MK

Phase One trade deal, for China it is all about technology war

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

China not interventionist? Have you looked at what China is doing in Korea? Taiwan? SE Asia? Africa? Really, anywhere they have the BRI (which they use to essentially force nations into economic servitude).

To begin Taiwan is part of China and even the USA agrees while your other points relate to trade-based relationships and not armed conflicts.

15 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

China, to date, likely has more cumulative emissions that the US

Completely untrue but please feel free to find the data that supports your contention as you make a habit of drawing long bows - please come back with it in the next 30 minutes if possible.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Might be interesting: https://www.populationpyramid.net/carbon-emissions/china+russian-federation+united-states-of-america+europe/

 

Per person, China is now on par with Europe (and this is with a lot of people still living in energy poverty in China)

Data only goes through 2015 on this chart (but couldn't find a better one). Unless there's been a drastic change in the curve, though, I'd expect China to pass the US in total CO2 emissions within 2.5-3 years of the end of this chart... which was end of 2018. Shockingly, I can't find anyone who has published data past 2017. Even Wikipedia ends at 2017. Could it be that they don't want to show this?

The cumulative emissions in that link are bogus, notice how they start at zero in 1960 for China? 

Meanwhile the IPCC has completely abandoned their position on residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the 1990's they claimed hundreds of years. When I scientifically questioned that idea at the cabal Website, we had an interesting discussion, right up until I pointed to research my father's team had done at the atomic energy commission, specifically tracking fallout from nuclear weapons testing. After all, it was totally easy to spot the radioactive carbon 14 making up CO2 in air samples. In no case was there fallout CO2 lasting more than 7 years, and the vast majority was gone by 5 years. That's when Gavin Schmidt personally erased every post I and others had made in the thread, and deleted my account. That by the way it's when I started calling them the cabal and everything since, such as the climategate emails only underscore their lack of ethics and transparency. Up until that moment I was open minded about AGW, but once I realized they were crooks and charlatans, no more. 

So given that CO2 residence time is only 7 years, a TRUE indication of cumulative emissions only needs to go back that far, a period I might add in which the US has lowered dramatically while China has increased dramatically. Furthermore, most of these sites are so intellectually lazy they only multiply fossil fuel numbers as if every drop of oil were being burned that year, instead of focusing only on the transportation uses of crude. In addition, they totally ignore cement and aluminum production, both of which are not included in China's totals and both products China leads the world producing. 

Finally, framing this discussion on a per capita basis is misleading. If CO2 were such a systemic threat to the entire world, we'd be focusing on the entire CO2 output which clearly isn't happening. So Greta can say western politicians need to be lined up and shot while blithely ignoring the true culprits belching gigatons of carbon per year today.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China is very adept at stealing our technology, President Obama made sure for his 8 years in office to weaken the United States military and allowed our technology to be stolen! A complete blackout of any foreign investment into critical business is needed as with no longer allowing the Chinese to study and participate in research here in the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Meanwhile the IPCC has completely abandoned their position on residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although this is not the right thread your claim above  is wholly bogus

"On an average, CO2 molecules are exchanged between the atmosphere and the Earth surface every few years."

And if it is true that your posts were "wiped" it may be because they thought you were a troll who was not capable of understanding the science.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Well, CO2 emissions are energy Sector related mainly electricity generation and transport related ICE vehicles.

In US electricity consumption is 70% residential and commercial and 30% industry ( 2,7 PWh and 1,1 PWh respectively)

In China electricity consumption is still mainly industrial, not remember data, it is sth 4.5 PWh industry and  2.1 PWh residential and commercial.

 Chinese industrial usage is near the top, residential and commercial rising fast.

Second source is transportation, US has at least 5-6 times China consumption per capita here.

China will go up but No more than 70% of US per capita emissions, and only because this is our planet limitation, not enough natural gas. 

 

And per capita comsumption is what counts, for the comparisons and judgement about how green or not the country is. not overall consumption

Edited by Marcin2
Typo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To say sth on topic, the text of phase one deal is what was expected: Chinese domestic reforms of 2017-2019 included (in IP protection and market opening).

In the agreement US companies would gain rights already enjoyed by French, German companies from finanse sector.

What is new is about US rating agencies on Chinese market.

