However, the United States might also benefit from looking inward and possibly even learning from China. China’s ascent was driven by strict mandates and targets—strategies currently unfeasible in the United States due to a politically charged environment where lobby groups can easily overturn sound industrial policy following a change in administration.
That is unfortunate, as such mandates have proved effective; for example, the EU’s target for 25 percent of its critical minerals demand to be met through recycling by 2030 has significantly bolstered the industry.
All that oil lobbying and the regressive politics it promotes is now visibly harming the USA while other countries advance. It’s a failure across the (very narrow) US political spectrum, engendered by a corrupt system that serves entrenched business interests.
It looks like the USA is about to embark on another 4 years of reality denial and protectionism, after which it will be even further behind. Republicans have made it clear that they will make it as difficult as possible to run sustainable energy businesses while pushing hard for more fossil fuels. This will do not only environmental damage but also economic and political damage to the country.
Can’t disagree with the tittle. Although its not just the US that needs to thinkbabout keeping capacity.
But the idea that China is not playing by the rules. Is rather hypocritical. When you consider the subsidies the US has used for past priorities. Lets face it whose rule is China breaking. And why the hell should China be expected to follow them when the US and other nations have made zero effort to prevent there own corperations outsourcing to China. More to the point. Getting China to take over production has been an intentional move from the west. As a way to reduce the hold on communism. Western governments have openly tried to encourage a growth in capitalist ideas and a buying Chinese population to sell to.
Yhe US can and should do what they like terrif wise. Doing so is basically just subsidy in reverse. IE charging other providers rather then funding reduced cost production of your own manufacturing. Its just less efficient because you can only effect limited other nations when you have treaties with some. Where as subsidies allow you to ensure your nation can still produce its own requirements. No matter what other nations do. Why nations should be very careful about agreeing to subsidy banning treaties.
But the US has used subsidy with oil farming and many other industries through history. When it suited them to ensure their industries could compete. As has europe and much of the world.
But if you don’t like the fact that another nation dose not follow rules you have invented with out their agreement. Don’t pretend its chinas fault. China dose plenty we can critisize them for.
But the moving of production from the west is a open choice by Western companies. And one many many people have warned will leave the west without their own facilities. Since at least the 80s. The fact that western governments and western voters of those govs etc, did nothing to stop the actions. Is hardly a reason to blame China.
But let’s face it the day and politician anywhere says. OK we are doing this to fix our own lack of gas ( give a shit ) over the last 50 years.
Is the day we see a huge change in modern democracy. Or at least the attempt at one.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
