I very much enjoy @scholars_stage deep analysis, particularly on the long historical cycles and relevance of the Chinese term 新一轮科技革命和产业变革 or "upcoming round of techno-scientific revolution and industrial transformation" and recommend reading this:
I would like to augment this piece on the "plan to save China through science" from two perspectives:
1⃣ The framing of 新一轮科技革命和产业变革 in the context of a "weak economy"
2⃣ Highlighting the biggest component of 科技革命: the LT implications of abundant clean energy.
1⃣ The framing of 新一轮科技革命和产业变革 in the context of a "weak economy"
2⃣ Highlighting the biggest component of 科技革命: the LT implications of abundant clean energy.
Tanner starts by laying out a number of familiar reasons why China's economy is in a rough spot as backdrop for why it needs to be "saved".
Suffice it to say that I disagree with the general economic assessment, although the point here is not to have a detailed debate about those points here.
If you've been reading my stuff for a while I've shared my thoughts and observations on all of these economic topics (and more). If you haven't, you can check them out here:
readwriteinvest.com
Suffice it to say that I disagree with the general economic assessment, although the point here is not to have a detailed debate about those points here.
If you've been reading my stuff for a while I've shared my thoughts and observations on all of these economic topics (and more). If you haven't, you can check them out here:
readwriteinvest.com
More relevant is that regardless of whether the economy is weak or not, there are more fundamental explanations for what 新一轮科技革命和产业变革 means to the Party and why it is not merely a hastily contrived "response to to the [current] problems they face"
It's not about narrative-forming. It's absolutely core to future economic development, to national power and international standing. And by extension the Party.
It is real and needs to be taken seriously as more than just a contrived narrative.
It's not about narrative-forming. It's absolutely core to future economic development, to national power and international standing. And by extension the Party.
It is real and needs to be taken seriously as more than just a contrived narrative.
The framing of this particular FP essay detracts from the main point, which should be the focus on 科技革命 itself.
If you remove the framing, IMO the essay reads better. Indeed, the original essay really just zeroes in on 科技革命 + it was great:
foreignpolicy.com
If you remove the framing, IMO the essay reads better. Indeed, the original essay really just zeroes in on 科技革命 + it was great:
foreignpolicy.com
Also:
I'd also recommend reading Rick Joe's discussion on another framing issue in the historical comparison with the Soviet Union:
I'd also recommend reading Rick Joe's discussion on another framing issue in the historical comparison with the Soviet Union:
2⃣ I also thought all of the essays missed an opportunity to focus on what I believe has been recently elevated to being the highest-priority "techno-scientific" theme in the Party's eyes: the advent of abundant clean energy.
Tanner does mention "green energy" alongside other categories like "materials science, genetics and plant breeding, neuroscience, quantum computing ... and aerospace engineering" but it is lost in the crowd when it should be the focus.
Tanner does mention "green energy" alongside other categories like "materials science, genetics and plant breeding, neuroscience, quantum computing ... and aerospace engineering" but it is lost in the crowd when it should be the focus.
Particularly as the 🧵 itself did an excellent historical overview of past historical revolutions where energy was a common theme:
▪️ Steam power (via coal) fueled the industrial revolution and British Empire
▪️ Petroleum fueled the rise of America
▪️ Steam power (via coal) fueled the industrial revolution and British Empire
▪️ Petroleum fueled the rise of America
I expand on this concept in past epochal transitions:
▪️ Solar/hydro power (via farming + irrigation on arable land) powered the agricultural revolution.
▪️ Animal power (via the saddle/plow) powered ancient empires.
▪️ Solar/hydro power (via farming + irrigation on arable land) powered the agricultural revolution.
▪️ Animal power (via the saddle/plow) powered ancient empires.
This it not lost on the powers-that-be in China, which as Tanner notes was late to the party on the industrial revolution and suffered the consequences.
Furthermore, relative to its vast population it is not blessed with either arable land or natural fossil fuel reserves which makes it dependent on others.
Furthermore, relative to its vast population it is not blessed with either arable land or natural fossil fuel reserves which makes it dependent on others.
Energy independence (and lack thereof) has been at the core of Party worries since the establishment of the PRC.