And these purchases are really big, but with market mechanism caveat.

Perceived decrease of overall tensions between US and China because of trade deal, will be great boon for Chinese tech sector and Huawei.

UK would publish Huawei included in 5G next week.

In Germany Huawei is already building 5G network, but decision ( although we already know that positive one) will be made public only in a few months the earliest because of SPD interests.

Germany took the best strategy, facts on the ground, Huawei and Telefonika would invest lets say 5 billion EUR in 5G deployment in major German urban centers this year.

What could be decision, when the infrastructure is ready but just not online yet ?

This is politically most Effective cause US cannot pressure Germany officially as „decision will be taken in the future” is official German stance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Bloomberg) -- China agreed to buy $52.4 billion of additional U.S. energy products as part of a landmark trade deal signed by the world’s two top economic superpowers.

The purchases over two years will include liquefied natural gas, crude oil, refined products and coal, the U.S. government said Wednesday in Washington. It didn’t provide additional details on the energy purchases, which comprise about a quarter of the $200 billion total of extra imports that China has committed to.

The accord is a promising sign for the U.S. LNG industry, which is facing a global market awash with excess supply. China, the world’s fastest-growing buyer of the heating and power-plant fuel, hasn’t imported any American cargoes since February 2019.

Though shipments of shale gas from American export terminals completed in the past three years have made the U.S. one of the world’s top suppliers, some newer projects have stalled without Chinese purchasers. The struggle to sign long-term sales contracts has undermined efforts to secure financing for the multibillion-dollar facilities.

“The phase one agreement between the United States and China is a step in the right direction that will hopefully restore the burgeoning U.S. LNG trade with China,” Jack Fusco, chief executive officer of U.S. exporter Cheniere Energy Inc. and one of the business leaders present at the signing ceremony at the White House, said in a statement.

U.S. oil exports to China have also slumped because of the trade war. China skipped crude purchases from the U.S. for six months through November, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Despite losing its top customer, U.S. oil exports have remained steady as shipments to other locations including the U.K., Europe and South Korea edge higher. Late last year, U.S. exports even touched a record 4.5 million barrels a day.

While China has tapered off its imports of American crude, the Asian nation hasn’t moved away from its dependence on foreign oil. China imported 10.16 million barrels a day last year, according to customs figures released Tuesday, topping the 10.12 million the U.S. bought at its importing peak in 2005.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Otis11 said:

China not interventionist? Have you looked at what China is doing in Korea? Taiwan? SE Asia? Africa? Really, anywhere they have the BRI (which they use to essentially force nations into economic servitude).

Ok, just double checking.

So China is essentially equal to Poland on Per-Capita. China has a huge portion of people who are still in energy poverty. Combining these facts - someone in China who has modern energy is more poluting that a comparable person in Poland.

Also, you're looking at Per-Capita, My post was on total cumulative emissions. I've never claimed the US was low on per capita. We're at 1.8X Poland and decreasing. Once China gets everyone in China to modern standards, they'll be higher than Poland and likely around where the US is (not because they use much energy per person, but because China's carbon emissions per unit energy is so high).

So no, you didn't present any contradiction to anything I said. What was I supposed to change my mind about?

China, to date, likely has more cumulative emissions that the US (likely passed in 2018, but no one will show this data)
The US has more emissions per capita because we use more energy per person
China has more emissions per unit energy produced
As China uses more units of energy per capita, they are currently on track to pass the US in emissions per capita (though, this may very well change if they clean their grid - just looking at trends)

Please note - none of this is Anti-China, it's just the facts and trends.

Fact?  Hardly. Your post is nothing but bigotry, ignorance, and limited education. Have you any idea of the meaning of intervene? Since when has China put troops on the ground in any of the locations you cite?  Where and how has China caused any country to be in servitude?

Let's see your facts.  

 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China increased nat gas consumption in 2019 by about 25 billion cubic meters. At about 300 USD per 1000 m3 , this means additional 7.5 billion dollars. Domestic output is rising but too slow. Chinese oil consumption this year again increased by about 5% and China wants to be top player in refining globally so actually imports would rise much faster.

