he called “self-isolation.” But he said nothing about how his country would step up to fill the gap.
Mr. Xi has said only that China will stick to its pledges. But even if every country meets its Paris pledges, the planet is expected to heat up 3 degrees Celsius or more. That would not be enough to stave off the most catastrophic effects of climate change.”
Archive for China
“What do these changes really mean?
A key phrase here is “new era,” one that Mr. Xi has used throughout the congress, which began last week. Mr. Xi has described Chinese history since 1949 as divided into two eras: the three decades after Mao seized power in a revolution that established a unified People’s Republic and ended nearly a century of civil war and foreign invasions, and the three decades after Deng took power in 1978 and refocused China on developing its economy.
Mr. Xi has signaled he is launching China into a new, third era. In his report to the congress, Mr. Xi suggested that if Mao made China independent, and Deng made it prosperous, he would make it strong again. Restoring China to greatness is a central message of “Xi Jinping Thought,” and a goal that has already guided Mr. Xi’s policies of building up the military, strengthening domestic controls and raising China’s profile in global affairs.”
“Toward the end of his life, dying of Lou Gehrig’s disease, Mao Zedong claimed two achievements: leading the Communist revolution to victory and starting the Cultural Revolution. By pinpointing these episodes, he had underlined the lifelong contradiction in his attitudes toward revolution and state power. Mao molded Communism to fit his two personas. To use Chinese parlance, he was both a tiger and a monkey king. For the Chinese, the tiger is the king of the jungle. Translated into human terms, a tiger
Very interesting piece and comments. I tend to agree with the Chinese gentleman, who dislikes the use of the Monkey King to describe the political purges of Mao, but not entirely. I recently studied the Monkey King, or Monkey, because it is considered one of the four great novels of Chinese literature. I was delighted by the book, which is full of farce, comedy, slapstick and political satire. The Monkey King is a folk hero from stories of old China. He has super powers, and is more like a Marvel or DC superhero, a very naughty one, than any kind of political genius.
Professor Roderick MacFarquhar points out that Mao himself wrote that he was inspired by Sun Wukong, the Monkey King. That the story seems to be an entertainment for children, doesn’t change the fact that the book has many levels of meaning, especially in its covert attack on the Emperor of China, and stuck up officials of all stripes. Out of reverence for this amazing story, I crafted a synopsis of the book into one of the chapters of my first book The Tay Son Rebellion, Historical Fiction of Eighteen-Century Vietnam.
“BEIJING — Having conquered world markets and challenged American political and military leadership, China has set its sights on becoming a global powerhouse in a different field: scientific research. It now has more laboratory scientists than any other country, outspends the entire European Union on research and development, and produces more scientific articles than any other nation except the United States.
But in its rush to dominance, China has stood out in another, less boastful way. Since 2012, the country has retracted more scientific papers because of faked peer reviews than all other countries and territories put together, according to Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks and seeks to publicize retractions of research papers.
Now, a recent string of high-profile scandals over questionable or discredited research has driven home the point in China that to become a scientific superpower, it must first overcome a festering problem of systemic fraud.”
“In Tumor Biology’s case, government investigators found that many of the authors had submitted the names of real researchers, but with fabricated email addresses. This apparently allowed the authors, or more often writers hired by the authors, to pose as academic peers, and write positive reviews that would help get their own papers published.
According to an investigation led by the country’s Ministry of Science and Technology, Chinese researchers used such methods to manipulate the peer-review process in 101 out of the 107 retracted articles. In many cases, government investigators said authors had gone online to hire people to write professional-sounding reviews.
A recent search revealed a teeming, illicit trade in faked peer reviews. A search for the term “help publishing papers” on Taobao, a popular Chinese e-commerce site, yielded a long list of sellers who offered services ranging from faked peer reviews to entire scientific papers already written and ready to submit. Depending on the service, they charge from a few hundred dollars up to $10,000.”
BEIJING — He was one of China’s most prominent commanders, with hopes of rising higher. So when Gen. Fang Fenghui disappeared from public view, it sent a clear warning to the top leaders of the People’s Liberation Army: President Xi Jinping was not done shaking up their once-unassailable ranks. General Fang, the chief of the army’s Joint Staff Department, was not the only military leader to fall ahead of next week’s Communist Party congress. Gen. Zhang Yang, the director of the military’s political depar
David Linday commented to this article at the NYT:
Very interesting article, thank you.
I recently posted to my On Vietnam blog, an article titled: Japan to provide patrol ships to Vietnam amid maritime row with China | Thanh Nien Daily.
Japan has just sent five coast guard gun boats to Vietnam, and other aid, to help them contain China in the South China Sea. Japan is also giving military aid to the Philippines and other ASEAN nations. It would be useful in containing China if the US reached out to Vietnam as well. Since 937 AD, the Vietnamese have repulsed the Chinese advance on Southeast Asia at least eight times successfully. A modern Chinese military will pose a very grave threat to the independence of Vietnam and its neighbors.
10/12: My comment above has only 4 recommends at the NYT comments. Socrates is far more popular, and he writes about how over militarized we are, which is serious issue. I felt complellled to endorse his comment:
“China’s military spending, officially $144 billion in 2016, still lags far behind the more than $600 billion spent last year by the United States.”
China also has four times as many people – 1.3 billion – as the United States – 320 million people.
The United States spends about $2,000 per person versus a global country average of $200 per person.
China spends less on military than most other countries on both a per capita basis ($89) and as a percent of Chinese GDP (2.1%).
Other sources indicate the United States spends about $700 Billion on military expenses or about 43% of the world’s military expenditures.
America’s military expenditure per capita ($2,240) and its percent of American GDP spent on military (4.8%) are much higher than most other countries in the world.
Meanwhile, China has world-class high-speed rail and and a blossoming alternative energy and technology market.
And the USA has collapsing roads, rails, bridges, IQs and is bringing back coal.
We have met the enemy, and it’s the American military-industrial-right-wing-petro-state hawking Guns, Gas and Greed.
The Chinese are not America’s major threat.
Grand Old Poison is.
While this next post appears to correct Socrates, it seems to add a different ratio, than the one he gave above.
The link does confirm the writers ratio:
January 15, 2017
Defense spending was 59.2% of federal government consumption and
investment in 2016. *
$728.9 / $1,231.5 = 59.2%[ United States defense spending in 2016 was $728.9 billion. ]