Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Charles Ryder's avatar

Going to repost a comment I originally made on Noah Smith's blog, because it spells out part of the approach I believe we should be taking wrt China:

I've always gotten the vibe Chinese leadership in general fears a brain drain to the the West (especially US). So, when Washington's discriminatory policies make it harder for talented Chinese researchers (and well-educated people in general) to come to the United States, Xi and the Standing Committee aren't upset. In the least (their public rhetoric notwithstanding). Rather, they're doing high fives.

America should be doing everything in its power to attract the world's best and brightest: more student visas, more green cards, special visa programs for foreign graduates of US colleges, more H1s. All of it. And yes, that should include lots of China's best. STEAL THEIR TALENT. I guarantee many top Chinese brains will LEAP at the chance to trade in Chinese smog, crowds, low wages and totalitarian constraints for the freedom, clean air, potable water, wide open spaces, higher wages, and detached houses of Silicon Valley, Boston or Seattle. This is a complete no-brainer.

(Ok, so maybe not many will be able to buy a house in Palo Alto, at least right away! But it's getting pretty tough in Beijing or Hangzhou, too!)

PS — Completely non-scientific observation here, but, personal experience to me suggests China's educated classes are indeed getting a bit nervous, and there's a general increase in top level talent trying to get out. I've got five well-educated friends here who are finalizing exit strategies: three to Canada, one to the US, and one to Europe.

PPS — Preemptive reply to the inevitable objection based on national security: fears of Chinese espionage are overdone for a variety of reason; our people (FBI) in any event know how to handle this stuff, but if their budget needs to be increased, so be it; cutting ourselves off from an increasingly large portion of the planet's smartest folks isn't going to just help China: it'll also directly weaken US science.

Expand full comment
Antihippodamus's avatar

"We are not going to hit the 1.5-degree or even 2-degree target, but 2.7 is much better than 3, and 2.4 is much better than 2.7 — we need to do what we can."

A good post, but I'm going to quibble with this particular sentence, because I think it leads to bad analysis and bad policy recommendations. True, we most likely can't hit the 1.5-degree target, but we most certainly can hit the 2-degree target. In the 2018-IPCC report (the newest report has roughly the same findings, but I'm a little less familiar with it) the remaining carbon budget of the whole world for the 2C-target with at least 2/3 probability was estimated to be a little above 1000 GtCO2. For 50 % probability, the budget is 1500 GtCO2.

That's between 20 and 35 years of our current global emissions! The carbon budget for the 1.5-degrees target however was just 420 GtCO2, which is roughly ten years of emissions (from 2015!). If we simplify enormously and assume a linear reduction to net zero from today, that means we need to get half way to zero emissions in ten years and all the way to zero in 20 years to limit warming til 1.5-degrees. To limit warming to 2-degrees might require halving emissions in 20-30 years, and then getting to net zero in the next 20-30. Even if emissions plateau for a few years and then start going down, we still have a few decades. Getting to net zero in a few decades certainly going to be difficult, but it is not at all inconceivable.

The climate science fully supports the notion that every 0.1 degrees C counts, like the post says. So stabilising the warming at 1.9, 1.8 or even 1.7 degrees instead of 2 degrees matters a lot. This perspective indicates that speeding up the transition to lower emissions is hugely important. And yes, the international negotiations do matter. If Chinas emissions peak a few years earlier and then falls gradually instead of plateauing, that matters a lot. International pressure, negotiations, but also technological and financial developments do affect this.

The longer time horizon of the 2-degree goal also means that technologies that take longer to mature can play a larger role. In climate circles many people say that advanced nuclear is not important, because it won't be ready and deployed at scale by 2030. But it might be technologically ready by the late 2020s and deployed at scale gradually through the 2030s. Furthermore, if that provides energy abundance, that could make some of the hardest climate problems (such as industrial heat, or heavy transport and air travel using synthetic fuels or hydrogen-based fuels) easier to achieve. The same applies to other technologies.

The current focus on the 1.5-degree target means that we need drastic action right now, or we fail. I would certainly support drastic action right now, but that's not the only option. Accepting 2.7 or 2.4 degree warming as the best we can do, means we can just patiently wait for technologies to mature. Aiming for limiting to at most 2, means that we need to act now and that there are plenty of politically realistic things we can do.

Expand full comment
212 more comments...

No posts