Take additional 0.6 m bbl/d consumption in 2019 that is per 60 USD per bbl additional 13 billion dollars. So Chinese energy bill grows by 20 billion dollars a year. Even with latest Russian pipeline China would need increased US energy supplies, even better if it is part of trade deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, remake it said:

Although this is not the right thread your claim above  is wholly bogus

"On an average, CO2 molecules are exchanged between the atmosphere and the Earth surface every few years."

And if it is true that your posts were "wiped" it may be because they thought you were a troll who was not capable of understanding the science.

Nice try numbnuts, but you've only validated my point. Your link is from 2018! Now go back to the 90's and you'll see they were singing a whole different tune then. Claiming hundreds of years residence time. 

Wasn't being a troll, that appears to be your job.

Posted links to relevant papers at Elsevier and elsewhere. My patience when dealing with scientists is considerably better than it is dealing with you and your ilk. I hadn't started with an answer, but a serious question. It prompted a long and involved conversation with multiple legitimate researchers chiming in. Bottom line, the agenda driven cabal members who run that site realized the answers we were discovering to their (now known as utter BS) "hypothesis" about retention time was making that house of cards collapse. Their embarrassment and political agenda caused them to destroy the thread. I wasn't the only one asking what had happened, I had more information to share in a collegial manner with the interested researchers involved. Asking what had happened to the thread, and trying to start a new one got my account banned. It happened to other scientists too, at the same time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, frankfurter said:

Fact?  Hardly. Your post is nothing but bigotry, ignorance, and limited education. Have you any idea of the meaning of intervene? Since when has China put troops on the ground in any of the locations you cite?  Where and how has China caused any country to be in servitude?

Let's see your facts.  

 

Tibet, Vietnam. Building "Islands" and claiming the entire South China Sea as an economic and military exclusion zone. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, remake it said:

To begin Taiwan is part of China and even the USA agrees while your other points relate to trade-based relationships and not armed conflicts.

Completely untrue but please feel free to find the data that supports your contention as you make a habit of drawing long bows - please come back with it in the next 30 minutes if possible.

Taiwan is not part of China - Ask anyone from Taiwan. The US has aquiesed with the One China Policy as the official narative, but continues to treat Taiwan as it's own nation.

But we're clearly not going to agree on this one - so agree to disagree.

Korea is an armed conflict. SE Asia is an armed conflict as China used military vessels to RAM fishermen or shoot warning shots at them, not to mention their intimidation (using military vessels!) of oil exploration companies in SE Asia - in OTHER COUNTRIES EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONES.

It is true - and I've already provided the support for it. Feel free to go revisit.

15 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

The cumulative emissions in that link are bogus, notice how they start at zero in 1960 for China? 

Meanwhile the IPCC has completely abandoned their position on residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the 1990's they claimed hundreds of years. When I scientifically questioned that idea at the cabal Website, we had an interesting discussion, right up until I pointed to research my father's team had done at the atomic energy commission, specifically tracking fallout from nuclear weapons testing. After all, it was totally easy to spot the radioactive carbon 14 making up CO2 in air samples. In no case was there fallout CO2 lasting more than 7 years, and the vast majority was gone by 5 years. That's when Gavin Schmidt personally erased every post I and others had made in the thread, and deleted my account. That by the way it's when I started calling them the cabal and everything since, such as the climategate emails only underscore their lack of ethics and transparency. Up until that moment I was open minded about AGW, but once I realized they were crooks and charlatans, no more. 

So given that CO2 residence time is only 7 years, a TRUE indication of cumulative emissions only needs to go back that far, a period I might add in which the US has lowered dramatically while China has increased dramatically. Furthermore, most of these sites are so intellectually lazy they only multiply fossil fuel numbers as if every drop of oil were being burned that year, instead of focusing only on the transportation uses of crude. In addition, they totally ignore cement and aluminum production, both of which are not included in China's totals and both products China leads the world producing. 

Finally, framing this discussion on a per capita basis is misleading. If CO2 were such a systemic threat to the entire world, we'd be focusing on the entire CO2 output which clearly isn't happening. So Greta can say western politicians need to be lined up and shot while blithely ignoring the true culprits belching gigatons of carbon per year today.

Thanks Ward - I appreciate the intelligent refutation of my provided evidence.

Do you have a better source for cumulative emissions?