This led to everything from the elevation of "Iron Man Wang" (who discovered the Daqing oil field) to mythic status to how coal (the only fossil fuel that China has ample reserves of) plays such a crucial role in China's energy policy.
This led to everything from the elevation of "Iron Man Wang" (who discovered the Daqing oil field) to mythic status to how coal (the only fossil fuel that China has ample reserves of) plays such a crucial role in China's energy policy.
And this has naturally made it very self-conscious of the fact that China is the world's largest oil exporter and highly dependent on massive volumes of oil passing through potential hotspots like the Strait of Malacca that can be cut off at a moment's notice by an adversarial blue-water navy to which it has no ability to respond.
This is also what binds China to Russia whose vast oil reserves and pipeline help to mitigate this particular risk.
This is also what binds China to Russia whose vast oil reserves and pipeline help to mitigate this particular risk.
But clean energy is the long-term answer to its energy insecurity.
The problem for many years was that clean energy was just way too expensive:
▪️ The upfront costs of solar panels was too high to be deployed at utility scale
▪️ The high cost of batteries made electric vehicles a poor substitute for traditional combustion engine vehicles.
The problem for many years was that clean energy was just way too expensive:
▪️ The upfront costs of solar panels was too high to be deployed at utility scale
▪️ The high cost of batteries made electric vehicles a poor substitute for traditional combustion engine vehicles.
And even though per-unit ¥/W and ¥/Wh costs were coming down gradually, it did not become apparent until only relatively recently — like the last five years — that costs would not only reach parity with traditional fossil fuel costs* but decline well beyond that point.
* which benefit from trillions of dollars of invested assets and institutionalized structures and systems built around fossil fuel infrastructure
* which benefit from trillions of dollars of invested assets and institutionalized structures and systems built around fossil fuel infrastructure
These charts really highlight the stunning decline of clean energy upfront capital costs that is now unlocking the power of energy that has zero-marginal costs (including negative emissions externalities)
As recently as a decade ago, Chinese planners were targeting cumulative "70 GW of solar deployments by 2020".
This is the amount that today is deployed in less than three months.
This is the amount that today is deployed in less than three months.
China becomes much easier to understand once you internalize just how important clean energy is to its future plans and how its clean energy policies are ultimately underpinned by the core objective of energy independence.
Yes, breathing cleaner air and reducing the risk of global climate change catastrophe is nice (for all of us!) but to Beijing these things pale in importance to the long-term goal of achieving energy independence.
And not only achieving energy independence, but going far beyond to a "post-abundance" world.
And not only achieving energy independence, but going far beyond to a "post-abundance" world.
Yes, future innovations like quantum computing, chipmaking, aerospace, AI all matter but I believe (quite firmly) that abundant clean energy sits at the heart of the "upcoming round of techno-scientific revolution and industrial transformation" in the Party's eyes.
Indeed many of these other areas are themselves underpinned by abundant clean energy (AI in particular.
Indeed many of these other areas are themselves underpinned by abundant clean energy (AI in particular.
Every major epochal shift has been driven by some revolutionary change in the way we harness energy. I see no reason why Beijing sees this any differently.
Especially since the technology and know-how to unlock abundant clean energy is already here today and China has gained decisive advantages in many areas that are key to unlocking clean energy, particularly on the manufacturing front.
Especially since the technology and know-how to unlock abundant clean energy is already here today and China has gained decisive advantages in many areas that are key to unlocking clean energy, particularly on the manufacturing front.
What does this potentially mean for Americans?
It means that figuring out how to play catch-up is very important here because we are clearly and undeniably behind.
Naturally, this is not a familiar feeling and may take mental adjustments that are painful.
It means that figuring out how to play catch-up is very important here because we are clearly and undeniably behind.
Naturally, this is not a familiar feeling and may take mental adjustments that are painful.
But recognizing these realities (and implications on future balance of power) so that we can pivot and adjust will be critical in the upcoming decades to maintaining our standing in the world and some degree of equilibrium and balance.
@ElbridgeColby @Copela1492 @policytensor
@ElbridgeColby @Copela1492 @policytensor
hopefully obvious typo/brain fart: *importer
Loading suggestions...