See the source image

Not sure if this includes Cement/Aluminum... but maybe it's at least better? (Sadly data is only through 2015, couldn't find better. May just look under curve for this though. Seems like from 2010 on China has been dominate, and if you do a 5 year average, China is now the largest, does it not? Would welcome better data if anyone has some.)

See the source image

And shouldn't those emissions be slotted into the country using the Cement/Aluminum and not the country making it? Just saying...

12 hours ago, frankfurter said:

Fact?  Hardly. Your post is nothing but bigotry, ignorance, and limited education. Have you any idea of the meaning of intervene? Since when has China put troops on the ground in any of the locations you cite?  Where and how has China caused any country to be in servitude?

Let's see your facts.  

 

Personal attack, personal attack, and more personal attack - and absolutely no facts. Though I did post facts and trends, they may not be as quantifiable as you'd like, but that doesn't make them any less true.

(And Limited Education? Ha! You obviously don't know me... Bigotry, Ignorance? Yeah... you really have no idea who you're talking to.)

I presented my argument - if you'd like to counter, go ahead, but I'm not going to do all the work of presenting argument after argument when you're resorting to dismissal and character attacks.

 

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2020 at 2:34 PM, 0R0 said:

Note that all that inventory will be obsolete next year if not now, as the chip complement in modern 5G phones and network equipment is different from what has been used so far. Their production has only gone live last year and availability is still limited, first dibs to Apple and Samsung. 

 

 

I was just wondering that myself, anything electronic like that ends up old news in about 6 months, so why bother? To throw it all away or just keep a warehouse filled with outdated junk for years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Otis11 said:

But we're clearly not going to agree on this one - so agree to disagree.

All you are doing is disagreeing with the US government's stance which you do when it suits you because you are unable to make a better case.

And here is the cumulative CO2 emissions chart again show the extent of denial that the US propagandizes into global warming

Cumulative co2 treemap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, remake it said:

All you are doing is disagreeing with the US government's stance which you do when it suits you because you are unable to make a better case.

And here is the cumulative CO2 emissions chart again show the extent of denial that the US propagandizes into global warming

Cumulative co2 treemap

Says right there, "ourworldindata.Org" 

Only a buffoon would equate them with "US government's stance". 

Carry on 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Otis11 said:

The US has aquiesed with the One China Policy as the official narative, but continues to treat Taiwan as it's own nation.

 

22 minutes ago, remake it said:

All you are doing is disagreeing with the US government's stance which you do when it suits you because you are unable to make a better case.

 

2 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Only a buffoon would equate them with "US government's stance". 

 the United States recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought trumps idea for the trade war was to bring manufacturing back to the states.  The deal was essentially just raw material exports (agriculture and energy). 

At least he won't have to keep buying farmers votes a.k.a. "federal aid for farmers."

Sucks for Canada as that is stuff we like to sell.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ward Smith@remake it@frankfurter@Otis11 1. Why are you quarelling about CO2 emissions (per capita or not) ?

Every country has own habits and background. US had privileged lifestyle since 1950s, and everybody wants to emulate this, also China. When US had its golden period in 1950-1980, it was one of only a few countries to be rich, so crude oil and natural gas were infinite and very cheap. Nobody cared about climate change.

Habits are difficult to change. But you cannot blame US people that they are rich for 3 generations. If China would reach US level they would have similar emissions, maybe 30% lower.

China has no choice but to use coal, they have no influence on their CO2 emissions, again you cannot blame them. US is currently privileged cause have vast output of both crude oil and natural gas. China has 1/4 of this output and in10 years will use the same amount of crude oil as US does. Where possible they use electricity and coal.

Greta goes were is invited for political and PR gains. She is not going to China or speaking about China because nobody would listen to her or give her parents money for this activity.

2. China is not intervenionist now, by comparison to US, because it is still too weak, much weaker than US and spends its resources in a wiser manner, on growth (to increase power) and not for policing the world. China will let US police the world, very expensive and not popular task, provided that oil still flows to China.

We do not know exactly how China would behave, but can forecast with good probability.

Imagine it is year 2030 or 2035 and strong China is using 1,000 million tons of crude oil and 500 billion cubic meters of natural gas, in total the same as United States per year.

And out of the blue Iran or Venezuela, Iraq, Canada, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Nigeria make it difficult for China or US to buy oil or natural gas.

So they do everything per United Nations official procedures, according to LAW: vote in Security Council to invade country (Russia votes like China, and Britain and France like US, so 5 YES votes we have).

They invade the country together or one of them individually, what is more suitable at the moment, if it is election year in US it is China invading, if new President needs to "prove" himself it is United States invading.

I do not see it any other way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And both China lovers and US lovers you are very similar to each other, let this sink in for a moment.

  • Haha 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

Why are you quarelling about CO2 emissions (per capita or not) ?

Was there a quarrel as the data speaks for itself while on-topic you may have heard of China's "Big Fund" which aims to make China self sufficient in ICs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

And both China lovers and US lovers you are very similar to each other, let this sink in for a moment.

You mean they similarly hate each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, remake it said:

Was there a quarrel as the data speaks for itself while on-topic you may have heard of China's "Big Fund" which aims to make China self sufficient in ICs.

Of course I am aware of all of them. But for them to have any significant sense China needs to buy at least 8 more years of good growth environment, without heated tech war with US. Otherwise this and other IC funds would have it difficult to develop,  and thus Chinese path to IC self sufficiency will not take 5-8 years, but 15-20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago
  •  

 

54 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

And both China lovers and US lovers you are very similar to each other, let this sink in for a moment.

You mean they similarly hate each other?

 

No I really mean very similar:

- both nations have this sense of being superior or exceptional (Middle Kingdom in China, Exceptional country in United States),

- both nations populate  economically strongest countries,  many times stronger than 3rd Japan or 4th Germany,

- both countries have strongest militaries, largest budgets, the major justification of military spending is the existence of the other, budget of the smaller of the duo - China is at least 3-4 times larger than the 3rd one (France, UK, Russia or India).

- for both countries foreign trade is very unimportant for overall economic results. Trade is important for China as source of leverage over countries and source of technologies and natural resources. For US exactly the same.

- both countries have this very narrow perception of own interests: their trade war was bigger threat to global economy and most of trading nations than for US and China,

- both countries historically influenced other countries in cultural way: China: all of Asia, but mainly SE  and East Asia since antiquity, United States: whole world since 1930s.

- both countries do not have any prospective contender for their supremacy apart from each other in the next 40 years.

(India is still 2 generations from sensible economy, and all other countries are too small),

- both countries have large landmass in temperate and subtropical zones: the most suitable for human development: no other country has similar conditions, so no other country can be hegemonic,

- and large rivers as backbone of the country (important for economy at some level),

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

 

 

And both China lovers and US lovers you are very similar to each other, let this sink in for a moment.

Polish clock watchers know when their hour of internet posting time is up

Image result for image, broken clock face

 

Edited by remake it
Hands down victory to the Polish at Oilprice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

17 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:
38 minutes ago
  •  

 

You mean they similarly hate each other?

 

No I really mean very similar:

- both nations have this sense of being superior or exceptional (Middle Kingdom in China, Exceptional country in United States),

- both nations populate  economically strongest countries,  many times stronger than 3rd Japan or 4th Germany,

- both countries have strongest militaries, largest budgets, the major justification of military spending is the existence of the other, budget of the smaller of the duo - China is at least 3-4 times larger than the 3rd one (France, UK, Russia or India).

- for both countries foreign trade is very unimportant for overall economic results. Trade is important for China as source of leverage over countries and source of technologies and natural resources. For US exactly the same.

- both countries have this very narrow perception of own interests: their trade war was bigger threat to global economy and most of trading nations than for US and China,

- both countries historically influenced other countries in cultural way: China: all of Asia, but mainly SE  and East Asia since antiquity, United States: whole world since 1930s.

- both countries do not have any prospective contender for their supremacy apart from each other in the next 40 years.

(India is still 2 generations from sensible economy, and all other countries are too small),

- both countries have large landmass in temperate and subtropical zones: the most suitable for human development: no other country has similar conditions, so no other country can be hegemonic,

- and large rivers as backbone of the country (important for economy at some level),

 

 

 

Point 1.  You are grossly incorrect.  The Chinese do not consider themselves to be superior or exceptional: but no less than equal. Only the USA has arrogantly claimed to be exceptional. 

Edited by frankfurter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.